>After battle reports showed clearly >that this group was executing
>Soviet tactics that had been >countered on paper in the late >70s. 100%
>loss (186 tanks, 127 other >vehicles), compared to 1 KIA on >the US side
>(!!!); could have been MUCH >different.
1. I wouldn't say the T-72 was necessarily inferior to the M1A1s or M60A3s; in some situations, due to its lower profile, it would be superior tank--in a tank-on-tank encounter on hilly terrain, but the likes of which we will not much see because of uncontested air power. Also, why do countries prefer buying Russian-made tanks? They cost less and many know them to be more reliable mechanically.
2. I don't know how much of a tank battle Medina Ridge actually was if the US used A-10 airpower
3. The T-72 the Iraqis did have lacked spare parts often and , as I said before, they were denied the longer range ammunitions. It was probably another turkey shoot.
>Another big factor was thermal >imaging, underestimated by the >Iraqis:they
knew that running their >engines would make them "hot" >but were
>apparently not aware that just >sticking your head out of a hatch
>wasenough to give someone a >target to hit out to 3500m.
I trained on M60A3s and M1s in the mid 80s and can tell you the thermal imaging sucked. Maybe they had improved it by that time.
>The B-1 and B-2 programs were >_never_ designed to "replace" the >B-52 in
anything other than limited >roles: The B-1 was to be a >supersonic
>delivery vehicle for nukes; the B-2 >is obviously has a limited-mission
>capability: being a stealth platform >means it's one big compromise
I asked a rhetorical question. The huge expense of subsequent bomber programs was sold to the public and Congress this way. The rationale was to replace the aging, 'obsolete' fleet of B-52s. The development of cruise missiles and the obvious space advantages of the B-52s made them more useful than the newer bombers. One does have to speculate that if the Serbs could shoot down a stealth fighter what the fear is about the B-2s. Down one and it makes all that superior technology look worthless--except for the billion dollar price tag. On the other hand, so long as air power is mostly uncontested (it was over Serbia even), that technology really is worthless in the sense of not needed.
Anyway, the point was, what a waste the B-1s and B-2s turned out to be. But, hey, who really cares? Now back to the main part of this thread, where Hayek is proving to be almost as good an economist as Dutch Reagan.
Charles Jannuzi