Russia runs away from American planes, terrified

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

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).

The ability to comprehend sentences.

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.

Cleary the sentence states that the attacks were powerful. There is nothing in the setence to possibly indicate that even more conventional tonnage would have made any difference. There is nothing in the sentence to indicate that an even more powerful attack would have made a strategic difference.

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.

The Tu-22B?? The Tu-22M. Now its problems with the alphabet?

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?

Hmm, the Soviets decided to drop a lot of conventional bombs, so they chose an aircraft with a large payload capacity. SHOCKING.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Cleary the sentence states that the attacks were powerful.

OHHHHH. Jesus, I had missed that.

GePap, any plane with thousands of pounds of munitions is "powerful". The question is, are they effective.

There is nothing in the setence to possibly indicate that even more conventional tonnage would have made any difference. There is nothing in the sentence to indicate that an even more powerful attack would have made a strategic difference.

Huh? What the **** are you on boy?

Who said the power was inadequate? Personally, I'm thinking the main failing was likely in precision and response times (and uptime, from what I read in the article it's an unreliable plane).

You again make whacky assumptions.

The Tu-22B?? The Tu-22M. Now its problems with the alphabet?

B, M, whatever, you know which craft is being referenced.

Hmm, the Soviets decided to drop a lot of conventional bombs, so they chose an aircraft with a large payload capacity. SHOCKING.

It's not that simple. There's far more to deciding which plane to use when and how to use it other than "how many bombs can it hold". There are bombers with far larger payload capacities in their arsenal.

You again make whacky assumptions.

[GePap]

It's not that simple. There's far more to deciding which plane to use when and how to use it other than "how many bombs can it hold". There are bombers with far larger payload capacities in their arsenal.

Except you just admitted that there is no evidence that an even grater payload of bombs would have made any difference.

The reason the Soviets used the Tu-22M was the same reason the US uses mainly B-1B's in Afghanistan today, as opposed to B-52's.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Except you just admitted that there is no evidence that an even grater payload of bombs would have made any difference.

The reason the Soviets used the Tu-22M was the same reason the US uses mainly B-1B's in Afghanistan today, as opposed to B-52's.

More assumptions on your part. You are also again avoiding the fact that regardless of the reasons, the plane's use has been marginal and "not very successful".

How many times must we go through this.

[Patroklos]

The reason the Soviets used the Tu-22M was the same reason the US uses mainly B-1B's in Afghanistan today, as opposed to B-52's.

According to who?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

More assumptions on your part. You are also again avoiding the fact that regardless of the reasons, the plane's use has been marginal and "not very successful".

That again!

see post #62.

How many times must we go through this.

Not many, because it is clear to me that you are prideful to realize you couldn't interpret one single paragraph in a Wiki article, so me pointing out your inability to you is useless.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


According to who?

According to me, and having the ability to think.

The B-1B is can get in to area faster and also it can opperate effectively much lower than a B-52 as you should know.The same would be true of a Tu-22M vs. say a Tu-95.

And using the Tu-160 would have probably been ridiculously expensive.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
That again!

see post #62.

Not many, because it is clear to me that you are prideful to realize you couldn't interpret one single paragraph in a Wiki article, so me pointing out your inability to you is useless.

How many times do you blatantly fail at reading comprehension when saying the other person is the one failing?

I'm not referring to the quote from #62, I am very clearly referring to what we are talking about, which is the statement that the Tu-22M was not very successful in its roles in Afghanistan.

FOCUS!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

How many times do you blatantly fail at reading comprehension when saying the other person is the one failing?

I'm not referring to the quote from #62, I am very clearly referring to what we are talking about, which is the statement that the Tu-22M was not very successful in its roles in Afghanistan.

FOCUS!

we are talking about a single Wikipedia article. If you go to said article, and do CTR-F and search for 'sucessful', that word is used once in that article, in the sentence I dealt with in post #62.


You are trying to argue about the effectiveness of a plane from a single Wiki article, and since the whole reason for the post is an anti-Russia troll, you are stuck trying to gerrymander that single article into meaning what you want it to mean, not what it says.

For variety, a second source:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/tu-22m.htm

Tu-22M BACKFIRE (TUPOLEV)
The BACKFIRE is a long-range aircraft capable of performing nuclear and conventional attack, anti-ship, and reconnaissance missions. Its low-level penetration features make it a much more survivable system than its predecessors. Carrying either bombs or AS-4/KITCHEN air-to-surface missiles, it is a versatile strike aircraft, believed to be intended for theater attack in Europe and Asia but also potentially capable of intercontinental missions against the United States. The BACKFIRE can be equipped with probes to permit in-flight refueling, which would further increase its range and flexibility.

During the 1980s Backfires were used for conventional bombing raids in Afghanistan, particularly during the last year of direct Soviet involvement. By 1991 it was reported that, due to a shortage of spare parts, some Backfire units had mission-capable rates of 30-40%. During the 1990s many Backfires were transferred from Long Range Aviation forces to Russian naval units in north Russia. However, by the late 1990s, at least 125 were in service with Long-Range Aviation and another 47 were in service with in Naval Aviation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
we are talking about a single Wikipedia article. If you go to said article, and do CTR-F and search for 'sucessful', that word is used once in that article, in the sentence I dealt with in post #62.

And if you do a CTRL-F in this ****ing thread, you'll see I've repeatedly asserted the aircraft was not very successful! You'll also see the context of our discussion right now is its role in Afghanistan.

These are key skills in reading comprehension, GePap.

You are trying to argue about the effectiveness of a plane from a single Wiki article, and since the whole reason for the post is an anti-Russia troll, you are stuck trying to gerrymander that single article into meaning what you want it to mean, not what it says.

The article clearly indicates the Tu-22M was not a very successful aircraft. Not very many produced, reliability issues, "marginal success" in combat, etc.

You're the one gerrymandering here.

Your secondary source further backs up the assertion that the plane was not very successful, unless you define "successful" as having 30-40% mission capable rates...

[GePap]

Ah, I see Asher uses the Verdun strategy of "winning arguements", ie. post the same **** until the other side gets sick of bashing their heads into the wall and then declare victory.

And if you do a CTRL-F in this ****ing thread, you'll see I've repeatedly asserted the aircraft was not very successful! You'll also see the context of our discussion right now is its role in Afghanistan.

And you have nothing to base that statement on except a single paragraph detailing the fact that attacks using Tu-22M's to drop large amounts of conventional bombs on Afghanistan was not strategically successful. As I have already stated, and won't again, that single paragraph is a commentary on HOW the Tu-22M was used, not on the capabilities of the Tu-22M.

The article clearly indicates the Tu-22M was not a very successful aircraft.

NO, the Wikipedia article does no such thing.

Not very many produced.

As for numbers produced, at least 370 were made, compared to only 100 B1-B's. The number of any type of aircraft produced has much to do with cost and necessity, not usefulness. After all, only 20 B-2's were made, even though original plans were for 132.

Your secondary source further backs up the assertion that the plane was not very successful, unless you define "successful" as having 30-40% mission capable rates...

Wow, you are disingenous. You seem to have left out completely the part talking about how those numbers werew the result of a lack of spare parts, which again, has nothing to do with the aircraft itself and has everything to do with the economy failing to produce the required parts.

[Verto]

I love to bash the Russians as much as the next guy, but this thread is giving me a headache

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Wow, you are disingenous. You seem to have left out completely the part talking about how those numbers werew the result of a lack of spare parts

Doesn't matter why, genius. End result, the plane's not done a whole lot in all the years it's been around. Its design was too complicated for the Russians to adequately maintain. End result, not a very successful aircraft.

The main thing here is you're being superficial. You think there's nothing wrong with an overly complicated plane that, in real world situations, is more unusable than usable. You think there's nothing wrong that in the few occasions the plane has been used, its effect was "marginal".

To me, a plane that's very rarely used and a plane that when used has a marginal effect is not a successful plane. That's my view as a utilitarian.

Your view -- as a bureaucrat -- is that the plane is successful because it's never been used properly and the economy sucked.

We'll never agree, because I'm right and you're crazy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

Doesn't matter why, genius. End result, the plane's not done a whole lot in all the years it's been around. Its design was too complicated for the Russians to adequately maintain. End result, not a very successful aircraft.

The plane hasn;t done much, because the Russians haven't been invading foreign lands much since 1989. The plane was not "too complicated" for the Russians to adequately maintain, its complexity made it very expensive to maintain, and post-Soviet Russia decided that big macs were a bigger priority than maintaining a strategic bomber fleet

The main thing here is you're being superficial. You think there's nothing wrong with an overly complicated plane that, in real world situations, is more unusable than usable. You think there's nothing wrong that in the few occasions the plane has been used, its effect was "marginal".

The plane's effectiveness was marginal because the situation on the ground was not such that the Soviet's military problem in Afghanistan could be solved by bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age as opposed to just the Bronze age,as they had already done.

To me, a plane that's very rarely used and a plane that when used has a marginal effect is not a successful plane. That's my view as a utilitarian.

Warplanes only get used in wartime. Yeah, lets blame the Russians for being out of the invading game for the last decade. When will they get their **** together!?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
The plane hasn;t done much, because the Russians haven't been invading foreign lands much since 1989. The plane was not "too complicated" for the Russians to adequately maintain, its complexity made it very expensive to maintain

You don't see how those two concepts are very closely related and ultimately the same thing?

The plane's effectiveness was marginal because the situation on the ground was not such that the Soviet's military problem in Afghanistan could be solved by bombing Afghanistan back to the stone age as opposed to just the Bronze age,as they had already done.

This is your unsubstantiated opinion as to why the plane was ineffective, but the fact remains it was ineffective.

Warplanes only get used in wartime. Yeah, lets blame the Russians for being out of the invading game for the last decade. When will they get their **** together!?

Really? Warplanes sit on the ground at all times unless a war was going on?

Even in the occasions the warplanes were used they were marginally effective, but this has no possible implication on the plane itself? The fact that they have a 30-40% combat readiness rate has no bearing on the plane itself? The fact that it's uneconomical to maintain has no bearing on the plane itself?