Jump to content


Photo

Iran Military Re-Arms


  • Please log in to reply
354 replies to this topic

#281 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,718 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 28 May 2019 - 1037 AM

We aren't going to war with Iran and there is no need to go to war with Iran

 

but if one did go to war with Iran don't they have about 40 major dams/reservoirs that make up an enormous percentage of Iran's electrical generation?

Blow all 40 of them on the same day (or same few days).

Stuart's math about how many divisions it takes to occupy Iran isn't entirely relevant if we just hose the place and leave them to starve.

 

As always the caveat that assumes that Iran is guilty of a first strike of proportions that start a way


  • 0

#282 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 28 May 2019 - 1134 AM

I dont see why Russia would even get involved. Even their footprint in Syria is fairly small, and they wont lift a finger to stop the IAF. I cant imagine them picking a fight with the USAF for the sake of Iran. Bombing Iran is a bad idea because of Iran, not because Russia has any desire or significant capability to stop it.

Edited by Josh, 28 May 2019 - 1232 PM.

  • 0

#283 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,963 posts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 1140 AM

Stuart Americans still have air droppable sea mines you know. Any balls out air offensive on Iran would likely include some mines. Mostly on the straits, but you cant rule out someone using B2's that far north to deploy them. And how do you deploy them any distance in iran when the road and rail network are under attack? You cant fly it in, you cant sail it in, you cant drive it in. All you are left with doing is using a stargate.

 

 

Not sure it’s within our interests to start mining first – mine countermeasures hasn’t proven to be the USN’s strong suit in the past.  Also doubt that communications between Iran and other Asian countries via air, sea, and land, can be cut.  They couldn't even stop ISIS moving around with airpower right on top of them 24/7.

 

Well, it is known. The Americans have been trialling S-300 for years in Nevada. The Israelis have had a first hand look at it in cyprus. S400 is entering service, but with one straight on their doorstep and their using F35's, the sigint opportunities are already there (not to mention mount Hebron and RAF Troodos in line of sight) id be surprised if there is much we dont already know about it.

 

 

  The few S-300 batteries Iran has, or Iranian AD in general, the USAF is probably not too worried about.  The exception might be the type of high altitude IR systems the rebels in Yemen have used on occasion against Saudi aircraft.  (High altitude IR might be a real concern because it can proliferate all over the region).  In Syria we appear to have seen that Israeli F-35’s seem able to penetrate into the Syrian AD net to any distance.  We also see it is the case that the IAF can hit individual buildings and targets through AA defenses, but that defenses can also shoot down plenty of missiles.   We know that in Syria the Russians appear to have captured relatively intact American standoff precision munitions.   We also know that the Russians are not swimming in Pantsir or other short range point defense systems such that the numbers are there to make a difference.  Bet on the USAF to bring the pain if it comes to it.  But, a war could be longer than expected too - the longer it goes on, the more uncertain the trendline.

 

We arent going to war with Iran, whatever hardon there might be in the White house for doing it.

 

 

I tend to agree – the stated goals are much easier achieved with diplomacy.  So hopefully its all just sabre rattling like with North Korea.  But, there seems like an awful lot of problems on a large number of fronts.


Edited by glenn239, 28 May 2019 - 1142 AM.

  • 0

#284 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,729 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 28 May 2019 - 1147 AM

We aren't going to war with Iran and there is no need to go to war with Iran

 

but if one did go to war with Iran don't they have about 40 major dams/reservoirs that make up an enormous percentage of Iran's electrical generation?

Blow all 40 of them on the same day (or same few days).

Stuart's math about how many divisions it takes to occupy Iran isn't entirely relevant if we just hose the place and leave them to starve.

 

As always the caveat that assumes that Iran is guilty of a first strike of proportions that start a way

Destroying dams is a long term consequence, taking out substations and switching points has the same effect with less longterm impacts.


  • 0

#285 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,435 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 May 2019 - 1222 PM

The answer to the question of whether Washington would intervene in an ongoing war between Israel and Iran is much less certain.

 

U.S. assistance to Israel in the form of resupply, intelligence, and funding would be a prelude to it. Naval operations in the gulf would be a potential and likely escalation toward it.


  • 0

#286 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,718 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 28 May 2019 - 1256 PM

it is a long term decision made with the intent of  doing long term harm.

As the Saudi's are recently saying, Iran has been at war for 40 years.  IF we are going to get into real conflict with them then it needs to be as painful for them as possible.  If we aren't going to go all out then don't pull any triggers at all.  Just do it economically and covertly


  • 0

#287 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 29 May 2019 - 1013 AM

We aren't going to war with Iran and there is no need to go to war with Iran

 

but if one did go to war with Iran don't they have about 40 major dams/reservoirs that make up an enormous percentage of Iran's electrical generation?

Blow all 40 of them on the same day (or same few days).

Stuart's math about how many divisions it takes to occupy Iran isn't entirely relevant if we just hose the place and leave them to starve.

 

As always the caveat that assumes that Iran is guilty of a first strike of proportions that start a way

 

Yes, but you arent going to do that. For the same reason you didnt bomb all the dykes to in Vietnam, again which was entirely in your power. You arent war criminals and Sociopaths. In short, you aren't the Iranian regime.

 

Yes, you could, in theory. You could also go full E5M and turn it into a glass bottomed parking lot. You aren't going to do that either. I dont much like Trump, but he isnt certifiable, which is the kind of mindset you would need to be to indulge in such games.

Thats the weakness in making these threats for Trump. The Iranians know you want jump the shark unless you are in a world war. They wont give you one that will warrant such treatment. Besides, Victory through airpower is very Douhet, but its never seemed to work yet.

 

Here is the rub. Even if you did all those things, It STILL probably would do nothing to stop the research project into atomic and radiological weapons. And on top of that, they still have a chemical weapon stockpile including that crowdpleaser, Novichok. Unless you occupy, and essentially do what we did postwar in Germany, demilitarize, all that is up for grabs. For any one of a hundred groups that would be happy to utilize it in a shopping mall near you soon.

 

 

We either take it and occupy it, and destroy the Iranian regime brick by brick. Or lets not bother, other than plinking boghammers. It worked for Reagan, it works for me too personally.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 29 May 2019 - 1016 AM.

  • 0

#288 Tim the Tank Nut

Tim the Tank Nut

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,718 posts
  • Interests:WW2 Armor (mostly US)

Posted 29 May 2019 - 1018 AM

I suppose another option to please the gallery might be to let Iran do whatever it pleases.  That couldn't have any consequences at all...

 

As President I would definitely qualify as a sociopath

 

Lastly, I keep seeing more and more articles about how dire the economic situation is becoming in Iran.  Even sources directly hostile to Trump are starting to print them


  • 0

#289 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 29 May 2019 - 1147 AM

I suppose another option to please the gallery might be to let Iran do whatever it pleases.  That couldn't have any consequences at all...

 

As President I would definitely qualify as a sociopath

 

Lastly, I keep seeing more and more articles about how dire the economic situation is becoming in Iran.  Even sources directly hostile to Trump are starting to print them

 

Which to my mind is more an argument to point and laugh and let their economy fall over. Again, Reagan would approve, and I personally would giggle like a schoolgirl to make it happen.

 

The irony is, the deal didnt even need to be kicked over to make it happen. Nobody was trading with Iran to the degree necessary to help their economy anyway. Oil revenue isnt want it was, not since Iraq came back online.


  • 0

#290 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,963 posts

Posted 29 May 2019 - 1155 AM

Such a President as Tim describes would be removed from office, either by legal or kinetic means.  


Edited by glenn239, 29 May 2019 - 1156 AM.

  • 0

#291 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 29 May 2019 - 1309 PM

 
The irony is, the deal didnt even need to be kicked over to make it happen. Nobody was trading with Iran to the degree necessary to help their economy anyway. Oil revenue isnt want it was, not since Iraq came back online.


Indeed, backing out of the deal exerted minimal addition pressure while allowing them to enrich at the same time, and gave the regime an external enemy to blame for their own economic mismanagement. It was a deal scrapped for who made it, not because any better course of action was decided upon.
  • 0

#292 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,963 posts

Posted 31 May 2019 - 1152 AM

https://foreignpolic...an-cooperation/

 

Interesting piece on US thinking.  excerpt from end,

 

 

We need to convince both our Middle Eastern allies and also elsewhere that Russia and Iran together are a problem for us,” Katz said. “Those in the Middle East concerned about Iran need to understand that working with Russia is not necessarily going to help them with Iran.”

 

Wheelbarger also noted that Russia’s military has significant limitations, pointing out that even for those countries it has promised to defend, Moscow avoids “real military confrontation.” For example, Israel’s military strikes in Syria continue to degrade Iranian positions; meanwhile, Russia failed to contest U.S. strikes on Syria in response to the regime’s use of chemical weapons.

 

These two paragraphs are mutually exclusive...


  • 0

#293 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,272 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 01 June 2019 - 1121 AM

Pure garbage intended to kiss ass.
  • 0

#294 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,435 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 June 2019 - 1653 PM

Moscow avoids “real military confrontation.” 

 

There are upwards of around 200 KIA and WIA Wagner Group veterans who probably think otherwise.

 

It was a deal scrapped for who made it, not because any better course of action was decided upon. 

 

The same can essentially be said for the reason why Trump pulled America and Americans out of TPP.


  • 0

#295 glenn239

glenn239

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,963 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 0723 AM

Two more tankers hit in the Gulf today,

 

https://www.foxnews....in-gulf-of-oman


  • 0

#296 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 52,523 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 13 June 2019 - 0725 AM

Initially blamed on pirates, which seems less and less likely.


  • 0

#297 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,009 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 13 June 2019 - 1355 PM

Initially blamed on pirates, which seems less and less likely.

 

Makes not much sense for pirates to  sink ships. they normally take ships hostage and want ransom.

 

we have a thread for that news: http://www.tank-net....showtopic=44002

 

this has not that much to do with the iranian military rearming


  • 0

#298 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,454 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2019 - 1408 PM

Not to be that guy, but wouldn't a modern heavyweight torpedo break the keel of a tanker built to commercial standards?

The image reeks of limpet style mine.


  • 0

#299 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,161 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York City

Posted 13 June 2019 - 1421 PM

See other thread.
  • 0

#300 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,454 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 June 2019 - 2017 PM

The west needs to watch all the propaganda videos coming out of the Mid East and get mushroom stamped with the realities of the world we live in. Every generation understandably and naturally wants to spare their children from the hardships they had to endure, but as soon as they're successful in protecting them from that exposure, the unintended 2nd order effects of naïveté, ignorance, entitlement and taking their standard of living for granted inevitably results.

He had it right in that movie Fury

"Wait till you see it..."


Edited by Burncycle360, 13 June 2019 - 2041 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users