Probable war battles.
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24179
Printed Date: 29-Apr-2024 at 01:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Probable war battles.
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Subject: Probable war battles.
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 04:34
|
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 |
Replies:
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 13:56
|
The Canadian Economy ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 14:26
| and without a doubt, you are right paul, by the way, do you think I should change my life savings to canadian? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 15:39
|
5 US army divisions destroys Iranian military in about 2 weeks. How long the occupation lasts is anybodys guess. ------------- |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 22:59
It isn't the ground forces. It is the air supremacy. As far as occupation, forget it. As long as the littoral of the Gulf stays clear for the transit of petroleum, that is all that matters. Then it is the naval supremacy.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 23:11
|
What do you mean: ground force vs. ground force? or military vs military? On an open field or taking geographical factors into account? I can assure you that Iran would not field in a conventional head on military vs military confrontation. On the open field it's no contest in Iran vs US military vs military. Would you include the IRGC (Sepah) as well as Artesh? Ground force vs ground force, I am not so sure, I think an offensive could be halted given that the technological gap there is not as significant without the inclusion of US air assets.
Taking littoral and assymetrical factors into account such as the US situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran's capability to hit logistical lines. hmmm.
I think in difficult terrain the US military would make little to no headway against an IRGC division.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 23:13
I recently spoke with someone who had viewed UAV footage of a US column in Iraq - they were like sitting ducks without air support for long ranged artillery and could in no way deal with the UAV of which they were aware. ------------- |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 02:03
We don't have 5 divisions. They're all in Iraq  ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: konstantinius
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 02:06
Italy vs. Greece already happened in WW II Philippines vs. Afghanistan will never happen because they're both too broke to take their troops to Vietnam China vs. Russia will be a nuclear holocaust: we all loose US vs. Iran: wait a few more years and we'll see ------------- " I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so." |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 04:48
|
Europe won't go to war with itself for a long, long time with the exception of the Balkans. Afghanistan barely has a police force so that one won't happen.
China and Russia wouldn't be a nukefest because each side is smart enough to know that it would be a holocaust. I'd be very interested in this result though but I'd give the edge to Russia because they've had a technological army alot longer than China although China's generals seem to be very interested in high tech wars with computers.
I think the US could crush Iran with a few carrier battle groups assuming it never tried to occupy it. Even in a ground war, the US would just need to scrap enough troops to attack atleast one of Iran's huge flanks from Afghanistan or Iraq. ------------- 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. |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 21:22
The US can't deploy heavy formations to Afghanistan, as equipment is transported to Afghanistan only with airplanes. The point is exactly that the US DON'T have enough troops. Iran is a much bigger country, both in area and in population thatn Iraq. It also has a more homogenous population, for as far as I know, more than 50% of its 70 million population are persian shiites. For comparison, only a 20% or so of Iraq were sunnis. So, inevitably, Iran's army will have a better morale than Iraq's, which had thousands of desertations. Additionally, in contrast with Iraq, Iran does actually have a navy. I think the US, with thier total air supermacy, will be able to defeat Iran. But it will more difficult than defeating Iraq. ------------- 
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 21:43
|
Hello to you all
Didn't the US have more than 5 divisions when they invaded Iraq and yet they never pascified the country and it took them almost one month to defeat 3 republican guard divisions with Iraqis making every stupid mistake in the book? The US needs at least 5 field armies to properly defeat Iran's armed forces that is of course if the Iranians have't already distroyed all the oil installation in the gulf by the time the US invaded.
AL-Jassas
|
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 22:31
| If you give China 100 years to develop, I believe it will have the capacity to control half of the world's population. Russia's economy so far is not growing as fast as China's and if these rates continue I believe China can defeat Russia no problem. Besides China already has a lot of it's own people living in Russia already. They would probably snap on their army gear and turn on their Russian hosts in a heartbeat. |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 01:59
No, the US invaded Iraq with 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division supported by the 101st Air-Assault division as the main thrust. The 1st marine division thrust through the Rt. 1. The main thrust was made by only 2 divisions (3rd Mechanized and 1st Marine), with another division (101st) and an independent Marine Brigade to protect the lines of communications. The entire invasion force took the fastest armored advance in the history of warfare. The invasion started in March 20th, Baghdad fell in April 9th - hardly a month. All organized resistance fall apart after Baghdad fell, and replaced by an insurgency. In a conventional war Iranian organized armed forces will probably collapse within 1 or 2 weeks. The US will have air superiority and freedom of movement. Unconventional war is another matter. Iranian forces does have the capabilities to inflict casualties but they do not have the capability to render an entire US armored division "combat ineffective." Fighting a conventional war against the US is foolish. Look at how Iraqi army fared in Gulf War I. Iran fought the Iraqi to a stalemate for 8 years, the US took apart that same army in 100 hours with minimal (unheard of) losses. |
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 06:50
|
Hello to you all
The last time an invading army said the same thing about Iran, the war went for a brutal 8 years. I doubt that the US army which spent a month clearing Fallojah (which had no civilian population and just 3000 fighters) with 20 000 men will be able to reach Tehran, or even comlete the conquest of Ahvaz. The former commander of Al-Madinah division of the republican guard said the the total number of Iraqi troops who stood between the US army and Baghdad throughout the the war was no more than 25000 men compared with the 150 000 men the US had. As for battles, all the units of the US army were engaged, the US army went for Baghdad directly bypassing any resistance, like that of Nasiriyah, by keeping part of the force there. Iraq was not fully taken untill about 25th of April.
Al-Jassas
|
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 08:44
hehehe, I concur. irans air force is worth crap. konstantinius, how about now in regards to italy versus greece, I know italy has its own weaponries compared to greece all us bought stuff. |
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 09:01
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,. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 10:02
Who had the UAV?
That's easy. Get rid of the 1 child policy.
How much foresight does Ahmedinejad have? ------------- |
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 11:05
Dont know Omar, I think the guy smokes opium to much he thinks he does, I should have elaborated, what I meant is that Iran knows of imminent attack hence the foresight mention. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 12:39
|
Well considering the US will also know that it intends to attack* I don't think that is an advantage. Unless you could pull some sort of reverse surprise invasion, where the invadees surprise the invaders by getting themselves invaded by the invaders, therby catching the invaders unaware *Well, probably, I'm not entire convinced of the sanity of the US command anymore. ------------- |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 15:13
Greetings:
1.) The Iraqi army that invaded Kuwait in 1990 was the same army that forced the Iranian into the negotiation table in 1988.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
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.
|
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 21-Apr-2008 at 20:46
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.
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.
|
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date 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. |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 14:14
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).
|
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 22-Apr-2008 at 18:05
didnt know that idont. good points. by the way, is iran producing their own weaponries now? |
Posted By: IDonT
Date 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. |
Posted By: Batu
Date 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 ) |
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 02:14
woah, cool. |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 06-May-2008 at 21:12
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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date 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. |
Posted By: Gundamor
Date Posted: 09-May-2008 at 14:25
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" |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 09-May-2008 at 15:29
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.
 |
Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date 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?
|
Posted By: Sun Tzu
Date 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 |
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Jonathan4290
Date Posted: 14-May-2008 at 21:47
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. |
Posted By: anewchinaman
Date 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 |
Posted By: Peteratwar
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 08:08
|
First 4 are nothing to worry about,
The 5th now, that is worrying
 |
Posted By: anewchinaman
Date Posted: 11-Jun-2008 at 03:06
| oh lord, you know something I dont huh |
Posted By: Antigonus_
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 23:22
|
Is Italy versus Greece probable? And even if Italy was embarrassed in WWII, do not think that history would repeat itself in this particular case. I see that lots of people underestimate Iran's capacity to wage war. How can we be so certain that they will last for two weeks or two months and so on? |
Posted By: xristar
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 23:28
USAF.- -------------
Defeat allows no explanation Victory needs none. It insults the dead when you treat life carelessly. |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2008 at 11:59
|
will we ever have another pop at the french is my big question.
The channel as the battle ground and the opposite coasts, im a realist and expect we would get thrashed if it happened before the fleet upgrades take place, i just ask because given the price of gas we could do with nicking a few of there reactors. ------------- long live the king of bhutan |
Posted By: longshanks31
Date Posted: 22-Jul-2008 at 12:09
Its the closest contest on the list, my pockets are not deep enough to bet either way on that one, i reckon turkey and greece is more likely, but even that isvery unprobable.
Iran have great numbers, but apart from the very large countries there isnt many countries the usa couldnt occupy in a very short space of time, and despite our not too shabby navy i include my own country in that.
Given two months and the will of the people the US can trample almost any country on earth (nukes excluded)
One US carrier alone has an airforce better than a great many whole nations have ------------- long live the king of bhutan |