Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Gallia- wrote:I don't know what that means but Basiji probably didn't have many guns and the average Iranian shooter probably wasn't wearing anything more than his fatigues, a gas mask, a K-pot, and carrying a <insert gun here> and atropine.
Well by “Iraq-Iranian style” I meant that both sides are relatively mechanized and well-equipped but still can’t break through the defenses which results in a trench war.
Yes both sides were pretty incompetent in Iran-Iraq. It was a mechanized reboot of WW1. Neither Iran nor Iraq were "well equipped", which contributed a lot to their inability to break through each other's defenses decisively. Unlike the foremost powers in WW1 though, neither had any serious industrial capacity to respond to battlefield needs, which would help prolong the conflict because they were still beheld to their respective suzerains. It's hard to break through an enemy defense if you can't make weapons of sufficient quality, quantity, and attributes to actually help you fight your wars. Maybe if Iran could have built Tomcats, Chieftains, and AH-1s it would have conquered Iraq.
Regardless this would all be reflected in substandard equipment issue (no body armor) and relatively small amounts of gear carried by troops.
Both sides were learning how to fight in a modern war and lacked the skill, supplies, and capabilities to properly employ things like air power to neutralize enemy air forces and commit to major offensives that were successful. Which is why they got bogged down in trench wars and sieges instead of the Iraqis driving all the way to Tehran or the Iranians to the Saudi border. We're seeing something similar occur to Western countries today, where some basic fundamentals have changed a bit and everyone is needing some time to readjust. The difference is that countries like America and Israel and such can still respond to things, even if it just means building Iron Domes and HPM things to zap little robots and their 50 kg laser guided bombs.
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Well by “Iraq-Iranian style” I meant that both sides are relatively mechanized and well-equipped but still can’t break through the defenses which results in a trench war.
If you take 10 years to do what britain learned in 2 you probs aren't competent to fight any other sort of war to-bee-ach.
This really has more to do with neither side having any sort of industrial base to build off of. Neither Iran nor Iraq could actually build the weapons they were using. Iraq got into the tank business after Iran-Iraq, not before, and Iran is still trying to figure out how to build AH-1G and TF30 despite 40+ years of reverse engineering.
It's akin to giving a pre-industrial army fighter jets, tanks, and the training to use both, and then telling them to win a war that requires sustaining three or four times the losses of the things they have.
The relative value of something like a MiG-23 or MiG-27 to Hussein is why Saddamite super shelters existed in Ba'athist Iraq but not in the USSR.
Just copy Donbass or something.
Donbass and the current Kurdish situation are about as modern trench war as you can get.
Don't copy Nagorno-Karabakh, though. If nukes or PGMs make an appearance then the contiguous trench war thing breaks.