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
18why 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.
A 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.
Replies
0Fetching replies…