"ISIS delivers 'shock and awe' with what weapons?" Topic

Inquiring minds want to know:

link

The thing about those weapons, and those successes they had against the Iraqi M1A1s etc, is they really have no capacity to replace or resupply in the long run. They have a good sized arsenal now, thanks mostly to seized Iraqi military equipment, but maintaining and rearming that equipment will probably not be sustainable for them.

That being said, they have a lot of money, and there are always people willing to sell weapons to folks who have money, regardless of moral consequences.

Not good news about the Stingers and SA-7s. I am sure that keeps security experts up at night.

We gave the Iraqis Abrams tanks? What were we thinking?

We were probably thinking that we could sell them a lot of spare parts. And that "contractors " >cough cough< could make a fortune maintaining them.

Stinger batteries only have a finite life time……

IS types just might know their way around some twisted passages from the Koran but operating and maintaining tanks and artillery for any length of time is just silly to contemplate. Plus what perfect targets for aircraft to take out.

but operating and maintaining tanks and artillery for any length of time is just silly to contemplate

Assuming the new IS recruits aren't folks that we previously trained, of course.

The Iranians were able to keep their F-14s airborne (in an ad hoc AWACS mode, IIRC) for quite some time.

Some guys/(mostly politician affiliated) with shares in the arms industry sleep well at night coz they're RICH from it all. Want justice and a real win? Frag them first, you'll see real results on the war on terror.
Full stop.
In my modern games the perpetrators of the conflict (on all participating sides) are on table, gives the opponents (and me :) a real satisfying target to go for no matter what the scenario, so reasons to buy mini fat politicians and ratbag leadership IMO , keep sculpting them lads.
Cheers and sights on the fat oilys y'all. 8+)

"The Iranians were able to keep their F-14s airborne (in an ad hoc AWACS mode, IIRC) for quite some time."

Great! Now we have to take the claw of death to all our M1 series tanks to keep them from getting spare parts just like we had to do to the F-14 aircraft.

Nowhere in that article did it mention that IS has captured or otherwise gotten possession of M1's. It said that IS destroyed a few Iraqi M1's but I doubt they have any that are intact and usable. The only 'operational' tanks they have are T-55's and T-72's.

link

link

Ha, I wish they would fly those captured jets in combat because they'll be shot down by coalition fighters within minutes. That is, assuming they don't crash into the ground themselves due to pilot error and inexperience in the first place.

Well Daesh AFV crews are probably much better than the Iraqi crews … but that wouldn't take much …

Ha, I wish they would fly those captured jets in combat because they'll be shot down by coalition fighters within minutes.

No doubt. And any tank formations they roll out will be crushed equally quickly.

But IS have the same problem most insurgent groups have -- you cannot control a state using insurgent techniques for any length of time, unless you are very popular.

To run a state you need a bureaucracy and a standing army. To get to that from an insurgency like IS is a very, very hard process. Without tanks and airplanes to repel outside groups they would have to command popular respect (geography is unhelpful here for them, as the sort of open landscape they operate in aids well organised traditional armies, unlike say Afghanistan).

As they see themselves as a Caliphate ruling all Islam, they need to have the sort of weapons appropriate to a powerful state -- tanks and planes. That is idiotic given their weaknesses, but that's their mindset.

"Ha, I wish they would fly those captured jets in combat because they'll be shot down by coalition fighters within minutes."

no, no, no. Any US pilot would want to enjoy the moment as long as they could. At least 2 high speed fly byes to flick them off, a couple loops around them, etc.

I don't know if this is terribly surprising really, on any front. There's tons of weapons floating around Iraq and they have plenty of outside sympathizers, lots of cash as well as plenty of people who have no problem selling weapons to anyone with cash.

If they knocked out several M1, they must have gotten their hands on some pretty modern ATGM or RPG or just be a lot more competent at using them. I imagine unlike much of the Iraqi military, they might actually have aimed at their targets BEFORE firing.

On the upside, I suppose game rules that make the M1 indestructible will have to be tweaked a bit now.

As far as planes, the best tactical option is to display them somewhere, surround the place with MANPADs and hope the enemy comes near to knock them out.

There's tons of weapons floating around Iraq and they have plenty of outside sympathizers, lots of cash as well as plenty of people who have no problem selling weapons to anyone with cash.

Agree on the availability of local weapons. But not that that vendors can sell at will without a nation helping them. I'm very interested to see what evidence you have on this.

But IS have the same problem most insurgent groups have -- you cannot control a state using insurgent techniques for any length of time, unless you are very popular.

The Bolsheviks did surprisingly well using terror. Tens of millions were murdered, or starved in gulags.

On the upside, I suppose game rules that make the M1 indestructible will have to be tweaked a bit now.

How much damage was sufficient for Iraqi crews to abandon these vehicles? US crews may have continued fighting. It will be necessary to look into individual cases to make a decision.

Arms deals don't have to be sanctioned by a state. Lots of independent actors and aligned groups in the region that will pass weapons on for cash.

I have doubts that they could sustain any long military effort using just captured stocks though we don't know exactly how much equipment have been lost.

How much damage was sufficient for Iraqi crews to abandon these vehicles? US crews may have continued fighting. It will be necessary to look into individual cases to make a decision.

Might not have been a ton but isn't that what "Destroyed" means in game terms anyways? Enough to make them bug out.

Might be a good argument that tank defence ratings should be crew dependent.

Weasel, the Iraqi M1a1's did not have the DU inserts, so are far more vulnerable to ATGW's.

Aha! So they were "export versions" like the Russians tend to do.