Iranian Ground Forces | News and Equipment

[Stryker1982]

Literally every piece of equipment except for the M-113 APC you see in these pictures was procured in the 1990s or after!

Sure, I think we received these in the 90s which were a great addition at the time, but I think his point was that this equipment is inadequate for this era, especially with the proliferation of ATGMs these days. Ex: Syria.
Would like to see them upgraded to Karrar standard to better handle these types of environments.

 

[sha ah]

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.

Impressed by how much you all know about tanks. I don't know jack about tanks, and never really studied them.

I do have a question for whoever has time to answer it (hope it is not a dumb question), and I thank you in advance for the answer.

The U.S. Abram tanks have gas turbine engines (I've seen one actually working after repair). These 1500ish HP upside down turbines were running in a somewhat closed factory space and yet there was no smoke coming out whatsoever, and the engineers working on it told me that "this bugger runs on all kinds of fuel, even water". Assuming the water was a joke, it is impressive for such a light engine to deliver so much power and yet with so much fuel flexibility, and smokeless.

My question (as dumb as it may sound) ...

why not have 4 engines (450hp each) that are Euro 6, very efficient. smokeless, using gasoline which Iran has plenty of, and have each of these connected to a 3-wheeled track, 4 of these with a gap between the front and the rear track and this gap can be used as a escape hatch in case of direct hit ???

The tank can still move if one 3-wheeled track on each side is broken (front or rear), and there is less stress on the track since it is shorter (on 3 wheels rather than 6 or 7), less chance of snapping or breaking, or is my question just really nonsense? please be honest, that is how I learn about a subject I know nothing about.

Tanks do have smoke flares to hide from optics but is this smoke good for foot soldiers (infantry) that are often walking behind or around the tank?

Thanks in advance.

 

[sha ah]

Well you think about how much a tank costs, especially with an APC and reactive armor and a well trained crew. Then compare that to the cost of an ATGM or sniper rifle with armor piercing rounds and how long and how much it takes to train those personnel.

Obviously the ATGM/sniper wins in the end but that's why using mechanized units requires extensive air support/air defenses. Drones today are vital to that air support to clear the area. Realistically only the frontline units, the spear of the mechanized unit, have to have APC and the like, the other units following behind become less protected the further back you go, except for maybe the real guard perhaps should also be well protected.

With the proliferation of smaller drones, pretty much every other tank or ifv or armored truck can have its own smaller drone flying ahead and scouting. That along with the airforces drones and jets should be able to clear the area of the majority of threats.

Sure, I think we received these in the 90s which were a great addition at the time, but I think his point was that this equipment is inadequate for this era, especially with the proliferation of ATGMs these days. Ex: Syria.
Would like to see them upgraded to Karrar standard to better handle these types of environments.

 

[PeeD]

The ATGM-Tank cycle is this:

You have ATGM and you are attacked by tanks.
You defend and want to hit back. Get your ATGM on jeep to be mobile, then enemy artillery will kill your soft jeep.
Get ATGM on IFV and you are protected against artillery but still vulnerable to tanks and enemy ATGM.
Get ATGM on a heavy armored vehicle, then you can already change ATGM with a tank gun, which is much cheaper and has a high volume of firepower.
At the end you land at the tank: Speed, armor, cheap firepower

 

[TheImmortal]

Well the Saudis have excellent weapons but look at their embaressing performance in Yemen against the barefoot Houthis.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Iran’s T-72’s will be going up against US Tanks. So your point your trying to make is invalid since Iran won’t be going up against a guirella force. Also with that logic China and Russia should stop developing newer weapons because insurgents can find weakness? If Iran used its T-72’s against the Houthi’s or Syrian terrorists the same way Saudi used its Abrams, the fate would be the same.

Also another point, Arabs and Persians have incorrectly used mechanized armour for decades. Iran was using armour as basically set artillery pieces back in Iran-Iraq war. Syria used armour without infantry or air support. So yes when you send a tank into contested flat terrain with no CAS or infantry what do you think is going to happen? They are tanks not magical fortresses.

It’s like sending a F-35 into a highly dense packed radar and air defense zone with no jamming or EW then when it gets shot down you go “wow what a useless airplane”.

Iran’s current tanks against a western CONVENTIONAL army are at a disadvantage. Soviets we’re going to use quantity over quality to overcome this disadvantage between T-72 and western tanks. That was their philosophy overwhelm with numbers.

Now the threat is very low right now of such a scenario but it’s not zero. Iran’s terrain naturally helps make an invaders force an absolute nightmare to navigate mechanized armour thru. So priority on upgrading Iranian mech armour can likely wait another decade. But eventually it will need to be done. Karrar standard plus a future Karrar+ standard will suffice for next two decades at which time tanks will likely become automated.

 

[sha ah]

No my point was money can buy the best weapons in the world but money cannot buy motivation. An army that is not motivated, has low morale, will lose no matter what happens.

Iran uses it's missile capability primarily to deter a US attack. Then there's Iran's proxy groups and more recently Iran made the right choice investing into drones. So far it's worked.

Realistically the US cannot invade Iran and be successful in the long run. It's impossible. They can have short term success but not long term success.

You think Iranians can't replicate what Taliban did except with more advanced weapons like ATGMs, sniper rifles with armor piercing rounds, MANPADS, etc Not to mention the casualties and damage that Iran's missiles would do before the US could stop them all together.

Look in Yemen. The Saudis cannot stop the Houthis from launching missiles, drones every so often. On paper you might think it's possible but in reality it's impossible, especially with mobile units and a motivated, relentless adversary.

I believe that Iran is much more likely to end up in a regional conflict than a war with the USA. In a conflict with the USA, of course the Americans will have superior fighter jets and tanks. I mean even if Iran were to purchase tanks/jets from the USA itself before hand, they would only be export variants. So for Iran to take on the US in a conventional sense is impossible. Iranian military leadership are well aware of this reality.

In a regional conflict, Iran with its missiles, drones, air force, ground forces, special forces, Basij, etc is well prepared. Especially if the goal were to simply repulse an enemy force and inflict as many casualties as possible, Iran is in a prime position to do so. This is why all of Iran's neighbors are extremely reluctant to get involved in any direct conflict with Iran.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Iran’s T-72’s will be going up against US Tanks. So your point your trying to make is invalid since Iran won’t be going up against a guirella force. Also with that logic China and Russia should stop developing newer weapons because insurgents can find weakness? If Iran used its T-72’s against the Houthi’s or Syrian terrorists the same way Saudi used its Abrams, the fate would be the same.

Also another point, Arabs and Persians have incorrectly used mechanized armour for decades. Iran was using armour as basically set artillery pieces back in Iran-Iraq war. Syria used armour without infantry or air support. So yes when you send a tank into contested flat terrain with no CAS or infantry what do you think is going to happen? They are tanks not magical fortresses.

It’s like sending a F-35 into a highly dense packed radar and air defense zone with no jamming or EW then when it gets shot down you go “wow what a useless airplane”.

Iran’s current tanks against a western CONVENTIONAL army are at a disadvantage. Soviets we’re going to use quantity over quality to overcome this disadvantage between T-72 and western tanks. That was their philosophy overwhelm with numbers.

Now the threat is very low right now of such a scenario but it’s not zero. Iran’s terrain naturally helps make an invaders force an absolute nightmare to navigate mechanized armour thru. So priority on upgrading Iranian mech armour can likely wait another decade. But eventually it will need to be done. Karrar standard plus a future Karrar+ standard will suffice for next two decades at which time tanks will likely become automated.

Well I appreciate your post but this sequence is not set in stone. Look at Abu Tow in Syria. I'm not sure if they finally took him out but he wreaked havoc before he was eliminated.

An intelligent and well prepared ATGM team can inflict serious damage onto enemy armored units. With enough of them on the field, along with drones, snipers with armor piercing rounds, with enough firepower and resistance, an enemy cannot advance. After sustaining so many losses, they will eventually become demoralized.

The price of an average tank is what $5 million plus training, veteran costs, funeral fees, all the expenses associated with training and maintenance. An ATGM, like the US TOW costs what $100,000 approximately ? For Iran it probably costs one tenth or one fifth that amount.

The ATGM-Tank cycle is this:

You have ATGM and you are attacked by tanks.
You defend and want to hit back. Get your ATGM on jeep to be mobile, then enemy artillery will kill your soft jeep.
Get ATGM on IFV and you are protected against artillery but still vulnerable to tanks and enemy ATGM.
Get ATGM on a heavy armored vehicle, then you can already change ATGM with a tank gun, which is much cheaper and has a high volume of firepower.
At the end you land at the tank: Speed, armor, cheap firepower

 

[TheImmortal]

No my point was money can buy the best weapons in the world but money cannot buy motivation. An army that is not motivated, has low morale, will lose no matter what happens.

Iran uses it's missile capability primarily to deter a US attack. Then there's Iran's proxy groups and more recently Iran made the right choice investing into drones. So far it's worked.

Realistically the US cannot invade Iran and be successful in the long run. It's impossible. They can have short term success but not long term success.

You think Iranians can't replicate what Taliban did except with more advanced weapons like ATGMs, sniper rifles with armor piercing rounds, MANPADS, etc Not to mention the casualties and damage that Iran's missiles would do before the US could stop them all together.

Look in Yemen. The Saudis cannot stop the Houthis from launching missiles, drones every so often. On paper you might think it's possible but in reality it's impossible, especially with mobile units and a motivated, relentless adversary.

I believe that Iran is much more likely to end up in a regional conflict than a war with the USA. In a conflict with the USA, of course the Americans will have superior fighter jets and tanks. I mean even if Iran were to purchase tanks/jets from the USA itself before hand, they would only be export variants. So for Iran to take on the US in a conventional sense is impossible. Iranian military leadership are well aware of this reality.

In a regional conflict, Iran with its missiles, drones, air force, ground forces, special forces, Basij, etc is well prepared. Especially if the goal were to simply repulse an enemy force and inflict as many casualties as possible, Iran is in a prime position to do so. This is why all of Iran's neighbors are extremely reluctant to get involved in any direct conflict with Iran.


Well I appreciate your post but this sequence is not set in stone. Look at Abu Tow in Syria. I'm not sure if they finally took him out but he wreaked havoc before he was eliminated.

An intelligent and well prepared ATGM team can inflict serious damage onto enemy armored units. With enough of them on the field, along with drones, snipers with armor piercing rounds, with enough firepower and resistance, an enemy cannot advance. After sustaining so many losses, they will eventually become demoralized.

The price of an average tank is what $5 million plus training, veteran costs, funeral fees, all the expenses associated with training and maintenance. An ATGM, like the US TOW costs what $100,000 approximately ? For Iran it probably costs one tenth or one fifth that amount.

Let me tell you something which apparently your patriotism doesn’t allow you to see. If US wanted to invade Iran it could. If it wanted to conquer Iran it could. Eventually air defense systems would get overwhelmed and eventually missiles would get expended or launch teams decapitated. Then massive air campaign would hit everything and everything that has a sense of value and then the ground game begins.

Now the cost? The cost to US might be 100K, 250K, who knows how many casualties. Let’s not speculate. But make no mistake about it, if US put 120% effort to conquer Iran, it could. Iran’s military doctrine isn’t to win a war against the US, it’s to raise the costs of such a war to the point it deters the US or at worst ends in a brief skirmish.

But if push came to shove like when US had to fight the Nazi’s or when it fought the Japanese Imperial forces...then it would fight and it would eventually take over. Don’t look at Afghanistan which was a half assed war or Iraq where Saddam forces melted away before the war even began. This would be a state vs another state type of war not seen since WWII.

And Iranian society is not the Taliban. Two way different philosophies. Iran wouldn’t fall into an insurgency because it’s held up by conventional military structure.

In fact Iran would break up into many pieces (balankization) and cease to be Iran. Kurds would take Kurdistan, Turks would take Turkic areas, Arab separatists would create their own land, and Balouchi’s would create their own nation state. And that’s leaves Pars people to stand around look at the sky. It would be the end of Iran once the state security apparatus falls. Now the USA would try to put humptey dumpty back together, but good look putting Iran back together after that if Iraq is any indication it would take decades maybe centuries.

When the heads of command are killed or gone (IRGC and artesh) and chain of command is obliterated then individual soldiers will start to think of self preservation. And unfortunately Iranians (civilians) are some of the most pro Western people in Middle East after Israel so when the local population doesn’t repel the invasion then half the battle is over.

So you cannot think “oh Iran will magically transform into the Persian Taliban and wage a 30 year insurgency”. Sure there might be pockets of resistance, but in reality it would turn more into something like Syria where parts of the country are owned by different factions who are favorable to the US or Russia or China.

So if push came to shove, Iran would be conquered against US & NATO full on invasion scenario. Now such a scenario is extremely unlikely due to the aforementioned costs, but if such a scenario were to play out it would not in Iran’s favor in the end. Though Iran would get several punches in and global economy would suffer.

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

What are you talking about ? Those T-72's were bought in the early 2000's and have reactive armor.

The T-72S and BMP-2s were ordered as far back as 1990 as a means for making up for the huge losses of equipment that the Iranian Ground Forces had suffered mainly in the final months of the Iran Iraq War. Iran had originally placed an order for 1000 T-72S and 1500 BMP-2s. The U.S was able to push Boris Yeltsin to stop all military sales to Iran by the Late 1990s which resulted in only about 480 T-72S and approx. 400-500 BMP-2s actually being delivered to Iran. Iran claimed that it was able to reverse engineer the T-72S and BMP-2( Boragh IFV) but I have no way of knowing whether any meaningful numbers were ever produced and put in service. As for the 2S1 122mm self propelled Artillery, Anthony Cordesman of CSIS claimed that Iran had received 60 vehicles but he I can't verify that number. Iran did produce a prototype for a Self Proppelled 122mm Gun using a 2S1 like turret mated to a Boragh APC but it never went into production.

 

[Stryker1982]

Let me tell you something which apparently your patriotism doesn’t allow you to see. If US wanted to invade Iran it could. If it wanted to conquer Iran it could. Eventually air defense systems would get overwhelmed and eventually missiles would get expended or launch teams decapitated. Then massive air campaign would hit everything and everything that has a sense of value and then the ground game begins.

Now the cost? The cost to US might be 100K, 250K, who knows how many casualties. Let’s not speculate. But make no mistake about it, if US put 120% effort to conquer Iran, it could. Iran’s military doctrine isn’t to win a war against the US, it’s to raise the costs of such a war to the point it deters the US or at worst ends in a brief skirmish.

But if push came to shove like when US had to fight the Nazi’s or when it fought the Japanese Imperial forces...then it would fight and it would eventually take over. Don’t look at Afghanistan which was a half assed war or Iraq where Saddam forces melted away before the war even began. This would be a state vs another state type of war not seen since WWII.

And Iranian society is not the Taliban. Two way different philosophies. Iran wouldn’t fall into an insurgency because it’s held up by conventional military structure.

In fact Iran would break up into many pieces (balankization) and cease to be Iran. Kurds would take Kurdistan, Turks would take Turkic areas, Arab separatists would create their own land, and Balouchi’s would create their own nation state. And that’s leaves Pars people to stand around look at the sky. It would be the end of Iran once the state security apparatus falls. Now the USA would try to put humptey dumpty back together, but good look putting Iran back together after that if Iraq is any indication it would take decades maybe centuries.

When the heads of command are killed or gone (IRGC and artesh) and chain of command is obliterated then individual soldiers will start to think of self preservation. And unfortunately Iranians (civilians) are some of the most pro Western people in Middle East after Israel so when the local population doesn’t repel the invasion then half the battle is over.

So you cannot think “oh Iran will magically transform into the Persian Taliban and wage a 30 year insurgency”. Sure there might be pockets of resistance, but in reality it would turn more into something like Syria where parts of the country are owned by different factions who are favorable to the US or Russia or China.

So if push came to shove, Iran would be conquered against US & NATO full on invasion scenario. Now such a scenario is extremely unlikely due to the aforementioned costs, but if such a scenario were to play out it would not in Iran’s favor in the end. Though Iran would get several punches in and global economy would suffer.

Harsh but fair assessment. They burned Iraq Syria and Afghanistan, then leave after a few thousand casualties leaving fire, ash, and death in their wake and our brother here thinks the US is militarily broken...The amount of casualties they received in those two conflicts would equal a single days operation during the holy defense.

If the US prepares properly for a direct conflict with Iran, and ensure their missiles and planes are ready to go, they can muster 58 B-52 bombers from California, carrying 24 JASSMs each, firing 1392 missiles in 1 sortie against all Southern and Central targets inside Iran...best we an do is bust their regional power, but cannot stop them beyond that.

This is just realistic thinking., and lack of respect for US military capabilities seems to create delusions around here. If someone smuggled TOWs into Iran, our T-72S tanks would be in serious trouble, and the lessons from Syria loosing 1000s of armored vehicles shows this. And it's really just backwards to dismiss tanks because ATGMs are cheaper, these are in completely different class of weapons and both are necessary. Some of this analysis is just head scratching.

@TheImmortal point about a large portion of people as a pro-US population is on point and is one of the reasons we have so many spies in the country, an achilleas heel. The point of millions of Iranians presumably fighting against US ground forces is just Childs play really. He needs to have a better look at the influence of the west socially on the Iranian population.

The T-72S and BMP-2s were ordered as far back as 1990 as a means for making up for the huge losses of equipment that the Iranian Ground Forces had suffered mainly in the final months of the Iran Iraq War. Iran had originally placed an order for 1000 T-72S and 1500 BMP-2s. The U.S was able to push Boris Yeltsin to stop all military sales to Iran by the Late 1990s which resulted in only about 480 T-72S and approx. 400-500 BMP-2s actually being delivered to Iran. Iran claimed that it was able to reverse engineer the T-72S and BMP-2( Boragh IFV) but I have no way of knowing whether any meaningful numbers were ever produced and put in service. As for the 2S1 122mm self propelled Artillery, Anthony Cordesman of CSIS claimed that Iran had received 60 vehicles but he I can't verify that number. Iran did produce a prototype for a Self Proppelled 122mm Gun using a 2S1 like turret mated to a Boragh APC but it never went into production.

Indeed, these also never went into production because everyone knows this equipment (Boragh) is insufficient in this era of warfare. Even countries will less money than Iran are upgrading to higher levels with Russian or Chinese or American upgrades

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

Impressed by how much you all know about tanks. I don't know jack about tanks, and never really studied them.

I do have a question for whoever has time to answer it (hope it is not a dumb question), and I thank you in advance for the answer.

The U.S. Abram tanks have gas turbine engines (I've seen one actually working after repair). These 1500ish HP upside down turbines were running in a somewhat closed factory space and yet there was no smoke coming out whatsoever, and the engineers working on it told me that "this bugger runs on all kinds of fuel, even water". Assuming the water was a joke, it is impressive for such a light engine to deliver so much power and yet with so much fuel flexibility, and smokeless.

My question (as dumb as it may sound) ...

why not have 4 engines (450hp each) that are Euro 6, very efficient. smokeless, using gasoline which Iran has plenty of, and have each of these connected to a 3-wheeled track, 4 of these with a gap between the front and the rear track and this gap can be used as a escape hatch in case of direct hit ???

The tank can still move if one 3-wheeled track on each side is broken (front or rear), and there is less stress on the track since it is shorter (on 3 wheels rather than 6 or 7), less chance of snapping or breaking, or is my question just really nonsense? please be honest, that is how I learn about a subject I know nothing about.

Tanks do have smoke flares to hide from optics but is this smoke good for foot soldiers (infantry) that are often walking behind or around the tank?

Thanks in advance.

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!

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.

 

[Blue In Green]

No my point was money can buy the best weapons in the world but money cannot buy motivation. An army that is not motivated, has low morale, will lose no matter what happens.

Iran uses it's missile capability primarily to deter a US attack. Then there's Iran's proxy groups and more recently Iran made the right choice investing into drones. So far it's worked.

Realistically the US cannot invade Iran and be successful in the long run. It's impossible. They can have short term success but not long term success.

You think Iranians can't replicate what Taliban did except with more advanced weapons like ATGMs, sniper rifles with armor piercing rounds, MANPADS, etc Not to mention the casualties and damage that Iran's missiles would do before the US could stop them all together.

Look in Yemen. The Saudis cannot stop the Houthis from launching missiles, drones every so often. On paper you might think it's possible but in reality it's impossible, especially with mobile units and a motivated, relentless adversary.

I believe that Iran is much more likely to end up in a regional conflict than a war with the USA. In a conflict with the USA, of course the Americans will have superior fighter jets and tanks. I mean even if Iran were to purchase tanks/jets from the USA itself before hand, they would only be export variants. So for Iran to take on the US in a conventional sense is impossible. Iranian military leadership are well aware of this reality.

In a regional conflict, Iran with its missiles, drones, air force, ground forces, special forces, Basij, etc is well prepared. Especially if the goal were to simply repulse an enemy force and inflict as many casualties as possible, Iran is in a prime position to do so. This is why all of Iran's neighbors are extremely reluctant to get involved in any direct conflict with Iran.


Well I appreciate your post but this sequence is not set in stone. Look at Abu Tow in Syria. I'm not sure if they finally took him out but he wreaked havoc before he was eliminated.

An intelligent and well prepared ATGM team can inflict serious damage onto enemy armored units. With enough of them on the field, along with drones, snipers with armor piercing rounds, with enough firepower and resistance, an enemy cannot advance. After sustaining so many losses, they will eventually become demoralized.

The price of an average tank is what $5 million plus training, veteran costs, funeral fees, all the expenses associated with training and maintenance. An ATGM, like the US TOW costs what $100,000 approximately ? For Iran it probably costs one tenth or one fifth that amount.

Until Iran develops and or acquires significant symmetrical conventional military hardware (peer-to-peer) and implements them properly. There really isn't any standing up to the U.S. military machine effectively in the long-run if there is a decision for sustained aggression, not just a short high-intensity conflict which can favor Iran. This is why having a proper Air-force/ARMY and NAVY is so important in engaging and winning battles against equally armed opponents who will use whatever it is they have at their disposal to win.

Reality doesn't allow America to invade to Iran since it would be one the biggest military blunders in the history of mankind due to the immense monetary, resource and time investment needed to pull it off successfully but the United States absolutely can pull it off if they willed it to be so.

 

[Draco.IMF]

The ATGM-Tank cycle is this:

You have ATGM and you are attacked by tanks.
You defend and want to hit back. Get your ATGM on jeep to be mobile, then enemy artillery will kill your soft jeep.
Get ATGM on IFV and you are protected against artillery but still vulnerable to tanks and enemy ATGM.
Get ATGM on a heavy armored vehicle, then you can already change ATGM with a tank gun, which is much cheaper and has a high volume of firepower.
At the end you land at the tank: Speed, armor, cheap firepower

 

[SalarHaqq]

Until Iran develops and or acquires significant symmetrical conventional military hardware (peer-to-peer) and implements them properly. There really isn't any standing up to the U.S. military machine effectively in the long-run if there is a decision for sustained aggression, not just a short high-intensity conflict which can favor Iran. This is why having a proper Air-force/ARMY and NAVY is so important in engaging and winning battles against equally armed opponents who will use whatever it is they have at their disposal to win.

Reality doesn't allow America to invade to Iran since it would be one the biggest military blunders in the history of mankind due to the immense monetary, resource and time investment needed to pull it off successfully but the United States absolutely can pull it off if they willed it to be so.

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 expenditures deriving from such an undertaking, not to mention the devastating impact a closure of the Strait of Hormuz along with the obliteration of oil facilities on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf would have on the global economy. The casus belli which the US could invoke in 1941 to justify thoroughgoing engagement 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 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 have gotten 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 Soleimani's funeral, the largest such event in human history. Many westernized and liberal Iranians joined in to honor a martyr who in their eyes symbolized Iran, Islam and traditional values of chivalry (javānmardi). The solidity of Iran's historic roots and identity as a state, as well as its national cohesion may be matched only by Turkey at the regional level, if at all.

The fact that hostile intelligence agencies have been successful at carrying out a number of operations on Iranian soil does not imply that there's an unusually large number of unpatriotic people amongst Iranians. It's simply due to the technical competence and sheer resources these agencies are benefiting from, after all they happen to be the most powerful of their kind on the planet. Actually, there aren't more treasonous elements in Iran than elsewhere 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 by hostile intelligence services or for every terrorist attack aided by foreign powers, 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 firmly ingrained in Iranian society. A pool of some fifty million, even just fourty or thirty million fervently 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 most certainly engage in furious and relentless Resistance, surpassing even the impressive fight put up by the Vietnamese in the 1960's-70'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 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 in its air defence and ballistic missile forces.

Then, the idea that an Iranian soldier will be preoccupied by his own survival if his commander is martyred is not particularly realistic. All indications suggest that Iranian soldiers will literally yearn for martyrdom in the path of Islam and motherland, and will hardly bother about personal survival if their country is invaded. The Iran-Iraq war is a testimony to this, but so is the recent case 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, marked by his unshakable faith in God, 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 an intrepid 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.

 

[Bahram Esfandiari]

Let me tell you something which apparently your patriotism doesn’t allow you to see. If US wanted to invade Iran it could. If it wanted to conquer Iran it could. Eventually air defense systems would get overwhelmed and eventually missiles would get expended or launch teams decapitated. Then massive air campaign would hit everything and everything that has a sense of value and then the ground game begins.

Now the cost? The cost to US might be 100K, 250K, who knows how many casualties. Let’s not speculate. But make no mistake about it, if US put 120% effort to conquer Iran, it could. Iran’s military doctrine isn’t to win a war against the US, it’s to raise the costs of such a war to the point it deters the US or at worst ends in a brief skirmish.

But if push came to shove like when US had to fight the Nazi’s or when it fought the Japanese Imperial forces...then it would fight and it would eventually take over. Don’t look at Afghanistan which was a half assed war or Iraq where Saddam forces melted away before the war even began. This would be a state vs another state type of war not seen since WWII.

And Iranian society is not the Taliban. Two way different philosophies. Iran wouldn’t fall into an insurgency because it’s held up by conventional military structure.

In fact Iran would break up into many pieces (balankization) and cease to be Iran. Kurds would take Kurdistan, Turks would take Turkic areas, Arab separatists would create their own land, and Balouchi’s would create their own nation state. And that’s leaves Pars people to stand around look at the sky. It would be the end of Iran once the state security apparatus falls. Now the USA would try to put humptey dumpty back together, but good look putting Iran back together after that if Iraq is any indication it would take decades maybe centuries.

When the heads of command are killed or gone (IRGC and artesh) and chain of command is obliterated then individual soldiers will start to think of self preservation. And unfortunately Iranians (civilians) are some of the most pro Western people in Middle East after Israel so when the local population doesn’t repel the invasion then half the battle is over.

So you cannot think “oh Iran will magically transform into the Persian Taliban and wage a 30 year insurgency”. Sure there might be pockets of resistance, but in reality it would turn more into something like Syria where parts of the country are owned by different factions who are favorable to the US or Russia or China.

So if push came to shove, Iran would be conquered against US & NATO full on invasion scenario. Now such a scenario is extremely unlikely due to the aforementioned costs, but if such a scenario were to play out it would not in Iran’s favor in the end. Though Iran would get several punches in and global economy would suffer.

Ever heard of the Basij? What do you think they will be doing under the the unlikely scenario of a full U.S invasion?

 

[jauk]

Let me tell you something which apparently your patriotism doesn’t allow you to see. If US wanted to invade Iran it could. If it wanted to conquer Iran it could. Eventually air defense systems would get overwhelmed and eventually missiles would get expended or launch teams decapitated. Then massive air campaign would hit everything and everything that has a sense of value and then the ground game begins.

Now the cost? The cost to US might be 100K, 250K, who knows how many casualties. Let’s not speculate. But make no mistake about it, if US put 120% effort to conquer Iran, it could. Iran’s military doctrine isn’t to win a war against the US, it’s to raise the costs of such a war to the point it deters the US or at worst ends in a brief skirmish.

But if push came to shove like when US had to fight the Nazi’s or when it fought the Japanese Imperial forces...then it would fight and it would eventually take over. Don’t look at Afghanistan which was a half assed war or Iraq where Saddam forces melted away before the war even began. This would be a state vs another state type of war not seen since WWII.

And Iranian society is not the Taliban. Two way different philosophies. Iran wouldn’t fall into an insurgency because it’s held up by conventional military structure.

In fact Iran would break up into many pieces (balankization) and cease to be Iran. Kurds would take Kurdistan, Turks would take Turkic areas, Arab separatists would create their own land, and Balouchi’s would create their own nation state. And that’s leaves Pars people to stand around look at the sky. It would be the end of Iran once the state security apparatus falls. Now the USA would try to put humptey dumpty back together, but good look putting Iran back together after that if Iraq is any indication it would take decades maybe centuries.

When the heads of command are killed or gone (IRGC and artesh) and chain of command is obliterated then individual soldiers will start to think of self preservation. And unfortunately Iranians (civilians) are some of the most pro Western people in Middle East after Israel so when the local population doesn’t repel the invasion then half the battle is over.

So you cannot think “oh Iran will magically transform into the Persian Taliban and wage a 30 year insurgency”. Sure there might be pockets of resistance, but in reality it would turn more into something like Syria where parts of the country are owned by different factions who are favorable to the US or Russia or China.

So if push came to shove, Iran would be conquered against US & NATO full on invasion scenario. Now such a scenario is extremely unlikely due to the aforementioned costs, but if such a scenario were to play out it would not in Iran’s favor in the end. Though Iran would get several punches in and global economy would suffer.

This post is littered with Western propaganda not so removed from what we hear or see from CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or BBC. Manifestly ignore. No, the US cannot invade OR win a war with Iran. Ever. Even in vacuum. Iran has an established deterrent where the costs will be backbreaking AND PROHIBITIVE. Note, however, there is no vacuum. There are dangerous adversaries like ...China. This is exactly why the US is withdrawing from the Mideast. The historical allusions, although incorrect as well, are irrelevant in the modem environment.
BTW, we are Iranians. Persians are cats and rugs.