U.S VS Iran getting close

Discussion in 'World Armed Forces' started by utelore, Jan 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bd popeye
    Offline

    bd popeye The Last Jedi
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    29,467
    Likes Received:
    23,223
    Gentlemen, celtic-dragon is correct,>>> Let us keep this thread on the posted subject. Or this thread shall be closed.

    bd popeye super moderator
     
  2. Scratch
    Offline

    Scratch Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    1,091
    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.
     
  3. celtic-dragon
    Offline

    celtic-dragon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #123 celtic-dragon, Feb 16, 2007
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2007
  4. celtic-dragon
    Offline

    celtic-dragon New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    48
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
  5. lcortez
    Offline

    lcortez New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    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!!!
     
  6. MaxTesla
    Offline

    MaxTesla New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0


    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
     
  7. lcortez
    Offline

    lcortez New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    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!!!!!!
     
  8. MaxTesla
    Offline

    MaxTesla New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0

    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
     
  9. lcortez
    Offline

    lcortez New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    1
    For Gods sake,BUSH DOES NOT NEED TO RAISE TAXES TO GET ADDIIONAL FUNDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:nono: :nono: :nono: :nono:
     
  10. crazyinsane105
    Offline

    crazyinsane105 Junior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2005
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    0
    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:
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page