I wonder if the U.S. forces deployed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War had to fight the 2003 U.S. forces deployed in the Iraq War, who would come out on top? Let's say they met in the middle of the open plains in Iraq.
Obviously, the 1991 force was a significantly larger deployment.
695,000 troops vs 192,000 troops
6 carrier battle groups vs 6 carrier battle groups (a wash)
3,400 aircraft (inc. helicopters) vs 1,663 aircraft (inc. helicopters)
4,000 tanks vs 850 tanks
Now the Persian Gulf War military force was substantially larger, had an entire armored corps (150,000+ mechanized troops in thousands of tanks), that alone rivaled in numbers the 2003 invasion force, and overall was a much, much bigger hammer.
However, the force in 91 basically emptied the closet and included a lot of older hardware and soldiers that weren't that well equipped, alot of stuff that all ended up being retired after the war. For example the air force and navy had Aardvarks and Skyhawks, Marines were still using M14 rifles and rolling around in M60 tanks and flying Harriers and Cobras, Army deployed a mix of M1s and M1A1 tanks, also the 2003 force has much better close air support with AH-64D Longbows whereas the 91 force only had older AH-64As without the radar system and newer missiles.
The other thing the think about is the 2003 force had the benefit of better communications technology, more refined combined arms tactics, and slightly newer hardware. Also the 2003 force has far larger inventory smart bombs, and the ones they have are far more accurate ('91 force heavily relied on laser guided munitions that required a ground spotter), and also a much larger inventory of ship-launched tomahawk cruise missiles. Also 2003 infantry has access to javelin anti-tank missiles, which is a huge improvement over what was available in 1991.
Does the 2003 Iraq War invasion force have a chance of winning on an opening battlefield against the 1991 Persian Gulf War U.S. military?
Obviously, the 1991 force was a significantly larger deployment.
695,000 troops vs 192,000 troops
6 carrier battle groups vs 6 carrier battle groups (a wash)
3,400 aircraft (inc. helicopters) vs 1,663 aircraft (inc. helicopters)
4,000 tanks vs 850 tanks
Now the Persian Gulf War military force was substantially larger, had an entire armored corps (150,000+ mechanized troops in thousands of tanks), that alone rivaled in numbers the 2003 invasion force, and overall was a much, much bigger hammer.
However, the force in 91 basically emptied the closet and included a lot of older hardware and soldiers that weren't that well equipped, alot of stuff that all ended up being retired after the war. For example the air force and navy had Aardvarks and Skyhawks, Marines were still using M14 rifles and rolling around in M60 tanks and flying Harriers and Cobras, Army deployed a mix of M1s and M1A1 tanks, also the 2003 force has much better close air support with AH-64D Longbows whereas the 91 force only had older AH-64As without the radar system and newer missiles.
The other thing the think about is the 2003 force had the benefit of better communications technology, more refined combined arms tactics, and slightly newer hardware. Also the 2003 force has far larger inventory smart bombs, and the ones they have are far more accurate ('91 force heavily relied on laser guided munitions that required a ground spotter), and also a much larger inventory of ship-launched tomahawk cruise missiles. Also 2003 infantry has access to javelin anti-tank missiles, which is a huge improvement over what was available in 1991.
Does the 2003 Iraq War invasion force have a chance of winning on an opening battlefield against the 1991 Persian Gulf War U.S. military?
Last edited:
Facebook
Twitter