raaft كتب:my friend TOM iran lose the war in the air and in the ground
By all respect due, Raaft (anybody who ever served in regular military has my respect), the outcome of the war was a draw.
Yup, on the ground the Iranians 'won' only 'few' battles, the Iraqis 'won' few more.
But, to understand why it was a draw, you ought to look at the backgrounds of this conflict. Why was the war started, and who started it?
Let's start from the 'minimalistic' notion usually represented by top Iraqi military officers, and say that Iran provoked the war by artillery attacks on Iraqi border posts (this is actually nonsense, considering utter chaos in the Iranian military as of the summer of 1980, but I don't want to offer you any opportunity to tell me I'm 'anti-Iraq', so I'm 'buying' this Iraqi excuse for attacking Iran), and Iraq counterattacked in response to such attacks. Correspondingly, the starting point would be that Iraq only wanted to do two things:
a) to push the Iranian artillery out of the range of Shatt al-Arab, and
b) secure entire Shatt al-Arab for Iraq (i.e. deny Iran the right of 'tawleg' border).
Well, sorry, but the war ended with Iranian artillery at exactly the same place it was in August-September 1980, and Iraq had to accept the tawleg border on Shatt al-Arab.
From that standpoint, Iraq did not achieve even its minimalistic aims. That means: it did not win. Iraq lost during the 1980-1982 phase, and its troops were kicked out of Iran. It stopped major Iranian offensives of 1983-1987 period, but inside Iraqi borders (see the loss of al-Faw). It counterattacked in 1988 and re-occuppied much of its land, but by far not all, and then primarily 'thanks' to extensive use of chemical weapons (or, do you prefer to ignore discussing this topic?). Furthermore, even as of 1988, Iraq couldn't hold more but few positions inside Iran. Eventually, Iraq - that was prospering and had foreign valuta reserves worth around US$20 billion in 1979 - ended the war broke and with US$80 billion of debt...
Obviously, Iran did not remove Saddam's regime (at least not in 1980-1988 War); it suffered heavier casualties in soldiers and civilians; it suffered more massive damage to its economy. However, despite starting the war with its society and military in a state of utter post-revolutionary chaos, it did not clearly lose. It 'only' failed to achieve its officially claimed aims - exactly like Iraq. So, it did not win the war either.
By all means of measurement, sorry, but that's a draw. Both sides have only lost.
(And again: keep in mind that this is an absolutely minimalistic approach to this agenda; I'm now not going to enter discussion about Saddam's aims like bringing Khomeyni's regime to collapse, 'liberating' Arabs of Khuzestan - who actually turned to fight against Iraqi invaders - securing oilfields of Khuzestan etc., etc., etc.; it's more than obvious that Iraq never came even close to achieve such aims.)
**********
Hawkeye كتب:Undeniable Iraq won the war with Iran in the sky as well land and sea...
I have no doubts that Iraqis think that way.
I don't want to spoil the party, but as explained above, reality is entirely different.
If we want to summarize the results of the air, ground, and sea warfare in 'few words', it's always a 'draw'. The IrAF caused much damage to the Iranian economy, but this was not enough to force Tehran to end the war. The IrAF did not 'win' the air war either: at best, each side caused similar losses to other side's fighter-bombers. The IrAF ended the war in better condition than the IRIAF, no doubt. But, it never established air superiority even over the battlefield. No matter how much Iraqis love to convince themselves of the contrary, the IrAF operations remained contested by the IRIAF until the last day of the war.
On the ground: see above.
And on the sea... oh my, this is where it looks really bad - for the Iraqi Navy. Eventually, it's only really successful operation was its participation in the liberation of al-Faw, in April 1988.
...or how do you explain a country like Iraq of this size maintained his territory with a country characterized by a very large geographical patch and a large human population like Iran...
A classic Iraqi excuse to apologize a draw.
That's like if you would argument that 'Iraq won the war because Saddam was still in power when the war ended'. It means nothing at all.
...add to that announcement of Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Iranian territory in 15 of August 1990 which is means that Iraq was still occupies Iranian territory...
How much territory?
And an even better question: did Iran ever announce it's going to withdraw from Iraqi territory it occuppied during the war?
...plus Iraq announced a new initiative to resolve the Iraq-Iran conflict on the basis of the Algiers Agreement of 1975, which provides for the division of the Shatt al-Arab between the two countries...
Hehe, but that's directly opposite to your own claim. Namely, Saddam - personally, and 'live' on TV - tore apart that agreement, declaring it null and void, in September 1980. He ordered the invasion of Iran with - between others - intention of securing the entire Shatt al-Arab for Iraq.
Was Iraq in control of entire Shatt al-Arab in 1988? Is it in control of entire Shatt al-Arab today?
No?
Well, if the answer is negative, then how can you then declare Iraq as 'victorious' - if it did not reach even this minimalistic aim of the war?
The problem is you're dependent on one source...
Error. You are dependent on only one source - which is Iraq.
Contrary to you, I'm cross-examining data from both sides. I have nothing to lose, and no nationalist pride to fight for: I'm neither Iraqi nor Iranian.
...a lot of inaccuracies and exaggeration from Iranian side...
...just like there are lots of inaccuracies and exaggeration from the Iraqi side. That's perfectly normal in war, nothing special. My job is to cross-examine Iranian and Iraqi inaccuracies and exaggeration, and find out what really happened. I've got nothing pro or contra either, Iran or Iraq. I only 'destile facts'.
Of course, if one of the two parties in specific conflict is less approachable (like Iraq was, back in 1998-2002 period, when 'Iran-Iraq at War' was written), my account might appear 'biased' towards the other side. But, I do not see that as my problem: it's the problem of the side that is refusing to come out with information.
With other words: that's Iraqi, not my fault.
In the end you're bit confusing for this reason,both of us knows very well the AIM-54C phoenix Air to air missile has poor kill ratio record a scored in Gulf war one Iraq-Iran war and Gulf war II...
Another error.
You THINK you know. I know the following:
1.) The AIM-54C was never deployed in combat during the Iran-Iraq War, or the 'I Persian Gulf War'.
2.) The first combat deployment of the AIM-54C was only during the 'II Persian Gulf War' (also known as the 'Gulf War' in the West, because in 1990-1991 the American media rapidly forgot that it was calling the 'Iran-Iraq War' the 'Persian Gulf War' all through the 1980s), but not a single round was fired during that conflict.
3.) The first time the AIM-54C was fired in anger ever, was in 1999, when two were fired by VF-31's F-14s against a pair of Iraqi MiG-23MLs. Both missiles missed, even though causing one of MiG-23MLs to crash: it run out of fuel while running away from the missile.
What I can only guess you're trying to talk about is the AIM-54A, i.e. its 'Iran export variant'. And that, dear Hawkeye, is an entirely different story. Then, in order to discuss this topic with me, you'll first have to come out with some 'hard' data. Namely, first of all I need to know, in your opinion:
- a) how comes we're now discussing this topic, when the official IrAF opinion during the war was that Iranian F-14s are inoperational and can't deploy AIM-54As in combat?
- b) how many AIM-54As were fired by the Iranians (despite the Iraqi opinion that Iranian F-14s were inoperational) and,
- b) how many Iraqi aircraft were shot down by Iranian AIM-54As (despite the Iraqi opinion that Iranian F-14s were inoperational)?
Kindly answer me these questions, then we can discuss this topic.
,so If you want to rel estimated each Iranian allegations then it will harm your work as well your reputation in the end so in the future i will not be surprised if i read one your website that "kidding story" of Iranian F-14 Tomcat who shot down a three Iraqi MiG-23 in one shot at night...
Oh, you can read it already now. It's described on one of our forum pages, and then to great extension.
But, good you mentioned this topic: have you got an official IrAF post-mission report about the sortie that resulted in this clash? Have you got anything, any kind of document from the IrAF confirming/denying this claim?
... Note please at night even Tony Scott unable to directed this...
Who is Tony Scott and why should he be relevant?
...so the Iranians contradict themselves because If our aircraft was not equipped with an alert devices from the threat, or even exist but Iraqis are not professional enough on how to use "is what Iranian aspires to say right ?" so how is that even possible to send our aircraft in deep combat mission during the night by MIG-23 early eighties !!
Aha. And I should now be 'guilty' of 'bias towards Iran' - precisely because you don't even know what's 'RWR' (for your information, that's short of 'Radar Warning Receiver'), not to talk about effects of AWG-9's emissions upon the Sirena-2 RWR?
Really, no pun intended: but, do you understand that you're trying to discuss this topic from a hopelessly outclassed point of view?
With my respect for you Tom but here I'm talking about their claims " what i see on Iran TV "now they says "the IRGC'...
Why should I care about the IRGC and Iranian TV?
I have no influence upon what they are babbling about. I can't even complain when they plagiarise my publications, cut out extensive parts of them (usually those critical of the regime in Tehran) and then implant some PRBS. So, why should I care about them?
but the inventory reports show that the Iraqi air force has more than 1587 aircraft between fixed and sweep wing at the end of 1988 Annual report on the status of the equipment and vehicles aircraft to the defense Ministry and defense Minister office, now how many aircraft we owned in the end ? I'll leave everything to you to know the truth..
So, the IrAF ended the war with 1,587 aircraft in service.
'Fine'.
How many aircraft has it got on the morning of 20 September 1980?
How many aircraft has it imported between 20 September 1980 and 19 July 1988?
What happened to the ballance of aircraft (and helicopters) - i.e. what's the figure you get when you calculate:
(number of aircraft on 20 September 1980) + (number of aircraft imported between 20 September 1980 and 19 July 1988)?
Do you get 1,587?
If not, what happened with all the planes and helicopters 'missing'?
...anyway neither SA-7s or F-14 was shot down that Mirage on mission to Sirri Island because the tasks were limited to this island and the pilots who charcot in combat missions are the same repeatedly,the Super Etendard pilot Capt Rifai crash due low altitude...
I'm really sorry, no pun intended. But I have to laugh now.
Can you provide original report about Rifai's supposed 'accident' (from 1984, if I recall this correctly)?
And what has this to do with attack on Sirri, which occurred in September 1987?
If you're talking about Sirri: the IrAF lost one of its Mirages there, officially to 'unknown' reasons. Unless you have the official post-mission briefing of the wingman (the only survivor of that mission), sorry, whatever you've got, it's not really matching his (wingman's) first-hand recollection (which I very much do have and which was published in the French-language two-part special volume of the Avions Magazine).
Furthermore, and even more so: it's not matching the first-hand recollection (confirmed by scan of his log-book) from the IRIAF F-14 pilot that was there - but about whom the Iraqi wingman had no clue about.
You know what pilots say about air-to-air warfare?
They say that the most dangerous opponent is not the best, most manoeuvreable, fastest, best-equipped and -armed enemy aircraft. The most dangerous is the enemy you haven't seen.
Now you're left to wonder: how comes?