Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mig-29 operated by Iraq
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.013250.10185@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 16 Jan 91 01:32:50 GMT
References: <1991Jan15.021838.23936@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)

> ... remembered that the Iraqis have some Mig-29s ... wouldn't they 
> still be a match for most fighters?  They are some of the best planes
> in production right now. I know they wouldn't be a match against a 100nm
> Phoenix missile, but against some poor F-16 only armed with Sidewinders,
> it might be a deadly furball.

This is one common mistake that many people tend to make; i.e., many
people tend to think that it is the weapons that wins the wars, when
it is actually the fighting men who have better training and use their
weapons to their fullest advantage that win the wars.

Furthermore, a superior weapon is useless if it cannot be kept in operational
condition (meaning adequacy of technical service and availability of
replacement parts).  Just remember the F-14s that Iran had during the
Iran-Iraq war; they mostly stayed on the ground for lack of replacement
parts.