Russia runs away from American planes, terrified

[Asher]

decrepit
pathetic
unreliable
ridiculous
comedic
crummy
deplorable
feeble
lamentable
woeful
wretched
pitiful
abject

[FrostyBoy]

Ever since that Flash update from Adobe, half the video's on YouTube don't play. Just thought I'd randomly throw that in.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

My original point about it not being very successful still stands:

The Tu-22M saw its first combat use in Afghanistan from 1987 to 1989. Its usage was similar to the USAF deployment of B-52 Stratofortress bombers in Vietnam, dropping large tonnages of conventional ordnance. Despite the considerable power of these attacks, their strategic usefulness was marginal.

You still can't understand that sentence?!?

Jesus.

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union some 370 remained in CIS service. Due to their complexity and a deteriorating economy, considerable serviceability problems plagued the fleet.

Wow, how shocking that a now poor nation won't be able to upkeep complex aircraft. How does that negate the effectiveness of the aircraft?

[Asher]

If the craft cannot operate effectively, its effectiveness is compromised.

Kind of obvious, really.

[Asher]

Originally posted by FrostyBoy

Ever since that Flash update from Adobe, half the video's on YouTube don't play. Just thought I'd randomly throw that in.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
If the craft cannot operate effectively, its effectiveness is compromised.

Kind of obvious, really.

Do you really need a simple lesson in the English language?

The Tu-22M saw its first combat use in Afghanistan from 1987 to 1989. Its usage was similar to the USAF deployment of B-52 Stratofortress bombers in Vietnam, dropping large tonnages of conventional ordnance. Despite the considerable power of these attacks, their strategic usefulness was marginal.

In the above sentence, the highlighted portion refers to the portion in italics.

So the last sentence is speaking about the strategic usefulness of dropping large tonnages of conventional ordnance, NOT of the aircraft that dropped said tonnages.

[snoopy369]

Meh, i'd suggest it refers to the planes themselves actually (although it is not 100% clear). In the context it's pretty clear. Attacks aren't referred to as having strategic usefulness generally, bombers are.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Do you really need a simple lesson in the English language?

Your question was:

Wow, how shocking that a now poor nation won't be able to upkeep complex aircraft. How does that negate the effectiveness of the aircraft?

My answer was:

If the craft cannot operate effectively, its effectiveness is compromised.

What is your major malfunction? This post doesn't seem at all related to the one you quoted. Looks like you got all confused with all the words on the screen again.

In the above sentence, the highlighted portion refers to the portion in italics.

So the last sentence is speaking about the strategic usefulness of dropping large tonnages of conventional ordnance, NOT of the aircraft that dropped said tonnages.

Tell me, GePap, in what world does the airplane have no role in the effectiveness of the attack from an airplane? You're basically telling me the fact that its attacks were "strategically marginal" has no bearing on the specifics of the airplane? Different airplane deliver different conventional weapons with different effects and results. That's why you have the A-10, the F-16, B-52s, etc...

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Meh, i'd suggest it refers to the planes themselves actually (although it is not 100% clear). In the context it's pretty clear. Attacks aren't referred to as having strategic usefulness generally, bombers are.

I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't matter anyway. The attacks and their effectiveness are directly impacted by the aircraft carrying them out.

This is another thing I find rather obvious, but GePap needs a thorough beatdown to understand.

[GePap]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Meh, i'd suggest it refers to the planes themselves actually (although it is not 100% clear). In the context it's pretty clear.

Wow, this is endemic.

So in 1987 and 1988 the Soviets decided to drop lots of dumb bombs on the Mujahadeen, and they used Tu-22M's to do it. Those attacks didnt end up changing the Soviet's strategic situation in Afghanistan.

Is there anything in the sentence that would indicate that if B-52's or B-1B's had been the planes delivering large tonnages of bombs, that the attacks would have been more useful or strategically useful? IF NOT, THEN CLEARLY THE SENTENCE IS TALKING ABOUT THE USEFULNESS OF THE TACTIC, NOT THE WEAPON SYSTEM.

[Asher]

GePap, what is the topic of the wiki you viewed? Was it an article about Afghanistan or was it an article about a specific plane? What is the overall subject here?

Further, how can you seperate the effectiveness of the attack from the delivery mechanism? If you sent a Stratofortress out on the same bombing run a a Tu-22M you're going to get different results. The plane makes a huge difference.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Tell me, GePap, in what world does the airplane have no role in the effectiveness of the attack from an airplane? You're basically telling me the fact that its attacks were "strategically marginal" has no bearing on the specifics of the airplane?

Yes. Its very simple:

Lets say I have a termite problem in a house and I want to save the house. I bring in a stick of dynatime, and try to use that to solve my termite problem. The house gets blown up, is now gone, but there are still termites in the debris, eating away what is left.

Did the failure of the dynamite to solve the problem (termites damaging house that I want to save) stem from the effectiveness of dynatime as an explosive? Or from the fact that it was a bad strategy with the wrong tool?

Different airplane deliver different conventional weapons with different effects and results. That's why you have the A-10, the F-16, B-52s, etc...

Yes, and that is the reason the Soviets had Su-25's, MiG-29's, Su-24's, and a whole host of other aircraft, all with different missions.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes. Its very simple:

Lets say I have a termite problem in a house and I want to save the house. I bring in a stick of dynatime, and try to use that to solve my termite problem. The house gets blown up, is now gone, but there are still termites in the debris, eating away what is left.

Did the failure of the dynamite to solve the problem (termites damaging house that I want to save) stem from the effectiveness of dynatime as an explosive? Or from the fact that it was a bad strategy with the wrong tool?

What evidence do you have that the reason the attacks were ineffective was because the Soviets didn't understand military attack as well as you, rather than deficiencies in the airplane itself (eg, payload, targeting systems, maintenance downtimes, etc).

To me the statement says the attacks carried out by Tu-22B were marginal. Why you think the Tu-22B has no part on its success is based purely on your assumptions, and not the real world. This ain't one of your art classes, GePap.

Yes, and that is the reason the Soviets had Su-25's, MiG-29's, Su-24's, and a whole host of other aircraft, all with different missions.

And the Soviets decided to use the Tu-22M for its specified mission and its success as marginal... why is this so complicated for you?

Let's revisit my original statement: that the plane was not very successful. Even if you think it's not the plane's fault it wasn't very successful in the war, the fact is, it wasn't very successful. Whether it was misuse by Russians who don't know their attack strategy as well as you, or whether it was problems with the plane, it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't very successful.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
GePap, what is the topic of the wiki you viewed? Was it an article about Afghanistan or was it an article about a specific plane? What is the overall subject here?

The article is about the plane, and the one paragraph you seem utterly incapable of understanding deals with the service history of that aircraft and how it was deployed.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap


The article is about the plane, and the one paragraph you seem utterly incapable of understanding deals with the service history of that aircraft and how it was deployed.

And that it was deployed in a marginal manner, eg backing my assertion that it wasn't very successful.

How many times must we run in circles before you give up?