Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 97 of 97

Thread: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

  1. #91
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    16,306

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Weakened, yes but far from depleted.

    Iraq was thought to have between 1,800 and 2,000 tanks in working order, compared with at least 5,500 before the 1991 Gulf War. About 700 tanks were thought to be relatively capable Soviet T-72’s, but they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away.

    The country was believed to have about 300 combat aircraft, although many planes were thought to have little, if any, effective combat capability. In fact, no Iraqi combat aircraft flew in the conflict. Its major combat aircraft included the French Mirage F-1 and the Russian-built MIG-23, 21, and 29. It also had some 350 helicopters, about 80 of which were armed.

    Iraq had an extensive air defense force, a 15,000-man unit that was believed to have more than 850 surface-to-air missile launchers and some 4,000 anti-aircraft guns.

    The regular army was thought to have between 300,000 and 350,000 men organized into five corps and 16 divisions. The Republican Guard was believed to have between 60,000 and 70,000 men.

    IRAQ: Iraq’s Prewar Military Capabilities | Council on Foreign Relations
    They were actually very deprived, their remaining air force defected to iran or had aircraft buried under the sand to protect them from destruction, they had no viable air defense left, and their entire military srtucture had fallen apart.

    The t072 capable soviet tank you call it was not a soviet t-72, they were soviet export t-72 tanks, relegated to 1970's ammo only very limited in capabilities to actual soviet domestic models. Soviet t-72 tanks had gen 1 or 2 depending on when brought into service for nightvision as well as other targetting systems allowing night time operation, the export model stripped those features.

    The t-72 export model was also not widely used by the iraqi army as people believe due to the limited number they could get before a un embargo, and instead used tech and parts from poland to make their own t-72 tanks called the lion of babel, which were poorly armored and even vastly inferior to the lowest level soviet export model.


    Your 300 aircraft is almost double what the actually estimate was, they were estimated to have around 180 aircraft with less than half functional due to the embargo limited what replacement parts they could get. Their air defense was wiped out in 1991, in 2003 most of their air defenses actually used were manpads Like igla-s and other soviet designs.


    Their regular army did not mean much, most of them threw down their weapons and fled, the republican guard is what put up much of the fighting during th initial invasion, and even they suffered mass desertion which crippled their capabilities.


    You must realize in 1991 if iraq had been a competent force the us and allies would have been through hell trying to take them out, their armament was big enough, however the iraqi military structure prove to be complete garbage, and caused them to lose most of their gear. Iraq then is like saudi arabia now, saudi keeps losing to barefoot rebels in yemen despite having the best american gear they can get, in iraq and with saudi you could hand them the most advanced and largest arsenals on earth and they would still lose to any poorly armed nation so long as that nation had even the slightest grasp of sense military structure and unit cohesion.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  2. #92
    Advisor BahamaBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    599

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    They were actually very deprived, their remaining air force defected to iran or had aircraft buried under the sand to protect them from destruction, they had no viable air defense left, and their entire military srtucture had fallen apart.

    The t072 capable soviet tank you call it was not a soviet t-72, they were soviet export t-72 tanks, relegated to 1970's ammo only very limited in capabilities to actual soviet domestic models. Soviet t-72 tanks had gen 1 or 2 depending on when brought into service for nightvision as well as other targetting systems allowing night time operation, the export model stripped those features.

    The t-72 export model was also not widely used by the iraqi army as people believe due to the limited number they could get before a un embargo, and instead used tech and parts from poland to make their own t-72 tanks called the lion of babel, which were poorly armored and even vastly inferior to the lowest level soviet export model.


    Your 300 aircraft is almost double what the actually estimate was, they were estimated to have around 180 aircraft with less than half functional due to the embargo limited what replacement parts they could get. Their air defense was wiped out in 1991, in 2003 most of their air defenses actually used were manpads Like igla-s and other soviet designs.


    Their regular army did not mean much, most of them threw down their weapons and fled, the republican guard is what put up much of the fighting during th initial invasion, and even they suffered mass desertion which crippled their capabilities.


    You must realize in 1991 if iraq had been a competent force the us and allies would have been through hell trying to take them out, their armament was big enough, however the iraqi military structure prove to be complete garbage, and caused them to lose most of their gear. Iraq then is like saudi arabia now, saudi keeps losing to barefoot rebels in yemen despite having the best american gear they can get, in iraq and with saudi you could hand them the most advanced and largest arsenals on earth and they would still lose to any poorly armed nation so long as that nation had even the slightest grasp of sense military structure and unit cohesion.
    Here is the part you must not have read. "they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away."

    The same thing occurred in first Gulf conflict. Cheap Russian junk against US technology = disaster.

  3. #93
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,957
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Got news for you, your war study spans 1948-1991. Only a moron would try to stretch that to cover a war that happened in 2003. How pathetic.
    I honest to god don't understand what you're trying to argue. Are you saying decades of institutional incompetence don't matter to a conflict that occurred less than two decades after the focus years of the study?

    Because for the record, Pollack does address Iraqi performance in the invasion. It's even worse.

    "Iraq's arsenal was even worse than it had been in 1991: the Iraqis had only the equipment they had been able to salvage from that war, and it was now older, more obsolete, and further degraded by twelve years of suffocating international sanctions. Saddam's characteristic, albeit still mystifying, refusal to believe that the United States really would invade left his forces badly out of position and unprepared for war - his Republican Guards had not even established defensive positions around Baghdad. Overall, the Iraqis were even less of a match for the American and British formations they faced in 2003 than they had been in 1991. It was no real surprise that the invasion took just under four weeks and resulted in only a few hundred Coalition casualties...

    In some ways, the war went according to form. Iraqi formations demonstrated little ability to maneuver against agile, fast-moving American and British formations. Iraqi commanders showed little improvement over 1991 (or 198o or 1973 for that matter) in their ability to integrate their forces into combined arms teams, improvise and adapt in battle, and seize fleeting opportunities. There was little evidence of real cooperation among Iraqi formations, and the information released from the debriefings of senior regime officials suggests that few in Baghdad really understand what was happening at the front during most of the war."

    Kenneth M. Pollack. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991 (Studies in War, Society, and the Militar) (Kindle Locations 8228-8231). Kindle Edition.

    You have yet to actually rebuke anything I've stated with evidence.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  4. #94
    Finite and Precious
    Jredbaron96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    With you.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    10,957
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Cheap Russian junk against US technology = disaster.
    Tell that to the 250th Air Defense Missile Brigade.
    “We were all of us cogs in a great machine which sometimes rolled forward, nobody knew where, sometimes backwards, nobody knew why.”

    ― Ernst Toller

  5. #95
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    16,306

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by BahamaBob View Post
    Here is the part you must not have read. "they were outmatched by U.S. equipment. The T-72’s, for example, lack adequate night-vision equipment and have half the range of an American M1A1 Abrams tank, which in 1991 hit Iraqi tanks from as far as 1.9 miles away."

    The same thing occurred in first Gulf conflict. Cheap Russian junk against US technology = disaster.
    You missed the point of export model dumbed down below even the 1970's soviet base model, and those were outnumbered by the lion of babel t-72 which were not even equal to the base model soviet export and were not even soviet made but iraqi made.

    You do realize the actual soviet t-72 did have night vision, and actually farther range than the m1 at the time when equipped with missiles, while the export versions had neither. Later t-72's by the time of the gulf war had been upgraded to kontakt series armor(why do russians use english sounding words with hard k"s ?) and the t-72 was the base for the t-90 which to date has a better combat record than the m-1. The mig29 export model had a inferior radar to the russian domestic model also but surprisingly the soviets left the helmet mounted targetting system in the exports despite there being no western equivilent then.


    What you are doing is using the worst exports the soviet union had to offer by the worst army that could use them to make comparisons between soviet and american gear.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    12,739

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    The sa-2 was not that new when vietnam got them, nor was their anti aircraft guns
    The SA-2 was only 7 years old when Vietnam started deploying them. And they were deploying the newest iteration of the Zu-23 (a weapon itself that dated to WWII, but even today is still sold new and with even newer features). The Vietnamese deployed variants of the Su-23 already had multi-gun linking, early ballistic computers, RADAR connections, and other state of the art (for that era) advances that were almost unseen outside of the Warsaw Pact itself.

    After all, the classic M61 VULCAN dates back to 1960. But it is still being updated and improved even to this day. But the newest M61A2 is less than 20 years old. As is the GAU-4, a gas operated variant of the M61 that only needs a power source to start the barrels spinning. These are gatling guns, but a far cry from what was used in the Civil War.

    Quote Originally Posted by beerftw View Post
    Many of their overall weapons were not advanced or new, but rather what could be produced cheaply and quickly, to produce a never ending supply chain to the north vietnamese and to test out common soviet gear to modify or update doctrine. Throughout the main conflict there, the soviet union actually had much more advanced gear than they gave their allies, and the soviets would not hand out their greatest anything to a force fighting their direct competitor that would use captured examples to reverse engineer.
    That is true, certainly not all of their weapons were the newest. But many were.

    Anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, mines, a lot of those were because the Soviets were using it as a "testing ground" for new designs and upgrades.

    And in addition to being "cheap", one key aspect of Soviet weapon designs is that most components could be fabricated in the field. The AK and other designs allowed armorers with hand tools to replace almost any broken part on the weapon. This was not so with weapons like the M-16. Very little other than the hand grips and stock could be fabricated without special materials and equipment.

    And once again, giving out lesser gear (especially early in a conflict) is nothing new. When the Greek Civil War broke out, the US gave the Greek government huge amounts of the M1903 Springfield, and other WWI and inter-war era equipment (including almost all of the old M1917 helmets left in warehouses). We had been providing those to Greek forces even during Nazi occupation, and continued during the Communist insurgency. But by 1946 we started replacing those with M1 rifles. The stock of Springfields had reduced significantly by then, and the military by then had surplus of the M1 rifle. Also M1 mortars, recoilless rifles, and a lot of other WWII surplus material.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  7. #97
    defected to kekistan
    beerftw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    kekistan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    16,306

    Re: Are russia and iran becoming military allies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post
    The SA-2 was only 7 years old when Vietnam started deploying them. And they were deploying the newest iteration of the Zu-23 (a weapon itself that dated to WWII, but even today is still sold new and with even newer features). The Vietnamese deployed variants of the Su-23 already had multi-gun linking, early ballistic computers, RADAR connections, and other state of the art (for that era) advances that were almost unseen outside of the Warsaw Pact itself.

    After all, the classic M61 VULCAN dates back to 1960. But it is still being updated and improved even to this day. But the newest M61A2 is less than 20 years old. As is the GAU-4, a gas operated variant of the M61 that only needs a power source to start the barrels spinning. These are gatling guns, but a far cry from what was used in the Civil War.



    That is true, certainly not all of their weapons were the newest. But many were.

    Anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, mines, a lot of those were because the Soviets were using it as a "testing ground" for new designs and upgrades.

    And in addition to being "cheap", one key aspect of Soviet weapon designs is that most components could be fabricated in the field. The AK and other designs allowed armorers with hand tools to replace almost any broken part on the weapon. This was not so with weapons like the M-16. Very little other than the hand grips and stock could be fabricated without special materials and equipment.

    And once again, giving out lesser gear (especially early in a conflict) is nothing new. When the Greek Civil War broke out, the US gave the Greek government huge amounts of the M1903 Springfield, and other WWI and inter-war era equipment (including almost all of the old M1917 helmets left in warehouses). We had been providing those to Greek forces even during Nazi occupation, and continued during the Communist insurgency. But by 1946 we started replacing those with M1 rifles. The stock of Springfields had reduced significantly by then, and the military by then had surplus of the M1 rifle. Also M1 mortars, recoilless rifles, and a lot of other WWII surplus material.
    7 years old gear was older than what some of the gear america was fielding, infact america in some aspects treated vietnam like a test lab for new weapons systems.


    On the cheap gear you need to reread what you wrote about it being a war of attrition, the idea was that no matter how much america destroyed, the vietnamese would be supplied with the simplest cheapest and quickest to make gear, meaning being close to supply chains from russia and china that america could not ever hope to wear out the north vietnamese by destroying production capabilities.


    On the ak the russians kept it secret even as an older design until part way through vietnam, they were actually fearful of it being copied or enemies discovering how to combat such a weapon, they must have had high hopes for it since weapons like the rpg-2 were handed out before they handed out the ak-47.
    Proposition 65 warning- my posts are known to the state of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •