who trains Iranian infantry?

[KingMamba]

Chill mamba. We are here to talk infantry. Let it go. Abii trips out time to time.

Doesn't change anything. He is always tripping, like they say idhi bund vich keera ve.

 

[Parthianshot]

Pakistani soldiers train with NATO and China both of the top powers in this day and age. Who do Iranian troops train with, besides shadow boxing I mean?

This obviously doesnt apply to the typical pak infantrymen. Both Pakistani and Iranian regular troops are trained the same way today that they were being trained 50 years ago for the most part. Obselete training against modern armies. Iran has had training from western countries concerning infantry warfare, but again, this is from the 70s and these tactics are old.

My friend SSG is no joke. The Russians you looked up to got a kick in the *** from our special forces and even named them The Black Storks.



Special Services Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Russians even made a film about a battle against our special forces:

Anyways, ego and dick measuring aside, I'm sure Pakistan Army would love to train with Iran and learn anything that they could pick up from Iranians as well. Training together is not about teacher master, but about mutual learning.

well yes, I do think they should train together if they can learn something.

I really hope they didnt actually attack the russians straight on like in the movie. Anyways, that was the 80s, before russia started adapting squad tactics.

 

[RazPaK]

This obviously doesnt apply to the typical pak infantrymen. Both Pakistani and Iranian regular troops are trained the same way today that they were being trained 50 years ago for the most part. Obselete training against modern armies. Iran has had training from western countries concerning infantry warfare, but again, this is from the 70s and these tactics are old.



well yes, I do think they should train together if they can learn something.

I really hope they didnt actually attack the russians straight on like in the movie. Anyways, that was the 80s, before russia started adapting squad tactics.

When an enemy is in a higher position within a bunker they can easily hold off 4 for every one of their own men. Higher ground gives you that advantage. My ratio might be off, but for an infantry to fight an uphill battle without any kind of support(air/land) requires numbers. This a common tactic in mountain warfare, and even with air support and bofors Indians had a hell of a time in Kargil. They suffered heavy casualties.

 

[Parthianshot]

When an enemy is in a higher position within a bunker they can easily hold off 4 for every one of their own men. Higher ground gives you that advantage. My ratio might be off, but for an infantry to fight an uphill battle without any kind of support(air/land) requires numbers. This a common tactic in mountain warfare, and even with air support and bofors Indians had a hell of a time in Kargil. They suffered heavy casualties.

Can you give me some sources to what the casualty rates were on both sides.

 

[RazPaK]

Can you give me some sources to what the casualty rates were on both sides.

I would like to ask professionals in Pak military to answer your question because I don't want to sound biased. I am not in the armed forces, so I don't feel like I qualify to make statements. I feel like this a good military thread. @Icarus @RescueRanger @Irfan Baloch

Can you please answer the question and provide your thoughts?

 

[Judge]

When an enemy is in a higher position within a bunker they can easily hold off 4 for every one of their own men. Higher ground gives you that advantage. My ratio might be off, but for an infantry to fight an uphill battle without any kind of support(air/land) requires numbers. This a common tactic in mountain warfare, and even with air support and bofors Indians had a hell of a time in Kargil. They suffered heavy casualties.

In plains warfare the ideal ratio of an attacking force is 3 or preferably 4 :1

In mountain warfare - the required attacking ratio becomes 9 : 1

 

[RazPaK]

In plains warfare the ideal ratio of an attacking force is 3/4:1

In mountain warfare - the required attacking ratio becomes 9:1

Thanks for your correction. I knew I was off, but didn't feel like researching as I had read material regarding mountain warfare years ago.

@Parthianshot I stand corrected.

 

[Judge]

Well he is totally wrong, we train with the best, Europe, US, Canada, PLA.

Your knowledge on this subject seems to be lacking.
PLA is nowhere close to being good in military tactics or training.
The odds are they train with you to improve themselves and get exposed to Western tactics than Pakistan Army learning anything from PLA.

 

[RazPaK]

Your knowledge on this subject seems to be lacking.
PLA is nowhere close to being good in military tactics or training.
The odds are they train with you to improve themselves and get exposed to Western tactics than Pakistan Army learning anything from PLA.

Do they not have experience from Korean war?

I feel like all tactics from any time period and any environment are relevant?

 

[Judge]

If I had to choose who to get training from it would be
1. Western military s

2. Russia

3. China

PA far exceeds PLA in military training and tactics

Do they not have experience from Korean war?

I feel like all tactics from any time period and any environment are relevant?

They do have experience. And they also realize that they can no longer use that kind of experience.
PLA realized that its old strategy of massing men and weapons and firing is fossilized.

Neither can PLA afford to lose that kind of mass of troops in this day and age - when Chinese people are becoming prosperous, educated...and aware - and consequently demand accountability.

And to the credit of some PLA Generals - they realize this and are trying to change the military training. There is resistance from the non-competent and not-very-competent Generals who who are in large numbers- many of whom are promoted by virtue of 'connections' and secondly since it is a very large army - even small changes take a lot of time to take effect.

As I said, PLA learns far more from PA in exercises than PA learns from PLA.

 

[monaspa]

as far as I know back in 90's Iranians (and not only ) were trained by Russian army in Russia.
p.s don't know full story behind "the 9th company" but in Russian version of this movie Pakistan wasn't even mentioned.

 

[RazPaK]

as far as I know back in 90's Iranians (and not only ) were trained by Russian army in Russia.
p.s don't know full story behind "the 9th company" but in Russian version of this movie Pakistan wasn't even mentioned.

film was based upon battle with Pak special forces. Even the "bad guy" was wearing black. Pak special forces were named the black storks by the pathetic russis.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Can you give me some sources to what the casualty rates were on both sides.

generally speaking the ratio has to be 5 to 1 attacker Vs defender to be an even match in a trench/ bunker , dug out position.

re Kargil
you are touching a rough nerve of the Indians. they claim almost zero casualties and claim that they decimated half of the Pakistan army and quarter of Pakistani population. they refuse to acknowledge that Pakistanis shot down any of their air crafts and blame engine failures or some other technicalities over the loss of their helicopters and jets in the conflict.

Your knowledge on this subject seems to be lacking.
PLA is nowhere close to being good in military tactics or training.
The odds are they train with you to improve themselves and get exposed to Western tactics than Pakistan Army learning anything from PLA.

this is a harsh comment.
you guys would take revenge for the 1962 fiasco if that was the case.

I really hope they didnt actually attack the russians straight on like in the movie. Anyways, that was the 80s, before russia started adapting squad tactics.

Russians/ Soviets are the Veterans of WW" and the victors, they had more than enough experience of close combat and squad tactics. they invented the iconic assault rifle for their shock troopers.

some tactics may look dated but the old tactics are proven ver time. examples are plenty and I will just quote one to backup my claim.
theater Iraqi Deserts:
time: Gulf War 1
Americans employed the tactics of Hannibal vs Romans in out maneuvering and flanking greater number of Iraqi Armor and Infantry units.


dont confuse Urban warfare with a conventional one though. they evolve and change over time and they suit a particular army, and its mission statement and the strategic objectives of its planners. there is no fit for all concept. looking up to superpowers and adapting their design might not work because they have a bigger scope and different objectives at a global scale. sorry for a vague and general statement but I will like to keep the post short hoping you might get the idea

 

[The Sultan Erdogan]

That awkward moment when Hezbollah terrorists are more advanced, healthy and successful than the goshne pa pati canon fodder soldiers of Pakistan. Biafra is more advanced and organized than Pakistan. You really should curb the smack talk wahabi. It's like a guy from Sudan talking shit in front of an Egyptian. Sure, Egypt is no Denmark, but it sure as hell beats whatever Sudan has to offer. Same here. Curb the smack talk Biafra.

Pakistan Military will toast iranian forces (i refuse to write "military" for iran) in like what? three weeks maximum?

Have you seen Pakistan's forces? Their training? Past combat experience? Their officer corps comprising of officers who have trained in harshest of conditions in elite of the elite military academies of Austrailia, United States, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Turkey and even Germany etc.

Pakistani-made tanks will chew your "zulfiqar tin boxes" ...Pakistani F-16s will rape vintage F-14s of Iranian air force...

And Pakistan Missile systems can target anywhere in Iran..and Iranian missiles can do the same in Pakistan.

The difference?

Iranian missiles are armed with this

Pakistan missiles can be armed with THIS!!!

Your analogy of Sudan and Egypt is very valid. The only thing is: Sudan = Iranian military, Egypt = Pakistani Military here...

 

[Judge]

generally speaking the ratio has to be 5 to 1 attacker Vs defender to be an even match in a trench/ bunker , dug out position.

4 : 1 in Plains against an entrenched enemy(bunkers/etc)
9 : 1 in Mountain assault.

Ofcourse these are only recommended figures and not a rule, militaries have won with less and lost with more.

this is a harsh comment.
you guys would take revenge for the 1962 fiasco if that was the case.

No. 1962 was a loss on account of multiple Indian failures on multiple levels instead of PLA accomplishments.
The PLA loss ratio was nothing to write about.

The Indian military was unprepared at all levels - no mountain warfare training, no winter clothes and fighting in freezing weather, literally no acclimatization - troops were relocated from plains to mountains in a few days and were still fighting in summer gear! a Prime Minister who was trying to convert the ordinance factories to manufacture washing machines and other white goods and who till the last moment refused to acknowledge that we may be attacked, a Defence Minister who had promoted his incompetent cronies to the top of the Command Hierarchy, an incompetent command who was following the wrong orders from the political bosses.

And lastly, - PLA simply over-runing the positions with sheer numbers.

This is what happened the next time - the Sumdorong Chu. Do read it.
1987 Sino-Indian skirmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My musings and off topic:
I have personally understood the 1962 war in very positive terms despite it being a military loss. It yielded handsome political dividends.
1. It made the GoI understand in harsh terms that they are to - never again - play favorites with the Military. Since that time, GoI interference has been very very minimal in appointing Chief's and promotions for the Services. They strictly use seniority now having burnt fingers catastrophically.

2. It made Nehru and other leaders of the time understand in very unambiguous terms that a strong military is essential. Nehru was hostile to Indian Army, thinking of it as a colonial entity and wanted to depower and dissolve it - an example that of changing ordinance factories to white good producing factories.

3. It made all the other leaders in GoI start rebuilding the military. The process started in 1963. Without it, Indian military would have been anemic for all the wars that were to follow shortly.