Iraqi PM declares "State of Emergency" as ISIS occupy Mosul

[Dracoria]

It would less likely be boots on the ground than the threat of retaliation by air (and perhaps a few assassinations eventually) like in '70. The Jordanian air force is pretty strong, but the addition of Israeli air support would be the last nail in the coffin.

These two aerial arms are far, far stronger than the Iraqi air force, after all.

But the ISIL isn't stupid. They'd only go against Jordan after they take over Syria (or, at least, most of it) and even though the Syrian and Iraqi air forces aren't the best, they probably have taken some anti-air weaponry from Iraqi and Syrian armies at that point

To get the most out of anti-air weaponry, you need an effective detection system, at least moderate training for all involved, and an opponent who hasn't been going through and around regional anti-air security for years. Plus, if they conquer all or most of Syria and Iraq, they'll have more enemies by then. I don't think Iran will hold back for that long, not to mention the West bringing in support.

[Saiwania]

No, mostly because I'm pro-Palestinian. But even if I wasn't, that'd be a terrible idea because Israel would instantly have an armed rebellion on their hands and ISIL would have tonnes of pissed off Palestinian recruits

The risk from not taking the West Bank as I see it, is that ISIL could be bold enough to move right in and launch terrorist attacks from there, like what has happened with Gaza.

[Blakk Metal]

You know, we provided Iraq with their Abrams tanks. I'm going to laugh when the ISIS takes over and starts using them against other Middle Eastern countries.

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

By the time ISIS attacks them, ISIS will have a supply line and factories.

[Volnotova]

You know, we provided Iraq with their Abrams tanks. I'm going to laugh when the ISIS takes over and starts using them against other Middle Eastern countries.

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

The Saudi army is overrated.

Lot's of nice 'toys', but meagre training.

A 'Paper Tiger' of sorts.

[United Marxist Nations]

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

While it would be a huge problem, learning to operate an M1A1M is insanely hard. Even here in the US where we spend billions on the equipment and training needed for their operators to become even decent at using them, it takes months upon months. ISIS doesn't have both the funding, equipment or time needed to train their troops in said tanks. That and even if they did, the US would slaughter them let alone the other NATO country's tanks which were specifically designed to counter tanks like that Abrams and T-72. Speaking of the T-72M, western tanks have been blowing those things up since the day they were created and will remain the same if not worse than they always have faring against tanks like the Challenger or M1A2.

Neither of which Iraq has.

[United Marxist Nations]

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

By the time ISIS attacks them, ISIS will have a supply line and factories.

But how many would they really produce of good quality? And how good would the training really be?

[Blakk Metal]

But the ISIL isn't stupid. They'd only go against Jordan after they take over Syria (or, at least, most of it) and even though the Syrian and Iraqi air forces aren't the best, they probably have taken some anti-air weaponry from Iraqi and Syrian armies at that point

To get the most out of anti-air weaponry, you need an effective detection system, at least moderate training for all involved, and an opponent who hasn't been going through and around regional anti-air security for years. Plus, if they conquer all or most of Syria and Iraq, they'll have more enemies by then. I don't think Iran will hold back for that long, not to mention the West bringing in support.

The West won't bring much support, they're weak in the heart.

[Saruhan]

No, mostly because I'm pro-Palestinian. But even if I wasn't, that'd be a terrible idea because Israel would instantly have an armed rebellion on their hands and ISIL would have tonnes of pissed off Palestinian recruits

The risk from not taking the West Bank as I see it, is that ISIL could be bold enough to move right in and launch terrorist attacks from there, like what has happened with Gaza.

Either way, they're going to be fucked. It'd be better to not go into Palestine though, since it'd mean that both Fatah and Hamas would (if not fight with) at least fight against ISIL for getting into their turf. Same with Hezbollah. If they went in, Hamas and (a reluctant) Fatah would probably end up fighting with the ISIL, due to Israeli meddling

[Dracoria]

While it would be a huge problem, learning to operate an M1A1M is insanely hard. Even here in the US where we spend billions on the equipment and training needed for their operators to become even decent at using them, it takes months upon months. ISIS doesn't have both the funding, equipment or time needed to train their troops in said tanks. That and even if they did, the US would slaughter them let alone the other NATO country's tanks which were specifically designed to counter tanks like that Abrams and T-72. Speaking of the T-72M, western tanks have been blowing those things up since the day they were created and will remain the same if not worse than they always have faring against tanks like the Challenger or M1A2.

Neither of which Iraq has.

The T-72 is still rather easy prey for man-portable antitank munitions. Moreso than the M-1A1, certainly. They won't be able to replace battlefield losses easily, either, and even if they're traditional Soviet easy-to-use designs, the actual tactics and strategy behind tank warfare are something you don't pick up from a couple days reading a manual. If they make use of the tanks, expect them to make serious mistakes in deployment.

[Mizrad]

It would less likely be boots on the ground than the threat of retaliation by air (and perhaps a few assassinations eventually) like in '70. The Jordanian air force is pretty strong, but the addition of Israeli air support would be the last nail in the coffin.

These two aerial arms are far, far stronger than the Iraqi air force, after all.

But the ISIL isn't stupid. They'd only go against Jordan after they take over Syria (or, at least, most of it) and even though the Syrian and Iraqi air forces aren't the best, they probably have taken some anti-air weaponry from Iraqi and Syrian armies at that point

If anything Bashar [That how you spell it?] is winning at this point, especially with Russia on his side. He also actually uses his air force and they've been conducting earth shatteringly effective strikes all over the country since the war started. Once the government of Syria's attention turns towards the ISIS then they'll probably be pushed either into Kurdish territory [Where they'll be killed] or out of the country [Where they'll flee or be killed].

[Volnotova]

Which tanks, the T-72M's or the M1A1M's? The latter would be much more of a problem.

While it would be a huge problem, learning to operate an M1A1M is insanely hard. Even here in the US where we spend billions on the equipment and training needed for their operators to become even decent at using them, it takes months upon months. ISIS doesn't have both the funding, equipment or time needed to train their troops in said tanks. That and even if they did, the US would slaughter them let alone the other NATO country's tanks which were specifically designed to counter tanks like that Abrams and T-72. Speaking of the T-72M, western tanks have been blowing those things up since the day they were created and will remain the same if not worse than they always have faring against tanks like the Challenger or M1A2.

Indeed, chances are they will ditch (most of) the tanks as they have very little use for them (though they might use them in a more defense role).

I suspect the Humvees will be more of a problem (even though spare parts will be hard to come by).

They have already been seen riding around in them.

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

I'd doubt they'd attack either of those nations. Especially since the Saudis probably are or have funded them

ISIL is already starting to bite the hand that feeds them (by threatening Jordan, an ally of Saudi Arabia).

[Saruhan]

But the ISIL isn't stupid. They'd only go against Jordan after they take over Syria (or, at least, most of it) and even though the Syrian and Iraqi air forces aren't the best, they probably have taken some anti-air weaponry from Iraqi and Syrian armies at that point

If anything Bashar [That how you spell it?] is winning at this point, especially with Russia on his side. He also actually uses his air force and they've been conducting earth shatteringly effective strikes all over the country since the war started. Once the government of Syria's attention turns towards the ISIS then they'll probably be pushed either into Kurdish territory [Where they'll be killed] or out of the country [Where they'll flee or be killed].

I'm not so sure. Bashir is barely winning against SNC forces, while the ISIL is mostly staying on the sidelines. If they decide to attack in force, I think Bashir would be hard pressed

[Mizrad]

Neither of which Iraq has.

The T-72 is still rather easy prey for man-portable antitank munitions. Moreso than the M-1A1, certainly. They won't be able to replace battlefield losses easily, either, and even if they're traditional Soviet easy-to-use designs, the actual tactics and strategy behind tank warfare are something you don't pick up from a couple days reading a manual. If they make use of the tanks, expect them to make serious mistakes in deployment.

My bad, I didn't say I meant that they'd be destroyed once NATO shows up with Challengers and M1A2's. That probably won't happen for a while but other tanks in the area could also take them on.

[Viritica]

You know, we provided Iraq with their Abrams tanks. I'm going to laugh when the ISIS takes over and starts using them against other Middle Eastern countries.

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

Even in untrained hands the Abrams still packs a punch. And the Saudi Army has pretty meager training too.

[Blakk Metal]

The risk from not taking the West Bank as I see it, is that ISIL could be bold enough to move right in and launch terrorist attacks from there, like what has happened with Gaza.

Either way, they're going to be fucked. It'd be better to not go into Palestine though, since it'd mean that both Fatah and Hamas would (if not fight with) at least fight against ISIL for getting into their turf. Same with Hezbollah

And what if members of Fatah and Hamas were to witness ISIS free Iraq from Ebil Western Imperialism and join ISIS? How would that go down?

[United Marxist Nations]

While it would be a huge problem, learning to operate an M1A1M is insanely hard. Even here in the US where we spend billions on the equipment and training needed for their operators to become even decent at using them, it takes months upon months. ISIS doesn't have both the funding, equipment or time needed to train their troops in said tanks. That and even if they did, the US would slaughter them let alone the other NATO country's tanks which were specifically designed to counter tanks like that Abrams and T-72. Speaking of the T-72M, western tanks have been blowing those things up since the day they were created and will remain the same if not worse than they always have faring against tanks like the Challenger or M1A2.

Indeed, chances are they will ditch (most of) the tanks as they have very little use for them (though they might use them in a more defense role).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they dug some into the sand to use as pillboxes, just in case their gains get reversed. Either model would be useful in that capacity. Or not even that, but just parking it in the middle of a street.

[Saruhan]

Either way, they're going to be fucked. It'd be better to not go into Palestine though, since it'd mean that both Fatah and Hamas would (if not fight with) at least fight against ISIL for getting into their turf. Same with Hezbollah

And what if members of Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbolllah were to witness ISIS free Iraq from Ebil Western Imperialism and join ISIS? How would that go down?

Hezbollah wouldn't because of Religion, and Fatah and Hamas wouldn't want to be wiped off the earth if they sided with them. The only way they would is from Public pressure due to a full scale Israeli invasion

[Volnotova]

Eh, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have more and better versions, that they're actually trained to use.

By the time ISIS attacks them, ISIS will have a supply line and factories.

They don't need factories.

Thing is, ISILs tactics are assymetrical. You can buy hundreds of Toyota Hiluxes (and convert them for military use) for the cost of a single modern main battle tank.

I guess the helicopters will see recon use.

[Costa Fierro]

Either way, they're going to be fucked. It'd be better to not go into Palestine though, since it'd mean that both Fatah and Hamas would (if not fight with) at least fight against ISIL for getting into their turf. Same with Hezbollah

And what if members of Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbolllah were to witness ISIS free Iraq from Ebil Western Imperialism and join ISIS? How would that go down?

Neither Fatah nor Hamas can do anything about it and Hezbollah is fighting ISIS in Syria.

[United Marxist Nations]

By the time ISIS attacks them, ISIS will have a supply line and factories.

They don't need factories.

Thing is, ISILs tactics are assymetrical. You can buy hundreds of Toyota Hiluxes (and convert them for military use) for the cost of a single modern main battle tank.

I guess the helicopters will see recon use.

Yes, but a single modern main battle tank can counter all of those technicals. In Somalia, Ethiopia absolutely crushed technicals with T-54/55's, which are certainly not modern.

[Dracoria]

While it would be a huge problem, learning to operate an M1A1M is insanely hard. Even here in the US where we spend billions on the equipment and training needed for their operators to become even decent at using them, it takes months upon months. ISIS doesn't have both the funding, equipment or time needed to train their troops in said tanks. That and even if they did, the US would slaughter them let alone the other NATO country's tanks which were specifically designed to counter tanks like that Abrams and T-72. Speaking of the T-72M, western tanks have been blowing those things up since the day they were created and will remain the same if not worse than they always have faring against tanks like the Challenger or M1A2.

Indeed, chances are they will ditch (most of) the tanks as they have very little use for them (though they might use them in a more defense role).

I suspect the Humvees will be more of a problem (even though spare parts will be hard to come by).

They have already been seen riding around in them.

My guess is the tanks will be stripped of useful parts (machineguns and radios, certainly) or used as supporting bunkers with what fuel can be offered for repositioning.

The Hummvees will probably be used in the same manner the Toyotas are, depending on variant. They're not terribly well-armored against anything but the smallest small arms and aren't as fast as the pickups though, so they won't add that much utility.

[Costa Fierro]

They don't need factories.

Thing is, ISILs tactics are assymetrical. You can buy hundreds of Toyota Hiluxes (and convert them for military use) for the cost of a single modern main battle tank.

I guess the helicopters will see recon use.

Yes, but a single modern main battle tank can counter all of those technicals. In Somalia, Ethiopia absolutely crushed technicals with T-54/55's, which are certainly not modern.

Obviously. You have a tank vs a pickup truck. It's like turning up to a pillow fight with a pistol.

[Mizrad]

Indeed, chances are they will ditch (most of) the tanks as they have very little use for them (though they might use them in a more defense role).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they dug some into the sand to use as pillboxes, just in case their gains get reversed. Either model would be useful in that capacity. Or not even that, but just parking it in the middle of a street.

You're correct but the funny thing is those tactics match the same strategies every enemy of the US has used with their tanks since 1991. Every experienced American tanker has adapted to fighting tanks being used as pillboxes or insurgents. The even funnier thing, the tanks they have experience fighting are T-72's. If it came down to having to fight an M1A1, nobody knows it's weaknesses better than the men and women who get paid to use them on a daily basis for no less than multiple years. The only country on this Earth with that level experience is America. [Not saying other Abrams operators because when is the last time you heard of them fighting a war with them?]

[United Marxist Nations]

Indeed, chances are they will ditch (most of) the tanks as they have very little use for them (though they might use them in a more defense role).

I suspect the Humvees will be more of a problem (even though spare parts will be hard to come by).

They have already been seen riding around in them.

My guess is the tanks will be stripped of useful parts (machineguns and radios, certainly) or used as supporting bunkers with what fuel can be offered for repositioning.

The Hummvees will probably be used in the same manner the Toyotas are, depending on variant. They're not terribly well-armored against anything but the smallest small arms and aren't as fast as the pickups though, so they won't add that much utility.

They also have radios though and, if the situation really requires it, they could siphon fuel from them, put it in gas-cans, and pack them in the technicals.

[Volnotova]

They don't need factories.

Thing is, ISILs tactics are assymetrical. You can buy hundreds of Toyota Hiluxes (and convert them for military use) for the cost of a single modern main battle tank.

I guess the helicopters will see recon use.

Yes, but a single modern main battle tank can counter all of those technicals. In Somalia, Ethiopia absolutely crushed technicals with T-54/55's, which are certainly not modern.

Problem is portable rocket/missile systems. Which (in case of the RPG-7 for example) cost but a few hundred dollars.

From the money they seized from the Mosul central bank alone they can buy hundreds of thousands (well over a million in fact) of RPG-7s (and other rocket/missile systems) or well over tenthousand Technicals.