Iran was finally pushed to send kids (ages 14-18) to clear the Iraqi minefields. These poor saps were give plastic keys-which would aid them in getting in to paradise (after they had been shot or blown to bits). If Saddam had been able to keep up the pressure, he might have won.
But as others have pointed out, ruling a defeated Iran would have raised other problems for him.
Sometimes, its hard to be ME dictator.
The square allowed each infantryman to face outwards, and to face the enemy. A square could not be outflanked. In a solid mass of men, the ones in the middle would be unable to fight.
Steppe nomads were very hard to beat on the battlefield before the advent of gunpowder weapons (and even after). They could generally run from any enemy they could not beat - all the while raining arrows on them.
The main defence against them was to hamstring their raids by building fixed fortifications - a bunch of nomad cavalry raiders could not be expected to besiege fortifications. Then, at opportune moments (such as when the nomads were loaded down with loot and slaves, or were in terrain difficult to retreat from) hammer them with attacks from heavy cavalry based in these forts.
What made the Mongols so terrible is that they adopted siege warfare (by conscripting Chinese specialists, mainly) and married that to nomad cavalry tactics. Suddenly, the forts were not secure.
How come Iraq failed to prevail over Iran during the Iraq-Iran war?
Trial by terminal equivalent.
[URL=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=15458257#post15458257”]
In my estimation, the embargo has probably improved the maintainance of their equipment by necessity. Items like some foreign missiles and the F-14 are most likely down but other simpler items such as tanks, artillery, mortars would have higher readiness. They have developed an indigenous capability for small arms, propellant, rockets, and (maybe) some advanced missiles. While use of shell companies and diverted shipments have decreased; those methods along with straight up smuggling keep some material flowing. They have friends in low places; Syria, North Korea, and various arms dealers.
I’m guessing a two tier system. The regular army is a second class citizen and may well be hollow. The revolutionary guard gets the good stuff, R&D, more training due to politics. Old feelings die hard and the Ayatollahs are more comfortable with the zealots than the army that used to beat them down under the Shah. Both will fight hard as nationalism is strong. The situation is similar to the US in DS 1. Regular army got the latest while the National Guard languished. No combat units were up to standard for the war. US 7th Corps units were fleshed out with active army units from the states. This was a big “lessons learned” after the war with Guard and Reserves now getting fielded and trained along with the regular army. Guard and reserve units were a lot more ready for DS 2 and Afghanistan (not perfect but a lot closer). Note that reserve transportation units in DS 1 were fine and a real backbone to the logistics push to the west.
IIRC, my lessons on cavalry vs infantry from the writings of Jerry Pournelle -
Horses rely on “run away” to escape predators. They are very concerned about breaking a leg and will not willingly or easily trample on writhing or moving ground (such as downed infantry) where the footing is unsure. So they already have a reluctance to charge ahead when there are obstacles or the ground does not appear solid.
(Remember, best cure for horse with broken leg… shoot. Unlike a cat or dog that might subsist on carcass pickings until the bone knits, a lame horse is just sitting meal ticket in their natural environment - so have not evolved “broken leg” coping mechanisms).
As mentioned above, if the line of infantry does not break, the horses will likely balk. To reinforce the learning experience, the trained infantry typically all had very long pikes, so any horse who showed the least lack of self-interest risked becoming horse-kebab on a 10 foot pike braced into the ground. It takes SERIOUS training and discipline to persuade a row of peasants not to turn and run when a giant horse, with an armed rider, is coming at you at full tilt and will not begin to feel the effect of defensive tactics until they are less than 10 feet away. It may be brave, but odds are there will be some pain for the infantry guy too.
I think of the problem this way - you not only have to not run when the line of horses thunders down at you, you also have to trust that no-one else will run either. It a sort of deadly “prisoner’s dilemma”, because if you stand and someone else in the line runs, you are likely dead.
That’s why early modern armies put so much effort into horrendous and ferocious discipline.
That’s also why if a few soldiers run away, they’ll all run away. “Breaking” a unit didn’t mean causing all of the soldiers to flee - just enough of them to start a chain reaction
This was the perspective my late friend David had doing Civil War [English) re-enactment; the horse won’t charge into a block of men bristling with sharp things sticking out. It gets to about 20 feet away and goes ‘whoa, wait a minute’ and puts the brakes on. All you can do is ride round and round the outside, Red Indian style, trying to knock the heads off the pikes with your sword.
On a horse you can fight multiple antagonists at once, because you’re striking down all the time and you’ve got mobility; also the horse will fight for you as well. As long as you don’t let them get on both sides of you, because then the horse’s neck gets in the way of your blows.