It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran's weapon systems

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne


I wouldn't attack Iran, if I was the commander in chief, but I have a feeling W. just might. It will be a rude awakening when a carrier group vanishes off the radar screens, in a ball of heat and light that would make the sun jealous.



That would be Iran's last mistake I assure you, any nuclear attack on a US carrier group would mean full nuclear war with the US and Iran is just too outclassed there.

The whole of Iran would be a nuclear wasteland


Dont bet on Russia starting a nuclear war with the US over Iran's Oil either. Oil dont mean a whole lot when everyone is dead in a nuclear war.


[edit on 29-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Iran's oil doesn't even matter much to Russia. They really only buy it because its cheaper, not out of necessity. Russia could be dealt with. We could even work out a deal with them. Just let them keep their oil contracts. We could do the same with the Chinese. I'm not sure if they'd really go for it, though. For them, Iran's oil is really their lifeline. They'll need it to survive. They're far more likely to have conflict with America then Russia.


Sep

posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
America is capable of launching a ground war into Iran, as well. We could gather a force of 200,000 to get the job done. I can cout just 130,000 troops in Germany, South Korea, and Japan. None of those troops are exactly needed in those locations. If Iran was a serious threat, don't doubt for a second that America wouldn't start pulling in those troops.


I am sure you could get 200,000 troops, but when you invaded a weak Iraq, it took close to 300,000 troops (250,000 from the US). Now you want to invade Iran with 200,000? Iran has four times the land mass and three times the population. It is not a striaght desert like Iraq, it has jungles and mountains sutable for fighting a war. do you really think it is possible to invade a country like this with 200,000 soldiers?


[edit on 29-1-2005 by Sep]



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
And why not Sep. As unbelievable as it may seem to some or many this day and age, history will provide adeqaute proof that many nations have fallen to less than 200,000 men under arms. Did not hear you taunting such stuff when Iraq was documented as having the 4th largest army in the world prior to the First Gulf War. Actually, I'm almost positive that some to many here thought the US and the Coalition was literally going to get ripped, huh? Military strategy has changed and military doctrines have shifted. Combined arms and not numbers rules the day. As such, hypothetically, Iran's navy will be neutralized. Iran's air defenses and then airforce will be neutralized. Iran has observed twice that the US military can be confronted but at extreme costs. They will have learned from this, and will adopt guerilla tactics and the theory and strategy of the Protracted War. The problem with all this about the US and Iran is that, One: there is no proof that such an engagement will take place. Two: despite all the rhetoric of what Iran will do, no one takes into account the millions in Iran that want the current Iranian Mullah government to fall. Nope, no mention or taking into consideration of that, eh?

As to the US seeking or wanting or desiring to invade Iran, nothing more than pure hogwash and speculation till proven otherwise. Speculation amounts to nothing but a pure, big fat "IF." And in no uncertain terms does an"if" imply a "when".




seekerof



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Not since the Vietnam war has any country been able to defend itself against the US. To my knowledge, I havn't seen any air defence with stand modern aviation. The PAC II was 60 to 70 percent sucessful against slow moving SCUD A and B during the first Gulf War and the PAC III shot a british plane down during the current Gulf conflict. Iran has a few S-300 batteries which haven't been tested in war, and to go against the formidable air power of the US is a tall task. Iran would be helpless to stop the US, but their ego wouldn't allow them to admit it. I would lay money that within a day we would have air superiority, and on the ground we would be entering Iran's capital withing a week or two. We are like the New York Giants under Phil Parcels or Green Packers under Lambardi, you knew what they were going to do, but you're helpless to stop them. We aren't subtle about the time and direction of our attack is coming from, but that doesn't matter the Iranian Army and Air Defence will be the biggest Joke. I imagine Iranians generals awake in the middle of the night in a cold sweat knowing there is a JDAM with their name on it.

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Kuehn06]



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Iran has been invaded many times by smaller forces. Vast nations have been invaded by very small elite forces all throughout history. How many times have I pointed this out? The greatest military machines have not been large. They have been small, mobile, and well-trained. They have won their wars by out-manuevering the enemy, not by overwhelming them with masses.

And we did not invade Iraq during the Gulf War. The Powell doctrine is not what America uses today. As the current invasion of Iraq showed. Our goal is to use small, mobile forces. It's a proven, and effective strategy.

The numbers during the Gulf War were just excessive. It was the West overestimating the combat experienced Iraqis who were equipped with overrated Russian weaponry.

Iranian forces probably will not be higher in number then Iraq during the Gulf War, either. Iraq had up to half a million men in Kuwait. They had one of the largest armies in the world, as Seekerof already pointed out.

Iran today does not have a military of that size, nor do they have nearly as many tanks, or artillery pieces. The equipment isn't much better then what Iraq had, either. They really just modified T-72's. I don't know about you, but I don't think modified T-72's will fair too well against M1A2's.

Iran's size is the only thing that would make it more difficult than Iraq. That, though, shouldn't be much of a problem. I don't think Iran is much bigger then France. America's style of warfare isn't all that much different then the German blitzkrieg. It worked fine in France, now didn't it?

I suppose America's military doesn't have the advantage over Iran that Germany had over France, though, right...?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
If some of you think that the Chinese or the Russian will intervene on the side of Iran, you would be mistaken. The Russian have proven over and over that they are just Punks, who will let a friend swing in the wind. The same with the Chinese, all they would have to do is put a division in Iran which might be enough to stave off an attack, but they have no will either. Forty or more years and Taiwan is still out their free, and unoffically independent. China has 1.3 billion and Taiwan has 22 million and China can't or won't take them. Curious isn't it, the Paper Tiger and the Clawless Bear.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I'm not even sure if China or Russia could deploy any troops to Iran. At least no more then a few hundred each. Nothing that would be useful to prevent an American invasion.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
A long the 38th parallel, we had only 38,000 troops which made powerful political statement. If the Chinese or Russian decided to deploy troops, China was able to send troops to Africa, riot police to Haiti, it would make an enourmous political statement. This however is a mote question because they won't, because they are both fair weather friends trying to get what they can.



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Yes, it could make a political statemtent. It could be an excuse for Russia or China to take action if any of their troops were caught up in the fighting. At the same time, they could not deploy large numbers of troops to Iran, as I previously stated.

China has only a few hundred troops deployed on peacekeeping missions around the world. I have no clue what Russia has deployed outside its borders, but I doubt they have the economy, or even capability to still move that number of troops to Iran.


Sep

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't think Iran is much bigger then France


I take it that geography isnt your strong point. Iran has over three times the land mass of France.


Sep

posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran today does not have a military of that size, nor do they have nearly as many tanks, or artillery pieces. The equipment isn't much better then what Iraq had, either. They really just modified T-72's. I don't know about you, but I don't think modified T-72's will fair too well against M1A2's.


Can you give me the exact size of the Iraqi army, then we can discuss it. Remember that this "fourth largest army in the world" was pushed back by an Iran, who had disbanded its army several months before the war. The "fourth largest army in the world" was kicked out of Iran because of the sheer number of Iranians, which leads me to believe Iran has a bigger army. The tanks, well in a terrain like Iraq's are worthless. They have no place to go, its open desert in Iraq. Same with artilary, they left them in the middle of the desert. Iran has many places where it can hide its artilary. One more thing that Iraq didnt have was any sort of power in the water. Iran has some power. And Iran's infentry is equiped with short range man portable air diffences, which the Iraqis didnt have. Iranians actually have chemical and biological weapons, unlike Iraq. They have far greater missiles, both in quality and quantity. Their air defences are overall better. There is no doubt that you can bomb Iran, but you cannot invade it. But after you bombarded Iran the question is what the Iraqi shies would do, since the most repected religious leader in Iraq is Iranian. Then there is the rest of the world, how are they going to react? There is many things to consider, I am not a military genuis, but if invading Iran was this easy, there were many circumstances when Iran should have been invaded, the hostage crisis for example, why wasnt it?



posted on Jan, 30 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

I take it that geography isnt your strong point. Iran has over three times the land mass of France.


Then Iran isn't much bigger then other nations that were invaded with similiar tactics, like China and Russia.


Can you give me the exact size of the Iraqi army, then we can discuss it. Remember that this "fourth largest army in the world" was pushed back by an Iran, who had disbanded its army several months before the war. The "fourth largest army in the world" was kicked out of Iran because of the sheer number of Iranians, which leads me to believe Iran has a bigger army. The tanks, well in a terrain like Iraq's are worthless. They have no place to go, its open desert in Iraq. Same with artilary, they left them in the middle of the desert. Iran has many places where it can hide its artilary. One more thing that Iraq didnt have was any sort of power in the water. Iran has some power. And Iran's infentry is equiped with short range man portable air diffences, which the Iraqis didnt have. Iranians actually have chemical and biological weapons, unlike Iraq. They have far greater missiles, both in quality and quantity. Their air defences are overall better. There is no doubt that you can bomb Iran, but you cannot invade it. But after you bombarded Iran the question is what the Iraqi shies would do, since the most repected religious leader in Iraq is Iranian. Then there is the rest of the world, how are they going to react? There is many things to consider, I am not a military genuis, but if invading Iran was this easy, there were many circumstances when Iran should have been invaded, the hostage crisis for example, why wasnt it?


During the Gulf War Iran's army was a million strong, with up to half a milllion actually being deployed in Kuwait.

They had some 4,500 tanks, 28,000 APC's, and 3,000 artillery pieces.

Iraq had 550 fighter/attack aircraft, and 16 bombers.

As for air defense:


By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities. These weapons -- 57-mm and 37-mm AAA pieces, ZSU-23/4 and ZSU-57/2 self-propelled AAA systems, and hundreds of 14.5-mm and 23-mm light antiaircraft weapons -- formed the backbone of the integrated air defense network. In major high value target areas (such as Baghdad, airfields, chemical agent production complexes, and nuclear facilities) the combined arms air defense could prove lethal to aircraft operating below 10,000 feet.


Source - globalsecurity.org...

Iran falls short of all of this, and drastically.

They have just some 1,500 tanks, 500 APC's, and 2,000 artillery pieces.

They have 300 fighter/attack aircraft.

I'm pretty sure its safe to say they have nowhere near as many SAM's as Iraq had. They really don't even have the quality.

Much of what you said is bogus. It's very easy to lay an ambush in the open desert. It happened to Americans many times. Many of our tanks would be just feet from Iraqi tanks before they knew they were there.

Iraq did have chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War. That is undisputable.

Iran's missiles...Who will they threaten? Certainly not our navy. That's about the only worthy target I could think of.


there were many circumstances when Iran should have been invaded, the hostage crisis for example, why wasnt it?


It was during the height of the Cold War. We also didn't have any bases in the region to attack Iran from. It would have required an amphibious assault. At that time, Iran was far stronger, as well. They had a rather impressive military force given to them by us.

Iran has been invaded many times in history. It was invaded during WW2 with ease by the allies. I highly doubt they were using much of their strength for Iran, either


Sep

posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran has been invaded many times in history. It was invaded during WW2 with ease by the allies. I highly doubt they were using much of their strength for Iran, either


One thing you might have missed was the Reza Khan at the time, ordered his troops to stand down and not fight, it still took the allies two weeks to invade.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
It would probably take the British and Russians two weeks to simply move.

If what you say is true, than I can't find anything supporting it. It doesn't explain why there was actually an attempt to fight back by Iran, which was simply overwhelmed.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
If the US was to go to war with Iran in a conventional way it is undoubtabe that iran would lose. They lack the modern tech to provide a realistic defence, other than a few tit bits its all modernised 1970's.
The only way Iran could win would be a long term resistance (vietnam style), cover the militarys resources, abandon the bases and dig in at every city in the country, right in. Dont be drwn onto the flat when precision weapons rule, if your tanks carnt fire 3000m and penetrate then bring the range down.
When the invader attacks if he wants to control then you gotta take the citys which would mean doing what the west hates, attacking in civilian rich urban area. The streets would be red with blood by the end, the politicians at home would be destroyed by the suffering that would be caused.
The icing on the cake would be suicide attacks and underground resistance by extremists should a city be taken, it would be like falluja but many times worse!! Its the only way to do it!



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I just think america's military might is way overrated.One doesn't have to look beyond iraq and afghanistan to see how incompetent they are.They can't even fight a bunch of men with AK's n rpg's.And for baby israel too,just remember how their entire army performed against hezbollah.Fact,havin all the advanced weapons in the world doesn't make u a super power.Wanna attack Iran?Go ahead.Just think of iraq 100 times wores.Good luck



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The US will not attack Iran because we literally do not have the manpower right now as we are bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Iran would be a pushover if we could engage in an operation where our Generals, Joint Chief's and Commander in Chief called the shots. Congress IMOA , is too concerned with public opinion and special interest and harbors a "humanitarian war" concept that started in Vietnam and has blossomed into battlefield micro-management. Just once in my lifetime I would like to see the American people and their Allied counterparts get behind an effort to once again rid the world of this threat as they did in WWII with NAZI Germany and Japan. I say start the draft, gear up the factories & refineries and lets go kick their butts once and for all.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mizzu
 




Iran would be a pushover if we could engage in an operation where our Generals, Joint Chief's and Commander in Chief called the shots.


Not to pick on you or anything but, you have a dangerous mentality. Problem is, way too many people think like you. Iranian weapon systems are, for the most part inferior to ours. That doesn't mean it will be a cake walk though.

Closing the Strait of Hormuz (SoH):
One of the world's most strategic chokepoints with 20%+ of the worlds oil passing through a 21 mile wide (6 mile wide shipping lane) stretch of shallow water. Water depth, islands, terrain, confined area are all favorable for Iran to close the strait against superior firepower/technology.

Countering Strategic Fighters/Bombers:
Don't bother, it's a waste of assets

Countering Ground Forces:
Stop the armor, win the war.


Taliban/Alqueda fighters hid from Thermal gunsights using rugs. There are low tech ways to counter technology and firepower. Obviously, they are still at a disadvantage but they can narrow the gap. Hide from thermal, strike tanks from closerange (IED, Iranian Toophan Missile), Isolate infantry, Strike inevitable close air support. (SA-18 Grouse)

The lessen learned since the Gulf War is don't fight the U.S. strait up.

The world and our enemies are not static, they watch and learn from everything we do. Do not be suprised if we strike Iran, that we lose our GPS satelites. China will not accept U.S. domination of both sides of the Strait of Hormuz.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join