Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Can England, France and Germany only by themselves, Invade and conquer Iran?
ChaosEnforcer    2/1/2005 3:22:45 AM
What If American and European Intelligence have total conformation that Iran is indeed hell bent on making a Nuclear Weapon. The Year is February 2006. With American deathtoll in Iraq now topping 2,000 killed and 20,000 wounded. USA is in no position to invade and conquer Iran. North Korea is increasingly getting more dangerous. Most of its Army is tied down in Iraq and the entire US pacific fleet is now marooned off the Korean coast. With the invasion of Iran a very real possibiity, a bloody Shia uprising could erupt in the South which could tie down many US forces. The US Naval and Aerial Assets are largely unused as well its Special Forces such as the Green Berets, Navy Seals and Delta Forces. So, Bush speaks to leaders of Europe and tells them of the grave threat that Iran poses. Bush finally convinces them to Invade Iran. USA can only provide Air and Naval Support as well as small teams of Special Forces. The main brunt of the attack will fall on the countries of England, France and Germany. They will invade from positions in Afghanistan and Iraq. My Question is can the 3 most powerful countries in Europe, Germany, France and England invade and conquer Iran or they can't do it without full American Support?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
DarthAmerica       7/15/2008 6:40:36 AM
 take a look at a topographical map of Iran. Then have a look at the size and composition of the Iranian armed forces and population. Weigh all of this against the size, composition and logistics of the French, British and Germans. Not to mention the politics. The answer is obvious.
 
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       7/15/2008 8:21:34 AM
Based on the huge assumption that a staging ground in Iraq were available, the UK could get, what? 40,000 troops during a surge, assuming there were no other major operations. Given the UK's superior sea lift ability it would take some time for the germans in particular to get sizeable forces into the region.
 
So, maybe 120-150,000 euro troops at a massive push (based on the larger numbers available to the germans). Logisitics shouldn't be too much of a nightmare , after all, they should all be NATO standardized. It would take a long time to buiild up enough of a force to bring to bear against the Iranians. The UK could probably put 40,000 on the ground in 3 months, The other two would take considerably longer, by which time you'd assume the Iranians would be waiting.
 
The Iranians have apparently, what, 350,000 troops, including 150,000 regulars? I'm going to be biased and say that the Euro 3 should be able to defeat the Iranian army - if they ever actually managed to get the boots on the ground, better weaponry, a higher standard of training with respect to the conscript part at least and, you'd hope, the professional part of the Iranian army, plus far more air support.
 
However, there is no way the Euro 3 could then keep hold of Iran, they would eventually be driven out through insurrection.They would never control more than part of the country and would have to massively increase their forces in order to stay... on the end of a 1,000 mile logistics line as well, the UK is currently struggling to support 12,500 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that is with 4,000 troops not involved in any kind of ops.
 
So, after some rambling, my thinking would be this. If, by some miracle you could actually put enough troops on the ground to invade the place, yuo'd probably win, but it would take a great amny months to painstakingly build up such a force which would still be inadequate to garrisoning the country afterwards.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/15/2008 9:52:53 AM
 It's inconceivable France, Britain and Germany could mass 150,000 soldiers in Iraq, sustained them and protect them while invading Iran. Not only with the entire logistics be vulnerable to interdiction. The Iranians occupy superior defensive positions and outnumber their attackers at least 3-1. Such an invasion force would never make it past the Zagros Mountains which are superbly defensible. The Iraqi's found that out the hard way. Only one military is capable of invading Iran and right now it is too preoccupied to even consider it.
 
Iran is best invaded from inside out. It's happened twice in modern history.
 
 
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       7/15/2008 10:04:46 PM
You make solid, common sense points (although 150,000 is a bit optimistic) but i'm inclinded to agree with DA in the final analysis. Even if 150,000 troops could be mustered by the Euro3, it would not be enough. SF type raids (a division or two at most) would be the only realistic option.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers       7/15/2008 10:28:25 PM
Sorry, the above comment should have been addressed to Prometheus.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    Iran within the 'arc of crisis' but unable to go it alone....   7/16/2008 5:22:50 AM

France's New Military Vision

Author:
Michael Moran, Executive Editor, CFR.org

June 24, 2008


Introduction

In normal times, the publication of a "white paper" on French defense and security policy would not draw enormous attention outside the world of military analysis and European relations. But, as President Nicolas Sarkozy noted on June 17, 2008, in announcing sweeping changes in French strategy, these are not normal times. "Today, the most immediate threat is that of a terrorist attack," he declared in announcing a sweeping reorganization of the French military. The new plan reverses decades of French security policy, which has focused on a Cold War-style invasion scenario as the nation's primary challenge. Instead, the new emphasis highlights counterterrorism and intelligence, reintegrates France with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for purposes of European security, and arguably draws Paris closer to Washington, in doctrinal terms, than any time since liberation.

Details of the New Policy

Strategically, the changes echo moves that have been recommended (if not wholely undertaken) by U.S. and British defense policymakers since the end of the Cold War—what former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld often referred to as the "revolution in military affairs." Mobility—and in France's case, the ability to deploy and sustain up to thirty thousand troops in a far-off land—is a key goal. To achieve this, resources will be shifted away from French ground, naval, and air units, as well as weapons systems designed for the Cold War environment of state-to-state warfare. This means slimming down armored units, artillery, and infantry divisions, along with some elements of the French navy and air force designed primarily for defense against conventional attack. The decision whether to construct a second nuclear aircraft carrier, for instance, has been put off for five years. But construction of more nuclear submarines is prioritized.

The changes mean slashing some fifty-four thousand defense jobs, both uniformed and civilian.The size of the uniformed component of the French army, now the largest in the European Union, will drop by 24 percent, a continuation of a trend which began at the end of the Cold War and picked up pace when France ended its national draft in 2001. Since 1989, according to Defense Ministry figures, the army has decreased from nearly a half million to just about 250,000 today (including reserves), and will fall to 225,000 under the new plan. The combat ready force would shrink to 88,000. This force would be organized into smaller, more rapidly deployable ground units—again, a reform the U.S. and British militaries already have made. New investments are planned in human espionage efforts, spy satellites, and homeland security efforts. The "slimming" of the current force will also alleviate readiness and reliability problems, which have become serious. A recently leaked internal defense document described appalling maintenance problems (Telegraph) across all services.

Foreign Policy Implications

The white paper also reinforces previous hints that France intends to reorient its geopolitical thinking to put Asia, rather than North Africa and the Levant, more squarely on the security agenda (World Politics Review). In line with public statements by Sarkozy and senior foreign policy officials, the doctrine puts greater emphasis on cooperation with the United States in countering Iran's g

 
Quote    Reply

neofire1000       7/16/2008 1:25:45 PM
Have to agree with Darth here, the only nation cable of this is the US. Now i'm British (Scotland) so this is not pro-american nonsense, just a dose of reality.
 
I was in the armed forces and have utter faith in the capability of British troops, we do not have the numbers and with our increasingly diminishing budget probably don't have the hardware.  It's a sad state of affairs our own military.  Destroyers being cut back in numbers and in capability due to lack of armament, everything else being cut back in cost cutting exercises. We'd be lucky if we could fight a falklands war again let alone anything else.
 
Makes me sad to say these things but a fear i'm right.
 
Neo.
 
Quote    Reply

dirtykraut       8/9/2008 2:01:13 AM

Most of the US Army isn't tied down in Iraq. Only about 20% of the US Army is in Iraq. As far as SOF units being "largely un-used", they wouldn't go to great lengths to expand if that were the case.

 
Quote    Reply

mightypeon       9/15/2008 8:32:25 PM
Neither the UK, nor Germany nor France are in a wartime economy, nor are they geared up for war.
Iran is no pushover, gearing up would be required.
Also, unless Iran actually Nukes or Terror attacks someone, the Euro 3 are not going to invade, especially Germany is not.

If Iran nukes Europe, the military of especially Germany will be a very different beast.


 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics