World War II Allies vs. Iraq

J

JasonRedfield

New Member
I recently thought about a rather interesting "what-if" scenario. And that is, What if the World War superpowers were to engage in a war against Saddam's Iraqi regime?

The superpowers consist of all countries in the Allies circa 1945, or the Axis circa 1941 just prior to the U.S. entering the war. (changed it to include the possibility of the Axis)

Iraq consists of the military just prior to their war with Iran.

What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
I'd rather see the third Reich vs Saddam's Iraq pre Iran war.
I really think Rommel would have had a ball there.

But Yea the allies would have won that one too
 
Care to elaborate on that opinion? I'm not disagreeing, just want to see why you think the Allies would come out on top.

You've inspired me. I'm going to change the OP a bit.
 
Last edited:
What's the technology? Because if they're using the same technology on either end the Allies win in a walk. But if the Iraqis are using 1980 weapons against 1940 weapons...
 
It's their respective technology. The WWII factions have WWII technology, and Iraq has the 1980's tech.

I know, I know. You're probably thinking it will be a blowout. Tactically, you'd probably be right. Think strategic, though.
 
JasonRedfield said:
It's their respective technology. The WWII factions have WWII technology, and Iraq has the 1980's tech.

I know, I know. You're probably thinking it will be a blowout. Tactically, you'd probably be right. Think strategic, though.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that with their respective technology it would be quite close, but the sheer numbers of the the Allies would overwhelm the Iraqis in short order.
 
The Other Guy said:
I'm thinking that with their respective technology it would be quite close, but the sheer numbers of the the Allies would overwhelm the Iraqis in short order.
Click to expand...

I see. I was thinking along the same lines. I wanted to see what others had to say, though.

If Saddam decided to fight this war the same way he tried to fight Desert Storm (like WW1, with tons of trenches and defensive tank and Republican Guard formations), he could inflict massive casualties on the Allies.

The air power aspect is particularly interesting to think on. For instance, how would the Allies react to helicopter gunships? Or jet fighters/bombers, for that matter?

Overall, a pretty interesting concept to think on.
 
I think the allies would win because Iraq could have their 1980 Tech and we use 1945 Tech, just remember in 1945 the Unites States dropped a couple of nukes. Iraq still has no nukes unless they buy one, game would be over.
 
wolfen said:
I think the allies would win because Iraq could have their 1980 Tech and we use 1945 Tech, just remember in 1945 the Unites States dropped a couple of nukes. Iraq still has no nukes unless they buy one, game would be over.
Click to expand...

Good point. I was wondering if anyone would think of that. That's part of what I meant when I said think strategic. One nuke could very well end the war.

Good luck getting a 1940's-era prop bomber loaded up with a nuke past Iraqi air defenses, though.


And don't forget about Iraqi SCUDs.
 
Last edited:
Imagine what if General Patton had to lead the men into the battalions of Iraqi tanks.
 
Those Iraqi T-72s would probably pwn the crap out of anything the allies had in the open desert.
Patton or no Patton.
And the Shermans that got close enough to score a hit on a T-72 would see its rounds bounce right off the armor.
 
It terms of soldier to soldier.... not much changed from 1945 to the 1980s for your average trooper. The Allied GI and the Iraqi Trooper would be equal. In fact the American GI might have an advantage with the M1 Garand against the Iraqi armed with the AK..... distance.

As for everything else.... the Allies would have issues. Iraq was armed to the teeth. Chemical Weapons, ballistic missiles, helicopters, T-72 tanks, radar, SAMs, etc....

Nothing in the allied arsenal would beat what Iraq had other then the standard American rifle. The M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. And even then that's only because your average Iraqi soldier wasn't the best trained troop on the field.

The allies might win through sheer numbers and simply out producing the Iraqis but it would be a costly war in which Iraq would make the mainland invasion of Japan look like a cake walk. Iraq's use of chemical weapons and trench warfare with their then modern static defenses like radar and SAMs would make the Allies pay for every inch with massive loss of life. Allied air power would be useless as would their armor. The Iraqis also had some good anti-stuff that would snuff out a Sherman in a heartbeat.
 
JasonRedfield said:
Good point. I was wondering if anyone would think of that. That's part of what I meant when I said think strategic. One nuke could very well end the war.

Good luck getting a 1940's-era prop bomber loaded up with a nuke past Iraqi air defenses, though.


And don't forget about Iraqi SCUDs.
Click to expand...

Thats easy too, send in a few squadrons of p47d' fully loaded first, then a complete country wide carpetbombing, after everythings leveled, send one lione b29 over and bombs away.
 
If the year is 1945, we are beginning to develop Jets and within a few short years at wartime capacity we'd have things that could match the Iraqi fighters.
 
I wanna see a 1980 Mig out turn a p51d :) basic aircraft mechanics dictates that the slower a aircraft is capable of flying the tighter the turning circle
 
the_13th_redneck said:
Guys, a P-51 is NOT going to beat a MiG-23.
Click to expand...
It's not, but the little North Korean Po-2s gave our F-94s a heck of a lot of trouble because they were simply too slow to shoot.

And do remember that 1945 is five peacetime years before Korea. At wartime production rates, We'd have F-86s and MiG-15s in short order.
 
You're dealing with IR seeking missile armed MiG-23s. I want to see a prop plane try to dodge one of those. Not to mention that the armament on the MiG-23s like the 23mm gun is far superior to the usual .50 cal.
If those slow prop planes were really that effective, we'd have a massive air force filled with Mustangs rather than pump out billions of dollars for jet aircraft.
Oh yeah and there's also MiG-29s to deal with.
All of these planes have radar.
Seriously. No competition.
 
It will be highly costed to allied, but at last Iraq will run out logistics and men. Allied where so many men and points to destroy where they were building continuously weaponry.

It´s just happened in Zulú wars early times. Even you have the very best in tech weaponry, when you are under 50.000 and you are 1000, you will finally crack. No time to kill them all, no bullets enough...
 
Would the Allied countries have the will to actually push despite horrendous casualties and losses in just about every way? Sure if they kept at it the Iraqis would run out of stuff to fight with but would the Allies have the will to keep pushing that long?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top