Posted on 06/26/2019 8:19:05 AM PDT by gasport
That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won In 2002, the U.S. military tapped Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper to lead the red opposing forces of the most expensive, expansive military exercise in history. He was put in command of an inferior Middle Eastern-inspired military force. His mission was to go against the full might of the American armed forces. In the first two days, he sank an entire carrier battle group.
(Excerpt) Read more at wearethemighty.com ...
This is more of an example of what a properly planned and led force of 3rd world forces by a 41 year US Marine General could do. Neither the Mullah’s or Saddam ever had anyone who knew a damn thing about fighting a modern first world military.
General Lee’s objective on invading the North was not to win the war. It was to cause enough damage and death to force a truce. Americans don’t like casualties. Politicians today would be tossed out for a handful of deaths. The best way to win against Iran is to collapse their economy. If we take significant casualties, Trump loses.
i wonder whose side he would be on in the upcoming CWII?
What he did in a simulation scenario has zip to do with any loyalties. Do you think that he was obligated to lose to the American side? That is foolish.
These scenarios are regularly run at all levels to assess tactics, plans, rules of engagement, capabilities and resources as well as to learn from possible scenarios not considered.
In 1920, Marine LtCol Ellis, general Billy Mitchell, among others studied, war gamed, and concluded that Japan would eventually attack the U.S. One predictions posited that the attack would occur in Hawaii on a Sunday morning. All of these specific predictions and studies were kept TS for years after the war.
These studies have nothing to do with “which side” the people running the scenarios would take in terms of supporting the Constitution.
I recall the story. He used swarm tactics with their small boat squadrons. Lots of ants taking down an elephant.
Yes in the end they would not defeat the US.
But you assume that is their goal. That is NEVER the goal in the Middle East. The goal is to kill as many of the enemy as possible.
You will fight your war differently if that is your goal.
You will shoot 300 cruise missiles at a carrier group at the same time. You will attack with hundreds of small suicide boats. You will fill the air between Iran and Tel Aviv with a thousand rockets..all at one time.
Sure, Iran will end up in rubble—the small county “That stood up against US Jewish domination.” How does that play at the UN.
The pre Obama American military. Long gone with nothing having been done in the past two years to restore it other than money.
Don't be ridiculous.
Germany was defeated by the Red Army. Germany's weapons production and military deployments increased during US/UK bombing.
Japan was defeated by 2 small nuclear weapons AFTER the IJN was sunk or confined to port, almost all Naval aviators were dead, and the vast majority of land fighting forces were dead, captured, or cut off by USMC island hopping advances.
If Iran is going to be defeated, it will be a prolonged, bloody mess, and with armed forces that do not resemble in any way the armed forces of 1942, I think the outcome would be hard to predict (in theater).
Oh, I understand that. It has been that way pretty much since Korea.
But because one does not want to go to war doesn’t mean one should never go to war,and the obverse is true, just because someone wants to fight doesn’t mean it is the right time or place to fight.
Never should be a decision made lightly. I am sure that George Washington had plenty of valid reasons to go to war after we defeated the British, but he knew he had to allow the country to get on its feet and establish itself. Going to war could have irreparably damaged that.
So he had to stay his hand and bite his tongue. Sometimes we must do the same, even if I occasionally do think someone or something should be made into a grease spot.
If there isn’t a reasonable chance for the ‘red Team’ to win, then it’s just ego stroking.
Another article about this.
Very interesting
“The Japanese Admiralty was part of the observing group. One might assume they took away a different lesson than our battleship oriented admirals did.”
The real lesson for the Japanese was the British attack on the Italian navy at Taranto (Nov, 1940), which similar to Pearl was too shallow for conventional air launched torpedoes.
The Japanese picked the Italian reports apart, gleaning every scrap of information they could.
http://ww2today.com/11th-november-1940-italian-fleet-attacked-in-taranto-harbour
Captain Kirk. /nerd
We used to do models and simulations for NATO exercises. There was a simulation program where a classroom of GIs fought a war on a sim computer program. A couple of wiseguy soldiers (there’s always a few) figured out how to hack the program and won every engagement. Was pretty funny!
I’m actually a student of WWII. Your description of our impact in WWII is like listening to a liberal talk about Trump’s “wins”.
i.e. Everything you say is true but gives a false narrative.
Sobering.
> That [military victory] is NEVER the goal in the Middle East. The goal is to kill as many of the enemy as possible. <
That was Osama bin Laden’s strategy in a nutshell. Inflict casualties on the enemy until they got discouraged and left. It worked against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
As for the U.S. vs Iran, how many casualties would the average American accept to “tame” Iran (whatever that word means). I’m guessing that number is around zero.
There are two types of ships in the Navy, submarines and targets!
“The best way to win against Iran is to collapse their economy. If we take significant casualties, Trump loses.”
We should NOT be landing ground troops except possibly to seize/destroy one or a few particular targets, and then extract them ASAP. We should not have carriers within effective range of their anti-ship missiles. Other than that, we are so superior that they simply don’t stand a chance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.