CDZ Could the USA defeat Iran?

[sakinago]

Back in the 90s, saddam had the 4th largest army in the world (I believe). It was relatively modern army compared to the rest of the world...How long did desert storm last??

That's false. Iraq had a large army, but it was insanely weak and ineffective after getting their asses handed to them by Iraq just several years prior.

Iraq always had bad leadership, bad equipment, no production, disloyal men, and never fully understood combined arms doctrine, since their military always had huge gaps in it.

The Iranians resorted to throwing literal human waves of unarmed men at Iraq... That wasn't too long ago.

And I'm no general but you really don't understand modern warfare if your disqualifying the effect of air superiority. You know how in the old days when the higher ground was key in a battle, that's a lot like having air superiority...except multiply that advantage by 50. Multiply that by even more when your talking smart bombs and stealth technology...and multiply that again when your talking drone technology. Oh and by the way we now have rail guns, and offensive and defensive laser technology now. Not to mention, kinetic weapons that aren't admitted but it's pretty much a given and the only hard part is putting them up into space...which were pretty good at. Speaking of space we also have things called satellites up there, that pretty much eliminate a notion called fog of war, that the Iranians can't get over.

And let's not forgot our armored vehicles are far superior (scored a shocking K/D ratio against their Russian counterparts), and now those tanks have activist defense systems. Also our training and equipment are also superior. Our infantry divisions can take on their tank divisions with the javelin.

So explain to me how half a million AK 47s and rpgs stand up to that?

 

[Yarddog]

I do think however that the US would have the edge in Tactical strategy as we have had much more experience in Modern Warfare than they do.

The US hasn't fought a conventional war since 1953 (Korean War). The Iranians fought a conventional war with Iraq (back when it was strong) from 1980-1988.

A war with Iran would be conventional. It wouldn't be against lightly armed militiamen and guerrillas like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

The other edge we may have would be when it comes to adapting and creating new weapons systems while at war.

I agree, but so do other countries with close relationships to Iran. Russia for example.

For example, during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the CIA supplied the Mujaheddin with a revolutionary new weapon - The FIM-92 Stinger. Of course, this is a kind of moot point since it is reliant on theoretical innovations.

I don't believe Iran showed any great military genius in their war with Iraq. I would still give the tactical edge to us, the US. nazi Germany under estimated our resolve as well. I think we could defeat them militarily but not Politically. Washington pretty much makes it impossible to do what you have to do to win a war if winning a war was necessary.

 

[Yarddog]

Back in the 90s, saddam had the 4th largest army in the world (I believe). It was relatively modern army compared to the rest of the world...How long did desert storm last??

That's false. Iraq had a large army, but it was insanely weak and ineffective after getting their asses handed to them by Iraq just several years prior.

Iraq always had bad leadership, bad equipment, no production, disloyal men, and never fully understood combined arms doctrine, since their military always had huge gaps in it.

The Iranians resorted to throwing literal human waves of unarmed men at Iraq... That wasn't too long ago.

And I'm no general but you really don't understand modern warfare if your disqualifying the effect of air superiority. You know how in the old days when the higher ground was key in a battle, that's a lot like having air superiority...except multiply that advantage by 50. Multiply that by even more when your talking smart bombs and stealth technology...and multiply that again when your talking drone technology. Oh and by the way we now have rail guns, and offensive and defensive laser technology now. Not to mention, kinetic weapons that aren't admitted but it's pretty much a given and the only hard part is putting them up into space...which were pretty good at. Speaking of space we also have things called satellites up there, that pretty much eliminate a notion called fog of war, that the Iranians can't get over.

And let's not forgot our armored vehicles are far superior (scored a shocking K/D ratio against their Russian counterparts), and now those tanks have activist defense systems. Also our training and equipment are also superior. Our infantry divisions can take on their tank divisions with the javelin.

So explain to me how half a million AK 47s and rpgs stand up to that?

If we destroyed their logistical infrastructure they wouldnt be able to move their armored divisions. Like taking the leggs away from a good fighter, if they cant move around the ring they cant win the fight. Advantage to the US in this case as it would be much harder for Iran to launch counter attacks on our mainland, though we would probably see upticks in terror type attacks at home.

 

[sakinago]

I do think however that the US would have the edge in Tactical strategy as we have had much more experience in Modern Warfare than they do.

The US hasn't fought a conventional war since 1953 (Korean War). The Iranians fought a conventional war with Iraq (back when it was strong) from 1980-1988.

A war with Iran would be conventional. It wouldn't be against lightly armed militiamen and guerrillas like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

The other edge we may have would be when it comes to adapting and creating new weapons systems while at war.

I agree, but so do other countries with close relationships to Iran. Russia for example.

For example, during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the CIA supplied the Mujaheddin with a revolutionary new weapon - The FIM-92 Stinger. Of course, this is a kind of moot point since it is reliant on theoretical innovations.

I don't believe Iran showed any great military genius in their war with Iraq. I would still give the tactical edge to us, the US. nazi Germany under estimated our resolve as well. I think we could defeat them militarily but not Politically. Washington pretty much makes it impossible to do what you have to do to win a war if winning a war was necessary.

I don't think they did either. From what I remember of the 10 year war, was it was a bloody stalemate, that ended in a cease fire. And again...Iran resorted to human waves of people...

 

[Yarddog]

I do think however that the US would have the edge in Tactical strategy as we have had much more experience in Modern Warfare than they do.

The US hasn't fought a conventional war since 1953 (Korean War). The Iranians fought a conventional war with Iraq (back when it was strong) from 1980-1988.

A war with Iran would be conventional. It wouldn't be against lightly armed militiamen and guerrillas like in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam.

The other edge we may have would be when it comes to adapting and creating new weapons systems while at war.

I agree, but so do other countries with close relationships to Iran. Russia for example.

For example, during the Soviet War in Afghanistan, the CIA supplied the Mujaheddin with a revolutionary new weapon - The FIM-92 Stinger. Of course, this is a kind of moot point since it is reliant on theoretical innovations.

I don't believe Iran showed any great military genius in their war with Iraq. I would still give the tactical edge to us, the US. nazi Germany under estimated our resolve as well. I think we could defeat them militarily but not Politically. Washington pretty much makes it impossible to do what you have to do to win a war if winning a war was necessary.

I don't think they did either. From what I remember of the 10 year war, was it was a bloody stalemate, that ended in a cease fire. And again...Iran resorted to human waves of people...

Some people don't want to believe it for some reason but I do believe our military ability exists in part because its built on past traditions in military training not just our technology. Though I think there has been a persistent effort by left leaning administrations to make the training softer and friendlier.

 

[Onyx]

And I'm no general but you really don't understand modern warfare if your disqualifying the effect of air superiority.

I'm not disqualifying it. I am not overestimating it either. You people are under the impression that the US airforce could fly unlimited and unopposed over Iran, which is a major demonstration of ignorance.

You know how in the old days when the higher ground was key in a battle, that's a lot like having air superiority...except multiply that advantage by 50.

There is not a 50 times advantage. Like I said, US airforce operations would be limited to raids off of the Persian Gulf. You really should educate yourself.

And let's not forgot our armored vehicles are far superior (scored a shocking K/D ratio against their Russian counterparts), and now those tanks have activist defense systems.

US tanks are not even liked by the pentagon. What's more, is that the US is in possession of not one modern light tank. Light and mobile tanks are the only option that make any sense in overseas invasions, and tanks like the M1 abrams were absolutely worthless in responding to engagements in Iraq. Not to mention that the efficiency of the tank itself has been scrutinized by military experts since it first entered production, including its predecessors as well.

Russia and Iran (which uses Russian technology) have vastly superior armor, although that's kind of irrelevant, since the US would not even survive to a stage where it could be clashing tanks.

Also our training and equipment are also superior.

More ignorance. Iran soldiers go through more vigorous and intense training then US soldiers, and they have plenty of verteran generals and soldiers from an actual conventional war.

Our infantry divisions can take on their tank divisions with the javelin.

Iran has the same technology, and they don't need to establish an impossible foothold in their own country to be able to use it.

So explain to me how half a million AK 47s and rpgs stand up to that?

More ignorance. Iran does not use AK47s (no nation has for decades) and there are half a dozen variants of the RPG, some of which are very modern and efficient.

If we destroyed their logistical infrastructure they wouldnt be able to move their armored divisions. Like taking the leggs away from a good fighter, if they cant move around the ring they cant win the fight.

That's a huge 'if.' Just like 'if' the Iranian military destroys every airbase and ship near its borders with high tech tactical ballistic missile systems, which they are in possession of.

Your comments come across as incredibly stupid. I suggest you read a book before you make any more of a fool out of yourself

 

[Onyx]

I don't believe Iran showed any great military genius in their war with Iraq.

They were fighting a defensive war against a vastly superior military supplied by the CIA and turned the tides in only 4 years.

Maybe they did not demonstrate 'genius,' but genius is not required to win a war with the US. The odds are so far in their favor, if the condition is a defensive war.

 

[sakinago]

And I'm no general but you really don't understand modern warfare if your disqualifying the effect of air superiority.

I'm not disqualifying it. I am not overestimating it either. You people are under the impression that the US airforce could fly unlimited and unopposed over Iran, which is a major demonstration of ignorance.

You know how in the old days when the higher ground was key in a battle, that's a lot like having air superiority...except multiply that advantage by 50.

There is not a 50 times advantage. Like I said, US airforce operations would be limited to raids off of the Persian Gulf. You really should educate yourself.

And let's not forgot our armored vehicles are far superior (scored a shocking K/D ratio against their Russian counterparts), and now those tanks have activist defense systems.

US tanks are not even liked by the pentagon. What's more, is that the US is in possession of not one modern light tank. Light and mobile tanks are the only option that make any sense in overseas invasions, and tanks like the M1 abrams were absolutely worthless in responding to engagements in Iraq. Not to mention that the efficiency of the tank itself has been scrutinized by military experts since it first entered production, including its predecessors as well.

Russia and Iran (which uses Russian technology) have vastly superior armor, although that's kind of irrelevant, since the US would not even survive to a stage where it could be clashing tanks.

Also our training and equipment are also superior.

More ignorance. Iran soldiers go through more vigorous and intense training then US soldiers, and they have plenty of verteran generals and soldiers from an actual conventional war.

Our infantry divisions can take on their tank divisions with the javelin.

Iran has the same technology, and they don't need to establish an impossible foothold in their own country to be able to use it.

So explain to me how half a million AK 47s and rpgs stand up to that?

More ignorance. Iran does not use AK47s (no nation has for decades) and there are half a dozen variants of the RPG, some of which are very modern and efficient.

If we destroyed their logistical infrastructure they wouldnt be able to move their armored divisions. Like taking the leggs away from a good fighter, if they cant move around the ring they cant win the fight.

That's a huge 'if.' Just like 'if' the Iranian military destroys every airbase and ship near its borders with high tech tactical ballistic missile systems, which they are in possession of.

Your comments come across as incredibly stupid. I suggest you read a book before you make any more of a fool out of yourself

Wow you're really off the deep end. How did all those Abrams get in Iraq then? And yea pentagon wants a new tank since the Abrams is 20 years old, Abrams still beats a t90 any day all day, t90 is the most advanced tank Iran has, and they don't have many. Next best is t81 and those are badly outdated. And we have a lot more Abrams. We also have bradleys, which is our light tank, those can hold their own against a t81. And you want to act like we don't have air bases in Iraq? We're still flying sorties out of there. Iran barely has any G5 era fighters, and we have fighters that score a 1-20 K/D ratio against the most advanced generation 5 fighters out there. It's also hard for Iran to accumulate advanced weaponry since they've had sanctions on them for the past 20 years.

And did I say AK 47, I meant Ak74, wow huge difference.

And yes air superiority is that great of an advantage, I might be underplaying if actually. Imagine now being able to use any armour against an invading army. Imagine not being able to attack in superior numbers without the enemy knowing about it, and without getting the ever loving allah bombed out of you. Imagine not being able to occupy a military stronghold anywhere in your own country.

I don't know what Iranian run news you're watching but it's not based in reality. To say America can't transport tanks outside of our boarders is ridiculous.

 

[Onyx]

Wow you're really off the deep end.

The irony...

How did all those Abrams get in Iraq then?

By spending millions of dollars to ship each individual tank. Relatively none of them saw battle because they were too slow to respond to respond to threats.

And yea pentagon wants a new tank since the Abrams is 20 years old

Most US equipment is that old. The pentagon still produces the same junk service rifle.

Iran is manufacturing modernized standard equipment for all its troops not even a year old.

Abrams still beats a t90 any day all day

You are clearly delusional. The T-90 outperforms the Abram in every category except raw firepower. The excessive weapon systems on the Abrams have made the tank inferior.

t90 is the most advanced tank Iran has, and they don't have many.

Their standard tank is the Zulifiqar. Not the T-90 or T-81. Shows how little you know.

And did I say AK 47, I meant Ak74, wow huge difference.

It is about a 30 year huge difference. People that know their shit don't confuse the two.

And yes air superiority is that great of an advantage

Although worthless without ground superiority. You are dumb as bricks for not understanding combined arms doctrine.

I don't know what Iranian run news you're watching but it's not based in reality. To say America can't transport tanks outside of our boarders is ridiculous.

I don't watch Iranian news. I have studied military science for a very long time, and judging by your ignorant comments, it is obvious that you are talking out of your ass. Educate yourself.

 

[sakinago]

Wow you're really off the deep end.

The irony...

How did all those Abrams get in Iraq then?

By spending millions of dollars to ship each individual tank. Relatively none of them saw battle because they were too slow to respond to respond to threats.

And yea pentagon wants a new tank since the Abrams is 20 years old

Most US equipment is that old. The pentagon still produces the same junk service rifle.

Iran is manufacturing modernized standard equipment for all its troops not even a year old.

Abrams still beats a t90 any day all day

You are clearly delusional. The T-90 outperforms the Abram in every category except raw firepower. The excessive weapon systems on the Abrams have made the tank inferior.

t90 is the most advanced tank Iran has, and they don't have many.

Their standard tank is the Zulifiqar. Not the T-90 or T-81. Shows how little you know.

And did I say AK 47, I meant Ak74, wow huge difference.

It is about a 30 year huge difference. People that know their shit don't confuse the two.

And yes air superiority is that great of an advantage

Although worthless without ground superiority. You are dumb as bricks for not understanding combined arms doctrine.

I don't know what Iranian run news you're watching but it's not based in reality. To say America can't transport tanks outside of our boarders is ridiculous.

I don't watch Iranian news. I have studied military science for a very long time, and judging by your ignorant comments, it is obvious that you are talking out of your ass. Educate yourself.

They were relatively slow, as compared to aircraft with smart bombs, or attack copters, or drones, which can respond much faster than 60 mph. Nice non-sequitur. Also those threats have a much harder time countering aircraft. This all goes back to my point of the importance of air superiority, which has severely diminished the need for armour. There is still a place for mobilized armor, and armor is very good, and is upgraded often. There's a saying, if it ain't broke don't fix it, and the M1 with excellent targeting, firepower, armor, is a great platform...that's now updated with ADS. And speaking of educating ones self, you stated earlier that America doesn't have any light armor, are you kidding?? They have two great light armor platforms in the stinger and Bradley. That's not including our APC's either.

You act as though we don't have very good navy, designed specifically for transporting all of these toys anywhere. You also act like our airborne divisions weren't designed to land anywhere in a country, create and hold an airstrips for operations. Or that we don't have airbases strategically placed across the world to respond anywhere in the world. Air superiority gives the huge advantage of superior speed and effective responses to threats...and intelligence. This is why in invasions, the first thing you always target is airstrips and aircraft. Once that's out of the way, that countries ground forces are screwed. They can only resort to gurrilla warfare, or get bombed before the battle even begins.

And I was being sarcastic with my AK 47 vs 74 comment...it's pretty much the same damn gun, with minor upgrades. It's still a good gun yes...but again doesn't help much when fighting stealth aircraft.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You act as though we don't have very good navy, designed specifically for transporting all of these toys anywhere....

You note he does not offer anything to support his opinion.
All you need to know.

 

[sakinago]

You act as though we don't have very good navy, designed specifically for transporting all of these toys anywhere....

You note he does not offer anything to support his opinion.
All you need to know.

He has to be Persian. I can't think another reason to take his stance.

 

[FA_Q2]

You act as though we don't have very good navy, designed specifically for transporting all of these toys anywhere....

You note he does not offer anything to support his opinion.
All you need to know.

He has to be Persian. I can't think another reason to take his stance.

Hatred for America. It is that simple. He hates the US and wants to demand that his unsupported ideas that are divorced from reality are fact because he said so. The really funny part is that he has complained in many other threads that no one is willing to honestly debate him in the CDZ. The previous exchanges are all you need to see in order to understand why - it is pointless.