The opposite is the case: your lack of persuasive arguments is compelling you to reference zionist propaganda. In addition to this habit of inverting the burden of proof.
It's not necessary to kill the crews or disintegrate a tank into tiny pieces: the tank has to be incapacitated in such a way that it can't be repaired on short notice, and will this be counted as a de facto loss during the battle or the entire war.
The mishmash of data you copy/pasted is leaving out how many of the 18 tanks hit by MBT's were pullet out of battle.
Then again, you're treating zionist-published figures as unquestionable fact. No comment!
No, the question is why you're taking a zionist "official report" at face value when it's common knowledge that every information released by Tel Aviv is subject to military censorship, and that this regime has a long history of covering up probable losses - including in recent cases of retaliatory assassinations attributed to Iran, which you yourself have described as factual in other discussions at this forum, despite the lack of real hard evidence.
So I don't need to produce proof to the contrary, because the information you offered is by definition anything but trustworthy.
Let us nonetheless put to rest this attempted downplaying of Hezbollah's military achievements, thanks to the citation of more credible numbers from the horse's mouth:
Moreover, the Hizbollah scored several clear victories over Israel’s military. According to an IDF Report Card published in the Jerusalem Post, Israel had deployed some 400 Merkava MK-4 tanks – its safest and deadliest tank – in Lebanon: 40 of these were hit by Hizbollah’s anti-tank weapons, 20 of them were destroyed, and 30 tank crewmen were killed.[10] According to a report published by The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “Hizbollah’s success with antitank weapons during the July War reflects many years spent training on these weapons as well as a good plan to use these weapons once the battle began.”
By M. Shahid Alam On January 31, 2008, when the Winograd Commission submitted its final report on the Second Lebanese War of July 2006, this was a first in Israeli history: a report on why [...]
www.palestinechronicle.com
When zionists publish different contradicting figures of their losses, we should pick those that present the zionist military in a better light, is that what you're saying? This is while even the numbers right above could be minimizing the true amount of Merkava tanks desroyed or seriously damaged by Kornet ATGM's.
You're treating zionist-made systems as "wonder weapons" while dismissing the efficiency of Russian-made ones. Then don't be surprised if readers consider this as a reflection of political preferences.
View attachment 872253
https://natoassociation.ca/irans-developing-military-capabilities-part-iv-air-defences-section-ii/
Iran is likely to have had access to the Nebo radar and other components used in the S-300 since the late 1990's or early 2000's, courtesy of a Croatian private arms dealer and more importantly, of what was surely a Russian front company in Belarus. Either way, Belarus will not export any high tier weaponry against Moscow's will.
To state that Iran's access to token samples of foreign systems gave a boost to Iran's domestic R&D and manufacturing is
not belittling at all. Even China's defence industry was initially relying a lot on reverse-engineering, and it continually benefited over the years from the study of Russian and other weaponry Beijing was purchasing.
As a matter of fact, very few countries in the world are capable of this, so your accusation against me has no ground to stand on.
Not to mention how rich it is to be accused of minimizing Iran's domestic achievements by a staunch supporter of the reformist faction, the same reformist faction which is openly professing its ideological disdain and opposition for the concept of self-sufficiency.
Anothe typical strawman. I was responding to your question about the date on which Russia supplied Iran with a radar which Iran had indeed placed an order for. Now you're talking about stuff Iran did not order.
That would be a lie (at this point it can hardly be a careless mistake) for I cited more than ATGM's and AK-103 rifles.
You were implying some of the radar systems Iran purchased from Russia were useless. This would mean Iranian decision makers are idiotic and need your advice on what to order from Russia and what not. Which, needless to say, would be a ludicrous thing to assume.
If Russian supplies to Iran diminished after the early 2000's, that's because Iran's local defence industry had evolved to the point that it could engage in serial production of more hi-tech systems. Not because of some sudden u-turn by Russia.
...and from reverse-engineering and studying weaponry obtained from Russia and China as well.
There's no technically detailed, professional report from Iran. And key word here is the
operator forgot to perform a key setting. Congrats, you just blatantly proved your own assertion wrong: this is not called defective device, but human error.
The Tor series are a valuable air defence system by all serious accounts. Any attempt to suggest it will randomly misfire due to built-in flaws in the hardware is clownish, to put it mildly. No serious military analyst would make such a claim, as it represents gutter press level propaganda.
Iran is not fielding the Pechora. The S-200 fulfills a limited niche role within the IADS, it helps deter against enemy AWACS and tanker aircraft by limiting their freedom of movement. That's why it's not been retired yet. Not simply because "we have it".
As for the F-7 and F-1 fighter jets, they're a different pair of shoes altogether, due to the fact that the IRIAF's access to up to date airframes is much more limited than air defence forces' access to new (domestically built) SAM systems.
Simplistic blanket statements such as that the S-300PM2 with assorted S-400 components "is inferior to 15th Khordad, 3rd Khordand and Bavar-373" or vice versa make no sense and are unscientific. A correct and more factual formulation would be that the Bavar-373 offers superior performance and advantages in multiple aspects, while the custom S-300PM2 Iran received is on par if not superior in a few others. The other two SAM systems mentionned aren't in the same class.
I never claimed they were used to design Basir. You were denying Iranian procurement of Krasnopol rounds altogether by pointing to the Basir, in a false syllogism-type of strawman argument. But one proposition does not exclude the other. Sources I provided are explicit about Russian supply of Krasnopol rounds to Iran.
Key word received. Moreover, you were bragging about Belarus in an umpteenth attempt to deny past Russian arms sales, now you're switching to something else without acknowledging the fallacy of your initial contention, namely that most of what Belarus exported to Iran was likely the work of Russian front companies in Minsk.
But this has become a hallmark of your vain anti-Russian crusade, which in fact is more of a side-aspect to an overarching, western-absolving agenda seeking to promote a revision of the Islamic Republic's principled policy of anti-imperialist Resistance. It's exactly the same modus operandi which liberal politicians in Iran are resorting to.
This represents faulty logic: first you claim S-300's are completely pointless to Iran's IADS but Iran is fielding them anyway, now you counter that Iran rejected the Antey-2500 because she has no use for it. Make up your mind, either Iran has no issues fielding "useless" systems, in which case she would've gone with the S-300VM instead of pressing Russia for numerous months to deliver S-300PM's instead; or, when Iran deploys a system, it's that Iranian planners believe the system in question offers some kind of benefit. Can't have it both ways as per elementary rules of rational inference.
Condemnable behaviour, but the notion that Russia right from the outset had an intricate secret plan to take the Iranian order and then refuse to deliver, is nothing but a baseless conspiracy theory. Moscow adjusted to US and zionist pressure after the deal was signed. They shouldn't have and they must be strongly criticized for it, however initially there was no intention to trap Iran. Also, with the lasting deterioration of ties between Russia and the west, episodes like these are bound to become much rarer.
That's not the point. It's about the fact that the highlighted statement of yours was suggestive of the notion that Iran is the one which initiated the enmity.
What are you talking about? I was analyzing
your comment. You're the one who cited Iranian policy as
explanatory of zionist hostility.
What? Never made such a statement about domestic production.
I find the arguments put forth in favor of a consequent production run for Kosar fighter jets to be convincing. I'd like to see them produced in numbers.
The fact that I
also subscribe to PeeD's view that three or four squadrons of modern Flankers purchased from Russia would be within the boundaries of Iran's doctrine and would take some pressure off the IADS in case of a war, does not imply that I'm advocating the abandonment of any of Iran's domestic production lines.
You're taking aim at Russia far more often and more energically than what you're seen doing against the zionist regime. This is problematic since it's not in line with Iranian policy and interests.