What's new

Hypothetical War Scenario: Who Would Prevail, Iran or Israel?

For the cost of 100 T-90's Iran can build 1000 semi autonomous Quadcopters equipped with imaging software & armed with ATGM or other weapons
You've outdone yourself this time. o_O

Not if it's Iran who starts the war, then all options are on the table
If there is any war between Israel and Iran it is guaranteed that Israel would start it. Israel has a well documented modern history of military aggression. Iran hasn't started a war for over 200 years.
 
You've outdone yourself this time. o_O


If there is any war between Israel and Iran it is guaranteed that Israel would start it. Israel has a well documented modern history of military aggression. Iran hasn't started a war for over 200 years.

Chee begam Amir agha $400 Million bara 100ta T-90 Makes Absolutely no sense to me at all especially since Iran has no intention of invading another country!
And since Iran's now producing larger quad's with 4 hour flight time adding a few more motors, propellers & a bigger battery to handle the added weight of a 50lb ATGM without effecting flight hours shouldn't be that complicated


and with imaging software you can make them almost hake proof and arm them with a low end ATGM for well under $100K total or Iran can build cheaper remotely controlled version armed with multiple RPG's for well under $20k and that's including the price of a Safir Jeep for ever 2 Quads or Iran could easily build an unarmed version that can help guide lower end light cruise missiles launch from 50km-70km out. The possibilities are endless and they are all better than spending $4M on a single Tank for that much money my tank better turn invisible or else it's just not worth it
 
Chee begam Amir agha $400 Million bara 100ta T-90 Makes Absolutely no sense to me at all especially since Iran has no intention of invading another country!
And since Iran's now producing larger quad's with 4 hour flight time adding a few more motors, propellers & a bigger battery to handle the added weight of a 50lb ATGM without effecting flight hours shouldn't be that complicated


and with imaging software you can make them almost hake proof and arm them with a low end ATGM for well under $100K total or Iran can build cheaper remotely controlled version armed with multiple RPG's for well under $20k and that's including the price of a Safir Jeep for ever 2 Quads or Iran could easily build an unarmed version that can help guide lower end light cruise missiles launch from 50km-70km out. The possibilities are endless and they are all better than spending $4M on a single Tank for that much money my tank better turn invisible or else it's just not worth it

Leaving aside the probably wrong price (PeeD claims the Karrar would cost as little as $500,000), I don't know if I've said it before but I don't care what they're mounted on, ATGMs will not replace tanks.

ATGMs use HEAT warheads which are less effective against tank armour (especially ERA), and they are also slow moving which makes them vulnerable to APS. But the most important thing is that ATGMs are strictly defensive weapons. They're carried and fired by squishy humans or lightly armoured vehicles (no tanks, remember). Said vehicles usually have to sit still to guide the missiles, unless they're using expensive fire and forget missiles like the Javelin. ATGMs are also quite limited in their use. Of course, they can be used to destroy infantry and structures, but not cost-effectively.

Tanks on the other hand, are highly mobile, can fire on the move, and are heavily armoured. They can actually conduct offensive operations. You can say Iran doesn't want to invade anybody, but if anyone invades Iran, we want to have the initiative and be able to launch counteroffensives.

They also have versatile firepower which enables them to engage all sorts of armour, infantry and fortifications in an effective way. APFSDS, HEAT, and HE rounds, along with heavy and/or medium machine guns all have their own job.
 
Leaving aside the probably wrong price (PeeD claims the Karrar would cost as little as $500,000), I don't know if I've said it before but I don't care what they're mounted on, ATGMs will not replace tanks.

ATGMs use HEAT warheads which are less effective against tank armour (especially ERA), and they are also slow moving which makes them vulnerable to APS. But the most important thing is that ATGMs are strictly defensive weapons. They're carried and fired by squishy humans or lightly armoured vehicles (no tanks, remember). Said vehicles usually have to sit still to guide the missiles, unless they're using expensive fire and forget missiles like the Javelin. ATGMs are also quite limited in their use. Of course, they can be used to destroy infantry and structures, but not cost-effectively.

Tanks on the other hand, are highly mobile, can fire on the move, and are heavily armoured. They can actually conduct offensive operations. You can say Iran doesn't want to invade anybody, but if anyone invades Iran, we want to have the initiative and be able to launch counteroffensives.

They also have versatile firepower which enables them to engage all sorts of armour, infantry and fortifications in an effective way. APFSDS, HEAT, and HE rounds, along with heavy and/or medium machine guns all have their own job.

Wrong price for what??? T-90's price's are public with multiple florigen sale's over the years...

Also, my problem is NOT with Tanks my problem is with Tanks that cost more than $1M per unit. AS LONG AS Iran precures them for $500K to $1M per tanks that's fine.

Also the use of Tanks has changed and even the U.S. got more tank kills with ATGM's during the last Iraqi invasion than with the Abrams...

As for ATGM's and active protection systems much like SAM's ANY system can be overwhelmed
As for ATGM prices vs tank round's the U.S. Abrams caries standard round that cost more than a Safir Jeep! And with $10K and even using mostly off the shelf parts any half decent Iranian engineer working for the MOD should be able to put together an ATGM with a payload twice as powerful as RPG-7 and they may not be as good as a Javelin but they will be sufficient for a low signature Quad or UGV that can get close enough.....
 
Israel.

Jews have enough nukes in Israel to wipe iran off world map. + 5000 more in theor colony if they need extra help.
if you have to use nuke against non-nuke owning country, thats because you arent strong enough/would lose in a conventional "hand to hand" fight.

Israel has the backing of USA, Russia, EU, KSA, UAE, and India. Who does iran have the backing of?
If the first thing you have to talk about is who is backing you up, thats evidence you cant win the fight on your own.

Why would Israel lose:
1) No strategic depth
2) No war endurance.
 
if you have to use nuke against non-nuke owning country, thats because you arent strong enough/would lose in a conventional "hand to hand" fight.


If the first thing you have to talk about is who is backing you up, thats evidence you cant win the fight on your own.

Why would Israel lose:
1) No strategic depth
2) No war endurance.
Since when war is a fair fight?
Israel fought multiple wars with multiple opponents hence your remarks are proven to be none crucial, while they should be taken into account, don't overestimate them either.
Israel nukes are part of it's arsenal, just like it's biological,chemical or any other conventional weapon, so your claim about "conventional" war is irrelevent because it is a factor.
As for any war with Iran, if you'd like not to include allies help, I don't see a situation where it ends in a fatal end to either of them.
 
As for any war with Iran, if you'd like not to include allies help, I don't see a situation where it ends in a fatal end to either of them.

You need to fix your English, what are you trying to say here?
Are you trying to suggest Iran needs help of allies against you?
Minus a nuclear exchange, Israel has no hope in hell in delivering anything even close to "fatal" to Iran. Your military is too small and not capable to do such a thing. Meanwhile, Iran's proxy i.e Hezbollah alone could paralyse Israel.

And like I explained to you earlier, Israel would not resort to nukes. Iran may survive a nuclear exchange, but Israel certainly will not given how a single nuke could wipe it out. You're simply too small.

There probably will never be a direct war between Iran and Israel.
 
Last edited:
iran is 99% populated

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudia is 5% populated rest is desert
Israel size of a small metro city and 50% is desert

There are ground troops on Israel Border (Turkey/Syria/Russia)

And Iran has long range weapons to send in gifts
 
iran is 99% populated

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Saudia is 5% populated rest is desert
Israel size of a small metro city and 50% is desert

There are ground troops on Israel Border (Turkey/Syria/Russia)

And Iran has long range weapons to send in gifts
and Israel has thermonuclear ballistic missiles since the 80's
 
Back
Top Bottom