What's new

Iranian Ground Forces | News and Equipment

EvilWesteners

FULL MEMBER
Oct 17, 2020
161
0
603
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
The US military is not designed for efficiency neccessarily but more to make defense contractors $$$$$. It's ironic that the USA out of any country requires a tank engine that can consume any type of fuel when the US is the worlds sole superpower and will most likely NEVER be out of the preferred fuel they desire. Those engines are probably much more expensive than traditional diesel motors. The Russians tried using gasoline engines on some T-80's but had a terrible experience and never went back.

You know what's impressive. The German Leopard tank. The engine can be swapped in literally 20 minutes. It's incredible. This is why I don't understand why the Turks wanted to move away from the Leopard rather than upgrading it. See that's an example of a country putting their faith into hype rather than the Iranian military doctrine, where they invest in deterrence and mostly proven technology.
Thanks. Interesting.
The AGT-1500 engine can run on Jet Fuel, Gasoline, Diesel and Marine Diesel.

Basically every Main Battle tank that has ever been fielded with the exception of the Swedish Stridsvagn-103 AKA "S-Tank" is comprised of a Hull and Turret. The Hull in most tanks is configured with the driver's positioned in the front, The fighting compartment ( the Turret housing the Gunner, Crew commander ,loader/ Auto loader) in the Center the engine deck in the rear. There are exceptions to this layout like the Israeli Merkava Series MBTs that has the engine up front next to the Driver leaving space in the back for 4 troops or extra ammo. T-14 is also another exception because the driver ,gunner and crew commander are housed housed in an armoured capsule in the front, the unmanned turret and auto loader in the center and the engine/transmission in the rear. The layout that you describe to me seems problematic because those 4 engines and their transmissions and would be taking up space in the fighting compartment which is usually very tight space because it has to house the main armament, the Gunner, crew commander, loader/auto loader and possibly even ammo. Another problem I see with your Idea is that having 4 engines means that maintenance which is normally preformed by the driver will be much more intensive. With any tracked vehicles, track maintenance is already bad enough!
View attachment 777060
All modern tanks have Multi bank smoke grenade dischargers. The Smoke dischargers are angled to fire in front of the tank to create a smoke screen, allowing the tank to take cover behind terrain. There are different types of smoke grenades that can be fired including White Phosphorus grenades which would be really bad for any infantry in front of the tank. Soviet/Russian tanks also have the ability to lay a smoke screen by injecting diesel on the hot exhaust plate creating a thick white smoke pumped out of the engine exhaust vent. In general inhaling any kind of smoke would not be very good for troops and can cause asphyxiation.
View attachment 777061

Nice, thank you. More question:

If the track is half the length (from covering 3 wheels, instead of 6/7), does that NOT TRANSLATE into less stress on the track, longer longevity, less chance of snapping/breaking? Or am I totally wrong?

The engines can be positioned (a pair coupled together) in the front and in the back, as are many tanks, no?

More redundancy, the tank would be able to operate on only 2 engines, one in the front and one in the back for each pair of tracks on the left and the right (front or rear) ?

No, doesn't make any sense?
 

EvilWesteners

FULL MEMBER
Oct 17, 2020
161
0
603
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
The AGT-1500 engine can run on Jet Fuel, Gasoline, Diesel and Marine Diesel.

Basically every Main Battle tank that has ever been fielded with the exception of the Swedish Stridsvagn-103 AKA "S-Tank" is comprised of a Hull and Turret. The Hull in most tanks is configured with the driver's positioned in the front, The fighting compartment ( the Turret housing the Gunner, Crew commander ,loader/ Auto loader) in the Center the engine deck in the rear. There are exceptions to this layout like the Israeli Merkava Series MBTs that has the engine up front next to the Driver leaving space in the back for 4 troops or extra ammo. T-14 is also another exception because the driver ,gunner and crew commander are housed housed in an armoured capsule in the front, the unmanned turret and auto loader in the center and the engine/transmission in the rear. The layout that you describe to me seems problematic because those 4 engines and their transmissions and would be taking up space in the fighting compartment which is usually very tight space because it has to house the main armament, the Gunner, crew commander, loader/auto loader and possibly even ammo. Another problem I see with your Idea is that having 4 engines means that maintenance which is normally preformed by the driver will be much more intensive. With any tracked vehicles, track maintenance is already bad enough!
View attachment 777060
All modern tanks have Multi bank smoke grenade dischargers. The Smoke dischargers are angled to fire in front of the tank to create a smoke screen, allowing the tank to take cover behind terrain. There are different types of smoke grenades that can be fired including White Phosphorus grenades which would be really bad for any infantry in front of the tank. Soviet/Russian tanks also have the ability to lay a smoke screen by injecting diesel on the hot exhaust plate creating a thick white smoke pumped out of the engine exhaust vent. In general inhaling any kind of smoke would not be very good for troops and can cause asphyxiation.
View attachment 777061

Nice, thank you. More question:

If the track is half the length (from covering 3 wheels, instead of 6/7), does that NOT TRANSLATE into less stress on the track, longer longevity, less chance of snapping/breaking? Or am I totally wrong?

The engines can be positioned (a pair coupled together) in the front and in the back, as are many tanks, no?

More redundancy, the tank would be able to operate on only 2 engines, one in the front and one in the back for each pair of tracks on the left and the right (front or rear) ?

No, doesn't make any sense?




Well, the opposite is the case: symmetrical forces stand little chance of defeating the US, asymmetrical ones do. Beefing up the classic arsenal is useful against the prospect of a hostile neighboring state attacking Iran but not against the US. As for the long versus short war dichotomy: in fact the damage Iran can cause to American aggressors in the short term is precisely the reason why they would not press on with war because said damage will be associated with prohibitive costs.

We can't just say 'if the US wants, it could' or compare with WW2, because it is the political logic which presides over the military one, not the other way around. Technical on-paper capabilities aren't relevant in the real world if they aren't placed into their effective social and political context. And given the latter, there's no chance that the US will want to invade and occupy a country like Iran. The cost is simply too high, both in terms of human losses which the US public and political class are not going to stomach and in economic terms with the exorbitant cost of such an undertaking, not to mention the devastating impact a closure of the Strait of Hormuz would have on the global economy. The casus belli that the US had in 1941 to go full in is and will remain absent, and American society is different from what it was back then in terms of its readiness to sacrifice large numbers of citizens for overseas wars.

The notion that Iranians would put up less of a guerilla fight than the Taleban if occupied by a foreign power no matter its origin, is pretty off track I must say. While some segments of the Iranian public might be brainwashed by western propaganda, these do not form an overwhelming majority by any means. Moreover, a considerable proportion of this crowd will become hostile to the US overnight if it dared invade Iran, because at the same time Iranians are some of the most patriotic people in the world, as one comparative survey years ago showed - in that survey, Iran actually topped the list. You could witness this phenomenon live at shahid Qasem Soleimani's funeral, the largest such event in human history. Many westernized and liberal Iranians had joined in to honor a martyr who in symbolized Iran, Islam and traditional values of chivalry (javanmardi). The solidity of Iran's historical roots and identity as a state, as well as its national cohesion can only be matched by Turkey at the regional level, if at all.

The fact that hostile intelligence agencies were capable of carrying out some operations on Iranian soil does not imply that there's an abbormally large number of non-patriotic people in Iran. It's simply due to the technical competence and sheer resources these agencies are endowed with, after all they happen to be the most powerful of their kind on the planet. Actually, Iran doesn't have more treasonous elements than other countries since in effect, most countries on earth are US client states where local elites and other collaborators actively participate in the submission of their nation to the zio-American empire. Also, for every successful operation against Iran or terrorist act aided by hostile intelligence services, several others have failed.

Add to this the deep religious convictions of tens of millions of Iranians, as well as the (Shia) Islamic culture of martyrdom which is very firmly instituted in Iranian society. A pool of some fifty million, even just fourty or thirty million highly religious Iranians to recruit from is enough to field a formidable Resistance army. Hence why the Basij has millions of active members on top of several million reservists.

As a result, Iranians would engage in furious and relentless Resistance, surpassing even the impressive fight put up by the Vietnamese people in the 1960's-1970's. Not to take away from the significance of the guerilla conducted by the Taleban, but it would doubtlessly pale in comparison to what the Iranian people would subject American invaders to.

Likewise, the notion that Iran's defence entirely depends on structured military forces and that therefore, in case of a collapse of command structures, Iranian Resistance would come to a halt is equally unjustified. For one, Iran's asymmetric doctrine by its very definition supposes minimal reliance on top-down and centralized military organization. As a matter of fact, Iran's focus has been on operational and logistic autonomy of local units, in other terms empowering them to keep fighting indefinitely if central command structures go missing. The Basij, namely, has set up literally thousands of Resistance cells dotting the entire territory of Iran and capable of functioning on their own for very long periods of time. Autonomy has also been the focus of Sepah, including of its air defence and ballistic missile forces.

Then, the idea that an Iranian soldier will be preoccupied by his own survival if his commanders are martyred isn't very realistic - all indications suggest that Iranian soldiers will literally yearn for martyrdom in the path of Islam and motherland, without bothering about their personal survival. The Iran-Iraq war is a testimony to this, but so is the recent example of Iran's intervention in Syria, where according to numerous reports the quantity of volunteers was much larger than the actual number of recruits. And the fighting spirit of Iranian and Iranian-led forces was every bit as risk-friendly and self-sacrificing as during the 1980's Sacred Defence.

Pretty telling are the videos released of Iranian fighters moments before their capture by terrorists in Syria, when they knew there's no escape and that they'll probably get executed in most brutal ways: joyfully and calmly, the soldiers start joking and laughing. Also take a look at shahid Hojjaji's serene and peaceful expression shortly prior to his beheading at the hands of "I"SIS savages... This type of mindset is a rarity in today's world. Not even the superpower can properly fight soldiers blessed with this sort of a morale. And the US regime knows it. One more reason why America will not try to invade Iran even if it 'could' judging by its nominal military strength, and is therefore concentrating its efforts on trying to bring Iran down through full fledged economic warfare.

SalarHaqq, should be an "Iranian Strategic Analyst" for Iran's military or defense ministry.

Over the years, since I was a kid in Iran and flew with a family member who was a pilot for Bell 214C, I have been an "engineer looking for effective weapons design", at most, in my head of course.

I have spend years (any time I had) looking at weapons design and development for the last 2,500 years that we have clear records for, in just about any national archive center I could get into.

If someone was to ask me, what is the deadliest weapon ever? I would respond: "Crystal Clarity". This is odd to me considering how many weapons I myself have worked on during my career, in the aviation industry. So why would that be my answer?

Reading SalarHaqq comments, indicates to me at least, that crystal clarity is so important in matters of life and death, and why I believe Mr. Khamenaei is a great leader compared to jackass Shah who couldn't even get along with Mossadegh.

I was in a situation in Florida which I cannot speak of too much, since it affects certain people that I would want no harm to come to. I will leave that as that. In this situation after the killing of General Soleimani, I was able to hear what some U.S. military people (cannot discuss rank here) said regarding war with Iran. I was hearing these things they were saying 3 days after his assassination. I cannot discuss what this place is in Florida and what is its significance. U.S. personnel of a certain task force, anything in the area of intelligence, get polygraphed monthly. I am sorry I have to be vague like this, as the people involved are very important to me and I have lots of love and admiration for them.

In conclusion of what I heard that day, I would say SalarHaqq and what he wrote above, is MORE ACCURATE than many of us may know or come to believe. U.S. military DOES NOT see Iran the same way as Iranians living inside or outside of Iran, or the MEK terrorists and their propaganda, or U.S. media, or Zionist controlled global propoganda (referring to lobby groups like AEI, CFR, FDD, AC, CE, and the rest).

U.S. military does not want war with Iran and believes that it cannot win war with Iran. They think 1988 conflict just gave Iran the reason to be what it is today. They don't believe there is a WIN solution in Iran. They have far more RESPECT for Iran's military capability that any Iranian "military/war expert" I have ever listened to for understanding issues and strategies and weapons and tactics.

Yes, they can bomb Iran, kill Iranians on behalf of U.S. President, but hate what CIA has done to bring U.S. and Iran to this point. Pentagon truly hates CIA, for many reasons, for in particular for Iran and for money laundering that was dumped on the U.S. military hurting its reputation.

Conventional war? there is no winner (not in reality) between Iran and U.S., the conflict will have to end quickly before it goes to CRAZY zone and 15 million barrels of oil get cut off when SA/UAE are pummeled.

Non-conventionally? U.S. would crap in its pants, waiting for the day that Iran goes for revenge, and they know Iran will retaliate.

With the case of Japan, they provided so much money and support for Japan against Korean/Chinese/Philippines claims for Japanese genocide in all of South East Asia, just to convince Japan to NOT THINK ABOUT revenge. The Marshal Plan for Europe and all the investment in Japan, was to ensure that. This was also why MacArthur was denied the request to use nukes.

U.S. also knows war with Iran would mean, harsh war, global economic meltdown war - which would mean also that China would invade Taiwan, and Russia would do its own cleaning of Eastern Europe, and Turkey will go for huge parts of Syria and Iraq (oil fields), India seeing China into Taiwan, will look at its own land acquisition options to its east.

This is what U.S. does not want. They cannot win a war against a country that has a historic claim to its sovereignty of land and rights. Especially one like Iran, with 2,500 years of its celebrations. As SalarHaqq mentioned, they were crapping in their pants when they saw 24m Iranians on the streets after the assassination of General Soleimani.

U.S. is NOT going to attack or invade Iran (in a major military war like WW2), NO MATTER what (be it Iran war with Israel, or building/testing nukes), unless Iran attacks U.S. in a very substantial way, like firing long range 2.5m diameter width ballistic missiles being designed and build called the General Ghasem Soleimani Avenger.

Then it would be different. The rest we all hear are nothing but PSYOPs.
 
Last edited:
Jan 9, 2017
1,848
-24
3,687
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Canada
Thanks. Interesting.


Nice, thank you. More question:

If the track is half the length (from covering 3 wheels, instead of 6/7), does that NOT TRANSLATE into less stress on the track, longer longevity, less chance of snapping/breaking? Or am I totally wrong?

The engines can be positioned (a pair coupled together) in the front and in the back, as are many tanks, no?

More redundancy, the tank would be able to operate on only 2 engines, one in the front and one in the back for each pair of tracks on the left and the right (front or rear) ?

No, doesn't make any sense?

In my opinion it would just make both construction and maintenance more cumbersome to have two sets of tracks in place of one.
Nice, thank you. More question:

If the track is half the length (from covering 3 wheels, instead of 6/7), does that NOT TRANSLATE into less stress on the track, longer longevity, less chance of snapping/breaking? Or am I totally wrong?

The engines can be positioned (a pair coupled together) in the front and in the back, as are many tanks, no?

More redundancy, the tank would be able to operate on only 2 engines, one in the front and one in the back for each pair of tracks on the left and the right (front or rear) ?

No, doesn't make any sense?






SalarHaqq, should be an Iranian an "Iranian Strategic Analyst" for the military or defense ministry.

Over the years, since I was a kid in Iran and flew with a family member who was a pilot for Bell 214C, I have been an "engineer looking for effective weapons design", at most, in my head of course.

I have spend years (any time I had) looking at weapons design and development for the last 2,500 years that we have clear records for, in just about any national archive center I could get into.

If someone was to ask me, what is the deadliest weapon ever? I would respond: "Crystal Clarity". This is odd to me considering how many weapons I myself have worked on during my career, in the aviation industry. So why would that be my answer?

Reading SalarHaqq comments, indicates to me at least, that crystal clarity is so important in matters of life and death, and why I believe Mr. Khamenaei is a great leader compared to jackass Shah who couldn't even get along with Mossadegh.

I was in a situation in Florida which I cannot speak of too much, since it affects certain people that I would want no harm to come to. I will leave that as that. In this situation after the killing of General Soleimani, I was able to hear what some U.S. military people (cannot discuss rank here) said regarding war with Iran. I was hearing these things they were saying 3 days after his assassination. I cannot discuss what this place is in Florida and what is its significance. U.S. personnel of a certain task force, anything in the area of intelligence, get polygraphed monthly. I am sorry I have to be vague like this, as the people involved are very important to me and I have lots of love and admiration for them.

In conclusion of what I heard that day, I would say SalarHaqq and what he wrote above, is MORE ACCURATE than many of us may know or come to believe. U.S. military DOES NOT see Iran the same way as Iranians living inside or outside of Iran, or the MEK terrorists and their propaganda, or U.S. media, or Zionist controlled global propoganda (referring to lobby groups like AEI, CFR, FDD, AC, CE, and the rest).

U.S. military does not want war with Iran and believes that it cannot win war with Iran. They think 1988 conflict just gave Iran the reason to be what it is today. They don't believe there is a WIN solution in Iran. They have far more RESPECT for Iran's military capability that any Iranian "military/war expert" I have ever listened to for understanding issues and strategies and weapons and tactics.

Yes, they can bomb Iran, kill Iranians on behalf of U.S. President, but hate what CIA has done to bring U.S. and Iran to this point. Pentagon truly hates CIA, for many reasons, for in particular for Iran and for money laundering that was dumped on the U.S. military hurting its reputation.

Conventional war? there is no winner (not in reality) between Iran and U.S., the conflict will have to end quickly before it goes to CRAZY zone and 15 million barrels of oils get cut off when SA/UAE are pummeled.

Non-conventionally? U.S. would crap in its pants, waiting for the day that Iran goes for revenge.

With the case of Japan, they provided so much money and support against Japanese genocide in all of South East Asia, just to convince Japan to NOT THINK ABOUT revenge. The Marshal Plan for Europe and all the investment in Japan, was to ensure that. This was also why MacArthur was denied the request to use nukes.

U.S. also knows war with Iran would mean, harsh war, global economic meltdown war - which would mean also that China would invade Taiwan, and Russian would do its own cleaning of Eastern Europe, and Turkey will go for huge parts of Syria and Iraq (oil fields), India seeing China into Taiwan, will look at its own land acquisition options to its east.

This is what U.S. does not want. They cannot win a war against a country that has a historic claim to its sovereignty of land and rights. Especially one like Iran, with 2,500 years of its celebrations. As SalarHaqq mentioned, they were crapping in their pants when they saw 24m Iranians on the streets after the assassination of General Soleimani.

U.S. is NOT going to attack or invade Iran (in a major military war like WW2), NO MATTER what (be it Iran war with Israel, or building/testing nukes), unless Iran attacks U.S. in a very substantial way, like firing long range 2.5m diameter width ballistic missiles being designed and build called the General Ghasem Soleimani Avenger.

Then it would be different. The rest we all hear are nothing by PSYOP.

Modern tanks have durable tracks and do not normally "throw" tracks to justify having multiple shorter tracks. The Track maintenance comes from having to replace the rubber pads that are fitted on (usually NATO and newer Russian tanks) steal tracks in order to protect asphalt and other road surfaces from being absolutely chewed up by the tracks. The roadwheels also get worn down and damaged from driving over rough terrain and have to be replaced from time to time. As for your idea of coupling two engines together, one pair up front and another in the rear. to me that seems like a very complicated system needing multiple transmissions and drive sprockets to be practical. The engines need to be accessible for maintenance and replacement and it would mean that the vehicle would have to be larger but less armored. On a tank with the engine on the front the access panels are restricted in the amount of armored protection due to the driver having to be able to physically lift it open to access the power train. On the Merkava the Israelis use the engine in the front as "armour" but having two smaller engines up front means that the protection afforded by the engine is not that great. Overall Iran is capable of producing heavy diesel engines for its tanks and it is much more simpler to just have one engine transmission, cooling system and one pair of Drive sprockets than to have two of everything.

In regards to what you wrote about our valued member SalarHaqq, I could not agree more!
 

EvilWesteners

FULL MEMBER
Oct 17, 2020
161
0
603
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
United Kingdom
In my opinion it would just make both construction and maintenance more cumbersome to have two sets of tracks in place of one.


Modern tanks have durable tracks and do not normally "throw" tracks to justify having multiple shorter tracks. The Track maintenance comes from having to replace the rubber pads that are fitted on (usually NATO and newer Russian tanks) steal tracks in order to protect asphalt and other road surfaces from being absolutely chewed up by the tracks. The roadwheels also get worn down and damaged from driving over rough terrain and have to be replaced from time to time. As for your idea of coupling two engines together, one pair up front and another in the rear. to me that seems like a very complicated system needing multiple transmissions and drive sprockets to be practical. The engines need to be accessible for maintenance and replacement and it would mean that the vehicle would have to be larger but less armored. On a tank with the engine on the front the access panels are restricted in the amount of armored protection due to the driver having to be able to physically lift it open to access the power train. On the Merkava the Israelis use the engine in the front as "armour" but having two smaller engines up front means that the protection afforded by the engine is not that great. Overall Iran is capable of producing heavy diesel engines for its tanks and it is much more simpler to just have one engine transmission, cooling system and one pair of Drive sprockets than to have two of everything.

In regards to what you wrote about our valued member SalarHaqq, I could not agree more!

Thank you. Learned quite a bit from this.
 

Shams313

FULL MEMBER
Mar 27, 2014
708
0
1,149
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Can't find the missile thread...



SK tested, does anyone know terminal velocity, range and type of guidance it uses....
 

Hack-Hook

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 11, 2012
13,354
3
13,352
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Well the rest of the video was legit but honestly that one test suspeciously look like a computer generated video.
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
4,258
-12
7,114
Country
United States
Location
United States
Well the rest of the video was legit but honestly that one test suspeciously look like a computer generated video.

Its because of the target tiles placed over the earth. The missile is ment to penetrate earth a certain depth then explode (destroying bunkers in NK)

basically a BM version of a bunker buster bomb.
 

Sineva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 24, 2018
2,971
-3
6,502
Country
Australia
Location
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic Of
Interesting report,tho it sounds like that particular example had had a rather hard life on the battlefield,and likely passed thru a few different hands before winding up in the hands of CAR.Not that surprising really,all things considered....
It would be interesting to see a report using an original Steyr HS50 and an AM50 side by side,so as to get an idea of any reengineering or quality differences between the two.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom