By: SOC
- 9th November 2004 at 13:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly. More planes weren't lost. As in the Serb who claimed 47 were downed was lying through his teeth. Making his claim of 13 tanks that much more dubious.
New
Posts: 29
By: mwolf
- 9th November 2004 at 14:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mwolf, do YOU have anything else? Any more proofs? More explanations about the multiple claims? I mean, I'm really interested in more info on the apparent shoot-downs of the Harrier and Tornado. Weird that no spotter in the world saw their disappearence from the inventory (and believe me: some spotters go really deep into their hobby).
I think You better read all my post before you post anything. did I ever say something about tornade or Harrier?
I do't think so :mad:
New
Posts: 29
By: mwolf
- 9th November 2004 at 14:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
History is written by the victorius side
isn't it?
let's resume all this tread
1. I show some pictures of some downed f117, f16 and other spy planes to share with this cominity becouse I thing they can not go to aviation museum in Belgrade at see it for them self.
2.Armada of western people were hurt by it and attacked it
3.Yes I said it that I think that in not so near future soeone from Nato will say that it was 1 or 2 or some piece more (i Did not specife how much) planes were damaged and could not be reparied, and as that will be counted as downed of course.
4.And then the tread trasformed into what? nothing that we wanted to be.
5.Ofcourse this tread will end someday :confused:
6.
7.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 9th November 2004 at 15:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly. More planes weren't lost. As in the Serb who claimed 47 were downed was lying through his teeth. Making his claim of 13 tanks that much more dubious.
I would say the claims about destroyed tanks are more on NATO side than on Yugo.. It is virtually impossible to tell an Mk84 from a wooden mock-up equipped with smoke generator from an aircraft roaring at 500-600mph at low attitude when concentrating on the weapon system to release your load in the right moment. So after each day of combat you get dozens of pilots swearing they hit the bloody tank, but those are more likely mistaken than lying.. Let's stay objective..
By: SOC
- 9th November 2004 at 15:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, but the article he is using was getting it's data from a Serbian General, not NATO...
"Evans's source for the 13 tanks can be traced to Serbia's 3rd Army commander, Lt. Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, who made the claim on June 16. But, as Clark pointed out in his Sept. 16 press conference, Pavkovic also claimed that Yugoslav air defense units shot down 47 NATO airplanes and four helicopters."
See?
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 9th November 2004 at 15:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, but the article he is using was getting it's data from a Serbian General, not NATO...
"Evans's source for the 13 tanks can be traced to Serbia's 3rd Army commander, Lt. Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, who made the claim on June 16. But, as Clark pointed out in his Sept. 16 press conference, Pavkovic also claimed that Yugoslav air defense units shot down 47 NATO airplanes and four helicopters."
See?
You misunderstood.. I am comparing the two stories where NATO claims 120 tanks, 220 armored personnel carriers, and 450 artillery pieces while Pavkovic claims 13 tanks. Yes, we can expect that the Pavkovic's story is *colorized* but NATO numbers look even more unreal. And there is a good reason to believe that many of the claims were infact the mentioned mock-ups...
New
Posts: 724
By: TJ
- 9th November 2004 at 18:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If anyone wants an even bigger laugh then visit the following:
And see how NATO claims that it destroyed 120 tanks, 220 armored personnel carriers, and 450 artillery pieces. The article even claims that the Serbs made an elaborate attempt to hide all the evidence of the hundreds destroyed tanks by repairing them before inspectors had a chance to asses teh damage (I wonder how they did that when some of the factories which built the M-84 tanks are located in Croatia and Slovenia).
I guess when some amateur aircraft enthusiast like Venik makes bogus claims, it's a real hoot. But when NATO spokesmen make equally bogus claims, no one notices.
How can destroying mock ups and decoys be considered making up claims? The decoys altered the BDA figures. In some cases UAVs caught damaged AFVs being removed on low-loaders. In any case the Yugoslavs declared the following:
The Yugoslavs admitted to losing the following after rejoining the accords in 1999 post conflict:
18 (eighteen) MBT
136 (one hundred and thirty six) AFV
50 (fifty) fixed wing combat aircraft.
(This included the 11 MiG-29s lost to all causes. The MiG-21 fleet suffered the worst loss by type)
11 (eleven) combat helicopters
The following are snippets from 2001 interviews highlighting Yugoslav Air
Force losses:
"General Pavkovic believes the Yugoslav military was successful overall
because it suffered relatively few casualties and managed to hold on to many
of its weapons systems. The lone exception, he said, was the Yugoslav air
force, which "suffered considerable losses."
Yugoslav air force Col. Radovan Rakovic:
"All our airports on the ground suffered great damage," Rakovic said.
The Yugoslav air force, he said, lost about 30 percent of its combat
equipment and 40 percent of its combat systems.
TJ
New
Posts: 245
By: Billy Bishop
- 10th November 2004 at 14:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SOC: I know the claim comes from a Serb general, but it has been verified by inspectors. The Serbs had ~250 M-84's prior to Allied Force. They declared ~230 after rejoining the Dayton accords, and they've been counted by the inspectors. Therefore it is impossible that they lost more than ~20. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
TJ: Your list makes NATO's campaign look more impressive than it really was because you are not allowing for the consideration that most of those "losses" were never combat capable in teh first place. For example, out of those 50 airplanes, how many do you think were actually in good condition? I would be willing to bet more than half of them were old relics like Mig-21F's delivered way back in the 1960's or something even older than that, and were not even flyable and were purposely placed out in the open to divert attention away from more important targets. Should those be counted as losses? A loss is when a capable piece of equipment is rendered incapable. If it was never capable in the first place, it does not deserve to be counted as a loss. NATO destroyed a lot of really old junk that was worth less than the missiles that destroyed it, but the amount of useful targets they destroyed were considerably lower.
VERY fascinating. But still not a single picture of any claim made. I especially liked the last url where they stated they got the information from unofiicial sources (just above the red march 24).
New
Posts: 724
By: TJ
- 10th November 2004 at 20:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SOC: I know the claim comes from a Serb general, but it has been verified by inspectors. The Serbs had ~250 M-84's prior to Allied Force. They declared ~230 after rejoining the Dayton accords, and they've been counted by the inspectors. Therefore it is impossible that they lost more than ~20. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
TJ: Your list makes NATO's campaign look more impressive than it really was because you are not allowing for the consideration that most of those "losses" were never combat capable in teh first place. For example, out of those 50 airplanes, how many do you think were actually in good condition? I would be willing to bet more than half of them were old relics like Mig-21F's delivered way back in the 1960's or something even older than that, and were not even flyable and were purposely placed out in the open to divert attention away from more important targets. Should those be counted as losses? A loss is when a capable piece of equipment is rendered incapable. If it was never capable in the first place, it does not deserve to be counted as a loss. NATO destroyed a lot of really old junk that was worth less than the missiles that destroyed it, but the amount of useful targets they destroyed were considerably lower.
The 83rd Regiment based in Kosovo suffered the highest losses in it's MiG-21 fleet. Approx 24 Fishbed L/N of the Yugoslav fleet were lost on the
ground. The 50 combat aircraft losses do not include any of the ex-Iraqi Fishbed and Flogger airframes based at Batajnica nor any in the pen next to the Aeronautical Museum. Attacks on Podgorica accounted for a large number of the declared light attack combat types destroyed. Apparently the blast doors were insecure resulting in declared combat capable light attack aircraft being destroyed. The Yugoslavs were not counting any of their retired aircraft pushed out as decoys.
TJ
New
Posts: 724
By: TJ
- 10th November 2004 at 20:07Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"A Yugoslav Army unit ambushed a squad climbing a ravine south of Pristina, killing 20 men. When the black tape was taken from their dog-tags it was found that 12 were US Green Berets; eight were British special forces (presumably Special Air Service/SAS). This incident apparently occurred within a week or so of the bombing campaign launch.
It is known that other US and other NATO casualties have, on some occasions, been retrieved by NATO forces after being hit inside Yugoslavia. At least 30 bodies of US servicemen have been processed through Athens, after being transported from the combat zone. "
"Decide for yourself?"
Please get real here!
TJ
New
Posts: 29
By: mwolf
- 10th November 2004 at 20:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did I wrote that
I did not
so
I could not be responsible for it :)
ah Yes, if that were trye during the war this will be exelent propaanda material as downed f117 were, isn't it?
but as I see TJ and dimitri still is flamable as gasoline :rolleyes:
New
Posts: 245
By: Billy Bishop
- 10th November 2004 at 21:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TJ: Do you maintain that 50 combat-capable aircraft were destroyed? Because if you think that then you need to do a lot more research. Out of the Mig-29's alone, only 9 out of 16 were flyable. The case with the older aircraft was even worse.
By: Dimitri Hackx
- 10th November 2004 at 22:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did I wrote that
I did not
so
I could not be responsible for it :)
ah Yes, if that were trye during the war this will be exelent propaanda material as downed f117 were, isn't it?
but as I see TJ and dimitri still is flamable as gasoline :rolleyes:
Well, yes, I'm guilty... Again... I don't believe TJ mentioned you as the author of the crap on the url's you posted. I still cannot understand that people believe this stuff as even the owners of these sites can't prove anything apart from some official and unofficial "quotes" (you have to admit: even the "official NATO-losses" are not backed up by a scanned copy of the original document). Now, I don't say that NATO never overclaimed their victories, but what I see and read on these sites/url's is too funny to be true (which I do not mind cause I love to laugh too). So, if these were jokes: good find. If not: sad, very sad. ;)
By: Sens
- 11th November 2004 at 00:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TJ: Do you maintain that 50 combat-capable aircraft were destroyed? Because if you think that then you need to do a lot more research. Out of the Mig-29's alone, only 9 out of 16 were flyable. The case with the older aircraft was even worse.
:cool:
It is and was much easier to keep those "old" MiG-21s and Galebs flying. A lot of spare parts, experienced personal for that a.s.o. So those readiness rate was much higher. :)
From recce data you can not find out which one is in flying or better fighting condition. The mechanic and the pilot in the cockpit can tell only.
So you have 16 MiG-29, all servicable to bring that up to flying or fighting conditions. Practical no more of 9 of them, but which ones? No outsider know for shure and we have to claim all 16 at hand to be on the safe side.
It is/was not the problem of the NATO to find out which ones.
It showed the crime of Milocevics, when sending his military forces into a shooting war with equipment not full combat ready. He lost and is now at trial. The idiot refusing the European silver tablet offer from Paris and could have still be in office. :diablo: Personally I am not sad about that.
The outcome of the military conflict is not in question. When the fatality and loss rate is lower then estimateted really, I am happy that harm was limited by that.
:)
New
Posts: 29
By: mwolf
- 11th November 2004 at 14:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only one quetion, can You use spare parts form not servisable plane to onother plane when all resures from both planes were long gone ?.
I do not think so.
That is like I put in car used oil who is declared 10000 miles from another same car who already has 12000 miles behind him. but I know I had to change it when was at 7000 miles. :rolleyes:
By: Sens
- 11th November 2004 at 16:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only one quetion, can You use spare parts form not servisable plane to onother plane when all resures from both planes were long gone ?.
I do not think so.
That is like I put in car used oil who is declared 10000 miles from another same car who already has 12000 miles behind him. but I know I had to change it when was at 7000 miles. :rolleyes:
:)
That is what someone does in case of war exactly. Just to survive the critical moment first.
Do you remember the condition of those two MiG-29s shot down? ;)
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 9th November 2004 at 13:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly. More planes weren't lost. As in the Serb who claimed 47 were downed was lying through his teeth. Making his claim of 13 tanks that much more dubious.
Posts: 29
By: mwolf - 9th November 2004 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think You better read all my post before you post anything. did I ever say something about tornade or Harrier?
I do't think so :mad:
Posts: 29
By: mwolf - 9th November 2004 at 14:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
History is written by the victorius side
isn't it?
let's resume all this tread
1. I show some pictures of some downed f117, f16 and other spy planes to share with this cominity becouse I thing they can not go to aviation museum in Belgrade at see it for them self.
2.Armada of western people were hurt by it and attacked it
3.Yes I said it that I think that in not so near future soeone from Nato will say that it was 1 or 2 or some piece more (i Did not specife how much) planes were damaged and could not be reparied, and as that will be counted as downed of course.
4.And then the tread trasformed into what? nothing that we wanted to be.
5.Ofcourse this tread will end someday :confused:
6.
7.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 9th November 2004 at 15:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would say the claims about destroyed tanks are more on NATO side than on Yugo.. It is virtually impossible to tell an Mk84 from a wooden mock-up equipped with smoke generator from an aircraft roaring at 500-600mph at low attitude when concentrating on the weapon system to release your load in the right moment. So after each day of combat you get dozens of pilots swearing they hit the bloody tank, but those are more likely mistaken than lying.. Let's stay objective..
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 9th November 2004 at 15:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, but the article he is using was getting it's data from a Serbian General, not NATO...
"Evans's source for the 13 tanks can be traced to Serbia's 3rd Army commander, Lt. Gen. Nebojsa Pavkovic, who made the claim on June 16. But, as Clark pointed out in his Sept. 16 press conference, Pavkovic also claimed that Yugoslav air defense units shot down 47 NATO airplanes and four helicopters."
See?
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 9th November 2004 at 15:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You misunderstood.. I am comparing the two stories where NATO claims 120 tanks, 220 armored personnel carriers, and 450 artillery pieces while Pavkovic claims 13 tanks. Yes, we can expect that the Pavkovic's story is *colorized* but NATO numbers look even more unreal. And there is a good reason to believe that many of the claims were infact the mentioned mock-ups...
Posts: 724
By: TJ - 9th November 2004 at 18:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How can destroying mock ups and decoys be considered making up claims? The decoys altered the BDA figures. In some cases UAVs caught damaged AFVs being removed on low-loaders. In any case the Yugoslavs declared the following:
The Yugoslavs admitted to losing the following after rejoining the accords in 1999 post conflict:
18 (eighteen) MBT
136 (one hundred and thirty six) AFV
50 (fifty) fixed wing combat aircraft.
(This included the 11 MiG-29s lost to all causes. The MiG-21 fleet suffered the worst loss by type)
11 (eleven) combat helicopters
The following are snippets from 2001 interviews highlighting Yugoslav Air
Force losses:
"General Pavkovic believes the Yugoslav military was successful overall
because it suffered relatively few casualties and managed to hold on to many
of its weapons systems. The lone exception, he said, was the Yugoslav air
force, which "suffered considerable losses."
Yugoslav air force Col. Radovan Rakovic:
"All our airports on the ground suffered great damage," Rakovic said.
The Yugoslav air force, he said, lost about 30 percent of its combat
equipment and 40 percent of its combat systems.
TJ
Posts: 245
By: Billy Bishop - 10th November 2004 at 14:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
SOC: I know the claim comes from a Serb general, but it has been verified by inspectors. The Serbs had ~250 M-84's prior to Allied Force. They declared ~230 after rejoining the Dayton accords, and they've been counted by the inspectors. Therefore it is impossible that they lost more than ~20. Is there any part of this you don't understand?
TJ: Your list makes NATO's campaign look more impressive than it really was because you are not allowing for the consideration that most of those "losses" were never combat capable in teh first place. For example, out of those 50 airplanes, how many do you think were actually in good condition? I would be willing to bet more than half of them were old relics like Mig-21F's delivered way back in the 1960's or something even older than that, and were not even flyable and were purposely placed out in the open to divert attention away from more important targets. Should those be counted as losses? A loss is when a capable piece of equipment is rendered incapable. If it was never capable in the first place, it does not deserve to be counted as a loss. NATO destroyed a lot of really old junk that was worth less than the missiles that destroyed it, but the amount of useful targets they destroyed were considerably lower.
Posts: 12,009
By: SOC - 10th November 2004 at 14:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Go back and read the whole article
http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2000/0700kosovo.asp
If you read the entire thing and still believe Newsweek and the Serb General, I have a few bridges and a pyramid I'm looking to sell.
Posts: 29
By: mwolf - 10th November 2004 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
read it and decide for yourself
http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990507natolosses.php
http://kosovo99.tripod.com/nato3.htm
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1999m05.c/msg00164.htm
http://kosovo99.tripod.com/nato1.htm
http://kosovo99.tripod.com/nato2.htm
http://www.combat-online.com/serb.htm
http://www.basicint.org/europe/NATO/99summit/10-1.htm
http://www.warfacts.org.yu/tourofduty/
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 10th November 2004 at 16:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:cool:
Not looking into the text alone. The layout of such site and the links are eye-openers. :D
Posts: 95
By: Dimitri Hackx - 10th November 2004 at 19:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
VERY fascinating. But still not a single picture of any claim made. I especially liked the last url where they stated they got the information from unofiicial sources (just above the red march 24).
Posts: 724
By: TJ - 10th November 2004 at 20:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 83rd Regiment based in Kosovo suffered the highest losses in it's MiG-21 fleet. Approx 24 Fishbed L/N of the Yugoslav fleet were lost on the
ground. The 50 combat aircraft losses do not include any of the ex-Iraqi Fishbed and Flogger airframes based at Batajnica nor any in the pen next to the Aeronautical Museum. Attacks on Podgorica accounted for a large number of the declared light attack combat types destroyed. Apparently the blast doors were insecure resulting in declared combat capable light attack aircraft being destroyed. The Yugoslavs were not counting any of their retired aircraft pushed out as decoys.
TJ
Posts: 724
By: TJ - 10th November 2004 at 20:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mwolf,
Now you are just getting silly!
"A Yugoslav Army unit ambushed a squad climbing a ravine south of Pristina, killing 20 men. When the black tape was taken from their dog-tags it was found that 12 were US Green Berets; eight were British special forces (presumably Special Air Service/SAS). This incident apparently occurred within a week or so of the bombing campaign launch.
It is known that other US and other NATO casualties have, on some occasions, been retrieved by NATO forces after being hit inside Yugoslavia. At least 30 bodies of US servicemen have been processed through Athens, after being transported from the combat zone. "
"Decide for yourself?"
Please get real here!
TJ
Posts: 29
By: mwolf - 10th November 2004 at 20:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Did I wrote that
I did not
so
I could not be responsible for it :)
ah Yes, if that were trye during the war this will be exelent propaanda material as downed f117 were, isn't it?
but as I see TJ and dimitri still is flamable as gasoline :rolleyes:
Posts: 245
By: Billy Bishop - 10th November 2004 at 21:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TJ: Do you maintain that 50 combat-capable aircraft were destroyed? Because if you think that then you need to do a lot more research. Out of the Mig-29's alone, only 9 out of 16 were flyable. The case with the older aircraft was even worse.
Posts: 95
By: Dimitri Hackx - 10th November 2004 at 22:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, yes, I'm guilty... Again... I don't believe TJ mentioned you as the author of the crap on the url's you posted. I still cannot understand that people believe this stuff as even the owners of these sites can't prove anything apart from some official and unofficial "quotes" (you have to admit: even the "official NATO-losses" are not backed up by a scanned copy of the original document). Now, I don't say that NATO never overclaimed their victories, but what I see and read on these sites/url's is too funny to be true (which I do not mind cause I love to laugh too). So, if these were jokes: good find. If not: sad, very sad. ;)
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 11th November 2004 at 00:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:cool:
It is and was much easier to keep those "old" MiG-21s and Galebs flying. A lot of spare parts, experienced personal for that a.s.o. So those readiness rate was much higher. :)
From recce data you can not find out which one is in flying or better fighting condition. The mechanic and the pilot in the cockpit can tell only.
So you have 16 MiG-29, all servicable to bring that up to flying or fighting conditions. Practical no more of 9 of them, but which ones? No outsider know for shure and we have to claim all 16 at hand to be on the safe side.
It is/was not the problem of the NATO to find out which ones.
It showed the crime of Milocevics, when sending his military forces into a shooting war with equipment not full combat ready. He lost and is now at trial. The idiot refusing the European silver tablet offer from Paris and could have still be in office. :diablo: Personally I am not sad about that.
The outcome of the military conflict is not in question. When the fatality and loss rate is lower then estimateted really, I am happy that harm was limited by that.
:)
Posts: 29
By: mwolf - 11th November 2004 at 14:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only one quetion, can You use spare parts form not servisable plane to onother plane when all resures from both planes were long gone ?.
I do not think so.
That is like I put in car used oil who is declared 10000 miles from another same car who already has 12000 miles behind him. but I know I had to change it when was at 7000 miles. :rolleyes:
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 11th November 2004 at 16:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:)
That is what someone does in case of war exactly. Just to survive the critical moment first.
Do you remember the condition of those two MiG-29s shot down? ;)