Iran's Military is Overrated and Outdated

Debka reports that Iran appears to be struggling to put up a front that it is capable of military might to match western powers. Despite it's boasting, Iran seems to be unable to produce much more than a demonstration that it is short on missile launchers, and quite possibly any sort of missile that has much in the line of accuracy and range.

A group of Western military experts, who carried out a recent in-depth study of Iran’s high-sounding war games and scary weaponry, has concluded that they are largely a show is put on to conceal a poorly-equipped, under-trained military and elite Revolutionary Guards corps.

researchers noticed that, in all their practices, Iranian commanders used the same small number of missile-launchers over and over, indicating a severe shortage of launchers. They are also apparently short of missiles.

visit source for full article

If this is true then Iran's latest game of holding British soldiers is nothing more than their latest bluff in this high-stakes game of poker.

cool since "Western military experts" have just shown Irans forces arent formidable and not what they seem just because they havent shown their full pottentail we could easily take them out
lets hope its not as bad as intel from the CIA and the people who planed the Iraq invasion

i think these things miss the point, does not matter how good irans military is. the american military will be better. people are thinking in old time 1 v 1 wars.

just look at how afgen, and iraq, have bogged down america, without really fighting in the first place.

It's not the fighting that the U.S. has a problem with. It's the occupation that bogs them down. What if they dont' plan on occupying Iran. Apparently they can hand them their butt on a platter if they choose to do so. Don't confuse fighting with police action. Soldiers are not trained to be policemen, thus the current problem.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by dbates]

Iran is not Iraq.

It is larger.

It has mountains.

And I still do not see any Peace in Iraq

Nor Afganistan.

Want another conflict zone in Middle East?

Now that sure is a smart idea.

Mabye their military is not up-to-date with technology and not as good as American is; but that still does not make them any weaker. Remember, they are "playing" on home field. And if I remember certain air operations over Serbia, I can tell you, that "home field advantage" can bring down some stealth bombers...

But then again, I am sure that information coming from Debka is completly non-biased and not at all influenced by any Israeli branch of the government.

[edit on 26/3/07 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Souljah
Want another conflict zone in Middle East?

Now that sure is a smart idea.

No, personally I would like to see Iraq resolved before the U.S. attempts to be the world police again. I just found it amusing that Iran's military exercises are the equivalent of a scared kitty fluffing up it's fur and arching it's back to look bigger. It's just posturing hoping that everyone will buy into the bluff long enough for them to aquire a nuclear weapon.

EDIT: Of course if it's about oil we could be there for the long haul. Then again we might be there to guard the star gates for the 2012 experience.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by Souljah

Mabye their military is not up-to-date with technology and not as good as American is; but that still does not make them any weaker. Remember, they are "playing" on home field. And if I remember certain air operations over Serbia, I can tell you, that "home field advantage" can bring down some stealth bombers...

Shooting down a stealth bomber didn't mean Serbia won. I think they gave in. Have to look it up.

Originally posted by dbates
A group of Western military experts, who carried out a recent in-depth study of Iran’s high-sounding war games and scary weaponry, has concluded that they are largely a show is put on to conceal a poorly-equipped, under-trained military and elite Revolutionary Guards corps.

funny, this rethoric was very similar just before and at the beginning of the last fiasco of IDF in Lebanon...

arrogant IDF got their asses kicked big time from a small bunch of peasants called Hezbollah...

Nope, not buying into this bait and switch. Every conflict in the Middle East does not revolve around Israel. Please don't try to change the subject.

Originally posted by dbates
Nope, not buying into this bait and switch. Every conflict in the Middle East does not revolve around Israel. Please don't try to change the subject.

sorry,

I'm just saying that I don't believe what those 'experts' say about Iran Military...

and yes, every conflict in Middle East revolve around Israel, too bad that you dont see it...

bye

Originally posted by dbates
No, personally I would like to see Iraq resolved before the U.S. attempts to be the world police again. I just found it amusing that Iran's military exercises are the equivalent of a scared kitty fluffing up it's fur and arching it's back to look bigger. It's just posturing hoping that everyone will buy into the bluff long enough for them to aquire a nuclear weapon.

You are probably right with the "kitty fur" comparison - still, it is not wise to underestimate your "enemy" in a war; it usually proves out to be a fatal mistake. Remember, Iran is BIGGER then Iraq, and last time I heard there are plenty of underground bases and bunkers there. Which only means US armed forces would have to start using nuclear bunker busters in order to pierce that kind of armor. Which would surely create an international outrage - especially from Russia and China. Which is just one step closer to calling the Fifth Horseman of Apocalypse.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Shooting down a stealth bomber didn't mean Serbia won.

I think they gave in. Have to look it up.

American and other warplanes over Serbia had a lot of trouble - I suggest you look it up, what was happening down there at that time and what kind of tactics were used by Serbian anti-aircraft unites and how many planes they really did shoot down. I do not think you are aware of how many underground bases and military complexes were built in former Yugoslavia and how many Mig's were sitting safe and sound underground, while the NATO bombers hit fake targets on runways and fake tanks in the forests. But I guess you never knew that. Still Serbia is the ONLY country who shot down the "invisible bomber". You think they passed their knowledge to Iran?

[edit on 26/3/07 by Souljah]

Originally posted by Souljah
American and other warplanes over Serbia had a lot of trouble - I suggest you look it up, what was happening down there at that time and what kind of tactics were used by Serbian anti-aircraft unites and how many planes they really did shoot down. I do not think you are aware of how many underground bases and military complexes were built in former Yugoslavia and how many Mig's were sitting safe and sound underground, while the NATO bombers hit fake targets on runways and fake tanks in the forests. But I guess you never knew that. Still Serbia is the ONLY country who shot down the "invisible bomber". You think they passed their knowledge to Iran?

[edit on 26/3/07 by Souljah]

I already did learn about the 78 day war. Still Serbia gave in after so much bombing against them, for a nation that is proud to shoot down the first stealth bomber, that pretty much is not a win. Not to mention its leader kicked out of power.

Serbia shot down a Stealth Fighter. It's not invisible, no stealth is, just very hard to detect. However in that conflict the planes were sent in on the same routing, night after night, and there was an anti-aircraft unit that figured it out. The plane was also hit while the bay doors are open, which is the least stealthy point of flight. If they had some big huge secret that they passed on, how is it that since then stealth fighters and bombers have flown hundreds of missions without even being damaged? They CAN be shot down, but it's going to take some luck, and some stupidity to do it.

im from croatia, which is next door to serbia, and i remember the bombings well.

i dont know if you know this, but after they shot down the bomber, the biggest joke in serbia was: "sorry, we didnt see it!"

serbians have a great sense of humor, and the fact is that was a lucky shot.

anyway....

Iran is not as out of date as some might think, but that is not going to be the problem, it's the sleeper units they have in the western nations that will be the problem. they may not be able to repel a frontal assault but will raise havoc with terror bombings in the US of A, the UK and France etc.... we are not prepared for that asymmetrical warfare, and mark my words, they are crazy enough to do it.

Look at what has been happening in Israel, then think of it on a global scale, Iran can and will do this, it is their plan

With the The SS-N-22s Sunburn and SS-N-27B Sizzler anti-ship cruise missile a few ships WILL be lost, dunno for sure if Iran has the SS-N-27B or not but they might

just found out they Do have these YAKHONT (SS-N-26) ASCM

www.bharat-rakshak.com...

www.globalsecurity.org...

www.bharat-rakshak.com...



[edit on 26-3-2007 by thedigirati]

Originally posted by andy1033
just look at how afgen, and iraq, have bogged down america, without really fighting in the first place.

"Without really fighting" is the main point.

Any action in Iran (and btw, I don't think there will be any) will be very different from the manhunt for insurgents, and the policing action being performed in Iraq/Afghanistan today.

Remember....Saddams venerable "Republican Guard" abandoned their equipment and positions to dissolve into society and fight as guerillas vs. fighting the coalition military on the battlefield.

Why?

Beacuse they knew what Iran knows. The combination of overwhelming US technical superiority and the dedication, ability and professionalism of US servicemen and women, makes a confrontation with US military forces on the battlefield a loosing proposition.

In conventional warfare would US forces take losses? Of course. Could they be defeated by Iran? No.

There will be no invasion and occupation of Iran anyway, so relax.
Maybe a few air strikes on strategic targets though.

Before I'm attacked as a warmonger, let me say... this is just my analysis of the situation, not an endorsement of any course of action.

[edit on 3/26/2007 by darkbluesky]

I posted this in another thread but it fits here as well.

Why does every one worry about Iran? Its only the size of Alaska for petes sake. For a country thats so small they sure are cockey. I am not for war but how much can we take, nuke threats and kidnaping. I say its time to slap there hand and take there toys away.

the only thing they have on us is: Drumroll please ......

strategic location on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, which are vital maritime pathways for crude oil transport

Iran Population 68,688,433 (July 2006 est.)

Military service age and obligation Iran18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq War; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004) :

Manpower available for military service Iran :males age 18-49: 18,319,545
females age 18-49: 17,541,037 (2005 est.)

Manpower available for military service USA: males age 18-49: 67,742,879
females age 18-49: 67,070,144 (2005 est.)

As you can see the USA (not inlisted) but available Military alone matches there hole population.

But for the record:

US Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)

www.cia.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link

Link

AlBeMeT

Mod Edit: Please Review This Thread.

Removed some of the [ex] [/ex] tags to help make the post more readable.

Quote Reference



[edit on 26-3-2007 by chissler]

One thing they have is the people.
See, the US public have become aware of the reality behind Iraq. And they have lost the mindset needed to win the war, mainly because it wasnt justified.
If Iran is next, then the military used against them is going to remember, that this all started with Iraq. So they will doubt, wether its really the right war.

Where as Iran, like Iraq.. .will be fighting for their homes, for their land and for their right to exist as a nation.

The peoples WILL to fight will always triumph over the people ordered to fight, yet whom do not believe in the fight.

Originally posted by Kristol n Stauss
One thing they have is the people.
See, the US public have become aware of the reality behind Iraq. And they have lost the mindset needed to win the war, mainly because it wasnt justified.
If Iran is next, then the military used against them is going to remember, that this all started with Iraq. So they will doubt, wether its really the right war.

Where as Iran, like Iraq.. .will be fighting for their homes, for their land and for their right to exist as a nation.

The peoples WILL to fight will always triumph over the people ordered to fight, yet whom do not believe in the fight.

exactly right now the iranians arent that fond of their goverments
if the US has the nerve to attack them then the Iranians will back their goverment and so forth

you win a war not by winning peoples harts and minds, you win wars by crushing your enemy's will to fight. You make the enemy so NO MORE, by bad, i am done. You don't even have to kill more of the enemy to loose the will to fight. In America the Democratic leadership believes .000005% of the population a year is too much and wants to quit....

If Iran wants a war, bring them to their knees. If a sleeper cell hits a western city, Iran looses a city. That is how you win a war. War by its very nature is violent. Trying to win a war without violence is like having sex without physical contact