Military Review

How to disrupt the alliance blitzkrieg. The air-sea power of the North Atlantic bloc can be directed to false targets.

20
In wars and armed conflicts of the last twenty years, the air force and naval forces have been a key component of the military power of the US and NATO forces. It is actions aviation and fleets achieved the defeat of the opposing side. Ground forces were used only at the final stages of the operation for the final defeat of the already demoralized and having lost the combat effectiveness of the enemy and the occupation of his territory.


An analysis of the outcome of military conflicts at the turn of the XX – XXI centuries with the participation of the United States and NATO shows that their air force and navy suffered little damage. The losses of airplanes and helicopters never exceeded four percent of the original composition of the group.

Based on these indicators, a number of military experts argue that countries with few air-defense and naval forces equipped with obsolete models of weapons are unable to withstand such a high-tech and powerful adversary.

Not so smooth

However, a more detailed assessment of the course of hostilities in Iraq (1991 and 2003), Yugoslavia (1999) and Libya (2011) shows that despite the absolute superiority over the small and technically poorly equipped adversary, the Air Force and Navy groups of the United States, NATO and their allies it was not always possible to successfully solve all the tasks already set in the first days.

How to disrupt the alliance blitzkrieg. The air-sea power of the North Atlantic bloc can be directed to false targets.This forced the command to proceed to the conduct of air campaigns, consisting of several air operations and systematic hostilities. But this did not always help.

For example, in Yugoslavia and Libya, the combined groups of aviation and fleets did not manage to fully suppress the air defense system, which means that the task of gaining air superiority cannot be considered successfully accomplished.

They could not effectively support ground actions. So, despite the systematic attacks, the grouping of the ground forces of the Yugoslav People’s Army in Kosovo suffered insignificant losses, which practically did not affect its combat capability.

NATO aircraft failed to demoralize and defeat government forces in Libya, which threatened the very possibility of eliminating the Gadhafi regime and forced an airborne landing operation involving sufficiently large contingents of special forces and marines of the United States, some of the North Atlantic alliance and their allies from the Arab world.

At the same time, direct economic losses from the cost of air warfare, political and moral-psychological losses were enormous, approaching in scale to a critical threshold, reaching which they probably would have been forced to abandon further aggression and go to peace talks on compromise terms .

In this regard, it is extremely interesting to analyze exactly what actions led to such a serious decrease in the capabilities of aviation groups and fleet USA and NATO. This will help to develop a set of measures that will effectively counter their air power and, under favorable conditions, force the aggressor to refuse to continue the military conflict.

Criteria for evaluation

First of all, we should refer to the criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the use of forces and means of the Navy, Air Force and Air Defense, opposing the air force and fleet groups of the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance.

It is obvious that such a factor as the number of destroyed aircraft and helicopters, UAVs and cruise missiles, although important, is clearly insufficient, since it does not fully reflect the real result of the hostilities.

According to modern theory, the assessment of actions to repel strikes against concealed objects should be based on the criteria of averted damage, that is, to what extent the strength and means of defense could reduce the effectiveness of enemy attacks.

In turn, the capabilities of the strike groups of the air force and the naval forces to defeat specified targets can be characterized by the amount of air attack weapons used, the depth of impact on the enemy and the effectiveness of their impact on designated targets. These indicators can be both absolute and relative.

Combat effect of likely response

The study from the point of view of the specified criteria for the course of military operations in the air-naval sphere over the past twenty years shows that in the matter of reducing the combat effectiveness of the use of air force and navy groupings, the key role was played not by fire damage but by the threat of the enemy as well as disinformation.

Large-scale operational camouflage measures allowed Iraqi troops (up to seven thousand combat equipment models) to prevent the defeat of their air force, and retain the bulk of mobile air defense systems and armored vehicles during the first air offensive operation.

Such actions of the Yugoslav People's Army, together with the creation of a complex jamming environment and the use of new methods of using anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) —the air defense ambush and the maneuver of the formations and units made it possible to actually thwart the achievement of the initial goals of the aggressor. The threat from the mobile medium-range and short-range air defense systems, the anti-aircraft artillery of the air defense, which remained almost until the end of the military operations, forced the alliance's aircraft to limit the height of flights to medium and high altitudes. This seriously reduced the ability of the Air Force to defeat mobile objects, and also forced to allocate significant support forces to cover the attack groups from the possible impact of undetected air defense systems. As a result, the aviation resource, which was allocated for solving shock tasks, was significantly reduced.

A similar situation exists in Libya. Here, government anti-aircraft defense forces forced the command of the NATO Air Force to spend up to 60 – 70 a percent of the resource on supporting tasks. This fact, combined with other restrictions dictated by the characteristics of the theater and the nature of warfare, did not actually solve the task of overthrowing the Gaddafi regime only with reliance on the air-sea grouping and insurgents, forcing ground forces into operation - special operations forces and marines.

Evaluation from this point of view of the experience of reflecting the strikes of the Air Force and Naval Forces groups makes it possible to single out some of the most effective methods that significantly reduce the effectiveness of their actions.

Microwave for aviation

One of them is to support the threat of an air force from the medium-range and long-range air defense systems and fighter aircraft. In past wars and armed conflicts, the use of this method was not specifically planned. It arose spontaneously as a result of the desire of the command of countries subjected to massive strikes by powerful aviation groups to preserve their air defense assets from immediate destruction.

Such a threat can be created by limiting the use of part of anti-aircraft missile systems, maneuvering them to withdraw from enemy strikes, enter into combat a limited composition of fighter aircraft, locate airplanes on airfields in well-protected shelters, and widely use means of operational masking of fighter-based airfields. aviation, creating a distributed-based system using for this a significant number of small field airfields and sections of the highway.

The presence of such a danger would force the aggressor to include in the strike groups of aviation a sufficient number of support aircraft to suppress the air defense system, which may hinder the actions of the attack forces, and repel possible fighter aircraft attacks.

It can be assumed that the share of additionally allocated support aircraft in the strike groups will range from 10 – 15 to 25 – 30 percent or more. That is, the number of support aircraft can increase from 25 – 30 to 50 – 60 percent or more.

In addition, the presence of mobile air defense missile systems and fighter aviation, which have retained their combat effectiveness, will force the command of the offensive group to take additional measures to find and destroy them.

As a result, the total aviation resource that will need to be allocated for solving combat support tasks may increase from 35 – 40 to 60 – 80 percent or more, which will significantly reduce the possibility of grouping the Air Force to solve ground targets.

The maintenance of such threats to an aviation grouping is possible subject to the availability of a sufficient number of mobile air defense systems, effective means of imitating their operation and ensuring the distributed base of aviation.

To this end, within the framework of the military-technical policy of countries that may be subject to aggression, it is advisable to provide for the development of a mobile component in the grouping of the air defense missile system, to ensure the formation of a distributed-based aviation system, as well as to create sufficient stocks of effective means of simulating the operation of ground-based air defense systems.

Another way to significantly reduce the possibility of grouping aviation is the large-scale use of simulation tools and other operational camouflage measures. Even the use of the simplest imitators of the work of electronic air defense systems - microwave ovens (used by Serbs in 1999) used to divert some of the forces and means of the Alliance's air force intended to suppress the air defense system of the Yugoslav People's Army.

The large-scale use of such means will force the air enemy to expend a significant resource of its grouping, in particular anti-radar missiles and high-precision weapon, on their destruction, and also will provide maintenance of a condition of constant threat of aircraft from ZRK.

The use of effective means of hiding and imitating other types of military equipment and weapons, objects of military and government control systems will lead to the inefficient use of high-precision ammunition and aviation group resource.

The use of an update of the radar map of the terrain, for example, corner reflectors, will lead to an increase in the deflection of long-range cruise missiles "Tomahawk" and other means of destruction, which use correlation methods for targeting.

Smoke area of ​​the object's location, the creation of distorting his contrasting picture in the optical range contributes to large misses or prohibiting the use of precision weapons systems that use television guidance channels.

Such actions will lead to a significant waste of precision weapons, which, according to the experience of military conflicts, can be up to 150 – 200 percent of the original planned composition. The complex use of effective measures of operational camouflage, in particular, imitation means, will allow the enemy to increase the consumption of precision weapons 2,5 – 3 and more.

And this means not only large additional expenses, which, given the significant cost of such weapons, can reach several billion dollars, but also the threat of failure of the entire operation. Since it is impossible to quickly replenish stocks of high-precision weapons, a situation will arise in case of cost overruns when it is simply not enough for further military operations.

Keep in suspense

In order to substantially reduce the combat capabilities of the naval force grouping, first of all, a constant air and underwater threat to the enemy's carrier forces should be maintained. This will force him to deploy a full-fledged anti-aircraft and anti-submarine defense system, which will require a significant resource of carrier-based aviation.

In addition to tactical aviation and its own shipborne anti-aircraft fire weapons, the combat air patrol consisting of at least two to four fighters and at least one radar patrol aircraft in the air, as well as to the fighter link in position on duty on the deck, is used to accomplish the air defense tasks of the carrier strike group. And to provide anti-submarine defense, you will need to have at least one or two more deck-based anti-submarine aircraft.

To support such an aviation grouping, it is necessary to make from 20 – 30 to 45 – 60 daily sorties. In normal combat mode, the aircraft carrier is able to ensure the execution of 100 – 150 sorties per day. Short-term (for no more than two days) in a busy mode, he is able to realize up to 250 sorties. Thus, only the fact of a possible air or underwater attack on a carrier group makes it necessary to allocate from 10 – 15 to 20 – 25 percent of the resource with the limit or from 15 – 30 to 40 – 60 percent with the normal combat use of deck-based aircraft.

Airborne threat to ship fleets is created by the enemy’s aircraft in the enemy’s air force, capable of striking anti-ship missiles, preventing their destruction from the outbreak of hostilities, periodic flights of single or groups of aircraft to demonstrate the presence of combat-ready units.

The underwater threat is ensured by the presence in the fleet of the country - the victims of the aggression of modern types of submarines, preventing their destruction at the bases with the start of hostilities and demonstration of their presence at sea, for which various means of imitation can be used.

Accordingly, to create an effective air and underwater threat, it is advisable to have in the Air Force at least 20 – 30 aircraft capable of using anti-ship missiles, two to four modern-type submarines, and a sufficient number of simulators of various physical fields.

At the same time, with the onset of military operations, underwater and air forces can solve their inherent tasks, which are not necessarily associated with actions on the sea direction. By the very fact of their existence, they will create a threat to fleet formations.

Another important countermeasure is the maintenance of a constant missile and mine threat to enemy naval groups in the coastal zone.

The presence of a sufficient number of coast-based anti-ship missile systems will force the Navy command to keep their ships out of their reach until the threat is eliminated or neutralized. Depending on the firing range, which can be more than 300 kilometers, the depth of impact of carrier-based aviation on coastal objects can be reduced by 25 – 35 percent or more.

The mine threat will also force ship groups to leave the coastal zones before it is eliminated, at least in certain areas. A long time of maneuvering of naval formations in limited areas of combat missions makes it possible to create such a danger even at insignificant densities of minefields.

Depending on the characteristics of used mine weapons and underwater terrain in coastal zones, this threat, formed by a state with a moderate length of the coastline, can be extended to almost the entire coastal zone from several kilometers to one and a half to two hundred kilometers in depth.

In addition to the methods considered, it is permissible to use others depending on the conditions of the situation in a particular military conflict. All of them do not cancel traditional methods of repelling aggression, but only complement and make them more effective.

Comprehensive use of all methods to combat the air-naval power of the United States and NATO will significantly prolong the war or armed conflict and inflict considerable material damage on the enemy in the form of costly, expensive, high-precision and anti-radar weapons, a common aviation group resource. As a result, a situation may arise when the losses from the conduct of hostilities — material, political, moral and psychological, and others — exceed the potential gain and the aggressor goes to peace negotiations. This has happened more than once. The victim country can take effective measures to reduce the threshold of allowable losses. But this is a topic for another article.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru
20 comments
Ad

Our projects are looking for authors in the news and analytical departments. Requirements for applicants: literacy, responsibility, efficiency, inexhaustible creative energy, experience in copywriting or journalism, the ability to quickly analyze text and check facts, write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. The work is paid. Contact: [email protected]

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ATATA
    ATATA 27 March 2013 07: 16 New
    +6
    The article was written by "Captain Evidence." In the spirit of a homegrown analyst.
    NATO can confront an adversary comparable to this bloc quantitatively and qualitatively. If this parity does not exist, then no inflatable mock-ups and microwaves will help.
    IMHO. Hello everyone. hi
    1. bask
      bask 27 March 2013 07: 42 New
      +5
      Until Russia gains power comparable to the USSR (((at least 50% ((((. No brown balloons will save.
      If, it would be so simple on every tank was a microwave.
      IT IS NECESSARY TO RE-EQUIPMENT THE ARMY WITH MODERN MATTERS corresponding to the threats of the 21st century of weapons !!!!!!
      1. nickname 1 and 2
        nickname 1 and 2 27 March 2013 09: 38 New
        +7
        Quote: bask
        IT IS NECESSARY TO RE-EQUIP THE ARMY WITH MODERN


        Yesterday Mlechin was rattling about Ustinov! Yes caught up with fear! And what’s the bottom line: the stripes didn’t borrow money and still maintain parity! And then came tagged and the result is known.

        And if it weren’t for the puzzle to be solved?

        That's about the article.
        Not by numbers, but by skill, cunning, ingenuity!

        Or on a computer simulated -AHA - we lose and went to give up?
        1. Papakiko
          Papakiko 27 March 2013 13: 16 New
          +2
          Quote: nick 1 and 2
          That's about the article. Not by number, but by skill, cunning, ingenuity!

          Some kind of dubious arguments, facts and calculations.
          But firm confidence about "Drive like a gray gelding"!
        2. aleks
          aleks 27 March 2013 13: 16 New
          +4
          To listen to Mlechin, and even more so to trust him, is the same as to get drunk from a dirty puddle - a very stinky subject.
    2. evgenii67
      evgenii67 27 March 2013 07: 49 New
      11
      Quote: ATATA
      NATO can confront an adversary comparable to this bloc quantitatively and qualitatively.

      I’m afraid by such criteria there is practically no worthy adversary of NATO in the world, but let’s recall Vietnam, although it was a long time ago and the Americans learned certain lessons from this war, and a country like Vietnam, where the soldiers of their country fought to the last, cannot be found in the modern world simply....
      1. silver_roman
        silver_roman 27 March 2013 12: 54 New
        +4
        we cannot once again allow ourselves such quantitative losses among people. And so we can’t restore demography. Vietnam withstood the example of the USSR in the Second World War - huge losses among human resources.
        It is necessary to meet the aggressor while approaching, and not shoot back with RPGs on the abrams in the center of Moscow.
        And if we take into account the article as a whole, then my personal opinion is that neither NATO nor the amers will ever attack the Russian Federation, as long as there is nuclear weapons. they build missile defense, we build missile defense systems, and as you can see, we are ahead. The scenario of the Arab spring is much more dangerous. Given that in the country there are a lot of Islamists with a radical worldview, this will not be so difficult. Here already the FSB should keep an eye on it. For example, I am not at all against the fact that all communication resources (Internet, mobile communication, etc.) are controlled. whoever has something to hide, let him soar. After all, the Internet was created by the military, and it remains so, just competently disguised!
    3. Ustas
      Ustas 27 March 2013 08: 56 New
      0
      Quote: ATATA
      NATO can confront an adversary comparable to this bloc quantitatively and qualitatively.

      Or an adversary having cover from a strong ally.
    4. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 27 March 2013 09: 29 New
      +5
      Quote: ATATA
      NATO can confront an adversary comparable to this bloc quantitatively and qualitatively.


      HA! Not by number but by skill! And in your opinion: counted from them and seeing the difference is not in their favor - paws to the top?
      Russian savvy is strong!
      Quote: evgenii67
      but remember Vietnam

      Well, if Vietnam is persistent and inventive ....!

      Quote: bask
      If, it would be so simple on every tank was a microwave.

      So it's the opposite of pulling ......!

      Quote: evgenii67
      a country like Vietnam, where the warriors of their country fought to the last,

      1. Russia!
      Quote: zavesa01
      EDUCATE from OUR youth. And we have a huge problem with this.

      Et, you quit! Normal guys! And they have proven it many times!
      1. ATATA
        ATATA 27 March 2013 10: 33 New
        0
        Quote: nick 1 and 2
        HA! Not by number but by skill! And in your opinion: counted from them and seeing the difference is not in their favor - paws to the top?
        Russian savvy is strong!

        Russian is strong in mind, not hatred.
        Not by number but by skill!

        The author of this phrase, Suvorov, fought not only with skill, but also with modern weapons at that time. And he didn’t use slings for a bear and other household utensils from poverty in the war with the Turks.
        IMHO.
        1. Prospector
          Prospector 27 March 2013 16: 28 New
          0
          but damn .... the Yugoslavs shot down an invisible plane of an outdated air defense system
      2. Prospector
        Prospector 27 March 2013 16: 27 New
        0
        damn wanted to put plus accidentally minus pressed (((((((((you are right in your statements !!!!!!!!!!
  2. zavesa01
    zavesa01 27 March 2013 08: 07 New
    +1
    Arming with modern looks is a matter of course. However, gadgets of all problems will not solve. SOLDIERS are needed. So they need to be educated from our youth. And we have a huge problem with this.
  3. fenix57
    fenix57 27 March 2013 08: 15 New
    +3
    Quote: ATATA
    no inflatable layouts

    Well, you can’t argue with that. It’s time to think about your country. Maybe IT can be sent for export. hi
  4. the polar
    the polar 27 March 2013 08: 44 New
    +7
    Everything is fine, the author summarized the tactics of using low-budget funds and measures to increase defense capability. Surely such states as Iran will make maximum use of the tactics set forth by the author. For them, it is vital to improve MANPADS, increasing the "reach of the target", to work on creating their own anti-ship missiles
    type "Club" and radar simulators.
  5. svp67
    svp67 27 March 2013 09: 10 New
    +3
    All this is interesting, only the Americans often use their aircraft carriers as "false targets." In the sense that the bulk of attack aircraft is deployed on "unsinkable aircraft carriers" —that is, on the ground bases — of the Allied states. And of course you still need to defend against aviation, but the best method of defense is attack. It is necessary to transfer the war to enemy territory in every possible way. If the residents of the United States and its allied countries experienced at least something like that from any company, it is not yet known how these conflicts would end ...
    In general, I want to answer with the heading of one of the previous articles - "They Do Not Attack the Strong"
    1. Prospector
      Prospector 27 March 2013 16: 33 New
      +1
      so it is so .... in the USSR before the war, too, there was a doctrine of the type .... we take the enemy to his lands with small losses ..... weakened attack ..... and how will it become strong if not from where? If the resources are not do they allow? Mock-ups are a very good option ... for everyone ... the factor of surprise at all times was important !!!! Hiding, maneuverability of surprise ..... like one smart person said "war is a way of deceit"
  6. Averias
    Averias 27 March 2013 09: 35 New
    +5
    One friend of mine was in Iraq during the first company. Something is connected with the escort and escort of goods and dignitaries (although in fact what he did there, he will tell FIG). He told a lot of interesting things, here is one of the cases.
    We watched as American soldiers enter the city in groups. First, tanks entered and stood in the open, after 40 minutes the infantry began to pull up. Nobody understood the logic of their movements, although it was far from being seen by the green youths. It killed the fact that instead of using the tanks as a natural shelter, they simply stupidly settled on the ground. Constantly communicating on the radio and checking something on tactical computers. Even the fact that they (my friend) looked at them with binoculars and gave a bunch of glare - no one paid any attention to this. Although the city was not under control and not cleaned up. Then they also imposingly gathered and dumped where they came from. Then it turned out that their communication systems had failed (deaf and blinded). For all the time they were chilling on the ground, there were no support turntables in the air, I told a lot of other interesting things. I think for example, and this is enough. As the saying goes, technique is technology, but people are fighting.
    PS A friend says that while the tanks were standing, waiting for the soldiers to approach, the tanks could have been filled up with RPGs, as they were standing in an open place with the engines turned off.
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 27 March 2013 12: 11 New
      0
      Quote: Averias
      PS A friend says that while the tanks were standing, waiting for the soldiers to approach, the tanks could have been filled up with RPGs, as they were standing in an open place with the engines turned off.

      So what did not fail ?!
      Or is that side even dumber ?!
      And so we will fight in the hope of a fool ?!
      And what happened in 1941?
      And why in 1991 we were fools?
      1. Averias
        Averias 27 March 2013 17: 02 New
        0
        Sorry???? Did I say that he fought there? I said that he was there, apparently in the form of a free mercenary (protection of persons and special cargoes) and this is a bit not a war. Or do you have a perception of the problem you read? Why pull it out of context? Actually, military specialists, providing their knowledge all over the world with a shaft. And this does not necessarily imply hostilities. Although, if he had participated in the hostilities, he would hardly have missed this opportunity and used the American self-confidence to 100%.
        1. ATATA
          ATATA 27 March 2013 18: 09 New
          0
          I just don't like style stories:
          One friend of mine was in Iraq during the first company.

          I believe that if I myself have not seen, then neither should I retell anything with a balcony.
          Litter if that.
          Now you are likely to be outraged that you believe ONE of your friends, but that will not change anything. your story, as before, will be like ordinary lies.
          hi
  7. Grishka100watt
    Grishka100watt 27 March 2013 09: 51 New
    +2
    C'mon, what bumped into a person, sensibly painted, I liked it)
    +
  8. Smol79
    Smol79 27 March 2013 10: 09 New
    +4
    According to blogger Shurygin Vladislav, the NATO troops carefully shot down all the false targets in the form of imitators of military equipment in Yugoslavia, so this is a good thing. Missiles spent, no losses. very good.
  9. Nayhas
    Nayhas 27 March 2013 10: 48 New
    0
    The author absolutely does not understand that the purpose of any war is NOT to DESTROY all types of military equipment of the enemy and his military personnel, and surrender of the enemy on a winner’s basis and it doesn’t matter how many tanks or missiles he saved from destruction. If Yugoslavia surrendered as a result of air raids, didn’t it all the same retain air defense or not?
    All of these recommendations are complete nonsense, completely meaningless, such as forcing the enemy to spend more ammunition and because of this he will abandon the original goal. Author! This is silly! Only an active defense can stop an attacking enemy, disrupting an organized attack by disabling enemy equipment and human resources, and seizing air supremacy.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 27 March 2013 11: 41 New
      +3
      Your message is also not pearl. no

      It is impossible to stop NATO defense. He has absolutely unattainable anyone and no industrial-financial potential. They can rivet rockets and UAVs for years and mix the infrastructure of the “enemy of freedom” with the ground.

      The main condition for the victory of NATO in Yugoslavia and the alliance in Iraq was the impossibility of attacking the attacker on the territory and infrastructure of the aggressor. Therefore, the war lost its meaning - no resistance is possible without replenishment of the fleet of military equipment and ammunition.

      And the author is simply trying to come up with a “technology of victory” in the framework of the “media wars”, when it is somehow taken for granted that the opinion of the population of the aggressor country can stop the aggression and all that needs to be done is to increase the aggressor’s expenses for the war. A sort of reverse doctrine of the Douai. Utopian look, but many believe this ...
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 March 2013 08: 14 New
        0
        The only victory on the "media front" is the coffins covered with the flags of the United States and its NATO allies, many coffins, so many that it’s impossible to hide anything. And this can be achieved only by conducting ACTIVE military operations, and not palm off rubber tanks. The United States and NATO fight only with complete supremacy in the air and a suppressed air defense system, namely the system when the country does not have a single radar field, if the air defense system is divided into foci, then the country will end. Therefore, only aviation and reliable unified management will save the country from aggression. We are going to build up ground-based assets, spitting on aviation. Soon, all MiG-29 will have to put on metal, and in return there is nothing. Instead, we are trying to rely on the heavy Su-35, which is insanely expensive, supposedly mass-produced (the United States, by small-scale production of the F-35, has long surpassed more than double the number). The Air Force needs a light fighter, an analogue of Grippen, capable of taking off from any airfield and even a highway, easy to maintain, repair. Having equipment with a data transmission system of the Link-16 type, as well as AWACS aircraft, not bulky A-50s, but an analogue of the Boeing E-767 or Embraer R-99 that can also work with any runway. This is a pancake at least! Then no rubber tanks will be needed ...
    2. Prospector
      Prospector 27 March 2013 16: 40 New
      0
      no one will argue about air supremacy and active defense ... but this is predictably too tactical deception .... when an adversary needs to find a new path on the move, mix his cards .... this can lead to victory ... lead when you don’t know what to do ..... how to fight?
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 March 2013 07: 59 New
        0
        Knowing the potential of the United States alone, the capabilities of their equipment, and the fact that they do not forget to improve it on the basis of the experience gained in warfare, relying on "tricks" is not worth it. Knowing that you can get a pretty good deal in the teeth in response, NATO is simply not rocking. If they have established a resource for technology, then with frames full seams.
  10. cosmos111
    cosmos111 27 March 2013 11: 15 New
    +2
    False targets, of course, are needed. But only after new models of weapons are modernized and put into service. This is especially true for nuclear weapons.
  11. Vovka levka
    Vovka levka 27 March 2013 11: 23 New
    0
    Tralee wali, we didn’t go through it, we weren’t asked. It feels like this is a student on the exam who heard something, somewhere that he doesn’t know for sure. Therefore, babbling everything, suddenly 3 set. If you don’t know, it’s better to be silent.
  12. Ruslan_F38
    Ruslan_F38 27 March 2013 14: 44 New
    0
    Quote: Averias
    One friend of mine was in Iraq during the first company. Something is connected with the escort and escort of goods and dignitaries (although in fact what he did there, he will tell FIG). He told a lot of interesting things, here is one of the cases.
    We watched as American soldiers enter the city in groups. First, tanks entered and stood in the open, after 40 minutes the infantry began to pull up. Nobody understood the logic of their movements, although it was far from being seen by the green youths. It killed the fact that instead of using the tanks as a natural shelter, they simply stupidly settled on the ground. Constantly communicating on the radio and checking something on tactical computers. Even the fact that they (my friend) looked at them with binoculars and gave a bunch of glare - no one paid any attention to this. Although the city was not under control and not cleaned up. Then they also imposingly gathered and dumped where they came from. Then it turned out that their communication systems had failed (deaf and blinded). For all the time they were chilling on the ground, there were no support turntables in the air, I told a lot of other interesting things. I think for example, and this is enough. As the saying goes, technique is technology, but people are fighting.
    PS A friend says that while the tanks were standing, waiting for the soldiers to approach, the tanks could have been filled up with RPGs, as they were standing in an open place with the engines turned off.

    Your friend is not right it was necessary to wet the Americans until there was an opportunity))).
    1. ATATA
      ATATA 27 March 2013 18: 16 New
      0
      laughing
      Yes, it's just an ordinary comrade "SOVRAMSHI". laughing