The US military assesses it could cripple the Iranian Navy in minutes and destroy it in 2 days

[Philosopher]

You do not understand much about of warfare even in theory. Iranian worldview is limited to World War 1 era combat tactics in which two camps will be entrenched and exchanging blows from a distance.

Actually, you're the one that apparently does not understand warfare . Listen to what actual experts have to say:

 

[LeGenD]

Regarding moving targets like ships there is Persian Gulf anti-ship ballistic missile.

You dont want aircraft carrier to look like those buildings in Ain al Assad

Yes, they struck stationary targets in the sea. I have seen the footage.

Actually, you're the one that apparently does not understand warfare . Listen to what actual experts have to say:

These 'experts' do not impress me. I do my own analysis. Haven't I informed you before? I think I did.

Do not assume that every member on PDF is naive or less informed.

 

[Philosopher]

These 'experts' do not impress me. I do my own analysis. Haven't I informed you before? I think I did.

Forgive me if I take people working in the actual defence industry more seriously than some random fanboys on the internet. I don't care if they impress you or not. point is, they have the credential to be taken seriously, what about you? Now try debunking what he actually said and lets see how far you get.

 

[GWXP]

You do not understand much about of warfare even in theory. Iranian worldview is limited to World War 1 era combat tactics in which two camps will be entrenched and exchanging blows from a distance.

Ballistic missiles with CEP of 1 km are not suitable for striking military bases. Iraqi ballistic missiles were much better than this, and absolutely capable of threatening military bases.

You do not understand much about of warfare even in theory. Iranian worldview is limited to World War 1 era combat tactics in which two camps will be entrenched and exchanging blows from a distance.

Ballistic missiles with CEP of 1 km are not suitable for striking military bases. Iraqi ballistic missiles were much better than this, and absolutely capable of threatening military bases.

It is you who don,t understand anything neither in theory nor in practice.

For example your claim of how US will target mobile TELs is just one example of your ignorance....even after establishing air superiority in Desert Storm US failed to find and destroy Iraqi TELs in the open desert of a country 4 times smaller than Iran.

5m accuracy for ballistic missile is a GAME CHANGER.

 

[Philosopher]

Yes, they struck stationary targets in the sea. I have seen the footage.

And you try and question the expertise of actual experts and yet you make such amateurish comment like this. A ship at sea does not exactly move at supersonic speed, if Iran can detect a ship at distance, then it can most likely track it too. A simple course correction will give the missile the ability to hit those slow moving ships. Furthermore, systems such as anti-radiation ballistic missiles which Iran possess such as Hormuz-1, can home in on the ships directly using their radar emissions etc.

 

[Trango Towers]

U.S.A has killed millions in iraq & Afganistan alone, while having loss of few thousand soldier. Compare the ratio how dangerous U.S.A can. If you kill his one soldier, He easily kills 1000 +. Why are you keeping your eyes closed. Living in delusionary world? Good . Mashallah

Well you would lie down and surrender. Say here whip my *** and rape the women of my family. Others will fight and die. I think I know what most will choose. Remember Afghanistan iraq syria Libya vietnam korea and even nazi germany never attacked america

 

[LeGenD]

Forgive me if I take people working in the actual defence industry more seriously than some random fanboys on the internet. I don't care if they impress you or not. point is, they have the credential to be taken seriously, what about you? Now try debunking what he actually said and lets see how far you get.

Refer to this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pers...-iranian-military.649718/page-5#post-12023577

Again, TV experts do not impress me.

People might have connections/relations in life, but 'conventional wisdom' is not your forte. You do great injustice to the title 'Philosopher'.

It is you who doesn,t understand anything neither in theory nor in practice.

For example your claim of how US will target mobile TELs is just one example of your ignorance....even after establishing air superiority in Desert Storm US failed to find and destroy Iraqi TELs in the open desert of a country 4 times smaller than Iran.

5m accuracy for ballistic missile is a GAME CHANGER.

What a joke you are.

Persian Gulf War (1991) motivated USA to commence a comprehensive theater ballistic missile defense program. Entire generation of new technologies were developed for the needful after 1991.

Want me to expand on that?

 

[Philosopher]

Refer to this post: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pers...-iranian-military.649718/page-5#post-12023577

Again, TV experts do not impress me.

People might have connections/relations in life, but common sense is not your forte.

Uzi Rubin is a defence industry expert and has been involved in developing Iron Dome, Arrow etc. It's frankly embarrassing to try and see you downgrade their status to "TV experts". Guys like him have forgotten more information than someone like you will ever learn. And even if they were just TV experts, what are you? Someone without any expertise or experience.

What a joke you are.

Insulting is what a child does and it will not help your argument. Try again.

Persian Gulf War (1991) motivated USA to commence a comprehensive theater ballistic missile defense program. Entire generation of new technologies were developed for the needful after 1991.

Want me to explain further?

That in no way counters what I just said. They've developed systems to counter ballistic missiles, is that suppose to be news? We've seen how successful they've been in practise. My comment was regarding Iran's ability to target and attack moving ships at sea.

 

[LeGenD]

Uzi Rubin is a defence industry expert and has been involved in developing Iron Dome, Arrow etc. It's frankly embarrassing to try and see you downgrade their status to "TV experts". Guys like him have forgotten more information than someone like you will ever learn. And even if they were just TV experts, what are you? Someone without any expertise or experience.

He is not infallible, and is probably paid to spread disinformation! Defense officials are all subject to censorship from relevant authorities. So take word of one with CAUTION - always.

FYI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propaganda

People are generally more open and honest in anonymous setting.

That in no way counters what I just said. They've developed systems to counter ballistic missiles, is that suppose to be news? We've seen how successful they've been in practise. My comment was regarding Iran's ability to target and attack moving ships at sea.

Stick to responses given to you. Be mindful of WHOM is being quoted for WHAT.

 

[GWXP]

What a joke you are.

Persian Gulf War (1991) motivated USA to commence a comprehensive theater ballistic missile defense program. Entire generation of new technologies were developed for the needful after 1991.

Want me to expand on that?

Yeah, you are free to expand on that. Tell us about ABM interceptors that are few in quantity,10 times more expensive than their targets, and tend to fail in tests and real warfare situations

 

[Philosopher]

He is not infallible, and is probably paid to spread disinformation! Defense officials are all subject to censorship from relevant authorities. So take word of one with CAUTION - always.

FYI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_Internet_propaganda

I have never stated he is infallible, however, he is clearly in a better position to comment on such issues than you or most others here given his experience and expertise. Claiming he is being "paid to spread misinformation" is a weak and rather desperate comment on your behalf. Simply because you lack the credibility and/or ability to counter his arguments, you resort to ad hominem. A commonly used fallacy, used by those incapable of countering the actual substance of someone's argument.

Now, I'll give you one more opportunity, if you believe his comments to be wrong, go ahead and try to debunk them. I am waiting.

People are generally more open and honest in anonymous setting.

Not good enough, sorry. The issue with you is not just your lack of credential but also your generally weak statements.

Stick to responses given to you. You will not be confused.

I think the confused person here is the one replying with comment that are not truly appropriate to the comments they're replying to. You seem to utilise this strategy alot.

 

[VEVAK]

Yes.

Notable incident in 1991: https://www.nytimes.com/1991/02/26/...ud-missile-hits-a-us-barracks-killing-27.html

One of the incidents in 2003: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/international/worldspecial/iraqi-missile-hits-army-base.html


Imported weapons do not work? What logic is this?

Study this report: https://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N3248.html

Comprehensive information of Iraqi military acquisitions and indigenious programs in the referred report.


Iraqi armed forces were able to subject Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to a total of 88 (ballistic missile) strikes in 1991. Didn't make much difference because coalition forces were on the move throughout and YOU cannot defeat Air Force and Navy with ballistic missiles anyways. These weapons posit a threat to stationary targets.


Some troops were patrolling; some were in the bunkers.

WRONG!

Dropping a missile on a large military base without actually having any capability to actually target anything on that base has little military value! Scuds even with a CEP of 1000 meters could no doubt target and hit a large base HOWEVER to actually hit anything of value on that base would have required pure LUCK!

SO NO Saddam DID NOT have the capability to target Aircraft shelters or bunkers!!! And ONLY a FOOL like you would think that he did!

 

[LeGenD]

I have never stated he is infallible, however, he is clearly in a better position to comment on such issues than you or most others here given his experience and expertise. Claiming he is being "paid to spread misinformation" is a weak and rather desperate comment on your behalf. Simply because you lack the credibility and/or ability to counter his arguments, you resort to ad hominem. A commonly used fallacy, used by those incapable of countering the actual substance of someone's argument.

Now, I'll give you one more opportunity, if you believe his comments to be wrong, go ahead and try to debunk them. I am waiting.




Not good enough, sorry. The issue with you is not just your lack of credential but also your generally weak statements.

How much THEY pay you to spread Iranian propaganda here?

Read this: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...an-now-globally-superior-military-power-76641

You fit the bill.

I think the confused person here is the one replying with comment that are not truly appropriate to the comments they're replying to. You seem to utilise this strategy alot.

You need to get your head examined. You are unable to see which response is being directed to which member.

My responses are organized and I am quoting multiple members in one post. I do not create a separate post to address a different member.

You stick to responses given to you and not to other members. In this manner, you will not mistake each of my statement to be directed towards you.

 

[Philosopher]

How much THEY pay you to spread Iranian propaganda here?

Read this: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...an-now-globally-superior-military-power-76641

You fit the bill.

More Ad hominem. Clearly you lack the ability to debunk the statements I put forward. At least you're admitting to that. Now we're getting somewhere.

My responses are organized and I am quoting multiple members in one post. I do not create a separate post to address a different member.

You stick to responses given to you and not to other members. In this manner, you will not mistake each of my statement to be directed towards you

You edited by your comments clearly. You must have accidentally quoted me also. Perhaps, learn how to comment correctly first and then point your flaws to others!

 

[LeGenD]

WRONG!

Dropping a missile on a large military base without actually having any capability to actually target anything on that base has little military value! Scuds even with a CEP of 1000 meters could no doubt target and hit a large base HOWEVER to actually hit anything of value on that base would have required pure LUCK!

SO NO Saddam DID NOT have the capability to target Aircraft shelters or bunkers!!! And ONLY a FOOL like you would think that he did!

An Iraqi ballistic missile struck military barracks inside a military base and killed multiple American soldiers, and this wasn't anything of value?

Saddam had cruise missiles and TBMs at his disposal for the needful in 2003. American defenses were much better at this point in time though.

More Ad hominem. Clearly you lack the ability to debunk the statements I put forward. At least you're admitting to that. Now we're getting somewhere.

I will address that video when I have time. There is no rush.

Meanwhile, enjoy the link I provided. You clearly fit the bill.

You edited by your comments clearly. You must have accidentally quoted me also. Perhaps, learn how to comment correctly first and then point your flaws to others!

Check this post again: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...tes-and-destroy-it-in-2-days.651899/page-7#po

Editing does not imply mistake in quoting.

Get your head re-examined instead because you are not thinking clearly.