why isn't there an F/A-18 overhead 24/7 ready to drop a 2000 pound bomb through the deck of any suspicious ship approaching the island? we have air dominance, right?
Post
Remote status
Context
14why isn't there an F/A-18 overhead 24/7 ready to drop a 2000 pound bomb through the deck of any suspicious ship approaching the island? we have air dominance, right?
Pretty sure even the Pentagon isnt dumb enough to telegraph this so far in advance.
my guess is they're going to try to seize the port of chabahar
That isn't going to be a whole lot easier to do than seizing Kharg Island, just less overtly suicidal, and they'd have to go for a major port area to be able to offload supplies.
I have no doubt the US could achieve a landing somewhere, even if contested and taking serious causalities. My question is how the US plans to hold any landing once achieved.
Amphibious landing that immediately results in urban combat
Unless you can encircle the city. They did that a lot in Iraq.
The Iraqi army was surrendering en-masse to advancing US forces. Nothing about the situation is comparable.
Was made up of gibs from the Soviets and Uncle Sam during the Iran Iraq War.
Iran is a near peer. They haven't faced actual combat yet. Lobbing a bunch of missiles isn't actual war. Maybe they are so focused on rockets that their actual Army is like Pakistans. I know literally nothing about their capabilities. I'm pretty sure we'd fuck up Pakistan or Indian troops. Iran hasnt had a war in 45 years. They have no troops with combat experience.
Drones are definitely a huge factor. Im sure they have a plan to deal with them. No idea what that is.
True. But we have a professional military. There is some semblance of discipline in the ranks. I have no idea if Iran has a professional army. Maybe they have been investing everything into these rockets at the expense of the army. They didn't really have much of an air force or navy apparently.
Replies
32A lot retired military analysts are, I believe, correctly comparing any US landing in Iran to the Gallipoli campaign of WW1. By all accounts the British and Commonwealth were superior in all regards to the Turks but they could never take advantage of said superiority because the campaign to take the Dardanelles was logistically and strategically impossible.
The same can be said of any US incursion into Iran, barring some massive Gulf War style build up over months (which the military doesn't even have the numbers to pull off anymore). The specific quality of Iranian units is not very important because any landing is not capable of being reinforced or supplied in a meaningful way even if successful.
You are probably right. No idea if the terrain is comparable.
I don’t honestly have any real way of knowing details; but Persians are an ancient Nation with a proud history of conquest. They’ve been around literal millennia. That they’re *still* around, in a strategically well-defensible land with area comparable to Western Europe, strongly suggests to me they know how to run an Army in defense of their homeland. My two cents
You could say the same thing about Greece. Pretty sure we'd have no trouble with them.
What I'm saying is I don't know.
Yeah, same for sure; they could all be fat and constipated for all I know 😂
I doubt that. But are they conscripts? Six months of compulsory service? Nobody is talking about invading North Korea because we know their army can fight and has good weapons.
You mean Iran, right ? I don’t know much about their tactical game - but I do know strategy is a big part of Persian culture and highly valued, and they regularly have people that get into chess grandmaster levels internationally.
Ngl the whole idea of the US Army going in there and trying to seize/hold territory just strikes me as astonishingly foolish.
I think ultimately they want normalization. I do think they have been treated unfairly.
Studying the great Fedi armchair generals.
I have a foolproof plan.
It's very mountainous terrain. Ravines, passes are killboxes. These routes are probably mined already. Kharg Island is probably IED hell.
I think both (white) Americans and Persians do qualify as warrior races. The big difference here is that Persians are extremely motivated, and Americans are extremely demotivated.
This isn't even War On Terrah "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here", this is War For Israel "why did I want that challenger so badly"... This moral problem is going to plague the US.
So IMO the fighting ability gap is probably in fact pretty small, but the moral gap is on par with the American Revolution vs. the British...
Pic: Iranian made car.
Just in case you are missing that part of the next Industrial Revolution called fouroh point one.
A lot of people see that, and it may be, but it's not here now, and the war is now. DoD is not sending a trillion drones to Iran, they're sending men, so the analysis is based on men.
Since yesterday, last month, last year.
If you're correct, then why would they have to be physically present in the region? Do they not have joysticks in South Korea as well?
There are tons of YT videos about this, military exercises showcasing the capacity are publicized for marketing the technologies - even China participates in these. This is how we know that Chinese are over-selling capacity and support, because the performance is not matching the demonstration.
These operators are not remote, that one thing is cerrtain.
Therefore it's a fighter, and can be reasoned like one.
The actual "fighters" are no longer human, they are mechanical and increasingly electronic.
But you knew that, of course!
If anybody actually believed this, they wouldn't be raising the draft age.
Reminds me of the Patton speech where he tells the troops when you see your buddy's guts hanging out, you'll know what to do. Your not fighting for a principle, a country or a God. At that point you are fighting for your life. They may not be motivated to fight for the Jews but once the bullets start flying you'd better fight.
American revolution is a good example - through the eyes of the British...