المشرف: التوبوليف العراقية
- Field Marshal - Muheeb
- مشاركات: 3087
- اشترك في: الأربعاء أكتوبر 06, 2010 10:21 pm
- مكان: Europe
نعم الى الان لم تشطب هذه الدول الديون ...وشطبتها روسيا وفرنسا والكثير من الدول الاخرى في مؤتمر باريسhayder كتب:correction. the money from saudi and kuwait was not aid. it was a loan, and it has been collecting interest for the last 30 years. they refuse to write it off, unlike countries like czech, china and korea who wrote off iraq's debt from the war...
نعم انا اعتقد انها فكرة ممتازة لتوثيق الاحداث ومالنا وماعليلنا لتكون ارشيفاً...ونرفقه بالويكيبيديا..Hawkeye كتب:أتمنه من كل الاخوه المشاركين ومن العملين على هذ الموقع ان يتم انشاء جدول منسق بتواريخ والارقام والاعداد والاسماء للخسائر الجوية (سواء التي اسقطت بدفاعات الجوية او التي اسقطت بالقتال الجوي) وذالك بسبب غياب الرقيب وكثرة المواقع على الانترنت و تزيف الحقائق بعد حرب احتلال العراق وفقدان الوثائق هنالك من يقوم بتغير الارقام وتزييف الحقائق على مواقع مشهوره مثل الموسوعة العالمية الحره وعلى اسا هذه الارقام و المعلومات المنشوره هنالك من يبني تقري او صوره تعكس حاله مخالفه لواقع القوة الجوية العراقية وطياريه الشجعان وكل منتسبي قواتنه المسلحة البطلة.. فا ارجو من كل الاخوة الاعزاء وكل المشتركين ان يعطو ولو جزاء بسيط من وقتهم لانشاء و اتمام هذ الجدول بشكل رسمي وبللغة الانكليزية متقنه ليتم تعديل ما نشر على الموسوعة العالمية (خدماتناً و حترماً وعرفانً بتضحيات شهدائنا الابرار) الذين قدمو الغالي ونفيس لحماية ارض العراق وشعب العراق ولولا تضحياتهم لما كنا اليوم متعلمين احرار لكنا نتكلم الفارسية ..
At least when it comes to Iraqi sources, I have heard very similar figures for number of IrAF aircraft lost to AIM-54s, usually ranging 'anywhere' between 8 and 20.raaft كتب:اذا كان عدد الطائرات العراقية التي سقطت بالقتال الجوي مع الايرانيين تبلغ 234 طائرة والتي سقطت بالدفاعات اكثر من هذا الرقم فكم يبلغ عدد طائرا ت
كان طيارينا ابطال بمعنى الكلمة واسسقطو اعداد كبيرة من الطائرات الايرانية بالاشتباكات الجوية بالاضافة الى عمليات القصف داخل الاجواء الايرانية بعمليات الارضاع الجوي ومنها ضرب محطة كهرباء نكا قرب الاتحاد السوفييتي بواسطة طائرات الميراج وطائرة الارضاع الجوي اليوشن76 حيث تم ارضاع الطائرات 3 مرات في الاجواء الايرانية بدون اي تدخل من اي طائرة ايرانية وجرت هذه العملية نهاية عام 86
وهناك عمليات كثيرة واشتباكات كثيرة لايتسنى لي الوقت لكتابتها
The problem is this: the aircraft the IrAF considered as 'confirmed' shot down by AIM-54s (i.e. IRIAF F-14s) were the best the IrAF has had back then, including Tu-22B bombers, MiG-25RBs, and especially Mirage F.1EQs. So, if we 'believe' the number of, say, 8-14 IrAF aircraft as 'indeed' shot down by F-14/AIM-54s, then this is prompting the question: how comes 'exactly' and 'only' the best Iraqi aircraft were shot down by Tomcats and their Phoenix missiles?
And especially: how comes this should have been the case, when most of claims for IrAF aircraft shot down by F-14s/AIM-54s come from the times when there were no operational MiG-25s nor Mirages in Iraq, namely from period 1980-1982?
I'll be frank: no serious person can provide a valid answer to this question.
The reason this is impossible is that in most of cases where its aircraft were shot down by F-14s/AIM-54s, the IrAF never knew what hit them. The reason for this was the poor equipment of the aircraft in question. Older types, such like MiG-21s, Su-20s and early Su-22-marks, MiG-23BNs, but even early variants of Mirage F.1EQ and Super Etendards, were equipped with obsolete RWRs. The RWR stands for 'radar warning receiver': this is a device that is warning the pilot that his aircraft is observed by enemy radars. Furthermore: more advanced RWRs can show the type of threat, direction from which this threat is coming, and also the kind of threat.
Now, Soviet RWRs on Iraqi MiGs and Sukhois could at best show the direction of the threat. Those on late-marks of MiG-23s, on MiG-25s and MiG-29s, as well as on Su-22M-4Ks could also show the type of the threat. Something similar could be said about RWRs installed on early Mirages (variants F.1EQ and F.1EQ-2) and Super Etendards. But, those on older types couldn't.
Much more than this: the AWG-9 had such a brute emitting power (its peak emitting power is manifold that of the Smerch A2 on MiG-25), that it was saturating RWRs of Iraqi aircraft. It would completely confuse them, making them unable to show the direction and type of the threat (this was rather 'by accident' than by design).
Furthermore, the Iranian F-14s and F-4Es were equipped with so-called 'enemy IFF-interrogators'. As I guess you all know, every aircraft has an IFF-tranponder (not only combat aircraft but passengers airliners too). This is particularly important for combat aircraft, and then especially for combat aircraft operating in such an environment like the Iraqi aircraft operated: environment that is covered by SAMs and AAA too. Then, the IFF-transponders enable own SAM- and AAA-gunners to identify their own from foreign aircraft (of course, it helps also own pilots identify own from enemy aircraft), and thus is preventing them from shooting at own aircraft. The point about these IFF-interrogators installed on Iranian aircraft was: they could prompt a response from IFf-transponders installed on Iraqi aircraft. This meant, simply described: with help of such equipment the Iranian F-14 and F-4 could detect Iraqi fighters even without detecting them with radar. And since they could do so without any kind of emission, dozens of Iraqi pilots never knew they were detected (often from ranges well beyond 70-80km).
Finally: the AIM-54 did not fly like all the other air-to-air missile of its time, namely 'straight'. Upon launch, it would start to climb and accelerate. The longer the range to target was, the higher it would climb. Once it climbed to its peak altitude, its motor would cease burning and the missile would 'coast' towards its target at a higher speed than Mach 4. Because its motor stopped burning (except the range was less than 50km), there would be no 'white smoketrail' revealing its presence to the enemy pilots. And, it was 'diving' on its target, meaning that it would approach from above - which was something nobody expected back then (and: without knowing where to look for, the Iraqi pilots were thus unlikely to see them in time so to maneuvre to evade).
Now, put this all into a combination: Iraqi pilots were detected without knowing they were detected; they were tracked by radars that were making their RWRs useles; and targeted by extremely fast missiles which did not reveal their presence and approached from unexpected angles.
Is it surprising then that the IrAF never knew what exactly happened to so many of its pilots and aircraft?
Not the least. There are dozens of cases where the Iraqis simply never knew why some plane failed to return. Or if they ever saw anything 'suspect', then it was entirely confusing. Take the case of the Super Etendard shot down in 1984: the lead's plane 'simply blew up' while flying along the Saudi coast. The young wingman and his superiors later concluded they must have been shot down by the Saudis. But, the Saudis would never come to the idea to attack any of Iraqi aircraft passing by their coast. What happened then: the RWR of the Super Etendard was confused by the AWG-9 and showed an entirely wrong threat direction. Correspondingly, the pilot looked in the wrong direction and never saw the AIM-54 that hit him...
Or take another case: two Mirages bombing Sirri Island (guess I need not explaining how deep is that within the Persian Gulf). While pulling away from their target, their pilots saw the Iranians firing a number of SA-7s at them. Correspondingly, pilots deployed flares. All of a sudden: 'boom', one Mirage is blown away...
What happened: they deployed flares to decoy SA-7s, but no chaff to decoy AIM-54s, because their RWRs failed to properly recognize the threat and under the stress of combat pilots could not understand they are under an attack from F-14s. Still, because the surviving pilot saw only SA-7s, the IrAF concluded that one of these did hit after all - even though no SA-7 can cause such damage to the Mirage, as to 'blow it up', with only one hit...
Having said that: this is not to diminish the courage or success of Iraqi pilots. One needs 'guts' to fly in face of such a threat. Or, alternatively: one needs only to be convinced by his own intelligence about 'non-functional' Iranian F-14s - which is what seems to have been the case with the IrAF. 'Somebody' there in Baghdad appears to have done exactly that: he told the IrAF that the IRIAF F-14s are 'non operational'. And the IrAF believed this without any dispute. And thus a 'legend' was born, pilots happy and everything 'OK' - even though it was not, and although so many pilots failed to return from their missions 'for unknown reasons', and despite the fact that nobody less than Saddam Hussein (personally) became involved in clandestine, combined diplomatic-intelligence operations to force Tehran to curb its F-14-operations (and although the IrAF paid more than US$1 Billion to France to develop an RWR capable of timely detecting emissions from the AWG-9 radar of the F-14).
Ask yourself: why doing all of that - if F-14s were as 'ineffective' and 'inoperational'?
Instead, one was boasting about such missions like hitting the NCAA power station, or the Rey oil refinery in Tehran, or Sirri terminal, or port of Bandar-e-Khomeyni, or dropping bombs from the loading ramp of an Il-76 - over a country the air force of which has withdrawn from fighting for air superiority over the battlefield, and instead concentrated on protection of three 'neuralgic' zones (Tehran, Esfahan and Khark) - zones where the IrAF next to never ventured after 1986.
Of course, one can discuss to the length whether the IRIAF's withdrawal from the skies over the battlefield in 1983 was a 'defeat' or rather 'concentrating on important tasks', and 'succumbing to the pressure from the IRGC' - which was insisting on ground-based missiles and air defences (a 'trend' in Iran which we can see until this very day). But be sincere to yourself: should this mean that anybody there 'won' the war?
I'm sorry, but I really doubt anybody really 'won' this war.
i read all iranian articles about the war and its full of layers
iran win 4 battles in the war
first in 29-11-1981
second in 21-3-1982
third in 25-5-1982
fourth in 9-2-1986
and lose all battles in the war
i was soldier in the war and i look for every events
and ask soldiers and officer about what they saw
- 2nd Lieutenant - Molazim Thani
- مشاركات: 371
- اشترك في: الأحد أكتوبر 02, 2011 9:47 pm
اسقط الكثير من طائرات ف-14 خلال الحرب وانا ااعرف شخصيا طيارين اثنين اسقطو ف-14 احدهم بطائرة ميراج ف-1 والثاني بطائرة ميك-23 ام الابو حسين العراقي كتب:ليس من باب الدفاع عن قدرات الطيارون الايرانيين ولكن لانصاف امكانيات التومكات وهي طائرة سيادة جوية و معدة لمواجهة الاتحاد السوفيتي اعتقد من باب الاحتمالات ان التومكات اسقطت في الحرب بسبب التسليح الضعيف او بعد انتهاء الطائرات من تنفيذ واجب
The problem is you're dependent on one source from one side to build your information and give it a great importance to your opinion of that war,a lot of inaccuracies and exaggeration from Iranian side note it is very clear overstatement and you don't need to reliance on itas source information,but still take focus of attention and make you wondering,In the end you're bit confusing for this reason,both of us knows very well the AIM-54C phoenix Air to air missile has poor kill ratio record a scored in Gulf war one Iraq-Iran war and Gulf war II,so If you want to rel estimated each Iranian allegations then it will harm your work as well your reputation in the end so in the future i will not be surprised if i read one your website that "kidding story" of Iranian F-14 Tomcat who shot down a three Iraqi MiG-23 in one shot at night Note please at night even Tony Scott unable to directed this,so the Iranians contradict themselves because If our aircraft was not equipped with an alert devices from the threat, or even exist but Iraqis are not professional enough on how to use "is what Iranian aspires to say right ?" so how is that even possible to send our aircraft in deep combat mission during the night by MIG-23 early eighties !! honestly most Iranians stories remind me in world war two figures raise ridicule 234 in air to air combat, the Imam appeared in the sky in the form of light to guide him after disruption of navigation devices! pathetic allegations..With my respect for you Tom but here I'm talking about their claims " what i see on Iran TV "now they says "the IRGC' - which was insisting on ground-based missiles and air defences " wondering this number come from where the (234 Iraqi aircraft were shot down by dogfight) i really didn't know yet how many aircraft we lost thought SAM or AA GUN just another 234 is that ok ? if does so in total we lost 468 aircraft Iranian satisfied now ? but the inventory reports show that the Iraqi air force has more than 1587 aircraft between fixed and sweep wing at the end of 1988 Annual report on the status of the equipment and vehicles aircraft to the defense Ministry and defense Minister office, now how many aircraft we owned in the end ? I'll leave everything to you to know the truth..
anyway neither SA-7s or F-14 was shot down that Mirage on mission to Sirri Island because the tasks were limited to this island and the pilots who charcot in combat missions are the same repeatedly,the Super Etendard pilot Capt Rifai crash due low altitude No one was with him at all no wingman he was on training mission,i had his picture but not anymore.Iraqi air force was quite large and not many people know what happened In the future, try to ask the right person.
اخي الكريم خالد تئكدت من الفريق ركن علوان حول هذه الحادثة ( يقول )الطائرات لم تهرب الى سوريا أنما عادت من سوريا الى العراق في اوائل الثمنينيات قبل اندلاع الحرب العراقية الايرانية و توتر السياسي بين الحزبين الحكمين الطائرات كانت من نوع MiG-23MSs وعددها ثمانية كانت مكلفة بواجب للعمل على حماية الاجواء السورية في حالة تعرضها الى ضربة جوية من الكيان الصهيوني والمشاركة في اي عمل عسكري اذا ما نشب صراع) اما ما يخص اعداد الطائرات والخسائر في اوائل الحرب ( فيقول ) لم تكن هناك خسائر كبيرة لا بلارواح ولا بلمعدات الظربات الجوية الاولة للحرب شلت قدرات القوة الجوية الايرانية و اعطت امل كبير في الاستمرار في تنفيذ عمليات قتالية في داخل العمق الايراني ( وا يضيف ) حجم المشاركة الجوية وعدد الطلعات مقارنه بلخسائر كان شبه ضئيلة جداً (يقول حسب ما اذكر) كانت هناك الاف الطلعات الجوية القتالية في دخل الاراضي الايرانية شمال وسط جنوب على الجبة والعمق و بلكاد تسقط طائرة او طائرتين بفترا تتراوح ما بين 4 الى 5 اشهر.
- Field Marshal - Muheeb
- مشاركات: 3087
- اشترك في: الأربعاء أكتوبر 06, 2010 10:21 pm
- مكان: Europe
This is simply not truth. You never wrote any Kind of response to me in this regards, and I do not know why do you have to fantasise.Hawkeye كتب:Hey Hayder how is going !
In one day, I wrote a response to Tom Cooper on this site "i don't really remember on which thread exactly "but touched on the subject of Super Etendard at that time,When he claimed that the Iranians shot down at least three to four planes Iraqi Super Etendard by Iranians F-14
Furthermore, I never 'claimed' that 'three to four' Super Etendards were shot down by Iranian F-14s. So, I'm sorry, but unless you provide evidence of the opposite, this statement of yours is a lie.
...and this is pure nonsense, and now I'm really mad.hayder كتب:yes indeed... sadly the "iran iraq war in the air" book continues to be used to make fantastically fictional Claims...
What you call 'fanatically fictional' claims are three claims, two of which were confirmed. And a book published back in 2002 cannot 'continue to make use' of something: that book was published 11 years ago. It was never reprinted, and is not some sort of TV-show that's continuously aired. Once a book is published, that's it: if you're continuing to use it, and prefer to ignore subsequent publications, that's your problem alone.
Furthermore, if you can't read, or can't understand what you read, and prefer to disparage my work and offend me in the public, that's also your own problem. Not mine. So, please, kindly keep your own problems for yourself, and don't try to cure them by spreading lies about me in the public.
Namely, what 'I' (not only I but also my co-authors) have mentioned in different books (for example in 'Iranian F-14 Units in Combat' and in 'Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat') is that the IRIAF claimed a total of three Super Etendards as shot down, and that two of these claims are considered as 'confirmed'.
If you two would have read carefully enough, you would have found out that one of these three claims was not related to a Super Etendard: the actual target was a Mirage F.1EQ, which the Iranians thought was a Super Etendard. So, the claim is 'confirmed', but the plane shot down was a Mirage, not Super Etendard.
In the other two cases, one Super Etendard was shot down (not 'lost in some training accident') and one damaged. << That is what I said, and that's what I say until today.
And should you still wonder... The French have leased five Super Etendards to the IrAF. I'll now do something all of 'knowledgeable' people who have their 'blood boiling when they read my books' (like you two) can't do (how comes: if you know so much about Iraqi Super Etendards?). Namely, I'll tell you that these five aircraft used to wear French serials 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 and Iraqi serials 7445, 7446, 7447, 7448, and 7449. One of them was definitely NOT returned to France, not due to some 'training accident', but because it was shot down. The serial of the aircraft in question, plus closer circumstances of that loss, were published in one of more recent publications by one of my co-authors and me.
Now, before coming to the idea to declare my work for 'fanatically fictional', provide evidence you can read, first and foremost: in what publication was this 'detail' provided?
- Field Marshal - Muheeb
- مشاركات: 3087
- اشترك في: الأربعاء أكتوبر 06, 2010 10:21 pm
- مكان: Europe
and yes it is true that IIWIA was simply a collection of Iranian claims (which is not a bad thing per se, but is definitely not a "true" picture of the war)... now that Iraqi archives and old iraqi personel are coming out, more fiction regarding things like the "attack on H3" are coming to light as well as basic things like total combat missions flown vs losses which paint a picture of the air war very different to what is portrayed in IIWIA... not to mention the fact that in 1980 Iraq had 0 long range BVR capable fighters vs Iran's 300+ such aircraft... which performed very poorly considering the massive technological gap between the combatants! But that point is at no point ever mentioned in the books.... and that IMHO would show that older soviet fighters like the ones Iraq operated could take on more modern US fighters in the air as long as those were not operated by the US or one of its close allies (i.e. with RC135 / AWACS support).
Lets hope that more accurate works are published in the future regarding this quite important conflict. It isn't your fault that there was not much Iraqi information available back in 2002 and I do know you've done a lot of effort with Iraqi officers and archives post 2003 to improve coverage of the Iraqi perspectives... which is much appreciated by me and most of the board members here!
wrt to some of the anger at your older books, they are just angry because over the internet iranian fanboys are parading around with your book as "reference" for their achievements ;) hopefully as more iraqi perspectives reach the "ISBN number" this will slowly change.
Aha, and it does not contain any of Iraqi claims that were known at that time?hayder كتب:and yes it is true that IIWIA was simply a collection of Iranian claims (which is not a bad thing per se, but is definitely not a "true" picture of the war)...
Just for your information: even back as of 1998-2002, when that book was written, something like 300 Iraqi air-to-air claims used to be known. Including those for no less but 20 or so F-14 Tomcats. For example, it was known that the IrAF has got pilots who claimed 14 kills in the first two years of the war, only two of which were ever confirmed. But, you find it opportune to ignore this, because it suits you to declare that book for 'simply a collection of Iranian claims'?
Frankly speaking, Haider: what is 'coming out'?now that Iraqi archives and old iraqi personel are coming out...
The IrAF archives were destroyed. They do not exist since late 2002. That's a matter of fact. The Pentagon team has got few bits from private archives (I discussed this issue with them, first hand, so no need to explain me anything else), and has got much more time and opportunity (and the Pentagon didn't let me into Iraq when there was still enough to save), and our team has got some parts. The few documents and reports we've got in total are barelly scratching the surface, and it's certain that nobody got 'everything'. Not few of the documents in question are strongly contradictive, especially in regards of numbers. They are obviously based on poor methods of research, at least poor or incomplete statistics, and often on little more but myths.
Practically all of surviving ex-IrAF pilots and their relatives (regardless what degree) are as sillent as a grave. Unless one meets them personally, and has the opportunity to really 'press & milk' them, nothing is coming out but few blurred photos and videos. Well, sorry: I simply can't afford my travellign any more. I practically bankrupted myself searching for them.
And the internet is not making things any easier in this case. The few fading memories are rather of annecdotal quality, and have to be cross-examined 50 times in order to ascertain their validity. Curiously, most of people suddenly appearing on the internet, disappear before soon. And most of them can't even rember their C-in-Cs, not to talk about their units.
Is it 'better' in regards of photos? Should I now think it's 'great' that there are such things like that CD with photos taken during different MiG-25RB-missions in the 1980s and early 1990s, or the one with ATLIS-videos of various Mirage-attacks? You seriously think they are telling the 'full story'? Think for a while: what are they telling at all?
And, heaven: out of 12 CVs written by most distinguished IrAF pilots for Saddam in 2001-2002 period, only two ever became available. And even they have been lost, meanwhile.
Every single person that was ever making me grandiose promises like, 'I'm going to tell you how it was', 'I'm going to provide documentation', 'I'm going to bring my photos/send them to you'... and whatever else, all of them 'disappeared'.
The situation is rather such that state of research and knowledge about the history of the IrAF is now poorer than that of research and knowledge about the Egyptian and Syrian air forces. Mind this: 12-14 years ago, it was the other way around.
Do you have an idea what I had to do in order to reconstruct the history of the IrAF in 1958-1973 period? Could I rely on anybody's recollections? Could I make use of any Iraqi documents?
No. Farzad had to work himself for two weeks through the British archives, our Czech co-worker (you'll see the results of his work in Arab MiGs Volume 4, due out in two months) has to work himself through Czechoslovak archives since more than a year, and I have to work myself through all the other possible archives and other sources of reference.
Do you think it would be any different in regards of the IrAF history for subsequent periods?
If your answer is positive, you're victim of your own illusions.
So, that's 'fiction'? Perhaps even 'science fiction'? It's a 'fiction' that the IRIAF flew a formation of two B747s and eight F-4E Phantoms over all of northern and western Iraq and attacked all three airfields of the H-3 complex - and that the IrAF did nothing to stop that operation? The Iranian aircraft were 'all stealth fighters'? Or they 'didn't matter'? Or what is your explanation?...more fiction regarding things like the "attack on H3"
And how many official IrAF documents about the damage caused by this attack can you show? 1? 5? 30? Or none at all?
Is that my problem? Did I fail to buy such fighters?...not to mention the fact that in 1980 Iraq had 0 long range BVR capable fighters vs Iran's 300+ such aircraft...
Did I order the IrAF to attack Iran?...which performed very poorly considering the massive technological gap between the combatants!
'No', it's 'not mentioned'. There is 'just' a two-pages-long IrAF ORBAT making it clear what kind of fighters were operated by what air force...But that point is at no point ever mentioned in the books...
...with tragic consequences, without doubt....and that IMHO would show that older soviet fighters like the ones Iraq operated could take on more modern US fighters in the air as long as those were not operated by the US or one of its close allies (i.e. with RC135 / AWACS support).
But never mind. It's also a 'well known fact' (well, at least in Iraq), that 'not a single bomb dropped by Iranian fighter-bombers' has ever hit any target. So also it is a 'well-known fact' that no IrAF fighter was ever shot down in air combat with Iranians, that the IrAF 'swept the skies clear of the IRIAF', etc.
'Strangely' enough, there are photos of wreckage of Iraqi MiG-25s shot down and thus lost (like the one shot down over Arak), but such losses are never mentioned in any of documents that surfaced in recent years... and a MiG-25 written off because it was first damaged by an AIM-54A and then hit by 20mm cannon fire from an F-5E is also not mentioned. 'Somebody' (you and me know who), has 'inspected' that MiG-25... and later said to us he has found only 'very little damage'. But the plane was written off? And this write-off was not recorded as any sort of combat loss...? But, the documents are 'complete', huh? ....and all the ex-IrAF pilots one can ask are still sternously convinced Iranian F-14s could't fire AIM-7s and AIM-54s, and were inoperational, practically 'non-existing' during the entire war... and this because their (the IrAF) 'Intelligence' told them so... and this Intelligence based that assessment on the 'facts' provided by Reza Moradi, an Iranian defector...and 'Intelligence is always right'...even though when using information from a source as 'irreliable as defectors are, as everybody knows' (I'm just citing various Iraqis I interviewed over the last 20 years).
Shall I go on?
Hayer, seriously: you still think these few documents are complete and providing a 'definite picture'?
Man, if you do so, then you also believe Tehran's latest set of 'conclusions about lessons from air warfare during Iran-Iraq War' - which 'decided' that the IRIAF never shot down any Iraqi MiG-25, but the IRGC did so... and this at the time and place where there were no IRGC at all...
Oh, but sure. We can hope about this as long as we like. 'Inshallah' it's going to happen, right?Lets hope that more accurate works are published in the future...
I'm the least to brag or whatever else. As said above: I practically bankrupted myself researching about Arab air forces. But perhaps I'm really 'fanatical' in what I'm doing, and so I came to a crazy idea of establishing an own publisher that would publish such books. What do you think, how comes? I did so because I had nothing better to do?
Or would you come to the idea that there might be other reasons 'why'? Perhaps it is so that because if anybody would come to the idea to sit down and write a corresponding manuscript - nobody would publish it. You don't believe it? No problem. Do us both a favour: present yourself as an aspiring author of a manuscript of anything related to some 'Arab' air force, and try to offer it to any publisher. Then see what's going to happen and what kind of answers are you going to get.
And please: don't tell me I didn't tell you.
Thanks, but sorry - and without and disrespect (even though I've got so much disrespect from you now) - I have to correct you here: I don't think you have the slightest idea of how much effort was invested in every single of any publications I authored or co-authored....regarding this quite important conflict. It isn't your fault that there was not much Iraqi information available back in 2002 and I do know you've done a lot of effort with Iraqi officers and archives post 2003 to improve coverage of the Iraqi perspectives... which is much appreciated by me and most of the board members here!
Furthermore, I strongly doubt you have any trace of knowledge about publishing business, in general, and about many other things.
Thus, again: sorry, but you've lost me here.
If you're angered by somebody parading around with the first ever book I co-authored, then it's your own fault you can't 'hit back' - for example by one of our (I'm talking here about 'us' as the team in which several authors are working) more recent publications.wrt to some of the anger at your older books, they are just angry because over the internet iranian fanboys are parading around...
So, if you're out of counterargumentation, sorry, not my problem: they are available, but you're not using them.
1.) Aha - and oh, how very interesting.Hawkeye كتب:I am not fantasise,my words relied on what you have published,however response to what you said (You never wrote any Kind of response to me in this regards) you can check the date and the link below .
You know what: I never read that response. Even now you didn't post a link to it, but I first had to search for corresponding thread - based on its title.
2.) And since I have read it only now, I can also reply. And here I must conclude that having a photo of a pilot is no 'evidence' for anything else - but that he was photographed at some point in time. Like every other pilot of every other air force.
It's no evidence he crashed during training flight, and was not shot down in combat.
The only such evidence would be that pilot's log book, or the official IrAF report about 'that' accident (provided it was an accident).
And, from experience with other IrAF reports of such nature, this would then have to be cross-examined 'wide and far', simply in order to make sure, that the post-accident report was not filled by one of Saddam's crownies, who didn't want his boss to be coupped away by leading IrAF generals, mad about there being a clause in Super Etendard contract, that the French have to pay 'penalties' to Saddam (yup, straight into his pockets) for every of aircraft they have built and delivered to Iraq, if this would be shot down in combat with Iran.
Never heard of that? Oh, what a surprise...
Nope. And your own 'evidence' shows that I didn't - because it's not my problem if you can't differentiate between colours used on the old ACIG.org website.And you have said I never 'claimed' that 'three to four' Super Etendards were shot down by Iranian F-14s
The other website is not mine, so not my problem either.
And in what fashion is that related to the topic here?just loved to explain one more thing, The picture below not to Capt Salam, wasn't even Iraqi pilot, this guy one of the U.S. coach came to Iraq after 2006.
By all respect due, Raaft (anybody who ever served in regular military has my respect), the outcome of the war was a draw.raaft كتب:my friend TOM iran lose the war in the air and in the ground
Yup, on the ground the Iranians 'won' only 'few' battles, the Iraqis 'won' few more.
But, to understand why it was a draw, you ought to look at the backgrounds of this conflict. Why was the war started, and who started it?
Let's start from the 'minimalistic' notion usually represented by top Iraqi military officers, and say that Iran provoked the war by artillery attacks on Iraqi border posts (this is actually nonsense, considering utter chaos in the Iranian military as of the summer of 1980, but I don't want to offer you any opportunity to tell me I'm 'anti-Iraq', so I'm 'buying' this Iraqi excuse for attacking Iran), and Iraq counterattacked in response to such attacks. Correspondingly, the starting point would be that Iraq only wanted to do two things:
a) to push the Iranian artillery out of the range of Shatt al-Arab, and
b) secure entire Shatt al-Arab for Iraq (i.e. deny Iran the right of 'tawleg' border).
Well, sorry, but the war ended with Iranian artillery at exactly the same place it was in August-September 1980, and Iraq had to accept the tawleg border on Shatt al-Arab.
From that standpoint, Iraq did not achieve even its minimalistic aims. That means: it did not win. Iraq lost during the 1980-1982 phase, and its troops were kicked out of Iran. It stopped major Iranian offensives of 1983-1987 period, but inside Iraqi borders (see the loss of al-Faw). It counterattacked in 1988 and re-occuppied much of its land, but by far not all, and then primarily 'thanks' to extensive use of chemical weapons (or, do you prefer to ignore discussing this topic?). Furthermore, even as of 1988, Iraq couldn't hold more but few positions inside Iran. Eventually, Iraq - that was prospering and had foreign valuta reserves worth around US$20 billion in 1979 - ended the war broke and with US$80 billion of debt...
Obviously, Iran did not remove Saddam's regime (at least not in 1980-1988 War); it suffered heavier casualties in soldiers and civilians; it suffered more massive damage to its economy. However, despite starting the war with its society and military in a state of utter post-revolutionary chaos, it did not clearly lose. It 'only' failed to achieve its officially claimed aims - exactly like Iraq. So, it did not win the war either.
By all means of measurement, sorry, but that's a draw. Both sides have only lost.
(And again: keep in mind that this is an absolutely minimalistic approach to this agenda; I'm now not going to enter discussion about Saddam's aims like bringing Khomeyni's regime to collapse, 'liberating' Arabs of Khuzestan - who actually turned to fight against Iraqi invaders - securing oilfields of Khuzestan etc., etc., etc.; it's more than obvious that Iraq never came even close to achieve such aims.)
I have no doubts that Iraqis think that way.Hawkeye كتب:Undeniable Iraq won the war with Iran in the sky as well land and sea...
I don't want to spoil the party, but as explained above, reality is entirely different.
If we want to summarize the results of the air, ground, and sea warfare in 'few words', it's always a 'draw'. The IrAF caused much damage to the Iranian economy, but this was not enough to force Tehran to end the war. The IrAF did not 'win' the air war either: at best, each side caused similar losses to other side's fighter-bombers. The IrAF ended the war in better condition than the IRIAF, no doubt. But, it never established air superiority even over the battlefield. No matter how much Iraqis love to convince themselves of the contrary, the IrAF operations remained contested by the IRIAF until the last day of the war.
On the ground: see above.
And on the sea... oh my, this is where it looks really bad - for the Iraqi Navy. Eventually, it's only really successful operation was its participation in the liberation of al-Faw, in April 1988.
A classic Iraqi excuse to apologize a draw....or how do you explain a country like Iraq of this size maintained his territory with a country characterized by a very large geographical patch and a large human population like Iran...
That's like if you would argument that 'Iraq won the war because Saddam was still in power when the war ended'. It means nothing at all.
How much territory?...add to that announcement of Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Iranian territory in 15 of August 1990 which is means that Iraq was still occupies Iranian territory...
And an even better question: did Iran ever announce it's going to withdraw from Iraqi territory it occuppied during the war?
Hehe, but that's directly opposite to your own claim. Namely, Saddam - personally, and 'live' on TV - tore apart that agreement, declaring it null and void, in September 1980. He ordered the invasion of Iran with - between others - intention of securing the entire Shatt al-Arab for Iraq....plus Iraq announced a new initiative to resolve the Iraq-Iran conflict on the basis of the Algiers Agreement of 1975, which provides for the division of the Shatt al-Arab between the two countries...
Was Iraq in control of entire Shatt al-Arab in 1988? Is it in control of entire Shatt al-Arab today?
Well, if the answer is negative, then how can you then declare Iraq as 'victorious' - if it did not reach even this minimalistic aim of the war?
Error. You are dependent on only one source - which is Iraq.The problem is you're dependent on one source...
Contrary to you, I'm cross-examining data from both sides. I have nothing to lose, and no nationalist pride to fight for: I'm neither Iraqi nor Iranian.
...just like there are lots of inaccuracies and exaggeration from the Iraqi side. That's perfectly normal in war, nothing special. My job is to cross-examine Iranian and Iraqi inaccuracies and exaggeration, and find out what really happened. I've got nothing pro or contra either, Iran or Iraq. I only 'destile facts'....a lot of inaccuracies and exaggeration from Iranian side...
Of course, if one of the two parties in specific conflict is less approachable (like Iraq was, back in 1998-2002 period, when 'Iran-Iraq at War' was written), my account might appear 'biased' towards the other side. But, I do not see that as my problem: it's the problem of the side that is refusing to come out with information.
With other words: that's Iraqi, not my fault.
Another error.In the end you're bit confusing for this reason,both of us knows very well the AIM-54C phoenix Air to air missile has poor kill ratio record a scored in Gulf war one Iraq-Iran war and Gulf war II...
You THINK you know. I know the following:
1.) The AIM-54C was never deployed in combat during the Iran-Iraq War, or the 'I Persian Gulf War'.
2.) The first combat deployment of the AIM-54C was only during the 'II Persian Gulf War' (also known as the 'Gulf War' in the West, because in 1990-1991 the American media rapidly forgot that it was calling the 'Iran-Iraq War' the 'Persian Gulf War' all through the 1980s), but not a single round was fired during that conflict.
3.) The first time the AIM-54C was fired in anger ever, was in 1999, when two were fired by VF-31's F-14s against a pair of Iraqi MiG-23MLs. Both missiles missed, even though causing one of MiG-23MLs to crash: it run out of fuel while running away from the missile.
What I can only guess you're trying to talk about is the AIM-54A, i.e. its 'Iran export variant'. And that, dear Hawkeye, is an entirely different story. Then, in order to discuss this topic with me, you'll first have to come out with some 'hard' data. Namely, first of all I need to know, in your opinion:
- a) how comes we're now discussing this topic, when the official IrAF opinion during the war was that Iranian F-14s are inoperational and can't deploy AIM-54As in combat?
- b) how many AIM-54As were fired by the Iranians (despite the Iraqi opinion that Iranian F-14s were inoperational) and,
- b) how many Iraqi aircraft were shot down by Iranian AIM-54As (despite the Iraqi opinion that Iranian F-14s were inoperational)?
Kindly answer me these questions, then we can discuss this topic.
Oh, you can read it already now. It's described on one of our forum pages, and then to great extension.,so If you want to rel estimated each Iranian allegations then it will harm your work as well your reputation in the end so in the future i will not be surprised if i read one your website that "kidding story" of Iranian F-14 Tomcat who shot down a three Iraqi MiG-23 in one shot at night...
But, good you mentioned this topic: have you got an official IrAF post-mission report about the sortie that resulted in this clash? Have you got anything, any kind of document from the IrAF confirming/denying this claim?
Who is Tony Scott and why should he be relevant?... Note please at night even Tony Scott unable to directed this...
Aha. And I should now be 'guilty' of 'bias towards Iran' - precisely because you don't even know what's 'RWR' (for your information, that's short of 'Radar Warning Receiver'), not to talk about effects of AWG-9's emissions upon the Sirena-2 RWR?...so the Iranians contradict themselves because If our aircraft was not equipped with an alert devices from the threat, or even exist but Iraqis are not professional enough on how to use "is what Iranian aspires to say right ?" so how is that even possible to send our aircraft in deep combat mission during the night by MIG-23 early eighties !!
Really, no pun intended: but, do you understand that you're trying to discuss this topic from a hopelessly outclassed point of view?
Why should I care about the IRGC and Iranian TV?With my respect for you Tom but here I'm talking about their claims " what i see on Iran TV "now they says "the IRGC'...
I have no influence upon what they are babbling about. I can't even complain when they plagiarise my publications, cut out extensive parts of them (usually those critical of the regime in Tehran) and then implant some PRBS. So, why should I care about them?
So, the IrAF ended the war with 1,587 aircraft in service.but the inventory reports show that the Iraqi air force has more than 1587 aircraft between fixed and sweep wing at the end of 1988 Annual report on the status of the equipment and vehicles aircraft to the defense Ministry and defense Minister office, now how many aircraft we owned in the end ? I'll leave everything to you to know the truth..
How many aircraft has it got on the morning of 20 September 1980?
How many aircraft has it imported between 20 September 1980 and 19 July 1988?
What happened to the ballance of aircraft (and helicopters) - i.e. what's the figure you get when you calculate:
(number of aircraft on 20 September 1980) + (number of aircraft imported between 20 September 1980 and 19 July 1988)?
Do you get 1,587?
If not, what happened with all the planes and helicopters 'missing'?
I'm really sorry, no pun intended. But I have to laugh now....anyway neither SA-7s or F-14 was shot down that Mirage on mission to Sirri Island because the tasks were limited to this island and the pilots who charcot in combat missions are the same repeatedly,the Super Etendard pilot Capt Rifai crash due low altitude...
Can you provide original report about Rifai's supposed 'accident' (from 1984, if I recall this correctly)?
And what has this to do with attack on Sirri, which occurred in September 1987?
If you're talking about Sirri: the IrAF lost one of its Mirages there, officially to 'unknown' reasons. Unless you have the official post-mission briefing of the wingman (the only survivor of that mission), sorry, whatever you've got, it's not really matching his (wingman's) first-hand recollection (which I very much do have and which was published in the French-language two-part special volume of the Avions Magazine).
Furthermore, and even more so: it's not matching the first-hand recollection (confirmed by scan of his log-book) from the IRIAF F-14 pilot that was there - but about whom the Iraqi wingman had no clue about.
You know what pilots say about air-to-air warfare?
They say that the most dangerous opponent is not the best, most manoeuvreable, fastest, best-equipped and -armed enemy aircraft. The most dangerous is the enemy you haven't seen.
Now you're left to wonder: how comes?