Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Iran repels simulated air attack in war games???

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I wouldn't trust anything said on Iranian state TV.

What do you think, they're going to come on and tell their people they wargamed it all out and they're going to get their clocks cleaned in an air war with the U.S.?


[edit on 2/23/2007 by djohnsto77]




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I wouldn't trust anything said on Iranian state TV.

What do you think, they're going to come on and tell their people they wargamed it all out and they're going to get their clocks cleaned in an air war with the U.S.?


[edit on 2/23/2007 by djohnsto77]


Hmm, I thought that when i saw the article. It is bravado on their part as I seriously doubt their ability to repel the USAF.

The only thing I disagree with in this thread is the American assumption of a quick victory and home in time for tea. There will be blood and tears of this come's about, so don't think it is going to be easy.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The only thing I disagree with in this thread is the American assumption of a quick victory and home in time for tea. There will be blood and tears of this come's about, so don't think it is going to be easy.


I agree that there could be casualties, especially since we have ground troops in Iraq, but I seriously doubt Iran would pose any major threat to our airforce and navy. Yeah, they could get a few lucky shots and take out a few planes, but I don't think they're going to sink a carrier or something like that, which is what they seem to be saying they can do. The government sites in Iran could probably be taken out quite quickly with no need for a ground invasion -- which in hindsight is probably what we should of done in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
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....


Good points overall Stu, I am sure Iran has improved over their quality since the 80's. However, their tactics and troops have not passed muster in real warfare conditions.

Wargames may help train, but I get the distinct feeling that Iran's are for PR more than training purposes. I'm pretty sure the "enemy forces" in the Iranian wargames ran a pretty stactic gameplan that the Iranian force knew in advance.

The UK or US are great at adapting to a battle as it develops on the battlefield, more so than any current armies, even down to the company level. They would not attack in the manner the Iranians assume if there were ever a conflict. A US assault on Iran would cripple Irans command and control capabilites, and as such, each unit would be on it's own in a rapidly changing battle. If history is any indicator of Iran's fighting ability in that situation, they will be paralyzed.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Hehe, it's one of those things we could endlessly debate till the cows come home. I hope we don't, but we'll probably find out soon enough.

One thing to bear in mind is Serbia...

Now, I reckon you could equate Serbian military with that of Iran.

It was OK, as far as militaries went, but definately not up to scratch against the West.

The Kosovo Campaign showed that despite overwhelming air power, nearly the entire Serbian Army got out of Kosovo unscathed and their C&C was left more or less intact. They endured several weeks of bombing and in the end, we switched to static civilian/government targets as the attacks on their Army were getting us nowhere. Only when we put boots on the ground did they flinch (that's the effect the Para's have
).

With so much we don't know about the Iranian military, it would pay to be cautious and not over-confident. It might all be bravado and they might fold after a week. Then again, they might actually be half as good as they think and say they are, in which case, we had better be ready.

Because they are good in asymetric warfare, a centralised C&C network is not required. Hezbollah used this tactic in Lebanon and fared very well. They operate on a cell basis, each cell with it's own defined area of operations. There is no need for an overbearing C&C function, because as defender's, they need only sit and wait for the enemy to come to them.

And we might not even know they are there until they pop up behind us and say "Booo"



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Well it all really depends on what the goal is. I don't think anyone wants to try nation building again anytime soon, so the main goal is, IMO, just to set their nuclear program back a decade or two. It would be nice if we were able to weaken their central government enough that it could be overthrown from inside, but that'd be a bonus. With this modest goal, I think it could be taken care of using airpower with maybe just limited special ops forces.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

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...


news.bbc.co.uk...


Originally posted by pavil

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.


Do you really think the people want their country to end up like Iraq?

A bit of national service never did any harm.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Well it all really depends on what the goal is. I don't think anyone wants to try nation building again anytime soon, so the main goal is, IMO, just to set their nuclear program back a decade or two. It would be nice if we were able to weaken their central government enough that it could be overthrown from inside, but that'd be a bonus. With this modest goal, I think it could be taken care of using airpower with maybe just limited special ops forces.


But how do we respond when they attack 'interests' worldwide immediately following our airstrikes?

they wont all surrender and scurry like Iraq, they'll hit back somewhere...



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   
There is some reason to believe a US or Israeli Air Attack on Iran would be extremely costly. In part this is because it will be 'air attack only' and not a combination of Air / Ground elements.

Iran was capable of delivering a bloody nose to an Israeli or US air attack before the Russian Tor missiles were delivered. With these added into the Air Defense system any air attack will suffer fairly heavily. It's not about beating the enemy off but certainly it would make them pay. I highly doubt it would be slam dunk like Iraq was.

A significant amount of Irans anti-air systems are mobile which makes them more difficult to plan a strike onto. There's also the topography of Iran which allows for the defender to utilise mountains as shields and also to close the range against the attacking aircraft. They are also capable of engaging air targets at all altitudes up to 300km out.

They also have the capability to track and take out cruise missiles to a certain degree which Iraq didn't have. Any small or medium aircraft raid would be in serious danger of being taken out. A large scale effort would be required and losses of 30-60% could be expected.

And this is assuming all other nations stand by and watch like they did with Iraq. In Iran's case other countries such as Syria and even Russia could take action.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Let us all hope to God that Iran a.) Does not have the desire to build nukes, b.) Isn't arming the insurgency in Iraq and c.) Has enough common sense to understand the concerns of the global community when it comes to their nuclear program and remains at the bargaining table. If so, then military conflict can be avoided. If they fail in any of those three areas, then BAM, it is over for them.

Let's be real for a mere moment... Iran DOES NOT possess the capability to repel a US airstrike delivered in any capacity. They can, however, make a ground invasion amazingly painful and costly to US infantry. The US DOES NOT possess the capability to conquer and hold Iran with boots on the ground - Iraq has taught us this already, as has Vietnam. So has our own Revelutionary war! A well-armed and highly motivated (Which they would be) insurgency has the ability to fight a guerilla war against a numerically and technologically superior force for decades. Need another example? The USSR in Afghanistan against the Mujahadeen!

If push came to shove and the US felt it had no other option than to exert military force over Iran, it would be done using stealth technology, cruise missile systems and a myriad of other technologies that we can only speculate about on forums such as this. The end result would be the end of Iran as we all know it today. We could probably succeed in supplanting their government, however, we could never (Nor should we) seek to destroy the peoples of Iran.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Kozmo it's simply untrue that Iran does NOT possess the ability to inflict damage on a US or Israeli airstrike in any capacity.

They have the latest Russian kit including advisors and personnel. They have always had fairly high standard Russian kit as well as kit from Western powers (including even the US and UK and France). They have chinese kit too. They have an overlapping Air defense system that can take out cruise missiles.

I'm not saying they will stop an air attack dead but it will be costly in terms of aircraft losses for an attacker. Plus the entire topography is for the defender.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Let us all hope to God that Iran a.) Does not have the desire to build nukes, b.) Isn't arming the insurgency in Iraq and c.) Has enough common sense to understand the concerns of the global community when it comes to their nuclear program and remains at the bargaining table. If so, then military conflict can be avoided.


Though the media may imply that the weapons came directly from Iran, this simply isnt true.
There are many ways weapons from one country end up in another, many more profitable ways.
Gunrunners have been known to provide other countries with armaments from the United States on many occasions. How they get their hands on those goods is their trick, if everyone else knew, they'd be out of buisness.
The same goes for any country. There will allways be someone willing to go outside of the law to sell weapons to other countries.
I can guarantee you Iran didnt personally sell the Iraqi insurgents those weapons, nor ever intended those weapons to get into their hands.
I've known a few smugglers in my time... and some of the things they get their hands on is baffling.

You also have to take into account that it's not the government that makes the weapons. It's a company. Companies will sell their goods to whomever is willing to pay for them. IE, gunrunners who will in turn sell to Iraqi insurgents.

Don't think for a moment that there aren't american gunrunners also selling to Iraq, they operate in every country, from every country. Like I said, if your'e good enough at it, it becomes a VERY profitable profession.


Regarding the nukes. Nuclear arsenals are in fact nothing more than bargaining chips.
If your country falls into poverty, you can use them to trade for aid. If another country wants to invade you, they wont, if they know you have a nuclear arsenal in your borders.
Nuclear weapons actually force stalemates, and ensure relative peace.
The reason the US wouldnt want them to have nukes, is, if they had them, the US wouldnt dare go into that country.

They don't have nukes. And wether they want them or not I really don't care... actually, scratch that.
Personally I hope they do get nukes eventually. Nobody launches a nuclear strike as an assualt measure. That in itself is suicide, and would be met by nukes from other countries. The governments of these countries aren't stupid, they realise this. It's the deterrents that come with ownership of nuclear weapons they want.
Essentially, they want to be left alone.

How many countries have been invaded once it was globally known they had nukes? Is there even a single nuclear country that has ever been invaded? I think the numbers speak for themselves.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by johnsky]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   


it would be done using stealth technology


Stealth is already out-dated. Send what ever stealth bomber you like, it will go down just as quickly as any other aircraft/heli etc.

I hope for troops sake they aren't dragged into a war with Iran, US infantry has never been that good, not against anything near equal anyways.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester

news.bbc.co.uk...

Do you really think the people want their country to end up like Iraq?

A bit of national service never did any harm.



Otester, you made the claims that Iran has the ability to turn Iran into a Grey "blob" and that US aircraft would be flying "blind". You still have not provided evidence of this. Please try again.

All you did in your link was prove that conscripts easily give up the fight. You don't seriously think a professional soldier isn't vastly better than a 2 year and out conscript do you? I think that the majority of the conscripts in Irans army (200,000 out of a force of 350,000) will perform as good as any other conscripts elsewhere in the world, that is, inferior to longer term professional troops. I stand by my assertion.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Iran doesn't stand a chance of repeling a US invasion, period. Iran is not significantly stronger than Hussein's Iraq. The US military was designed to be able to invade and defeat the Soviet Union, on multiple fronts, while repeling attacks against the US mainland.

They have no chance, at all, of repeling a US attack. They clearly COULD have a wildly violent insurgency that racks up lots of US casualities and causes hundreds of thousands of Iranian civilian deaths, and that could cause the american public to decide to pull the American troops out of the smoking, ruined, husk that was iran, but they sure as heck can't actively defeat the US military in the field.


Yep, the Iranians stand little chance against the US's thump. But the US will still come out of it the loser simply due to the insurgents that will be funded by the Russians, China, and other Middle East countries. Another Vietnam.

You think they would learn from Iraq, but I doubt it. This 'war' on 'terror' is a joke. The more the US does to 'make things safer', the worse things get.

But its too late now. May as well just get it over with, roll the dice Bush, lets see where we are in 5yrs time? I dont think history will remember Bush as being worse than Hitler, there wont be many around to say it.

Just my drunken 0.02cents worth.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by otester


it would be done using stealth technology


Stealth is already out-dated. Send what ever stealth bomber you like, it will go down just as quickly as any other aircraft/heli etc.

I hope for troops sake they aren't dragged into a war with Iran, US infantry has never been that good, not against anything near equal anyways.


Again, prove that stealth is out-dated and not desirable. There are always measures and countermeasures going on. You mean to tell me that having stealth ability is a non factor when going over enemy territory?

Almost any troops when they go against a near equal force runs into to difficulty, unless you are the Spartans or the Gurkhas. That why if you are smart you manage to pick the fight that is unfair in a war. Look at WWI those armies were evenly matched and look at the bloodshed.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But how do we respond when they attack 'interests' worldwide immediately following our airstrikes?

they wont all surrender and scurry like Iraq, they'll hit back somewhere...


I don't think there's any evidence Iran has the power to hit the U.S. in a significant way. If they did, then appropriate action would be taken. We could always nuke Tehran...



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:37 PM
link   
but if you nuke Tehran, with which government official will the US sign a ceasefire?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by otester

news.bbc.co.uk...

Do you really think the people want their country to end up like Iraq?

A bit of national service never did any harm.



Otester, you made the claims that Iran has the ability to turn Iran into a Grey "blob" and that US aircraft would be flying "blind". You still have not provided evidence of this. Please try again.

All you did in your link was prove that conscripts easily give up the fight. You don't seriously think a professional soldier isn't vastly better than a 2 year and out conscript do you? I think that the majority of the conscripts in Irans army (200,000 out of a force of 350,000) will perform as good as any other conscripts elsewhere in the world, that is, inferior to longer term professional troops. I stand by my assertion.


Doesn't patriotism overide it? If your country was invaded by a enemy you really hated and your government started conscription would you not be more than willing to fight?


Otester, you made the claims that Iran has the ability to turn Iran into a Grey "blob" and that US aircraft would be flying "blind". You still have not provided evidence of this. Please try again.


I'm digging it up, be patient please.


But the US will still come out of it the loser simply due to the insurgents that will be funded by the Russians, China, and other Middle East countries. Another Vietnam.


Apparently, Taliban are going to start a spring offensive, they already control quite a lot of South-West Afghanistan.


Again, prove that stealth is out-dated and not desirable. There are always measures and countermeasures going on. You mean to tell me that having stealth ability is a non factor when going over enemy territory?


Ofcourse it's a factor, just depends whether the enemy has the right the equipment to detect stealth, in this case they do.

Russians always been good at making cheap solutions to expensive American technology.



I don't think there's any evidence Iran has the power to hit the U.S. in a significant way. If they did, then appropriate action would be taken. We could always nuke Tehran...


As if Bush wasn't already on the line of impeachment? Think of the mass slauhgter, Russians working there would be killed, Chinese oil vapourized, WW3 kicks off, then eveyone dies, the end.

[edit on 25-2-2007 by otester]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I don't think patriotism overrides it, it is not an absolute

it may help, but not to the point of making a 2years conscript the quality of a career soldier

patriotism did not save the Iraqi army when the US invaded





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join