Wow, is that propaganda or the truth ?

.

Very clever. This cleverness changed the outcome in what way? In neither case did they dare to concentrate their forces and attempt to use them militarily because to show their forces meant their complete destruction would soon follow.

 

Economy Grieg.
While Nato was wasting resources and expensive equipment (like those antiradar missiles) they hid themselves. They knew they will have back down at the end and pull forces from Kosovo. So they at least saved their forces. BTW Their forces were there in substantial numbers. So when Nato was happy blowing up dummy tanks, dummy planes, pasanger trains and refugees they kept their heads low.

 

Which brings us back to the point.
What did they accomplish?

 

Saved face and rediculed NATO just a little bit. Especialy after when scale of deceptios became known.

 

NATO did their job, the serbians pulled out of Kosovo and the civil war stopped, what more can you ask for?
Life were saved so I dont think NATO lost face at all

The serbians was smart at some points, if they concentrated their forces in large groups, then they knew the skies over Kovoso would be full of B-52 bombing the sh*t out of them and dont come and say then the air defence would have shot down the B-52, at that point were NATO started to go after the Serbian army in Kosovo, there were not much air defence left...

And we all know what later happend, the serbians have had with Milosevic and his wars and now he sit in a jail in Holland

 

also another thing, if they should have shot down all those planes they claim, then they would have had their radars on for their SAM and that would mean that NATO would be able to track, find them and blow them up....

so, they claim to have shot down all those planes and also claim that it was only dummy tanks and installations that mostly were hit, then what did they use as radar to track NATO's planes with???? it cant be the real ones, because then they would have been tracked by NATO and blown up and then it would not have been dummy installations they lost

so I cant get it all to add up, maybe because its just Serbian propaganda bs

 

None at all.

I don't even consider the expenditure of ammunition to be all that much of a problem to the Coalition Forces. Even high-tech bombs & missiles are relatively inexpensive.

However, it meant that much of the Iraqi armour was unscathed, which meant that Saddam did not have to shell out lots of money to buy new stock (if anybody would allow him to).

And the potential to use it was there, with the advantage being 'but we've destroyed all their tanks'...
Although such an advantage would last as long as it takes the first NATO-standard AT armament to be brought to bear

 

ricky wrote:

Not really. Just because the number of tanks destroyed was overestimated it does not follow that much of the Iraqi armor was unscathed. Most of the armor was destroyed by ground forces during Desert Storm rather than by the preceeding air campaign which was very successful in destroying the command and control infrastructure. The armor destroyed by the ground forces was observed up close and verified. Large numbers of abandoned tanks were destroyed in place by coalition tanks as well.

 

Well, yes, the fact that most of his amour was destroyed in the ground war is the flaw.

However, having airpower expending its efforts on fakes, and keeping your real armour for the ground war is a goos idea. Its just that Iraq was so damn outclassed that it did not help much except their pride.

 

You heard it probably from Arab sources, or Liberals right? The USAF, and it's allies did extremely well in destroying Iraqi Tanks, I would be extremely skeptical about someone saying they were just decoys. I am really skeptical at the idea of the man who managed to lose the Iran-Iraq war being able to trick the allies.

He did, even if you disagree that Allied Air Power destroyed them, there is no debating the fact that Allied tanks did. Not a single M1 Abrams was lost, such a shame Egyptians have them.

No they didn't, the Iraqis didn't manage to down a single Nato Aircraft, while the Serbs on the other hand did. Had the Allies sent in ground forces against the Serbs then there would have been higher casualties then in the Gulf War.

Also the Allies did destroy the Serbs air capabilities, and did destroy most of their tanks.

 

Nope, from a variety of news sources, complete with a variety of dummy tank pictures. btw, in an effort to remove possible confusion, I am referring to the first Gulf War here, back in the 90s.

I'm not suggesting that the air forces only hit decoys, just that a lot of the targets hit were.

Absolutely. No question at all.

Well, they did in the first war...