Could The Iraqi Army Have Won The Gulf War? | Battlezone | War Stories

[@WarStoriesChannel]

It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit the world's best history documentary service with code 'WARSTORIES' for a huge discount! bit.ly/3J0Rg6B

[@mr.sharpie2206]

Loved it, however one thing of note. The un-maned drone has replaced helicopters as the lead reconnaissance vehicle. While drones play other roles on the battlefield the one main role they always play is recon even as far back as the first Gulf War.

[@IronFist.]

Why have you guys altered the original aspect ratio of this programme? Please just leave it the way it was originally broadcast, i.e. 4:3 in this case.

[@mikewat100]

@@mr.sharpie2206 I don't think I can do that to you tomorrow but

[@mikewat100]

@@mr.sharpie2206 I don't think I can get it to you tomorrow

[@mikewat100]

@@mr.sharpie2206 I don't know if I have any kids that would be

[@abidove]

I am an Iraqi citizen and participated in the war I saw all this on the field, it was a foolish action by Sadam, I was 23 years old when the Iraqi-Iranian war broke out, and as it ended and I thought I would start my life again, the invasion of Kuwait started, what a hall it was, I walked all the way from Kuwait till Basra a three days walk under constant shelling, and it took me another two days to reach my home town, what a fool he was that Sadam; now as I recall all this I feel lucky to survive these two wars, and I feel pity for those who did not make it, GOD Bless their Souls

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

How did you survived iraq all this years? Iraq is constantly at war

[@abidove]

@@ShubhamMishrabro In world war II over 60 Million people died, and other hundreds of millions survived, say lucky, say just their hours did not arrive yet, GOD has his own methods, I myself do not know how I survived, Thank GOD

[@ShubhamMishrabro]

@@abidove yes. You were even in war. You're very lucky

[@abidove]

@@Amoore-vv9wx Thank you for your comment, I graduated from college in 1980, just two months before the Iraqi-Iran war when we were all subject to mandatory military service, and then when the gulf war started, we were again called of compulsory reserve military services, I can assure you that a lot of Iraqi went to war because we feared for our families if we do not report to military services, most of the Iraqi forces were civilians who were called to service unwillingly. this was seen when most of the Iraqi army did not fight when the US invaded Iraq, we all drop our arms and went home

[@ragnar217]

Did you get arrested?

[@robertdebrus3732]

If the Americans had been fighting with Spears maybe the Iraqi would have had a chance

[@hjad2625]

🤣

[@surgicalboxing]

🤣

[@sippiknot8478]

But the Iraq had migs and mirages and t72s , no price on proper training and leadership

[@alinasif578]

@@sippiknot8478 or maybe it’s because it was 30 countries vs 1

[@JohnWick-qr4yc]

@@alinasif578 makes no difference The US would have dominated the desert dwellers wether by themselves or not they had 30 countries the facts are Iraqi army had trash training and personal in comparison to the Western nations and the US Air Force was extremely dominant probably the most dominant display of an Air Force in battle in history

[@meejinhuang]

Once the US decided to defend Kuwait, Iraq had no chance.

[@distantthunder12ck55]

Needed to fight urban warfare, literally get the US bogged down in Kuwait city etc, create a Stalingrad type scenario. About the only hope for some kind of negotiated peace with the allies that Iraq had.

[@sergeantmasson3669]

m, US and the allied forces. Iraq had no chance of winning.

[@dscorpio1626]

@Josef Mengele irap was already building defenses to they’re max when desert shield was in operation. They expected US from day zero. They have no chance no matter what.

[@joshuacamacho9755]

@Josef Mengele yeah that sounds super easy doesn't it? Odds are they would have lost more troops than they took out if they tried that. The allied forces could have launched air strikes to wipe out whatever they had planned. I'm pretty sure their generals are smarter than you, they would have done it if it was possible. With what they had it wasnt.

[@ali-haider5788]

If iraqi army used tactics like ukraine there wouldve been a chance that iraq could inflect much damage on us army but they used dumb tactics

[@Daniel-san-86]

Don't need to watch a 90 minute video to hear the answer no.

[@jonahpedersen5429]

The Gulf War was my 3rd and last Gulf deployment. In my opinion, the only way Iraq could have won would have been to blitz right through Kuwait and into SA to seize the oil fields in a quick campaign and then negotiate a favorable peace.

[@B61Mod12]

Lol, so their forces and logistics are even more strung out having to defend an even larger area with the same forces, making them even more vulnerable to airpower and manoeuvre warfare of which the US and coalition held the overwhelming superiority? Why would the US negotiate with an army that it could just destroy in the field, particularly where you have massive global support for military action? Invading 2 countries instead of one justifies the use of overwhelming military force to expel the invader all the more so. There was no scenario in which Iraq could win. It was a blatant misjudgement by Saddam and it was doomed the moment the first tank crossed the Kuwaiti border. I have no idea why this silly video was made, it is akin to clickbait.

[@nutty_tv2967]

Problem is they couldn't because they would've been bombed to oblivion, if they could've somehow mustered up a semi decent air defense was their only chance but their AA didn't have the range and as we've seen was Russian and useless and our bombs were ACCURATE.

[@robertdebrus3732]

I don't think under any circumstances there would be a negotiation for the Kuwait giving up territory the Americans and British and French never would have gone for that kind of deal after all they were created by the Western powers

[@robertdebrus3732]

It would have been much harder for US forces they would have had to land in Western Saudi Arabia and roll them back across the Kuwaiti border

[@robertdebrus3732]

@@B61Mod12 Western Air Force's pounded them for weeks the logistics train was broken there's no way they could have won it was inevitable

[@anwarsentinel1752]

The critical flaw with iraqi army was political interferance. If their soldiers were allowed to do their jobs maybe they could of had a favourable outcome.

[@GregHakes]

The Iraqi Army had no chance of ever winning that war. 1 country against 39 country's. No one ever wins against Nato.

[@Joshua_N-A]

US could've defeat Iraq with GROUND FORCES only and without allies. Superpowers fight alone.

[@jamesgreen1166]

*laughs in afghan*

[@GregHakes]

@@jamesgreen1166 Laughs in USA Baby !!!

[@jonhohensee3258]

Greg Hakes - Country's???

[@Maza945]

Not only NATO, Poland, Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria and even USSR were also part of Coalition.

[@acethemc6633]

The short answer: no The long answer: no

[@Black-o1c4f]

As an Iraqi I can claim that we never had a chance to win the war

[@mxferro]

You'll never win ANY WAR..ever.

[@deguello66]

Desert Storm/Shield comparison: The Iraqi army was little more than a WW2 equivalent force. Some things might have been better but overall not much. The coalition forces were a space age military technologically speaking. Satellite tracking and reconnaissance, super technological radar systems, much better aircraft and naval superiority beyond anything else in the world. You add training qualities comparisons and there was no question Iraq had no chance of victory.

[@-HughJass-]

WW2? That's an exaggeration. They had a Cold War era military, which was up to par with most nations on Earth at the time. The US was one of the few countries in 1991 with modern, 21st century, "space age" technologies. This was more of a situation of the US being far ahead of its adversary technologically, and less of Iraq being stuck in prehistoric times.

[@deguello66]

@-DenimChicken- you just made my point.

[@harryparsons2750]

They should not have invaded Kuwait then. Not our fault that our military is awesome

[@Mirul-ef3jb]

​@@deguello66altho facing the americans alone in combat is something iraq was compotent of off that time seeing as they had supersonic jets and all. But faced wrath of a military coalition from 1/3rd of nato countries

[@-HughJass-]

@@deguello66 WW2 & late cold war technology are extremely different. You said they had "a WW2 equivelant force" which is not accurate at all. Cold war technology was far superior than WW2.

[@AmericaVoice]

I have deployed overseas and seen many aircraft as a firefighter on a army base and when we was on taxiway for hot refueling Fire protection seeing an Apache helicopter or a A10 coming towards you was very nerve racking and was extremely grateful that I was a friendly 😀!

[@deoglemnaco7025]

Glug glug glug

[@ManhPham-ns6gz]

The gioi nay ma khong co Russia .thi bon my va nato no lam mua .lam gio.ung ho Russia chien thang.

[@SBRtime69420]

Short answer: No Long answer: Surprisingly enough, also no

[@ii2bcnii]

"Could the Iraqi army have won?" No. No it lacked that capability. Thank you

[@120-e5h]

Same with vietnam and afghanistan?🤣

[@Thememelord134]

@@120-e5h the us military was winning both we just pulled out just like your dad should have

[@fnfdmgjfndf]

Bro. Spoilers.

[@virgilbulilan7885]

​@@120-e5h the US doesn't lose in Vietnam or afghan the south Vietnam lose to north when the US left and the afghan govt lose when the US left literally the north Vietnam suffer 3m casualties while the afghan run and hide in cave and came out when the US left

[@horstnietzsche1923]

The Iraqis really needed better air and missile defense to stand a chance a strong land army without the ability to protect itself from American airpower is suicide.

[@shootingbricks8554]

Iraq started well doing the Iran-Iraq War but blew it in the end. I think the Iraqis could have made the war more costly for US and allied forces without chemical weapons. If Iraqis raided strategic oil fields in Saudi Arabia and forced coalition forces in urban combat, they would extend the war. An extended war is bad for the US especially with many remembering the Vietnam War.

[@theark4833]

At the beginning of the Iran-Iran war, Iraq did not face the professional Iranian army, but the ideological and popular forces of the other side, which even showed that it has a lot of problems in command.

[@HP_lovecrafts_cat67]

@@theark4833 iraqs command structure was too strict and saddam often used puppets and not efficient generals because he was paranoid of a coup.

[@sencerjet5724]

We won anyway

[@Ruder6163]

@@sencerjet5724Saddam was still in power after the war.

[@adennagruetzmacher6076]

The lesson learned is that any nation that wants security against the USA must have nukes

[@azrael_313]

نعم كان ليفوز، والحرب الإيرانية الطاحنة التي استمرت 8 سنوات خير دليل على قوة وشجاعة العراق 🇮🇶 ❤️

[@sobhanmadahi4479]

Iran won

[@mode4148]

لا ما كان ليفوز . لو شايف الفيديو كان فهمت بس عقلك الزغير ما يسمحلك

[@sigbauer9782]

This should have been a 5 second video...Dude comes on and says, "No". That's it. That's all that was needed.

[@soulbrothers7789]

Iraq was badly weakened by war with Iran, so couldn't have a chance. Then at second Gulf War Iraq military basically didn't exist, just like in Afghanistan, plus Us used coalition against them didn't have guts to attack alone, and at the end US and coalition gets defeated and embarrassed. That's mythology of US "good army" was emerged.

[@LS-jv9hp]

More along the lines that Islamic terrorist didn't have the guts to fight actual battles and hid behind children and women

[@deoglemnaco7025]

Yes. If it wasn’t for one solider named John Winnebago. Our American forces were hopelessly outnumbered. We were about to surrender. But One man….. ONE MAN said no. He would not surrender. He grabbed two rifles and blazed out into the field of battle. This rallied everyone else and we won!

[@dudediggsit684]

?????? You need to go back to school! You seriously uninformed!

[@deoglemnaco7025]

@@dudediggsit684 you weren’t there so how would you know?

[@stischer47]

I believe this is sarcasm. Winnebago is the name of an American RV.

[@deoglemnaco7025]

@@stischer47 and a damn good RV too. This just happened to be his name. I don’t think he was named after the motor coach. But if he was, that would be pretty cool!

[@mxferro]

I thought it was Sargent Slaughter that took on the Iraqis single handedly. Hmmm. Are you sure?

[@theirishinsanity86]

No...Iraqi was so far behind us...no navy no air force...it was over before it startes

[@jonhohensee3258]

Derrick - startes?

[@louwvandermerwe178]

The Rooivalk pilot sit in the back!

[@jeffez6572]

First 30min where about matching the American military vs Iraqi military. The next hour seemed like a sales pitch on tanks and choppers

[@jonhohensee3258]

Where???

[@alexm566]

a lot of these are watched by foreigners and sure do influence their arms buying decisions

[@MrKylemu1000]

Short answer: no Long answer: nooooooooo

[@shawnmiller2515]

I remember my first time riding in a HUEY, it was great fun, flying about 50 feet above tree level at Ft. Benning.

[@Rob-ik7jy]

Love the show and the content. Extremely interesting though I can only watch a quarter of the videos posted as the rest say "uploader has not made this video available in your country" - New Zealand.

[@leonardhall7203]

KZbin doesn't want to get you new Zealanders fired up.

[@mok822]

Same here

[@alexandermclaren1454]

Yo use Nord vpn and change it to another country.

[@rdsii64]

Get a vpn and that will not be a problem anymore.

[@AmericaVoice]

Use a VPN connection and then pick location of the US and you can see more possibly! Blessings from the USA

[@Gembelindo]

Came for the arms, stayed for the music 😎.

[@thelordofcringe]

The vibes are powerful

[@ProjecthuntanFish]

No they could not have won as the Iraqi soldiers did not want to fight. I was there in an M60A1 tank and i saw it first hand. many of their hull down tanks were sanded in and could not be driven out . I saw commanders Machine Guns with rusted ammo belts in them, yes in a desert! They didnt even have enough motivation to keep their gear functional!

[@shawnmiller2515]

The Republican guard was the Sadam Hussein's equivalent to Hitler's SS. Iraq had a large military but America at that time had two million soldiers and more high tech weaponry, even though they were battle harden from fighting with Iran they stood no chance against us and the full might of the coalition. Most of the Iraqi troops were conscripted which means most of them were civilians that were forced to fight, that's why we ended up with so many POWs because they didn't want to obviously die for nothing i.e dying for a Dictator, I was in the first golf war with the 75th Ranger regiment and we captured so many conscripts we didn't know what to do with them. We talked to some of them through an intrepator and some who new how to speak English and we found out so much information from them that it actually shocked us. All of them said the same thing to us, we didn't want fight we just wanted to live our lives with our families etc. They did say however they confirmed that the Republican guard would not surrender and that we would have to kill them all if we wanted to win the war, but instead of completely destroying the Republican guard they decided to retreat before we had a chance to take them out. Also the war with Iran severely diminished there resources and the Iraqi military was not really able to fight another major war especially against America. Sadam Hussein was broke he used up most of Iraq's wealth fighting with Iran, that's why he thought invading Kuwait was a good idea so he can take over their oil supplies etc. and selling it to replenish Iraq's wealth etc. He had no chance and he knew it.

[@daverobinson6110]

The obnoxious music is a lethal weapon itself

[@THER00BILLZ]

Hey, whats the name of the song at 26:23 ??

[@mxferro]

Moonset ...the scary monsters

[@JOHN-ZOV]

The T-72 has better armor protection than the T-62, due to the use of layered armor . The advanced passive armour package of the T-72M and T-72M1 can sustain direct hits from the 105mm gun equipped M1 Abrams at up to 2,000 meter range. The later T-72Ms and T-72M1s are equipped with laser rangefinders ensuring high hit probabilities at ranges of 2,000 meters. The T-72 has the same integral smoke generating capability as earlier T-54/55/62, tanks, and variants have been observed with smoke grenade projectors mounted on the front of the turret. The 125mm gun common to all the T-72 models is capable of penetrating the M1 Abrams armour at a range of up to 1,000 meters. And all T-72 models can carry a minimum of 45 rounds. The Defense Analyst Steven Zaloga was talking a bunch of Malarkey......

[@JG-ib7xk]

Nah... Russia still hasn't produced a tank that can stand up to any of the NATO tanks. The T-14 is the only tank that might be able to, but they're only used for parades as they're so badly made and there are only about 4 in existence

[@JOHN-ZOV]

M1-A1 Abrams 🇺🇲 VS People of Iraq 🇮🇶 kzbin.info/www/bejne/rIu3lJZ8epWsb8U

[@LS-jv9hp]

lmao moskal cope. T-72 can take on the M1 Abhrams? Iraq showed otherwise. xDDDDDDD

[@JOHN-ZOV]

@L S There's a reason why United States is not sending Abrams to Ukraine. Because they know they will be destroyed by T-72

[@mrdiplocaulus]

​@@LS-jv9hpthose were T-72As which were outdated by 1980

[@frants48]

At this time of technological age, no Middle East country except Israel, can defeat the technological advantage of the developed countries.

[@danielnoohi1224]

make a video about the biggest modern war after WWII, the Iraq - Iran War!

[@LWNightmareSheriff]

I love how retro this is

[@stuartdollar9912]

"Could The Iraqi Army Have Won The Gulf War?" "No." This has been another edition of simple answers to stupid questions. Iraq's defeat became inevitable when the US, Britain, and France intervened. There's no way to defeat a Western Army that's prepared in terrain unsuitable for defensive warfare.

[@mb-sw8bk]

Yes James - the Iraqi Army could have, but only if literally everyone in the coalition army would have suffered from sustained montezuma's revenge. The level of your contributions seems to decrease

[@mmmmmm6543]

Thank you for uploading this. I could see from other comments it’s not what some hoped for, but the stats and details are very interesting nonetheless. It shows the rivalry between economic and political systems competing with production, R&D and supply chains as well. It’s learning lessons as to why some nations get ahead and others fall behind. Iraqi troops were a formidable force but ultimately they were fighting at a disadvantage, under a leadership where bad decisions were imposed by incompetents.

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

IRAQI regular Army increased in Quantities during IRAN-IRAQ war For 8 years & its started as Regular army in Arrangement & Mobilizing of Unites But at the end its Became Huge Numbers of indiscipline Hungers Militias Divisions & weapons inside their Hands Majority of its Produced from i950 to 1965 , USSR, China, other Countries Exported to IRAQ

[@user-od1yi5iq1k]

Yes, I agree that it would have been wise for Saddam to have focused on a smaller, more professional, and better-armed military after the Iraq-Iran War. He was in relatively good standing with many Western countries right after the Iraq-Iran war so he might have been able to acquire more modern French, German, or US weaponry.

[@slappy8941]

wHY dO yOU cAPITALIZE eVERY wORD?

[@ArtVandelay00]

@@user-od1yi5iq1k actually that was the plan, but Saddam invaded Kuwait and the rest is history, there was a huge modernisation plan for the Iraqi military after the Iran-Iraq war switching from soviet equipment to western and having small professional army, but didn’t happened because of the invasion of Kuwait

[@arduinoguru7233]

@@user-od1yi5iq1k In fact Iraq build their Army as region superiority, they never intended (or think) fighting against any superpower, but you know Sddam stupidly leaded to his army defeat he should not invade that country without permissions for the superpowers

[@user-od1yi5iq1k]

@@arduinoguru7233 True.

[@Ideo7Z]

This is only around 2 years after the Soviet Union ended. The U.S. and it's allies were still at the height of their abilities in terms of readiness, manpower and equipment to be able to counter a Soviet threat. They hadn't even began to draw down as part of the "Peace Dividend" to the numbers you see today. If Saddam had waited 5-8 years or so, he would've stood a chance of keeping Kuwait with all the reduction in forces the west went through at the time and the psychological effects it brought with it to the public.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

If he hadn't invaded then he likely would have been over the worse part of the economic recovery by then and have downsized his own military significantly as well. Another ten years and he likely would be getting used as a bargaining chip in convincing Iran not to develop nuclear weapons (if you get them then Iraq's also going to you surely know). Ironically he probably would have allowed Israel through his airspace to bomb Iran unlike the US occupational forces in our timeline.

[@OldCBnGuns]

I agree with this. It would not have gone as smoothly as the military was still prepared to fight the Soviets at the drop of a hat still.

[@pkernoob786]

That's actually a very good point! I've never thought about that before. Sadly (for Sadam) he didn't have the option to wait. He needed money NOW. He was expecting a rebellion/coup unless he could get state finances back in order. He couldn't even pay many of his soldiers that had just come out of the Iran-Iraq war which many people were already bitter about due to the length and eventual stalemate.

[@alexm566]

Actually the Soviet Union still existed until the end of the war in 1991.

[@jasonruzicka7954]

33:54 I just Chuckle and shake my head at the sheer immensity and capability of this floating city. It's an incredible symbol of freedom! Look at thata thing just menace you to the negotiating tables :|

[@markwillies4330]

Short answer is NO. Don't need an hour plus video to weigh it all up.

[@slandgsmith]

No.

[@BaktasMIntrasWala]

Iraq could have won by not outright invading kuwait and bringing the wrath of uncle sam against it. Problem with dictators is their constant inability to see victory beyond the confines of pure military force. This has been so even in Sun Tzu's time when Nam Hua also ended up with the same conclusion. There were more subtle methods to undermine Kuwait rather than subjugate and occupy it. If Sadam would have done that and waited, their would have been no casus belli for the US. Essentially, Sadam's stategic premise and framework were flawed and dillusional which led to its down fall. His objective was Kuwait, he need not have involved the US in order to achieve the objective.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Well that is not just the problem with dictators though. Europe as a whole has had huge problems with their military in the past 20 years, mainly Counter-Insurgency I know. Otherwise their superiority has pulled them along.

[@robertdebrus3732]

If the Iraqis would have kept going they would have denied the US forces land base it would have been much harder to dislodge them but inevitably would happen that is a really brainy synopsis of what went on back then

[@robertdebrus3732]

@@johnnotrealname8168 the rise of fascism and nationalism we must stomp it out wherever it is we fought them in Europe now we have them here in the states I never hated a group of people more than this pigs one and all

[@theodorsebastian4272]

Saddam was desperate,Iraq was bankrupt at the time and Kuwait keep pumping cheap oil out.The final negotiation at Arab league didn’t really pan out either.

[@vinrico6704]

I noticed nobody mentioned how Bush senior said right up until the moment Saddam invaded Kuwait that it was an internal Arab issue and the US would not get involved.... He invaded and then they got involved... And we all know what happened.... He was an ally against Iran and then his usefulness became useless and the rest is history.

[@robbowman8770]

Iraq could quite possibly have won ... if Darth Vader had shown up for them with a Death Star

[@MORE_BEANS_PLZ]

If the Americans where fighting with sticks and stones then they would of had a chance of winning

[@nothing00164]

I till you if they fought with 1965 army we would win

[@jonhohensee3258]

ST. JAVELIN - where???

[@MORE_BEANS_PLZ]

@@jonhohensee3258 where what? Be more specific

[@jonhohensee3258]

@@MORE_BEANS_PLZ You wrote "where" in your first sentence. Why?

[@neilnelmar8007]

@@nothing00164 the Iraqi were that bad

[@jayfelsberg1931]

1.21:59 - Kinda looks like a delivery truck. It would be a fun model.

[@paulgaskins7713]

It’s really interesting seeing a documentary about the build up and what we were facing they talk about the Iraqi tanks as equals maybe even betters if it wasn’t for a ‘distinct technology advantage’ not knowing just how much that advantage was about to destroy the Iraqi army.

[@anthonyw9129]

They had a huge military

[@pottyputter05]

Ya I don't think people really have a clue as to how devastatingly outmatched the world is against the USA. The number 2 military in the world is still Russia and when you look at the invasion the truth is in the middle but probably a bit more towards the end of Russia being the fool. Now with all that imagine the US alone rolled in on that 40 mile convoy stalled in the open and ask yourself how anyone else would fair against them. Brittan France and the USA made the bulk of the world as it is today and for all that's bad it's far better for most than it ever has been and in large part because the USA is so strong. I shouldn't need to say this but obviously this doesn't mean the bad is somehow ok, just reverse this and imagine I was saying all the bad and get the idea it's just highlighting one aspect.

[@Spaced92]

The T-72 tank had a mythologised performance at the time, and to some extent still does. There was one tank battle where 4 Abrams took out 16 T-72s. In reality its best performances have been against outdated tanks (the Abrams is only from 1980 remember and in reality was designed in the mid 70's, tank design slowed down a lot since the time the T-72 was introduced).

[@naenaemister5048]

@@Spaced92 like most russian weapons good in concept horrid execution of engineering in many cases

[@blacksheepbahhhhh9385]

All we had was a longer reach.

[@alawi913]

Iraq had many enemies. And still. الله اكبر، النصر للحق

[@keterclass3541]

90minute video and saying "no" takes 1 second.

[@denying101]

To people asking why the US started or "joined" the war your answer is in 5:24-5:43

[@fluseint.1303]

They say there arent stupid questions...you showed us there are, ty.

[@1112viggo]

Lol i love the 80's style music and montages. Makes it feel like a very long version of the Airwolf intro. So nostalgic😁

[@Vermiliontea]

- Of course not! Glad I could be of help. Bye.

[@sthompson2770]

Iraq would have won if it never had oil and was never an American friend at one time

[@Phil-D83]

Would have had to attack coalition forces before they got into position. Would have delayed the coalition, but not defeated them, unless it became politically impossible to continue after high initial coalition losses.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

They tried attacking the coalition with bombs.

[@neilnelmar8007]

They would have had to invade sudi Arabia immediately affter invading Kuwait thus forcing the coalition to act much faster ,giving them a chance to inflict some loses on the colition .I don't think that it would have changed the outcome though

[@mrjockt]

Had the Iraqi’s launched an all out strike against someplace like the airbase at Dhahran during the build up they might have inflicted sufficient casualties on the coalition forces that public opinion in their home countries might have forced them to pull out and try for a political solution, it would probably have cost the Iraqi’s a large percentage of their Air Force doing it but they might have considered it worth the cost.

[@Phil-D83]

@mrjockt could also have backfired pearl harbor style if the coalition became enraged at the loss of life.

[@mrjockt]

@@Phil-D83 Attitudes in the U.S. had changed with regards to losing military personnel, especially since Vietnam, in what many in the U.S. would consider “other countries wars”, look at what happened in Somalia, the U.S. made a huge song and dance about going in and helping stop the warlords, they even made the actual “invasion” a publicity event with reporters on the beach as the Marines came ashore, then when U.S. personnel started getting killed the public started screaming for their government to pull their troops out, if Saddam thought giving the U.S. military a bloody nose before they had gotten fully set up might have had a similar effect he may have risked it.

[@franciscook5819]

I gave up about half way through. Just about every "war" documentary includes many factors but misses the main reasons for defeating an enemy. These include the intelligence, including signals intelligence, regarding your enemy (order of battle, disposition, battle plans, ...); the logistics (your excellent, uninterrupted supply chain vs the interdiction of your enemies' supplies); the strengths of the opposing economies. On those three grounds alone it was a foregone conclusion. Add to that the weak and unprofessional command and control right up to Saddam Hussain and it was a predictable disaster for Iraq. What was unpredictable was how light the allied casualties would be.

[@brandonhallam51]

Have some great books on those subjects though if you look at those printed in the 80s and 90s

[@happyeastwood]

@@brandonhallam51 Could you provide some names?

[@babagandu]

@@happyeastwood how to make best roti

[@happyeastwood]

@@babagandu why just roti. Why not naan? Why settle for wheat roti? There are many other grains too for roti.

[@HateTheIRS]

I’d recommend “battlefield series: kursk” “Stalingrad etc” Or “scorched earth: Army group south” etc. Very detailed documentaries.

[@idontknow164]

I think a bit of context is important. This was the first real war the US had been in (officially) since Vietnam. So in the American camp there was a bit of concern, after all we had lost to an under armed but determined enemy in Vietnam which had no airforce or navy. So the prospect of going into a fight with an enemy that was given outdated and formidable armor, planes and ships was seemingly daunting. Of course, given how the Gulf War went, its laughable but hindsight is always 20/20. But the decision that ultimately prevented it from turning into another Vietnam was the wise decision to push the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and not chase the remaining forces into Iraq. Something the Bush Sr obviously didn't impart on his son....with disastrous results.

[@fredlandry6170]

I think I remember this on the Discovery Channel way back when in 1991 or 1992.

[@mrtracing3292]

Iraq had the quantity, but the coalition had the quality men weapons and the cause

[@chrisrees8842]

I nearly spat my beer out when I saw the title. Bloody no chance the iraq military could of won. the USA and UK OP baby let alone the rest of nato. Well trained ect ect

[@U.S._Army_Retired]

Who ever authorized the money to make this Documentary needs to pay it back. A hodgepodge of small documentaries spliced together with a click bait title. War Stories has sunk this low.

[@I_lost_my_donut]

And you named yourself US Army retired?

[@U.S._Army_Retired]

@@I_lost_my_donut It's a fact. What are your credentials?

[@I_lost_my_donut]

@@U.S._Army_Retired I am just questioning the name.

[@U.S._Army_Retired]

@@I_lost_my_donut Question what you want. It doesn't change the fact.

[@helalismail1541]

Can someone name that soundtrack?

[@mxferro]

Group: Moonset song the scary monsters

[@MrSpudz2]

I didn’t really enjoy the infomercial for the American industrial war complex. I was hoping for more of a documentary on the gulf war….

[@chiefkikyerass7188]

Your living in the twilight zone if you think so

[@jonhohensee3258]

You're

[@Norg1]

what ever the vietcong did and taliban did do that IMO then maybe disperse all your troops wear civilian clothing etc etc they we also need semi safe areas then could go in and out from like syria maybe iran and leabon also turkey try and cut a backdoor deal with them like in the future refrom the ottoman empire or something

[@adiamondndrough]

the narrator roles the end of his sentences like a pro, "armored caaaaaa'r"

[@lifeshowyouliveit4023]

Like 30 minutes in I thought it was near the end of the video absolutely no way they could have in conventional combat

[@patriccreek9451]

Well. Sorry I didn't get to watch your movie/show. I closed it as soon as I saw the promotions at start which is basically advertising your sponsor. You missed out. Your sponsor missed out. Ahh well. A learning curve.

[@arthurwright8827]

Obviously the answer is yes if there was one small change. If only the Russians decided to save Kuwait instead of the US.

[@nothing00164]

Yes

[@oglordbrandon]

For a force of 600,000 fairly well equipped battle hardened troops on their own territory, to be defeated by the much smaller coalition force speaking many languages is remarkable no matter how you look at it.

[@thomasc5817]

We wupped their azzes. Got plenty of pics of those that didnt think we would. Dead pics..

[@HP_lovecrafts_cat67]

Most weren’t well equipped nor battle hardened. Most were glad for the coalition and deserted. If only they knew what consequences the war would bring.

[@BruhmomentMomentovik]

Much smaller? The coalition was almost a million soldiers, 700 000 of which were Americans

[@paul9478]

dudes were fighting with antique soviet tech against amdram m1 of 1991 with auto loader auto aim and so on and he is questioning cud they win or not. what do u guys think ? i think if arabs will try 100 times they lose exactly 100 times.

[@Litvagopnik]

No, I’ll spare you the video with one statement: Gen 1 Thermals and NV.

[@lh1690]

Cliffs: Nope.

[@tml721]

Short answer is NO Iraq couldn't win against the allies

[@johnhanson9245]

General Schwarzkopf is rolling in his grave with a comment like that

[@cory8606]

Parts of the background music sounds like terminator 1

[@peterjones4180]

Three critical pieces of information are MISSING from this video. First, Kuwait IS part of Iraq, it was unilaterally split off by the British and French after WW1 under the Sykes Picot agreement. Iraq has wanted their territory back ever since, in fact a democratically elected Iraqi government tried to get it back in the late 1950's BUT the British prevented it. Second after the cessation of the Iran , Iraq war, where the Gulf states had supported Iraq economically in order to attack Iran which is a threat to them as well, Kuwait inexplicably started aggressively attacking Iraq economically at a time when Iraqi desperately needed to rebuild its economy post war. Now WHY ? would a tiny artificial country deliberately kick the Iraq bear against whom they could not possibly defend themselves, and who is the rightful owner of that country anyway with a LONG history of wanting it back ? Third, the U.S made it clear to Iraq via normal diplomatic channels in country that it did not care if Iraq took back Kuwait, at a time when Iraq had massed its army on the Kuwait border in order to intimidate Kuwait into stopping its economic attack. Having encouraged Iraq to invade Kuwait the U.S then attacked Iraq for having done so.

[@zillsburyy1]

NO!!!! THATS WHY THEY LOST

[@nolanbucsis1703]

More modern conflicts please

[@iliaselmaghrebi9114]

Am i the only one that don't understand what this video want to tell i see some fragments that explain that iraq had some good weaponry but 90% of the video seems almost as an ad about american technology nothing really tells me why iraq could win or lose

[@RacerX1971]

No, they could not even beat Iraq.

[@maxtomlinson8134]

No, they can’t. However if America gave more technological weapons to Iraq during their war with Iran, such as M1 Abraham’s Tanks, Thermal sites and US Planes. Then they could have stood a chance.

[@alexvargas8015]

My friend is from Iraq 🇮🇶

[@susfringgaming4018]

Maybe if the Americans were using WW2 weapons it would have been a fair fight

[@mrtulipeater]

The cheery soundtrack is suited for such a swell topic.

[@mxferro]

Exciting and dynamic corporate style presentation that only the 1980s could give us. Lol

[@nutty_tv2967]

I kinda fancy myself a strategist, and the only way for Iraq to stand a chance against the US in the Gulf War would to honestly to be to scud gas landing sites into others territory or to concede every peice of military hardware you have into a major populated city and it's suburbs to defend and honestly just hope America cares about your civilization.

[@nobody-ew1pj]

United States used precision munitions, I don’t think pulling every asset into cities would help too much

[@guardiadecivil6777]

guerilla warfare would probably have more chance of working since Iraq evidently can afford manpower loses meanwhile the mostly democratic coalition can have their people going batshit crazy over losing a couple of soldiers. since guerilla warfare usually involves the civilian populace as well and with the gulf war being heavily televised for all people living under democratic regimes to see, I'm pretty sure war support will dwindle the moment the media starts getting hands on footage of coalition war crimes that's bound to happen in these type of wars. the only way iraq could really have won was by winning the political war

[@kellihorton1142]

Not exactly Sadams strong point.

[@lijger1]

Saddam hoped, with good reason, that the USA would not fight. Had he with draw most troops early. Saudi Arabia would not even have allowed (!) US troops in. And that risk would have been even lees likely had he only occupied the northern oil fields.

[@moosehead4497]

Short answer? No.

[@tylerdurden4006]

Nope, america had the best of the next generation of armor while they were still using the last generation and sometimes the one before that. They had numbers but they were actual paper numbers bcoz they burned up fast and easy.

[@OnLyFuN1306]

The biggest mistake by Saddam was allowing the coalition to mass in saudi arabia, he should of attacked once the first US tank was placed in saudi soil. And during the war he should of used ALL his forces not put them on stand by like he did with the air force, use scuds on coalition bases not israel, and USE his air force

[@jonhohensee3258]

OtakuSnake - should HAVE attacked

[@neilnelmar8007]

I don't think that would have strange the out come but i think it would have allowed them to inflict some losses on the coalition and could force them to make errors

[@jonhohensee3258]

@@neilnelmar8007 strange the out come???

[@LS-jv9hp]

@@jonhohensee3258 US carrier groups, patriot batteries and a large enough QRF would shut down any invasion of Saudi Arabia. Iraq didn't have the aircraft to gain air superiority and Britain and the US would have 100,000+ men there in one month alone. Saddams focus on saving the airforce was the right play.

[@jonhohensee3258]

@@LS-jv9hp I have NO idea why you're writing to me.

[@edwardwestenberger1890]

Can anyone recommend a video that deals with "Could The Iraqi Army Have Won The Gulf War?" and only "Could The Iraqi Army Have Won The Gulf War?". I watched this one for almost an hour and still didn't find out if "Could The Iraqi Army Have Won The Gulf War?". Thanks for any help you can give me!

[@baconbaron1776]

The question is a excuse to talk about armored vehicles. Also, the answer is no.

[@JGldmn333]

Edward they should have seized the Saudi Oil fields before the arrival of American forces. Then they would have had us in a position to negotiate more on their terms. This was their ONLY path to victory. After American forces cut them off...no. They had ZERO chance...even if Sadaam had used nerve gas on everyone. Because we had prepared for that scenario. All ground troops had nerve gas uniforms and gas masks....and anti-nerve gas agent too. Militarily it was a mismatch...especially concerning Air Forces and Naval Forces.

[@17shakil]

Challenging 25 countries alone ! Iraqi people will forever will be a warriors nation ! Specially Iraqi Air Force ! Since when USA fought a war with a first class army never 👎 always wining and fight it against third world countries . As for Iraqi wining they should have invaded Saudi Arabia

[@LS-jv9hp]

lmao Japan? Germany? They were both first class, now sadly no first class military can go against each other because of nukes. Only Germany and Japan but they're both in nuclear protection clubs.

[@Midee]

I dunno I hear those T-72s tanks are still pretty decent and- hang on, I'm getting a message: "Battle of 73 what? Easting? How many destroyed? Oh... Oh my..."

[@herptek]

The Iraqi army mismanaged the battle simply terribly.

[@LS-jv9hp]

Hey turrets are pretty neat... wait a second I got a call from Ukraine: "The Russian turrets FLEW HOW HIGH? Just from one ATGM that cost 20,000 dollars?"

[@protonneutron9046]

No. Any other questions?

[@arduinoguru7233]

That war was between two different military doctrines that were never intended to change any world superpowers, 31:35 this is the simplest example how that war went on so wrong, the MiG 29 are in different category compare to F-16 specially the early version which had multiple issue with it flight range and with it engines, needless to mention it underpowered radar that even Soviet Union never use on it aircraft that limited it BVR capability a lot .

[@SAT186971]

Will is not enough need and other qualities

[@pellajoe]

NO! Is the answer. No need to ask the question, and no need to watch this

[@theashpilez]

Depends, plan A was a catastrophy in planning.

[@tprski]

If you think about the question, you realize the absurdity of it but an interesting thought experiment.