rock45; the Russian equipment is often designed quite specifically for their concept of war, their operational and tactical concepts, their style of training and for their anticipated army strengths. The anti-air missiles for example were just a part of an overall air war system that involved a much more serious fighter component than the Arabs were able to launch. Their tanks were designed with typical Eastern bloc training and Cold War terrains (mostly Europe and PRC border) in mind - and happened to be ill-suited for open deserts and also happened to be employed without the necessary tactical proficiency by Syrians and Egyptians. Western equipment failed sometimes just as much when taken out of proper context - remember the loss of Sheffield, which was sunk (by in fact a Western missile) because it wasn't on a transatlantic convoy facing Bears and Badgers with their huge dive attack missiles, but in a picket position facing a very low altitude fighter-bomber/sea-skimmer threat. Or look at our counter-mortar radars which were rather disappointing in COIN due to their lack of all-round surveillance. They were designed for a kind of line battle in Germany or Korea, not for all-round base security.



The really remarkable thing about Iskander isn't its performance anyway. 100 kg less warhead, 150km less range, only monkey model accuracy - that wouldn't make much difference. It's remarkable and extremely interesting because it's an alternative to very demanding strike packages (at least against some target categories) that might work even against enemy air supremacy. Iskander is basically the only thing that really justifies the ATBM efforts, the concept is a really big deal.

Actually I can give you an example of a 3rd world country armed with American weapons handing a good whipping to another 3rd world country armed with Eastern Block weapons.
South Korea back in the 1960's was very much a 3rd world country and it sent troops to Vietnam armed with American hardware. South Korean troops were highly successful in that conflict.

E/O guidance is useful only in good weather and a big missle like that, can be easily spotted in good weather. Just as radar can be jammed, a GPS guided weapon is significantly harder to jam and all it takes to jam E/O guided weapons is to activate smoke screen.

Thanks for your input I'll research the Iskanderand more and see what more I can learn about it.

Their tanks were designed with typical Eastern bloc training and Cold War terrains (mostly Europe and PRC border) in mind

I agree with this in part for sure but also feel that Russia could have done better in weapons designs after 67/73 wars. The US learned a lot lessons from the Vietnam and the Middle East wars and carried this into future projects.

In these posts I feel that you assume the Russian can achieve the high standards of US weapons production and success the US has had if they chose to. I don't agree Russia's R&D isn't as good by a long shot, not even close and it makes a big difference.

Training and what goes into it is also very different I just get this impression that this is over looked by you as a almost non important factor. I get this feeling reading in between your words that if Russia needed to they could do that but chose not to, I don't agree. It took the US Armed Forces a fair amount time to learn the lessons from Vietnam and other situations and shape what is now US Armed Forces. This is not something that is just over looked quickly.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Actually I can give you an example of a 3rd world country armed with American weapons handing a good whipping to another 3rd world country armed with Eastern Block weapons.
South Korea back in the 1960's was very much a 3rd world country and it sent troops to Vietnam armed with American hardware. South Korean troops were highly successful in that conflict.

I didn't talk about 1st, 2nd and 3rd world, but 1st, 2nd and 3rd class.
The ROK's Marines' performance was coined by a dissimilar tactical situation including very one-sided logistical and support fires advantages. Furthermore, it would surprise me a lot if any professional would consider their armament as decisive.
Btw, that war was decisively lost by those who trusted in U.S. military equipment firepower (but that's another story).

"E/O guidance is useful only in good weather and a big missle like that, can be easily spotted in good weather. Just as radar can be jammed, a GPS guided weapon is significantly harder to jam and all it takes to jam E/O guided weapons is to activate smoke screen."

Well, quick-laying smoke projectors aren't exactly widely available, and the same 'smoke is an effective countermeasure' work the same or similarly against almost all precision-guided weapons in Western inventory. There's always a possible countermeasure - but quick smoke projectors for point targets up to 400km deep in the rear are certainly almost non-existing to date.

We should keep in mind that a vague "E/O" info doesn't really allow for certainty about the missile's terminal guidance. They could employ almost any terminal guidance, including Glonass, cm radar, mm radar, LADAR, IR, UV, b/w optical, LL optical, color optical and a mix of these.


The key is that this system could function without airfields, fighter patrols, wild weasels, EW planes, AEW and fighter-bombers in all operationally relevant depths. It's a low complexity low challenge approach.

Germany was firing V2's at the bridge of Remagen in 1945, but missed. Allied air supremacy made even inaccurate bomb runs of turbojet aircraft almost impossible.
Imagine they had had a single V2 batterry, no more than 30 men, with six missiles, ready to launch - and had destroyed the bridge.
All those AD assets and hundreds of patrolling fighter would have been technologically dislocated - circumvented. An enemy strength was partially de-valued.
This is the core of what the art of war is about; to defeat even superior enemies with smart moves.

A missile that renders all established air superiority and air defense assets irrelevant and requires a new response to be countered is a big deal.

No, armament in itself wasn't the biggest difference between the North Vietnamese and South Koreans in Vietnam, but you wanted one example and that is one example. The truth is, that whereas evidence that armies with Western weapons normally did rather well, evidence against Warsaw pact weapons is actually overwhelming.

Do you really think a simple smoke screen will save you from non E/O guided systems? You are badly mistaken. And the order in which these guidance systems work is somewhat baffling. So it's E/O, but only when it's so far away that except on a perfectly clear day and within line of sight (i.e. not too far over the horizon) and when it gets closer it switches to another guidance device? You're clearly joking.
You have to stop thinking about World War II stuff. The V2s had one advantage that ballistic missiles today don't: the world didn't have any SAM yet.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

No, armament in itself wasn't the biggest difference between the North Vietnamese and South Koreans in Vietnam, but you wanted one example and that is one example. The truth is, that whereas evidence that armies with Western weapons normally did rather well, evidence against Warsaw pact weapons is actually overwhelming.

Well, point me at where I asked for that, pls.
I actually already explained that Soviet style equipment was almost exclusively used by 3rd rate powers in combat (yes, this includes Iraq, which after all was tactically and operationally stuck in 1916).

Do you really think a simple smoke screen will save you from non E/O guided systems? You are badly mistaken.

The missile is only for a very short time in flight, it's in principle easy to keep up countermeasures for most seeker techs for such a short time.
Both chaff and special smoke can badly degrade most other possible guidance systems. SatNav would only be susceptible to jam and EMP, INS would be immune. Yes, there are countermeasures for almost all guidance technologies.
Btw, I would like to direct your attention to what I actually wrote: "...work the same or similarly against almost all...".
The standard case is that I mean what I write, and what I wrote does not allow the interpretation that "...think a simple smoke screen will save you from non E/O guided systems..." in the context.
I am well aware that most normal smoke does a poor job against thermal sensors and nothing against radar.

And the order in which these guidance systems work is somewhat baffling. So it's E/O, but only when it's so far away that except on a perfectly clear day and within line of sight (i.e. not too far over the horizon) and when it gets closer it switches to another guidance device? You're clearly joking.
You have to stop thinking about World War II stuff. The V2s had one advantage that ballistic missiles today don't: the world didn't have any SAM yet.

I am not joking, you use too much creative thinking when you interpreted my writing.
I did actually write (earlier) in detail the quasi-official chain of events and guidance involved.
The publicly known information doesn't give us certainty about the involved technology, though. The Russians could lie to the public with "E/O" and in fact use radar - that's easily possible as the terminal seeker is not part of the export version anyway.

The V2 example was obiously a scenario to explain relevance. Iskander isn't a munition for insurgency (although some TBMs were allegedly used in Chechnya), but for conventional warfare.
WW2 is still the prime and most scenario-rich episode of conventional war that we have.

Furthermore, I don't think that I need to stop thinking about WW2 - an event like that is the only one that could seriously hurt my nation. Great Power games as done since 1993 are not about serious threats. The scale for "seriousness in national defense affairs" goes right up to "80% destruction of our cities" and "becoming a nuclear wasteland by enemy and 'friendly' nukes" for Germans, you know? Terrorists aren't even scratching us.

Most modern SAMs aren't highly regarded against even outdated ballistic missiles, even the Scud kills by Patriot in '91 are under dispute.
PAC-3 and few other new long-range SAMs are being credited with the ability to intercept ballistic missiles - but there's no claim yet that this ability includes BMs that were designed to evade such an intercept by maneuvering and possible more countermeasures.
There's a reason why Rice freaked out about a possible Iskander sale to Syria and whya there's so much ongoing activity in the ATBM area.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

big truck...big launcher...if they launch it we can see it. if we can see it we can kill it. look into the israeli air campaign in lebanon 2006. the big rocket launchers were destroyed a few minutes after launch...

...and how you gonna kill it if tis 500 km away? air strike? fly in the range of Russian SAMs?

Looks kinda small. But I shouldn't say that lol. There's another missile called "Tople" that Russia has it's nuclear they actually bring them through the streets of Moscow during military ceremonies (disarmed of course.)

Originally Posted by Tovarish1

Looks kinda small. But I shouldn't say that lol. There's another missile called "Tople" that Russia has it's nuclear they actually bring them through the streets of Moscow during military ceremonies (disarmed of course.)

its actually Тополь - Topol'