Iran repels simulated air attack in war games???

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:08 AM
link   
WE probably will beat Iran, our air power, naval power and technological advantage will beat Iran..


but its going to cost ALOT of money
its going to cost soliders lives
and its going to cost american respect around the globe.. well whats left of it...

Then youve got to look at the fact,

that we DONT have proof theyre building nukes
we DONT have proof there interfering in Iraq
they provided INTEL on the sept11 attacks before they happened
they DONT like or collaborate with Alqaeda
they offered HELP in hitting the Taliban and alqaeda after sept11


majority of people in iran, like the west.. are interested in the west's values.
its the GOVERNMENT that isnt...
the GOVERNMENT Will not last for ever....
if we go in pre-maturely trying to remove this government... they people will turn against us... and 4 years into THAT conflict we will be looking at ways to ESCAPE from Iraq and IRAN!




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik

www.jokeindex.com...


I guess the moral of that story is - Never try to reason with a Warmonger. You will lose. The only thing that motivates these people is ignorance and hatred.

Combat for Dummies

Advice and instructions taken from actual American military sources.

"Aim towards the enemy."
--Instruction printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher

"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend."
--U.S. Marine Corps

"Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed to always hit the ground."
--USAF Ammo Troop

"If the enemy is in range, so are you."
--Infantry Journal

"A slipping gear could let your m203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit."
--Army's magazine of prevention maintenance

"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." US Air Force manual

"Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo."
--Infantry Journal

"Tracers work both ways."
--U.S. Army Ordnance

"Five-second fuses only last three seconds."
--Infantry Journal

"Bravery is being the only one who knows you're afraid."

"If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush."
--Infantry Journal

"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection."
--Joe Gay

"Any ship can be a minesweeper....once."
--Anon

"Never tell the platoon sergeant you have nothing to do."
--Unknown Marine Recruit

"Don't draw fire; it irritates the people around you."
--Infantry Journal

"If you see a bomb technician running, try to keep up with him."
--USAF Ammo Troop




posted on Feb, 21 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Well i think if the USA attacks Iran, the USA will most defiantly be using state of the art stuff most likely secret stuff will be activated for defences and jamming on ships and aircraft, possible use of lazers and secret missiles too, you think the amount of $$$$ spent on the military projects has nothing secret up and running and ready for use in a war situation only as to not over use its use for analysis by enemies of the USA.

Also Iran will probably be very capable of attacking USA interests around the world, what they need to also think about is if these interests are in other country's that country will not be happy at Iran and would possible join war against Iran.

If Iran is silly enough to use chem weps or even a nuke then that would be the end of Iran full stop.


i was also thinking that if USA attack Iran, and later on terrorists use chem weps or a nuke, who is left to attack in retaliation?


Also Iraq had alot of Russian stuff did that help them in any way??



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik

www.jokeindex.com...


I guess the moral of that story is - Never try to reason with a Warmonger. You will lose. The only thing that motivates these people is ignorance and hatred.

Combat for Dummies

Advice and instructions taken from actual American military sources.

"Aim towards the enemy."
--Instruction printed on U.S. Rocket Launcher

"When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend."
--U.S. Marine Corps

"Cluster bombing from B-52s is very, very accurate. The bombs are guaranteed to always hit the ground."
--USAF Ammo Troop

"If the enemy is in range, so are you."
--Infantry Journal

"A slipping gear could let your m203 grenade launcher fire when you least expect it. That would make you quite unpopular in what's left of your unit."
--Army's magazine of prevention maintenance

"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." US Air Force manual

"Try to look unimportant; the enemy may be low on ammo."
--Infantry Journal

"Tracers work both ways."
--U.S. Army Ordnance

"Five-second fuses only last three seconds."
--Infantry Journal

"Bravery is being the only one who knows you're afraid."

"If your attack is going too well, you're walking into an ambush."
--Infantry Journal

"No combat-ready unit has ever passed inspection."
--Joe Gay

"Any ship can be a minesweeper....once."
--Anon

"Never tell the platoon sergeant you have nothing to do."
--Unknown Marine Recruit

"Don't draw fire; it irritates the people around you."
--Infantry Journal

"If you see a bomb technician running, try to keep up with him."
--USAF Ammo Troop



A- I hope you're not using the term warmonger synonomously with one who believes that military force is necessary in various situations.

B- I hope you realize that those quotes above are humor, and not official text from military manuals.



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Stumason... I Don't think a 2020 Iran could repel an American or Isreali attack. I don't belive we could occupy Iran (look at what Iraq has done). I do think we could blow them back to the stone age if we really needed too. I hope it doesnt come to conflict but if it does, my moneys on the U.S.A any day of the week...



posted on Feb, 22 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
Stumason... I Don't think a 2020 Iran could repel an American or Isreali attack. I don't belive we could occupy Iran (look at what Iraq has done). I do think we could blow them back to the stone age if we really needed too. I hope it doesnt come to conflict but if it does, my moneys on the U.S.A any day of the week...


I never said they would, but their not going to be the pushover's Iraq was, that is for certain. They haven't endured 12 years of harsh sanctions and they're military is fairly well equipped and motivated, not like the piss-poor Iraqi army which fled the field.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I'm hearing alot of underestimation of the Iranian military, and I think it's freaking hilarious, and I'd love to be looking at you when your jaw hits the floor over just how many american soldiers are being slaughtered.

But, like always, they will undoubtedly censor that from your news too.

Wow, I think I'd be going nuts living in the States, what with the horrible lack of actual information in your news.
Seriously, your news stations never actually state any facts, they only state rumors. And most Americans soak it up without question.

Question your government people, that is the POINT to democracy.
Make them justify their actions, and if they cannot... oust them.
This is the way of the free world... having freedom has nothing to do with blind loyalty to a president.
Demand he explain himself.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I'm hearing alot of underestimation of the Iranian military, and I think it's freaking hilarious, and I'd love to be looking at you when your jaw hits the floor over just how many american soldiers are being slaughtered.


What part of Iran's military impresses you? Going toe to toe against the US, military vs military Iran gets thumped. Especially when you see all the directions the US can attack Iran from in an all out war. Their is no need for a all out invasion and occupation of Iran, Air power with guided munitions can cripple Iran's Military and economy. The only ground forces maybe necessary is to secure sites on the Persian gulf and the oilfields in the south.

Their Airforce is a relatively small batch of older generation planes. Anti- aircraft wise, besides a small amount of Tors, there is nothing special that U.S. pilots have not seen before. Their navy is not impressive. The Army while large, is using MBT's that really can't compete with the top of the line stuff that is out there. The only thing that remains to be seen is their special forces which seem to well trained, given Hezbollah's organization.

www.globalsecurity.org...

Bet you are laughing after reading this, we will se who laughs last should it come to conflict.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
I wasnt trying to claim that Iran will win, wars these days aren't about winning, and the concept of victory is completley moot now... it's only the Americans that haven't realised that yet. You seem to be stuck in the age where a country would actually admit defeat and stand down. Thats long gone now, it's the populace now who fights back, the military is only there to weaken you.

You were supposed to have learnt that in Iraq. But you still havent... you can't have victory in todays war, unless you kill off every single civilian, and unless I'm wrong, thats called genocide, in which case, thats not a victory either.

You still don't get it do you, most americans just simply don't see what warfare is today. They still think that if you eliminate key military installations the country will just bow down to you and surrender... doesnt happen any more my friend.

The citizens are the real figters in todays warfare. Like I said, the military is just there to tenderize the fresh meat, before the rest of the country tears them to shreds.

But, hey, don't take my word for it, you'll see soon enough.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
US's biggest problem, if they invade, will be their air defence.

Iran is just a grey blob on the map now since they got their new tech which can stop satellites from seeing the country without harming them.

When US planes go in, they will be technically blind, only having real knowledge of the landscape.

If Iranian air defence is what I think it is then you guys are going to have a very hard time.

Ground war will be almost equal.


Remember most of your good tech is for export, it's extremely expensive to put to the front, so don't expect large numbers.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by otester]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I'm hearing alot of underestimation of the Iranian military, and I think it's freaking hilarious, and I'd love to be looking at you when your jaw hits the floor over just how many american soldiers are being slaughtered.

But, like always, they will undoubtedly censor that from your news too.

Wow, I think I'd be going nuts living in the States, what with the horrible lack of actual information in your news.
Seriously, your news stations never actually state any facts, they only state rumors. And most Americans soak it up without question.

Question your government people, that is the POINT to democracy.
Make them justify their actions, and if they cannot... oust them.
This is the way of the free world... having freedom has nothing to do with blind loyalty to a president.
Demand he explain himself.


I think you could look at their performance against the Iraqis as an indicator of their proficiency. How many hundreds of thousands were killed with a stalemate being the outcome? Iran has never fought a first world military, so even though they have more modern weapons than in the 80s, so do we.


With regards to censoring US casualties as you imply here-
"But, like always, they will undoubtedly censor that from your news too."

would that be like how we aren't told about our casualties now?(oh wait a minute, we are told about our casualties, once their families have been notified first).



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I think you could look at their performance against the Iraqis as an indicator of their proficiency. How many hundreds of thousands were killed with a stalemate being the outcome? Iran has never fought a first world military, so even though they have more modern weapons than in the 80s, so do we.



As I stated earlier, comparing Iran to Iraq is wrong. Also comparing Iran 1980's to Iran now is also wrong. They have a reasonably well equipped and trained military, whereas when they went to war with Iraq, they lacked many of the things they have now and were basically a conscript Infantry force. Having said that, they're AF performed very well against the western backed Iraqi's.

[edit on 23/2/07 by stumason]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   


With regards to censoring US casualties as you imply here-
"But, like always, they will undoubtedly censor that from your news too."

would that be like how we aren't told about our casualties now?(oh wait a minute, we are told about our casualties, once their families have been notified first).


I said censor, not omit. They will give you the numbers, but how many of your american soldiers and iraqi insuents do you see on the daily news getting riddled with holes? None.

The rest of the world sees those views in our media, because our media doesnt try to hide the autrocities in Iraq. Quite frankly, if your media did show what ws happening over there, public support for the war would be completley gone overnight.

Theres a good documentary on that very fact online.
video.google.ca...
I suggest you watch it, it will show you the real Iraq. Not the sugar coated version your media tends to portray.

Pay close attention to what happens during editing.
They show the news broadcast prior to Americanized editing, then after.
It really shows just how little you get to see of Iraq in your media broadcasts.

If you turn around and post that you're not going to watch that crap, then I'm sorry, that would make you ignorant, and I have no time for you, or your refusal to look at the truth.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by johnsky]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I think you could look at their performance against the Iraqis as an indicator of their proficiency. How many hundreds of thousands were killed with a stalemate being the outcome? Iran has never fought a first world military, so even though they have more modern weapons than in the 80s, so do we.



As I stated earlier, comparing Iran to Iraq is wrong. Also comparing Iran 1980's to Iran now is also wrong. They have a reasonably well equipped and trained military, whereas when they went to war with Iraq, they lacked many of the things they have now and were basically a conscript Infantry force. Having said that, they're AF performed very well against the western backed Iraqi's.

[edit on 23/2/07 by stumason]


Yes and also to add to this, most Iraqi soldiers didn't even bother fighting, surrendered at first opportunity.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
[As I stated earlier, comparing Iran to Iraq is wrong. Also comparing Iran 1980's to Iran now is also wrong. They have a reasonably well equipped and trained military, whereas when they went to war with Iraq, they lacked many of the things they have now and were basically a conscript Infantry force. Having said that, they're AF performed very well against the western backed Iraqi's.



Correct me if I am wrong but at the start of the Iran Iraq war, hardware wise it was mainly the Iranians who had western arms as they inherited the Shah's military, which was mainly US/British stuff. Later on as the Irans weapons needed repairs, the US sanctions started to hurt, hence the Iranian need with the Iran Contra deals. The Iraqi's had mainly Soviet with a few French weapon systems thrown it. Don't make it sound as if the U.S. was the main arms dealer of Iraq. Iraq's armed forces followed Soviet style doctrine and tactics.

The AF did do well, especially the Tomcats once they reinstated all the US trained pilots they dismissed at the start of the war. Hardly any of those Tomcats are operational now and the pilots are not the same caliber, none of them combat experienced.

Iran didn't lack weapons in the Iran/Iraq war, they just utilized them very, very poorly with poor tactics and decisions, as did Iraq. Taking mobile artillery and tanks and burying them in earth berms to make static artillery is just one example. Trying to fight in the swamps was another. The Iranians ran headlong into so many direct assaults on kill zones set up by Iraq that it was a turkey shoot on par with the Iraqi's leaving Kuwait on the "highway of death".

Sorry, parades and war exercises don't make for a feared military. Iran does not have state of the art, battle tested, combat experienced weapons systems , people or tactics. Iran's army is still primarly made up of conscripts.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester
US's biggest problem, if they invade, will be their air defence.

Iran is just a grey blob on the map now since they got their new tech which can stop satellites from seeing the country without harming them.

When US planes go in, they will be technically blind, only having real knowledge of the landscape.

If Iranian air defence is what I think it is then you guys are going to have a very hard time.



Claims without documentation. Please provide links and sources for your claims. Next you will be telling me Iran has a cure for Aids.... wait they do! They do!
www.irna.ir...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester
Yes and also to add to this, most Iraqi soldiers didn't even bother fighting, surrendered at first opportunity.

Iran's Army

As I said above, most of Iran's army is made up mainly of conscripts, who will probably fight as good as conscripts everywhere do, meaning they will probably fold in the heat of battle. I'd rather take a 6-8 year army professional over a 2yr term conscript any day of the week. Iran has only one unit (5,000 strong) of all professional soldiers.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:56 PM
link   
What you aren't taking into account is that Iran's public elected their government into power. So conscript or not, their political party is wanted by their people.

Aside from that, if you have something to add onto an original post, please edit it, posting three times in a row becomes a bit of an annoyance.


I understand that military alone, the Iranians have no chance of standing up to every unit of the US military... however, todays warfare is a TOTALLY different story. It's no longer Invading Army versus Defending Army... it's Invading Army versus Defending Army AND entire populace.

In todays warfare, there is no such thing as victory. If you have to go against every member of their country, you simply cant win. What could you possibly expect to gain when everyone resists you? Theres nothing you can gain.

If you were to oust their government, the Iranians elected that government in... which means, they will simply replace that government with an equivelant government... or one that is even more hell bent on resisting the US... war with Iran is a HUGE mistake... it is un-winable, and will lead to further conflict in the future.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Correct me if I am wrong but at the start of the Iran Iraq war, hardware wise it was mainly the Iranians who had western arms as they inherited the Shah's military, which was mainly US/British stuff. Later on as the Irans weapons needed repairs, the US sanctions started to hurt, hence the Iranian need with the Iran Contra deals. The Iraqi's had mainly Soviet with a few French weapon systems thrown it. Don't make it sound as if the U.S. was the main arms dealer of Iraq. Iraq's armed forces followed Soviet style doctrine and tactics.


Half way there. The west actually supported both sides. Openly supporting Iraq with cash and "agricultural chemicals"...(hmmm)...and the Contra affair with Iran. Iraq actually had (and still has) a sizeable inventory of western weapons, especially British. Chieftain tanks, artillery, ATGM's etc etc...


Originally posted by pavil
The AF did do well, especially the Tomcats once they reinstated all the US trained pilots they dismissed at the start of the war. Hardly any of those Tomcats are operational now and the pilots are not the same caliber, none of them combat experienced.


Granted, their AF is not equipped with western weapons, but they are equipped with Chinese and Russian. Whilst not being as shiny and with as many fancy buttons as Western aircraft, Russian and Chinese aircraft are notoriously durable and get the job done. As for the quality, well, Iran has been doing ALOT of wargames recently. Not many countries can actually afford the luxury of wargames very often, so to have them pulling off massive exercises several times a year must have an effect on their overall quality. We will have to wait and see. I doubt they will last long, but I expect they will put up a decent scrap for a week or two.



Originally posted by pavil
Iran didn't lack weapons in the Iran/Iraq war, they just utilized them very, very poorly with poor tactics and decisions, as did Iraq. Taking mobile artillery and tanks and burying them in earth berms to make static artillery is just one example. Trying to fight in the swamps was another. The Iranians ran headlong into so many direct assaults on kill zones set up by Iraq that it was a turkey shoot on par with the Iraqi's leaving Kuwait on the "highway of death".


Indeed. One of the problems with the Islamic revolution was rather akin to the problems faced by the red Army in WW2. Purges and the such like deminished the officer corps to a pojnt where they were effectively useless yes men. As stated above, with the almost constant training they have been doing, I would expect them to have improved on their tactics. They are acknowledged to be rather good at the new style asymetric warfare, so we will have to wait and see.


Originally posted by pavil
Sorry, parades and war exercises don't make for a feared military. Iran does not have state of the art, battle tested, combat experienced weapons systems , people or tactics. Iran's army is still primarly made up of conscripts.


Well, before Iraq, exactly what real combat experience did the US and Uk forces have? Our own forces do wargames for the sole reason of training and tactical development. It's the only way you can train without invading a 3rd world nation on a whim and even then, a 3rd world military is hardly quality training. Also, they may well be mainly conscript's, but I don't doubt their commitment whould we go rolling in and blowing stuff up.

These conscripts are not going to be the starving, underpaid, poorly led (Iraqi General's in 2003 were bribed to leave their forces and give away positions) bugger's that the Iraqi's were. Many Army commanders in iran are former IRGC men, so will not be easily swayed. The IRGC itself should not be doubted for it's resolve. Those bugger's are quite mad.

Again, I am not saying Iran will win, conventionally. What I am saying is that it is not going to be anything like the cake walk the invasion was in Iraq 2003. Would it hurt to afford you enemy some respect? After all, underestimating your enemy is a big no-no, according to Sun-Tzu....



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
What you aren't taking into account is that Iran's public elected their government into power. So conscript or not, their political party is wanted by their people.

....If you were to oust their government, the Iranians elected that government in... which means, they will simply replace that government with an equivelant government... or one that is even more hell bent on resisting the US... war with Iran is a HUGE mistake... it is un-winable, and will lead to further conflict in the future.


Take a look at Iran's last election, which by the way did not include many candidates not approved by the clerics. en.wikipedia.org...
A significent amount of Iran's voting population did not vote for the current President of Iran. He does not seem to be universally popular as his campaign promise to restart Iran's economy has stagnated. Iran's populationdemographics are changing and given time, will moderate its stance. In the meantime we have to keep things stable as possible, with an Iranian President who seems to want conflict.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join