NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Type 08

[Tule]

Get yourself some Artillery and some Tanks, but especially artillery. The tanks should be fairly easy to maintain and operate, something like the Centurion.

Iran was tactically proficient, but suffered greatly in the war because it had very limited fire support.

The biggest issue with the Iran-Iraq war was that both sides had incompetent leadership.

Well yeah. The Iranian government thought it could conquer Iraq and install a puppet government without having any real equipment worth speaking of, lengthening the war by years.

I still maintain that Iranian military commanders were a lot more proficient than their Iraqi counterparts though, and could do a lot more with a lot less.
They were no Clausewitzes compared to Israeli or American commanders, but better than the commanders of most Arab states.

[Padnak]

I still maintain that Iranian military commanders were a lot more proficient than their Iraqi counterparts though, and could do a lot more with a lot less.
They were no Clausewitzes compared to Israeli or American commanders, but better than the commanders of most Arab states.

Considering they fought Iraq, which had the support of the world and vastly more equipment and resources to throw into the war, to a stalemate while their country was under heavy embargo I'd have to agree

[The Kievan People]

I still maintain that Iranian military commanders were a lot more proficient than their Iraqi counterparts though, and could do a lot more with a lot less.

Based on what?

They generally performed very poorly.

[Tule]

I still maintain that Iranian military commanders were a lot more proficient than their Iraqi counterparts though, and could do a lot more with a lot less.

Based on what?

They generally performed very poorly.

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/docume ... n-Iraq.pdf

[Auroya]

T-14 so strong it breaks down

Yurop should fear

[Questers]

"They employed the human wave attack reminiscent of World War I."

[Tule]

"They employed the human wave attack reminiscent of World War I."

They had little equipment and few means of replacing it once lost.

They did have lots of manpower, and used it effectively considering their position.

"Through eight years of war, the Iranian regime learned how to
properly employ and integrate foreign guerilla forces, IRGC, and
conventional military forces to defeat a more technologically
advanced foe given the right circumstances. From a U.S.
standpoint, it is difficult to say that their combined arms
capabilities were ever performed satisfactorily. Command and
control, logistical, and support problems, as well as failure to
implement sound military doctrine prevented the Iranians from
taking to open ground and hampered the Iranians’ potential to
make a large breakthrough in the war. They gained a definite
tactical advantage over the technologically superior Iraqi forces
when they employed light infantry tactics in difficult terrain. They
learned to attain small gains with their coordination of these light
infantry tactics, religiously-motivated conscripts, and guerilla
tactics. While these were not enough to initiate an all out invasion
of Iraq, they did prove effective in repelling the Iraqi invasion
and creating havoc in Iraqi territory, especially in difficult terrain
areas."

[Gallia-]

It sounds like the Iranians only won because of Iraqi incompetence.

That isn't praiseworthy.

[Rich and Corporations]

It sounds like the Iranians only won because of Iraqi incompetence.

That isn't praiseworthy.

yeah

German Wehrmacht isn't worth mentioning either.

[Tule]

It sounds like the Iranians only won because of Iraqi incompetence.

That isn't praiseworthy.

If I sounded like I was praising Iranian commanders that was not my intention, all I said was that Iranian commanders were better than Iraqi commanders.

[Gallia-]

It sounds like the Iranians only won because of Iraqi incompetence.

That isn't praiseworthy.

yeah

German Wehrmacht isn't worth mentioning either.

It's not, really.

Had Gamelin not second-guessed himself and went with the Eschaut Plan instead of relying on Belgian fortifications, the Nazis would have ran into a wall of the best equipped and trained tankmen in the world. At that point you can either try a risky attrition battle against the world's most advanced armoured forces arrayed in strong positions, or go with the alternative backup to the "Sickle Cut" and head towards Paris.

You could really say Belgium is just the key to the downfall of Europe, from the siege of Paris, to May 1940, and the European Union. There is no greater hive of scum and villainy than Darkest Wallonia.

It sounds like the Iranians only won because of Iraqi incompetence.

That isn't praiseworthy.

If I sounded like I was praising Iranian commanders that was not my intention, all I said was that Iranian commanders were better than Iraqi commanders.

Marginally, if at all.

They were two blind men scrapping over a piece of bread.

[Questers]

"They employed the human wave attack reminiscent of World War I."

They had little equipment and few means of replacing it once lost.

They did have lots of manpower, and used it effectively considering their position.

"Through eight years of war, the Iranian regime learned how to
properly employ and integrate foreign guerilla forces, IRGC, and
conventional military forces to defeat a more technologically
advanced foe given the right circumstances. From a U.S.
standpoint, it is difficult to say that their combined arms
capabilities were ever performed satisfactorily. Command and
control, logistical, and support problems, as well as failure to
implement sound military doctrine prevented the Iranians from
taking to open ground and hampered the Iranians’ potential to
make a large breakthrough in the war. They gained a definite
tactical advantage over the technologically superior Iraqi forces
when they employed light infantry tactics in difficult terrain. They
learned to attain small gains with their coordination of these light
infantry tactics, religiously-motivated conscripts, and guerilla
tactics. While these were not enough to initiate an all out invasion
of Iraq, they did prove effective in repelling the Iraqi invasion
and creating havoc in Iraqi territory, especially in difficult terrain
areas."

The reference was to "human wave attacks" in WWI, not to the Iran-Iraq.

[Crookfur]

They had little equipment and few means of replacing it once lost.

They did have lots of manpower, and used it effectively considering their position.

"Through eight years of war, the Iranian regime learned how to
properly employ and integrate foreign guerilla forces, IRGC, and
conventional military forces to defeat a more technologically
advanced foe given the right circumstances. From a U.S.
standpoint, it is difficult to say that their combined arms
capabilities were ever performed satisfactorily. Command and
control, logistical, and support problems, as well as failure to
implement sound military doctrine prevented the Iranians from
taking to open ground and hampered the Iranians’ potential to
make a large breakthrough in the war. They gained a definite
tactical advantage over the technologically superior Iraqi forces
when they employed light infantry tactics in difficult terrain. They
learned to attain small gains with their coordination of these light
infantry tactics, religiously-motivated conscripts, and guerilla
tactics. While these were not enough to initiate an all out invasion
of Iraq, they did prove effective in repelling the Iraqi invasion
and creating havoc in Iraqi territory, especially in difficult terrain
areas."

The reference was to "human wave attacks" in WWI, not to the Iran-Iraq.

Silly Questers everyone knows that world war 1 consisted solely of brave tommys being sent to the mud of the trenches where they would wait and suffer before being made to walk slowly into the face of the undefeatable German machine gun fire by thier stupidly inbred and uncaring upper class officers.

[Padnak]

T-14 so strong it breaks down

Yurop should fear

Inb4 Yurop doesn't have tanks that are any better

[The Kievan People]

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf

What did Iran have?

Light infantry.

Where did Iran win?

Where the terrain favoured light infantry.

What did Iraq have?

Armoured vehicles.

Where did Iraq win?

Where the terrain favoured armoured vehicles.

This does not suggest Iran had superior generalship. It suggests that both sides were fairly incompetent and lacked the flexibility to adapt their tactics to different situations. Which is precisely what the Israeli's have always said about Arab armies: They cannot adapt effectively to changing situations on the battlefield. Iran proved they can carry out set-piece offensives with infantry and artillery. They didn't shows they could do much else.

[The Kievan People]

T-14 so strong it breaks down

Yurop should fear

IT'S LIKE THE F-35 OF THE LAND

[Padnak]

T-14 so strong it breaks down

Yurop should fear

IT'S LIKE THE F-35 OF THE LAND

Putin couldn't let the west have all the fun now could he

[Schwere Panzer Abieltung 502]

yeah

German Wehrmacht isn't worth mentioning either.

It's not, really.

Had Gamelin not second-guessed himself and went with the Eschaut Plan instead of relying on Belgian fortifications, the Nazis would have ran into a wall of the best equipped and trained tankmen in the world. At that point you can either try a risky attrition battle against the world's most advanced armoured forces arrayed in strong positions, or go with the alternative backup to the "Sickle Cut" and head towards Paris.

Well, no good leader should ever discount luck. The Germans got lucky many times in the early stages of the Blitzkrieg against the Western powers and Russia.

I do, however, think you're not giving them enough credit - they did wonders with very little. You said it yourself, France had one of the most powerful armies in Europe(and the world, for that matter) and it took a mere six weeks to render their army the butt of every joke ever since. Sure, the Italian military probably deserves those jokes more, but still. Even against Russia, they made mind-numbing advances until the Russian winter set in.

[United Marxist Nations]

IT'S LIKE THE F-35 OF THE LAND

Putin couldn't let the west have all the fun now could he

Please, Russia was getting its shit broken before it was cool.

[Allancia]

Putin couldn't let the west have all the fun now could he

Please, Russia was getting its shit broken before it was cool.

Did someone say Stalingrad?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

So I have retconned my previous borders so that I am no longer land locked and am putting together some basic ideas for a navy. Since I do not RP as some sort of mega super power (Im modestly sized with a pop of 30 million or so), I do not plan on having a massive fleet of carriers. However I want to make up for it in other areas. Thus my question, is an erkanoplan class vessel practical to use? I know only two were made and the first sank from pilot error and the second is rusting away in some Russian naval yard. Having one would fit my canon as well, being a former SSR.

[Inyourfaceistan]

I did hear the Iranian F-14's apparently fared very well against their Iraqi MiG counterparts...
Is this true or just proxy-patriotic zeal?

[Padnak]

I did hear the Iranian F-14's apparently fared very well against their Iraqi MiG counterparts...
Is this true or just proxy-patriotic zeal?

I wouldn't be all that surprised, the F-14s iran operated vastly outclassed the majority of the Iraqi air forces MiG-21 and F-7 fleet

[Imperializt Russia]

His opponent may have Pakistan, but it will not have Pakistan's nuclear arms or equipment or the personnel able to use them. The same is likely true of heavy air defences, and it will be unlikely to maintain a comprehensive air defensive network.

France, using its SLBM arsenal, would be able to destroy these sites in Pakistan with the express aim of denying them to a group that has no business possessing them.

France has a maximum deliverable capability of 160 SLBM warheads and 75 tactical (ALCM) warheads.

Pakistan has 120 warheads which can be delivered by mobile MRBM, aircraft, and cruise missiles, the latter it claims to be able to deploy aboard submarines. It is also believed there are plans in place to transfer bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has its own ballistic missiles.

I do not believe that with 235 warheads, France can reliably destroy 120 warheads, most or all of which will be hidden, mobile, or both. The US can do it, as well as being immune from retaliation due to range, but not France in this scenario.

Whether the weapons are available at all is of course a question for the scenario author, but I suspect that the interest of those concerned in Pakistan is greater in preserving an Islamic bomb than a Pakistani bomb.

Pakistan's 120 warheads are not all deployed on dispersed launchers. Many will be locked up, some will be non-operational. Some "deployed" will be in bases - aircraft hangars, sub pens, mobile launcher vehicle pools.

This sidesteps the point - ISIS or whoever we're discussing won't be able to utilise this arsenal, and at best might be able to operate a limited handful of these weapons. So limited, they'd be used as threats than offensive arms. France would need to destroy a small number of launcher vehicles, stations, silos and facilities to wholly cripple any ability ISIS or whoever has to deploy or use this arsenal they won't be able to capture anyway.

[HMS Vanguard]

France has a maximum deliverable capability of 160 SLBM warheads and 75 tactical (ALCM) warheads.

Pakistan has 120 warheads which can be delivered by mobile MRBM, aircraft, and cruise missiles, the latter it claims to be able to deploy aboard submarines. It is also believed there are plans in place to transfer bombs to Saudi Arabia, which has its own ballistic missiles.

I do not believe that with 235 warheads, France can reliably destroy 120 warheads, most or all of which will be hidden, mobile, or both. The US can do it, as well as being immune from retaliation due to range, but not France in this scenario.

Whether the weapons are available at all is of course a question for the scenario author, but I suspect that the interest of those concerned in Pakistan is greater in preserving an Islamic bomb than a Pakistani bomb.

Pakistan's 120 warheads are not all deployed on dispersed launchers. Many will be locked up, some will be non-operational. Some "deployed" will be in bases - aircraft hangars, sub pens, mobile launcher vehicle pools.

I don't know where Pakistan stores nuclear warheads.

However if we are on the brink of war, between two nuclear powers, one has to assume that all operational warheads are dispersed and being actively hidden.

This sidesteps the point - ISIS or whoever we're discussing won't be able to utilise this arsenal, and at best might be able to operate a limited handful of these weapons. So limited, they'd be used as threats than offensive arms. France would need to destroy a small number of launcher vehicles, stations, silos and facilities to wholly cripple any ability ISIS or whoever has to deploy or use this arsenal they won't be able to capture anyway.

Again, I think this is a dangerous set of assumptions. If the Pakistani authorities cooperate - and really, what else are they going to do? abandon or sabotage the warheads, permitting imminent Indian invasion? - then the weapons would be available immediately. If they go to Saudi to defend Mecca, they will be available immediately. And I doubt France is going to respond to an uprising or revolution by nuking Pakistan without any direct provocation, so it's very likely that any true moment of vulnerability will be allowed to pass unused.