Reagan dies! Let's debate his legacy!

Your examples perfectly illustrate the extremely powerful case against Reagan-era over-spending so compellingly put forth by Burton, Boyd, and all the rest of that small but exemplary group of genuinely patriotic Pentagon reformers. Those M-1/M-1A1 tanks, for example, are archetypal examples of what was so horribly wrong with Reagan’s (and his heirs’) ridiculous, strength-sapping, and from a certain point of view arguably traitorous defense over-spending.

And we don’t even need to theorize: the facts were made as plain as can be by the first Gulf War…

In addition to ousting the Iraqis from Kuwait, there was the extremely critical military objective of out-and-out destroying the Iraqi Republican Guard. General Schwarzkopf, in accordance with orders from the President and the Joint Chiefs, repeatedly emphasized in the strongest possible terms – from Nov. 14, 1990 and then on virtually every following day to the very last day of the war on Feb. 28, 1991 – that this goal was absolutely paramount. Here are his own words (with added emphasis): “We need to destroy – not attack, not damage, not surround – I want you to destroy the Republican Guard. When you are done with them, I don’t want them to be an effective fighting force anymore, I don’t want them to exist as a military organization.”

Had we achieved that mandate – even without going in to Baghdad – Saddam Hussein would have had virtually no strength or protection left, and it’s not at all unlikely that the current Iraqi war would not have been necessary. Needless to say, we botched it, although few people know just how badly we fucked it up (there’s that pervasive conservative media bias again!). We lost perhaps the most important objective of that war, and above all other responsible factors were the Reaganesquely venal, insanely over-priced and over-designed M-1 and M-1A1 tanks! Reagan’s obscene defense over-spending effectively lost us that war, at least when one considers America’s then-future national security interests.

The bottom line is that these stupidly super-modern, super-expensive tanks – like all of Reagan’s absurdly over-wrought and over-costly weapon systems – screwed us over big time: they were and are essentially incapable of performing much in the way of any real military mission. Our “ancient” but cheap pre-M-1 era tanks are vastly superior if you actually want them to fight and survive!

A few facts will make this obvious. Let me quote from Burton’s exceedingly important, valuable and bravely patriotic book:

Unfortunately, the conditions in a real war are seldom nominal. Consider Bertrand Russell’s quip (IIRC): “Heaven is a place where everything works as it does in the textbooks.”

In actual practice, such as during Desert Storm, these insanely stupid quasi-jet engine driven tanks were much too fast for the rest of the men, vehicles, and equipment to keep up! And because they burn fuel at an incredibly prodigious rate (it wouldn’t be all that easy to dump the fuel so fast!), they usually had to refuel at least every two hours. But because they were so fast, when they ran out of fuel they were very often stranded there for many more hours – even overnight – waiting for the far slower fuel carriers to catch up with them!

How STUPID can you get? Sheesh!

Furthermore, one extremely valuable aspect of using diesel tanks (those prior to the ReaganTanks) with infantry is that the troops can follow behind the simple yet considerable protection the tanks’ armor affords them. But not only are they far too fast for infantry to keep up with, these stupid Reagan-beloved tanks with their jet engines could pretty much toast anyone careless enough to get behind their exhausts! For this same reason, there are many environments where you can’t even use these tanks, lest they set fire to their surroundings!

But it gets worse!

These Reagan-raped turbine-engine tanks need enormous quantities of clean, finely filtered air to “breathe” and burn. Even under nominal conditions, the tanks needed to be stopped and shut down to allow the crew to replace the engine’s expensive air filters at least every three hours. But under actual desert conditions, especially if the wind picks up the sand, these filters clogged about every fifteen minutes! The engines would crash from the filthy air and the crew then had to jump out – exposing themselves to the enemy – to perform filter replacement and other maintenance right then and there. Every fifteen minutes!

Essentially equivalent scenarios were the rule rather than the exception with virtually all of the Reagan-era (and post-Reagan) big budget weapon systems. The Reaganites were filled with a Strangelovian and effectively traitorous lust for obscenely over-expensive, impossibly high-tech, but worse than worthless weapon systems, which were far worse than what we’d already built and had on hand from pre-Reagan administrations.

Are you getting the picture yet of how badly Reagan’s criminal defense largesse unconscionably betrayed and decimated our military strength? If the DoD wasn’t gleefully handed the unnumbered billions necessary to build these mindless fiascos, we’d have had to rely on systems that actually worked such our vastly superior “ancient” diesel tanks that performed so incredibly well and would have easily succeeded in Schwarzkopf’s goal of destroying the Republican Guard! We lost the most important American goal in Desert Storm fundamentally because of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

As Burton notes:

Can there be any reasonable doubt that, at least in the defense arena, Reagan and his minions sold us down the river?

And lest you think it’s only these incredibly stupid Reagan tanks that deserve our horrified, patriotic scorn, much the same type of defense-weakening, Reagan-led betrayals of our national interests were a result of, for just a few examples:

– The F-15, which costs many billions more but performs worse in all important areas (such as maneuvering, dogfighting and actual combat) than the comparably cheap, brilliantly designed and triumphant early F-16. The particularly successful and cost-effective F-16 project was originated, led and championed by a tiny handful of much-hated Pentagon Reformers on which Burton’s book centers, but it was vehemently, corruptly, and illegally fought against (and even repeatedly canceled, only to be forced by reformers back into activity) by nearly every single high-ranking officer and civilian in the Pentagon in favor of the grossly overbuilt F-15. And the F-15 is more or less a piece of shit in comparison to the cheaper and much more agile F-16 (at least before the Pentagon “Reaganized” the subsequent model F-16s in later years), and the 16 easily runs rings around any other, more modern fighter where it matters most: in combat.

– The so-called “Stealth” aircraft represent one of the Reagan era’s most contemptible, lie-filled boondoggles. It has been demonstrated that these ostensibly “stealth” aircraft were easily seen even on 1980’s era radars! The Brits even reported in their national press that our Stealths were readily spotted on radar at least 40 miles away! Sheesh!

– There is probably no aircraft more profoundly and widely hated throughout the upper echelons of Pentagon, and no aircraft has been “retired” more often (only to be restored to service, then “retired” again), than the magnificently graceful yet deadly A-10 “Warthog”. The A-10 is probably the most effective and valuable military aircraft ever built (with the possible exceptions of the F-16 and the B-52). Why was and is it hated so passionately, particularly by the Reaganites and their kin? I’ll tell you: It was extremely cheap and extremely effective, and it was also another incredibly successful project of the Reformers, that’s why!

Here’s Col. Burton again:

Here’s a breakdown of the A-10’s amazing battle successes in the first Gulf War (confirmed kills):

[ul]
[li]Tanks 987[/li][li]Artillery 926[/li][li]Armored personnel carriers 501[/li][li]Trucks 1,106[/li][li]Command vehicles 249[/li][li]Military structures 112[/li][li]Radars 96[/li][li]Helicopters (shot down) 2[/li][li]Bunkers 72[/li][li]Anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) 50[/li][li]Command posts 28[/li][li]FROG missiles 11[/li][li]Surface to air missiles (SAMs) 9[/li][li]Fuel tanks 8[/li][li]Fighter aircraft (on the ground) 10[/li][li]SCUD missiles 51[/li][/ul]

  • And speaking of SCUD missiles, surely you know that not one over-expensive Patriot missile ever stopped or so much as brushed any SCUD missiles? NOT ONE! But did that stop the Pentagon from out-and-out lying about their alleged “successes”? Hell, no! The A-10s should have gotten the credit instead.

Face it, Brutus, Reagan and his insane squandering of our national treasure undeniably weakened our nation’s actual military strength to a considerable degree. In his extreme idiocy and reckless haste to throw away countless billions on mindlessly stupid super-high-tech weapons that are much inferior to older and/or cheaper designs, he screwed our country over but good. To put it politely.

(The citations for the facts used above are given in the text, notes, and appendices of Col. James Burton’s book:The Pentagon Wars: Reformers Challenge the Old Guard

A jet-propelled tank? C’mon, you’re making this up! Nobody could be that stupid!

Please tell me you’re making this up. Please.

BTW, just want to point out that just a few posts after Rune said this:

*[thinks that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet Empire]

Clothahump said this:

:smiley:

What the fuck for? What would that prove, other than each individual has his own opinion?

Well I can’t speak for Clothahump, perhaps I was wrong on this. Still it was not fair for you to insinuate that I had said so.

Sorry if I insinuated that. I’m glad we’re in agreement on the point.

Yes that’s what it’s fucking for.

Please tell me you’re kidding.

What did Clinton ever do that even touches anything Nixon or Harding ever did?

As far as I know, Clinton wasn’t trying to circumvent Congress and Constitutional laws to support a bunch of rapists and sadists down in Central America.

And even if Reagan didn’t know about Iran-Contra-for godsakes, he was the freaking POTUS!!! It was his JOB to know what was going on, and if he was that out of touch, that’s a scary thought!

elucidator said:

A turbine powered tank. Which has proven itself to be one of the most effective fighting vehicles on the planet, achieving stupendous kill ratios in every conflict it’s been in. And if you didn’t even know the M1A1 was powered by a turbine, I hardly think you are qualified to speak on whether or not it is a stupid design.

There are many advantages to a turbine engine. The designers of the Abrams were not idiots. Nor were the tankers who chose the design. Of course there are liabilities to a turbine engine. ANY well engineered design is a study in compromise. The turbine also has a lot of advantages. For one thing, as long as you keep it clean it is extremely reliable. For another it’s very quiet - much quieter than the old diesel tanks it replaced. So quiet that one of its nicknames is ‘whispering death’. This has not just tactical advantages, but it also keeps the crew better fit for combat. It also has less vibration, allowing better targeting. And, it’s powerful. This means it can climb grades better, and it can manoever faster against the enemy. Sure, it can outrun its logistical tail. So what? That’s not what the speed is necessarily for. The speed allows the tank to run rings around its adversaries. That, coupled with its ability to target and fire on the move, makes the Abrams very hard to hit.
Not a single Abrams crewmember was lost to enemy fire in Gulf War I, despite the tank being pitted against Iraq’s best tank crews, in fairly modern Soviet T-72 tanks. I think that speaks volumes for the design.

I deeply regret the gaps in my academic career, having never had time to matriculate at the Tom Clancy School of Military Science. Nonetheless, being endowed with the good sense that God gave a goose, I am willing to leap, unsupported, to the conclusion that a jet-powered tank is an amazingly stupid idea.

Please note: I was responding to the previous poster, who explained the “turbine” engine by comparison to a jet airplane. Not being the gritty old trooper like yourself, I was misinformed.

I further note that while you make some glowing claims for the quiet subtlety of the engine, I can’t quite grasp your point. Is there some particular advantage in a stealth armored division? Do they intend to creep up on the sentry and dispatch him with a silent commando move? Did the Germans lose the battle of Kursk because they were too noisy?

I notice as well that you dismiss the bulk of the criticism (i.e., that the tank in question is a gobbling glutton for resources, esp. fuel) with the offhanded remark that it outruns its “tail”, and so what. Tail? Stub is more like it.

And you make no attempt at all to counter any of the other weaknesses testified to. What about those air filtering problems, for instance? Insignificant, in your estimation? Not worth troubling to rebut?

Well, there is that glowing report to consider. That could very well mean that the Abrams is a superb war machine. Or it could mean that the opposition, being in full scale panic-stricken rout, was less than daunting.

But enough. Friend Ambush has laid out a considerable number of points regarding your beloved Abrams. Perhaps you should address your rebutals directly to his points, and leave this simple country boy out of it.

Ambush, tell your beloved he/she needs to do you justice tonight. That was a magnificent post.

Well, actually, he did address most of the “points” contained in Ambush’s post. If you subtract the invectives, ignore the complaints of the tank being too strong too powerful and too fast, you are left with a the single complaint about the air filter. His claim that air filter had to be replaced every fifteen minutes is unsubstantiated. I did find this site from the Iraqi invasion. concerning the big dust storm.

I hope this helps.

pervert, you must be using a different dictionary than the one I use. The only points I saw covered is that the turbine isn’t quite a jet engine, which is not particularly surprising, as the claim made is that it’s “like” a jet engine, (“like” in this case being that it uses the same principle as a jet engine, if I comprehend this correctly) and that it doesn’t matter if it outruns its “tail”. That seems a rather strong statement to make, but then I’m not a general so I have no idea whether the cavalry (motorized or not) outrunning the infantry is a good idea or not. As to outrunning one’s supply tanker, that does seem rather foolish. Could be that it’s not. In chess, one sometimes sends the knights deep into enemy territory, in order to disorganize their defenses, so it might be a good use of tanks, as long as one keeps in mind that when the fuel runs out, the thing is going to sit there like a rock.
As to the air filter, well, I have a couple of multiple-stage HEPAs going in my house for my son’s allergies, and they have a five-year warranty against me even having to change the filter, so the two-stage filter sounds like a good idea, but it also sounds pretty primitive, since even my home filter has more stages than that. Maybe not; maybe two stages is all that’s practical in a moving vehicle.
Nothing was rebutted re the F-16 vs the F-15, or the A-10 vs just about everyone, which made up the majority of Ambush’s post. It does seem to me instinctually true that the A-10 is a highly useful combat plane, but I do have a tendency to root for the lower classes, and in warfare that means being on the infantry’s side, and I can see an infantryman being very happy to see a Warthog blowing an enemy tank up.

Forgive me. I don’t know what the standard method for measuring how much of a particular post is taken up by a particular argument. It seems to me that there were 11 paragraphs and 2 quotes full of invective and one or 2 points concerning the Abrams tank. There were 3 paragraphs, 1 quote and 1 list concerning the aircraft. One of those was “And speaking of SCUD missiles, surely you know that not one over-expensive Patriot missile ever stopped or so much as brushed any SCUD missiles? NOT ONE! But did that stop the Pentagon from out-and-out lying about their alleged “successes”? Hell, no! The A-10s should have gotten the credit instead.” Apperently refering to the claim that the A-10s shot down 51 scudd missles.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the A-10. It is an awsome weapon. But shooting down 51 SCUD missles? Surely I am misunderstanding something.

The F-15 comments don’t seem to be anything but his contention that they are worse than the F-16. I’ll conceed that. I really don’t know.

His complaint about the Stealth is, frankly, a misunderstanding of the technology. It does not impart invisibility. It merely reduces (dramatically, BTW) the radar signature of the aircraft. This does not render it invisible, but it does mean that radar has to much closer to the aircraft in order to see it than it does to other aircraft.

We can debate about whether or not the expense of these weapon systems were worth it. But the claim that purchasing them amounted to treason is so far out of touch, that I am surprised that you praised the post so much.

The claim is that we spent a shitload of money for weapons systems that, taken in their totality, were demonstrably worse than the systems they replaced, and that systems designed to work in combat cheaply and reliably - the A10 - were very much discouraged. Except when combat actually occurred, of course.
Perhaps treason is hyperbole. Criminal negligence of the facts might be more acceptable, in light of the idea that some undetermined number of soldiers are dead or wounded today who might be alive and whole if the Pentagon procured weapons systems with an eye towards giving the taxpayer value for his money, and the soldier a weapon that will perform under whatever conditions the weapon finds itself in.
We used to produce jeeps, Higgins boats, and P-51s, which were bywords for reliability and value for the money. The philosophy that went into their production needs to be revived.

And that claim is absolutely, demonstrably FALSE. As I shall get to in a minute. Except for the possible case of the A-10, which is a fabulous aircraft. But Reagan had nothing to do with any decisions to keep or kill it. I’ll talk about the A-10 later. Now on to the original message…

You need to seriously back up the idea that the reason the Republican Guard was left alive was because of the M1A1. I have NEVER heard this claim before.

Now, before I get into details, I have to say something about this highly misleading message I’m responding to. First, there are negative points to EVERY weapons system, every airplane, in fact any sophisticated piece of equipment. Optimal designs are a study in tradeoffss - weight for power, firepower for range, fuel consumption for acceleration, accuracy for rate of fire, you name it. It is easy to trash ANY aircraft, car, tank, gun, or whatever it is you want to trash - all you have to do is list all the negative traits of the device and ignore the positive. The M1A1 is FULL of positives that were better than the equipment it replaced. Thermal gunsights, computer targeting, the ability to fire while on the move, active armor, etc. In fact, the thermal sight and ability to fire on the move was decisive in the first Gulf War. The way Ambush described it, the M1A1 singlehandely lost the war. In fact, The M1A1 DESTROYED the enemy whenever it engaged them. In a big way. Like I said, not a single tank crewmember was lost to enemy fire in that entire conflict. And they weren’t just fighting some rusted old hulks - this was before the sanctions, and Saddam still had a big arsenal. He had, for instance 500 T-72 tanks and a few T-80 tanks, which were the best Russia could produce at the time. In addition, his crews were experienced, having fought tank battles against the Iranians. And with Saddam in power, they were motivated to fight.

So how did the M1A1 do against those tanks? Well, there was the Battle of Medina ridge, for example, in which the US 1st Armored Division went up against the 2nd Republican Guard brigade - Saddam’s best. 186 Iraqi tanks entered the battle. Within 40 minutes, the Americans M1A1’s destroyed 75 of them. 38 more were destroyed by Apache gunships, and the rest were destroyed by American tanks over the course of the 2-hour battle.

Not a single American tanker was lost. Only two M1A1’s were even hit, and both of those were returned to service after repairs.

This was the largest tank battle of the war, and the Americans slaughtered the Iraqis. The Iraqi tanks, by the way, were the equivalent of the M60 tank that the Abrams replaced, if you’re still wondering whether the upgrade was worth it. To be fair, American tactics and training were superior, but large credit must be given to the Abrams itself. Decisive factors were the Abrams’ ability to target and fire while on the move, while the Iraqi tanks had to stop (and become sitting ducks). Also decisive was the new thermal gunsight on the Abrams, which allowed American tanks to ‘see’ through the smoke of the battle while the Iraqis were largely blinded.

Please explain. I assume you’re referring to the M-60? In what way is the M60 superior? And I’d say destroying over 100 tanks while having only two of your own disabled qualifies as ‘performing a real military mission’, wouldn’t you?

Again, he seems to think the only reason for speed is to drive cross country. This is nonsense. Speed is useful when you want to close with the enemy, get away from the enemy, outflank the enemy, or just outmanoever the enemy.

The M1A1 has a 120mm gun compared to the 105 on the M60. THe M1A1 has a thermal imaging system. The M1A1 has active armor. And by the way, this whole thing about poor range is ridiculous, because the M60 had a range of 300 miles, while the M1A1 has a range of 275. Very close, despite the M1A1 having twice the horsepower and twice the power to weight ratio.

The M1A1 has an overpressure system that allows it to fight safely in nuclear, chemical, or biological warfare environments.

The M1A1 is in every way I can think of vastly superior to the M60. And you ignored the substantial benefits of the turbine engine. Or did you think they just picked a turbine because it would swallow more fuel and stall more often? I mentioned some of the advantages before - power to weight ratio, quiet, low vibration, low maintenance. But another big advantage is that a turbine can drink just about any fuel - from diesel to Jet-A. This can be useful. Another advantage is size - a turbine is small, and the result is that the M1A1 has a very low profile, which makes it hard to hit.

To give you an idea as to whether the M1A1 was a ‘boondoggle’ that wasn’t as good as the M-60, you might consider this: During Desert Storm, the Marines were still equipped with the M60. They parked them and borrowed M1’s from the Army.

And your comments about unreliability due to filtering are also suspect. From GlobalSecurity.org:

“Unprecedented Operational Readiness”.

I have never heard this. And there have been plenty of M1A1’s tooling around in crowded streets in Iraq in the last year. Haven’t heard of any fires being started.

By the way, this ‘Reagan Era’ tank was commissioned in 1973, and had been in production since 1978 - two years before Reagan took office.

And yet not a single tank crewmember was lost in action in Desert Storm. Imagine that! Are you sure you’re getting your information straight? And once again, the Turbine engine has LOWER maintenance than a diesel - especially the diesels available in 1973. The British Challenger tank has a new diesel engine that is somewhat better.

Diesel vs Turbine in a tank is a complicated issue, and both have their benefits. Most people consider the Challenger II, which uses a diesel, to be the equivalent of the M1A1.

But both of them are light-years ahead of the M60 the M1A1 replaced.

I’d have to agree with Sam on this one. The M1A1 is vastly superior to the M-60. The remarks about the F-16 vs. F-15 are awfully onesided. Sure, the F-16 is more maneuverable and cheaper, but the F-15 is faster and carries more weapons. They’re good at different things. Stealth is not only advantageous with regards to ground radar, but it’s going to make radar-guided missiles a lot less effective, too.

The A-10 is getting shafted by Air Force policy. The Air Force wants to fly higher and faster - perfectly understandable, since higher and faster is safer for the air crew, and for the expensive jets as well. Low and slow may be the way to kill tanks, but it leaves one vulnerable to ground fire. The Air Force’s desires in this regard are perfectly understandable, even if Warthogs are the funkiest ground attack plane since the Il-2 Sturmovik. This isn’t to say I think mothballing the A-10’s is the way to go, but it’s not some insane desire to decrease effectiveness at work. Of course, the Army probably doesn’t care much for the attitude, but that’s another issue.

Reagan-era military projects, aside from SDI, were no more misguided than those of any other era. Some turned out brilliantly. Some were duds. Some were cancelled last year after two decades of expensive development (okay, I don’t know exactly when the Comanche project was started, but you get the point).

Next…

We need more examples, please.

You still haven’t explained how the M1A1 ‘failed’ to do what the M60 could have done. Given that the M1A1 obliterated the enemy whenever it encountered them, and moved pretty much as far as the M60 could have and twice as fast, I’m having a hard time reconciling this. You need to give specific examples.

This is a pretty hard sell, you know, considering that the ‘Reagan era’ military has cut through every opposition it has faced since 1985 like swiss cheese. You’re really going to have to give us specifics.

Now this is an absolute howler of a statement. The F-16 is a great aircraft, but they are very different. For starters, the F-15 has TWO engines. Redundancy is a big damned deal in an aircraft. Any comparison that omits this is flawed.

But let’s compare them anyway:

F-16 top speed: Mach 2
F-15 top speed: Mach 2.5

F-16 Ceiling: 16,000 meters
F-15 Ceiling: 19,000 meters

F-16 Max Takeoff Weight: 16,875 kg
F-15 Max Takeoff Weight: 30,844 kg

But this is silly, because these aircraft are simply not comparable. I’m not sure why you decided to compare them. The true competitor to the F-16 is the F-18. The F-15 is a very large air superiority fighter. The F-16 is a dogfighter and a ground attack plane. The F-15 is twice as heavy, and as a result can carry payloads like anti-satellite missiles.

Comparing military aircraft based on performance specs is only a tiny part of the picture anyway. Modern combat aircraft are designed and sold as ‘systems’, including avionics, payloads, and the aircraft itself. The F-15 was designed as a sophisticated, high-speed platform for very sophisticated weapons systems. Just as the F-14 was designed in part around the Phoenix missile system. And note that all three aircraft are in inventory at the same time. Because they all serve different roles.

What kind of combat? Dogfighting? Close Air Support? Bomber intercept? Anti-Satellite missions? Wild Weasel missions?

The F-16 is a great dogfighter. No question about it. But dogfighting is only a tiny part of what a modern fighter jet is expected to be able to do.

You do realize that U.S. stealth aircraft have the ability to increase their radar signature on purpose, don’t you? Otherwise, the enemy could learn a lot about the aircraft’s capability by just bouncing radar off it while it’s in flight around the country.

In fact, the F-117 stealth fighter has a radar signature roughly equivalent to a small bird, rather than a full-sized aircraft. The exact details are still classified. It is also important to remember that many of these systems were commissioned during the cold war, when a likely mission was to try to get through the heavy air defenses of the Soviet Union.

Here’s where we will agree. But this has NOTHING to do with Reagan. Rather, the A-10 inter-service fighting is all about military culture, competition between the air force, the army, and the navy, and the ‘Not invented here’ syndrome. But you’ll notice the A-10 is still flying, ten years after it was supposed to have been cashiered. And I believe it is being upgraded, and will be in service for probably another 20 years. It’s pretty disingenuous to attack the military for thinking about cancelling the A-10 when, in the end they decided NOT to, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It is a superb aircraft.

I hope this came from your book and not from you, because it is disingenuous in the extreme. First, the A-10 should get NO credit for shooting down SCUDS, because they never shot any down. A-10s in the Gulf War destroyed 51 SCUD missiles ON THE GROUND. One of the A-10’s missions was to hunt down and destroy anti-aircraft and SCUD missile emplacements.

And no, the Patriot did not hit any SCUD’s, because it was not designed to. The Patriot Mk I was a ‘proximity’ weapon. And it wasn’t even designed to shoot down missiles - it was an anti-aircraft weapon. It was designed to detonate in proximity to an aircraft’s engines and disable them. It was pressed into service against SCUDs for two reasons - one, anything is better than nothing. And two, it was a great propaganda tool, which may have stopped Saddam from firing all of his SCUDS because we caused him to believe they weren’t getting through.

But the Patriot DID destroy some Scuds through proximity detonation, and it certainly damaged many of them and pushed them off course. Unfortunately, Saddam’s missiles were so damned inaccurate that they were already off-course, so pushing them around had no tactical effect. But had they been employed against more accurate missiles targeting military barracks or strategic targets like refineries, the Patriots would have been very useful.

The new Patriot missile, by the way, no longer uses a proximity fuse. This one is designed from the start to be a missile killer, so it actually impacts the missile and destroys it. And it works very well. The Israelis have tested it many times with excellent success.

You are flat-out, 100% wrong. And much of your ‘evidence’ is misleading and disingenuous.

You need to read some more books. There are some good web sites out there with unbiased data. You might try globalsecurity.org, or Federation of American Scientists

ambushed, Rommel you are not.

-Comparing the F-16 to the F-15 is a game for ignorant amatuers. Please, let me hear your drooling comparison of the PHM Pegasus to the CVN Nimitz. Hey, they are both naval vessels, and the Pegasus is several billion dollars cheaper, is faster, and has a more powerful weapons suiite! Should we scrap the CVNs?
As has been pointed out, the F-15 and F-16 are different aircraft, with different missions, representing the ‘High/Low’ (some great fighters, lots of good fighters) mix in the Airforce. Getting rid of the F-15 would severely retard our air-air capability, and would get rid of the Airforces only light bomber, the F-15E. Also, we haven’t been in a dogfight since what, Vietnam?

Regardless, the F-16 hasn’t been a cheap little fighter since the F-16A. It has now evolved into a true multimission capable aircraft, much to the chagrin of the ‘cheap and inffective’ crowd.

:rolleyes:

-Yes, the stealth fighter could be seen on radar. Only Wonder Woman had a truely invisible jet; The F-117 and B-2 significantly reduce the chance that they will be tracked on radar. The F-117s performance in GWI bears out its value, flying with impunity over Baghdad on Day 1 of that war.

-You really don’t know what the hell you are talking about if you think the M1s turbines need to have new filters ‘every 15 minutes’ in the desert. You made a untrue statement.

-So fucking about how fast 4th Armored advanced? Do not tell me that you think the M4 Sherman, aka ‘Ronsol’, (which got about 1/2 mile to the gallon) is a better tank?

-The A-10 is good at only one thing: Ground attack in a low-threat environment in good weather. It makes no sense to have too many of them, since it is useless in a wide variety of situations. The Airforce would rather have multimission aircraft, which will be useful more often. Can’t fault them for that. And since the GPS-guided bombs is replacing the dedicated CAS aircraft (much safer for the troops on the ground), we will not be seeing these for too much longer.

Little is more dangerous than a rank amatuer reading a single fucking book on so broad and complicated a topic and thinking they know something. Read A Quick and Dirty Guide to War. Read some Keegan. Hell, pick those Clancy books (Armored Cav, Airborne, etc). Anything. Basing your argument off of that one apparently crappy book just makes your ignorance so much more pronounced.

Besides, I asked you for some damned examples. What is better than a M1-series Abrams? What is better than a F-16C/F-15E/F-22? Do you have a clue, or you actually going to sit there and argue that we should go back to the M-60 and F-16A?

Good to see we fucking agree. Now if we could just convince blowero.

As usual, you’re making no sense whatsoever. Well, I give up. Write me when you have a point.