What's new

Iranian Ground Forces | News and Equipment

Army - NOHED
14011024000618638093145723594094_52118_PhotoT.jpg
14011024000618638093145728434375_81968_PhotoT.jpg
14011024000618638093145733288827_18220_PhotoT.jpg
14011024000618638093145737922371_54743_PhotoT.jpg
14011024000618638093145825006887_99509_PhotoT.jpg
14011024000618638093145873907466_17931_PhotoT.jpg
14011024000618638093145751791113_19359_PhotoT.jpg
 
I was thinking of Iranian atgm "Almaz",copy of "SPike" not Russian company "Almaz-Antey".My bad since I am still not sure if it is called "Almaz' or "Almas".

E5rUPDeWYAEvBSF.jpg:large

SPIKE is more expensive (~$150K) than Top attack Tow. Iran’s cost to produce is much cheaper than Israel (Spike) or USA (TOW), but if I had to wager which one Iran produces cheaply it would have to be TOW copies.

If money isn’t an issue then yes Russia could order Spike copy albeit question remains how many can Iran produce. Quantity wise, Iran can flood the battlefield with ToW variants and at a cheaper rate since it’s been building it for so long.

Still think you are right, if they were going to ask for something, it would probably be that (Almas). A TOW position is too bulky and heavy to move around for this battlefield......imho

This battlefield is largely forest/farmland with static battle lines. If anything ToW is perfect for this type of area. Yes, ToW is bulkier, but the front lines aren’t moving much these days which means small 3-4 man teams can set up and wait for armour to get in there crosshairs.

That is why a Syrian rebels were so successful using TOW…static battlefield front lines + topography = deadly combo
 
SPIKE is more expensive (~$150K) than Top attack Tow. Iran’s cost to produce is much cheaper than Israel (Spike) or USA (TOW), but if I had to wager which one Iran produces cheaply it would have to be TOW copies.

If money isn’t an issue then yes Russia could order Spike copy albeit question remains how many can Iran produce. Quantity wise, Iran can flood the battlefield with ToW variants and at a cheaper rate since it’s been building it for so long.



This battlefield is largely forest/farmland with static battle lines. If anything ToW is perfect for this type of area. Yes, ToW is bulkier, but the front lines aren’t moving much these days which means small 3-4 man teams can set up and wait for armour to get in there crosshairs.

That is why a Syrian rebels were so successful using TOW…static battlefield front lines + topography = deadly combo
Very good points. Iran produces 6 variants of TOW missile warheads and three variants of launch guidance ..disabling a tank in a field is just as good as destroying it..aim at the tracks and you will have dead tank that has to be hulled away

Iranian TOWs rounds can be produced in thousands and very inexpensive..A TOW on tripod requires a two man team the most.

1675081356627.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Very good points. Iran produces 6 variants of TOW missile warheads and three variants of launch guidance ..disabling a tank in a field is just as good as destroying it..aim at the tracks and you will have dead tank that has to hulled away

Iranian TOWs rounds can be produced in thousands and very inexpensive..A TOW on tripod requires a two man team the most.

View attachment 914100

On the other hand if Iran truly ordered those fighter jets, helicopters and so on from Russia, then the sky will possibly be the limit when it comes to how much Russia could spend on Iranian weaponry, considering they could simply deduce it from what Iran would owe Moscow in return.
 
On the other hand if Iran truly ordered those fighter jets, helicopters and so on from Russia, then the sky will possibly be the limit when it comes to how much Russia could spend on Iranian weaponry, considering they could simply deduce it from what Iran would owe Moscow in return.
Military barter trade.. ..invented by Iran and Russia:-)
 
This battlefield is largely forest/farmland with static battle lines. If anything ToW is perfect for this type of area. Yes, ToW is bulkier, but the front lines aren’t moving much these days which means small 3-4 man teams can set up and wait for armour to get in there crosshairs.

That is why a Syrian rebels were so successful using TOW…static battlefield front lines + topography = deadly combo
Problem with this is you need mobility in the modern battlefield. Anything within 4km of the front is very vulnerable to artillery and spotters. Both sides are constantly on the move with their artillery pieces

If you were to setup a TOW position you better be frequently on the move. In Syria, their was little fear of precision artillery against your ATGM position. Such combined efforts between the front and artillery was minimal.
 
Problem with this is you need mobility in the modern battlefield. Anything within 4km of the front is very vulnerable to artillery and spotters. Both sides are constantly on the move with their artillery pieces

If you were to setup a TOW position you better be frequently on the move. In Syria, their was little fear of precision artillery against your ATGM position. Such combined efforts between the front and artillery was minimal.

Ukraine ‘precision’ artillery is greatly over exaggerated. Your artillery isn’t precise if you are expending thousands of shells a day. You are basically praying and spraying. That is with the benefit of entire western constellation of spy satellites data and targeting data.

The HIMARS are few and far between. A lot of the battlefield is static frontlines with X amount of no man’s territory or fire control space. If you really needed mobility you could slap the TOWs onto any APC/IFV/humvee and use it that way.

If Iran can slap them on jeeps, then Russian engineers can slap them on many vehicles. The TOW was used on Bradley fighting vehicles by the US when they fought Saddam’s sons at that mansion. It’s a deadly missile.

Spike is great. But expensive. I’m not sure how much Iran produces or how fast they could ramp up. Depends on what % component inside of it is foreign sourced.

I agree top attack is a great method at attacking western tanks, but as we saw Javelin’s and NLAWs haven’t changed the battlefield that much. It’s usually poor Russian use of armour or getting caught in artillery barrages that has cost Russian’s their armour. Where as until the Shorta like jammer was deployed by Syria, they were losing large amounts of tanks to tow.Not to mention the amount of personnel lost due to TOW attacks on checkpoints. It’s deadly in an anti personnel/fortification role as well.
 
Ukraine ‘precision’ artillery is greatly over exaggerated. Your artillery isn’t precise if you are expending thousands of shells a day. You are basically praying and spraying. That is with the benefit of entire western constellation of spy satellites data and targeting data.
This is still dangerous. Quadcopter dropped munitions at these positions are also probable. As you stated later, mounted on vehicles it is fine. That's how the Ukrainians are using their TOWs. They never dare to keep them static.
 
Problem with this is you need mobility in the modern battlefield. Anything within 4km of the front is very vulnerable to artillery and spotters. Both sides are constantly on the move with their artillery pieces

If you were to setup a TOW position you better be frequently on the move. In Syria, their was little fear of precision artillery against your ATGM position. Such combined efforts between the front and artillery was minimal.
I agree 100%.Syria did not see nearly as much use of drones (surveillance or attack) as Ukraine.Not to mention guiding and correcting artillery attacks at a level not seen in any war before.Talking about regular artillery rounds not Excalibur(3000 pieces) or other guided ammo Ukraine has and will continue to receive.
Whatever Russians plan to use the lighter it is the better for them.
but as we saw Javelin’s and NLAWs haven’t changed the battlefield that much
I would disagree.Both the Ukrainians and Russians were praising the devastating effect those two systems had in stopping Russian armor advances from Kyev to Kherson,
Which is probably why Iran is also interested i those systems that it asked Russia to deliver some captured examples probably planing to study and reverse engineer them.
Spike is great. But expensive. I’m not sure how much Iran produces or how fast they could ramp up. Depends on what % component inside of it is foreign sourced.
I was also thinking the same thing since it's only a year back that got unveiled,producing it in large numbers quickly will probably not be possible for now.
 
Could you explain the mechanics of Shorta system? Isn't the TOW wireguided? How can it be jammed?
The wire is just used to transmit the guidance commands from the tracking unit on the launcher to the missile.The tracking unit has to track the missile by means of a light emitting beacon in its tail,if you can jam that by sending false signals back to the launcher then its guidance of the missile goes to hell.
This has a pretty good description of the Shtora
https://defense-update.com/20051012_shtora-1.html
 
Amir Brigadier Nozar Nemati, Deputy Commander of the Army Ground Forces: For the first time in the country, the Army Ground Forces has produced a super-heavy fighter, which we will unveil in the coming days
I wonder why information regarding fighter planes is disclosed by a ground forces commander??

or I misunderstood and it is not a plane
 
Back
Top Bottom