Iranian plan B

[Skybird]

How? Bypassing the objects beign babbled about in endless sit-ins with Western idiots who since years and years refuse to connect with reality.

LINK (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9896389/Irans-Plan-B-for-a-nuclear-bomb.html)

[Betonov]

Yeah, sounds like they want the bomb :hmmm:

The question is, is Teheran dumb enough to use it.
Teheran is filled with the same egoistic greedy politicians London, Washington, Ljubljana, Berlin etc. has, and those kind of people have no intentions of dying

[Skybird]

Proliferation. Nuclear blackmailing. Supply to terrorists as proxies. Nuclear arms race in the region.

The Teheran leadership elites are full of religious nutjobs who would not mind to turn their own people into martyrs if it is on behalf of Islam, killing Israel, and suc justified causes. Just look what they willed to do to their own people during the war with Iraq. The mine-clearing march of the children for example. You have such mad dogs in the West too, in form of fundamental Christians hoping for the Apocalpypse to gain access to paradise by going through final judgement day and being found "worthy". The difference is they do not make it up the ladders in London, Washington and Paris in such quantities like in the crazy places of the darker part of the world.

[TLAM Strike]

Teheran is filled with the same egoistic greedy politicians London, Washington, Ljubljana, Berlin etc. has, and those kind of people have no intentions of dying
The Iranian nuclear program is run/supervised by the IRGC which answers to the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council. The Supreme Leader selects 1/2 the Guardian Council and selects who can run for the other 1/2 which is elected by the Parliament (anyone elected to that or the presidency is approved by the Supreme Leader).

The primary requirement for selection is knowledge of Islamic law.

They are not politicians, they are clerics.

[gimpy117]

when you said plan B I though something else...

[NeonSamurai]

Just look what they willed to do to their own people during the war with Iraq. The mine-clearing march of the children for example.

I could find no evidence of this statement being true beyond possible isolated incidents involving individual child soldiers. There were child soldiers in combat, and many were more rabid in their beliefs than the adults (as is typical of children). But this seems to be more of a propaganda statement from Iran.

[Skybird]

Those "isolated incidents", Neon, costed the lives of - varying estimation - 40-75 thousand children who were send as mine exploders ahead of Iranian senior units of older and experienced soldiers. I had that in a thread longer time ago, three years or maybe even more, and lined to material back then, however, I also base on statements by Iranians from my own stays in Iran. Khomeni authorized these orders himself, referring to quotes from the Quran where Muhammad mocked his soldiers before a battle over their fear of loosing their lives. The boys were sent to be spearheads of advancing Iranian units and to clear safe lines through known minefields by exploding mines with their bodies, so that the soldiers coming after them would have safe transit and then would be capable to fight, undecimated by the mines.

Some foreign correspondents who were reporting from that war and experienced it at close range - amongst them my former boss from that time of travelling of mine - also confirm these "procedures".

Is it really that surprising that things like this get done by regimes? Heck, even Western militaries and health services acted repeatedly with similar contempt for humans, from intentional exposition of troops to radiation from nuclear explosions to the infamous Tuskegee-Syphilis-Study. During Normandy landing, they sent the inexperienced new recruits with the first wave to let them serve as bullet catchers, to save the more valuable and experienced veterans who maybe also would not throw themselves as enthusiastically into the enemy fire as the unknowing newbies, the latternot knowing what was waiting for them.

Really, Neon, you should not be surprised, not at all. It's man's world - and man does things like all this.

[Dowly]

During Normandy landing, they sent the inexperienced new recruits with the first wave to let them serve as bullet catchers, to save the more valuable and experienced veterans who maybe also would not throw themselves as enthusiastically into the enemy fire as the unknowing newbies, the latternot knowing what was waiting for them.

Eh.. probably the most experienced unit on the US side to land on the beaches
was the 1st Infantry Division, and they landed with the first wave.

[Betonov]

They are not politicians, they are clerics.

Even greedier, no matter to which god they pray

[Skybird]

Eh.. probably the most experienced unit on the US side to land on the beaches
was the 1st Infantry Division, and they landed with the first wave.

Many units in 1st Infantry of 1943 had suffered more than 50% casualties during the Sicily campaign alone. From there it went to England and got filled up with - new recruits. Next mission was D-Day (where it suffered again around 30% casualties on day one).

This from quick Google research.

When it moved out to ship over the channel and storm Omaha, it probably was more green than veteran by numbers. ;)

Next question is whether the whole division was landing in one rush, simultaneously, or in sub-tranches. Then one would look at what these tranches were composed of.

Anyhow, the original statement by me and to which you refer, is not by me, but some historians. You must discuss it with them. I just quote them and have not examined the issue like they have.

[Dowly]

@Skybird

I just find it hard to understand what it would accomplish. Especially in an
amphibious assault situation where you really want to get a bridgehead up ASAP.

Sending in green troops to do such an important task seems a bit silly to me, that's all. :03:

[Skybird]

@Skybird

I just find it hard to understand what it would accomplish. Especially in an
amphibious assault situation where you really want to get a bridgehead up ASAP.

Sending in green troops to do such an important task seems a bit silly to me, that's all. :03:
Even green troops gets somethings accomplished while being slaughtered - winning some ground.

Also, the argument was, it is to be considered that soldiers knowing by experience what hell lies ahead of them, maybe will hesitate or at least be less "enthusiastic" in the meaning of that they will not blindly run forward to gain that ground before they fall. Allied Command seemed to have had little illussions about how difficult it would be to even get a hold on the beach - the last thing it wanted was sacrificing its experienced veterans for nothing, with nothing but greenhorns coming after them that the tired Germans also would find easier to battle off, then.

Or in other wars in history, it was about sacrificing just slave units whose recruitment you did not had to pay anyway, in order to save soldiers whose pensions you would need to pay if they got killed or wounded and into whose training you had invested, or to save the gold for arrows being shot - "Arrows cost money! Sent in the Irish instead!" should have been said by Edward Longshanks in one battle. Soviet battle drill - the three wave drill - also included that: the lead attack should have been led by tanks of older age and quality, with the better ojnes coming after them, so not to loose them in the first wave already. The replaceable lower quality tanks were expected to do as much damage to NATOP defences as they could before they died. I think T-62 were expected to be able to not be able to get off more than 3 shots before NATO would have killed them, T-72 I think were expected to get off just 10 shots. Were they had T-80s available already, they probably would have not been found in the first wave. Better to have NATO wasting its ammo on lower units that would not have a big chnace of survival anyway.


You have that often in wars of all eras until WWII: first you send in expendable formations to cause initial confusion and as much damage to the enemy as possible, and when you have lost these, then you go after what has remained of the enemy with your real solid troops that are harder to replace: they cost more, are more effective, and will do even more damage then since the enemy already got affected by the first attack. Empires using troops of subjugated provinces who owed them tributes and contingents of fighters, also did so: they sent these foreign troops first and allowed them to be sacrificed and got a certain amount of damage and exhaustion to the enemy, and saved their own people for later.

Of course, since WWII Western nations consider it to be uncivilised and unacceptable to even consider such decisions. Well, it IS uncivilised - all war is. And that's why the West' new sentiment is not shared by all other players on this globe. But I am absolutely certain that sometimes such logic decides military decisions of Western nations even today. For example you do not expose a high value unit to a forward recce mission with very high risk involved if you can also send another unit abler to accomplish the task with less costs in case it gets detected and killed. And such assessments - high value assets versus replaceable assets - are being made today, still, you can bet money on that.

Maybe the mere bigger scale of own bloodtoll in battles of WWII is what irritates you, I think. But the military logic that you question in the example of Normandy you probably even have used yourself - in games.


You see, it may not be nice - but different to what you think it makes VERY MUCH sense indeed, especially when you expect devastating losses of your own forces. Sacrifice the cheap ones first to benefit from whatever they are able to achieve, THEN send in your better units. Do not sacrifice your better units first, having their achievements spoiled by the more inexpereinced or weaker units of the follow-on attacks.

[Tribesman]

Many units in 1st Infantry of 1943 had suffered more than 50% casualties during the Sicily campaign alone. From there it went to England and got filled up with - new recruits. Next mission was D-Day (where it suffered again around 30% casualties on day one).


Interesting, yet if this was the green formation sent in first to save the veterans for follow up operations why were the follow up units mainly troops who had spent all their time in Britain or new units that were dispatched straight from America to France?
Where are all these missing veteran units which were saved from facing day 1 on the beach?

[NeonSamurai]

Those "isolated incidents", Neon, costed the lives of - varying estimation - 40-75 thousand children who were send as mine exploders ahead of Iranian senior units of older and experienced soldiers. I had that in a thread longer time ago, three years or maybe even more, and lined to material back then, however, I also base on statements by Iranians from my own stays in Iran. Khomeni authorized these orders himself, referring to quotes from the Quran where Muhammad mocked his soldiers before a battle over their fear of loosing their lives. The boys were sent to be spearheads of advancing Iranian units and to clear safe lines through known minefields by exploding mines with their bodies, so that the soldiers coming after them would have safe transit and then would be capable to fight, undecimated by the mines.

Some foreign correspondents who were reporting from that war and experienced it at close range - amongst them my former boss from that time of travelling of mine - also confirm these "procedures".

Is it really that surprising that things like this get done by regimes? Heck, even Western militaries and health services acted repeatedly with similar contempt for humans, from intentional exposition of troops to radiation from nuclear explosions to the infamous Tuskegee-Syphilis-Study. During Normandy landing, they sent the inexperienced new recruits with the first wave to let them serve as bullet catchers, to save the more valuable and experienced veterans who maybe also would not throw themselves as enthusiastically into the enemy fire as the unknowing newbies, the latternot knowing what was waiting for them.

Really, Neon, you should not be surprised, not at all. It's man's world - and man does things like all this.

I am not surprised, not in the slightest. Just that I never heard of this, and even after searching could not find any evidence what you said happened. What I did find was that the whole mine thing is largely considered a myth (like the kids willingly wrapping themselves in several blankets and rolling through mine fields so that when the mines blew up they could be buried with all their parts).

So do you have any reliable sources to this? I am not disputing that many child soldiers were involved in the conflict.

[Madox58]

I find it highly offensive to slam any Unit that landed on D-Day.
Perhaps you can offend the AirBorne units that landed behind the lines also?
I mean what 'mislead' youth wouldn't do that?
:nope:

The forces on land needed attacked and defeated.
WILLING Troops from every Allied Country involved did the job.
You only post now because of that willingness to die.

Maybe a bomb didn't fall where it should have.

[Oberon]

IIRC many of the men they faced in the breakout from the beaches were quite green themselves, and quite young.

*quick research*

Ah, yes, the 12th SS Panzer Division, the NCOs and enlisted men were veterans of the Eastern front but the main rank and file were Hitler Youth members.

[Tribesman]

I find it highly offensive to slam any Unit that landed on D-Day.
Perhaps you can offend the AirBorne units that landed behind the lines also?
I mean what 'mislead' youth wouldn't do that?

I don't think he was trying to slam the units, he was just trying to back up his rather strange theory.
Facts do seem to suggest that he manages to get the "proof" for his theory completely backwards.
Most of the ground .units involved in the invasion of France were untried in combat, those that had already seen action were concentrated in the first wave.
That would appear to be the exact opposite of his theory.

[TLAM Strike]

D-Day is a very biased example since only two or three US Divisions in that invasion had even seen combat (the 82nd, and 1st are the ones I know of, maybe some of the Ranger Divisions did too, I'm not sure).

The few other US divisions that had seen combat at the time were still fighting in Italy and stayed there for most of the war or were diverted to the southern France invasion, Operation Dragoon (which was meant to be conducted in concert with Overlord but could not due to lack of ships).

[Stealhead]

D-Day is a very biased example since only two or three US Divisions in that invasion had even seen combat (the 82nd, and 1st are the ones I know of, maybe some of the Ranger Divisions did too, I'm not sure).

The few other US divisions that had seen combat at the time were still fighting in Italy and stayed there for most of the war or were diverted to the southern France invasion, Operation Dragoon (which was meant to be conducted in concert with Overlord but could not due to lack of ships).


The only Ranger involvement during D-Day was at Point du Hoc the 2nd Ranger Battalion they as a unit had never seen action before.The most sizable formation of Rangers you will ever see is a regiment.It is very likely that some members of the 2nd Rangers where transferred from the 1st Ranger Battalion they had seen action in North Africa.

Of course the general rule in warfare is that you do not put all of your most elite,experienced and hardened units into the battle at the start unless you absolutely need them for a specific action.

[Skybird]

To clear at least this one detail, I am basing on memory I have about TV docus about D-Day and the occasional read here and there, nothing systematic since I am not overly interested in WWII. But if over the years I repeatedly read and see historians claim on TV, internet and in writing that on D-Day the more unexperienced units were sent first (that must not include whole divisons, but can be the most unexperienced companies in a battalion or other most unexperienced battalion in a brigade/division), and when I had little reason to doubt that since militarily it makes sense (militarily, lets leave peacetime morals out of this since war is not peace, then this leaves an echo, a mark in my memory. And so I say that some historians say that unexperienced units got sent first.

Do I have book titles, names, publication dates and publishers? No. It's the kind of media input that you get when you randomly watch and read media that I refer to, TV as well as reading. I claim however that it was not just one or two sources, but several interview partners, historians and/or authors and film makers. If I had made notes about them at the time I stumbled over them, I today would give you maybe seven or eight names, I do not know for sure, but I think that numbers matches quite well.

Do not ignore that probably a majoirty of GIs landing on that day were greenies who had not seen combat before, which made the veterans's experience probably an even more precious resource you wanted to save as a High Commander, so to have them survive at least the initial combat phase where the highest blood toll was to be expected. A dead greenhorn is a smaller loss than a dead experienced veteran, and the highest losses were suffered by green units and in the first couple of days of combat deployement. Many US units spend time in England after having been brought there, and had their earlier losses from before D-Day replaced and filled up there.

Militarily, it makes sense. I do not say it is nice. But militarily, it makes sense. Back then, wars still were fought differently than today. It still was more like Napoleonic squares than modern specialised fire teams with few soldiers in them who all have very specialised roles to fill.

[Tribesman]

To clear at least this one detail, I am basing on memory I have about TV docus about D-Day and the occasional read here and there, nothing systematic since I am not overly interested in WWII. But if over the years I repeatedly read and see historians claim on TV, internet and in writing that on D-Day the more unexperienced units were sent first (that must not include whole divisons, but can be the most unexperienced companies in a battalion or other most unexperienced battalion in a brigade/division), and when I had little reason to doubt that since militarily it makes sense (militarily, lets leave peacetime morals out of this since war is not peace, then this leaves an echo, a mark in my memory. And so I say that some historians say that unexperienced units got sent first.

Nothing to do with morals, its just that evidence doesn't support your claim.

[TLAM Strike]

The only Ranger involvement during D-Day was at Point du Hoc the 2nd Ranger Battalion they as a unit had never seen action before.The most sizable formation of Rangers you will ever see is a regiment.It is very likely that some members of the 2nd Rangers where transferred from the 1st Ranger Battalion they had seen action in North Africa.
5th Rangers were there as well, they landed at Omaha beach Dog Green sector instead of at Pointe Du Hoc as reinforcements for the 2nd as was planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Assault_Group

(I called the Ranger units Divisions by mistake, My bad.)

[Stealhead]

5th Rangers were there as well, they landed at Omaha beach Dog Green sector instead of at Pointe Du Hoc as reinforcements for the 2nd as was planned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_Assault_Group

(I called the Ranger units Divisions by mistake, My bad.)

I had to pick on you a little for the division thing my father was a Ranger in Vietnam.:03:


You are right about the 5th Rangers at D-Day I forgot about them.I recon that when Spielberg wrote "Saving Private Ryan" he picked that unit because they where really at Omaha Beach and where an elite unit about the only believable part in that entire movie.

Point Du Hoc was impressive but I would rate the POW Recuse/raid on Cabanatuan in the Philippines as their most impressive action of WWII only a handful of Ranger KIA in exchange for a great deal of IJA dead and a lot of freed POWs that surely would have been executed.Of course the Alamo Scouts also where involved in that operation.

[Agiel7]

I remember reading Guests of the Ayatollah where once it became clear it would be a drawn out crisis, some Pentagon guys were given the task of drawing up a rescue operation, then two days later were brought before the Joint Chiefs to present whatever they came up with. Of course, on such short notice, it wasn't much of a plan at all, and the unfortunate soul who was in the hot seat had to deliver this with the caveat that a better plan could be made given more time, and he began with: "Obviously we don't want to do this..."

The plan was to para-drop commandos near a road into Tehran that was known to have quite a lot of truck traffic. They would then hijack the trucks they needed, drive to the embassy, free the hostages, then fight their way 300 miles to the Turkish border. The planner who delivered this finished it off by repeating "Obviously we don't want to do this."

That said, I thought of this: B-2s bomb the airstrips and hangars known to house the most dangerous elements of the Iranian armed forces (not that a bunch of poorly maintained F-4 Phantoms could pose much of a threat to F-15s). Rangers, Delta Force, and engineers would be dropped near the known underground nuclear facilities, along with Javelins and Humvees and jeeps with TOW launchers mounted on them to deal with Iranian armour. Should the Iranians scientists lock themselves into the nuclear processing facilities, the engineers would devise a method to contact the men inside and ask them nicely to open the doors so they can smash the centrifuges, and should they refuse, inform them that they have the means to breach the doors or prepare them in such a state that a laser-guided bunker buster could do it for them. The engineers also prepare makeshift FARPS for the helicopters that will extract them. While the engineers work, air escort and SEAD shooters punch air corridors into Iran not only so C-2 Greyhounds and C-17 Globemasters can resupply the ground troops by para drop, but also for CAS assets to assist the troops as well. If at all possible, the ground troops are to collect data that can prove the intentions of the Iranian nuclear program. Once that is done, the troops are extracted by helicopter after refueling from the FARPS built by the engineers.

Now obviously we don't want to do this.

[Tribesman]

Steelhead.
Since you mention the Phillipines isn't the Pacific war a much better example of Skybirds theory being backwards?
While Normandy alone proves that his theory doesn't hold water the long series of beach assaults against the Japanese provides a much greater set of examples to show the theory is incorrect.