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.

 

How good is the Iranian IRGC (ground forces)?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Has there been any intelligence estimate on how well of a military unit the IRGC is and how well they would fight in a war against the United States?

I know that Iranian military philosophy is probably based more on asymmetrical warfare, but I am wondering how a brigade of the IRGC would fare against a brigade of US Marines.




posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
well i guess if you go man for man it would just be a mess to both sides

the US tactics and im not critisizing them because they are sound tactics to reduce potential casualties to their own forces, is to soften up a location before they bring in ground troops, by this time the enemy forces are usually in dissarray, and US forces can counter the few who keep their wits about them and resist.

after the back of the enemy forces are broken they rely more on ground troops but when there is significant resistance they again bring in the air strikes and allows the troops to clean up afterwards



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 03:42 AM
link   
I've heard the Iranian Royal Guard are on par with our own Special Forces. Although I've only just heard it...theres no real way to know how they would do against our own forces unless a battle was to break out between our two nations.

However over time they would be broken by our own forces. Our logistics, numbers, technology, tactics, and leadership all surpass theirs. About the only advantage they have is it would be their turf. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a bloody war but it would end in our favor...not counting the coming insurgency, and the retaliation of China or Russia at our attacking Iran.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
Head to head they were about equal to Saddam's Iraq troops.

And you seen what the US did to the iraqi army.

A country with troops under a dictatorial regime seldom has troops that do good in combat.
Mostly because they have no reason to fight for the regime.
While there may be special units that are good, Most of the countries troop are subpar.

Don't judge the troops of a country by a few special units these would be the first target hit.
When the US went into Iraq the iraqi republican guard units were targeted for elimination first.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
without Air support and navel support
destroying everything first and weakening the defending side
the US army isnt all that.

if it went one on one
it would be a diffrent ball game

also its foolish to compare the Iraqis to Iranians



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
The training, equipment, communications and logistics are not even comparable. The US Marine Corps and special forces are vastly superior.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


yet they get their asses handed to them on a silver platter by
Iraqi resistance and terrorists in Iraq

and terrorists in Afghanistan

[edit on 18-9-2008 by bodrul]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
without Air support and navel support
destroying everything first and weakening the defending side
the US army isnt all that.


Utter crap, don't speak out of your behind when you know very little about modern warfare. Combined arms warfare and logistical support are the pinnacle of current military strategy. Having said that, a modern US Army brigade is still very well trained, equipped and led. Some Western countries may be able to offer a higher degree of training because they only have an army a fraction the size of ours. However as a whole (firepower included) the US Army is the largest capable military force in the world that can operate in any environment and any part of the world effectively. And that's a very key point. While some militaries may be well suited to their defensive terrain and landscape, they cannot deploy anywhere in the world on a moments notice with the numbers that we can and still win. That's what it's all about, not some ridiculous and pointless piss contest of a question being commented upon by high schoolers.


Originally posted by bodrul
if it went one on one
it would be a diffrent ball game


One on one? You seriously need to get rid of this notion that you have.


Originally posted by bodrul
also its foolish to compare the Iraqis to Iranians


Please read up on the Iran-Iraq war. Iranian conventional troops were no match for Iraq divisions. The Iranians only managed to achieve, what I guess you would call success, only when they used combined arms tactics (particularly the IRIAF). Not to mention the massive amounts of humans (not soldiers) that were sent to try and overwhelm the Iraqis and push them out of Iran. While Iraq was not able to occupy Iran, its conventional ground forces were clearly superior. At the end of hostilities they largely ended up with a stalemate.

A few years later the US led coalition decimated what was then the 4th largest army in the world (supported by a regionally capable air force), and clearly the most powerful in the Middle East, within essentially a month and a half. The Iraqis were experienced and capable, yet when confronted with the massive air and ground power of the coalition they stood no chance. Iran would have been and still is no different.


Originally posted by bodrul
yet they get their asses handed to them on a silver platter by
Iraqi resistance and terrorists in Iraq
and terrorists in Afghanistan


Utter crap once more. US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have been winning and dominating on the battlefield since operations commenced. What they struggled at, and still are to some effect, is the stabilization of both countries. Lose your internet bravado and military ignorance an go to Iraq or Afghanistan. I guarantee you there will not be a single terrorist in either country who is willing to stand up and confront US forces, unless they of course have a death wish, which is not that unlikely. Small convoys of US special forces routinely drive slow in perceived enemy territory to draw out the Taliban so they can kill them in an engagement. It's the only way they can get them to commit to an engagement because they will not confront US forces on a large scale. It's either hit and run harassment or indirect warfare via IEDs. Sure they can blow up the civilian populous and hope to get lucky with US forces using explosives. However you will never find any terrorist commander who will gladly send his forces to directly confront US troops and expect to win.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


yeah right the US armed forces is nothing without first getting full control of the air, sea first,

unless you state that the US armed forces alone could take on another armed force without having its counter parts in the air force and navy completely causing havoc on the other side first before going in.

Modern war fare my right side
Iraq and afganistan has shown that already



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
yeah right the US armed forces is nothing without first getting full control of the air, sea first


This post is comical. Do you know how difficult it is to dominate in every dimension of warfare? And you're faulting the US Armed Forces for being able to do this?



Originally posted by bodrul
unless you state that the US armed forces alone could take on another armed force without having its counter parts in the air force and navy completely causing havoc on the other side first before going in.


First of all the term US Armed Forces is the proper term to describe the US military. So stop misusing it by referring to US ground forces with it. And once again that is a pointless question to ask and one which I will not attempt to answer.


Originally posted by bodrul
Modern war fare my right side
Iraq and afganistan has shown that already


Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that conventional war is the bred and butter of the US military. And as has been known for millennia, occupation and stability are the most difficult aspects of any conflict. In any case, our forces have performed remarkably well. There is no current military power in the world which could do what we have accomplished since after 9/11 to the present day. And you can take that to the bank.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


yeah right the US armed forces is nothing without first getting full control of the air, sea first,

unless you state that the US armed forces alone could take on another armed force without having its counter parts in the air force and navy completely causing havoc on the other side first before going in.

Modern war fare my right side
Iraq and afganistan has shown that already


whats wrong with contolling air and sea ? its sound military stratergy
destroy their airforce and cut off sea lanes quite similar to that of a seige.
Why risk your soldiers if you dont have to?

i suspect the iranians will run just as fast as the iraqies did



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
it would be hard since iran has around 12 million people called mahujadeen i think that would be fighting incase of war



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
reply to post by theblunttruth
 


yet they get their asses handed to them on a silver platter by
Iraqi resistance and terrorists in Iraq

and terrorists in Afghanistan

[edit on 18-9-2008 by bodrul]


Lol, your joking right? Is that your counter argument? The comparison was between IRGC and US Special Forces. Not some citizen with a bomb strapped to his chest. Lets rewind to the actual IRaq-US conflict, i seem to remember the US wiping the floor with the Iraqi defence, air force and ground forces in weeks, with very little in means of casualties.

What you are talking about are fighters in the guise of citizens, most of whom are strapped with bombs and are being policed by special forces which is not their forte. This is a ludicrous oversight and may i add, a staunch anti-US post with little in the way of knowledge, particularly pertaining to a militaristic nature.

The IRGC are simply no match for US Special Forces, i suggest you read up on the training, equipment and communications/logistics before you make any further bold claims.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Exactly right Westpoint and blunttruth.

I cant understand why these liberal/ pro-islamic jokers cant understand that warfare is determined by objectives, not reputation or kills.


yet they get their asses handed to them on a silver platter by
Iraqi resistance and terrorists in Iraq

and terrorists in Afghanistan


Comments like the one above show a deep misunderstanding and ignorance of geopolitics. The simple fact is that if the US military wanted to totally destroy the enemy, they would have nuked Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US military is not "getting their asses handed to them" because of military inferiority, but because of their humanitarian concern.

Can you see that the terrorists/ insurgents don't have any such concern? In fact they specifically target civilians...


As for the original question, the IRGC are no doubt a well trained force but they cannot match the might and materiel power of the US armed forces. I think someone also mentioned that dictatorships' forces never fare well in battle; Iran is a unique case because it is a theocracy and a semi-powerful state.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:47 AM
link   
It all pepends on the willingness of the Iranian Forces to fight to the death - which is mostly dependent on their level of patriotism/protective instincts.

Saddam's forces had neither of these qualities.

If the Americans invade Iran, those soldier s certainly cannot convince themselves that they are defending their homes in the way that the Iranians could.

The Iranians will be 'in the right' and the Americans will be 'in the wrong' and everyone everywhere will know it.

The Americans will also feel like they are doing the wrong thing as their usual allies refuse to accompany them on their adventures and will openly admonish them.

Canadians are totally pissed about Iraq, imagine how pissed they'd be if the US invaded Iran - and were their Best Good Friend


Basically, without Moral Superiority, even combat effectiveness is reduced. Bullets go over heads and bombs fall short whenever a person with morals and an active conscience is on the task.



posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthTellist
 


IRGC is not fueled by Patriotism/Protectionism or whatever you called it.

Its far worst for US, its called "Martyrdom". Its a wish to die in battle. Its an honor. Not for the country, but for ISLAM.

This is the difference between Iranian National Army and IRGC.
Iran has many of these dedicated (Brain washed?) ready to die special forces. These are the same bunch who trained and armed Hizbollah in lebanon.
Add assymetric warfare technics to this military (as oppose to conventional methods with Iranian national army) and put some of the best Generals in charge of them , now you have something to worry about.

If US goes to war with Iran , these folks will be Iranians first defense.They are the ones behind speed boats, missile pods, first air defense , mine laying in the persian gulf, etc.

They claim 5 million in the reserve (Basij) but i think its more closer to one million.

If you think they are just a bunch with a death wish running towards your bullets shouting "Allah is Great", you are mistaken. They are well trained professionals (Not draftees) with a death wish.

IRGC has been taking control of most of Iran's military resources and are becoming exceedingly powerful in Intlligence and counter intelligence, oversea ops (QUDS brigades),electronic warfares, research and basically every aspect of a modern army with a twist. They are gradually pushing Iran's National Army aside and implementing their own doctorine of assymetric warfare. Think about it as a huge para military.
The missile program is almost entirely in their control now.


Now, is a US marine better armed on the ground? Even odds considering all aspects.

Is a US marine better supported from air? Most Likely, definitely.

Is a US marine more dedicated than a IRG? No way.

Advanced weapons will ensure intial victories in battles, but dedication will win wars.

Who would you rather have on your side?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



Among the myriad military and intelligence agencies that make up Iran’s security forces, none has the skill and reach of the Quds Force, an elite unit nominally within the command structure of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Like the Revolutionary Guard, the Quds Force and its predecessors were among the semiofficial militias, charities and centers of clerical power born of the paranoia and zeal of the tumultuous years after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, which brought Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power.

Originally, the Revolutionary Guard played a defensive role. In the 1980s, Iran’s Shiite revolutionaries faced a war against Iraq as well as the hostility of Iranian secular nationalists, the West and Sunni-dominated regimes of the Middle East.

The Revolutionary Guard was entrusted to protect Khomeini’s theocracy. But the revolutionaries also were inspired to spread their vision abroad.

The Quds Force and its predecessors consisted of the Guard’s most skilled warriors. Experts said they were highly secretive commando units sent abroad to help Shiites usurp monarchies in the Persian Gulf, gun down enemies and battle Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. They also reportedly have run operations in Sudan, South Asia and Western Europe.

Their plans sometimes coincided with U.S. interests, as when they supported Afghans fighting the Soviet Union in the 1980s and Bosnian Muslims battling Serbs in the 1990s.

The Quds Force also has been involved in Iraq. It assisted Kurdish rebels fighting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and Shiites battling his regime in the 1990s. Even Ahmad Chalabi’s expatriate Iraqi National Congress had Quds Force help, experts say.

At most, the force numbers 2,000, said Mahan Abedin, director of research at the Center for the Study of Terrorism, a London think tank.

“It’s a remarkably efficient organization, quite possibly one of the best special forces units in the world,” he said.

The extent to which the Quds Force is controlled by the government has been hotly debated in U.S. foreign policy circles.

“This has been a topic of debate among Iran experts inside and outside the government for 25 years,” said Kenneth M. Pollack, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. “There are people who believe the Quds Force does not move a muscle without getting explicit orders from [supreme leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei; there are other people who believe they are rogues. The weight of evidence is somewhere in the middle.”

There are signs that Quds Force-linked operatives have taken orders from Tehran for overseas missions.

Most notable, Pollack said, were the 1992 killings of an Iranian Kurdish separatist leader and three associates in Berlin by four gunmen led by an Iranian agent. In 1997, a German court found that the slayings had been ordered by a government committee in Tehran that included Khamenei and then-President Hashemi Rafsanjani.

There has been evidence of rifts between Iran’s government and the Revolutionary Guard and Quds Force. The Revolutionary Guard occasionally has tried to push the government into more extremist positions.

In 1998, for example, thousands of Guard troops gathered on the border with Afghanistan in what appeared to be a move against the Taliban regime. There was suspicion that the Revolutionary Guard was working independently. The government later sent conventional forces to “keep a watch” on the Guard, Pollack said.

“We do have evidence here and there, circumstantial in many ways, that the Quds Force guys and other people in the Revolutionary Guard like to push the edge of the envelope,” Pollack said, speculating that the Quds Force could be freelancing in Iraq.

“Tehran almost certainly told the Quds Force to go into Iraq,” he said. “What we don’t know is: Did they say something as vague as, ‘Protect our interests in Iraq without actually going to war with the Americans’? Or did they say something very specific: ‘Do this, do that, don’t do this.’

“We don’t know.”



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


"Who would you rather have on your side?"

Wow. That really doesn't have anything to do with anything....


"Its far worst for US, its called "Martyrdom". Its a wish to die in battle. Its an honor. Not for the country, but for ISLAM. "
How Racist of you.... Id' say that Defending there own country has a lot to do with it. I chose to say 'defending' because Iran has Not attacked anyone in over 180 years.

And I would rather not fight along side the sadistic Americans - I don't want to be a part of whatever War Crimes they might be getting themselves involved in either.

I fought alongside Americans in Korea; but those were a whole different class of Americans.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
Head to head they were about equal to Saddam's Iraq troops.

And you seen what the US did to the iraqi army.

A country with troops under a dictatorial regime seldom has troops that do good in combat.
Mostly because they have no reason to fight for the regime.
While there may be special units that are good, Most of the countries troop are subpar.

Don't judge the troops of a country by a few special units these would be the first target hit.
When the US went into Iraq the iraqi republican guard units were targeted for elimination first.
What does having a dictator proove you won't have a good Army, it's all about training, and good weapon systems.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by bodrul
yeah right the US armed forces is nothing without first getting full control of the air, sea first


This post is comical. Do you know how difficult it is to dominate in every dimension of warfare? And you're faulting the US Armed Forces for being able to do this?



Originally posted by bodrul
unless you state that the US armed forces alone could take on another armed force without having its counter parts in the air force and navy completely causing havoc on the other side first before going in.


First of all the term US Armed Forces is the proper term to describe the US military. So stop misusing it by referring to US ground forces with it. And once again that is a pointless question to ask and one which I will not attempt to answer.


Originally posted by bodrul
Modern war fare my right side
Iraq and afganistan has shown that already


Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that conventional war is the bred and butter of the US military. And as has been known for millennia, occupation and stability are the most difficult aspects of any conflict. In any case, our forces have performed remarkably well. There is no current military power in the world which could do what we have accomplished since after 9/11 to the present day. And you can take that to the bank.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by WestPoint23]
You do know that they Taliban is winning, and it's a matter of time before the overrun the U.S. Foces right?

[edit on 6-10-2008 by wantawanta]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join