[ti]SW[/ti]Building a Weapon Manufacturing Capacity

Share KSS on:

Welcome to Kurdistan sky scrapers forum. Hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
7

[ti]SW[/ti]Building a Weapon Manufacturing Capacity
Topic Started: 20th November 2013 - 09:51 PM (83,410 Views)
Frenchy	5th January 2015 - 09:34 AM Post #51
Posts: 198 Group: Senior Members Member #493 Joined: Aug 21, 2014	Nice, this T92 is an interesting tank! Looking quite similar to the French AMX-13 tank. The French army since after WW2 had always relied on light tanks and quick reaction forces (due to colonial and African conflicts and due to the budget decrease of the French army). We were using alongside the AMX-13, the wheeled Panhard EBR (Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance - Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle), And later followed the infamous Panhard AML-90 (Auto Mitrailleuse Légère avec Canon de 90mm - Light Gun Car with a 90mm cannon). This AML90 was a huge success, used by numerous countries (like Iraq), copied by South Africa (Eland 90) and still widely use today in Africa and Middle East! Since decades, we are using intensely, in African or Middle Eastern conflicts, wheeled armoured fighting vehicle instead of tanks: after the AML-90, we are using today the ERC 90 Sagaie (Engin à Roues, Canon de 90 mm - Wheeled vehicle, 90 mm gun) and the heavier AMX 10 RC (Roues et Canon - Wheels and gun). They performed extremely well in every conflicts, even in Afghanistan. The new French army arms program "Scorpion" is to develop the EBRC Jaguar (Engin blindé de reconnaissance et de combat - Reconnaissance and Fighting Armoured Vehicle). This vehicle will be the new spearhead of the French army alongside the heavy tanks AMX Leclerc. The future doesn't belong to heavy tanks, but quick reaction forces equipped with wheeled gun systems for direct infantry support, "sand box" defense support, and tank hunting. Edited by Frenchy, 5th January 2015 - 07:59 PM.



Frenchy	5th January 2015 - 10:00 PM Post #52
Posts: 198 Group: Senior Members Member #493 Joined: Aug 21, 2014	Quote: you said it , the French Military was supposed to fight colonial wars in the deserts of northern africa, fighting primarily ill armed insurgents, in this type of operations, the long range direct support given by a wheeled platform is an advantage, because long range target indentifcation is possible and because they need to travel long distances, consuming less fuel is an advantage and third, the terrain is suitable for wheeled vehicles, At first, yes, but we used them in African jungles were mobility is low, in Middle East and even in Afghanistan with great results. Quote: as far as i know, there s not a single wheeled vehicle being able to withstand a direct hit from a rusty t 55 tank, now lets think of an opponent like Russia or Israel in a ground operation scenerario, facing T 90 tanks with their 125 mm canons, penetrating through the armor of a a EBRC Jaguar like butter, supported by BMP 3 or even BMPT Terminator tank, the result would be slaughter, even their 30 mm canon would penetrate the armor of a wheeled system, or lets assume you need to fight an enemy using MERKAVA tanks and NAMER Infantry fighting vehicle, again these vehicle may even withstand a direct hit from a fire support tank like the JAGUAR or the Stryker MGS, even if these direct fire support vehicles may field a 120 mm gun, it would be a tank gun with a shorter barrel with less recoil and even less penetration capacity, not matching a true tank gun like the L55 tank gun on the latest Leopartd tank generation. On the other hand, not a single tank was being able to withstand a direct hit from a French wheeled 90mm cannon. And like I said, we are using them alongside the AMX Leclerc.But I agree with you, they do not replace tanks. There must be a strict seperation between heavy tracked vehicles and wheeled vehicles. They don't replace heavy tanks, but nowadays, heavy tanks are not the "mother of all the battles" and we need more wheeled armoured vehicles for quick reaction and strong infantry support. Quote: the reasons why i am advocating wheeled vehicles for the peshmerga is because of the ease of their construction and the threat level posed by IS, they dont have a lot of tanks, even if they field tanks, the majority of these are either T 55 or T 62 tanks, that could be out maneuvred easily by faster and more agile wheeled systems, still no matter how modern they are, they wont survive a direct hit from these old tanks. The French armoured gun vehicles did well in Iraq in 1991. But France doesn't have enough money anyway to maintain heavy tanks, etc. Wheeled armoured vehicles are cheapper for us, that's mainly why we are using so many of them. Quote: PS the french should remember the Blitzkrieg and the Ardennes offensive, the german offensive was possible because they used all terrain capable PANZER III and PANZER IV tanks, smashing through the Ardennes forests, showing the true benefit of tracked systems as they allow for greater tactical flexibility, allowing a military force to capitalize on the enhanced mobility of the tracked systems, making it more difficult for an enemy to anticipate the direction of the attack, just remember the useless MAGINOT line, the best denfence system is useless at the wrong place and tracked system will guarantee that every defence line could be out flanked or destroyed by heavy tanks DeGaulle tank doctrin lives on in France with the french military theorists going from one extreme to another, either the static defense idea of the Maginot line or the opposite idea of highly mobile and agile swarming tanks, resulting in the development of the FT 17 tank and the late ideas of DeGaulle for highly mobilized tank forces. French tanks were more heavy, armored and stronger than German tanks: remember that Germany had very very few PzkwIV in France in 1940. It was not a problem of mobility, but of French doctrine, using our tanks like infantry support while German were using them concentrated. Our French HQ and doctrine was sh** (best exemple was indeed the Maginot line, even if it was a marvellous and modern defense fortification)



Jim M	5th January 2015 - 11:11 PM Post #53
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	Kurdo & Frenchy, you are both forgetting the battlefield is not two dimensional. Todays battlefield is dominated by air superiority and the aircraft that dominate tanks are the attack helicopter. This is an oversimplification though as above all you must control the skies with fighter jets. Without any of that tanks on the ground are just targets. For the US the overall consideration of developing wheeled vehicles is transportation to overseas battlefields. Even the largest transport aircraft the C-5M Super Galaxy can only carry two Abrams tanks but it can carry 6 Strykers. The C17 can carry only one Abrams or 3 Strykers. Even the C130 Hercules can carry one Stryker. Edited by Jim M, 5th January 2015 - 11:28 PM.



FulcrumKAF	6th January 2015 - 01:13 AM Post #54
Po210 Posts: 2,941 Group: Admins Member #2 Joined: Nov 17, 2012 Mood None	Yes, Jim is right. Wheeled ACVs with air support can be a deadly, mobile force to hit HVT deep inside enemy territory. Considering the financial and technological limits of Peshmerga, the wheeled ACVs seems like a great alternative for Peshmerga. Importing Wheeled ACV hulls (without weapons) and then contact/hire expert nations to modify them is completely legal for Kurdistan. However, unless KRG does something with the air defenses, all our ACVs will be nothing more than target practice for any nation with some aerial strike capability.



Frenchy	6th January 2015 - 02:53 AM Post #55
Posts: 198 Group: Senior Members Member #493 Joined: Aug 21, 2014	Jim Maguire 5th January 2015 - 11:11 PM Kurdo & Frenchy, you are both forgetting the battlefield is not two dimensional. Todays battlefield is dominated by air superiority and the aircraft that dominate tanks are the attack helicopter. This is an oversimplification though as above all you must control the skies with fighter jets. Without any of that tanks on the ground are just targets. For the US the overall consideration of developing wheeled vehicles is transportation to overseas battlefields. Even the largest transport aircraft the C-5M Super Galaxy can only carry two Abrams tanks but it can carry 6 Strykers. The C17 can carry only one Abrams or 3 Strykers. Even the C130 Hercules can carry one Stryker. Oh, I didn't because clearly, France always had air superiority (either because we were fighting with the American or because we are fighting against guerillas where our small air force is enough). And also because in Syria or Iraq, the air factor is not important because both sides lack strong air force. This is why I didn't take it into account. But you are right if an air force is involved. This is mainly why (plus the fact of the devastating force and cheap price of AT missiles) tanks are not "the mother of all the battles" any more. Wheeled systems are easy to transport, powerful enough and cheap: these are the reasons France is using them (mostly transport & price). Let's check the Syrian conflict and the Syrian tanks: what is the result, was it worth the price for Syria to buy so many tanks? It didn't stop ISIS because they use mobility and can destroy them with RPG and AT missiles. And would this tanks be a match if Israel or Turkey would attack Syria? No, they would be crushed the instant by the Air force. Quote: but still, my point is, that an operation comparable to the Ardennes offensive is not possible with wheeled systems, i dont even know how tthe French employ their tracked tanks with their new wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, the right choice made it possible for the Germans to gain the tactical momentum and split the whole French military into two, cornering the northern armies in Dunquerqe, this operation was a prime showcase for the use of tracked systems instead of wheeled systems, had the Germans only wheeled vehicles, who knows, they would still fight at the Maginot line. Well, back in 1940, we didn't have wheeled armoured vehicles. The French doctrine was different: "as many men as possible under the armour". This doctrine was developed by Petain (De Gaulle was Petain's ghost writer) and France had, prior to the defeat, many heavy tanks. But we used them the wrong way, unlike the German... Edited by Frenchy, 6th January 2015 - 02:59 AM.



lashgare	6th January 2015 - 06:19 AM Post #56
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: New Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Gunships, satelite surveillance, drones. Are much more important than tanks/aircraft. 1. APCs able to stand against RPGs, Mortars, Hidden converted AA guns(used by Taliban in ambushes), .50 cals, IEDs are important. But should be versatile enough and light enough to maneuver efficiently in cities and dense areas, without being huge targets. Tanks are only necessary for tank-on-tank engagements or controlling open areas. Tanks have massive silhouettes.T-80 tanks were decimated in Chechnya in he 90s. Because they had massive visibility and low mobility. The russians used a blitzkreig strategy(they attacked with massive force quickly). But since the chechens(they were better organized than ISIS) had planned well and built a good defense infrastructure, russians who entered cities, were annihilated. And the war in mesopotamia, is really a war of cities. 2.Radio-frequency Jamming technology: Disables IEDs, disturbs ISIS communcations, disturbs civilian infrastructure. You can basically make it impossible for ISIS to coordinate. Every military operation uses radios. Doesn't matter what. Unless it's one unit operation, all military operations use radios. Whether they're simple cell phones, or military communications networks. Imagine ISIS trying to communicate with each other. But their communication is cut, so they're confused and seperated. Lack of communication in modern engagements, almost always means failure. 3. Surveillance technology(drones and what else): Tracks ISIS movements, reveals ISIS positions, supports troop operations on ground. Very important. The more surveillance you have, the easier it is to plan and the easier it is for troops to operate. It gave americans extreme advantages over Iraq during 2003. They had extremely low causalities, because their satellites , drones and surveillance aircraft always had a layout of their area of operation. Tanks, troop movements, everything was basically visible. 4. Helicopters: Provides ground troops with support, effective at destroying pretty much anything on the ground, especially with the 30mm, can work for much longer in battle situations. They're very important for counter-insurgency. The only advantage a fighter aircraft can provide, that I can think of is that ISIS pretty much has no weapons to defend themselves against it. If kurdistan eventually acquires them, it should only be in a limited role and only when it's justified. Otherwise, it's a huge waste and an unneccesary expense. Edited by lashgare, 6th January 2015 - 06:39 AM.



Frenchy	6th January 2015 - 07:17 AM Post #57
Posts: 198 Group: Senior Members Member #493 Joined: Aug 21, 2014	Yes, but we are speaking about what Kurdistan could build/buy to defend itself against enemies, at low cost but with efficacy. We stated that, even if tanks still have an important role to play on the battlefield, wheeled systems are more interesting now. Wheeled armoured vehicles are interesting for Kurdistan because they could build them, or assemble/modify them. Right now, considering the economic situation of Kurdistan and their present enemies, an air force would be indeed a huge waste of money. But buying transport choppers, light helicopters and gunships: that would be worth the expense.



lashgare	6th January 2015 - 07:24 AM Post #58
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: New Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Frenchy 6th January 2015 - 07:17 AM Yes, but we are speaking about what Kurdistan could build/buy to defend itself against enemies, at low cost but with efficacy. We stated that, even if tanks still have an important role to play on the battlefield, wheeled systems are more interesting now. Wheeled armoured vehicles are interesting for Kurdistan because they could build them, or assemble/modify them. Right now, considering the economic situation of Kurdistan and their present enemies, an air force would be indeed a huge waste of money. But buying transport choppers, light helicopters and gunships: that would be worth the expense. They can't produce anything substantial like that. You need to be able to produce composite armor, even to build reinforced armor. You can't do that with a regular car factory. It requires advanced chemical-technical engineering. Even if you want to build a basic APC with a manual turret/tower. It's really a bad idea. The electronics that would make the systems complete, would also be very hard to procure domestically. It's only something accomplished by countries with really well-developed technical industries. Now if they imported the vehicles and focused on repair/maintenance, that would be much easier. Edited by lashgare, 6th January 2015 - 07:31 AM.



Frenchy	6th January 2015 - 09:21 AM Post #59
Posts: 198 Group: Senior Members Member #493 Joined: Aug 21, 2014	Agreed, but you don't and mustn't have to produce at first highly modern vehicles with lot of electronics and composite armor: every nation building an arms industry started simple (licenses, copies, modifications on existing systems...). Like I argued before with our fellow members, when I say "they could build", I mean by that in the long term. By build, I mean using foreign parts, buying license to produce and modify bought vehicles. And by wheeled systems, I mean basic but efficient wheeled armoured vehicles like the French AML-90 (used by Iraq for example, copied by South Africa, ...)



lashgare	6th January 2015 - 11:09 AM Post #60
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: New Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Frenchy 6th January 2015 - 09:21 AM Agreed, but you don't and mustn't have to produce at first highly modern vehicles with lot of electronics and composite armor: every nation building an arms industry started simple (licenses, copies, modifications on existing systems...). Like I argued before with our fellow members, when I say "they could build", I mean by that in the long term. By build, I mean using foreign parts, buying license to produce and modify bought vehicles. And by wheeled systems, I mean basic but efficient wheeled armoured vehicles like the French AML-90 (used by Iraq for example, copied by South Africa, ...) it would be a start if they could produce grenades and small arms munition. That's very simple to produce. That way they'd never have ammunition shortages. small arms production. AML would be destroyed by an RPG round, easily. Edited by lashgare, 6th January 2015 - 11:14 AM.



Jim M	18th January 2015 - 10:03 PM Post #61
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	Interesting article on wheeled AFV's with big guns: "A quick glance at a new class of armored vehicle": "Many people overlook the South African Rooikat but its proven itself to be a powerful performer. It has true out the box anti-mine protection and showed itself capable of traveling long distances in the S. African wilderness patrolling against marauding terrorists. On this list it is probably the most proven vehicle in its designated role. Additionally it's also one of the few on the list that is designed solely for its intended mission of highly mobile firepower...in other words its not a big gun wedded to an APC chassis." http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-quick-glance-at-new-class-of-armored.html Edited by Jim M, 7th February 2015 - 01:38 PM.



Jim M	19th January 2015 - 03:06 PM Post #62
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	I came across this the other day and was impressed by what the government of Jordan is doing in building an indigenous arms manufacturing industry. This and much more for a small country of only 6.5 million people. I suppose if the KRG did something like this it would have to be a completely private enterprise so the KRG would have "plausible deniability". "King Abdullah Design and Development Bureau": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_Design_and_Development_Bureau http://kaddb.mil.jo/Home.aspx http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2005/May/Pages/Jordan_Eyes3203.aspx http://www.jlvmllc.com/ http://www.joramco.com.jo/ http://www.daedalus.nl/downloads/algemeen/2011-Sep%20Daedalus%20signs%20Teaming%20Agreement%20with%20Jordan.pdf http://www.jac.com.jo/en



Partizan	3rd February 2015 - 10:43 PM Post #63
Posts: 452 Group: Senior Members Member #407 Joined: Apr 25, 2014	Jim Maguire 5th January 2015 - 11:11 PM Kurdo & Frenchy, you are both forgetting the battlefield is not two dimensional. Todays battlefield is dominated by air superiority and the aircraft that dominate tanks are the attack helicopter. This is an oversimplification though as above all you must control the skies with fighter jets. Without any of that tanks on the ground are just targets. Iraq in 2003 concealed an armored division from USAF in an area of palm groves south of Baghdad. Ground forces had to enter the area to destroy that (Medina) division. A well-concealed force that can mobilize, attack and withdraw rapidly might be able to conduct limited operations under enemy air supremacy, if the enemy's response time allows for it. Given a decent air force and air defenses(which Iraq had pre-1991), temporary pores in their air supremacy could also be created to this purpose. Needless to say, that would require excellent synchronity and skill on part of the units involved, a degree of discipline and professionalism that Kurds do not possess(not just in our military but our overall culture, that is). Edited by Partizan, 4th February 2015 - 01:10 AM.



lashgare	4th February 2015 - 06:14 AM Post #64
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: New Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Jim Maguire 19th January 2015 - 03:06 PM I came across this the other day and was impressed by what the government of Jordan is doing in building an indigenous arms manufacturing industry. This and much more for a small country of only 6.5 million people. I suppose if the KRG did something like this it would have to be a completely private enterprise so the KRG would have "plausible deniability". "King Abdullah Design and Development Bureau": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_Design_and_Development_Bureau http://kaddb.mil.jo/Home.aspx http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2005/May/Pages/Jordan_Eyes3203.aspx http://www.jlvmllc.com/ http://www.joramco.com.jo/ http://www.daedalus.nl/downloads/algemeen/2011-Sep%20Daedalus%20signs%20Teaming%20Agreement%20with%20Jordan.pdf http://www.jac.com.jo/en Did your nephew join ISIS?



Jim M	5th February 2015 - 06:31 AM Post #65
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	lashgare 4th February 2015 - 06:14 AM Jim Maguire 19th January 2015 - 03:06 PM I came across this the other day and was impressed by what the government of Jordan is doing in building an indigenous arms manufacturing industry. This and much more for a small country of only 6.5 million people. I suppose if the KRG did something like this it would have to be a completely private enterprise so the KRG would have "plausible deniability". "King Abdullah Design and Development Bureau": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_Design_and_Development_Bureau http://kaddb.mil.jo/Home.aspx http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2005/May/Pages/Jordan_Eyes3203.aspx http://www.jlvmllc.com/ http://www.joramco.com.jo/ http://www.daedalus.nl/downloads/algemeen/2011-Sep%20Daedalus%20signs%20Teaming%20Agreement%20with%20Jordan.pdf http://www.jac.com.jo/en Did your nephew join ISIS? LOL The man is no kin of mine nor do I have any knowledge of him and I hope he is burning in hell.



Worldwar2boy	5th February 2015 - 12:45 PM Post #66
Posts: 4,854 Group: Members Member #16 Joined: Dec 6, 2012 Mood None	Independent Kurdistan should heavily invest in DEFENSIVE weapons. We should create fortifications in Kurdistan's mountains. There should be 1 surface-to-air missile launchers for every 5 active Peshmerga. There should be anti-aircraft systems distributed equally across Kurdistan. There should also be nuclear-proof bunkers in the major Kurdish cities. There should be evacuation plans, alarms and huge stocks of protective supplies (such as gasmasks), available in every single village and town across Kurdistan. Kurdish nomads should be armed and trained. The creation of a Partizan unit. Each Partizan unit is assigned a specific location in Kurdistan. They learn everything about this location. These are sabotage units. In case of an invasion, they should be able to plant mines and other explosives on every road, bridge, etc. in their district within a matter of 2 hours. A new class will be introduced: survival skills. The Kurdish government should also stockpile huge amounts of medicine. ''Secret'' agricultural societies will be created across Kurdistan. There should be caves etc. in Kurdistan's mountains where seeds, medicine, ammunition is stockpiled. These caves are protected by anti-aircraft missiles. There should be Kurdish agents in every neighboring country, with the ability to perform massive attacks against anything and ANYONE. These agents are used for retaliation purposes only. Did Turkish soldiers commit a massacre in which hundreds of Kurdish children were killed? These agents will then set off a bomb in Ankara's most crowded marketplace, making sure that the payback will be costly, terrifying and terrorizing. 30% of Kurdistan's natural resource production will be saved and preserved for the use of Kurds and Kurdistan only. Kurdistan's air defensive must be so powerful, that even the most modern jets and bombers can't fly over Kurdistan without losing at least 70% of their aircraft. Imagine a group of 20 Turkish jets trying to bomb a strategical position. Before they even get close to the position, hundreds of anti-aircraft missiles are launched. They can avoid a few, but they can't avoid everything. They'll be decimated to a few aircraft before they reach the position. They might be able to drop a few bombs, but none of them will be able to survive (they'll be targeted on their way back also). No matter how big the enemies air force; it will be completely useless. For every dollar that's spent on Kurdistan's actual air force, 100 dollars must be spend on air defense :). Edited by Worldwar2boy, 5th February 2015 - 12:50 PM.



ALAN	5th February 2015 - 01:23 PM Post #67
Posts: 34,747 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Nov 16, 2012 Mood None	lashgare 4th February 2015 - 06:14 AM Jim Maguire 19th January 2015 - 03:06 PM I came across this the other day and was impressed by what the government of Jordan is doing in building an indigenous arms manufacturing industry. This and much more for a small country of only 6.5 million people. I suppose if the KRG did something like this it would have to be a completely private enterprise so the KRG would have "plausible deniability". "King Abdullah Design and Development Bureau": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Abdullah_Design_and_Development_Bureau http://kaddb.mil.jo/Home.aspx http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2005/May/Pages/Jordan_Eyes3203.aspx http://www.jlvmllc.com/ http://www.joramco.com.jo/ http://www.daedalus.nl/downloads/algemeen/2011-Sep%20Daedalus%20signs%20Teaming%20Agreement%20with%20Jordan.pdf http://www.jac.com.jo/en Did your nephew join ISIS? Many kurds have joined Daash are they any cousin of yours? what kind of Q was that!!!!



Rizgaar	5th February 2015 - 02:15 PM Post #68
BANNED Posts: 0 Group: New Members Member #619 Joined: Jan 26, 2015 Mood None	Jim Maguire 18th January 2015 - 10:03 PM Interesting article on wheeled AFV's with big guns: "A quick glance at a new class of armored vehicle": "Many people overlook the South African Rooikat but its proven itself to be a powerful performer. It has true out the box anti-mine protection and showed itself capable of traveling long distances in the S. African wilderness patrolling against marauding terrorists. On this list it is probably the most proven vehicle in its designated role. Additionally it's also one of the few on the list that is designed solely for its intended mission of highly mobile firepower...in other words its not a big gun wedded to an APC chassis." http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-quick-glance-at-new-class-of-armored.html The ROOIKAT would be perfect for the Peshmerga. Especially against daesh.



Jim M	7th February 2015 - 01:33 PM Post #69
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	Does anyone know if the KRG is doing anything in the way of weapons procurement at this time. (Other than small arms) I just can't understand this attitude. After all I would have thought when they got stung by ISIS in the beginning that would have galvanised them into action. This is disappointing as this is the time while there is a war on.



Rizgaar	7th February 2015 - 02:38 PM Post #70
BANNED Posts: 0 Group: New Members Member #619 Joined: Jan 26, 2015 Mood None	The KRG can't pay the salaries of the Peshmerga let alone buy heavy weapons (which no one would sell to us in the first place). Our politicians and president constantly voice their disappointment at how our demands for heavy weapons are not even being considered.



Jim M	7th February 2015 - 07:27 PM Post #71
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	Rizgaar 7th February 2015 - 02:38 PM The KRG can't pay the salaries of the Peshmerga let alone buy heavy weapons (which no one would sell to us in the first place). Our politicians and president constantly voice their disappointment at how our demands for heavy weapons are not even being considered. There's always someone who will sell. There are lots of countries that are cash strapped and will bend over backwards to sell their wares.



Rizgaar	8th February 2015 - 06:33 AM Post #72
BANNED Posts: 0 Group: New Members Member #619 Joined: Jan 26, 2015 Mood None	Jim Maguire 7th February 2015 - 07:27 PM Rizgaar 7th February 2015 - 02:38 PM The KRG can't pay the salaries of the Peshmerga let alone buy heavy weapons (which no one would sell to us in the first place). Our politicians and president constantly voice their disappointment at how our demands for heavy weapons are not even being considered. There's always someone who will sell. There are lots of countries that are cash strapped and will bend over backwards to sell their wares. But we aren't legally allowed to buy heavy weapons. And we don't have control over our air space so even if we did buy weapons illegally how are we gonna receive them?



Jim M	8th February 2015 - 05:53 PM Post #73
R. Sergeant Major Posts: 751 Group: Elite Member #536 Joined: Sep 26, 2014 Mood None	Rizgaar 7th February 2015 - 02:38 PM The KRG can't pay the salaries of the Peshmerga let alone buy heavy weapons (which no one would sell to us in the first place). Our politicians and president constantly voice their disappointment at how our demands for heavy weapons are not even being considered. I have heard this from almost every Kurd I have talked to but there is always a way. Have you ever heard of the saying to "beg borrow and steal". When Croatia went to war with Serbia in the beginning they suffered from a lack of weapons but they armed very fast from donations from Croatians living abroad and some wealthy Croats armed whole divisions out of loyalty to their home country. In a very short time it seemed the Croatians went on the offensive with more modern weapons than the Serbs and pushed them completely out of their territory. I guarantee you there are lots of Kurds wealthy or otherwise that if they are asked would donate in this manner and there are lots of little countries that would sell as well as they need the cash. The world is full of surplus weapons just waiting for the Kurds to ask for them. If the Kurds continue to think like a victim your people will continue to suffer from every bully in the neighborhood for the rest of time and your people will be absorbed and lose their identity completely.



Qandil	8th February 2015 - 08:32 PM Post #74
Posts: 5,380 Group: Moderators Member #4 Joined: Nov 20, 2012 Mood None	Jim Maguire 8th February 2015 - 05:53 PM Rizgaar 7th February 2015 - 02:38 PM The KRG can't pay the salaries of the Peshmerga let alone buy heavy weapons (which no one would sell to us in the first place). Our politicians and president constantly voice their disappointment at how our demands for heavy weapons are not even being considered. I have heard this from almost every Kurd I have talked to but there is always a way. Have you ever heard of the saying to "beg borrow and steal". When Croatia went to war with Serbia in the beginning they suffered from a lack of weapons but they armed very fast from donations from Croatians living abroad and some wealthy Croats armed whole divisions out of loyalty to their home country. In a very short time it seemed the Croatians went on the offensive with more modern weapons than the Serbs and pushed them completely out of their territory. I guarantee you there are lots of Kurds wealthy or otherwise that if they are asked would donate in this manner and there are lots of little countries that would sell as well as they need the cash. The world is full of surplus weapons just waiting for the Kurds to ask for them. If the Kurds continue to think like a victim your people will continue to suffer from every bully in the neighborhood for the rest of time and your people will be absorbed and lose their identity completely. Well said, Jim! Kurds need to step it up.



lashgare	9th February 2015 - 03:12 AM Post #75
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: New Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Jim Maguire 8th February 2015 - 05:53 PM Rizgaar 7th February 2015 - 02:38 PM The KRG can't pay the salaries of the Peshmerga let alone buy heavy weapons (which no one would sell to us in the first place). Our politicians and president constantly voice their disappointment at how our demands for heavy weapons are not even being considered. I have heard this from almost every Kurd I have talked to but there is always a way. Have you ever heard of the saying to "beg borrow and steal". When Croatia went to war with Serbia in the beginning they suffered from a lack of weapons but they armed very fast from donations from Croatians living abroad and some wealthy Croats armed whole divisions out of loyalty to their home country. In a very short time it seemed the Croatians went on the offensive with more modern weapons than the Serbs and pushed them completely out of their territory. I guarantee you there are lots of Kurds wealthy or otherwise that if they are asked would donate in this manner and there are lots of little countries that would sell as well as they need the cash. The world is full of surplus weapons just waiting for the Kurds to ask for them. If the Kurds continue to think like a victim your people will continue to suffer from every bully in the neighborhood for the rest of time and your people will be absorbed and lose their identity completely. You're comparing entirely different situations. Croatia has a coast, and croatia also has slovenia(their fellow catholic nation) which would smuggle weapons to their catholic brothers. Who is going to transport the weapons? Turkey? Israel? Iran? Not going to happen. Kurds are hard to mobilize. Maybe they can buy weapon stocks from corrupt turkish army outfits. Or Iran, or maybe via Jordan/Saudi arabia, now that they're stepping up. But there is no easy way of doing it. And they can all say "No". Since none of them have an interest in arming. There are no good options. 1. Saudi-arabia/jordan will be reluctant, because kurds are fighting their fellow sunni arabs. They still see the the arab insurgency as a armed revolution against shiahs, even though it's directed by Daash (Daash (Daash (Daash (Daash (Daash (ISIS)))))) which has designs on their countries. Even though they can be convinced with under table deals, I'm not sure kurds want to do that, because it would put limits on what kurds can do to fight DAASH. Either way... they have no route to kurdistan. So it's a moot point 2. Turkey would rather give back cyprus to greece, than arm kurds and give them any form of advantage. Their strategic goal has been to weaken kurdish military capacity, by directing Daash (Daash (Daash (Daash (ISIS)))) against kurds and slowly breaking. They're afraid that YPG's success will spread to bakur. Their ties to Daash (Daash (Daash (Daash (ISIS)))) are obvious as day light. Considering their shady support for Daash (Daash (Daash (Daash (ISIS)))). 3. Iran doesn't want to arm kurds extensively, since they don't want to see kurdistan becoming powerful enough to step out of line with the Iraqi state. You can't get anything more than small arms, munitions and simpler equipment. 4. Israel has both the capacity to export and manufacture weapons of all sizes. But I'm not sure kurds would embark in a cooperation with israelis, considering the geostrategic situation. It would require significant logistical resources, and I doubt kurds would want to get involved with israel directly. And there is no intermediatary. Jordan+saudi arabia don't have a border with kurdistan, Iran and turkey would never agree to it. It would be extremely hard to smuggle them through syria(Too much risk and failure potential). They'd have to be airlifted, and that's expensive. Israel won't put out the money for the operation, and kurdistan can't afford it. So it's really really difficult. No easy way to do it. If we had a coastline, however, things would be very easy. Edited by lashgare, 9th February 2015 - 03:31 AM.



0 users reading this topic

Create a free forum in seconds. Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Kurdish Military · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
4
…
7