Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Shoulder-Launched AA Missles
Message-ID: <12170@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 Dec 89 05:19:57 GMT
References: <11927@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: tek@CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
>Stinger was very effective in Afghanistan when introduced. But lately,
>from recent press reports, it seems the Stinger has lost much of its
>effectiveness due to improved [aircraft] tactics...

It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of a weapon when the
opposition is aware of it and sufficiently worried about it to accept
handicaps to avoid it.  The Sea Dart heavy SAM looked pretty ineffective
in the Falklands, until you realize that *it* was the big reason why
the Argentine pilots insisted on bombing from wavetop altitude, where
their accuracy was poor and their improperly-fuzed bombs often failed
to explode.  The Maginot Line would not be a laughingstock of military
history if it had been extended to the North Sea coast as originally
intended, because going around it was the only way the Germans could
deal with it.  The main reason for the near-absence of big battleship
engagements in World War I was that a head-on clash between British
and German fleets would unquestionably have resulted in the total
annihilation of the German fleet, and the Germans knew it.

In Afghanistan, the "improved tactics" basically consist of staying at
higher altitudes, which massively reduces the effectiveness of the
*aircraft*.  The onset of the "improved tactics" was the point at which
the Afghans stopped slowly losing and started winning.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu