No it does not hold military value because it wasn't something he could keep on repeating and that's why after years of war all you have is one article that says a missile hit the barracks and one that says' a missile hit a base! LOL! So clearly they do NOT hold military significance if after 2 wars that ended with Saddam's toppling that's all
his entire stock could achieve!
Refer back to this post:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-...troy-it-in-2-days.651899/page-6#post-12065030
"Iraqi armed forces were able to subject Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to a total of 88 (ballistic missile) strikes in 1991. Didn't make much difference because coalition forces were on the move throughout and YOU cannot defeat Air Force and Navy with ballistic missiles anyways. These weapons posit a threat to stationary targets." -
(1)
Flew over your head? All of it?
Let us concentrate on this part: "These weapons posit a threat to stationary targets."
If you are attacking a military base with ballistic missiles (assuming conventional warheads), it makes sense to subject the military base to a volley of ballistic missiles in order to have a higher chance of scoring meaningful hits. Ballistic missiles are rather notorious for suffering a malfunction and/or veering off-course during the course of respective flight(s) - therefore, a volley will do.
Saudi Dhahran International Airport was housing American military barracks back in 1991. Iraqi armed forces subjected this particular airport to ballistic missile strikes on a frequent basis consequently. Some of the more threatening warheads were intercepted by a Patriot battery stationed near this airport. The one which got through on February 25, struck the American military barracks and inflicted multiple casualties.
"Of two Patriot batteries in range, one was non-operational and other did not detect Scud because of software problem. Warhead hit United States barracks killing 28 and injuring over 100." - FAS.org
If I take your lame argument at face value, Iranian ballistic missiles do not hold much military value either because even a volley of them failed to achieve much in the Iraqi Al-Asad military base. And bear in mind that there wasn't a Patriot battery stationed near this military base to counter incoming ballistic missiles. Your much touted innovations to ballistic missile designs haven't changed much on the ground unfortunately; refer back to
(1) above. Now try to connect this dot with
(2) below.
You wanna call a stock of a handful of Exocets and a handful of 80km silkworms a stock of cruise missiles you go right ahead! LOL!
Saddam fire 2 silkworms at coalition forces and they both missed!
LOL!
Publicly acknowledged range of a weapon is an irrelevant point to make. Do you think that a missile with 80 KM flight range does not kill when scoring a hit?
Iranian moppets have a one-dimensional view of military conflict. You guys tend to imagine that Iran will have all the time in the world to subject American military positions across the Middle East to ballistic missile strikes with impunity while Americans will just sit there and do nothing - World War 1 style. This isn't how a modern military operation is executed, particularly the Offense-Defense doctrine type.
Iraqi armed forces were able to subject American military positions in Kuwait to a total of 23 (TBMs + cruise missiles) during the course of war with NATO in 2003 while under assault from coalition forces from DAY 1, which is an achievement in itself when you come to terms with the bigger picture:
"To try to slow the allied advance toward Baghdad, Iraq has positioned artillery among the pipelines and oil infrastructure of southern Iraq. The artillery has the range to reach the northern tip of Kuwait. Iraq has also placed more representatives from its security services in regular army units to discourage defections and encourage the soldiers to fight.
Despite those steps, American military planners say they are confident that allied forces will win decisively and many expect the conflict to be relatively quick, measured in weeks and days and not in months. American forces are planning to use an enormous quantity of bombs -- 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours alone -- to try to disable Iraq's air defenses and command and control and stun Mr. Hussein's government.
The air defense of Baghdad consists of several Soviet-designed systems: the SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-8. Iraq has been trying to upgrade the missiles and radar for those systems and put them in strategic positions.
''They have a great deal of triple A and heavy machine guns,'' said General Leaf, referring to antiaircraft artillery. ''And if you put enough lead in the air somebody is going to get hit if they are at the altitudes that those bullets can reach. That's a robust air defense system.''
The United States has sought to knock out many command posts in the no-flight zones, particularly in the south. But coalition commanders expect Iraq to use observers on the ground who could help mount a defense in the Baghdad area.
''They will generally know there is an attack coming and because they have their defense compressed around Baghdad they will be able to respond and put a lot of missiles and a lot of bullets in the air and that will make Baghdad a very tough problem,'' General Leaf said.
''The volume of it is significant,'' General Leaf said, referring to antiaircraft artillery. '' I think there will be even more in Baghdad and there was a lot in Desert Storm.''
Link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/...r-defense-is-concentrated-around-baghdad.html
Emphasis mine. What do you think will happen if Iran is subjected to overwhelming firepower on that scale or bigger? When Iranian military positions and bases, Command & Communications (C&C) infrastructure and more, will be under a thorough assault from multiple directions? This is the SCENARIO that I am alluding to in this thread, that in no way or form Iranian armed forces would be able to subject American military positions across the Middle East to hundreds of (ballistic missile) strikes while finding themselves on the receiving end of thousands of precision-guided munitions each day. Iran will loose much of its firepower in a matter of few days as alluded to by me in my posts in this thread as well as the article cited in the first post of this thread. This is assuming a full-scale war between USA and Iran. -
(2)
You clowns have no idea. No wonder Iran was fighting a war with Iraq World War I style back in the 1980s. You have NO game due to your one-dimensional perception of warfare.
And what exactly where the names of these magical Tactical Ballistic Missiles???? or are we now calling scuds & FROG-7 TBM's? LOL!
How about you bother to do some homework instead of spreading disinformation?
Iraq had managed to develop two types of TBMs namely Al-Samoud-II and Al-Fat'h after 1998.
The original Al-Samoud-II TBM was equipped with gyroscopes taken from the guidance system of C601 and C611 cruise missiles. However, Iraq introduced a more advanced derivative of Al-Samoud-II as well which is identified as Ababil-100 in relevant reports.
References:-
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/al_samoud.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Samoud_2
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/al-samoud_2.htm
Complete list of Iraqi missile inventory:
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.html
"In 2000-2001, Iraq began a "re-motor" project to extend the shelf life of its FROG-7 (LUNA) and Ababil-50 battlefield artillery rockets by replacing their aging double-base solid rocket motors with more energetic composite solid-propellant motors. Renamed Al Ra'ad and Al Nida', respectively, these efforts helped advance the composite solid infrastructure in Iraq. It is unclear if these projects were completed by the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Composite propellants offered higher energy than double-base propellants, so the re-motor effort renewed the shelf life and improved performance of the rockets." - FAS
However:
"In terms of material procurement, ISG estimated that Iraq's ability to field the Al Fat'h was dependant on its ability to build motors. Although fewer warheads were built (see chart below), this can be explained by the use of inert warheads during many flight tests, thus requiring fewer live warheads for the program. ISG estimated that Iraq had between 50 and 60 Al Fat'h missiles available at the onset of OIF. During the war, Iraq fired between 12 and 16 Al Fat'h missiles. In addition, informal assessments of Al Fat'hs destroyed or damaged during the war vary from four to 13. To date, Coalition forces have collected at least 10 Al Fat'hs. Given the above numbers, the number of Al Fat'h missiles unaccounted for could vary from 0 to 34 (see table below). However, ammunition and weapon systems are being collected and destroyed all over Iraq, and a number of Al Fat'hs have been misidentified as FROG-7 or ASTROS battlefield rockets. A full accounting of Al Fat'h missiles may not be possible."
Link:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/ababil.htm
Right so now your under the delusion that Saddam could hit CEP's of 50meters with his imported Scud's and FROG-7's that he renamed!!! LOL!
See above.
There was an absolute lack of transparency in Iraqi sources for its missile-related experiments back in the days of Saddam Hussein in later years (1998 - 2003) due to the fact that Iraqi missile-related programs were subject to UN inspections [and disarmament initiatives] from time-to-time since 1991. Therefore, Iraq had to resort to clandestine methods to solicit relevant components in order to improve flight range and accuracy of its TBMs over time, and Al-Fat'h program escaped
UN disarmament hammer in particular because Bush administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003 anyways. This is why CEP of Iraqi TBM variant (Al-Fat'h) is largely unclear in public records.
This guy is inventing his own "facts" as he goes along. Now apparently Saddam had missiles with CEP of 50 meters.
See above, Iranian propaganda bot.
Same as Sudis who get kicked by much weaker Yemenis
