Makes you wonder in reality what a ground invasion of Iran would look like? 

Not a miltary expert,  but probably lots of dead people on both sides.

Considering what the Iraqi's dealt with when it comes to Iran I bet you are on the ball. 

in concert with the invasion of North Korea?

the martyred children in front of the tanks exploding mines so the tanks are saved...just like last time.

It'd look like hammered dogshit. We have air and naval superiority, why would we go with a ground invasion? Throwing men into a meat grinder for no reason is pointless and expensive.

Also, the BF3 "13 minutes of gameplay" promo looked ten times better than the actual game did when it was released.

It would look profitable for the defense industry.

Death (not casualties, but death) for Iran-Iraq war, 1980-1988, was 1,500,000.

Ground invasion, Lol.  Glass it from the air, mobile infantry mops up.

I'm thinking something similar, if the ROE allows it.  Otherwise I suspect casualties will vary in proportion to the amount of pre-ground operations airstrikes and naval bombardments takes place.

Drive up to the border and start walking across with no preparatory bombardment and things will be bad for our side.  Bomb and shell the ever loving daylights out of the place before setting the first foot on the ground and things will look a lot better for our side.

The only guarantee in any war. ETA and dead people.

Wishful thinking. The only way nukes would even be considered is if Iran used 'em first.

A fucking bloodbath.

There was a post cold war era book about a joint US / Russian invasion of Iran.

I forget the author but the book was called Bright Star.

Pretty good, and the invasion was a shit show in the book as well.

Worth the read even if it is fiction.

just like Iraq in 03, but we'd kill more of them faster because the gear is now optimized for it.

How about some guided tungsten penetrator bolts dispensed from an X-37B?  Dropped on nuclear weapons assembly and processing sites.

The end result of that 8 years was essentially a stalemate.

We rolled Iraq, the fourth largest army in something like 100 hours.

no, only their side. you realize we've been fighting Iranians for years right? They are as bad as Iraqi's.

Show me a war that was won without boots on the ground. Planes can't capture and hold territory, and ships ain't worth a fuck at holding dirt. 

LONG.  We don't have enough assets to get all the way in by ground

It will probably go a lot better for the guys who have rear sights on their rifles. 

Oh, you're gonna trigger some folks.

There would still be time for scorpion fights.

What about a Green Beans?  And hot looking Air Force chicks?

There's always time for that.

And Salsa night.

Don't forget n Korea will bomb the south.

What would it look like?  It would look like I'm re-enlisting.  Gotta get that sweet sweet tax-free deployment pay, daddy needs a new mustang

After the bombs?

I disagree.

Iran, ever since "the nuclear deal", has been spending like crazy on some pretty serious hardware.  Their military, while not on par with ours, is a far cry from the paper tiger that the Iraqi Army in 2003 was.  Their tanks and troops- yes, those are a joke.  But their AMD systems, TBMs, cruise missiles, cyber warfare capabilities, and other things they have selected for their regional force projection are nothing like those of the Iraqis.  And just about everything going on in the region right now can be traced to the ITN- which has some pretty solid TTPs of their own.

Meanwhile, our military is not optimized- it is financially broke and broken when it comes to decisive operations.  We lack the hardware, the equipment, and even the munitions that most people take for granted that we have.  We don't. And most of our real combat veterans are gone- I'm deployed now and the number of folks without combat patches or awards is amazing.

Radar, C&C, and SAM/ASM sites would be hammered by various stealth planes and cruise missiles.

No clue where the US would cross the line from.. Afghanistan?  Iraq?  Amphib landings?

Rangers would take various airfields, F22's and F15's would control the air, Delta would probably target some small yet specific and important targets before kick off, sabotage some stuff, foment chaos.  Green Beret would get with Ayatollah haters in country and they would help.

Main forces would land at captured airfields, on beaches, and whatever other avenues were chosen.  It could be fantastically bloody for both or be a route of Iranian forces.

If a ground invasion had to be done it would entail a lengthy softening up.  Not just bombers grinding their infrastructure to dust but targeted hits on their leadership.  For anything to go well with a war in Iran would entail killing the assholes who have caused that place to become the shithole it's become.  Kill all the Imams, Mullahs, IRG, Quds etc.  Then work your way down with government officials, kill until you get down to their dog catchers.  Then take out every bit of power stations, dams, traffic lights, hell even doen to public restrooms.  Kill any will on the part of them to fight.  Then push through with conventional forces and wipe out anyone else who wants to still fight.  No nation building, no encouraging democracy, no soccer balls for kids.  A punitive expedition in the truest sense.  We bomb, assasinate, and fry anyone from their government and religious institutions.  Once we have them fully subjugated, we leave and make them remember we'll be back should they want to try it again.  That is the only message those cocksuckers understand.

This.

I have no doubts the US military would eventually crush the Iranians, but it would be NOTHING like Iraq or Afghanistan. Casualties would be very heavy (for a Modern American Public) approaching Vietnam or Korea rates (not in total, but rates of loss). We'd probably have more Deaths than Iraq and Afghanistan in the first week or two of operations.

The Iranians would be able to go nose to nose for a while, and perhaps even launch counter-offensives.

Lots of sand.
And raped goats.

Lots of coffins draped in American flags. And lots of dead Muslims.

We invaded Iraq with basically 90's gear and no combat experience. All of your supporting arguments have proven to not be  hindrances.

Now we have cutting edge gear and more combat experience.  The Spector of fancy Iranian gear is on par with the Spector of fancy Russian cold war gear, but they don't have the numbers.

Building the Iranians up into something they are not isn't worth the time.  We would roll them just like we rolled Iraq but faster.  since we have two countries flanking Iran to base out of if we strong armed them, who are no friend of Iran and their capitol is close to.

depends on whether or not anybody backs Iran in this.  Russia? N korea? or if Iran is alone.

if they get backing, then the war spirals into something bad.

without backing, then it depends on the goals and objectives.

if the objective is to break everything, and I mean everything, and kill all the leadership without regard to collateral damage, then we incur fewer casualties than we otherwise would.

if we try to fight a "clean" war, we stack up body bags of our soldiers.

if it comes to war with Iran, then it better be decisive, brutal, and 100% committed.

We must be looking at very different information.  I am deployed in theater now, with the assigned mission of "deterring regional aggression"- shouldn't be too hard to figure out what that really means.

The SMGs are already the largest military power in Iraq, and have been formally, officially incorporated into the Iraqi military.  Iraq is quickly becoming a puppet of Iran, not a launching platform for the US.  We have already seen, in plain sight, lots of our contemporary military equipment being loaded on trucks and given to Iran for reverse engineering.  They don't even hide it, since they know there is nothing we can do about it.

And the ITN is active everywhere over here- getting that combat experience we are losing every month.  We are not the US military of 2003, but also not the US military of even 2010.  And Iran is certainly not the Iran of even 2014- everything changed when they got free access to money and the international community.

We would absolutely roll the Iranian ground forces.  We would absolutely wipe the skies clean of the Iranian Air Force.  All true enough.  But also not really a major factor in what wide-open conflict with Iran would look like.  The Iranians aren't all fools- they see what our "cutting edge gear" is, and have applied their strengths to other areas.  Our best tech has been at the tactical level, such as night vision gear or similar things.  Our major system have remained largely unchanged for a long time, for a lot of reasons- some budgetary, some due to the nature of the wars we've been in.

Look at just their TBMs, CMs, and armed drones.  There has never been an adversary with anything like what they have, especially since their buying spree after the nuclear deal.   Let's say 80% of just their TBM inventory is gone- it is not in useable condition, or we destroy it.  That remaining 20% provides HUGE overmatch to our interceptor capability here, even including that of our other forces and even our GCC partners.  And we're not talking obsolete Iraqi SCUDs- there are some serious systems there.  I doubt anyone would describe our Avengers and Patriots as "cutting edge" either, to be honest.

We have never faced an adversary with drones of the types and capability that Iran has.  We take owning the drone game for granted, which is folly.  What is our doctrine, our equipment , our TTPs against modern military drones?  Drone Defender?  Don't make me laugh.  

Eight years of continuing resolutions instead of budgets have broken the normal supply chain.  In previous service in Iraq or Afghanistan, did you ever operate under a controlled supply rate for ammunitions?  We do now- it simply isn't to be had.  Want to use the HIMARS round on a suitable ISIS target today?  No problem- but that round will not be replaced.  The contract ended and was not renewed and what we have is all we'll ever have.  That problem is across the board in all sorts of things, from rotary platforms available to main gun rounds for tanks to munitions for fixed wing platforms.  The US military is red or black on all sorts of things I've never seen us be red or black on, and on things we never SHOULD be red or black on.  That problem is real, it is major, and it is not going away anytime in the foreseeable future.  Those limits, which we are NOT used to operating under, would have  huge impact on any major operation.

Our 5th gen aircraft are unknown performers against the IADS the Iranians have been bolstering since the influx of cash from the nuclear deal.  Even if their systems don't work as well as hyped, if they even are half as good it would be a problem- due to their increasing numbers and our tiny aircraft procurements.

Would we win in a conflict with Iran?  Absolutely.  Would we crush them decisively if allowed to?  Absolutely.  But would a lot of Americans die in the process?  Also yes, especially if Iran decided to make the first move.  Underestimating them, especially in light of the last few years of radical changes in the Arabian Gulf Region, would be a costly mistake.

That's the only level of detail appropriate for on here.  If you choose to continue to disagree with me, so be it.

Attached File


Gulf War - It's gonna be a brutal grind, order 50k body bags - Pundits Wrong
Afghanistan - It's going to be a brutal conflict, order body bags - Pundits wrong
iraq 03 - It's going to be horrible, we are over extended, order body bags - Pundits wrong
Iran Whenever - It's going to be a brutal grind - Ya.... sure.

Yeah, member all the "We'll be home by Christmases too?"

Civil War: "We'll be home for Christmas"
WWI: "We'll be home for Christmas"
WWII: "We'll be home for Christmas"
Korea: "We'll be home for Christmas"
Vietnam: "We'll be home for Christmas"

Nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

Yet no one actually said that about WW1, WW2, or Vietnam that I can find(On the American side of things). That also isn't what we were talking about.

Air power and cruise missles destroy their infrastructure within 72 hours, followed by ground forces to eliminate organized military response within a few weeks... then it becomes a bug hunt.

Russia/Germany/France/China blusters and protests in the UN, Britain remains our best ally. Saudi throws a party behind closed doors.

If It was me I would do complete strategic destruction. I would destroy every water storage facility and treatment plants, major railways, food storage and Supermarket facilities, hospitals, schools, fire stations, police stations, power plants and electrical substations.

I would make a enemy worry about whether or not they're going to starve to death, instead of worrying about the front line

Basically reducing to the Stone Age, oh and embargo the nation for probably 10 years or so, and Destroy any incoming or outgoing ship, airplane, truck, or person on border, and Block the UN from doing any humanitarian Aid just completely isolate the entire region.

But we don't want to win Wars so none of that is going to happen.

So in the end it would be a horrible mess of a situation with none of our goals achieved,  it would be like Vietnam, except with arid Terrain and tons of mountains

Be a great way to remove any last good memories the people have of when America was an ally and people wanted to westernize more and get back to persian roots.

Di you not get to do the 03 invasion?  It sounds like you didn't cause you're talking about non-invasion / coin problems.


All that stuff goes away for invasion time. Trust me.

Fucking sweet.

Lots of children will be sent to fight. Those sick fucks made then run info minefields to set them off so the regular army could get through.

The thing is are they trained on them?
Do they know how to maintain them?
Can they operate independently?

Do they have an officer or NCO corps?

Our military does have a lot of problems currently but the Iranian military is still decades behind us in material and training.
They will never come close to us in a stand up fight and shouldn't try it. They should stick to asymmetric warfare like they've been doing since the invasion of Iraq.