Alliedassault           
FAQ Calendar
Go Back   Alliedassault > Lounge > Offtopic
Reload this Page Iraq’s Military Capabilities
Offtopic Any topics not related to the games we cover. Doesn't mean this is a Spam-fest. Profanity is allowed, enter at your own risk.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Iraq’s Military Capabilities
Old
  (#1)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default Iraq’s Military Capabilities - 12-19-2002, 01:31 AM

from:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/18/sproje ... index.html

U.S. military officials also gave these details from the Pentagon's latest assessment
of Iraq:

• Total Iraqi ground forces now number about 375,000, about one-third of the
pre-Gulf War levels. There are now 23 divisions, compared to 70 divisions before
Operation Desert Storm. Of those 23 divisions, six are Republican Guard divisions,
with 80,000 to 90,000 troops.

• There are three Republican Guard armored divisions around Baghdad and two
infantry divisions in northern Iraq, arrayed against the Kurds. There is a single
Republican Guard infantry division southeast of Baghdad, arrayed for protection of
the city. Each of these divisions has about 10,000 troops. There are also two special
operations force brigades, one west of Baghdad and one near the city. Each has
about 3,000 troops trained as elite infantry. Troops in the west are positioned
against a possible U.S. or Israeli military action, according to other sources.
Currently there are several hundred Iraqi troops on an operational deployment west
of Baghdad.

• Morale problems plague the military, including the Republican Guard, and there is
evidence of coup attempts from that sector.

• Iraqi ground force training is described as "robust," but there are shortages of
equipment and ammunition, and some training is not considered realistic. The Iraqi
military, across the board, suffers from lack of mobility, despite the illegal diversion
to the military of trucks and vehicles bought in recent years. They have smuggled in
some night vision equipment, but the officials could offer no details.

• Of the 17 regular army divisions, six are heavy divisions that lack key
reconnaissance and air defense equipment. Eleven are infantry divisions. All of
these units have 50 percent to 70 percent of the troops and equipment they need.

• The Iraqi air force has 300 combat fighters, compared to 750 before the war. Some
109 additional fighters remain in Iran, where they were flown during the war. The 60
fighters in the force -- F-1 Mirages, MiG 25s and MiG 29s -- are considered fairly
capable. Just 60 percent to 80 percent of the force is considered "flyable," but less
than that is considered "fully missionable capable." Pilots each get 20 to 50 hours
training annually, about the same a U.S. pilot gets each month. There is evidence
that Iraqi air force pilots are reluctant to engage coalition aircraft. Many pilots come
from the Dulaym tribe, which has long had elements hostile to the regime.

• Iraq has a small, new unmanned aerial vehicle specifically built for
reconnaissance that may also be capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction
and reaching Israel. It was built as a drone and is not a converted manned aircraft.
No other details were offered.

• In the air defense sector, troops are also demoralized. Most of Iraq's air defense
missiles and launchers remain outside the no-fly zones within central Iraq, so they
have been largely protected during routine coalition operations. Because of that, and
the Iraqi ability to repair bombed sites, the overall countrywide capability remains
largely unchanged in recent years. There are currently 24 Sa-3 batteries; 10 Sa-6
batteries, and 22 SA-2 batteries in Iraq, mainly around Baghdad and Tikrit

Officials said that in preparing for war Saddam has begun placing his weapons of
mass destruction closer to the troops that would be directed to use them, including
the Republican Guard, missile units and air force units.

Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capabilities remain dangerous, though
intelligence officials said the biological weapons would be more of a threat than
chemical weapons.

Iraq has improved its biological weapons program since 1991 because of improved
technology and an increased supply of dry agents, a more lethal method of delivery
than liquid-based agents.

Officials said Iraq's chemical weapons capability is much less of a threat than it was
in 1991 because of a decreased amount of munitions and the amount of agents
available.

Iraq's nuclear program also remains a worry, though to what extent intelligence
officials said they do not know.

The country lacks the needed fissile material to finish a complete nuclear weapon,
though it could have a nuclear weapon within a year if the material is made
immediately available.

If Iraqi scientists are able to covertly build hidden facilities to create the needed
material, officials said, Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in five to seven years.

The discrepancy in the time frame, intelligence officials said, is based on uncertainty
as to when Iraq may have started constructing such facilities after the U.N. weapons
inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#2)
Recycled Spooge is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,430
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hitler's Magic Barn
 Send a message via ICQ to Recycled Spooge Send a message via AIM to Recycled Spooge  
Default 12-19-2002, 01:34 AM

It's all early 80's technology from my point of view.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
Old Reliable is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,144
Join Date: Mar 2002
   
Default 12-19-2002, 01:35 AM

There is NO WAY Iraq equipment is on par with any of the UN nations', and I mean ANY of the UN Nations. They are using old Soviet equipment and most of it is rusting out as we speak
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
ninty is Offline
Major General
 
ninty's Avatar
 
Posts: 12,683
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Calgary
   
Default 12-19-2002, 01:41 AM

But Iraq is a UN nation. oOo:
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
Old Reliable is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,144
Join Date: Mar 2002
   
Default 12-19-2002, 01:44 AM

That's only because of oil interests
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
BallisticWookie is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,202
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Queensland, Australia
 Send a message via ICQ to BallisticWookie  
Default 12-19-2002, 01:46 AM

The only real threat I can see here are the Republican Guard, Iraq's possible Biological and Chemical weapons, and the fact that Saddam is more than likely willing to launch them.

The total amount of ground forces, although large are under trained, under funded, under equipped and demoralised. The werent effective during the Gulf War, and wont be effective during the possible war in months to come. Iraq's tanks, light and heavy weapons and aircraft may be fairly old now, but I highly doubt that it's rusting and useless. A rifle is a rifle, and if it can fire it is dangerous.

UN troops wont have it easy if they do indeed go in, if the Iraqi's make a stand, and turn it into a MOUT situation, lots of soldiers from both sides and civilians will lose their lives. Taking Baghdad will not be easy.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
Old Reliable is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,144
Join Date: Mar 2002
   
Default 12-19-2002, 01:51 AM

Who said they were taking Baghdad? That would be the last thing on the President's mind on this invasion I guarantee that
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
BallisticWookie is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,202
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Queensland, Australia
 Send a message via ICQ to BallisticWookie  
Default 12-19-2002, 02:18 AM

[quote="Old Reliable":9194f]Who said they were taking Baghdad? That would be the last thing on the President's mind on this invasion I guarantee that[/quote:9194f]

Any mission into Iraq will be with the ultimate plan of ousting Saddam. It's been suggested plenty of times now that getting rid of Saddam is also a priority. President Bush Snr made the mistake of leaving Iraq after the Gulf War without getting rid of Saddam, Jnr will hopefully fix his fathers fuckup. Saddam cannot stay in power. Also, what would be the fucking point of invading if NOT to get rid of Saddam ? Thats the whole point.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
Sgt. Pepper. is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 416
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Los Angeles
   
Default 12-19-2002, 02:27 AM

Yeah but if they lean and use rockets and shotguns...we could be in trouble.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#10)
Old Reliable is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 11,144
Join Date: Mar 2002
   
Default 12-19-2002, 02:30 AM

The reason to not invade Bagdhad with a fullscale assault would be :

loss of life

biological/chemical counterattacks

Just doesn't seem fitting in my book, I am not supporting this action
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#11)
BallisticWookie is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4,202
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Queensland, Australia
 Send a message via ICQ to BallisticWookie  
Default 12-19-2002, 02:50 AM

I'm not altogether happy about the prospect of war either, and I'm sure I speak for a lot of soldiers out there. But the fact is, getting rid of Saddam is a small step in the right direction of global stability. Could it bring even more instability to this already instable world...yeah it probably will, but the long term effects of getting rid of Saddam will be beneficial to all, profitable to a select few.....
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#12)
Sgt. Pepper. is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 416
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Los Angeles
   
Default 12-19-2002, 03:01 AM

We have spent Trillions of dollars developing weapons and soldiers there is no doubt that we shall destroy them like we did 12 years ago. If we dont I want my tax money back....
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#13)
vVolf is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1,333
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: In the clock tower, aiming at LoneGunner65
 Send a message via ICQ to vVolf Send a message via MSN to vVolf  
Default 12-19-2002, 03:33 AM

lol, i agree with Pepper, and Wookies last posts.

[quote="Sgt. Pepper":70b1a]If we dont I want my tax money back.... [/quote:70b1a] LOL! Me to!
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#14)
r3mix is Offline
Senior Member
 
Posts: 896
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
   
Default 12-19-2002, 05:44 AM

[quote:4184f]Officials said that in preparing for war Saddam has begun placing his weapons of mass destruction closer to the troops that would be directed to use them, including the Republican Guard, missile units and air force units. [/quote:4184f]

dont be so fucking stupid.

these wouldnt be the same weapons of mass destruction that they are having such a hard time proving even exist would they ?

if the fucking military intel that wants war knew where these fucking things where then they would tell the weapons inspectors and they would have a big fucking green light to go to war. but as it stands they cant do that so this is a big fucking lie.

of course they can write this cause the majority of the public are so fucking gullible theyll believe it anyway.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#15)
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
   
Default 12-19-2002, 07:00 AM

weapons inspections [img]http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/roll.gif[/img]

this would be a good place for that "you gonna get raped" pic
  
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.