Remember when everyone though the Iraqi army, propped up with modern military gear and battle hardened during the war against Iran, would be a serious...

Remember when everyone though the Iraqi army, propped up with modern military gear and battle hardened during the war against Iran, would be a serious threat to the US military during the first gulf war?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And then everyone realized the cold war era was over, modern warfare had arrived, and everyone but the US had missed keeping up?

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine being Chinese military top brass, waking up one morning and seeing the news, realizing all your doctrines, strategies, tactics and military hardware are suddenly ancient, and your country lose within three weeks in open war against the US

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Then
      kek, China's top of the line equipment from the last decade (HQ-16/17) is Tor and Buk derived shit... their tanks? Their largest grouping of tanks are the ZTZ-96.... which is a heavily modified t-54, their 2nd largest group is the ZTZ-99 which is a modified T-72, their most modern tank which only started entering service in 2018 is the Type 15.... which is a T-62 variant.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not saying that it changed much, just saying that that was the point when they first realized their situation and that they needed to change something, quick

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the ztz 96 has nothing in common with the t-54

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The ztz-96, is a modified Type-85 III distinct from the T-80 prototypes due to having a welded turret, a domestic 105mm gun and some engine improvements. The Type 79 that donated it's turret to the Type 80 being based off the Type 59 with some improvements from the T-62. (the type 80 also got the Type 79s gun)

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >China's top of the line equipment

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I never noticed that they have to add those huge blisters for the elevator/thrust vectoring actuators before. That seems like a weird thing to not be able to copy from the Raptor etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            ???

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >heavily modified t-54
        it is heavily modified t-72 with nothing in special

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Zoomers don't realise China was an agrarian country until 1980 onwards
        Which makes me cringe really hard when they criticise their performance in the Korean war despite drawing the USA and allies to a stalemate as peasant failed state that could only produce rifles

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A lot of the Chinese troops were not trusted by the Commies and basically sent to die. Thousands of defected ROK and foreign nationals.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            *Republic of China and assorted warlord

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >stalemate

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >NK beat up SK
            >US and UN beat up NK
            >China beat up US and UN
            >US and UN beat up China, but not as bad as above mentioned beatings
            >peace
            NK loss (failed taking over SK), SK win (survived), UN win (protected SK), China neutral (failed secondary goal to take whole thing, but got primary goal of buffer zone), US neutral (failed secondary goal to take whole thing, but got primary goal to protect SK). Stalemate for China and US.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At least thy have industry on their side.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >propped up with modern military gear and battle hardened during the war against Iran

    I never got this meme. The war with Iran utterly bled Iraq white. It didn't leave the Iraqi soldier battle-hardened, it left him exhausted, homesick, and bereft of self-confidence.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Soldiers and officers with actual combat experience are very important for obvious reasons.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, for the most part. Although the genuinely hardened Iraqi troops in the Republican guard divisions didn’t fare any better than the most unmotivated Shia conscripts.
      Not for lack of trying, though. The Republican guard were pretty motivated and disciplined, from their point of view they had essentially defeated the hated Persian hordes and their task in ‘91 was to buy time for the rest of the army to escape, and they did that to the best of their (limited) ability. Often entire Guard battalions fought to the last man suicidally. They fought hard, but they didn’t fight well and obviously didn’t have the tools to fight well anyway.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >defeated the hated Persian hordes
        I'd like a QRD on this. From my uneducated perspective Iraq not conquering Iran given the conditions (Shah overthrown minutes beforehand, rare US + USSR team up to support Iraq) was one of the more unexpected military outcomes of the 20th century.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The whole war only happened because Saddam thought that Iran would be easy prey right after their devastating revolution/civil war. Which makes the outcome even more surprising.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Saddam had also never been to the mountains in his entire life, so he thought it would be EZ lmao

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most Americans were successfully gaslit into thinking that Iraq was an soviet union tier threat for over two decades.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/z0CRew0.jpeg

      This, for the most part. Although the genuinely hardened Iraqi troops in the Republican guard divisions didn’t fare any better than the most unmotivated Shia conscripts.
      Not for lack of trying, though. The Republican guard were pretty motivated and disciplined, from their point of view they had essentially defeated the hated Persian hordes and their task in ‘91 was to buy time for the rest of the army to escape, and they did that to the best of their (limited) ability. Often entire Guard battalions fought to the last man suicidally. They fought hard, but they didn’t fight well and obviously didn’t have the tools to fight well anyway.

      > battle hardened during the war against Iran
      Iran-Iraq war was absolute joke, tho. Trench warfare in the desert for 8 years...

      The reason people called the Iraqi Army "battle hardened" wasn't that fighting had made it stronger like some kind of magic, it was that the last few years of the war had demonstrated that it had an extremely high skill level in combined arms, mobile offensives, and modern war. The Battle of Al-Faw and the Tawanalka al Allah offensive that broke the back of the Iranian Army and ended the war are two of the most sophisticated operations carried out by ANY military since the end of the Second World War. People will give Rwanda huge props for a single airborne operation against the Congo, but not an Arab nation any props for 75% of Iran's army in a two month campaign and dealing such a blow that Iran still hasn't replaced the equipment it lost.

      They had one of the largest militaries in the world and a reputation similar to egypt today. Everyone thought they were the most capable arab army.

      And just like egypt would, they crumbled, faced with an actually professional modern military

      This isn't what happened though, read US AAR's of the Gulf War, all of them admit the Iraqi forces fought admirably given the situation. Being outranged 2x in a sandstorm because thermal optics are a novelty outside of NATO frontline units in 1991 while precision airstrikes are called against you every few seconds is indeed getting your shit kicked in, but it is moronic to say it's due to lack of professionalism. The Coalition also went well out of its way to hit the Iraqi defenses in the flank (not considered a possibility at the start of the war, even by the coalition) because early probing attacks on the Iraqi lines had found them to be nigh-impenetrable and Iraqi forces proved largely able to repel American troops in good conditions. The coalition then used its superior technology to attack the Iraqi defenses only in conditions where its technology gave it an insurmountable advantage. To paraphrase one AAR: the Iraqis were a competent force let down by their equipment. 2003 is another matter entirely, although even then some formations of the Republican Guard mounted an admirable defense, particularly at Baghdad Airport.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why did Iraq sue for ceasefire at the very moment when it looked like they could win the war

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Iraq didn't sue for a ceasefire, Iran did lmao. Iraq told Khomeini that he was prepared to occupy southern Iran indefinitely if he did not accept. Iraq was kind of bankrupt though and its international backers were demanding a ceasefire after nearly ten years of war hitting the oil industry.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Zoomers won’t remember but Iraq was considered the #4 army in the world prior to the Gulf War. People were absolutely stunned how hard the US bodied Iraq

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I mean it was the 4th largest not 4th best
        Most people conflate the two though

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Countries at war tend to have a larger army than countries at peace, it's a misleading statement.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well, no. For me to remember that, Id have had to be at least 10 in 1990, which would make me halfway through my 40s and much too old to still be posting on PrepHole. Do you remember any of that? How sad.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Okay, sure, but why did the Iranians successfully repel the invasion? Maybe they lost a shit ton more guys and the casualties were super lopsided but seems like Iraq invaded, and didn't gain any territory, then the war ended and Iraq turned to Kuwait instead. My impression is it turned into grinding attritional shit around the Shat-Al-Arab marshes and Sadam was trying the whole secular pan-Arab leader thing and couldn't withstand the casualties as much as the Ayatollah shiny and chrome death cult.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Oh, well for starters the Iraqis failed to destroy Iran's Air Force on the ground on the first day as planned. In fact, they almost entirely failed to destroy Iran's most modern aircraft, the F-14, of which Iran had 79. As a result, Iraq not only failed to gain air superiority over Iran, but quickly lost control of their own airspace as Iranian aircraft started launching counterattacks on Iraqi air bases the very next day. That was only the start of Iraq's troubles.

      Then there was the Battle of Khorramshahr...

      This strategically important city was supposed to be captured in the first few days, but instead took nearly a month and a half with appalling losses for both sides, but bought time for Iran to fully mobilize its armies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Please don't mention the Big Cat. You'll trigger a shit fit from both the /chug/ shills and USAF poolies who are jerking their microdicks to F-15 pictures.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody knew quite how OP AirLand Battle was.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    At the time, the media really hyped it up. They even talked about Saddam's super artillery designed by a German engineer. They hyped the Scuds and the hunt for the mobile Scud launchers. Hill and Knowlton did a pretty good job

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >German Engineer
      I am forgotten.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wasn't he murdered by the israelis or something

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He was caught optimizing the aerodynamics of Saddam's SCUD vairants and was trying to build him a super gun to terror bomb Israel and Iran with.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        To be fair, he does look like Wernher in that pic.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > Iraq a serious threat to the US military during the first gulf war

    i dunno, that just sounds like war hawk propaganda to justify intervening during the Gulf War.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They had one of the largest militaries in the world and a reputation similar to egypt today. Everyone thought they were the most capable arab army.

      And just like egypt would, they crumbled, faced with an actually professional modern military

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Plus the US military hadn't been in a major conflict since Vietnam, where they were quite literally conscripting morons and junkies to fight. It wasn't just that the Iraqis were less professional than anyone expected, the US was also much more professional than anyone expected.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Remember when everyone though

    Not really since I was 1 y/o, and neither does 99.9% of the board.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Arabs were always cucked in air force

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Remember when everyone though the Iraqi army, propped up with modern military gear and battle hardened during the war against Iran, would be a serious threat to the US military during the first gulf war
    yeah, I remember when the military heavy industry lobby made Iraq sound like a huge threat when their entire army put together was barely enough to constitute one army group.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The iraqi army numbered more than 1.2 million soldiers, one of the largest armies in the world and larger than the US Army at the time. Wtf are you talking about anon

      https://i.imgur.com/A7lZLDU.png

      >a serious threat to the US military during the first gulf war?

      No one ever thought that.

      https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

      >Arab officers do not see any value in sharing information among themselves, let alone with their men. In this they follow the example of their political leaders, who not only withhold information from their own allies, but routinely deceive them. Training in Arab armies reflects this: rather than prepare as much as possible for the multitude of improvised responsibilities that are thrown up in the chaos of battle

      It was the common opinion at the time, zoomer.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >a serious threat to the US military during the first gulf war?

    No one ever thought that.

    https://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

    >Arab officers do not see any value in sharing information among themselves, let alone with their men. In this they follow the example of their political leaders, who not only withhold information from their own allies, but routinely deceive them. Training in Arab armies reflects this: rather than prepare as much as possible for the multitude of improvised responsibilities that are thrown up in the chaos of battle

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >here's an article from 1999 to prove that nobody in 1990 believed Iraq's over a million strong army was ever a threat
      you've gots the big dumdum

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > battle hardened during the war against Iran
    Iran-Iraq war was absolute joke, tho. Trench warfare in the desert for 8 years...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Trench warfare in the desert for 8 years
      Doesn't really sound like a joke, more like a nightmare

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        they were mostly firing in the air each day every day. for 8 years each side lost less people than Gaza has lost for 8 months, without any of the infrastrutural damage

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Around 1 million people lost their lives, that's about 30 times as much as have in Gaza in the last 8 months

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            yeah, no. are you pulling those out of your ass? or you count wounded as killed?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Though total casualty figures in the Iran-Iraq War are uncertain, estimates range from 1 to 2 million, with the total number killed reaching an estimated 500,000, including tens of thousands of Kurds killed by Iraqi forces.

              Still about 15x as much as in Gaza. Most casualties in Gaza happened during the first months, too.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                > both countries start the war with about 200 000 soldiers
                > they somehow managed to lose 2 millions
                yeah, no.
                Even wiki states total loses of 500 000 at most (both sides included) with a stupidly large error margin 100 000 - 500 000 and 200 000 - 600 000 respectively. I call arabs being arabs and inflating the numbers as much as possible to win sympathy/heroism points or whatever.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >without any of the infrastrutural damage
          Iraqis were literally carpet bombing cities in western Iran you moron

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > carpet bombing empty desert
            oh, noes! think of all the tents they burned

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, I do not.
    Probably because that didn't happen.
    Nobody thought Iraq could win.
    At worst, there were high-ish casualty estimates based on the initial planning.
    Disliking this, the US changed this plan.
    Meanwhile, casualty estimates close to the start of the campaign, while still overestimating casualties (and failing to foresee the coalition forces just sitting back and bombing the Iraqis for five weeks before making a move on the ground), estimated around 1000+ casualties at the low end.
    'Everyone thought Iraq would be a meatgrinder!' is a myth.
    https://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2016/05/17/assessing-the-1990-1991-gulf-war-forecasts/

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's almost like the media habitually portrays anything even vaguely threatening/inconvenient to Israel as some sort of Nazi-Communist mega-Satan or something.
    It's like there's some sort of connection here.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This was a post-war meme. Military analysts thought we would roll over Iraq. America did perform better than expected, but it it had nothing to do with the victory or pace, but with the extraordinarily low number of casualties. Even then there were analysts predicting a complete rout on the level of what actually happened, nobody made a big deal out of it because it's boring and doesn't make for a cool story.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. Iraq had a shitty small airforce compared to its army
    2. Iraq was up against the entire airforces of NATO and Arab states
    3. With no air cover, they were sitting ducks. Western ground troops and tanks didn't do anything exceptional other than rolling in quickly to fill the void left by retreating Iraqis.
    TL;DR the Air Forces did the heavy work.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And they had the biggest IADS in the world.

      Cope more homosexual

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, anon. We know. Everyone knows what happened in the 1st gulf war. Not sure why you feel the need to recite it, it's not like that's what the thread is about

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1. Iraq had a shitty small airforce compared to its army
      Mirage F1s, MiG-23s, MiG-25s, MiG-29s, Su-25s, hundreds of fighters in total. That's a pretty respectable showing for the era.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >1. Iraq had a shitty small airforce compared to its army
      Mirage F1s, MiG-23s, MiG-25s, MiG-29s, Su-25s, hundreds of fighters in total. That's a pretty respectable showing for the era.

      The reason for basically non existent air support for the Iraqi army was the overwhelming air superiority of the US and the fact that their first step in the invasion was taking out Iraqi airfields and jets on the ground within the first hours

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        that didn't really happen, airfields continued to be active for a while. you're also glossing over (probably don't know) of a very relevant fact.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >airfields continued to be active for a while
          I wasn't saying that every single one got disabled. Are you denying then, that the majority of the Iraqi airforce was disabled while still on the ground?

          >you're also glossing over (probably don't know) of a very relevant fact
          Possible of course. What would that fact be

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What was the projected casualty rate for US/NATO forces? I remember it being huge

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    homie I wasn’t even alive until 1997 how the frick would I remember that?

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Did Americans really believe that? You people is really easy to gaslight. I remember the war and everyone was praising your military tech and how superior it was to saddam's. Nobody had dubt on your victory, a rich western superpower ws a moronic arab country...

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The US military victory was overwhelming because the Iraqis were routed, the US had overwhelming force superiority.

    But there are two caveats to this.
    1. the US had overwhelming force superiority as a deployment decision, and was significantly weakened in other regions the US traditionally dominated as a result. Remember it was a coalition force.
    2. routes indicate the collapse of one side, and doesn't equate to which side has a superior force
    Americans would be advised to be humble, because global military dominance rests on knife edge and while obviously dominant the US may not be as dominant as it believes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes. I am John McSmith from Montana Oblast and I am demoralized of great. We USA johnny cowboys has our time and now the strong russian army has taken our place. Any other American not of agreeing is transvestite

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I remember when I was a 90s kid US deaths were claimed to be in the single digits, then later in the dozens, and now it’s a couple hundred. I posted about this a few years ago on /k/ and some other anons said they remember this too. Anyone know what’s up with this?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      possibl Something to do with the friendly fire incidents making up a sizable proportion and not wanting to make those public

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Seems plausible. Thanks anon.

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Iraq is the easiest country in the world to conquer. not a lot of conclusions can be drawn from military action there

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    For me it's cheeky Syria dabbing on its neighbor

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, because I was a toddler at the time.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *