Egregoros

Signal feed

Timeline

Post

Remote status

Context

13
so uh, how are they doing that? they're just sending ships full of men and materiel to the island? and we're letting them?

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?

Replies

33
I think you are asking an irrelevant question. I agree that if you were to place a US army mech infantry battalion against its Iranian equivalent it would be better trained, equipped and lead but that doesn't really matter.
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.

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 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.

AFAIK neither the US, nor Iran really has battle hardened troops at this moment. Every army learns on the job, every time. That said, if you're of a warrior race then blood memory brings things back pretty quickly.

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.
The military has fully autonomous drones, except for the final decision about the actual deployment. That is still a mandatory human in the loop. That human is not sitting in a civilian-controlled facility or vehicle, that human is sitting in a military asset close to the weapon system. Could be a surface, submerged, ground or airborne.

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.
Women found a niche in the Military as well as in civil life. You no longer need all 32 in your mouth or even all four on your torso, the military has a job for everyone. It would be very difficult to qualify the increasing number of roles as "troops", let alone "fighters". The Space Force, for example, has zero "troops" that can be "deployed".

The actual "fighters" are no longer human, they are mechanical and increasingly electronic.

But you knew that, of course!