Iranian Rocket

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by modwatchdog, Jan 22, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hi Guys,

    I was watching CNN earlier, and saw that Iran is testing a new rocket, that they claim can hit targets 75 miles away with mulitiple war heads.

    Who the f@~# are they trying to kid, the damn thing was a few tubes on the back of a 1970`s flat bed lorry.

    Oh no please don`t fire that at us, or we may have to fire our Cruise & Tomahawk missles at you before unleashing our stealth bombers, Apache`s.Prior to rolling our M1 & Challenger 2 Tanks, in support of the Marines, Paras, Rangers, Delta Force, SAS. & our other best trained infantry Regiments in the world.

    F@~#ing savages get a life, and oh by the way you nuclear plant will be a pile of smoldering rubble before, power plant my arse!!!!

    Well thats me off my soap box.

  2. Do you have a link or at least something that allows us to make sense of your incoherent rambling? You make as much sense as the turps nudger who sleeps in the doorway of WHSmiths at Victoria Station.

  3. I saw this also, think its just a bit of sabre rattling, as they know their next on the list, I should imagine.

  4. Some out of date Russian crap, bought on the cheap from the Serbs. :frustrated:
  5. Unless they're new AD system is as good as the Russians say it is and it leave a couple of Israeli bomber squadrons as embarassing smoking wrecks in the middle of the desert...
  6. Hmmm.....

    I wonder if the new AAA systems are that good do you think they will have been trained properly how to use it?

    That one seems to get over looked so often. I'm sure there were plenty of examples from the Iran/Iraq war and since where just possession of an advanced bit of kit does not mean it will work as advertised due to poor training and maintenance.

    Still, we shouldn't be complacent about these things, they (the Iranians) must have been training hard since 2003 and if they haven't somebody will need sacking (or would it be stoning?) if/when all other means of talking 'sense' to them have been exhausted.

  7. I agree!!!!

    I wonder how long we`ll have to wait?
  8. The Iranians are in a different league to the Iraqi's, anyone who thinks they are a push-over is a complete knob. Remember in GW1 when Iraq's air defence was up and running -check out the losses for yourself.

    We cant handle the insurgency in Iraq let alone having a crack at their neighbours.


  9. Interesting reading, but you`ve got to take in account how, many sorties where flown during this conflict. The air hours were very high. Also take into account the sorties for the current conflict, were very low, thus fewer loses. Also fighting insurgents is totally different from fighting a conventional army. I`d like to add, just when was the last time Great Britain lost a war?

    Complete of the many I shouldn`t wonder?
  10. Very true indeed, as Iraq's air defence capability was practically non-existant this time round the two conflicts can't be compared in their entirety. I should imagine that that any potential conflit with Iran would equate better to GW1, with Iran having the benefit of a newer up to date air defence system. A similar scenario of pre-invasion air phase would probaly entail similar losses in aircraft.
    I would expect any ground campaign to take considerably longer than it took to take Baghdad.

  11. All depends on the fervour of the Revolutionary Guards, the loaylty of the Iranian establishment to their present regime and the willingness of coalition forces (probably only the US) to fend off human wave attacks by 14 year olds.
  12. I hear that loyalty is at a low point right now.
  13. I hope that's not based on information supplied by the same people who said their were WMD in Iraq.
  14. Ours or theirs?
  15. Iran. Between the "citizens" and their respected country boy leader.