For MANPADS, consider that mishandling them can put cracks in the rocket motor, so if one group has trained people to rant and rave at anyone who drops one, and another group thinks of them as a sort of magic wand, you could easily get contradictory analysis of the available data.
Pakistan did received the AIM-7 missiles with the first batch of F-16s (this has been confirmed by U.S.A).They were kept in storage for critical use, F-16 were usually not armed with them as U.S feared they could have been used offensively.
I trust your analysis of the political aspects of it -- my 2 cents worth is that in the various simulations over the years, I had never seen the F-16 model A with Sparrows; I had presumed they did not have the capability early in their life and only developed it later; I certainly am open to correction.
@@FleetDefenderRA5 The early F-16A variants, the Blocks 1, 5 and 10, did not have Sparrow capability - but the later Blocks 15, 15OCU, and 20 were able to carry 2 Sparrows underwing. However, as mentioned above, the US was very reluctant to allow some F-16 export customers to routinely carry Sparrows and provided only limited numbers of those missiles.
@@timonsolusYes and by the time the F-16 could've been armed with them, the sparrows became outdated with the induction of Advance AIM-120 AMRAAMS in the PAF
I would like to recommend a Hollywood film, starring Tom Hanks , related to this particular conflict. The film's name is "Charlie Wilsons War". I personally enjoyed it and i think from both a historical view point as well as for just plain entertainment, you might enjoy it too .
@@grimreapers we have some very cool shots from that era in a book titled Defenders of Pakistan. The F-16s had LGB capability via the french Atlas POD.
The Stingers are likely the FIM-92A model which only had a cooled IR Seeker head, FIM-92B model and later included a Ultraviolet Contrast seeker head in addition to the main IR seeker to discriminate against countermeasures. MI-24s also had their own countermeasures to defeat IR guided missiles like HIRSS and IRCM. FIM-92A and B were in production during this conflict but the B model only had limited production - we are on the FIM-92J and K models which added proximity fusing options
The "mixed results" with the Stinger missiles was probably a better performance than the British Blowpipe man-portable SAM of the 1980s. It was notoriously difficult to use. One reason why this was so was the fact that it was heavy - IIRC, 64 lbs, of which half the weight was the missile. When the user applied the trigger to launch the missile, half of the weight of the unit suddenly disappeared off his shoulder (I'm talking about British infantry of the 1980s, hence "his"). The entire tube usually lifted upwards as it suddenly got lighter. Often, this would result in the end of the tube pushing the rear end of the missile upwards, causing it to fly straight into the ground about 50 - 100 yards from the soldier who just launched it. Anyone who scored a surface-to-air kill using a Blowpipe was either lucky or incredibly skilled.
The Soviet Union lost between 15,000 - 26,000 men over 10 years of war in Afghanistan (1979-1989). The Russians lost that amount taking one town (Bakhmut) in Ukraine. Simply insane.
But if memory serves: When using the stingers in Afgahnistan, it was more of a basic "ambush" type of attack, especially against lower flying Hinds, often going in for (or returning) from ground attacks. Meaning that the HINDS themselves weren't flying that high, and were often ambushed from locations more in the mountains (which restricted levels HINDS could fly above ground level) and often without a full load of ammo or troops, except on the return missions where it would have more troops than ammo. Pakistan forces were firing from lower ground levels (closer to sea-level than Afghan fighters) and often attempting to take on "in-coming" Hinds that would have had far more warning and ability to evade. So, in regard to the "effectiveness" of the Stingers overall, it was more about HOW it was used and when. And in regard to the "overall effect" of the conflict, it was far more a POLITICAL problem for Russia than it was a military one. Although, it WAS a serious "threat" on a purely military level as well, but the politics became more of a problem for leadership than the threat to the military assets.
CAP: thanks for the title of the book. I WONDER IF the terrain had something to do with the missile kill ratio. If you are banking around a mountain and come upon a missile or fast track AAA, you would not stand much of a chance.
Might interest you to know that just after one such encounter a Pakistani F16 pilot reported that a very high speed object (ufo) had overtaken him at close quarters.....
Love your afghanistan stuff. I've learned a lot from your videos. Shit I probably should have known before going. I enjoy it when you talk "bs" that's when the info gets interesting.
29:39 you bet I did cap, I feel like you need more exposure I bet theres a lot more people whod like this content. Keep upping the production quality, I'm still holding out hope Simba starts streaming his cockpit view he's a baller
