Posted on 09/11/2008 9:24:09 PM PDT by Fennie
The public discussions of US/Israel attack scenarios and evidence from U.S. invasion of Iraq suggest that the initial stage of an attack on Iran will include hundreds and perhaps thousands of rockets and bombs which will not only target Iran's nuclear assets but also its missiles and military command. As a result Iran will only be able to launch only a portion of its rockets. For sake of argument lets assume that 50% of rockets will be successfully launched.
One must also keep in mind that both Israel and the U.S. will shot down at least 50% of Iran's rockets with their anti-missile defense system. Therefore for every 1000 Iranian missiles chances are that at most 250 of them will reach their targets.
Furthermore since Iran's military assets are limited it might decide to use its missiles slowly similar to the way Saddam was using it. For every one hundred American bombs or rockets Iraq was able to fire no more than five rockets. Therefore the U.S. and Israel might conclude that the damage from Iran's initial rocket retaliation will be limited...
(Excerpt) Read more at payvand.com ...
Queue theme for "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly:"
Call me a "noob" in front of a quarter million people!? I say notify your Seconds and heirs. It will be pistols at 40 paces. Sundown tomorrow in Tarpon Springs on Main St.
< /Theme music>
5.56mm
United States Consul-General Jacob Walles has told an Arab newspaper that the Olmert-led Kadima government has agreed to commence negotiations based on the 1967 lines and a divided Jerusalem.
['negotiations' with the PLO, natch] Bebe Netanyahu seems to add credibility to this report. This could be a ploy by the current unpopular Israeli govt to try to appease Iran rather than carry out a pre-emptive strike - prior to the fall of the Olmert govt.
If true, this could prove serious - seriously flawed by Olmert and his band of Clintonista-type weasels.
This would bring the largest air and ground campaign the world has ever seen, and the largest by NATO. And it would result in the destruction of Iran.
No. The Iranians bought the SA-15 Tor. The systems that the Georgians used against Russian forces recently. The SA-15s had some success before being overun/destroyed/captured.
It was the likes of Debka that gave Syria the Pantsyr air defense system. The Pantsyr is a short-range system. The Syrians took the gamble of not deploying SAM systems around the site. Deploying SAMs and defences around it would have highlighted its importance. Even if you look at the sat imagery of the site it doesn’t even have a layered security fence. The Syrians wanted to keep it as unassuming as possible and not draw attention to it. They took the gamble and lost.
The Pantsyr fitted with the 57E6 (SA-22 GREYHOUND) missile has an engagement range of 18 to 20 km and an altitude of 10 km. This system has full fire on the move capability unlike the 2S6 Tunguska that it's replacing.
Iran also supposedly received 10 Pantsyr systems from Syria, and according to reports KBP has orders for 50 systems to an unlisted customer.
These two systems are relatively small thus making them highly mobile and easy to hide and don't always have to be in fixed locations to defend a given site.
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.