zero-one wrote:No I'm not, they were powerful for a regional power, but hilariously outgunned against the world's lone superpower at the time.
The same applies to Vietnam. Look at how much trouble the North Vietnamese gave the US. Look at the Russians' experience in Chechnya. On the first go of things, they were defeated by a ragtag bunch of rebels in what they claimed as their own territory.
Just because one side is better armed and better equipped than the other does not assure a victory. There are many examples of a smaller, supposedly weaker force defeating a larger, better equipped one.
unlike Vietnam back in the 60s, they had no support from major players like Russia or Europe, hence they had no way of restocking used or lost armaments.
They also had better trained pilots, better funding and better equipment compared to their enemies. Sure they couldn't restock their weapons, but it's quite amazing that they only managed to score 1 air-to-air kill. Compare that to Vietnam. Heck, even in Korea, US pilots were something like 12-1. 39-1 is truly astounding.
And unlike the Germany back in World war 2 they had no or very very little production capability.
The North Vietnamese also had no production capability but that didn't prevent them from giving the US forces fits.
If I remember correctly, Israel was more powerful, though they were smaller, they had more modern equipment and had an actual production line of advanced aircraft, tanks, ships, missiles etc.
I don't think the Israelis really had any advanced aircraft in production. The Kfir, which is basically an Israeli copy of the Mirage III was pretty long in the tooth by the early 90s. That being said, I do think the Israelis would have defeated the Iraqis thanks to their better trained military and their relative cohesion (Iraq is of course a country that has major ethnic and religious divides).
Okay answer me this, how many times would Iraq win against the US in 100 engagements? and by win I mean invading Washington and raising the Iraqi flag over the white house. I'm guessing zero,
It was never Iraq's objective to invade Washington. That's just silly. First off, how would the even get their expeditionary force across the Atlantic Ocean to attack the United States? Maybe the only country in the Western Hemisphere that would allow the Iraqis to base their forces on its territory would be Cuba. Good luck getting their forces there though!
That was never their objective. They hoped to bog the Coalition down and get them to give up....essentially turn it into another Vietnam for the US. They hoped that if they could turn it into a long drawn out war, the US public would lose its resolve.
What about a defensive victory where they defeat the coalition forces....I don't think thats possible as well.
Again, go back to the First Chechen War. This was Russia, the heir to the USSR, versus a bunch of rebels. The Russians were defeated and suffered nearly 6,000 casualties.
War is never as easy as it looks. For the US to go into a foreign country located thousands of miles away and to absolutely crush them is quite an accomplishment.
The very best that they could achieve was increase the number of casualties inflicted against the coalition and maybe negotiate a case fire. But unlike Vietnam, they had no support which meant they could not sustain a high end war, it will inevitably lead to guerilla warfare. with nothing more than small arms.
They could have definitely score more kills of Coalition aircraft. They could have inflicted much heavier casualties.
Also, do not underestimate the power of guerrilla warfare. Besides the example of the First Chechen War, look at what the Afghans did to the USSR in the 80s. That war lasted over 9 years and ended with the Soviets withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988....just 3 years before the Gulf War.
The Gulf War was decisively concluded in under 6 weeks. That's pretty damn impressive if you ask me.