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.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
The Nazis never had the largest Navy or Air force, what they had was excellent quality
and leadership, even with that fool of a commander, Hitler, making military decisions...
Iran went to war with Iraq for nearly a decade and could not defeat it,
even thought it had more forces, it suffered an estimated 500K casualties. The US decimated the Iraqi military in the first Gulf War under 43 days and within 48 hours of the ground campaign.
In 2003 we defeated their military, invaded the country and took control of it withing two weeks. Both accomplishments are astounding.
Even with an occupation (one of the most difficult things to do military speaking) lasting five years we have not suffered that may casualties, in context. So no, not anyone could have done that to Iraq.
In an air and naval war, the type of war likely with Iran, it would stand no chance against the US military and the result is therefore not in question.
Any losses would be minimal, acceptable and could be absorbed, the same cannot be said for Iran.
Originally posted by JimmyBlonde
I would say that a 3 day air campaign would greatly reduce the military strenght of Iran, without question. But then what?
Originally posted by West Coast
First off Mr. Manzoor, America, is not just any ordinary country.
America is the new "Rome". Make not mistake about that Mr.manzoor. It is an Empire. and like every great empire, they get there nose into everyone elses business,
with everyone else completely powerless to stop them.
Every conflict is different. Trying to compare conflict between israel and hezbollah (gorilla warfare) compared to conventional warfare is apples to oranges mr.manzoor.
The US wants to take out Irans capabilities to project a conventional war. This is where America stands alone (no one comes close to projecting and orchestrating a conventional war, better then america)
And, if a war does break out, do not expect to see Irans conventional forces to last long. They will be squashed rather quickly.
Originally posted by West Coast
Im curious as to how you think that that was directed to you Mr.X?
And that has been the prototypical wars of our time, hasnt it Mr.X. But, could it work? Could an aerial attack alone be enough for the set task at hand in disarming the Iranian military?
The emphasis in aerial combat, has always been noted as the 'backbone' of every military.
With the USAF of today, that emphasis is even greater. I think if anything, that goes to show how superior the USAF really is.
One only needs to see pictures from the "high way of death" bombardment to really see the benefits of air superiority.
Take the "highway of death" in Iraq GW1 and then multiply that by 1000x. That could be an accurate portrayal of what would become of irans conventional forces If a fight were to break out.
No tanks needed, no US personnel put in harms way etc.
As if the US was the only ones to support the Iraqis mr.x?
The US provided sat intel on Iranian military positions. that was the most significant contribution the US made during the whole 8 year war with Iran.
I think you will find more russian made equipment than american equipment that was in the Iraqis hands at the time.
And why were the Iraqis in full retreat Mr.X? Air superiority.
Do not underestimate the United States ability to wage war.
And what was it exactly, that the serbs proved Mr.x. Perhaps there is a battle where the Serbs 'won'? Dont be bashful, do feel free elaborate a bit more.
touché
I look forward to it!
Originally posted by StellarX
...it really was simply strategy, logistics and leadership.
Originally posted by StellarX
...it's a pet theory of mine so you may treat it as such.
Originally posted by StellarX
...it's hard to organize such victories when your enemy has access to the type of satellite information that exposes you each and every strategic buildup...
Originally posted by StellarX
Iraq did not have 'more' forces... or operated in the way or type of conditions they were designed to.
Originally posted by StellarX
I think the lack of achievement on Iraq's side is what is astounding; to fail so entirely is not something that i believe can happen by accident.
Originally posted by StellarX
That depends on which numbers you believe...
Originally posted by StellarX
They will seem minimal and acceptable at first but daily operations is what really saps the strength of any armed force;
Originally posted by StellarX
I can tell you that large Israeli formations have been halted by equally large and well organized Hezbollah groupings and that the lines between conventional warfare and gorilla warfare were sometimes quite irrelevant... Obviously it's not comparable to what happened in Iraq but had Iraqi forces defended their cities with the same vigour Lebanese have defended theirs the US army would be in much worse shape today...
Russia have quite adequate experience with conducting large scale maneuvers and the fact that the US armed forces managed to lose to North Koreans and almost entirely unsupported Chinese soldiers gives me a good idea of who would prevail in the European war between the US and Russia.
I just don't see a invasion of Iran happening very soon and if it does happen my worse fears about the current US adminstration will have been validated.
If all avenues of modern technology is exploited i am quite confident that wars can be won from the air ( if not from low earth orbit or by intercontinental deployed BM with GPS guided 'seeker' warheads) and that peace may be enforced without ever putting feet on the ground. I think the US air force could probably manage such a feat against Iran but the cost will be high and it mightily leave the US air force even more vulnerable for the rest of the decade.
It has not in fact as air superiority is in itself not worth the effort if it can not be employed to interdict enemy infrastructure of ground formations.
Superiority at shooting down enemy aircraft is clearly very important when your fighting a third world war but since China and Russia are supposedly not threat to anyone fighters are largely wasted airframes which could have been devoted to ensuring that enemy concentrations did not stay concentrated in any effective form.
There were never a question as to the US ability to gain air superiority over Iraq and the question really was if it could be sustained long enough to deplete Iraq's air defenses or destroy sufficient amounts of infrastructure and enemy formations. The highway of death resulted because the Iraqi's kept by far the majority of their air defenses to protect Iraq and were in fact retreating along that highway with no real intent to continue the fight.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
No doubt that also played a major role, it's really a combination of things but Germany did lead in several military and scientific fields during the war.
And they did develop several systems which were superior to anything the allies had.
Originally posted by StellarX
And a recurring one at that... Hitler also made several disastrous strategic decisions and at the tactical level he was even worse.
He should have paid more attention to the advice given by his military commanders.
His unwillingness to do so eventually degraded the German top command and as a result greatly reduce the effectiveness of the German forces.
This was very evident on the Easter-Russian front during the latter stages of that particular battle.
Originally posted by StellarX
Yes we did provide Iraq with such intelligence and support however that cannot fully excuse the performance of the Iranian forces.
Especially over such a long period of time, and I am not too comfortable in assuming Iran did not also receive similar support from other parties.
Originally posted by StellarX
In terms of land based forces it did indeed.
And the way they performed in reality as oppose to in theory has just as much to do with our efforts as it has to do with theirs.
Originally posted by StellarX
It did not happen by accident, Iraq's soldiers may have been battle hardened with Iran but they were not prepared for the overwhelming force demonstrated by the coalition.
They were outmatched in almost every category, this in combination with other factors caused them not only to surrender en mass but also be inefficient.
Originally posted by StellarX
I'll believe the official numbers unless other numbers I've seen develop more credibility.
Originally posted by StellarX
I agree but only if this is an invasion, change of regime, occupation type strategy. If we just want to destroy some of their capability via quick air and naval strikes (not prolonged) in preparation for an invasion a decade later (i.e. Iraq) we can do so and sustain such an effort.
Originally posted by Harlequin
air power alone won`t smash the military.
and steller - until the end of WW2 the german Tiger tanks were nearly unstopable -
they bounced allied shells and the 88mm blew through anything it hit
- the brits learnt this lesson and since then have mounted the heaviest armour and biggest gun they could (the Centurion was the start of this design ethos in 1945) -
Shermans were especially known to `brew up` when hit.
Originally posted by itguysrule
How many operating nuclear power plants does Iran have that need uranium fuel?
Answer - NONE
The only plant near completion is being built by Russia and they are going to provide the nuclear fuel.
So if Iran has no operating nuclear power plants and the fuel for the only one almost completed wil come from Russia - why is Iran in such a hurry to enrich uranium?
Let me think about this - this is a difficult question. As far as I know enriched uranium has only two uses - nuclear power reactors or nuclear weapons.
What do you think?
Originally posted by Harlequin
air power alone cannot win wars in general;
the problem with the british tanks (at least) at the start of the war was the role they ahd to fulfill - they had either light `cruiser` tanks or heavy `infantry` tanks - the heavy tanks lacked slopping armour but it was thick whereas the cruiser tanks lacked armour and the weapon but had mobility and speed , when coming across the german `general purpose` tanks the churchill could take hits but couldn`t reply well.
the main gun was the 2 pounder (40mm) then the 6 pounder (76mm) - neither really had the fire power to answer the 88mm - they even lacked HE shells!
BUT at the end of WW2 the cruiser tanks had nearly the same armour as the infantry tanks yet had the mobility - the Centurion is spot on here as , originally fielded it had a 20 pounder (84mm) which was the forefather to the Royal Ordnance L7 105mm used around many countries even today.
but were dragging this off topic and i apologise
Originally posted by UM_Gazz
If true, then all bets are off, war imminent.
It is time to remove this threat once an for all,
before the world witnesses the spectre of a "terrorist nuke", it could be to late to prevent radiological bombs.
Iran will not be "easy" for the U.S. military, but they will fall, and it seems as if they are begging for it.
Maybe the world should give Ahmadinejad the war he desires and a quick path to the eternal life, virgins included?
Originally posted by StellarX
Maybe ATS deserves the type of moderators that does not encourage violence and bloodshed?
Stellar