Pictures of downed f117, f16... at NATO attack on Yugoslavia (Serbia and Monten.)1999

Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 12,009

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.
Profile picture for user mwolf

Member for

15 years

Posts: 29

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:
Profile picture for user mwolf

Member for

15 years

Posts: 29

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.
Profile picture for user flex297

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 10,217

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..
Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 12,009

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?
Profile picture for user flex297

Member for

16 years 3 months

Posts: 10,217

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...

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 724

If anyone wants an even bigger laugh then visit the following: http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2000/0700kosovo.asp 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

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 245

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.
Profile picture for user SOC

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 12,009

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.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 11,742

Member for

15 years 11 months

Posts: 95

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/
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).

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 724

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

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 724

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/
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
Profile picture for user mwolf

Member for

15 years

Posts: 29

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:

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 245

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.

Member for

15 years 11 months

Posts: 95

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. ;)

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 11,742

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. :)
Profile picture for user mwolf

Member for

15 years

Posts: 29

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:

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 11,742

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? ;)