Thread: Panavia Tornado

Originally Posted by kNikS

P.S. …Without incurring any friendly fatalities in combat. AT ALL? I mean, nobody has convinced you that your side didn’t lost that NIGHTHAWK, have they?

The pilot was recovered, was he not?

Regardless, any military requires a healthy civilian economy and infrastructure to run and hence 'civilian' targets will be bombed.

Not that that's necessarily more difficult than bombing military installations amd thus a more negative comment on the aircraft's capabilities.

Spare a thought for Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc...

Ultimately, the way to defend yourself against the United States or the Tornado is not to incur their wrath.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

The pilot was recovered, was he not?

You could say that those few captured marines were recovered too.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Regardless, any military requires a healthy civilian economy and infrastructure to run...

Healthy economy and civilian infrastructure? Here? There were no such things in country which was ten years under sanctions, wars, thousands of hundereds of refugees, record inflation rate… No, nothing healthy here. Nevertheless, the army was functioning properly.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

...and hence 'civilian' targets will be bombed.

Obviously.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Not that that's necessarily more difficult than bombing military installations amd thus a more negative comment on the aircraft's capabilities.

You are comparing a city block of Generall Staff buildings and tank formation in hilly area densely covered with vegetation.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Spare a thought for Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc...

You mean that I should be full of gratitude because Belgrade wasn’t leveled like Dresden? Or you consider Serbia equal to Hitler’s Germany?

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Ultimately, the way to defend yourself against the United States or the Tornado is not to incur their wrath.

True (except Tornados, of course ). If you read my posts in some other threads you could see that I always called that politics suicidal. But you should ask against whom that wraith was pointed. In this case that was very shortsighted action and full consequences are yet to feel. US supported separatists, terrorists, islamists, anarchists, war criminals, drugs, arms and people dealers… If you don’t believe me there are few threads with opinions of UNPROFOR and KFOR veterans here. Anyway, if you want to discuss political aspect I’m open for discussion.

Originally Posted by kNikS

You could say that those few captured marines were recovered too.

Bluesman's point still stands. No friendly fatalities.

Healthy economy and civilian infrastructure? Here? There were no such things in country which was ten years under sanctions, wars, thousands of hundereds of refugees, record inflation rate… No, nothing healthy here.

Bombing it makes it even more 'unhealthy'.

Nevertheless, the army was functioning properly.

Which is why not a single fatality was inflicted?

You are comparing a city block of Generall Staff buildings and tank formation in hilly area densely covered with vegetation.

I said military installation, not tank formation. I think 1991 demonstrated that strategic and tactical bombing aren't as effective for destroying those sorts of mobile enemy ground forces as much as CAS or your own ground forces are.

That may have changed with the introduction of the JDAM.

You mean that I should be full of gratitude because Belgrade wasn’t leveled like Dresden?

The West at least attempts to reduce civilian casualties, so yes.

Or you consider Serbia equal to Hitler’s Germany?

Certainly not on the same scale, no.

True (except Tornados, of course ).

A poor aircraft compared to the F-15E, indeed.

But you should ask against whom that wraith was pointed. In this case that was very shortsighted action and full consequences are yet to feel.

Serbia would have saved itself if there was no genocide and was a liberal democracy, which I don't think is a high moral standard to ask, but rather a basic characteristic of nations deserving of military immunity.

As far as I know, the genocide is no longer, not that the region doesn't continue to seethe with hatred, of course.

US supported separatists, terrorists, islamists, anarchists, war criminals, drugs, arms and people dealers…

Not that I agreed with many US actions, but consider that some of them are justified on the cost-benefit mindset of the Kirkpatrick doctrine and similar.

If you don’t believe me there are few threads with opinions of UNPROFOR and KFOR veterans here.

It's no secret that the US supports tyrannies around the world.

Whether it could realistically do better, however, is debatable; as the United States you could either support Pervez Musharraf, for example, a secular military dictator, or risk Pakistan's local theocracy taking over the national scene.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Bluesman's point still stands. No friendly fatalities.

So as mine. Army remained almost intact. But maybe you should take into account OVK/UCK/KLA casualties. They were mauled in a matter of days, together with their companions from Albania.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Bombing it makes it even more 'unhealthy'.

I remember that former Croatian Chief of Staff General Tus (we were the foes few years before that) commented capabilities of VJ under those conditions. I think that he mentioning the period of few years. So that wasn’t the problem, as it wasn’t the problem with other sides in other wars here. Low technology war.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Which is why not a single fatality was inflicted?

I already mentioned that we were aware of the fact that we couldn’t protect airspace and considering outdated weaponry, F-117A and F-16C were successes. Main goals of VJ was to save its capacities for eventual NATO land attack, destroy the terrorists groups operating in Kosovo and repel attacks of groups from Albania which were cooperating with some units of Albanian Army and were using their equipment. All of those tree tasks were accomplished.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

I said military installation, not tank formation. I think 1991 demonstrated that strategic and tactical bombing aren't as effective for destroying those sorts of mobile enemy ground forces as much as CAS or your own ground forces are.That may have changed with the introduction of the JDAM.

That is exactly the thing that is proving my point. NATO airpower operated without support of ground force and failed to cause serious damage to VJ. Considering the number of something more than 14 destroyed tanks, CAS or JDAM didn’t change the situation significantly. Here:

Furthermore, the effectiveness of airpower against tactical targets has been grossly overrated. Experience in Desert Storm and Kosovo showed decisively that fixed wing aviation's ability to effectively attack deployed enemy ground units is practically nil. Jet aircraft are mainly effective against fixed targets whose exact location is already known. Attack helicopters suffer from very limited ranges, short "loiter" times, and vulnerability to air defenses, especially shoulder-fired missiles.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

The West at least attempts to reduce civilian casualties, so yes.

Attempt failed. Number of civilians killed by bombing was several times greater than those killed in operations of VJ in Kosovo itself. And you used precision weapons.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Certainly not on the same scale, no.

OK, not equal but comparable by some means?

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

A poor aircraft compared to the F-15E, indeed.

F-15E was there too.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Serbia would have saved itself if there was no genocide and was a liberal democracy, which I don't think is a high moral standard to ask, but rather a basic characteristic of nations deserving of military immunity.

As far as I know, the genocide is no longer, not that the region doesn't continue to seethe with hatred, of course.

The massacre or genocide against Albanians as the cause of intervention?

I mentioned ‘case Rachak’. Gathered combat kills in civilian clothing (which was the common practice) defined as massacre. Like I said, team of Finnish experts examined the bodies and stated that it coldn’t described as massacre. It is documented even in The Hague Tribunal.

War crimes committed by some individuals or groups in paramilitaries or some reserve police units – yes. Civilians killed as collateral damage, as a consequence of being used as live shield or product of their willingness to help terrorists – yes. Deliberate intention from state organs – no. We admitted our part of responsibility, we have a pretty credible Special Court here and we don’t avoid processing those cases, unlike some other sides here.

Originally Posted by HistoricalDavid

Not that I agreed with many US actions, but consider that some of them are justified on the cost-benefit mindset of the Kirkpatrick doctrine and similar.

It's no secret that the US supports tyrannies around the world.

Whether it could realistically do better, however, is debatable; as the United States you could either support Pervez Musharraf, for example, a secular military dictator, or risk Pakistan's local theocracy taking over the national scene.

Point is that other nations and other countries in the region had (or in Albanian case have) the same school of thought and were using the same or the much worst methods. Now you picked the side that was (as I already said, and I will say that again) heavy war criminals, separatists, terrorists, fascists, islamists, anarchists, the greatest drugs, arms and people dealers in Europe. You could exclude at least five categories when describing any other nation from Balkans conflicts. They are the last people that you should compare with Musharaf. Cost-benefit – No.