Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 25

 

2012-01-25 19:11:02
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6666|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

not really considering all other discussions on this topic eventually came to the conclusion that all US argument supporting that a fast Iranian defeat was American Dick Waving and that anyone in the US Military had a biased opinion that was therefore invalid.

BF2s and this nice little scrap is a fucking breath of fresh air and reason.
Totally depends on your definition of "fast Iranian defeat." What are the military objectives? What are the political objectives? Are we going to fuck it up again and not have the two support each other?

Schwacking Iran's conventional forces and taking out their nuke facilities: Not a problem.

Dealing with an insurgency: We wouldn't, because that would imply we had invaded on the ground and toppled the regime, a la Iraq. Not gonna happen.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-25 19:12:07
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5614|London, England
I hope my old battalion commander bled out from a severed penis artery suffered in an IED attack somewhere remote.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-25 19:14:07
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6255|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

not really considering all other discussions on this topic eventually came to the conclusion that all US argument supporting that a fast Iranian defeat was American Dick Waving and that anyone in the US Military had a biased opinion that was therefore invalid.

BF2s and this nice little scrap is a fucking breath of fresh air and reason.
Totally depends on your definition of "fast Iranian defeat." What are the military objectives? What are the political objectives? Are we going to fuck it up again and not have the two support each other?

Schwacking Iran's conventional forces and taking out their nuke facilities: Not a problem.

Dealing with an insurgency: We wouldn't, because that would imply we had invaded on the ground and toppled the regime, a la Iraq. Not gonna happen.
objective: destroy iranian conventional military as retaliation to a theoretical sinking of a US carrier (that was another clusterfuck argument, can Iran sink a US Carrier)

people were saying "oh lol they can just spam ashms", plus they have supercavitating torpedos and midget subs.

siiiiigh.

This one canadian guy was like sh1fty: Iran Version

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2012-01-25 19:14:52)

2012-01-25 19:16:09
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom
i agree with feos
Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 19:17:59
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom

Jay wrote:

I hope my old battalion commander bled out from a severed penis artery suffered in an IED attack somewhere remote.
my battalion commander was a beast who cared about his troops.  my old company commander was a mad man who would run out in the midst of heavy enemy fire right in the thick of it just to show the rest of the element where he wants us set.  we're facebook buddies now.
Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 19:18:35
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom
and he couldnt hold back his tears for memorial services for the guys we lost
Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 19:20:02
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6255|Vortex Ring State
I bet Jay didn't have someone that badass based on his post. I think Jay has a contempt for military leadership in general

Last edited by Trotskygrad (2012-01-25 19:20:28)

2012-01-25 19:21:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6666|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

not really considering all other discussions on this topic eventually came to the conclusion that all US argument supporting that a fast Iranian defeat was American Dick Waving and that anyone in the US Military had a biased opinion that was therefore invalid.

BF2s and this nice little scrap is a fucking breath of fresh air and reason.
Totally depends on your definition of "fast Iranian defeat." What are the military objectives? What are the political objectives? Are we going to fuck it up again and not have the two support each other?

Schwacking Iran's conventional forces and taking out their nuke facilities: Not a problem.

Dealing with an insurgency: We wouldn't, because that would imply we had invaded on the ground and toppled the regime, a la Iraq. Not gonna happen.
objective: destroy iranian conventional military as retaliation to a theoretical sinking of a US carrier (that was another clusterfuck argument, can Iran sink a US Carrier)
I would think that would end up with their IADS and shore facilities a smoking ruin, as well as using it as an excuse to MOAB the fuck out of their nuke facilities.

That's about it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-25 19:22:39
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom
my old co commander was in the middle of directing the fight when his track was hit by an rpg and it went through and killed an interpretor and severed the arm of the psyop team commander who immediately (like the fucking moment) he lost his arm he was yelling to see if his team was ok.  he was telling the medic to leave him alone to check on his guys.

Last edited by eleven bravo (2012-01-25 19:23:07)

Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 19:23:15
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6666|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

I bet Jay didn't have someone that badass based on his post. I think Jay has a contempt for military leadership in general
GS described a couple of military leaders who happened to be officers.

Jay has (essentially) described a douchebag officer who happened to be in a leadership position.

Notice the difference.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-25 19:23:33
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6255|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Totally depends on your definition of "fast Iranian defeat." What are the military objectives? What are the political objectives? Are we going to fuck it up again and not have the two support each other?

Schwacking Iran's conventional forces and taking out their nuke facilities: Not a problem.

Dealing with an insurgency: We wouldn't, because that would imply we had invaded on the ground and toppled the regime, a la Iraq. Not gonna happen.
objective: destroy iranian conventional military as retaliation to a theoretical sinking of a US carrier (that was another clusterfuck argument, can Iran sink a US Carrier)
I would think that would end up with their IADS and shore facilities a smoking ruin, as well as using it as an excuse to MOAB the fuck out of their nuke facilities.

That's about it.
yeah, however...

"omg they has AA missiles, they train their fighter pilots to hide behind mountains, and they haz smart 100mm guns"

right right.

essentially direct quote from that guy "you argue as if air superiority is guaranteed"
2012-01-25 19:24:27
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6255|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

I bet Jay didn't have someone that badass based on his post. I think Jay has a contempt for military leadership in general
GS described a couple of military leaders who happened to be officers.

Jay has (essentially) described a douchebag officer who happened to be in a leadership position.

Notice the difference.
he's bitched in other threads about how a lot of leadership wants combat commands, and how it's fucked up various conflicts
2012-01-25 19:26:00
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6666|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:


objective: destroy iranian conventional military as retaliation to a theoretical sinking of a US carrier (that was another clusterfuck argument, can Iran sink a US Carrier)
I would think that would end up with their IADS and shore facilities a smoking ruin, as well as using it as an excuse to MOAB the fuck out of their nuke facilities.

That's about it.
yeah, however...

"omg they has AA missiles, they train their fighter pilots to hide behind mountains, and they haz smart 100mm guns"

right right.

essentially direct quote from that guy "you argue as if air superiority is guaranteed"
They have old AA (and SA) missiles. Their fighters spend as much or more time in maintenance than in the air (so their pilots are not nearly as well trained as Western pilots). And we'd just fly above the effective range of the guns.

Super difficult. Or not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-25 19:26:47
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom
huge difference. our batt commander before and during the first half of our deployment was the biggest douchebag ever.  he would take pleasure in belittling officer and enlisted alike.  yelling and swearing up and down in front of everyone.  one time he punch my old plt leader when he made it to the S shop and my old platoon leader (cpt by then) said "thankyou for that sir" and reported his directly through whatever channels officers go through.  I believe it was the next day that our division commander (1st cav) flew in from baghdad to taji and fire his ass and the sgm for letting it happen.  thats when we got our bad ass commander. 

losing a command in the middle of a deployment is career ending.  his name was french and sound like foresin so we would also refer to him as ltc foreskin
Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 19:27:34
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6666|'Murka

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

I bet Jay didn't have someone that badass based on his post. I think Jay has a contempt for military leadership in general
GS described a couple of military leaders who happened to be officers.

Jay has (essentially) described a douchebag officer who happened to be in a leadership position.

Notice the difference.
he's bitched in other threads about how a lot of leadership wants combat commands, and how it's fucked up various conflicts
Like I said. His frame of reference is a douchebag or two. GS has a different frame of reference. As do I. Granted, I've met several douchebags in my career. But I've worked with/for some amazing leaders...who I would follow anywhere, for any reason. Because I know they would be doing the right thing, every time.

There are others I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-25 19:28:07
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6255|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:


I would think that would end up with their IADS and shore facilities a smoking ruin, as well as using it as an excuse to MOAB the fuck out of their nuke facilities.

That's about it.
yeah, however...

"omg they has AA missiles, they train their fighter pilots to hide behind mountains, and they haz smart 100mm guns"

right right.

essentially direct quote from that guy "you argue as if air superiority is guaranteed"
They have old AA (and SA) missiles. Their fighters spend as much or more time in maintenance than in the air (so their pilots are not nearly as well trained as Western pilots). And we'd just fly above the effective range of the guns.

Super difficult. Or not.
made those arguments, haha
2012-01-25 19:30:26
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom
you could be a douchebag but as long as its understood by the men in the command that you will not hesitate to to put yourself i harms way or needlessly endanger the men, you could get away with being a dick.  I had the worst 1st sgt for a while.  in fallujah, he would rarely leave the toc and when he went to deliver food to the guys on the ever moving front, I heard he would walk around with an unloaded shotgun.
Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 19:31:23
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6255|Vortex Ring State

FEOS wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

FEOS wrote:


GS described a couple of military leaders who happened to be officers.

Jay has (essentially) described a douchebag officer who happened to be in a leadership position.

Notice the difference.
he's bitched in other threads about how a lot of leadership wants combat commands, and how it's fucked up various conflicts
Like I said. His frame of reference is a douchebag or two. GS has a different frame of reference. As do I. Granted, I've met several douchebags in my career. But I've worked with/for some amazing leaders...who I would follow anywhere, for any reason. Because I know they would be doing the right thing, every time.

There are others I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.
yeah, I'm just saying what I think is Jay's point of view

there's no doubt military leadership is a mixed bag like almost every other profession.

some good, some bad, lots of fluff and mediocrity.
2012-01-25 19:33:18
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5515|foggy bottom

Trotskygrad wrote:

I bet Jay didn't have someone that badass based on his post. I think Jay has a contempt for military leadership in general
jay was III corp.
Tu Stultus Es
2012-01-25 21:21:56
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6361|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iran managed to fuck up the US occupation of Iraq pretty effectively.
Not really. Minor irritant for a year or two.
5,000 deaths = minor irritant

10 year war when it should have been 6 months = minor irritant

Whatever you say Mr General sir.
Fuck Israel
2012-01-26 02:35:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6666|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iran managed to fuck up the US occupation of Iraq pretty effectively.
Not really. Minor irritant for a year or two.
5,000 deaths = minor irritant

10 year war when it should have been 6 months = minor irritant

Whatever you say Mr General sir.
Iran wasn't responsible for the entirety of the insurgency, Herr Field Marshall.

They supported pockets of it, predominantly Shiite militias. The vast majority of the insurgency was Sunni.

Minor irritant was the introduction of EFP IEDs and Sadr. Once Sadr backed down and we developed TTP to counter the EFP threat, Iran's influence on the insurgency (and thus the "US occupation") dwindled.

Educate yourself, then post.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-02-20 00:07:48
TonyKing
Member
+1|4706
United States vs Iran

* Scenario *

"All right fellahs, lunch-time is over! John, Dan and Jason hop into your F-15's and deliver these precision bombs to them boys over in Iran. Make sure you give the Nuke Plants a double dip. Oh yeah you will get some help from David and Cain from the Israeli airforce so play nice!"

* Obama goes Live saying "Nation is at war" *

3 Hours later...

* Obama goes Live saying "We've Won" *


Thats about it. Iran has no chance with their backward tech (Compared to US and Israel). USA and Israel have no interest in sending ground troops to Iran because that would be a battle they would lose. Taking down Irans nuke plants however is nothing short of target practice.
2012-02-20 00:59:44
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6930|Canberra, AUS
This thread is fascinating.

Because I'm pretty sure the last war scenario the Pengtagon did with a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz ended very badly for the US. Big, unwieldy carriers entering a narrow, strait. Iran responds by swarming with littoral ships. Carrier and associated forces are dead within five minutes (or something along those lines).

Protracted war ensues which neither side can afford but where the US has much more to lose.

Or at least that's what I've heard.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2012-02-20 01:23:51
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5434|Sydney
This thread is gay.
2012-02-20 01:54:34
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7031|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:

This thread is fascinating.

Because I'm pretty sure the last war scenario the Pengtagon did with a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz ended very badly for the US. Big, unwieldy carriers entering a narrow, strait. Iran responds by swarming with littoral ships. Carrier and associated forces are dead within five minutes (or something along those lines).

Protracted war ensues which neither side can afford but where the US has much more to lose.

Or at least that's what I've heard.
there are many ways for usa to play this with no carriers getting anywhere close to iran at all - not before it's safe to do so anyway. b2's alone would rape anything iran has with just about complete impunity.

Last edited by Shahter (2012-02-20 01:55:22)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 25

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard