US gets a challenge

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
So the US is probably planning to attack, without a declaration of war as usual, either North Korea or Iran. Well, if you thought Iran had peasant infantry like the iraqis, who you could barely handle by the way, think again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8884648292925739980&q=family+guy

Really, I was impressed by this. Not only do they match the US in technology, they probably have much better tacticians and leadership. The motorcycle units seemed cool and effective in that environment, too.
 
I recall seeing similiar videos about Iraq's invincible Republican Guard that was filmed sometime before the first Persian Gulf war.

Not impressed. The National Guard depot in the very small city of Grand Forks, North Dakota puts on more impressive shows yearly.

To be honest, I am more "impressed" (creeped out, angered) by videos of insurgents beheading people.

Also, you reek of propoganda.

without a declaration of war as usual

As usual?

Well, if you thought Iran had peasant infantry like the iraqis

Wrong.

who you could barely handle by the way

Double wrong.

You lose. Please try again.

Attacking any country at the moment would be a mistake unless there was a clear moral imperitive to do so. Our forces are too bogged down, in my opinion, to be able to handle more stress of further war planning and occupational duties. It would not be a mistake because someone knows how to compile a bunch of videos from over the many years of Iran's (possibly other country's) military. I don't think Iran will be a pushover if we do go to war with them, but I also will refrain from giving them the amount of credit you have given them.

Not only do they match the US in technology

they probably have much better tacticians and leadership

HAR HAR HAR *hack cough*

The motorcycle units seemed cool and effective in that environment, too.

Because teh coolness will win teh WARZ EFFORT, YAH!
 
Rocket trucks? Mortars? Outdated soviet tanks and gunships?

Not a chance.

Quite delusional on your part :)

Most likely fueled by your desire to see the US military war machine stopped. While I can understand the reasoning behind such, it's going to take a lot more than a limited military, straight out of the 70's and 80's. Of course I know you don't think they could defeat the U.S., but from the looks of it, I don't think they'd even make a dent.

By the way, the so called "peasant infantry" of Iraq was very easily handled by the US forces. The only thing that currently poses a threat is guerilla tactics, terrorism, and general social upheaval.
 
@ The Overseer:

what exactly do you see there?

what i see is ancient MLRS-type arti, MG42 rip-off refits, tanks wacking a mountain (thats kinda hard to miss).
it's a general ego movie that shows nothing about their capabilities...
they dont show ANYTHING that 90% of the NATIONs worldwide couldnt show. fuck, most of the african warlords could probably show you exactly the same...

@ Pale Horse:

war is never about morals. it's about power & money.
 
Old stuff, retarded soldiers wearing white, silk scarfs (which are rather nice, by the way :look:).
Anyway, they are no match for our Aryan ubermenschen + state of the art contraptions.

"I KILL YOU! I KILL YOU! I KILL YOU!"

:roll:
 
SuAside said:
war is never about morals. it's about power & money.

True, but it can be about morals on the defending nation's part. Not saying that would necessarily be the U.S. All I was saying was that unless there was a necessary reason, or imminent threat to deal with, I don't seriously think war with Iran is in our cards at the moment. I'm sure the Bush administrastion would love to, but I just don't think there are too many capabilities for that option unless the U.N. or some extremely dedicated nation to supply troops for the occupation and rebuilding of the country afterwards.
 
No, they were awesome. I'm still waiting for the US armed forces leadership to read Sun Tzu's Art of war. They are getting their asses handed to them at the moment.
 
No, they were awesome. I'm still waiting for the US armed forces leadership to read Sun Tzu's Art of war. They are getting their asses handed to them at the moment.
Sun Tzu is meaningless, and conventional armies are not good at fighting unconventional wars. If you think the Iranian Army stands a chance against us you are dead fucking wrong. If the Iran war ever gets nasty it will be long after every division of the Iranian Army, every plane in the Iranian Air Force and every ship in the Iranian Navy is blown harder and better then Clinton at a Boston Borders for a book signing.

Hey, remember the first month of the war Overseer? How long did it take us to destroy the Iraqi Army? A month? Maybe a month and a half? With almost no casualties?

match the US in technology
Maybe they match late Nazi Germany in technology. They seem to use Katayusha rockets (from WWII), something that looks like an MG42 (Also from WWII), a Frogfoot (from the 1970's), and a bunch of T-72s (which are among the worst tanks ever mass produced-just look at a few pictures from Gulf War).

It is actually pretty pathetic.

they probably have much better tacticians and leadership.
Sadly, they killed most of their best leadership after the Shah died, and they only stalemated Iraq, a much smaller country with at the time a pathetic Air Force in comparison to Iran's, because of human wave tactics (that I promise will not be effective against an M1A2 Abrahms).
 
How could you possibly think that Iran would beat the US in a conventional war? We could beat them right now. We just couldn't hold the country after the fact.
 
John Uskglass said:
Maybe they match late Nazi Germany in technology. They seem to use Katayusha rockets (from WWII), something that looks like an MG42 (Also from WWII), a Frogfoot (from the 1970's), and a bunch of T-72s (which are among the worst tanks ever mass produced-just look at a few pictures from Gulf War).

More fodder for the Warthog.

wikipedia said:
The planes proved their mettle in the Persian Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 1,000 tanks, 2,000 military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. Five A-10s were shot down during the war (a number of those by ZSU-23-4 Shilka), far fewer than military planners expected. A-10s had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles.
 
Guys, seriously, I saw like 10 tanks and like 20 helicopters in that video, and I'm pretty sure they were different ones in each scene! And some dude with a radio from the movie Heavy Metal.

How can the USA stand up to such huge hordes of military might?
 
No, really, it was mostly a joke. I'm just saying the US Army kind of sucks. The Sun Tzu part was really about US leadership's complete inability to deal with the guerilla warfare conducted by Iraqi freedom fighters.
 
Clearly Sun Tzu offers insight to counter-insurgency that years of military education doesn't offer.

What I'm mostly worried about in regards to Iran is those Sunburner Anti-ship missiles, and that eight million strong Bahseej force. Sure, we would probably still defeat them, but American casualties would still be relatively enormous compared to our past military wars. Having to kill eight million people also isn't going to be palatable to our servicemen, or the voters.
 
Clearly Sun Tzu offers insight to counter-insurgency that years of military education doesn't offer.
:rofl:

What I'm mostly worried about in regards to Iran is those Sunburner Anti-ship missiles, and that eight million strong Bahseej force. Sure, we would probably still defeat them, but American casualties would still be relatively enormous compared to our past military wars. Having to kill eight million people also isn't going to be palatable to our servicemen, or the voters.
They do not have Sunburns, they have Moskits IIRC. And that only matters if they can hit us with either SU-33s (that they do not have) or missile launchers (that we can destroy) before we hit them. And even then I doubt their accuracy or the quality of their maintainance.
 
Bradylama said:
Clearly Sun Tzu offers insight to counter-insurgency that years of military education doesn't offer.

Clearly you didn't get the message. And it's not like they seem to be using that "military education" so well.


Anyway, the US is way over it's head in Iraq. I'm just saying, if they're handling that situation like children, invading and americanizing Iran, larger and with more than twice the population, not mention a lot more fanaticism, is going to be impossible.
 
I more or less agree with the other posters above with some differences.
Yes, their helicopters, jets, and tanks are vastly inferior to ours. However, I wouldn't go laughing at their individual soldiers equiptment. The M60 was based off the MG42 and the design of the MG42, with a few improvements, is a very capable and effective weapon, many countries are still using varients of it to include Spain. I was also impressed at the motorcycles, simple dirt bikes would make an infantry or recon division very mobile and allow troops to still manuever independantly unlike APCs, making them very flexible strategically. I've always been intrigued by using motorcycles and dirt bikes for motorized brigades, hence my avatar of a german bike soldier's sketch of a fellow soldier.

I also noticed many of them were using the G3 battle rifle. It's a full size and weight 7.62 rifle that is very accurate and very reliable and powerful. Perfect for the desert, which the US hasn't figured out. Deserts tend to lead to longer range fighting where the 5.56 rifles used by our troops don't have the range or ballistics and accuracy to be effective. Not to mention 5.56 just sucks for damage, it's extremely frequent for soldiers to go on fighting even after a few hits from them.



Ultimately though, keep in mind, prior to the Gulf War Episode 1, Iraq had one of the largest standing armies, a very respectable (#4th in the world, I think? My memory may be faulty here though) air force, a decent navy, and was still decimated in no time. Their air force fell almost immediately, in the Gulf Episode 2, they didn't even bother using the air force they'd rebuilt. Instead they buried it. America has shown time and time again that they don't have a problem with standing armies, it's Guirrila tactics and insurgancies that are the difficulty.


America is not going to start another war any time soon. Our stockpile of bombs is only starting to recover from the depleted state it was left from our Shock and Awe campaign in Iraq and Afganistan. Our troops are stretched out too thinly. Morale is shit. Recruitment is down. The citizenry is pissed at the current president and his wars. Even if he wanted to start another war, congress wouldn't allow it (lets not start with republican bashing either. Even they are fed up with this nonsensical crusade, those that aren't still have reputations, re-elections, and the unpopularity of the current situation to deal with already without starting another bloody war.)


The Overseer said:
Clearly you didn't get the message. And it's not like they seem to be using that "military education" so well.
The US military is young and has spent a large part of it's existance preparing to deal with a cold war gone hot. They are very capable of dealing with a large fielded military in almost any enviroment. It has only begun retooling and rethinking it's strategies for dealing with policing actions and insurgencies. Keep in mind, beaurocracies move very slowly.
We can easily handle the Iranian Army, we would not be able to hang on to the region or be able to install any form of goverment. It takes a lot more manpower to take and hold ground than to shell, bomb, and gun an army out of existance.
 
The Overseer said:
Anyway, the US is way over it's head in Iraq. I'm just saying, if they're handling that situation like children, invading and americanizing Iran, larger and with more than twice the population, not mention a lot more fanaticism, is going to be impossible.
Dude, you forget a very important reason why they are fucking up in Iraq (and why, by the way, every other Western country would fuck up in whatever war): the press. I'm not fucking kidding about this: the reasons why these wars take forever and are regarded as bad decisions and huge mistakes is because the press can cover them and put total crap and accidents under the microscope that is the Western so-called educated audience. An Iraqi civilian gets shot in the leg, ssswwoooooossh: half an hour later it's on CNN and all the intellectuals go berserk, quoting laws and agreements, protesting in the streets of France or Germany. A missile gets a little disoriented and blows up a whole Iraqi neighbourhood, killing 15 children en 8 pregnant sandwomen, swoooooooooosssh: half an hour later it's in all the newspapers with close ups of weeping muslim grannies holding various bloody bodyparts and whining to allah. It's been like this since Vietnam and don't forget that the USA lost that war as well. It's hard to fight a war (which is brutal and hard and causes lots of pain and grief and kills lots of innocent bystanders, so to speak) when there are constantly press mosquitos circling around your head, watching your every move, looking for a moment that you're a bit uncareful so they can sting, sting, sting, 'cause they want blood, 'cause blood sells.
If the USA could tell it's soldiers that they can do whatever they please as long as they win that war goddamnit, they would have already been back home with their families (and probably their shrinks, but that's a price you need to pay as well). It's ridiculous to assume that you can win all wars by simply getting rid of the army and the rulers. This may sound rude and harsh, but don't you think that most wars (in the past) were primarily won because the women were raped and the children butchered, the churches and temples burned to the ground and the survivors enslaved?
 
The Overseer said:
So the US is probably planning to attack, without a declaration of war as usual, either North Korea or Iran. Well, if you thought Iran had peasant infantry like the iraqis, who you could barely handle by the way, think again:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8884648292925739980&q=family+guy

Really, I was impressed by this. Not only do they match the US in technology, they probably have much better tacticians and leadership. The motorcycle units seemed cool and effective in that environment, too.


Right...yes....peasant infantry.

This peasant infantry you speak of only happened to be the 4th largest army in the world. Saddam Hussein had a fully equipped, well trained army in both the Gulf War and the most recent conflict.

And your claim about how "advanced" the Iranian military tech and leadership is....possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever read.

The difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran now produces their own weapons and military vehicles. They aren't equipped with "rusty old Soviet rifles" or anything like that. In fact, most of their weapons, tanks, and planes are very new. The problem, though, is that Iran's total GDP is only $561 billion, which is roughly what the United States spends on its military per year (which, by the way, is only 4.06% of the total U.S. GDP).

So if the United States decides to attack Iran, which is looking less and less likely (the Council of Guardians and Ahmadinejad are constantly at odds...he's even gone so far as to defy Khameini with regards to aspects of foreign policy towards the West), Iran would really not face a chance. They have a fully conventional military which would be dispatched with relative ease, and the pro-west, ant-Iranian government sentiment amongst the people provides relatively little chance for an Iranian-based insurgency. Even in Iraq, the "insurgency" has little to do with Iraqis - it's mostly al Qaeda and Iraqi civil strife. The U.S. military has ceased to be the primary target of the Iraqi insurgency a long time ago. They concentrate mainly on Iraqi civilians and infrastructure.
 
Back
Top