Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military From: ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air losses in the Gulf Message-ID: <1991Apr4.042539.12947@amd.com> Date: 3 Apr 91 13:34:35 GMT References: <1991Apr3.024658.24093@amd.com> Sender: military@amd.com Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Lines: 25 Approved: military@amd.com From: Allan Bourdius My guess as to why air losses were so low is as follows: 1) The Iraqis really didn't think we'd attack. 2) Several of their early warning radars and SAM sites were taken out by Tomahawks before any aircraft crossed the border. 3) None of the Iraqi's Surface to Air weaponry is the most up to date, i.e. we had the best information available on how to jam and/or trick the missile system. 4) The Iraqi air defense system was never designed to handle so many aircraft at one time. The largest air raid launched by Iran during that war had about 20 planes in it. We sent over 1000 in the first attacks. 5) The Iraqis were so stunned by the quick destruction of most of their air defense systems that those that remained operational had operators that feared turning on their radars because then they'd be attacked. and 6) The Iraqi air force was totally ineffective, meaning that we faced zero air to air threats. -- Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity] ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213 Anything controversial in this post/mail are my own opinions, got it?!