U.S VS Iran getting close


Status
Not open for further replies.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Gentlemen, celtic-dragon is correct,>>> Let us keep this thread on the posted subject. Or this thread shall be closed.

bd popeye super moderator
 

Scratch

Captain
Nice table utalore, gives an impression. But I think it's fictional since most of the troops you mention are already used in Iraq and Afghanistan??
My question then would be what do you mean by hold Tehran? Because I believe some 100.000 troops might perhaps hardly be enough to beat Iran militarily (in conventional terms) so that you can maybe secure/destroy nuclear sites / key military infrastructure. However, with Iraq in my mind, I'm quiet sure this won't be sufficent to stabilize the country or force a regime change.

The Al-Quds as guerillias and their attacks crazyinsane mentioned don't seem of real value in a full scale war to me. The iraqi repuplican guards were demolished in a good week by a highly skilled and technology wise FAR superior force.
I somehow think those Al-Quds and other guerillia special forces are not able to withstand a full scale military onslaught over a longer period.
Where they come into full play (and what's the US' weekness - relativly small number of boots on the ground becuase of a shift to more technology and less soldiers) is the potential following nation building when there are no more frontlines left.
 

celtic-dragon

New Member
Nice table utalore, gives an impression. But I think it's fictional since most of the troops you mention are already used in Iraq and Afghanistan??
My question then would be what do you mean by hold Tehran? Because I believe some 100.000 troops might perhaps hardly be enough to beat Iran militarily (in conventional terms) so that you can maybe secure/destroy nuclear sites / key military infrastructure. However, with Iraq in my mind, I'm quiet sure this won't be sufficent to stabilize the country or force a regime change.

The Al-Quds as guerillias and their attacks crazyinsane mentioned don't seem of real value in a full scale war to me. The iraqi repuplican guards were demolished in a good week by a highly skilled and technology wise FAR superior force.
I somehow think those Al-Quds and other guerillia special forces are not able to withstand a full scale military onslaught over a longer period.
Where they come into full play (and what's the US' weekness - relativly small number of boots on the ground becuase of a shift to more technology and less soldiers) is the potential following nation building when there are no more frontlines left.
My experience in the army was that light infantry units, and even fairly elite units like Rangers, get badly mauled in a set piece battle where heavy armor is involved. You just have no idea how nasty tanks and other AFV's are until they overun your position and massacre EVERYBODY! At Ft Irwin (National Training Center), our FARP was overun by OPFOR T-72's, and the result was sadly predictable, although one of my friends did "kill" two or three tank commanders by sniping from cover, before they flushed him out and chased him under a road culvert. A T-72 actually stuck the main gun barrel in after him and he was ruled very, very dead by the referee/observers. So, the armament and refueling station for all of our helicopters was gone, and all of the trained personnel killed, for a loss of three tankers on the other side.

Spec ops and light infantry can only do so much against steel and composite armor combined with thermal optics and weapons that can kill you miles away. It makes for great fiction, but the training excersises always end in a slaughter for the grunts.

Of course, Iran is developing a fairly modern armored force, but would have difficulty trying to protect it from dedicated air attack. While fixed in place by air assets, we would ample opportunity to move in additional division level artillery assets and destroy them in detail, which is largly what happened to the bulk of Iraqi armor just outside of Baghdad. It's a bad situation to be caught in, because armies without the level of C cubed capabilities we have, coupled with redundant levels of aerial surveillance and air supremacy, just can't respond effectively in a set piece battle. That is why MOUT guerrilla options are the most promising avenue of resistance for most of our potential adversaries. By fighting in urban terrain, our ranged weapon and air superiorities are largly negated, and we can be engaged with cheap and effective RPG type weapons at close range. additionally, over-reaction on our part creates disproportionate civilian casualties, which also works in the defenders favor.
 
Last edited:

celtic-dragon

New Member
Max Tesla, this is ridiculous!!

Please, PLEASE take this argument somewhere else! This is a military affairs forum, not an Ayn Rand tax policy debate forum. Go register at Town Hall.com, if that is what you want to argue about. :eek:ff :eek:ff :nono:
 

lcortez

New Member
Again and again you seem to forget what I am saying

So again 20% of the USA governments budget is going to the war do you understand?

And Bush is allergic to raiseing taxes do you understand that also?

So to get more money he will either have to cut the allready small school and hospital sector or loan even more money

I can say it again 20% of the US Governments budget is going to the war

Bush is allergic to increaseing taxes

20% of the US Governments budget is going to the war

Bush is allergic to increaseing taxes

20% of the US Governments budget is going to the war

Bush is allergic to increaseing taxes

GDP does not matter at all, the US Goverment is a buisness as any other and does not control other buisneeses so it does not matter what all buinesses in america make all that matters is what the US Government makes do you understand is that clear?

You forget that I was talking about Goverment money not total GDP which th US goverment does NOT I say again does NOT have access to

And bush is allergic to increaseing taxes

THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GET ALL MONEY MADE IN AMERICA DO YOU UNDERSTAND IS THAT CLEAR IS THAT TO HARD FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND

IT IS YOU THAT NEEDS TO GO TO SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.
Shall treat your clear lack of education and common sense with the contempt
it deserves,as I said before this is not an economics forum!!!
 

MaxTesla

New Member
Shall treat your clear lack of education and common sense with the contempt
it deserves,as I said before this is not an economics forum!!!


As I have pointed out many times before the US Goverment is allready paying 20% of its budget on the military and that is why an attack on IRAN would not be possible do you understand because this would increase the amount of money needed and it is allready up to it is neck in debt

And that is why no attack on iran is possible, it would cost to much
 

lcortez

New Member
For Gods sake!!!!!! IT CAN BE FUNDED BY A MECHANISM CALLED A SUPPLEMENTERY FUNDING BILL,WHICH IS OUTSIDE,AGAIN OUTSIDE,OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!
THESE MECHANISM WERE USED TO FUND BOTH THE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN INVASIONS
IN CASE YOU DONT GET,THESE MECHANISMS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET,THAT MEANS ADDITIONAL FUNDS!!!!!!
THATS IT END OF!!!:mad:
GET OFF THE SUBJECT ITS BORING!!!!!!
 

MaxTesla

New Member
For Gods sake!!!!!! IT CAN BE FUNDED BY A MECHANISM CALLED A SUPPLEMENTERY FUNDING BILL,WHICH IS OUTSIDE,AGAIN OUTSIDE,OF THE FEDERAL BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!
THESE MECHANISM WERE USED TO FUND BOTH THE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN INVASIONS
IN CASE YOU DONT GET,THESE MECHANISMS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE FEDERAL BUDGET,THAT MEANS ADDITIONAL FUNDS!!!!!!
THATS IT END OF!!!:mad:
GET OFF THE SUBJECT ITS BORING!!!!!!

no no and no

bush will never increase taxes he will only lower them, the only way to get more money would be to cut spending of school and hospitals which is allready low or loan money which would put the US in so much debt that it will make the usa budget crack and since tax increase are not possible in a bush world this in turn would create a huge market crash so no Iran can not be invaded since the USA simplies does not have the money to do so

A SUPPLEMENTERY FUNDING BILL= loaning money

Money does not grow on trees it must come from somewhere, the bill just says hey lets loan money and loan more money and then loan even more money
 

lcortez

New Member
For Gods sake,BUSH DOES NOT NEED TO RAISE TAXES TO GET ADDIIONAL FUNDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
 

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Guys, get off the politics and onto the military part. Whether America can cover the cost of the war or not is not what we're discussing. :nono:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top