SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
in range of what , you think at the time we had more than 20 launcher for those missiles .
Sure do. And I always avoided foreign (especially western) estimates of Iranian missile arsenals.
The Fatehs would have been within range of enemy troop concentrations, forward logistic hubs or local field command centers among other things.
attck line i assure not a single usa soldier would have come near those frontlines prior of one mounth continius bombardment and and destruction of all of those missile launchers.
They failed to detect and destroy many of them in Iraq - a country a third of Iran in terms of surface area, less mountainous, with fewer launchers and not as focused on camouflaging and dissimulating them.
Thus at the first cartridge shot at Iran, ballistic missiles would have rained down on Bagram air base, on the main American GQ's in Qatar and Bahrein... as well as on Tel Aviv and Haifa in all probability.
still very weak , what you say is just feel good talks.
It's reality, just as the Iranian-trained and advised Hezbollah of Lebanon inflicting the first military defeat on the zionist entity in 2006, using purely asymmetrical tactics against an overwhelming classical force was real. Iran would replicate this sort of experience on a much larger scale against American aggressors.
our best anti tank missiles were TOWs 1 , we had no modern armor , our airforce was largely on the ground, our navy was consist of several boat that we had see how effective are in prying manitis operation and our bigger ships had no weapons .
Iran's anti-tank missiles, armor, air force and larger navy vessels still don't constitute a deterrent against the USA; and truth be told they never will in the foreseeable future, no matter how much Iran invests in these types of armaments. It's Iranian ballistic missiles, UAV's, midget submarines, and allied guerilla forces that give them nightmares.
our missile were few and short range and longer range missile had a cep around 500-1000m
They couldn't have been this few because right after the conclusion of the Sacred Defence, Iran concentrated on building up its missile arsenals. A CEP of 500 meters and more can do the job for large air bases that measure almost five times five kilometers.
It made sense for the USA regime to start with easier targets first. But even this proved more complicated than what they had anticipated, thanks in no small part to Iranian asymmetrical warfare implemented through allied Iraqi groups. So the superpower came to be bogged down for several years. By the time the Iraqi insurgency diminished in intensity, Iranian missile power had expanded considerably.
No as in, there's not an inkling of doubt in my mind.
there was not that much high death toll at the time .
But had they attacked Iran their toll would have been significantly higher. Neither the American public nor the USA establishment could have come to terms with some > 25.000 dead G.I.'s in a massive Iranian quagmire, especially after the Iraq debacle. Nor with the economic bill of an estimated > 10 trillion USD.
Iran is thrice the geographic size of Iraq and had nearly three times the population in 2003, on top of being a functional state as opposed to the Iraqi failed state which had been subjected to twelve years of systematic and abusive strangulation by the empire. So we could safely have expected an invasion of Iran to produce casualty rates as well as financial costs more than three times those of the Iraq war.
and we are talking instead of attacking Iraq ,attacking iran
It's that USA policy makers would have had to be irrational to proceeded in that order.
in Iran south those are the longest and if im' not wrong one S-300 around bushehr and please don't mention S-200 .
S-300PMU2 has superior range compared to AGM-88. Iran's also fielding the still largely classified Alam ol-Hoda system with greater range even. Some units of these may well be deployed in the south. Plus Bavar-373, numbers and locations unknown.
i just hit the exit of missile bases , why waste ammunition on destroying them. and then would have hit anybody who tried to clean those exits and they are not 30 missile base
An Iranian military official stated - multiple years ago, that Iran has constructed at least one missile city per province. That makes for over thirty missile cities, to which dozens of elementary hardened mountain bases and silos would surely have to be added. Without counting all the light and mostly mobile launching platforms.
The missile cities are eminently self-sufficient. Striking the exits will not interrupt their operations. Personnel in these bases is also equipped with tunnel boring machines (domestically produced in Iran for some time). Naturally, Iranian planners must have thought through all these aspects. Such a heavy, strategic-level investment would hardly make much sense otherwise. And it is into this category of assets that the bulk of the defence budget has been flowing during all these years.
NATO could attack in 1991 , if wanted . and could do it easier at the time.
they wanted to milk arab countries and cement their presence in persian gulf area that was why they didn't attacked in 1991
It would still have needed to be preceded by more than half a year of intensive aerial bombings. Against a state which had committed the decisive miscalculation of trying to challenge the USA regime on an essentially symmetrical basis, with a classical type of military apparatus and defence doctrine. The Iraqi example goes to validate the point.
no its not possible , see how it take to us to answer an attack with missiles
The feasibility shouldn't be open to question, frankly. Can there be any doubts that hundreds of solid fuel BM's are pre-positioned and pre-programmed with targeting data against major air bases of any potential enemy across the region, and pointing at the latter objects as we speak.
Last edited: