Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Equipment comparison
Message-ID: <1991Mar4.205506.5700@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 4 Mar 91 20:55:06 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
>From a dim memory, I recall a story or TV piece on the Desert
Warfare School detailing how the "OPFOR" was equipped with some
borrowed Soviet equipment, and, using Soviet tactics, was able
to defeat the US forces during training exercises.  If anyone
on the net knows more, I'd like to hear about it. (Looks like
there are enough undamaged T72s in US hands to outfit an OPFOR 
brigade; should make for more realistic training. LtGen Kelley
called them "spoils of war.")

In the Gulf War aftermath, maybe we are being a bit too critical
of equipment differences, and not enough on training, leadership,
tactics, and such things as quality of the troops.

A hypothetical: if the Allied forces had been equipped with Soviet
equipment, and the Iraquis had US equipment, would the results
have been much different?

There are news reports that a Soviet general has declared their
entire air defense approach as discredited.  I also noted, in 
Martin Caidin's _The Tigers Are Burning_, that the Soviets used
a three-tier defense which looked very similar to the Iraquis
plan - in 1943!  Doesn't say much for their tactical advancement
since then (or maybe success on the battlefield breeds stagnation
of tactics).