Soviet weaponry/equipment in Middle Eastern wars

nastle77 wrote:What was the reason the Osa boats of Egypt perform so poorly against the Israeli navy ?
And during the cold war if the performance of Osa boats was so appalling against MGB of westers navies what were the primary means of countering enemy MGB in the Soviet navy

sepheronx wrote:take into account that Israel was probably more or less prepared cause they were hit before hand by the missiles.  At the same time too, they were deploying more CIWS for their ships.  Of course that doesn't cause 100% protection but as you said, depending on competence, they could have saturated the attack.

AlfaT8 wrote:After watching some documentaries i realized that the event of the middle east conflicts particularly The 6 day war, The October war and especially The battle of the Golan Heights were/is still considered by many as the decisive evidence of the worthlessness of Soviet weaponry and equipment of that era.
So i decided that there should be a dedicated thread to discuss this.

So here's the question guys, what the hell was going on??
Was it poor Soviet exports or simply incredibly incompetent Arabs or something else?

nastle77 wrote:

primarily arab military system

GarryB wrote:
So what you are saying is that if the Arabs had those western weapons with the minor qualitative edge, and the Israelis had Soviet weapons the Arabs would have won?

Do you really think that if Iraq had M1 Abrams tanks in Desert Storm that the Iraqis would have won against half the world?

George1 wrote:Ι think the main reason was experience. When was the last time arab countries have fought a war before 1967?

GarryB wrote:
Tom Cooper?

Those F-4s were also superior to North Vietnamese MiGs, yet a few F-4s didn't make it home...

Why do you think that? Are you assuming because they would have western equipment they would have better training, or are you assuming western weapons are just easier to use effectively?

And if the Iraqis got ammo that could destroy an M1 from 5km how many M1s do you think the US would have lost?

The Vietnamese didn't have superior weapons to the US... sometimes they didn't even have enough food let alone ammo or weapons... yet they kept fighting even after the US was carpet bombing the north in what would today be considered a war crime...

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Russophobes use this israeli military operation to "prove" that arab incompetence had nothing to do with their defeat, but instead it was because soviet equipment was inferior.

In this battle supposedly elite soviet pilots were all shot down by israeli jets who never suffered a single loss against soviet pilots. Did this battle happen, and if yes, what do you make of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

GarryB wrote:

can you tell me which war the Soviets bombed civilian cities to get their enemy to come to the negotiating table. They certainly bombed German cities, but that was retribution for all the Soviet cities the Germans destroyed.

starman wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Russophobes use this israeli military operation to "prove" that arab incompetence had nothing to do with their defeat, but instead it was because soviet equipment was inferior.

Absurd. Arab leadership was often abysmal, leading to a lot of mistakes.

In this battle supposedly elite soviet pilots were all shot down by israeli jets who never suffered a single loss against soviet pilots. Did this battle happen, and if yes, what do you make of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

Of course it happened. The Israelis, even the EAF by then, had a lot more experience than the Russians. But I don't think the pilots lost were elite.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Do you think it happened because of the F-4's superiority was a factor?

Also what do you mean even the EAF had more experience? Are you saying the soviets couldnt fly their own aircraft correctly?

GarryB wrote:My experience with chatting to him on Keymags forum is that he is your average American ex navy guy with all the usual bias you would expect... the only unusual thing about him is that he wasn't anti Iranian like most Americans...

So you are saying that skills in usage are just as important as super planes?

Except the enormous cost of them would mean they would only have a small fraction of M1s in service and most of their tank fleet would have been M60s...

The few Abrams tanks they would have had could have been destroyed easily with air power if it was deems effective enough to make a difference.

.... most of the problem was that the US used its advantages to the full... attack at night when US platforms have the advantage... I have read the ammo used by the Iraqis being called no better than training ammo by people familiar with Soviet ammo. Does not inspire confidence.

GarryB wrote: suggesting replacing Iraqi equipment with Abrams tanks would have resulted in better Iraqi performances is naive, because they would have used totally different tactics if that had been the case... with air control they likely would have used air power and helos to defeat the tanks.