Soviet Claim 1967

James G

Gone Fishin'
Post Gulf War 1991 they tried the same thing in allowing the monkey-model theory about their weaponry to go further than any sensible should have believed it to be. The gear they gave Iraq wasn't the best but not the worst either.
 
IIRC, there's a few issues that complicate matters. First, ironically, the Israeli's actually used Soviet tactics involving surprise, maneuver and deep strikes while Arab tactics were more akin to the West. Second, leadership and training matters, quite a bit. Arab armies have never really shown themselves to be effective at either outside of isolated circumstances. So, I cant validate these statements but they dont seem entirely wrong either.
 
Is it possible that Soviet aircraft and weapons were simply so inferior that it is not even hypothetically realistic for them to have given significant resistance to western designs? If the monkey model was true with respect to weapons systems, I can see that making a dramatic difference. Even so, I would think that at least some kills could be made with AA missiles if they could even occasionally get more than a couple planes in the air at one time against an enemy that was not massed against them in huge numbers or launching a surprise attack. If it was mainly the equipment's inferiority to the point that swapping machines would have produced opposite outcomes in the war, then I have never heard explanations as to what exactly it was about the design and weaponry itself that would give pilots of western designs such extreme domination in the skies. Really, the whole thing has never added up for me.
 
Last edited:
Post Gulf War 1991 they tried the same thing in allowing the monkey-model theory about their weaponry to go further than any sensible should have believed it to be. The gear they gave Iraq wasn't the best but not the worst either.

I read M-1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural. The former was overwhelmingly superior; its front armor was impenetrable to Iraqi rounds. Zaloga said that better ammo would've helped but the main problem was lack of hits. T-72M fire control was a generation behind.
Btw some of the vids I've seen about '91 armored combat, and a book I read about the Korsun-Cherkassy battle in '44, gave me the impression that Soviet trained forces can be pathetically passive, not shooting back even when the enemy is shooting right under their nose.
 
IIRC, there's a few issues that complicate matters. First, ironically, the Israeli's actually used Soviet tactics involving surprise, maneuver and deep strikes while Arab tactics were more akin to the West. Second, leadership and training matters, quite a bit.

Based on what I've read, leadership was the arabs's real achilles heel. Pollack emphasized the ineptitude of tactical leadership. I suggest strategic leadership was abysmal and that was decisive.
 
Is it possible that Soviet aircraft and weapons were simply so inferior that it is not even hypothetically realistic for them to have given significant resistance to western designs? If the monkey model was true with respect to weapons systems, I can see that making a dramatic difference. Even so, I would think that at least some kills could be made with AA missiles

At least one kill was made with an air to air missile in '67. Still the MIG-21 had serious drawbacks like limited endurance and generally ineffective weapons.


If it was mainly the equipment's inferiority to the point that swapping machines would have produced opposite outcomes in the war, then I have never heard explanations as to what exactly it was about the design and weaponry itself that would give pilots of western designs such extreme domination in the skies. Really, the whole thing has never added up for me.

Much equipment left a lot to be desired. But that was far from the worst problem.
 
At least one kill was made with an air to air missile in '67. Still the MIG-21 had serious drawbacks like limited endurance and generally ineffective weapons.




Much equipment left a lot to be desired. But that was far from the worst problem.
Would you happen to know a bit more about what was ineffective about the missiles and how ineffective were they in a technical sense? I've tried to find information about this but have had little luck.
 
Last edited:
Would you happen to know a bit more about what was ineffective about the missiles and how ineffective were they in a technical sense? I've tried to find information about this but have had little luck.

From what I've read the Atoll missile often broke its lock (an old issue of AW&ST says Egyptian pilots often couldn't get it to lock on in the first place) had only a 15% of killing a plane.
 
Top