It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pictures: IRGC in recent wargames

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Now we all recently heard and seen the iranian made VA-111 shkval missile called Hoot. There was also another torpedo test fired from our Nahang-1 submarine but i will instead post on that existing thread. We have shown missiles and everything but i think some of you guys need to watch the troops and what you think...enjoy
.











[edit on 3-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Mehran]

[edit on 3-4-2006 by Mehran]




posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Are these pictures of the "Takavaran" or some other Iranian Special forces or just standard troops?



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Hello Mehran,

Those are some good pics..

Funny how well things go when nobody is shelling, or otherwise interfering with, maneuvers...


Nice pics, though. Post more when you get 'em...



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   
What helis are those? Mi-17s right?
If it comes down to crossiung swords with the americans, keep em' nicely camoflaged during the air assualt!



posted on Apr, 3 2006 @ 11:28 PM
link   
It's hard to tell too much by picture, but I noticed some pretty interesting rock formations in one of those pictures. That could definatly make for some pretty interesting battles.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   
At least the guy in the 3rd pic should learn to keep his barrel out of the sand
It'll ruin his gun eventually (nothing to be woried about in combat, but longterm sand wear in barrel is going to destroy even the hard chromed barrels of AK)


Sep

posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   
A "flying boat" was also tested just this day in the exercises.

Iran says tests "flying boat" in Gulf wargames

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday successfully tested a "super-modern flying boat", state television said, giving another vague description of military hardware Iranian forces are testing in Gulf wargames.

The Defence Ministry was not immediately able to give a clear description of the new vessel but told Reuters it was not a form of hovercraft.

Reuters Link


Interesting, because this "flying boat" was released quite some time ago, and I already have see a video of it.

There was also a test of a shoulder launched SAM, and as already mentioned there was the two torpedos that were tested. One with exceptional manoeuvrability and one with exceptional speed. The commander spoke of other weapons that would be tested as well. Would be interesting to see them.


[Mod Edit: Link format - Jak]

[edit on 4/4/06 by JAK]



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Are these pictures of the "Takavaran" or some other Iranian Special forces or just standard troops?


Takavaran wear uniforms that are in mix with white and blue...but the pictures i posted are IRGC for sure
. New pictures......









posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
Takavaran wear uniforms that are in mix with white and blue....


Really white and blue uniforms that sounds like a strange choice. I think Ive only seen pre-revolution pics of them.

Takavaran fill a role like the US Navy SEALS right undersea warefare and demo stuff like that? Heard they were even trained by western & Soviet Special Forces before the revolution.



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
IRGC, huh?

Are these the same guys who, in the 1980's, were running around the Gulf in Boston Whalers and Boghammers shooting at neutral oil tankers? The same folks who were setting anti-shipping mines adrift in the Persian Gulf?



posted on Apr, 4 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Although I can't really say if they're up to the level of a NATO allied army, I'll grant that they look much better equiped and trained than Iraq. So even if the Iranian army can't hold off an invasion by the US and friends, I'll admit that they're probably capable of causing quite a headache.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:24 AM
link   
White and blue uniforms in desert...., wish them good luck.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Our guys are going to wipe these clowns up.

Even conventionally, the Iranian forces would collapse in 2 weeks and they'd probably suffer hundreds of thousands of casualties and we might lose 2,000.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
At least the guy in the 3rd pic should learn to keep his barrel out of the sand
It'll ruin his gun eventually (nothing to be woried about in combat, but longterm sand wear in barrel is going to destroy even the hard chromed barrels of AK)


I noticed that too , rather bad form on his behalf



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monty22001
Our guys are going to wipe these clowns up.


lol you do stand up ?
your so called guys cant even handle a ill equiped insurgentcy
what makes you think they would be able to wipe all them out (these arent iraqis which just ran for the hills when the yanks started flying in)

granted the US would win the first part of an invasion with casulties (Iran has weapons to bite back)

but when it comes to the second part the US would suffer more then it has in Iarq



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

your so called guys cant even handle a ill equiped insurgentcy
what makes you think they would be able to wipe all them out

Your
is humorous within itself, just as your rhetorical commentary.

Mr. bodrul, IF the US can not "even handle a ill equiped insurgentcy," what the hell makes you think that Iran can handle the US, on any given battlefield, huh? Iran would not be handling the insurgency any more efficiently than the US or anyone else for that matter.

Iran spent 8 YEARS coming to grips with an Iraqi military.
Russia took 10 YEARS and still could not defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan.
More examples could be given.

Apparently, conventional wisdom over military doctrine and military design escapes the building everytime you make a boastful, anti-American commentary? Militaries, including the US's, are built and maintained to fight mainly conventional land warfare, not insurgencys or guerilla type warfare, simple as that, regardless if they are Western, Asian, or Islamic. A so-called military resorts to such tactics of guerilla type warfare when their military has the inability to defeat the opposing conventional army, such as Saddam's military did, just as Ho Chi Minh's, etc.

Another flaw and fallacy in your line of thinking is that you ASSUME the US is going to invade or occupy Iran. Please....
:shk:

The US has no plans or intentions in invading or occupying Iran, and IF you think or feel otherwise, please post up the link(s) to any US politician or military figure who has asserted such as an intention. The US could simply sit back and opt to pound the living tar out of whomever, including Iran...no invasion or occupying required.






seekerof

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:19 AM
link   
there are many flaws in your post.

when russia inavded aghanistan. the afghans has weapons which where decent for there time. eg ERA and composite armour was not very wide spread in those day and even then the ERA was first generation. the aghans where armed with RPG's which where decent for that time. same with stinger missiles which they had becuase ECM where also not as advanced as they are today. this gave aghans a chance of fighting they could take out low flying aircraft and helicopters with stingers and use rpg's to take out APC/IFV and tanks and tanks with ERA they fired 2 rpgs in a similar area to take it out.

america today has composite armour and afgahns still have rpgs from the 80's and they dont even have any stinger that work. if aghans had modern weopons capable of doing the job the results would be the same. give afghans SA-18 Igla's and RPG-29(105mm tandem warhead RPG) and america would also loose just like russians did. america only won becuase afghans wwhere very porrly armed unlike the time they foght russian and at that time they where well armed for the time.

the flaw in your thinking about iran is you assume they will stay in there own country. if there forces such as guerillas and commandos go into surrounding countries there will be hell for america. they have .50BMG sniper rifles, shaped charge IED's, night vision, tandem warhead rpgs, anti-tank tandem wrhead missiles with armour penatration of about 800mm behind ERA etc... they could cause havoc against america and america could end up loosing its control on afghanistan, iraq etc... also america could end up losing its bases in the middle east with ballisitc missiles attacks, man portable rocket artillery attacks, mortar 81mm and 120mm attacks and suicide car/truck bomb atatcks.

also about iraq/iran. iran had just come through a revolution in 1979 its unfair to compare there forces at that time to the modern force they have today. irans economy is doing better today then it was at the time of the revolution. the millitry is also better armed and have there own indignous programs for manufacturing weapons and are now completly self reliets in certain weapons. they also have thousands of ballistic missiles today and the capability to hot targets about 2500km away which they didnt at the time of the war with iraq. your choice of comparsons was very poor.

mod edit: please refrain from mass quoting, there is no need for it.


[edit on 10-4-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
when russia inavded aghanistan. the afghans has weapons which where decent for there time. eg ERA and composite armour was not very wide spread in those day and even then the ERA was first generation. the aghans where armed with RPG's which where decent for that time. same with stinger missiles which they had becuase ECM where also not as advanced as they are today. this gave aghans a chance of fighting they could take out low flying aircraft and helicopters with stingers and use rpg's to take out APC/IFV and tanks and tanks with ERA they fired 2 rpgs in a similar area to take it out.

And? So?
The mere fact is that tens of thousands of Russians were killed or wounded and still never defeated the insurgency in Afghanistan. Your doing nothing but playing the apples and oranges game, which still does not change the fact I have pointed out.





the flaw in your thinking about iran is you assume they will stay in there own country. if there forces such as guerillas and commandos go into surrounding countries there will be hell for america.

But wait, you call my line of thinking flawed, yet give your own rebuttals and assumptions....that are flawed, as well? Hold on here, is that like calling the kettle black or something or another? I personally hope that those Iranian mass groups of guerilla forces do come out--makes mopping them up and proceeding into Tehran the much easier, eh?





they have .50BMG sniper rifles, shaped charge IED's, night vision, tandem warhead rpgs, anti-tank tandem wrhead missiles with armour penatration of about 800mm behind ERA etc... they could cause havoc against america and america could end up loosing its control on afghanistan, iraq etc... also america could end up losing its bases in the middle east with ballisitc missiles attacks, man portable rocket artillery attacks, mortar 81mm and 120mm attacks and suicide car/truck bomb atatcks.

And?
And the US has likewise and can do likewise.
Does all you have said above remotely change the fact that modern militaries are based upon fighting conventional warfare rather than guerilla type warfare?
Does it remotely change the fact that militaries resort to guerilla type warfare because they can NOT defeat an opposing conventionally based military?
So....in a sense, your point was again?





also about iraq/iran. iran had just come through a revolution in 1979 its unfair to compare there forces at that time to the modern force they have today. irans economy is doing better today then it was at the time of the revolution. the millitry is also better armed and have there own indignous programs for manufacturing weapons and are now completly self reliets in certain weapons. they also have thousands of ballistic missiles today and the capability to hot targets about 2500km away which they didnt at the time of the war with iraq. your choice of comparsons was very poor.

Nothing but apples and oranges wrapped a bag of excuses.
The facts speak for themselves: Iran took 8 YEARS getting a handle on an opposing conventional Iraqi military.





seekerof

[edit on 10-4-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
no offence but how did you ever become a moderator?

every post i see you make you have no points all you do is one of the following:

1. post a single link with an ambigous comment.

2. random statements such as "apples and oragnes" without addressing the points.

once agian in my post you have posted and replied with out actually addressing any of the points that i made.

i said the reason why soviets lost was becuase afghans where well armed for there time with RPGs and Stinger while they cannot fight today becuase there weopons are not effective like they where when they fought the soviets and your reply is "apples and oranges" no it is not apples and oranges fact is if aghans are armed with tandem warhead RPG-29 and Igla SA-18 which are modern weopons of out times the outcome would be similar of what happened to the russians.


im not going to reply to any come back you have to this post becuase first of all you know im right secondly i dont want to take this thread off topic if you want to reply to this send me a mms.

mod edit: please refrain from mass quoting, there is no need for it.

[edit on 10-4-2006 by UK Wizard]



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Mr Seekerof


[sacracasem]yeap all my topics are anti american very good of you to spot
(sarc off) (your reply to is humrous to me)

read my reply again


and you will see no where did i say the US couldnt defeat Iran
but would face a harder task and more casuluties

as unlike Iraq Iran isnt a third world country which could have been easily bombed by any other third world country.

my post is If the Us attacked Iran
iran has the capibilities to bite back and not sit there like the Arabs and take it up the *beep* hole.

also insurgancy wide if the us did attack it would turn into a war causing it to invade,
thus it would face a better armed and a larger gorila force)


also looking at the 8 year war (did Iraq ever get the upper hand?)

on another not have you heard of the saying dont underestimate your foes?



[edit on 10-4-2006 by bodrul]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join