Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Commandos and Special Operations Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Real numbers in Iran
GOP    4/12/2006 10:59:39 PM
>>April 12, 2006: On paper, Iran has some 100,000 or so troops rated as "special operations forces," including elements of the regular armed forces and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. But apparently only the 5,500 strong all-volunteer 23rd Special Forces Division is actually capable of commando-style operations. Most of the rest of the formations designated as "special forces" – including army, navy, and Revolutionary Guard – are actually only well trained light infantry. These are somewhat comparable to American Rangers.<< I have a question regarding this. Is says that Iran has 100,000 "Special Forces" units that are somewhat comparable to US Army Rangers...WHAT?!?!? How is this possible...I mean, US Army Rangers are truly bad-a**. Isn't it a stretch to even compare the Iranian "Special Forces" (not the 23rd Special Forces, but the other guys) to US Army Light Infantry? I mean, the Iranian defense budget is relatively small, and it costs a whole heck of alot of cash to train 100,000 soldiers to a level comparable US Army Light Infantry...much else the Rangers (I doubt that the Iranians have the quality soldiers to produce a regiment like the Rangers, much less have 4-6 divisions worth of them). The fact is that the Middle Eastern culture kind of looks down on hard work/work ethic, and this seriously hinders their military forces (if you want an example, look at the Saudi Arabian military...especially in the Gulf War).
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
mough    RE:gop   4/14/2006 2:30:05 AM
*Asymmetric warfare
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier    RE:The Real numbers in Iran -HS   4/14/2006 11:17:17 AM
>>Do you think that our forces would meet their match against these guys as Mough said? << No. We'd eviscerate the Iranian military anywhere it turned up to fight, in a full tilt boogie war scenario. They may be better than the Iraqis were at the height of Saddam's military machine, on a many for man level (but it should be noted they still got blasted senseless once Saddam had really built up his heavy forces into a blundering and poorly employed, but firepower massive, force), but they still don't play in anything near the same league as professional armies in the developed world. I doubt we'll see it tested out anyway, though. The odds of us going to war with Iran remain remote, no matter how hard the Iranian leadership seems to be trying to provoke it.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    The Real Names in US & other places   4/17/2006 10:19:31 AM
Are there any pure straight legged infantry in the US who dont come under the "Light Infantry" designation? A book published sometime in the early 1980s states all American infantry is either Mechanized or Light. Now this is quite different from most of the world's troops: who are still infantry, and still enter battle on their two feet, and can at best be described as "motorized" in terms of how they arrive at the battlefield. Mechanized Infantry - almost a given in Western and WP armies - in many cases is kind of "special" in those cases because they are given pretty expensive gear (ie. their APCs). Officers and senior NCOs of MechInf in Third World are somewhat special because they undego both Infantry and Armoured schools. Effective offensive armoured warfare is still a pretty hard concept 60 years after Patton and Rommel. Hence tankers and men who operate with them are still kinda special. OTOH "Light Infantry" there is not particularly special unless they go through Airborne school. Also there are some perks like seeing more combat (and the additional risk pay that goes with it)... downside to that, of course, is you tend to get killed pretty easily, and sometimes brutally in COIN engagements. Armoured and Mechanized guys go into battle only in clear-cut wars (with international observers, Red Cross, Geneva Conventions etc), and even then dont suffer nearly as much casulties as LI does. ========================== Besides one common base-definition of "special operations capable" forces is that they can operate behind enemy lines. Which in case of US and most Western nations necessarily implies very good airborne capabilities because their enemies arent exactly on their borders. OTOH for Iranians to get behind their enemy's lines all they have to do is evade one border-patrol at the right time. ========================== PS, to GOP: I really wish I could draw a compromise in opinion between some who think of Iranians as "just another incompetent Arab" (wonder why so many countries used Arabs as elite strike forces back in the day?) and others paranoid of them from days of Cyrus the Great, Darius and Xerexes (usually compounding it with refrences to them being Aryan or something ~ like that makes any difference). The best I can do is remind you Thomas3's brilliant post on how Danes once ruled Britain and America... and the futility of broad assumptions ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:The Real Names in US & other places   4/17/2006 10:24:38 AM
Also since we seem to have plenty of Pommy participation in this discussion, I am sure they could oblige us by pointing some cases where "elite" forces are not "special forces", and plenty of "special forces" that arent "elite" enough ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

mough    RE:The Real Names in US & other places   4/19/2006 12:41:51 AM
I am sure they could oblige us by pointing some cases where "elite" forces are not "special forces", and plenty of "special forces" that arent "elite" enough ;-)<< that's easy, the Indonesian "Kopassus", yes they claim to be SF,and they were very good in ET beating up on Women Kids and old men, but they got bloodied up when facing the Aussies Irish and Kiwi's especially the SF unit's of same, when they did raid's accross the border. elit, only in their one mind's.
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:The Real Names in US & other places   4/19/2006 11:01:05 AM
>>I am sure they could oblige us by pointing some cases where "elite" forces are not "special forces", and plenty of "special forces" that arent "elite" enough ;-)<< that's easy, the Indonesian "Kopassus", yes they claim to be SF,and they were very good in ET beating up on Women Kids and old men, but they got bloodied up when facing the Aussies Irish and Kiwi's especially the SF unit's of same, when they did raid's accross the border. elit, only in their one mind's.<< Comparing the Indonesian Kopassus to the Australian SASR no ridiculous. I realize that the Indonesians may be good at what they do, but the SASR is definitely top notch. Kind of a side question about the SASR...are they Australia's primary CT unit? CT units are usually considered to be the most elite (rightly so, you have CAG, GSG-9, SAS, GIGN, Devgru, etc)...but I am not sure what the SASR's role is.
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:The Real Names in US & other places   4/19/2006 11:07:17 AM
>> that's easy, the Indonesian "Kopassus", yes they claim to be SF,and they were very good in ET beating up on Women Kids and old men, but they got bloodied up when facing the Aussies Irish and Kiwi's especially the SF unit's of same, when they did raid's accross the border. elit, only in their one mind's. << I was rather hoping you would entertain us (well only me, I guess) by differentiating between senior regiments like say the Guards (who are elite) and the SAS (who are just "Special" - barring the G-Squadron)... :-(
 
Quote    Reply

GOP    RE:The Real Names in US & other places   4/19/2006 11:14:52 AM
>I was rather hoping you would entertain us (well only me, I guess) by differentiating between senior regiments like say the Guards (who are elite) and the SAS (who are just "Special" - barring the G-Squadron)... :-(< Yes, are the guys who wear the big hats in front of Buckingham Palace more "elite" than the "Special" SAS?
 
Quote    Reply

olive greens    RE:The Real Names in US & other places   4/19/2006 11:27:38 AM
>> Yes, are the guys who wear the big hats in front of Buckingham Palace more "elite" than the "Special" SAS? << They guard the monarch, dont they? Besides its not as if they got those big hats for nuthin'... ... a couple of companies held off a whole Brigade of Napoleon's Imperial Guardsmen at Waterloo. Thats when they got the previously Imperial Guards' bearskin caps (and First Regiment became the Grenadier Guards). Some Poms say its just seniority and ceremonial stuff, but we (Indians) seemed to have really caught the bug ;-)
 
Quote    Reply

AdvanceAustralia    RE:Australia's CT units   4/20/2006 3:59:31 AM
"Kind of a side question about the SASR...are they Australia's primary CT unit?" By CT I assume you mean the guys that dress up in black, kick down doors and rescue hostages, etc (CT has had wider connotations in the ADF). Australia has two CT teams: 1. Tactical Assault Group (West), which is based in Perth and drawn primarily from the Perth-based SASR. 2. Tactical Assault Group (East), which is based in Sydney and drawn primarily from the Sydney-based 4RAR(Commando). Prior to the formation of a Sydney-based team the only CT team was part of the SASR in Perth. Some members of this would have been used as the core of the second team. These teams are considered world-class and cross-train with many of the others you mention. For further info follow this: http://www.ausspecialforces.com/tag.htm There is also info on the other Oz SF units there. I trust that helps. Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics