PDA

View Full Version : Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988



outcast
12 Sep 09,, 01:53
As I understand it right after the Revolution the Iranian military was effectively broken and newly imposed US sanctions made it impossible to get spare parts for their American made hardware. Iraq at the time had, at least what was on paper, a large fairly modern force. Question: Why didn't Iraq win?

osage18
12 Sep 09,, 03:01
As I understand it right after the Revolution the Iranian military was effectively broken and newly imposed US sanctions made it impossible to get spare parts for their American made hardware. Iraq at the time had, at least what was on paper, a large fairly modern force. Question: Why didn't Iraq win?

Because their Army was garbage, just like Iran.

This war will only be remembered for it's brutality and futility. How can two armies slaughter each other for eight years and not gain one inch of ground?

Only in the Middle East, man.

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 09,, 03:07
Why didn't Iraq win?The Iraqis thought they won the war. They held back the Persian horde and it was Khomeni who sued for peace.

Luke Gu
12 Sep 09,, 04:29
Why didn't Iraq win?
modern force isn't always the key to win war。The history have offered enough wars to Confirm it。

Stitch
12 Sep 09,, 04:41
War in the ME is still fought on mediaeval terms; loss of life is no big deal, it just means you get to go to Paradise that much sooner. I don't think the Western mind can understand their overall religous philosophy, which emphasises the fact that this (physical) life is merely transitory and, therefore, there is little to be gained by prolonging life. Therefore, thousands of Iranians and Iraqis willingly died to support their "way of life", even though it meant their ultimate death. Like I said, I don't think a Western mind could ever truly understand the mindset of a Muslim, it is quite alien to us.

As osage said, "Only in the middle east".

Iraq did win, but at great cost; they were willing to use WMD IN THEIR OWN TERRITORY to gain victory, which they did. Thousands of Kurds who just happened to be "in the way" when Iran invaded northern Iraq were gassed, along with the enemy invaders.

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 09,, 04:53
Sorry but history does not support that view. When the Mongols passed through the area, the Muslims didn't fight to the death, they couldn't open their gates fast enough to welcome their guests in.

When Tammerlane visited again several hundred years later, Muslims were horrified that not a dog was left alive.

As much as the Muslims think that they can tolerate this kind of bloodletting, it pales in comparison to what we did in two World Wars.

Blue
12 Sep 09,, 04:59
Question: Why didn't Iraq win? Because the CIA didn't want them to. We could never have had all this excitement today if Iraq had kicked thier ass then. Read up all you can on the superpower competition in the ME at the time. Primarily you had the US and Russia fighting each other by proxy on one front and GH Bush trying to keep a handle on his Frankenstien which he created back in his CIA days named Saddam Hussein. Dig hard, its out there.

Stitch
12 Sep 09,, 05:08
Sorry but history does not support that view. When the Mongols passed through the area, the Muslims didn't fight to the death, they couldn't open their gates fast enough to welcome their guests in.

When Tammerlane visited again several hundred years later, Muslims were horrified that not a dog was left alive.

As much as the Muslims think that they can tolerate this kind of bloodletting, it pales in comparison to what we did in two World Wars.

I think the Muslim mindset has changed over the centuries; when I said "mediaeval", I meant it in the Western sense, as in barbaric and uncivilised. In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was one of the premiere civilisations of the world, well-versed in science and philosophy. In a sense, we have traded places since then, the Muslim world becoming more "barbaric and uncivilised", while we have (supposedly) become more civilised. For a good perspective on this change, read "What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response", by Bernard Lewis.

Stitch
12 Sep 09,, 05:14
Because the CIA didn't want them to. We could never have had all this excitement today if Iraq had kicked thier ass then. Read up all you can on the superpower competition in the ME at the time. Primarily you had the US and Russia fighting each other by proxy on one front and GH Bush trying to keep a handle on his Frankenstien which he created back in his CIA days named Saddam Hussein. Dig hard, its out there.

And the US was supporting Iraq right up to the eve of GW I, if not overtly, then covertly; see "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" by Barry M. Lando. At that time, we were dealing with the "lesser of two evils" in the ME; it was either Khomeini or Saddam, and Saddam would actually talk to us.

Blue
12 Sep 09,, 05:22
And the US was supporting Iraq right up to the eve of GW I, if not overtly, then covertly; see "Web of Deceit: The History of Western Complicity in Iraq, from Churchill to Kennedy to George W. Bush" by Barry M. Lando. At that time, we were dealing with the "lesser of two evils" in the ME; it was either Khomeini or Saddam, and Saddam would actually talk to us.

CIA rule #1; He who makes the mess, should clean it up. Think about it?;)

gunnut
12 Sep 09,, 08:01
I think the Muslim mindset has changed over the centuries; when I said "mediaeval", I meant it in the Western sense, as in barbaric and uncivilised. In the Middle Ages, the Muslim world was one of the premiere civilisations of the world, well-versed in science and philosophy. In a sense, we have traded places since then, the Muslim world becoming more "barbaric and uncivilised", while we have (supposedly) become more civilised. For a good perspective on this change, read "What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response", by Bernard Lewis.

What happened to them?

Did we really trade places? Or they were stuck in the 7th century (or whenever that was) and the rest of the world, especially the west, had moved on?

TopHatter
12 Sep 09,, 08:34
The Iraqis thought they won the war. They held back the Persian horde and it was Khomeni who sued for peace.

Which wouldn't have been necessary if they (meaning Saddam) hadn't attacked Iran in first place.

Or as Osage put it:


Only in the Middle East, man.

Well said :rolleyes:


What happened to them?

Did we really trade places? Or they were stuck in the 7th century (or whenever that was) and the rest of the world, especially the west, had moved on?

Both. An unqualified BOTH.

And it's more like the 3rd or 4th century, at best.

And that pretty much goes for most (make that all) of the countries under Islamic law.

Once they decide that a woman wearing trousers maybe shouldn't be beaten like an animal...then maybe they'll decide to join the rest of the world.

But I'm not holding my breath.

outcast
12 Sep 09,, 09:44
modern force isn't always the key to win war。The history have offered enough wars to Confirm it。

True there are other factors, being modern isn't enough to gaurentee victory if they are not properly led. The BeiYang fleet's crushing defeat in 1894 is a good example.


The Iraqis thought they won the war. They held back the Persian horde and it was Khomeni who sued for peace.

Looking at the map it seems they got off to a reasonable start and then got pushed back, and in some places got pushed back behind their own borders. Personally I dont call that victory, though perhaps they have a different idea of victory. So again, why didn't they outright smash the Iranian armed forces?


Because their Army was garbage,

Ok, in what ways?


This war will only be remembered for it's brutality and futility. How can two armies slaughter each other for eight years and not gain one inch of ground?

Only in the Middle East, man

World War 1? Although back then they didn't have jets, tanks, or assault rifles, so in this day and age yeah, only in the ME. It also makes you wonder how capable Russian tanks, planes, etc are since we only see them being used by incompetant arab and african armies.

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 09,, 11:58
Looking at the map it seems they got off to a reasonable start and then got pushed back, and in some places got pushed back behind their own borders. Personally I dont call that victory, though perhaps they have a different idea of victory. So again, why didn't they outright smash the Iranian armed forces?Initally, they did but Saddam didn't have the numbers to go all the way to Tehran which allow the Iranians the one thing Saddam didn't have - time. Time to rebuild, regroup, refocus, and re-commit.

Within 6 months, the Iranians were on equal footing skill wise. Within 2 years, the Iraninas built an army that was ready to drive the Iraqis out.

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 09,, 12:13
World War 1? Although back then they didn't have jets, tanks, or assault rifles, so in this day and age yeah, only in the ME. It also makes you wonder how capable Russian tanks, planes, etc are since we only see them being used by incompetant arab and african armies.Check Grozny recently?

outcast
12 Sep 09,, 12:48
Check Grozny recently?

Forgot about that.

Bigfella
12 Sep 09,, 13:14
War in the ME is still fought on mediaeval terms; loss of life is no big deal, it just means you get to go to Paradise that much sooner. I don't think the Western mind can understand their overall religous philosophy, which emphasises the fact that this (physical) life is merely transitory and, therefore, there is little to be gained by prolonging life. Therefore, thousands of Iranians and Iraqis willingly died to support their "way of life", even though it meant their ultimate death. Like I said, I don't think a Western mind could ever truly understand the mindset of a Muslim, it is quite alien to us.

As osage said, "Only in the middle east".

Iraq did win, but at great cost; they were willing to use WMD IN THEIR OWN TERRITORY to gain victory, which they did. Thousands of Kurds who just happened to be "in the way" when Iran invaded northern Iraq were gassed, along with the enemy invaders.


Stitch,

Most of those who died did so for the same reason most people in Western Armies die - their nation. I'm afraid your post reminds me of the way people used to talk about the 'Asiatic mindset' in relation to WW2, the Korean or Vietnam Wars. Very few of those young men died any more 'willingly' than the Marines at Iwo Jima or the Germans at Stalingrad. They did their duty.

This war provided a rare spectacle - two majority Shia Muslim armies beating up on each other. Most were conscripts who would most likely rather have been back home. There were certainly units of religious fanatics on the Iranian side, but they were hardly representitive. There were also elite Iraqi units who were decidedly secular.

Iran believed, justifiably, that it was fighting for survival againt virtually the entire world. Saddam did what Khomenei never could - he united Iran behind the religious leadership. But that wasn't because they all suddenly belived any more than Germans who united behind Hitler under Allied bombs suddenly became Nazis.

Do a quick check on great mass killings of the past 130 odd years. Start in the Belgian Congo & work your way through Europe's internal wars, the Bengal Famine, the rise & spread of Communism & the various wars of decolonization & their spawn. Were the rational, modern Christian men who marched men into machine guns, firebombed cities, operated gas chambers or hoarded grain & sank fishing boats while millions starved all that different? I don't think westerners & their ideological spawn have shown any more respect for life than the mullahs & Ba'athists did.

Parihaka
12 Sep 09,, 13:34
I don't think westerners & their ideological spawn have shown any more respect for life than the mullahs & Ba'athists did.

Far less in fact. I really don't think there's another race or civilisation around that has so perfected mass killings the way the west has. The only difference recently is that with technology it requires the sacrifice of fewer of our own to destroy an enemy. We're nothing if not efficient.

astralis
12 Sep 09,, 18:03
gunnut, TH,


Did we really trade places? Or they were stuck in the 7th century (or whenever that was) and the rest of the world, especially the west, had moved on?


oth. An unqualified BOTH.

And it's more like the 3rd or 4th century, at best.

And that pretty much goes for most (make that all) of the countries under Islamic law.

no, this is historical short-sightedness. in the 1960s and 1970s, women in mini-skirts paraded around egypt, iraq, and iran (persia then). nasser spouted a socialist form of pan-arabism that emphasized secular politics. the US feared that the middle east would turn towards godless communism, not religious fanaticism.

it was not until the saudis started to fund religious fundamentalism, wahhabism, to challenge the new Iranian Revolution that the crazies really became empowered.

and if you look at how wahhabism got started, you'll notice that it is actually a relatively new mode of muslim thought stemming from the 18th century and at first confined to the conservative desert nomads in what is today's saudi arabia.

that's the worst thing about wahhabism-- it is such a poison that it has made more than a few muslims forget their own older, very rich, and far more tolerant, traditions.

TopHatter
12 Sep 09,, 19:20
gunnut, TH,
no, this is historical short-sightedness. in the 1960s and 1970s, women in mini-skirts paraded around egypt, iraq, and iran (persia then). nasser spouted a socialist form of pan-arabism that emphasized secular politics. the US feared that the middle east would turn towards godless communism, not religious fanaticism.

it was not until the saudis started to fund religious fundamentalism, wahhabism, to challenge the new Iranian Revolution that the crazies really became empowered.
I'm a bit confused how a region could suddenly (relatively speaking) rush to embrace barbaric practices such "honor killings" simply because a bunch of Wahhabi fanatics grabbed the reins of power. :confused:

astralis
12 Sep 09,, 19:47
TH,


I'm a bit confused how a region could suddenly (relatively speaking) rush to embrace barbaric practices such "honor killings" simply because a bunch of Wahhabi fanatics grabbed the reins of power

simply speaking, money and identity.

pan-arabist socialism and military spending drove ME economies into the ground. fundamentalists with oil money replaced state spending (ie after pakistani secular school system died, saudi wahhabis opened madrassas).

pan-arabism also failed to end what arabs perceived as imperialism. israel still beat nasser up and down. then everyone saw how fundies had not only kicked the US/shah out of iran, but drove the US from lebanon (1982 bombing)...

osage18
12 Sep 09,, 19:51
Ok, in what ways?

God, where do I even start? From what I've seen, been told by former Iraqi Officers that fought not only in Iran-Iraq, but also in Gulf I; Iraq's army had all the normal problems of a conscript army (desertion, lack of discipline, poor maintenance and logistics, poor training, etc). Plus decisions made in Saddam's army were HIGHLY political, which didn't help anything. Seriously, I could go on and on about this. In every sense (tactically, technically, logistically, leadership) they stunk. I imagine Iran wasn't much better; probably worse. At least Iraq had us rooting for them...




World War 1? Although back then they didn't have jets, tanks, or assault rifles

World War I is not even comparable to that debacle; maybe only in the fact there was a lot of attrition and ground was hard to gain.

outcast
13 Sep 09,, 04:46
World War I is not even comparable to that debacle; maybe only in the fact there was a lot of attrition and ground was hard to gain.


A lot of battles in WW1 were the bloodiest in history, in just he Battle of the Somme 1.2 million people in total died. That's almost as many people who died in the whole Iran-Iraq war.


saudi wahhabis opened madrassas

Which makes me wonder how much is America's support of Saudi Arabia has lead to


no, this is historical short-sightedness. in the 1960s and 1970s, women in mini-skirts paraded around egypt, iraq, and iran (persia then). n

The reason the Afghanis turned on their Marxist government was because it was pushing modern women's rights, and in the early 20th century one of the Afghan kings was overthrown because he tried to promote women's rights. One of the leading causes of the Iranian revolution was the Shah's attempts to modernize society (although obviously there were many other reasons).

Blue
13 Sep 09,, 06:02
Another thread deteriorating into semantics and speculation while ignoring the bigger picture. Checking out of this one. Luck to all.

zraver
14 Sep 09,, 00:00
As I understand it right after the Revolution the Iranian military was effectively broken and newly imposed US sanctions made it impossible to get spare parts for their American made hardware. Iraq at the time had, at least what was on paper, a large fairly modern force. Question: Why didn't Iraq win?

Iraq's army was not fairly modern, hadn't been modern since the 60's. Iran had better tanks (105mm armed Pattons and 120mm armed Chieftains vs T-55), better artillery (155mm M109 v 120mm towed guns), better fighters (F-14 and F-4 v Mig 21), and attack helicopters (AH-1 v null)

TopHatter
14 Sep 09,, 01:29
Iraq's army was not fairly modern, hadn't been modern since the 60's. Iran had better tanks (105mm armed Pattons and 120mm armed Chieftains vs T-55), better artillery (155mm M109 v 120mm towed guns), better fighters (F-14 and F-4 v Mig 21), and attack helicopters (AH-1 v null)

Can't speak for the other weapons systems you've quoted but the attack helicopters portion is incorrect:


The Iraqis were early foreign operators of the Hind, obtaining them beginning in the late 1970s.

It is unclear how many Hinds were purchased by Iraq, but the number was apparently about 60. Iraqi Hinds saw particularly heavy action during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980:1988.

The gunships were used extensively for ground attack on Iranian troops, inflicting great slaughter and acquiring a fearsome reputation.

They were also the first helicopters to engage in serious air-to-air combat with other helicopters, in the form of Iranian AH-1J SeaCobra gunships. Link (http://www.vectorsite.net/avhind_2.html#m1)

Hit that link, there is some pretty nifty information about the Iranian SeaCobra's in action against the Iraqi Hind's

Triple C
14 Sep 09,, 05:13
When did the Iraqis get their T-72s and when did they buy their MiG-29s?

Bigfella
14 Sep 09,, 09:56
Can't speak for the other weapons systems you've quoted but the attack helicopters portion is incorrect:


Hit that link, there is some pretty nifty information about the Iranian SeaCobra's in action against the Iraqi Hind's

TH,

Where Iran had the early advantage was in sheer numbers. By one count they started the war with 500 choppers to Iraq's less than 50. I don't have figures on attack choppers, but I'm assuming the margin was wide at the outset.

Iran also had more & better fighters at the start (and better pilots) & parity in artillery. It had more tanks - an advantage that widened hugely during the war. It used its advantage in the air to good effect. Iraq really only had one chance to win - a rapid victory before Iran could organize & train itself. Iranian air power was crucial in slowing those offensives & the success of subsequent counter-offensives.

Once Iran had stopped Saddam the slow decline in the quality & servicability of equipment limited the effectiveness of offensives - sort of 'evening the odds'. By that point, however, Iraq was not capable of repeating its early attacks.

Mihais
14 Sep 09,, 13:25
Sir,Grozny 1 was a disaster because of overconfidence,poor planning,lack of forces and IPB.Grozny 2 was a better planned and executed.The best eqiupment doesn't replace training and leadership

xerxes
14 Sep 09,, 13:45
A lot of educated and enlightening comments here - on the first page anyways, ... maybe middleeasterns should use night vision, so they appear High-Tech and not medieval on their national TV News programs

That "only in the middle east comment" was just top notch

zraver
14 Sep 09,, 21:21
When did the Iraqis get their T-72s and when did they buy their MiG-29s?

Domestic production started in 89, imports of Soviet and pact made T-62 and T-72's began after a 2 billion dollar arms deal signed in 1983. By 1987 over 800 had been imported.

The Iran-Iraq War - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=etS4WrHQ3okC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Iran-Iraq+war+T-72&source=bl&ots=vxjR0n6wG3&sig=Thzj2Wo2S1llQx0O2Bw5lG62sN0&hl=en&ei=y6OuSv3jBdP7tgeD0ezUBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=Iran-Iraq%20war%20T-72&f=false)

I think the Mig 29's showed up post war or very near the end of it. IIRC Iraq had less than 20 in 1991. 5 shot down, 8 fled to Iran and the rest caught on the ground.

Kernow
14 Sep 09,, 22:44
Anyone here know how 'Chieftain' fared against the T-72.

osage18
15 Sep 09,, 00:26
That "only in the middle east comment" was just top notch

Thank you

xerxes
15 Sep 09,, 03:49
Anytime, ...

zraver
15 Sep 09,, 13:10
Anyone here know how 'Chieftain' fared against the T-72.

I am sure the Iranians know, but they are not talking. However, by early in the new Millennium Iran had returned some 200 Chieftains to service. Also the longest tank kill in history was done using the same L11A5 gun so I would guess they did pretty well.

Chogy
15 Sep 09,, 13:17
maybe middleeasterns should use night vision, so they appear High-Tech and not medieval on their national TV News programs

Modern troops don't wear and use night or thermal imaging equipment to look cool or high tech, they use them because of the enormous advantage it gives them.

xerxes
15 Sep 09,, 13:36
Modern troops don't wear and use night or thermal imaging equipment to look cool or high tech, they use them because of the enormous advantage it gives them.

Indeed, but you must admit that on TV to the general public (such as myself), it looks like a killing machine that strelizes/cleans rather a killing machine that causes destruction and mass killings. Hence, the popular notion that the other militaries are more barbaric.

Not to say that they are not!

TopHatter
15 Sep 09,, 15:03
A lot of educated and enlightening comments here - on the first page anyways, ... maybe middleeasterns should use night vision, so they appear High-Tech and not medieval on their national TV News programs

That "only in the middle east comment" was just top notch


Indeed, but you must admit that on TV to the general public (such as myself), it looks like a killing machine that strelizes/cleans rather a killing machine that causes destruction and mass killings. Hence, the popular notion that the other militaries are more barbaric.
Personally I don't care what Middle Eastern troops are wearing into battle.

What makes Middle Easterns "look medieval" as you call it, is when they kill their own daughters for the "crime" of being raped and call it an "honor killing"...or the legal system decides to beat an old woman for the "crime" of being in the company of men...And on and on and on

xerxes
15 Sep 09,, 15:13
Those behaviour are medieval as you say ...

But I believe the medievalism was brought up here in relation to military forces

zraver
15 Sep 09,, 16:33
Those behaviour are medieval as you say ...

But I believe the medievalism was brought up here in relation to military forces

Well the actions of the Pasdran in the Iran-Iraq war including things like young teenagers sent into clear minefields is pretty far outside the norm to the western mind. Iran didn't have much of a choice fight Saddam and maybe die, or end up under Saddam and risk your whole family dying. But it was still a barbaric tactic. As was Saddam's use of gas on his own civillians.

TopHatter
15 Sep 09,, 20:38
But I believe the medievalism was brought up here in relation to military forces

Point taken.

xerxes
16 Sep 09,, 04:13
As was Saddam's use of gas on his own civillians.

Understood, though you have a very explicit way of defining things:

ex (according to you): Saddam's use of gas on his own civillians is barbaric, But Saddam's use of gas on his foreign enemies is NOT barbaric. Or Gassing the Kurds in Iraq the 40s is NOT barbaric!

I would think they are all barbaric.


Well the actions of the Pasdran in the Iran-Iraq war including things like young teenagers sent into clear minefields is pretty far outside the norm to the western mind. Iran didn't have much of a choice fight Saddam and maybe die, or end up under Saddam and risk your whole family dying. But it was still a barbaric tactic.

I was trying think of a situation where a Western office letting a force on a suicide mission (like Pasdran sending kids ...). The only ones I could think on top of my head are High Seas Fleet (by Scheer?) being send on a suicide mission against Scape Flow at the end of first war or the british allowing the bombing of the Conventry to happen (assuming the stories that Brits had advance intel is true).

Would these be barbaric acts? ... because it does fit the scenario of a gov/highcommand sending owns people to their doom full knowingly that they will die.

Bigfella
16 Sep 09,, 06:02
Does Russia count as 'western' ?

Mihais
16 Sep 09,, 13:15
Does Russia count as 'western' ?

Yes,if you're an Asian,African or M. Easterner.

Mihais
16 Sep 09,, 13:31
Understood, though you have a very explicit way of defining things:

ex (according to you): Saddam's use of gas on his own civillians is barbaric, But Saddam's use of gas on his foreign enemies is NOT barbaric. Or Gassing the Kurds in Iraq the 40s is NOT barbaric!

I would think they are all barbaric.



I was trying think of a situation where a Western office letting a force on a suicide mission (like Pasdran sending kids ...). The only ones I could think on top of my head are High Seas Fleet (by Scheer?) being send on a suicide mission against Scape Flow at the end of first war or the british allowing the bombing of the Conventry to happen (assuming the stories that Brits had advance intel is true).

Would these be barbaric acts? ... because it does fit the scenario of a gov/highcommand sending owns people to their doom full knowingly that they will die.

He was talking about current Western military mindset.Actually I think this particular mindset is a proof that Western armies didn't fought a HIC against a comparable force in a long time,not that it's an eternal trait of our thinking.The high casualties suffered in the Iran- Iraq war are nothing but a proof of the Iranian determination and seriousnes.As for the competence,Iranian armor brigades(Chieftain tanks) fought very well in the opening days,delaying the Iraqi advance by counterattacks on the flanks and causing their advance to fall short.Granted those were the remnants of the Shah's army(a reasonable force by ME standards),facing Iraqi not Western or WP forces.In the second part of the war(1987 IIRC) Iranian forces took a city in the North by infiltrating during the night(not an easy task even with NV).In short,I think they are better than Arab armies.

zraver
16 Sep 09,, 14:11
Understood, though you have a very explicit way of defining things:

ex (according to you): Saddam's use of gas on his own civillians is barbaric, But Saddam's use of gas on his foreign enemies is NOT barbaric. Or Gassing the Kurds in Iraq the 40s is NOT barbaric!

I would think they are all barbaric.

I was talking about the Iran-Iraq War. I deliberately left out the use of gas on Iranians because the West had no problem tossing gas back and forth in WWI and to call Irag barbaric for doing something the west had done just half a century earlier is hypocritical.




I was trying think of a situation where a Western office letting a force on a suicide mission (like Pasdran sending kids ...). The only ones I could think on top of my head are High Seas Fleet (by Scheer?) being send on a suicide mission against Scape Flow at the end of first war or the british allowing the bombing of the Conventry to happen (assuming the stories that Brits had advance intel is true).

None of those are really comparable. They are after all adults not kids. There really isn't anything comparable in the west outside of the Nazi's inover 150 years. Perhaps the charge of the VMI cadets in the ACW battle of New Market comes closest and is last. If you count the Nazi's then the conscription of the Hitler Youth both into the famed 12th SS Panzer and in the more common myriad little troops of panzerfuast armed school kids killing tanks on the streets of Berlin.


Would these be barbaric acts? ... because it does fit the scenario of a gov/highcommand sending owns people to their doom full knowingly that they will die.

suicide missions are not barbaric, sending kids on them is. Western Military history is full of suicide missions, we call those who fought or survived heroes. The difference is the age, and not I am not condemning Iran. When your house is burning down and all you have is a garden hose you use it. Iran was cut off from arms shipments, its officer corps was gutted, it faced an enemy who was both barbaric and brutal and finally it bordered a new Russian Empire that in 1979 had invaded another Iranian neighbor. You do what you have to survive.

xerxes
16 Sep 09,, 15:06
Does Russia count as 'western' ?

As a Canadian, probably No!

But, like it was mentioned before, I think that if I were back in Iran, than I would probably see Russia as Western.

It sounds weird, but I guess really depends on one's point of view

xerxes
16 Sep 09,, 15:11
None of those are really comparable. They are after all adults not kids. There really isn't anything comparable in the west outside of the Nazi's inover 150 years. Perhaps the charge of the VMI cadets in the ACW battle of New Market comes closest and is last. If you count the Nazi's then the conscription of the Hitler Youth both into the famed 12th SS Panzer and in the more common myriad little troops of panzerfuast armed school kids killing tanks on the streets of Berlin.


Agreed on the points, and I think it is correct to exclude Nazi from the list.

clackers
16 Sep 09,, 15:24
Looking at the map it seems they got off to a reasonable start and then got pushed back, and in some places got pushed back behind their own borders. Personally I dont call that victory, though perhaps they have a different idea of victory. So again, why didn't they outright smash the Iranian armed forces?


Hussein stopped his army after he achieved his limited goals, Outcast ... that's about one week ... and announced a willingness to negotiate a settlement with Iran. He knew he couldn't conquer the place, and only used six divisions of his twelve division army.

Politically, a bit like Pearl Harbor, the attacked did not accept their loss as a fait accompli but decided to continue the fighting. Hussein did not expect an eight year war to result.

Militarily, a bit like Pearl Harbor again, the most important elements of the Iranian military were not located in the province attacked and were still available for the rest of the war.

Both sides' air forces were some of the best assets the nations possessed, so there were bombing and guided missile attacks of oil installations, tankers, fuel dumps, command/control centres and civillians while WWI style ground combat occurred!

clackers
16 Sep 09,, 15:45
Anyone here know how 'Chieftain' fared against the T-72.

I haven't heard about that one, CA, but the Osprey book on the war mentions a battle in 1981 where an Iranian armoured division advanced and got chopped up ... about 100 Chieftain and Patton tanks were destroyed and another 150 captured, for the loss of 50 T-62s.

zraver
16 Sep 09,, 16:02
Both sides' air forces were some of the best assets the nations possessed, so there were bombing and guided missile attacks of oil installations, tankers, fuel dumps, command/control centres and civillians while WWI style ground combat occurred!

I think the WWI style allegory is a bit over done. Only the Pasadran really engaged in human wave attacks. Even then it was usually infiltration over delivering the mass of the bayonet. Also, Iranian artillery was superior to Iraqs at least until the Iraqis got the the G5 guns from Denel. Iraq almost always had armor in abundance and their defensive set up in 91 reflects the lessons of 80-88.

The first part of the war is a resource limited Iran but with some good kit making modest gains against a resource rich Iraq. The later part of the war, especially after the arrival of the G5 guns and T-72's in large numbers is when Iran started to lose.

zraver
16 Sep 09,, 16:03
Agreed on the points, and I think it is correct to exclude Nazi from the list.

I agree the nazis should be excluded unless we are talking about Saddam. Iran for all its faults is not a genocidal pseudo-religious nutbasket aggressor. Although A-jad might be tryign to change that.

clackers
17 Sep 09,, 01:17
I think the WWI style allegory is a bit over done. Only the Pasadran really engaged in human wave attacks. Even then it was usually infiltration over delivering the mass of the bayonet. Also, Iranian artillery was superior to Iraqs at least until the Iraqis got the the G5 guns from Denel. Iraq almost always had armor in abundance and their defensive set up in 91 reflects the lessons of 80-88.

The first part of the war is a resource limited Iran but with some good kit making modest gains against a resource rich Iraq. The later part of the war, especially after the arrival of the G5 guns and T-72's in large numbers is when Iran started to lose.

I think Foch and Haig would have liked deploying the G5s and T-72s in Flanders!

The initial Iraqi invasion was quite mobile, while the Iranian spring counteroffensives in 1982 were successful combined arms operations (even to the extent of cooperation between the Pasadran and the Army).

But much of the next six years was static, complete with no-man's land, trenches, barbed wire, wave assaults from the Iranians, and even mustard gas used by the Iraqis, with both sides scrambling for technological means and international support to help break the deadlock.

outcast
17 Sep 09,, 05:17
with both sides scrambling for technological means and international support to help break the deadlock.

From what I understand both NATO and the Warsaw Pact supported Iraq. Certainly didn't leave Iran with too many places to go.....

clackers
17 Sep 09,, 07:42
It was difficult ... arms had to come in from North Korea, Syria and Libya. Later on, some munitions and spares were sourced from Britain, China, Taiwan, Switzerland, Argentina, South Africa, Pakistan, and amazingly, Israel were happy to sell Phantom jet and Patton tank parts.

The Iranians discarded their 'neither East nor West' policy and pragmatically tried to court both. Talks started again with the Soviet Union, and between 1987 and 1989, relations were restored with France, Canada, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Britain.

Several of these countries had of course convinced its enemy Iraq to go to war in the first place and funded the invasion, which just shows what a sad thing International Relations can be! :redface:

rj1
18 Sep 09,, 21:06
What happened to them?

Did we really trade places? Or they were stuck in the 7th century (or whenever that was) and the rest of the world, especially the west, had moved on?

Since no one ever answered you, I'll give you the historical explanation I've always heard.

Pretty much, western European society on an academic level declined when the Roman Empire died. When the Muslims took Jerusalem/Israel the first time, there was a call from the Pope for the Crusades to take back the Holy Land, which a lot of western European nobility answered, most out of a desire for personal fame and fortune. Part of the legacy of the Crusades were these nobles saw parts of society where Muslim society was more advanced and went back home and implemented these into their own fiefs.

Why the Middle East (Arabian and Persian culture) declined/fell behind Europe, I'll leave that to xerxes or someone else. Once colonialism started though, the Middle East were at an inherent disadvantage, the same disadvantage as all European countries/cultures experienced that were not "Western European", the most obvious example being the Venetian Republic.

The one advancement of human society I know most about that the Muslims did was mathematics. The numbers we all use, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, are called "Arabic numerals" because they were passed on to western Europeans in the 10th century during the Crusades. They did a lot with geometry and astronomy as well. There are a good number of stars that have Arab sounding names due to transliteration, the one I know is Betelgeuse.

clackers
19 Sep 09,, 02:16
Arabian and Persian cultures suffered a blow when those peoples were conquered by Mongols and Turks, something that took until as late as 1918 to 'fix'.

But for a very broad, if shallow, listing of the achievements of the Islamic Golden Age (including a better life expectancy than the Romans), check out the Wiki article, which shows there were no scholastic Dark Ages between the 7th and 13th Centuries if you happened to live in the right places:

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age)

outcast
19 Sep 09,, 15:05
The one advancement of human society I know most about that the Muslims did was mathematics. The numbers we all use, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, are called "Arabic numerals" because they were passed on to western Europeans in the 10th century during the Crusades. They did a lot with geometry and astronomy as well. There are a good number of stars that have Arab sounding names due to transliteration, the one I know is Betelgeuse.

One of the things they also did was to help translate and preserve classical greek writings about pretty much everything (of course while this happened the christians were busy burning everything they could find because they were written by pegans).

EDIT: And here (http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml) is a good article about Islam's problems with modernization, though it is focused on science. To quote the first three paragraphs:


This article grew out of the Max von Laue Lecture that I delivered earlier this year to celebrate that eminent physicist and man of strong social conscience. When Adolf Hitler was on the ascendancy, Laue was one of the very few German physicists of stature who dared to defend Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity. It therefore seems appropriate that a matter concerning science and civilization should be my concern here.

The question I want to pose—perhaps as much to myself as to anyone else—is this: With well over a billion Muslims and extensive material resources, why is the Islamic world disengaged from science and the process of creating new knowledge? To be definite, I am here using the 57 countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) as a proxy for the Islamic world.

It was not always this way. Islam's magnificent Golden Age in the 9th–13th centuries brought about major advances in mathematics, science, and medicine. The Arabic language held sway in an age that created algebra, elucidated principles of optics, established the body's circulation of blood, named stars, and created universities. But with the end of that period, science in the Islamic world essentially collapsed. No major invention or discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for well over seven centuries now. That arrested scientific development is one important element—although by no means the only one—that contributes to the present marginalization of Muslims and a growing sense of injustice and victimhood

Officer of Engineers
19 Sep 09,, 15:13
SThe numbers we all use, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, are called "Arabic numerals" because they were passed on to western Europeans in the 10th century during the Crusades.They took that from India.

Bigfella
20 Sep 09,, 00:53
They took that from India.

Did they get the lot from India, or just the concept of the zero?

Steezy
20 Sep 09,, 00:58
Since no one ever answered you, I'll give you the historical explanation I've always heard.

Pretty much, western European society on an academic level declined when the Roman Empire died. When the Muslims took Jerusalem/Israel the first time, there was a call from the Pope for the Crusades to take back the Holy Land, which a lot of western European nobility answered, most out of a desire for personal fame and fortune. Part of the legacy of the Crusades were these nobles saw parts of society where Muslim society was more advanced and went back home and implemented these into their own fiefs.

Why the Middle East (Arabian and Persian culture) declined/fell behind Europe, I'll leave that to xerxes or someone else. Once colonialism started though, the Middle East were at an inherent disadvantage, the same disadvantage as all European countries/cultures experienced that were not "Western European", the most obvious example being the Venetian Republic.

The one advancement of human society I know most about that the Muslims did was mathematics. The numbers we all use, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9, are called "Arabic numerals" because they were passed on to western Europeans in the 10th century during the Crusades. They did a lot with geometry and astronomy as well. There are a good number of stars that have Arab sounding names due to transliteration, the one I know is Betelgeuse.

They're actually called Hindu-Arabic numerals and alot of the so called "Muslim Inventions" were actually invented in places like China and India. I don't understand why all the inventions of all the civilisations are rarely attributed to religion except for Islam.

You don't call the Industrial Revolution as the "Christian Golden Era" do you? You don't call them Christian inventions? You rarely hear people calling the inventions of civilisations such as India or China as Hindu or Bhuddist/Taoist. That was always a pet peeve of mines.

But anyway, carry on. Arabs have been attributed to many inventions for simply passing them on from South/East Asia to Western Europe

Bigfella
20 Sep 09,, 01:32
They're actually called Hindu-Arabic numerals and alot of the so called "Muslim Inventions" were actually invented in places like China and India. I don't understand why all the inventions of all the civilisations are rarely attributed to religion except for Islam.

You don't call the Industrial Revolution as the "Christian Golden Era" do you? You don't call them Christian inventions? You rarely hear people calling the inventions of civilisations such as India or China as Hindu or Bhuddist/Taoist. That was always a pet peeve of mines.

But anyway, carry on. Arabs have been attributed to many inventions for simply passing them on from South/East Asia to Western Europe

You just did this - in the first line of your post!!

There is nothing unusual about referring to civilizations at certain times by their religion, especially if they themselves did the same thing. It is often a useful way to refer to a single civilization that may be divided within itself into different kingdoms or other units. Keep in mind that the idea of the modern state based on one particular language/culture/ethnicity is very new.

There was a lengthy period when the term 'Christendom' had significance. As Christianity itself became more fragmented & the idea of the nation-state arose this ceased to me a useful term. I'm not sure 'the West' or variants are any more accurate than 'islam', but we live with it.

Describing Chinese civilization as 'Buddhist' would be silly because it never has been. Buddhism is one element of a complex religious & philosophical structure that involves Taoism & Confucianism. Chinese civilization is defined by culture, using a religious refence makes no sense.

Hinduism is as much culture as religion. People will understand what you mean when you use it.

Similarly the term 'Islamic world' has its uses. While I think people overuse it top describe the modern world, historically it can be useful shorthand.

The key here is 'do people understand what I mean when...'. Somtimes the terms are useful, sometimes not.

tinymarae
20 Sep 09,, 01:38
Did they get the lot from India, or just the concept of the zero?

Arabic numerals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_numerals)



The Arabic numerals are the ten digits (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). They are descended from Indian numerals and the Hindu-Arabic numeral system developed by Indian mathematicians, by which a sequence of digits such as "975" is read as a whole number. The Indian numerals were adopted by the Persian mathematicians in India, and passed on to the Arabs further west. The numerals were modified in shape as they were passed along, and developed their European shapes by the time they reached North Africa. From there they were transmitted to Europe in the Middle Ages. The use of Arabic numerals spread around the world through European trade, books and colonialism. Today they are the most common symbolic representation of numbers in the world.

outcast
20 Sep 09,, 12:48
You don't call the Industrial Revolution as the "Christian Golden Era" do you? You don't call them Christian inventions?

Because the christian church was largely responsible for the dark ages when it came out and sat on western civilization, and all of this invention and discovery happened when it started to lose its power.


As Christianity itself became more fragmented & the idea of the nation-state arose this ceased to me a useful term. I'm not sure 'the West' or variants are any more accurate than 'islam', but we live with it.


yeah pretty much.

SenorPabloIII
22 Sep 09,, 22:05
Because their Army was garbage, just like Iran.

This war will only be remembered for it's brutality and futility. How can two armies slaughter each other for eight years and not gain one inch of ground?

Only in the Middle East, man.

Lets say Iran and Iraq had modern day (in the 1980's modern day) weapons, training, etc. and they weren't shit armies, they would've both still lost. World War I, US Marines, British Army, the French going up against the Germans and Austrians, who won? Nobody, it was a stalemate even though Germany was accused for the war. The similarities are that both fought in trenches, and no one is going to win in a Trench war.

zraver
23 Sep 09,, 02:16
Lets say Iran and Iraq had modern day (in the 1980's modern day) weapons, training, etc. and they weren't shit armies, they would've both still lost. World War I, US Marines, British Army, the French going up against the Germans and Austrians, who won? Nobody, it was a stalemate even though Germany was accused for the war. The similarities are that both fought in trenches, and no one is going to win in a Trench war.

This of course is countered by the Cambrai and Hundred days offensive on the allied side, the Spring and Capparetto offensives on the German side, Brusilov's offensive for the Russians etc. The trench was not an unbeatable unmovable force of nature. Trench warfare is a condition which simply requires the proper mindset and then the proper tools to reduce it to the dust bin of history. The problem for all sides 14-late 17 was that the mindset remained wedded to the wrong mental construct. Once the shift away from cult of the offensive and power of the bayonet occurred, all sides found within their own means ways to break the trenches wide open.

For the allies it was tanks and hurricane bombardments, for the Germans infiltration and hurricane bombardments, for the Russians hurricane bombardments and the mass of the bayonet.

Lets also not forget, that the allies did win a trench war, and the US had won one earlier in the latter part of the ACW.

Kernow
23 Sep 09,, 02:30
Cambrai, Somme all good Tank Battles, but not against other Tanks at that stage.

Tronic
30 Sep 09,, 01:11
You just did this - in the first line of your post!!

There is nothing unusual about referring to civilizations at certain times by their religion, especially if they themselves did the same thing. It is often a useful way to refer to a single civilization that may be divided within itself into different kingdoms or other units. Keep in mind that the idea of the modern state based on one particular language/culture/ethnicity is very new.

There was a lengthy period when the term 'Christendom' had significance. As Christianity itself became more fragmented & the idea of the nation-state arose this ceased to me a useful term. I'm not sure 'the West' or variants are any more accurate than 'islam', but we live with it.

Describing Chinese civilization as 'Buddhist' would be silly because it never has been. Buddhism is one element of a complex religious & philosophical structure that involves Taoism & Confucianism. Chinese civilization is defined by culture, using a religious refence makes no sense.

Hinduism is as much culture as religion. People will understand what you mean when you use it.

Similarly the term 'Islamic world' has its uses. While I think people overuse it top describe the modern world, historically it can be useful shorthand.

The key here is 'do people understand what I mean when...'. Somtimes the terms are useful, sometimes not.

Even the term "Islamic" referring to civilization or a culture is a bit mixed one depending on the perception. I think for the West, it was the cultural and scientific exchange with the Arabs which are, rightly or wrongly termed as "Islamic" culture, but I guess it can be attributed to the fact that Islam is probably the one thing which actually made the Arabs a significant cultural entity. However, I think for the East, it was actually Persian culture which made the greatest impact, and ironically that too is clubbed as "Islamic", though Persians and Arabs had a totally different scale of cultural impact. The Persian culture was adopted by pretty much all the societies ranging from Turkey to the Central Asians including the Afghanis and was even adopted by the Mongols who then brought it to India. And the ironical part is that it was not the Persians themselves who spread out their culture, but their Turko-Mongol rulers who themselves embraced the Persian culture and religion.

clackers
01 Oct 09,, 04:15
Cambrai, Somme all good Tank Battles, but not against other Tanks at that stage.

The Germans actually didn't treat tanks seriously, CA, and only built twenty of them, perhaps because they weren't impressed by their premature use by the British at the Somme.

Kernow
01 Oct 09,, 04:26
You could be right, but after the war they must have seen the potential in them, hence the 'Blitz Krieg' in WWII.

clackers
01 Oct 09,, 06:48
Well, after 1918, someone like Guderian was influenced more by British theorists like Fuller and Liddell Hart than the British themselves, and the Weimar Republic was able to do practical exercises with Russians like Tukhachevsky, getting around the Versailles Treaty banning them from having tanks.

At the time of the Iran-Iraq war, the philosophy of the Main Battle Tank ruled, but coming out of WW1 and going into WW2 the earlier strategy of nearly every nation facing fixed defences was to have one set of AFVs for achieving the breakthrough (infantry tanks) and another for the pursuit (cavalry tanks).

Kernow
01 Oct 09,, 21:59
What on Eart is a Cavalry Tank?

zraver
02 Oct 09,, 01:11
What on Eart is a Cavalry Tank?

A cruiser tank

Kernow
02 Oct 09,, 03:29
Now if he had said Cruiser in the first I would have got it, never heard of the Cavalry Tank. Both the Infantry Tanks and the Cruiser concepts are now obsolete.

clackers
04 Oct 09,, 16:44
They weren't obsolete concepts in WW2, though, Chobham. For manouevre warfare, cavalry style exploitation was what the Sherman, Pzkpfw III and T-34 were designed for. For positional warfare, breakthrough infantry tanks like the Matilda, Char B, M3 Grant, KV-1 and Pzkpfw IV were followed later on by the Tiger, Josef Stalin and Sherman Jumbo designs.

zraver
05 Oct 09,, 14:25
They weren't obsolete concepts in WW2, though, Chobham. For manouevre warfare, cavalry style exploitation was what the Sherman, Pzkpfw III and T-34 were designed for. For positional warfare, breakthrough infantry tanks like the Matilda, Char B, M3 Grant, KV-1 and Pzkpfw IV were followed later on by the Tiger, Josef Stalin and Sherman Jumbo designs.

I don't think the Sherman should be classified as a cavalry tank. It was built to be used for both infantry support and exploitation roles not specifically in any one role like the Matilda.

clackers
06 Oct 09,, 04:19
It was designed as a cavalry tank, but General Lesley McNair, the commanding general of all American Land Forces, made some unfortunate decisions. As Steve Zaloga writes in "Panther vs Sherman":

The Sherman was principally intended for use by the new armored divisions. The primary mission of the armored divisions was the old cavalry role of exploitation of the breakthrough after the penetration had been won by the infantry. As such, due to its offensive orientation, the balance of the design placed greater emphasis on mobility and firepower than on armor. The US Army's other principal armored units, the separate tank battalions, would have favored a design with better armored protection, due to their mission of infantry support, but the head of the Army Ground Forces (AGF), Gen Lesley McNair, favored ruthless standardization of tank designs, realizing that the US Army would be fighting its battles thousands of miles from the tank plants in Detroit and could ill afford logistical complications. McNair defined the two primary ingredients of US tank design as battle worthiness and battle need. Battle worthiness demanded sufficient ruggedness and reliability to withstand the rigors of combat service without imposing excessive maintenance. This policy tended to favor a more conservative approach to tank design once a satisfactory type such as the Sherman was already in service. Battle need meant that acquisition was not encouraged unless combat experience had demonstrated both the need for the new equipment and that local theater commanders specifically demanded the new equipment. While this might seem reasonable on the surface, this type of reactive policy overlooked the 'tyranny of time' - the long delay between the point when the need was articulated by field commanders to the months or years it took to develop and field new equipment. McNair's twin policies lay at the heart of the Sherman's virtues and vices p16

McNair also believed tanks shouldn't need to fight other tanks, discouraged development of AFVs like the Pershing or adopting the British Firefly, and implemented Marshall's Individual Replacement System. Some of the practices he introduced to the US Army could be undone by others when he was unfortunately killed by friendly fire in Normandy.

Officer of Engineers
06 Oct 09,, 05:22
It was designed as a cavalry tank, but General Lesley McNair, the commanding general of all American Land Forces, made some unfortunate decisions. As Steve Zaloga writes in "Panther vs Sherman":And now, I understand. You read books, not reports.

clackers
06 Oct 09,, 06:39
Oh, you've got a report on this matter?

Please post it and let us judge its worth!

Officer of Engineers
06 Oct 09,, 06:59
Oh, come on, Clackers, don't tell me you don't have access to a regt museum and hence these reports. These are still paper, not electrons.

Officer of Engineers
06 Oct 09,, 07:03
In case that you don't, PM me.

zraver
06 Oct 09,, 18:29
It was designed as a cavalry tank, but General Lesley McNair, the commanding general of all American Land Forces, made some unfortunate decisions. As Steve Zaloga writes in "Panther vs Sherman":

[I]The Sherman was principally intended for use by the new armored divisions. The primary mission of the armored divisions was the old cavalry role of exploitation of the breakthrough after the penetration had been won by the infantry. As such, due to its offensive orientation, the balance of the design placed greater emphasis on mobility and firepower than on armor.


As is often the case, Zaloga makes an argument unsupported by the facts. lets look at those facts

1. the M3 75mm gun was a derititive of the French 75mm quickfirign feild gun. It was not an anti-tank gun but what would be called an infantry gun in other armies.

2. armor for the time of its introduction was very high

3. Mobility was decidedly secondary with the use of narrow tracks in the original model. Speed was also not superior to many tanks in service and its famed relaibility was not yet known.

5. The US Cavalry tank was the M3/M5 light tank with its heavy frontal armor, high speed, and high velocity 37mm anti-tank gun. Its also worth noting that the M3/M5 were direct developments from the M2 Combat Car. The M2 Combat Car was a miss named tank, missnamed so that the US Cavalry could get around a congressional law prohibitng the cavalry from having tanks.

clackers
08 Oct 09,, 12:18
1. the M3 75mm gun was a derititive of the French 75mm quickfirign feild gun. It was not an anti-tank gun but what would be called an infantry gun in other armies.

2. armor for the time of its introduction was very high

3. Mobility was decidedly secondary with the use of narrow tracks in the original model. Speed was also not superior to many tanks in service and its famed relaibility was not yet known.

5. The US Cavalry tank was the M3/M5 light tank with its heavy frontal armor, high speed, and high velocity 37mm anti-tank gun.

1. As often happened, a gun was used even if it was not originally designed for its purpose, simply because tank design after 1939 was evolving away from the 37mm guns to larger calibres, and that field piece was an existing gun that could be adapted. All nations did this. The British 17 pounder and German 88mm were originally antiaircraft guns given AP rounds, and the US was to do the same with the 76mm and 90mm guns too. The 76mm was eventually fitted to Shermans and may have helped its cavalry role, but hindered its infantry support role because the HE round packed about half the explosive as the 75mm. Probably two different vehicles should have been built as General Jacob Devers (the US head of tanks) wanted, maybe one for the armored divisions like the M4, another for the tank battalions attached to infantry divisions like the M26, but McNair fought that idea all the way.

2. It was pretty good, and done without restricting performance in the way of the Panther or Tiger. The T-34 was pretty well armoured too, even if the KV-1 and the JSIII and JSIII were the heavily armoured specialized breakthrough AFVs.

3. The hull and mechanicals had been proven on the M3 Lee\Grant, to which it was the successor ... that is, a tank for the armored divisions, which had only been formed in 1941 for the first time and had conducted sweeping cavalry operations in the Louisiana Maneuvers under Patton. He had preferred to cut into the rear areas of the enemy rather than mass for combat in a Guderian style "Schwerpunkt".

5. The M3/M5 was fine for 1941-2 standards. Nobody would want to equip three battalions of their armored division with them after that time.

You can read about the tension between the types of combat envisaged in the Wiki article on the M26 Pershing:

Much like other armies at the time, the U.S. Army envisioned two main roles for tanks: infantry support and breakthrough exploitation. From 1942 until the end of World War II, both roles were covered in the main by the M4 Sherman, which was better suited for the latter "cavalry" role. The infantry would have preferred a better protected and better armed vehicle, even at a price of less mobility. In late 1942, U.S. Army Ordnance started to work on an "infantry-oriented" design [eventually the M26] which was supposed to be more versatile than the British infantry tanks.

Zaloga is one of the references for the article, but so is Hunnicutt if you prefer him.

When McNair decided that the one tank could do both jobs, leaving tank fighting to tank destroyers, the strategy didn't work and the Allies were forced to rely on larger production numbers for success. As General Omar Bradley observed, "This willingness to expend Shermans offered little comfort to the crews who were forced to expend themselves as well."

clackers
08 Oct 09,, 12:20
In case that you don't, PM me.

If these 'reports' have anything relevant to the issue, feel free to post the best sections publicly so all might get to judge them, OoE.

Officer of Engineers
09 Oct 09,, 05:05
I neither have the desire nor the time to retype regimental histories that were recorded by hand written notes. I was going to give you the people to contact within the Commonwealth Regimental Museum libraries but I am not going to waste their time on your ego.

Big K
13 Oct 09,, 03:10
Arabian and Persian cultures suffered a blow when those peoples were conquered by Mongols and Turks, something that took until as late as 1918 to 'fix'....

fix??..you think that they are fixed after 1918??...

if so then...wow...really different point of view...

Big K
13 Oct 09,, 03:14
....but their Turko-Mongol rulers who themselves embraced...........culture and religion.

this embracement of cultures & religions found its best explanation in the book of Gumilev "Ancient Turks (1964)"

Big K
13 Oct 09,, 03:23
....Persians and Arabs had a totally different scale of cultural impact.....

once i made the mistake to say "hello are you Arab?" to a very pretty girl i met.

she denied immediately in a way which made me very surprised.

"no i am not Arab! i am Persian!!!"


this took place some 2-3 yrs ago...

clackers
13 Oct 09,, 05:49
I neither have the desire nor the time to retype regimental histories that were recorded by hand written notes. I was going to give you the people to contact within the Commonwealth Regimental Museum libraries but I am not going to waste their time on your ego.

Then these 'reports' can have no bearing on our discussion, OoE ... but that's entirely up to you.

clackers
13 Oct 09,, 05:52
once i made the mistake to say "hello are you Arab?" to a very pretty girl i met.

she denied immediately in a way which made me very surprised.

"no i am not Arab! i am Persian!!!"


this took place some 2-3 yrs ago...

You now stay clear of race, religion and politics when you play the Dating Game these days, Big K? :)

Officer of Engineers
13 Oct 09,, 06:28
Then these 'reports' can have no bearing on our discussion, OoE ... but that's entirely up to you.Yeah, they do when three service members say you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

Kansas Bear
14 Oct 09,, 01:45
As is often the case, Zaloga makes an argument unsupported by the facts. lets look at those facts

1. the M3 75mm gun was a derititive of the French 75mm quickfirign feild gun. It was not an anti-tank gun but what would be called an infantry gun in other armies.

Which year of French 75mm??

Kernow
14 Oct 09,, 01:50
once i made the mistake to say "hello are you Arab?" to a very pretty girl i met.

she denied immediately in a way which made me very surprised.

"no i am not Arab! i am Persian!!!"


this took place some 2-3 yrs ago...

Well she is correct then. Its like when people ask me if I am English, I say No I am Cornish.

Big K
14 Oct 09,, 09:42
Well she is correct then. Its like when people ask me if I am English, I say No I am Cornish.

yes yes, i tried to underline other posters saying.

but what was strange to me back in those days is she was kinda "i don't like Arabs"

now i can see her point better.

zraver
15 Oct 09,, 04:30
Which year of French 75mm??

Modenrized version of the M1897, the US had 1900 of them by the end of WWI. It would be developed into a number of US guns M1897A4 (M3GMC), M2 (Lee), M3 (Lee, Sherman), M5 (B-25 Mitchell) and M6 (Chaffee)

one link to the M6
Arms of destruction: ranking the ... - Google Books (http://books.google.com/books?id=DBeE71FSr-gC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=m3+75mm+gun+derived+from+french+75&source=bl&ots=woHbVgDtfD&sig=0xtm9um1Zy7ThlbbGS0GE0B-2D8&hl=en&ei=tZTWSrm-EcyPtgfp3dH0Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBkQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

Triple C
17 Oct 09,, 09:23
I actually have read from Weigley that M4 was originally designated as a cavalry tank, but this is a moot point: sloped 51mm armor was more than adequate for 1943, and the 75mm enough to handle most German tanks.

Dannybb55
21 Nov 09,, 22:27
Iraq is in a Valley and the Iranian frontier is Mountains. Mountains favor the defense and Valleys are good tank country. The war was predictable, the borders are natural. Always take into account terrain. That being said, the US, UK and USSR took Iran in a couple of months in WW 2 and the UK took Iraq a year or so earlier. Why can't we work so fast now?

zraver
22 Nov 09,, 02:33
Iraq is in a Valley and the Iranian frontier is Mountains.

While the bulk of Iran is east of the Zargos and in a virtual bowl. The area that saw the most fighting was alluvia plain fronting the north end of the Persian Gulf. Not ideal tank country, but not mountains. Also for much of the war, the battles were fought inside Iraq.


That being said, the US, UK and USSR took Iran in a couple of months in WW 2 and the UK took Iraq a year or so earlier. Why can't we work so fast now?

The US has never invaded Iran.

Different time and place. A couple of stark differences stand out- far less infrastructure, less stockpiling of arms among the population, fear of the brutality that would be visited on them, still more divided along tribal rather than sectarian lines, harder to communicate and coordinate, no cadre of experienced warriors....

Dannybb55
22 Nov 09,, 02:49
Was it just the UK and USSR that invaded Iran in WW 2? The US certainly supplied the trucks, rail network, road networks, ports and fuel, as well as the supplies to send to the Eastern front.
As for tank country, even bad flt tank country is better than mountains. Iraq was fighting with good interior lines, much as France did in WW 1. If you don't mind bleeding, then it can be fought successfully that way