skyler1962
New Member
I think most people usually refer to it as the Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm as the first Persian Gulf war, and OIF as the second.
Court
Gulf War 1 "What ifs"
- Thread starter Awang se
- Start date
Court
Not people who actually followed that first war...I think most people usually refer to it as the Iran-Iraq war, Desert Storm as the first Persian Gulf war, and OIF as the second.
skyler1962
New Member
Yeup, and why we ended up having to standarize terminology on our forum to avoid confusion.Not people who actually followed that first war...
I believe Swerve is referring to the Iran and Iraq war, this is a very interesting period of time with all the flip flopping that occurred on who was supporting who.My reply is valid for both wars.
Last edited:
Khairul Alam
New Member
For the first two questions, the consequences of surprise Iraqi attacks can only be guessed. But first the question arises, was Iraq capable of such attacks? Had Iraq used its air force to carry out attacks on Saudi airfields, i believe Saudi Arabia had sufficient airframes to keep the Iraqis at bay. Moreover, Iraq would have had a hard time mustering a deception because of its technical inferiority compared to the Western forces. As we now realize, Iraq suffered from an acute lack of initiative in the war. Yes, surprise attacks may have had untold consequences, but what exactly would they have been is anybody's guess.This is my list of "what if" that may change the outcome of the Gulf War.
what if :-
1. Iraqi army made a surprise attack on US airbases and US rear
2. Iraqi army launched a surprised attack during several months of allied logistic preparation and special training.
3. Iraqi army launch harassing attack on allied flanks during their advance.
4. Iraq possesed a Nuclear Deterence.
Attacking the coalition rear should be out of the question, because the coalition land thrust was a five-pronged attack, that left the Iraqis with very little "elbow space". In other words, the Iraqis had little room to outflank the coalition thrust and appear at the rear. Then again, in reality the Iraqis lacked initiative and the soldiers had low morale because, as the saying goes, "they were fighting a half-hearted war for half-baked reasons".
As for harassing the flanks of the coalition, that too would have been difficult, because the coalition always utilized flank protection screens. These were formed out of highly mobile forces, armed usually with light tanks IFVs, whose strength lied in their speed and versatility.
Yep.Ya, basically Iraq army couldnt launch any succesfull and even surprise attack. Iraq army couldnt provide air cover for own troops, that alone makes successfull attack almost impossible. Iraq army lacked vital technical level to defeat USA armor (too old APFSDS rounds, no (or very old) night vision equipment, overall weak training and support). Iraq infantry and artillery lacked just about everything ...
As such, pre-emitive Iraq attack on USA forces wouldnt do any good and would certainly lead to quick disaster with minimal losses on USA side.
Basically, Iraq (and recently Iran) army cant do much against USA ARMY. Only feasible retallation could be attacking USA-connected non-military objects - oil fields, USA industrial installations, terrorists-like attacks on USA territory.
Even if there were an attack on Iran by another Coalition, Iran's military can be quite easily snuffed out. I would only be concerned if we intended to occupy Iran. (Sorry if this kind off topic)
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
What if saddam threatened to use Nuke, not on KSA or a massing coalition forces, but against the state of Israel. we know that US goes to all the trouble trying to prevent Israel from joining the war.
for your information, many of Iraqi mobile SCUD launcher escape destruction by the coalition forces. this launchers managed to launched and inflict some damage from Saudi Arabia down to Israel far away. This SCUD could easily be fitted with Nuke warhead.
Saddam didn't use the Chemical weapons during the war because United States threatened to use WMD in retaliation for any WMD strike on Coalition forces. During operation "Iraqi Freedom", Saddam would've use his WMD as his "Samson Option". but, then again, all of his WMD have been dismantled by the UN weapons inspectors. I don't believe that Iraq has any type of WMD on the eve of US invasion.Even with nuclear warheads or a bomb, we would have taken out any such facility way before conducting a ground operation. That's what the Coalition did with his Chemical weapons before hand to avoid them all together
for your information, many of Iraqi mobile SCUD launcher escape destruction by the coalition forces. this launchers managed to launched and inflict some damage from Saudi Arabia down to Israel far away. This SCUD could easily be fitted with Nuke warhead.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
As you point out, Saddams WMDs were primarily intended for regime survival. If any use against anyone is a regime ending action, that action has been deterred.What if saddam threatened to use Nuke, not on KSA or a massing coalition forces, but against the state of Israel. we know that US goes to all the trouble trying to prevent Israel from joining the war.
Meaning the US will proceed with Desert Storm, Saddam will watch it, clinging to his nukes for regime survival, knowing any first use will end his regime.
So any overt threat will be revealed as a bluff, increasing humiliation post war.
Will he make any threats in the first place, when he stand to lose much more from this action? Threatening Israel will be very popular in certain places, but so much greater will the loss of face be, when the bluff is called.
Agreed. Desert Fox destroyed what the UN inspectors hadn't taken out. So Iraq didn't posses any operational WMDs at the time of OIF.Saddam didn't use the Chemical weapons during the war because United States threatened to use WMD in retaliation for any WMD strike on Coalition forces. During operation "Iraqi Freedom", Saddam would've use his WMD as his "Samson Option". but, then again, all of his WMD have been dismantled by the UN weapons inspectors. I don't believe that Iraq has any type of WMD on the eve of US invasion.
Cant' agree that a SCUD can be easily fixed with a nuclear warhead. Miniaturisation and actual weaponisation of nukes is much more tricky than building, say an air delivered one.for your information, many of Iraqi mobile SCUD launcher escape destruction by the coalition forces. this launchers managed to launched and inflict some damage from Saudi Arabia down to Israel far away. This SCUD could easily be fitted with Nuke warhead.
But lets assume that Iraq had nuclear warheads on their SCUDs. In 90-91 the coalition was unable to locate them. So any first strike by the Coalition will run the risk of getting a nuke back. That will have to be taken into account.
But at that time, it didn't seem as though he would have listened to that advice. I mean I know that during Desert Fox we took out most Iraq's "front line" SCUD facilities and launchers. But I think that this thread creator is referring to the SCUDs that did make it. Because, I mean its Saddam, if he wanted to more than likely he would have used Chemical weapons regardless, just to inflict harm on the Coalition.What if saddam threatened to use Nuke, not on KSA or a massing coalition forces, but against the state of Israel. we know that US goes to all the trouble trying to prevent Israel from joining the war.
Saddam didn't use the Chemical weapons during the war because United States threatened to use WMD in retaliation for any WMD strike on Coalition forces. During operation "Iraqi Freedom", Saddam would've use his WMD as his "Samson Option". but, then again, all of his WMD have been dismantled by the UN weapons inspectors. I don't believe that Iraq has any type of WMD on the eve of US invasion.
for your information, many of Iraqi mobile SCUD launcher escape destruction by the coalition forces. this launchers managed to launched and inflict some damage from Saudi Arabia down to Israel far away. This SCUD could easily be fitted with Nuke warhead.
The reason why Saddam did not use chemical weapons becuase he was told that we would return with the same but at our level and then ensure that he was no longer in power and brought up on war crimes. His whole madness inregards to attacking Israel was to get IDF forces involved so that this would hopefully dissolve our Middle Eastern Coalition forces.
radiosilence
jints
Prior to Operation Desert Storm, Baker convey to Iraqis any use of WMD against coalition forces would be met with an "overwhelming response". Many including myself believed this meant that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons.The reason why Saddam did not use chemical weapons becuase he was told that we would return with the same but at our level
And effect the surrounding countries with nuclear fallout.Prior to Operation Desert Storm, Baker convey to Iraqis any use of WMD against coalition forces would be met with an "overwhelming response". Many including myself believed this meant that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons.
radiosilence
jints
All bets were off if iraq used WMD on coalition forces. The likely response would have been TNWs which would have limit the nuclear fallout.And effect the surrounding countries with nuclear fallout.
That still would of ruined Iraqi as a whole, especially the poor Iraqi civilians. I really did not see the need to go thru that much extreme, he knew what was going to happen to him if he used chemicals weapons, and we were prepared to fight in that kind of scenario a heck of alot better than his military, and he knew this also.All bets were off if iraq used WMD on coalition forces. The likely response would have been TNWs which would have limit the nuclear fallout.
radiosilence
jints
Had Iraq used chem/bio agents on coalition forces i highly doubt the response would have been same. TNWs such as neutron bombs are meant to reduce overall nuclear fallout. The possible used of WMD by Iraq is discuss below. The key word in Baker's statement is "overwhelming".That still would of ruined Iraqi as a whole, especially the poor Iraqi civilians. I really did not see the need to go thru that much extreme, he knew what was going to happen to him if he used chemicals weapons, and we were prepared to fight in that kind of scenario a heck of alot better than his military, and he knew this also.
http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0409_russell.aspPotential use of nuclear weapons emerged in wars with Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003. Statements made by a variety of senior government officials in both crises reflected a belief by decision makers that the nuclear arsenal had a role to play in deterring Saddam from using his chemical and biological weapons against coalition forces. Specific warnings were made by senior U.S. officials to Saddam in both cases. Secretary of State James Baker passed a message to Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz in January 1991 stating that any Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would be met with overwhelming force.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
pardon me, but i'm not refering to Desert Fox. no sense talking about attacking a military force degraded by years of sanction. we already know the results before it even start. what i'm talking about is a mobile SCUD launcher during Desert Storm. the fix launcher is a dead meat, the mobile one is aheadache on the contrary.But at that time, it didn't seem as though he would have listened to that advice. I mean I know that during Desert Fox we took out most Iraq's "front line" SCUD facilities and launchers. But I think that this thread creator is referring to the SCUDs that did make it. Because, I mean its Saddam, if he wanted to more than likely he would have used Chemical weapons regardless, just to inflict harm on the Coalition
I was personaly involved, so I will try not to make this too personal-
what if :-
1. Iraqi army made a surprise attack on US airbases and US rear
When?
2. Iraqi army launched a surprised attack during several months of allied logistic preparation and special training.
They did not have the Airpower to cover such a move. Saudi F-15s and US Navy Carrier Air groups would have torn into them.
3. Iraqi army launch harassing attack on allied flanks during their advance.
Chaos, absolute chaos.
We spent more than double the time just sitting around as we did moving forward, or in any direction... and I was with 3rd Armored Division making that left-hook.
When I first saw the plan of advance, the first thing it reminded me of was the German advance on Stalingrad. Those nice, neat lines had several Divisions crossing each other's line of advance... not a happy idea.
One night, my unit recieved word from Intelignece; "the Tawaqualna Division of the Repulblican Guard is on the run, chase them down!"
We found them 10 minutes later, and they were on the move. But, they were coming TOWARDS us! It's a serious pucker-factor when you meet BMPs, Artilllery and tanks and all you have is a few Bradleys... and it took a while to sort things out, as you can imagine.
4. Iraq possesed a Nuclear Deterence.
They would have gotten away with it, plain and simple. That is why Iran is trying so hard to get one of thier own.
The best move for Saddam would have been to keep going that same week. He might even have been able to take out Saudi Airbases with a sneak-attack, and gone all the way to the Empty Quarter before we could have done anything about it.
However, if he had gone that far, his army would have been awfuly spread out, and vulnerable to all sorts of raids and amphibious strikes at his flanks on the penninsula.
Who knows, we might even have made a friend of Iran in the process of getting it all settled. Sure would be a different world, eh?
what if :-
1. Iraqi army made a surprise attack on US airbases and US rear
When?
2. Iraqi army launched a surprised attack during several months of allied logistic preparation and special training.
They did not have the Airpower to cover such a move. Saudi F-15s and US Navy Carrier Air groups would have torn into them.
3. Iraqi army launch harassing attack on allied flanks during their advance.
Chaos, absolute chaos.
We spent more than double the time just sitting around as we did moving forward, or in any direction... and I was with 3rd Armored Division making that left-hook.
When I first saw the plan of advance, the first thing it reminded me of was the German advance on Stalingrad. Those nice, neat lines had several Divisions crossing each other's line of advance... not a happy idea.
One night, my unit recieved word from Intelignece; "the Tawaqualna Division of the Repulblican Guard is on the run, chase them down!"
We found them 10 minutes later, and they were on the move. But, they were coming TOWARDS us! It's a serious pucker-factor when you meet BMPs, Artilllery and tanks and all you have is a few Bradleys... and it took a while to sort things out, as you can imagine.
4. Iraq possesed a Nuclear Deterence.
They would have gotten away with it, plain and simple. That is why Iran is trying so hard to get one of thier own.
The best move for Saddam would have been to keep going that same week. He might even have been able to take out Saudi Airbases with a sneak-attack, and gone all the way to the Empty Quarter before we could have done anything about it.
However, if he had gone that far, his army would have been awfuly spread out, and vulnerable to all sorts of raids and amphibious strikes at his flanks on the penninsula.
Who knows, we might even have made a friend of Iran in the process of getting it all settled. Sure would be a different world, eh?
Same week
Hello eckherl
Manfred2 I'm more a aviation guy but I couldn't agree with you anymore Iraq waiting not going into Saudi's territory was a huge mistake. A sneak attack against Saudi's air bases would have been a good move. Waiting around while we move air assets and other forces into the region was a bad move. I'm not impressed with Saudi's air force or army, I don't care how many F-15s they have and other equipment. A person I know husband who serve 2 years in Saudi's army was in my house and I chew his ears off. Take away our support and personnel according to this guy and the Saudi's army & air aren't what most people think they are. Iraq blew it big time by not just pushing through and taking more, Kuwait shouldn't have been the target. I don't think in the end it would have changed much we would have got assets over there at least more air and stop the main attack and then pushed them back a little . Enough to get you guys a toe hold and then blow them out, I'm even less impressed with Iraq's army. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Hello eckherl
Manfred2 I'm more a aviation guy but I couldn't agree with you anymore Iraq waiting not going into Saudi's territory was a huge mistake. A sneak attack against Saudi's air bases would have been a good move. Waiting around while we move air assets and other forces into the region was a bad move. I'm not impressed with Saudi's air force or army, I don't care how many F-15s they have and other equipment. A person I know husband who serve 2 years in Saudi's army was in my house and I chew his ears off. Take away our support and personnel according to this guy and the Saudi's army & air aren't what most people think they are. Iraq blew it big time by not just pushing through and taking more, Kuwait shouldn't have been the target. I don't think in the end it would have changed much we would have got assets over there at least more air and stop the main attack and then pushed them back a little . Enough to get you guys a toe hold and then blow them out, I'm even less impressed with Iraq's army. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Hey Rock45:Hello eckherl
Manfred2 I'm more a aviation guy but I couldn't agree with you anymore Iraq waiting not going into Saudi's territory was a huge mistake. A sneak attack against Saudi's air bases would have been a good move. Waiting around while we move air assets and other forces into the region was a bad move. I'm not impressed with Saudi's air force or army, I don't care how many F-15s they have and other equipment. A person I know husband who serve 2 years in Saudi's army was in my house and I chew his ears off. Take away our support and personnel according to this guy and the Saudi's army & air aren't what most people think they are. Iraq blew it big time by not just pushing through and taking more, Kuwait shouldn't have been the target. I don't think in the end it would have changed much we would have got assets over there at least more air and stop the main attack and then pushed them back a little . Enough to get you guys a toe hold and then blow them out, I'm even less impressed with Iraq's army. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/images/icons/icon12.gif
Wink
Did this guy give you the impression that Saudi forces are incompetant, what did he do in the military.
Infantry
Just infantry part of a mechanized infantry unit. Incompetent would be saying it nicely but I wasn't impressed by him at all. Never felt he knew his _hit and spent more time putting down his country and saying how badly he wanted to leave. I think he left early myself (hint) once I get PM powers here I'll explain better. He also lived in Egypt as well after and said there army and military overall was light years better. He went off on things like they the Saudi's don't like to fix truck's, tanks, etc, that they look down at that type of work. He said they hired a lot of outside help from Pakistan that they didn't like to do hard work themselves. I think I flip him out asking so many questions I never met anybody from that part of the world before. He was not a military person period hated it. Lost contact with the friend and last I knew he made sandwiches in a deli. Send me an e-mail or PM I'll gladly fill you in.
PM me let me know what you thought of them?
Just infantry part of a mechanized infantry unit. Incompetent would be saying it nicely but I wasn't impressed by him at all. Never felt he knew his _hit and spent more time putting down his country and saying how badly he wanted to leave. I think he left early myself (hint) once I get PM powers here I'll explain better. He also lived in Egypt as well after and said there army and military overall was light years better. He went off on things like they the Saudi's don't like to fix truck's, tanks, etc, that they look down at that type of work. He said they hired a lot of outside help from Pakistan that they didn't like to do hard work themselves. I think I flip him out asking so many questions I never met anybody from that part of the world before. He was not a military person period hated it. Lost contact with the friend and last I knew he made sandwiches in a deli. Send me an e-mail or PM I'll gladly fill you in.
PM me let me know what you thought of them?