Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Probable war battles.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Probable war battles.
    Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 15:13
Originally posted by Julius Augustus


not quite, the army the US had fought wasnt the same army the Iranians did, at that time of the first Persian gulf war,  Iraq had a better army than most people think, it was well verse in  tactics and they did study the Iranian government so well that in essence its attack after the revolution would have destroyed any country (that was in the same state as Iran was) if not for the fervor the Ayatollah set to the people of Iran at that time. Iran didnt have the same arm strength it has today compared to before, their f14 force didnt have supplies to fix their armaments, they had no real navy to speak of, they just got of from a revolution, they killed most of the shah's army personel (and they had to beg the other pilots to fight for iran even though most of those guys were sentenced to death).

After the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's army was already tired, its armaments were not the same as before, they lost most veteran pesonels and etc. their is no doubt US would still would have destroyed Iraq but it might have taken an extra week to two if they fought during that time.

Iran has three advantages against US, number one is religion, fervor--they can send suicide attacks from all corners, number two is logistics, and the third is foresight,.
 
Greetings:
1.)  The Iraqi army that invaded Kuwait in 1990 was the same army that forced the Iranian into the negotiation table in 1988. 
 

Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis routed or defeated the Iranians. In the first offensive, named Blessed Ramadhan, Iraqi Republican Guard and regular Army units recaptured the Al-Faw peninsula. The 36-hour battle was conducted in a militarily sophisticated manner with two main thrusts, supported by heliborne and amphibious landings, and low-level fixed-wing attack sorties. In this battle, the Iraqis effectively used chemical weapons (CW), using nerve and blister agents against Iranian command and control facilities, artillery positions, and logistics points. Three subsequent operations followed much the same pattern, although they were somewhat less complex. After rehearsals, the Iraqis launched successful attacks on Iranian forces in the Fish Lake and Shalamjah areas near Al-Basrah and recaptured the oil-rich Majnun Islands. Farther to the north, in the last major engagement before the August 1988 cease-fire, Iraqi armored and mechanized forces penetrated deep into Iran, defeating Iranian forces and capturing huge amounts of armor and artillery.

The Iraqi army in 1990, was a much better fighting force than it was in 1988.  It's core of 6 mechnaized Republican Guard Division was a professional fighting force. 
 
2.)  Religous ferver can only get you so much.  In 1988, the Iranian people were tired of war.  The call for a Mohammed Corps was not answered
 
Without diminishing the horror of either war, Iranian losses in the eight-year Iran-Iraq war appear modest compared with those of the European contestants in the four years of World War I, shedding some light on the limits of the Iranian tolerance for martyrdom. The war claimed at least 300,000 Iranian lives and injured more than 500,000, out of a total population which by the war's end was nearly 60 million. During the Great War, German losses were over 1,700,000 killed and over 4,200,000 wounded [out of a total population of over 65 million]. Germany's losses, relative to total national population, were at least five times higher than Iran. France suffered over 1,300,000 deaths and over 4,200,000 wounded. The percentages of pre-war population killed or wounded were 9% of Germany, 11% of France, and 8% of Great Britain.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 17:36
Hello IDont
 
On the books, as the former commander said in his book, Iraq was the strongest army in the middle east, It was the only force Israel had any kind of fear from it and The US brought 650 000 men other than 200 000 allies to defeat 350 000 Iraqi troops. Yet what happened? Nearly all of those troops were from the Iraqi army and all of them were recruits not career soldiers. The Helicopter gunships, the main tanks and anti aircraft missiles were all under the republican guards which fired not a single shot (especially the gunships which decimated the Iranians in the 88 offensive and brought victory). All were withdrawn, except for 1 division to the comfort of Baghdad and were not targeted becasue of the strong anti aircraft missile (Iraq shot down 75 jets during the war). When the war strated, tens of thousands of Iraqis (as one veteran said entire brigades were taken as POWs by  just platoons) threw their weapons and offered to fight Saddam. Many were let go and given weapons to participate in the il-fated March uprising where the real Iraqi army showed how strong it is when it retook entire Iraq within one week. It did more damage than the Americans done during the gulf war. In 2003, the picture cmpletely changed, Iraq had only three active division and non were mechanised, it had no notion of decent artillary except mortor rounds, there were very few tanks, no gunships, no airforce, no radar installation, no navy and facing 200 000 US and coalition troops. Now tell me how on earth could it have even put a resistance at all?
 
Iran however has gotten much stronger, It had 20 years since the last war to train and stock weapons. It has three armies, two navies, two air forces as well as 120 Iraqi fighters. It aquired the most advanced radar and SAM missile defense systems and has produced several systems of its own. It has an entire division inside Iraq named Badr forces (Iraqis loyal to Iran who volunteered to fight their own country during the 80-88 war and a big part of this force is integrated with the new Iraqi army) as well as an unknown number of intelligence operative and terror networks which killed some 1000 former Iraqi commando officers, pilots, scientists and generals who were involved in the war against them. Iran covered all the bases and to say they will collapse in 2 weeks is a gross underestimation.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 18:10
Iran is an easy snack for america.

Afghanistan for starter
Iraq as the main course
Iran as the dessert.

The only problem is that America seems to bite off more than it can chew and has still not defeated its enemies in any of the former theatres.





Edited by Zagros - 21-Apr-2008 at 18:13
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 20:46
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello IDont
 
On the books, as the former commander said in his book, Iraq was the strongest army in the middle east, It was the only force Israel had any kind of fear from it and The US brought 650 000 men other than 200 000 allies to defeat 350 000 Iraqi troops. Yet what happened? Nearly all of those troops were from the Iraqi army and all of them were recruits not career soldiers. The Helicopter gunships, the main tanks and anti aircraft missiles were all under the republican guards which fired not a single shot (especially the gunships which decimated the Iranians in the 88 offensive and brought victory). All were withdrawn, except for 1 division to the comfort of Baghdad and were not targeted becasue of the strong anti aircraft missile (Iraq shot down 75 jets during the war). When the war strated, tens of thousands of Iraqis (as one veteran said entire brigades were taken as POWs by  just platoons) threw their weapons and offered to fight Saddam. Many were let go and given weapons to participate in the il-fated March uprising where the real Iraqi army showed how strong it is when it retook entire Iraq within one week. It did more damage than the Americans done during the gulf war. In 2003, the picture cmpletely changed, Iraq had only three active division and non were mechanised, it had no notion of decent artillary except mortor rounds, there were very few tanks, no gunships, no airforce, no radar installation, no navy and facing 200 000 US and coalition troops. Now tell me how on earth could it have even put a resistance at all?
 
Hello Al-Jassas
 
What you say is true, however there are some instances where Iraqi Republican guard forces had momentary superiority and were still decimated by the US Army.  One such battle is called 73 Eastings, where an armored troop destroyed an entire Republican Guard Brigade.   This battle was fought at close range.  Unlike previous engagements, the destruction of the first Iraqi tanks did not result in the wholesale surrender of Iraqi soldiers. The Iraqis stood their ground while their tanks and armored personnel carriers of the Tawakalna Division attempted to maneuver and fight. 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Iran however has gotten much stronger, It had 20 years since the last war to train and stock weapons. It has three armies, two navies, two air forces as well as 120 Iraqi fighters. It aquired the most advanced radar and SAM missile defense systems and has produced several systems of its own. It has an entire division inside Iraq named Badr forces (Iraqis loyal to Iran who volunteered to fight their own country during the 80-88 war and a big part of this force is integrated with the new Iraqi army) as well as an unknown number of intelligence operative and terror networks which killed some 1000 former Iraqi commando officers, pilots, scientists and generals who were involved in the war against them. Iran covered all the bases and to say they will collapse in 2 weeks is a gross underestimation.
 
Iranian military has certainly been upgraded since 1988.  Unfortunately, so has the US military.  The US military of 2008 is several times magnitude better than in 1991.  The main weakness of Iranian forces is its two tiered military hieriarchy, the military and the revolutionary guard.  These two forces don't train together nor speak to each other.  In fact they view each other with contempt. 
 
The para military forces you mentioned certainly are formidable, but they are more of an annoyance than a real military threat. 
 
The main problem anyone who faces the US military in a ground war has this dilema:
1.)  Concentrate your forces to defend from the attack - be vulenerable from the air.
2.) Disperse your forces to protect them from air attack - be vulnerable from the ground.
 
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 03:01
Hello Idont, I see your point but if I remember correctly of three things, number 1, Iraq had US support, logistical, technical and etc when it attacked iran, with this, US had known already of the capabilities of the Iraqi army, number two most of Iraq's allies were not helping Iraq anymore and number three as Al Jassas says, raw recruits.

revolutionary guard is a pre-caution of the possibility the military will try to coup.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 14:14
Originally posted by Julius Augustus

Hello Idont, I see your point but if I remember correctly of three things, number 1, Iraq had US support, logistical, technical and etc when it attacked iran, with this, US had known already of the capabilities of the Iraqi army, number two most of Iraq's allies were not helping Iraq anymore and number three as Al Jassas says, raw recruits.

revolutionary guard is a pre-caution of the possibility the military will try to coup.
 
Most Iraqi equipment were Soviet and French.  The US military underestimated its own capabilities.  Before the war, 10,000 body bags were procured because every body believed that that would be the casualty rate for US forces.  When I say every body I mean every body (China, Russia, US, Europe, etc).
 
 
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 18:05
Originally posted by IDonT

Originally posted by Julius Augustus

Hello Idont, I see your point but if I remember correctly of three things, number 1, Iraq had US support, logistical, technical and etc when it attacked iran, with this, US had known already of the capabilities of the Iraqi army, number two most of Iraq's allies were not helping Iraq anymore and number three as Al Jassas says, raw recruits.

revolutionary guard is a pre-caution of the possibility the military will try to coup.
 
Most Iraqi equipment were Soviet and French.  The US military underestimated its own capabilities.  Before the war, 10,000 body bags were procured because every body believed that that would be the casualty rate for US forces.  When I say every body I mean every body (China, Russia, US, Europe, etc).
 
 


didnt know that idont. good points.

by the way, is iran producing their own weaponries now?


Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 134
  Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Apr-2008 at 13:34
Yes, small scale weapons and derivatives of existing weapons.  They are very resourceful with what they have.  I think they manage to put a Hawk SAM fitted as an air to air missile. 
Back to Top
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405
  Quote Batu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 20:03
I have seen  this interwiev in a documentary,reporter asks a guy  : - what have you felt when you were ordered to clean the minefield by walking on it?,and he said - Nothing! I was just thinking of how brave Ali Murtaza was.---
  he must have been crazy,so I think US would suffer more in Iran.
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274
  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 02:14
Originally posted by IDonT

Yes, small scale weapons and derivatives of existing weapons.  They are very resourceful with what they have.  I think they manage to put a Hawk SAM fitted as an air to air missile. 


woah, cool.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2008 at 21:12
Originally posted by Julius Augustus

I am just wondering if two big armies meet up for battle, who will win

here are my army probable battles

Iran versus US in Iran
Italy versus Greece in Greece
Philippines versus Afghanistan in Vietnam
China versus Russia in Siberia

who will win
 
What exactly do you mean by "probable battles"? 
 
Iran vs. US, possible I suppose.  Conventional military, crushing defeat of Iran.
 
Italy vs. Greece - as previously mentioned, happened in WWII, Italians were embarassed
 
In what alternatve universe is Philippines vs. Afghanistan in Vietnam a 'probable battle'?
 
China vs. Russia - China still has a long way to go, although they would have more 'staying power'. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2008 at 21:26
Actually, in a on the extreme eastern axis whose name I can;t remember (on the Russian border with N Korea), the Rusians have virtually no strategic dept. Which is actually true for a lot of the front. Add to that exterior lines for the russians.
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 03:44

IMO the most informative newspaper in Canada, the Globe & Mail, reported that Russia's military is obsolete, its equipment is from the later 1980s and that Russian officers live in poverty. I assumed it was good ole Western propaganda.

Is Russia's military as obsolete as it's made out to be or only compared to the USA?
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
Gundamor View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 568
  Quote Gundamor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 14:25
Originally posted by Jonathan4290

IMO the most informative newspaper in Canada, the Globe & Mail, reported that Russia's military is obsolete, its equipment is from the later 1980s and that Russian officers live in poverty. I assumed it was good ole Western propaganda.

Is Russia's military as obsolete as it's made out to be or only compared to the USA?


The Russians are quite active in modernizing their military. There was a date set by there generals that I cant recall, think around 2012, that they felt the military would be back to modernized standards. This however doesn't mean that there military is weak at the moment. Though the still have plenty of obsolete weaponry the also have a lot of modern stuff. I don't think many if any would want to go toe to toe with them even in there current state. It's not really fair to compare anything to the states as their Defense budget is ridiculously more then anyone else.

This is my opinion of the Globe and Mail. It has way to much editorial freedom and the amount of miss information in it is bad. It's coverage of the middle east and areas of conflict are especially bad and it constantly tries to manipulate public opinion with poor analysis.  It routinely fails to inform the public. Typical newspaper i guess. I live in Toronto by the way and use to read it quite often, till I noticed all the things I mentioned.
"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind"
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 15:29
Originally posted by Sparten

Actually, in a on the extreme eastern axis whose name I can;t remember (on the Russian border with N Korea), the Rusians have virtually no strategic dept. Which is actually true for a lot of the front. Add to that exterior lines for the russians.
 
The only eastern port of consequence is Vladivostok, at the extreme end of the Trans-Siberian RR.  The comment on strategic depth is well taken.  As the geography of Russia in the West has been an advantage historically, the geography of Russia in Asia is a strategic liability.  The communications are very vulnerable along the entire route from Europe; the distances are daunting, and Vladivostok could be isolated quite effectively.
 
As far as exterior lines, Russia is not at the moment a naval power capable of dealing adequately with those strategic avenues.  The Arctic is difficult, problematic and expensive; the route to the East from the Baltic terribly long, and through Suez frought with numerous potential strategic problems, depending on conditions and how events might unfold.
 
All this must give the planners at General Staff a terrific headache every day.  Ouch
 
 
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-May-2008 at 15:39
I know that this is historical amusement, but it brings up a question.  How might Russia, in the absence of very much major operational experience since 1945, deal with a war along her long Asian border?
 
Russia's historical model for fighting large wars has been to use the army as a sledgehammer.  The most likely (indeed the only real) adversary for Russia along the eastern border is China.  China has 10X the population of Russia, and does have interior lines along which to operate.
 
The loss of communication with the East, and/or the loss of control over natural resources or hydro-electric resources would be very damaging to Russia, so how might she contest such a war?
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 09-May-2008 at 15:41
Back to Top
Sun Tzu View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 31-Oct-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 362
  Quote Sun Tzu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2008 at 18:31
I really dunno I mean look at the War that Japan and Russia had at the turn of the century. The Japanese literally opened up a can on the Russians because of the lack of communications and speed of the Russians traveling over the vast distance to the East. so yea against China.. Things would not look good for the Russians but by the time the Chinese reached Moscow, their supply lines would be too long. But then again we are talking about modern warfare so their are many possibilities.
Sun Tzu

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-May-2008 at 23:17
Russia has much more technolopgical depth to deal with a long range war.  A war for China with Russia would also be long range, even if it only in Siberia considering where the heart of China is.
Back to Top
Jonathan4290 View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 03-Mar-2008
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 185
  Quote Jonathan4290 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-May-2008 at 21:47
Originally posted by Gundamor


This is my opinion of the Globe and Mail. It has way to much editorial freedom and the amount of miss information in it is bad. It's coverage of the middle east and areas of conflict are especially bad and it constantly tries to manipulate public opinion with poor analysis.  It routinely fails to inform the public. Typical newspaper i guess. I live in Toronto by the way and use to read it quite often, till I noticed all the things I mentioned.
 
Unfortunately I live in Hamilton which is home to the Hamilton Spectator which occasionally has weddings on its front page. Worst paper in the world. The Globe & Mail seems to be the most decent paper available to me (which isn't saying much) although I agree with the overload of editorial freedom. What paper do you find to be most informative? I'd definitely give it a shot.
Like great battles? How about when they're animated for easy viewing?
Visit my site, The Art of Battle: Animated Battle Maps at www.theartofbattle.com.
Back to Top
anewchinaman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 09-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote anewchinaman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 07:45
How in the world did you come up with Afgan v. Philo in Vietnam?

Regardless, wars in 2012 will be vastly different than wars we know of currently. There is a real possibility that humans wont be involved in future wars. Evidently, the more complex our computers are the smarter robots are. Some of the advanced states have working EDMs, I believe thats what they are called. EDMs are electronic bombs capable of taking out electricity within a limited range.

Bottom line, until someone build a 21st century "wall" the big boys will probably not risk confrontation against each other, too much to lose, including the planet.
Why was there such an enormous competition to going to the moon after Hiroshima? Space exploration or a secondary home? If its for space exploration, then why has no one been back to the moon?

I say give it about 5-6 years before WW3.

Things to worry about:
1. New Russian president claims Russian econ will be at the top by 2012
2. China claims that a chinaman will set foot on the moon by 2012
3. The US will get a new president on 2012
4. Bird flu is expected to reach its max lethality by 2012
5. I will be in the 30s by 2012
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.