It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Iranian military prowess , real or imagined ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:25 PM
Iranian military prowess , real or imagined ?

Threads proclaiming the “ military mite “ of Iranian forces and equipment seem to be popping up like some demented “ whack a mole “ game .

So , Lets look at just what Iran is actually capable of :

Their showing in the Iran / Iraq war , was to put not too fine a point on it , lackluster . 8 years of war , achieved what exactly ?

They were at their peak then , having previously suffered zero attrition in combat , nor had any shortages imposed by sanctions

They even had some level of covert US assistance thanks to the steaming idiocy known as “ Iran / Contragate “ , but still they could not prevail against Saddam`s armies

Yes the Iranians have macde advances in leaps and bounds in the last 20 years , but guess what guys ? So has every one else .

But remember , The same army that held Iran to a bloody and costly stale mate from 1980 to 1989 collapsed in short order in 1991 . Its attempted retreat turned to a bloody rout , and in 2003 – was able to offer only sporadic resistance to a coalition invasion .

Think about this when you are beating your chests , shouting “ Iran uber alles “

No one pretends that Iran will be a cake walk , but your weapons program , army and economy will not withstand even a week of air war from a determined US led coalition

You are dependant on a single cash cow export [ oil ] that is very vulnerable to hostile foreign action , so stop rattling that saber – you may find soon it’s the only weapon you have left that works , and you don’t want to damage it

And lastly , a lesson from history . The last person who screamed long and loud that mighty new “ wunderwaffen “ were going to utterly crush his enemies , was – yup you guessed it … Hitler . where is he now ??

Just a few observations , to put things in perspective .


posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 12:37 PM
Some good points

I guess my question would be (setting aside the American ability to win the conventional phase handily) what happens next?
It seems that is our biggest problem in Iraq.

Would the Iranian "man in the street's" reponse be "patriotic" or "regime-changing"?

Iran is a much more mountainous country to try to occupy, methinks.

How does a war with Iran shake-out in the end, do you think?


posted on Apr, 8 2006 @ 06:21 PM
Although I am by no means an expert on the topic, and have not studied the Iran-Iraq war the way I wanted to I will just put my humble opinion out. For anyone who picks up a book on Iranian history, they would know that a certain revolution happened in 1979. After the success of this revolution the majority of Iran’s air force, naval and ground force’s leaders were executed. Most of the Shah’s generals were also executed because of the fear of the repeat of 1953’s “Operation Ajax”.

The Shah’s military during the 1970s was built around the fact that he would receive the United State’s support in case of any conflict. The maintenance of Iran’s military equipment was mostly conducted by United State’s military personnel. The military was similar to a deck of cards, designed to fall if it went against the wishes of the United States, or if at any time the US wished for it to fail. So 1979 came and Iran was hit fairly hard. Khomeini disbanded most sections of the army. The desertion rate hit 80% during the revolution and it didn’t return to normal. So when Iraq invaded Iran, there was practically no military command on the Iranian side.

Currently Iran’s military numbers over 500,000 personnel, and also the “Basij” militia, which numbers around 7,000,000. Iran’s ground forces has improved greatly with the introduction of new equipment, and new doctrines. Iran’s air force now has the ability to maintain all the aircraft it has in its possession and has the experience of fighting a war, and the new pilots were trained by the likes of Jalal Zandi, the most accomplished F-14 ace with 9 confirmed kills. The naval doctrine has now changed from the shah’s time to incorporate the experiences gained from the war. Iran’s navy no longer values large warships and vessels but rather fights unconventionally in the Persian Gulf, and with the recent war games, it was demonstrated that Iran’s navy has improved greatly since the 1980s, when its strength was “questionable” to say the least.

My point until now was to answer your point regarding you assertion that Iran’s army was superior back then because of lack of sanctions or attrition. Regarding your point that “Iranians have macde advances in leaps and bounds in the last 20 years , but guess what guys ? So has every one else ” I think it is important to note that the purchase of technology and experience of war has allowed Iran’s military state to improve at a more rapid rate than the rest of the world, and also the need for domestic military capability has forced the government to build infrastructure to accommodate for this need. For example in 1980 Iran did not have a rocket to counter the Iraqi FROG-7, with a range of 70 km. Now Iran has missiles that can reach southern Europe. Can you site another country that improved this rapidly?

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 01:28 AM
I'll make it easy for you

During the Iran-Iraq War Iran had no weapons,

90% of their military was U.S military equipment and the U.S sanctioned them.
That resulted in most of the equipment being pretty much useless.

Iran's Basij force during the Iran-Iraq War marched towards Iraqi positions with Qurans in their hands and not guns. Why? There were no guns. The million man volunteer army was intended to run towards the enemy because they couldn't kill the wave fast enough and their job was to take their weapons

Today (after the war):

Iran's military program launched in 1988 (after the war).
Purpose: to create their own weapons

They have been able to make their own weapons so they no longer rely on any outside force. They buy some small equipment from China/Russia but nothing major.

Iran is focusing on building their own tanks and fighter aircraft.

They buy air defense systems because they cannot really create those yet. They have master the copying of missiles for air defense systems however.

Now look at Iraq during the Iran war.

They were supplied with weapons almost every month.
They were given money by the Arab nations
The U.S armed them with chemical weapons.

The U.S did not want Iran to win. They feared Iran would takeover the entire M.E with their shia armies and march towards Israel.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Aimster]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Sep
For example in 1980 Iran did not have a rocket to counter the Iraqi FROG-7, with a range of 70 km. Now Iran has missiles that can reach southern Europe. Can you site another country that improved this rapidly?

I can state a few infact. And out of those only maybe one (my own) doesn't have links to the others vis-a-vis collaboration in missile development.Iran hasn't done much on its own. Missile wise, nuclear wise or otherwise

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Daedalus3]


posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I can state a few infact. And out of those only maybe one (my own) doesn't have links to the others vis-a-vis collaboration in missile development.Iran hasn't done much on its own. Missile wise, nuclear wise or otherwise

I think I made clear that Iran has purchased technology in my post. If you missed it here it is again: "the purchase of technology and experience of war has allowed Iran’s military state to improve at a more rapid rate than the rest of the world". I never claimed that Iran achieved all the technology on its own, but I do believe that Iran's ability to reverse-engineer and modify existing systems to match it needs is impressive. Please do mention the countries you have in mind and how is it that you believe their growth in military terms is greater than Iran's from 1980 (practically no army, air force or navy) until now.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Sep]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:00 AM
Iran has had U.S sanctions for more than 25 years now.

Their economy has not stopped growing (they are pumping out less oil now than then). It is growing at 6-8% a year and has been since 1999.

Iran might have gotten the technology from other nations, but they have been able to improve on the technology and reverse engineer it. Meaning they do not have to rely on spare parts.

Iran's U.S aircraft and tanks are still operational. Lack of spare parts has not made F-14s and F-4s unseen in Iran. Same goes with their Boeing commercial aircraft.

Sanctions by the U.S hurt every country in which it has hit. It didn't work in Iran.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Aimster]

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Aimster]

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 03:08 AM
Is this guy serious?

It's these same chest-thumping, machoistic, "bomb 'em if you got 'em" type of characters that are turning the world against us in the first place.

I think it's the actions of people like him that help to further endanger this country... Bush is the same way. This clown lands on a friggen aircraft carrier to show the whole world how much of a big bad-ass he is. All this bravado and gun-waving is really quite sickening... it represents what I consider a HIGHLY barbaric aspect of our society and as long as people start comparing sizes and getting into pissing contests, we're going to be hated. That's not to say that I think you even would care...

posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:34 AM
Iran's forces are real.

first of all weapons are not the only need a country has too defend itself Iran is first of all almost 1/3rd mountainous and is covered in trees in thick forests/jungle. Iran is also 3 times the size of Iraq which makes occupying it very difficult. (snow)

Also as people above mentioned Iran when facing a war with Iraq had just had a revolution years before combined with the fact a lot of the people who fought in the war against Iraq where not trained to use the equipment that the Iranians had.

Now to Iran's power. Lets take a look at there Anti-tank missiles :

iran manufactures :

raad-t (AT-3c with SACLOS guidance and tandem warhead):

konkurs at-5 with 800mm armour penatration :

Toophan and Toophan-2:

Iran also manufactures many other anti-tank weapons as well such as an improved version of the AT-4 with tandem warhead and a much more powerful main charge which gives it much more armour penetration.

Also Iran has imported many weapons over the years from other countries. Iran has imported thousands of ballistic missiles and hundreds of SCUD-D missiles which have improved CEP and are much more accurate then Saddam Hussains SCUD-A and SCUD-B missiles which where fired at Iraq. Also note these missiles have further range then the missiles that Iraq used because SCUD-D has a range of

Information about SCUD-C and Scud -D from janes :

iran has also imported the following :

12 x kh-55 2500km range cruise missiles :

18 x north korean BM-25 2500km ballistic missiles :

also they have an estimated 100+ Shahab-3 ballistic missiles with ranges over 2000km.

Iran has enough ballistic missiles ranging from 90km to 2500km to destroy all American air bases, command centers, supply depot's, fuel depot's , navy ports and bases in the middle east up to eastern Europe and even Asia.

Also check out this :

Iran Indigenous manufactured weapons

Iran also imported 800 Steyr .50BMG Anti-Material sniper rifles:

Iran also manufactures its own .50 Sniper rifles and Machine guns and has begun batch production of them just recently 2004/2005.

also check out the Iranian missile collection thread in my signature for other missiles/rockets made by Iran.

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:58 PM
Every single time Persians have come up against Western Powers, they had their heads handed to them. This is in spite of any weapons systems they had, and in spite of massive manpower ratios over Western Powers.

The truth is that no one kills like Westerners. No one. The most bloody battles have been Western Power against Western Power. In the battle of the Somme, there were 465,000 casualties, Verdun 984,000 casualties, Kursk 900,000 casualties, Stalingrad 2,100,000 casualties.

History also demonstrates that to date, Persians when they piss off Westerners, get their asses kicked with uncanny regularity. Go back and look at history. Darius determined to conquer Greece, and lost 300 ships and 20,000 men at Cape Athos. At Marathon, 44,000 Persians went up against 10,000 free Greeks, had 6,400 killed against 192 Greeks killed. That's roughly a 33:1 kill ratio.

Xerxes gathered 250,000 from the cream of the vast Persian Empire, and at Thermopylae, only 7,000 free Greeks held off these 250,000 for two days. After the Persians got behind the Greeks, only 1,000 of the remaining Spartans and Thespians fought to the death. The Greeks killed at least 25,000 while losing 1,000. That's a 25:1 kill ratio.

At Salamis, Xerxes watched a small, outnumbered free Greek fleet sink
200 of his ships and 40,000 men. This slaughter resulted in a 40:1 kill ratio. The following Spring at Platea, 300,000 Persians met 60,000 Greeks, and all but 43,000 Persians were killed on that battlefield, and the surviving 43,000 were killed at the Strymon river estuary. With only 1,360 Greek casualties, that's a 220:1 kill ratio.

At Granicus, the Macedonians met an equal size army of Persians and enjoyed a 26:1 kill ratio. At Issus, the Macedonian army was half the size of the Persian force and enjoyed a 4:1 kill ratio, but the battle was fought at sunset and the Persian survivors ran faster in the dark than the Macedonians could pursue. At Guagemela, outnumbered five to one, the Macedonians slaughtered Persians in a 100:1 kill ratio.

Free men versus men who were compelled. Either by a god-king, or now by a murderous prophet of a pagan moon-god.

For every distant Western defeat such as Dien Bien Phu, where non-Westerners were using masses of Western weapons, there has been a Khe Sanh. For every Isandhlwana, there's a Rourke's Drift, For every Pearl Harbor, there's a Midway. For every Wake Island, there's an Okinawa. For every fight to the death, there's a Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For every Thermopylae, there's a Platea.

Ever see the Mach 2 Iranian F-55 air superiority fighter? Or the huge Persian Carrier Battle Groups? How about their cutting-edge Main Battle Tank? Of course you haven't. If it weren't for the West selling them arms, and them bootlegging and copying other Western weapons systems, they'd still be using wicker shields and composite bows.

The Russian T-34 tank of World War II fame was largely based on the American Christie design. The American P-51 became the most efficient and versatile fighter of the war after shoehorning a British Rolls Royce Merlin 61 engine into the narrow airframe.

When the US decided to build a new Main Battle Tank, it is British Chobham armor that defined the landmark shape and design. Now outfitted with the M256 120mm gun designed by Rheinmetall Corporation of Germany.

Western free men have ever had advantages over dynasties, feudal societies, communist police states, or restrictive religious states. A more backward, group of contentious people have never existed.

With air support and only 20,000 men, I could run amok through Iran. I would never hold territory, and I'd stay out of population centers, but I could bring these overly emotional, religiously compelled into my kill zones for efficient killing. Look at their stupidity against Iraq. Masses of idiots against masses of idiots.

Iran? Persians? Get serious.

top topics


log in