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.

 

Irans Military Capability.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
They didn't REALLY expect people who came to liberate them to do the exact same.

I think they'll stop it eventually. There are only so many suicide bombers, thing is, you can't re use them... so I figure all the people who want to fight will kill themselves off eventually.




posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Harlequin You do realize that most of them would get destroyed from the air before they can even engage any Abrams. Helicopters and Fighter jets would pick out their tanks one by one. If they survive the air assault they would have to face the Abrams battle tank outnumbered.

This is all hypothetical of course


Just like in iraq huh - where most of the tanks were fine and had to be killed by ground units.


And the majority of the people of Iran don`t want to be *liberated* - they are happy. Its just a vocal minority who wants the government overthrown , and if thats the case , when will the US government be overthrown as there is a vocal majority who don`t want it there!



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Yeah.. And you all talk about students wanting to overthrow the government and all.. well I'll have you know this, there are about 1500 iranian students here in Pune and they all don't take too kindly to american aggression..They'll fight for their country..
Don't make the mistake of forcing your enemies to unite against you.. Thats exactly what happened in Iraq..



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Just like in iraq huh - where most of the tanks were fine and had to be killed by ground units.


Actually the A-10’s destroyed more tanks than the Abrams did. Besides the percentage of PGM’s used in Desert Storm were very low compared to the percentage of PGM’s use by the US in the current wars.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by enslaved83

I think in the end the US would win, but with massive casualties which would probably lead to stalemate.

In conclusion, it is important not to underestimate the Iranians.


You're kidding right...

I do agree with you about China vetoing any UNSC resolution against Iran.


[edit on 2-9-2005 by NWguy83]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Not only china, Russia and maybe France would veto..
But then that didn't stop th eUS from going into Iraq..
France would've most definitely vetoed any military action in Iraq..



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teh_Gerbil
Iran's military may be good, but what counts is tactics. And as we all know, that is the US's weak point and Irans strong one.


Huh?

What great tactic was the human wave assaults of the Iran/Iraq war? Some great tactic to have thousands of you troops slaughtered in a frontal assault. Reminds me a WW1.

If either Iran or Iraq had a decent general leading their armies, they would have WON their war rather than ending in stalemate.

From a purely military viewpoint , the battleplans of the U.S. during the invasion of Kuwait and in the inital invasion in Iraq will probably rank high in historical terms. The lack of casualties relatively speaking on the U.S./ Coalition side compared to the total decapitation and destruction of the Iraqi Armed Forces is nothing to sneeze at.


NR

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
pavil during the revolution most of irans troops werent fighting so mullahs just got civilians and even tho with no tactics they were still able to kick iraqis ass.


Irans versian of alvand frigate.

external image

more frigates.










Ghadir Submarine:
Video of Ghadir going into production. www.iribnews.ir...





Midget Sub.




*resized wide image*

[edit on 5-9-2005 by dbates]


NR

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
We are also going to make a new destroyer along with Sub in 2010, 1 named Mowj and the other hasnt been confirmed yet.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NR
pavil during the revolution most of irans troops werent fighting so mullahs just got civilians and even tho with no tactics they were still able to kick iraqis ass.



If you say about 1 Million casualties is "kicking ass" then I guess you are right. That would be the equivlent of 4-5 Million dead in the US. Talk about bleeding your country dry. Not much of a victory in my book.

You have proved my point that Iran has no battle tested weaponry or tactics or for that matter troops. I have still not seen any weapon or tactic that gives the advantage to Iran.


NR

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
You have proved my point that Iran has no battle tested weaponry or tactics or for that matter troops. I have still not seen any weapon or tactic that gives the advantage to Iran.


well most of the weapons we made were tested in our war games which was the biggest ever and prooved to be very effective, Mabey you dont like Iran or the weapon it makes but you can imagine thousands of missiles heading your way along with submarines around your ship and gun fire in every corner you go, this is not a joke sometimes it be easier to argue throughout on a comp than rather being in real warfare.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:05 PM
link   
NR Iran has good weapons compared to same counters in the middle east, I think that's pretty clear. But NR tell me you don't really believe that Iran would stand a chance if the US really wanted to destroy it?


NR

posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
NR Iran has good weapons compared to same counters in the middle east, I think that's pretty clear. But NR tell me you don't really believe that Iran would stand a chance if the US really wanted to destroy it?



We would still lose at the ending i admit and we still have a longer way to go since were 75% self-sufficent but in the ending it will atleast still be a good fight, also new military parade this month i hope it be good


[edit on 4-9-2005 by NR]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   
i think that a fight between the US and Iran alone, well the US will win, thats preety obvious,...i mean a superpower smashing countries in development

...........but..........

If Iran is supported -obviously not in a public way- by other countries like China or Russia, the US forces will have a pretty nigthmare, and is more likely that Iran will defend very good his territory, and the american loses will be very high

btw is interesting that the US forces fighting in Iraq are actually fighting for Irans interests


[edit on 4-9-2005 by grunt2]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NR
We would still lose at the ending i admit and we still have a longer way to go since were 75% self-sufficent but in the ending it will atleast still be a good fight, also new military parade this month i hope it be good

[edit on 4-9-2005 by NR]


While being self sufficent in arming yourself is admirable. Being able to keep those things comming during a war is the true test.

Look at Germany in WWII, one of the main factors in their defeat was the inablilty to take out the allied production capacity. Russia just packed up and moved their whole industrial complex (quite amazing when you think about it). America's war producing capablity was never threatened. When Germany , while having equal or superior weapons, started getting bombed by the British and American Bombers day and night, she could not keep up the supplies for their war machine.

Iran flat out would not be able to produce much of anything if it comes down to actual blows. Those things would be the first to be attacked, make no mistake.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
at the risk of fanning the flame

US prospects of defeating the iranian military 100% assured


US prospects of achieving a quick regieme change and stable post invasion government in a timely manner ZERO

YRS - APE [ just being realistic ]

PS - having said that i have seen no credible evidence that anoyone with authority to do ANYTHING unseperbised wants to invade iran



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Huh?

What great tactic was the human wave assaults of the Iran/Iraq war? Some great tactic to have thousands of you troops slaughtered in a frontal assault. Reminds me a WW1.

If either Iran or Iraq had a decent general leading their armies, they would have WON their war rather than ending in stalemate.

From a purely military viewpoint , the battleplans of the U.S. during the invasion of Kuwait and in the inital invasion in Iraq will probably rank high in historical terms. The lack of casualties relatively speaking on the U.S./ Coalition side compared to the total decapitation and destruction of the Iraqi Armed Forces is nothing to sneeze at.


thats a load of crap.. The iraq-iran war was by no means a "human waves" type war. Both countries had very limited resources because:

1. Iran was not very well off militarily with supposedly "defunct" american equip
2. Iraq underestimted Iran's ability to withstand its frontal assaults. They had planned for a much shorter war but when they didn't make significant progress in due time, they had to slow it down a bit, sell some oil, rebuild and go on the offensive again. The problem for them was that at the same time Iran would do the same with its defences.

So the war was prolonged due the fact that the offensive side could only afford maybe 2-3 campaigns (kargil style) a year and those were thwarted beacuse it gave the defnders enough time to regroup and entrench. The war was fought with everything, tanks, missiles, aircraft (a2a and ground strike) and was definitely not a infantry only/human waves type of affair. With such resources at their disposal I doubt anybody could do better.

Actually the reason behind Iraqi underestimation of american hardware in Iranian possession was faulty intel from the americans themselves.It is said that the americans assured the iraqi establishment that Iran was in not state to defend itself from an iraqi offensive, and that the american hardware in iranian possession would not be up to mark.
Thats the real reason behind the long duartion of the war; bad intel, and the doggedness of the Iraq establishment(esp saddam) to complete what was started. In the end it was a horrible stalemate, and both countries suffered economically and miltarily due to the war.
Actually in the absence of this war Iraq would've stood a better chance against the americans in kuwait.They knew that Iraq's rag-tag post war battlegroup was only sufficient for taking kuwait and was in no state to ward off an american offensive.
You see the americans did their homework. They played Iraq against Iran, then assured non-interference in kuwait, and dealt the final blow by just doing the opposite. Actually the job was "finished" by the recent invasion of Iraq. Or maybe the final blow is yet to come with the invasion of Iran. A master-plan that has been in action for the better part of the last 30 years. A sort of post Vietnam revitaliser for the US armed forces and foreign policy..

You see the US never actually won the cold war themselves. The soviets messed themselves up by trying all kinds of political re-shuffle stunts. If the soviets had their politics and internal affairs under control, they would have prevailed over america. Unfortunately for them they withdrew their influence in the middleeast during the 80s and concentrated on that afghan quagmire.
If they'd left afghanistan and maybe "mediated" the Iran-Iraq war, they would've done much better.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Daedalus3

While you are correct in saying it was not an infantry only war, the tactics employed by both sides were plain awful. As you yourself said each side was expecting the other sides direct frontal assault. That is why you had the static trench type warfare and the resulting loss of life on both sides. It's real easy to kill your enemy when he runs straight into the killing zone you have created. If one side had tried some flanking type maneuver, they might have been able to strike a decisive blow



originally posted by NR
well most of the weapons we made were tested in our war games which was the biggest ever and prooved to be very effective, Mabey you dont like Iran or the weapon it makes but you can imagine thousands of missiles heading your way along with submarines around your ship and gun fire in every corner you go, this is not a joke sometimes it be easier to argue throughout on a comp than rather being in real warfare.


NR, you are correct: testing weapons in war games and in real live warfare are entirely different matters. I have nothing against the people of Iran, I am not a fan of their government. I am sure the weapons you produce are better that most of the rest of the Middle East except for Israel. I hope it does not come down to armed conflict ever.

That being said I contend Iran still does not have battle tested and proven Weapons, Tactics and Armed forces. Iran would not have the ability to keep replenshing their forces should it come down to conflict with one of the most advanced, largest battle tested armed forces in the world today. Take a look at where US forces are in relation to Iran. They are North of Iran, East of Iran, West of Iran and South of Iran.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I would like to see how the Iran-Iraq war was a "send your people running into enemy fire" type of war.
As I said, to have the capability of a flanking assault you need to have enough amount of mechnaised hardware(air and ground) to be able to form two or more self-sustianable assault groups. If you just take your army and break into two groups(and you always need 2 or more battle groups in a flanking assault) where each groups doesn't have the fire power to break enemy defences the you'll be just losing both your groups to superior defences.
Also one must realise that while on the offensive, one must ensure that the strike force needs to have the strength that is approx. 2 to 3 times stronger than the defending force. This is because the offensive side will be vulnerable to a counter attack after they have just made progress(i.e. captured a city etc. etc.) and they will be unable to then defend that city at a sub-optimal force level.Infact on the very first day of the war the iraqis pushed in as much as100km into Iran, but were unable to sustain positoins for long.
Maybe they infact DID use a flanking tactic to make those early advances and successes but then fell short when it came to defending newly acquired positions.
They just didn't have the logistics to supply such a deep- thrust.
Really the Iran-Iraq war must not be classified as one of the many "dumb-arabs can't fight" type wars. Those are only the Israeli ones.
This was only possible if the iraqis kept one strong central thrust type of force



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grunt2


btw is interesting that the US forces fighting in Iraq are actually fighting for Irans interests


[edit on 4-9-2005 by grunt2]


Ahh..but thats so untrue.. tides have changed so much since the 80s.. The Iraninas would have much preferred saddam next door than having the an american client state there..



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join