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

[Betonov]

Yeah, sounds like they want the bomb

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]

Originally Posted by Betonov

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

They are not politicians, they are clerics.

Even greedier, no matter to which god they pray

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dowly

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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?


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.