Iran appoints New Military Chief

[AmirPatriot]

As I understand, the USMC is like a rapid reaction force, designed to be the first (and sometimes only) forces on the ground. Their high level of training and skill, as well use of combined arms tactics, is what makes them so deadly.

While the IRGC may be somewhat similar to the USMC in terms of tactics and role, its not really that analogous. Its operations are split into two spheres - domestic and overseas. The overseas operations - primarily conducted by the elite Quds force - are designed to sponsor, train, equip and even lead militia forces on the battlefield. The Iraqi PMUs are a great example of this. The Quds force also conduct combat operations, like putting boots on the ground in Syria. This is why the Quds force is secret, and its operations are largely covert. The fact Iran has an entire branch of the IRGC conducting these operations is telling. The other overseas role of the IRGC is operating the sizeable ballistic missile force, which is a very strategic role indeed.

The domestic role of the IRGC is largely home defence, intelligence gathering, and border patrol in some areas. It heavily emphasises the use of asymmetric warfare in its operations. This is designed to counter the large conventional tactics used by many western militaries. For example, the IRGC Navy emphasises speed, mobility and swarming, tactics that are thought to be used for distracting a US Carrier Strike Group while the Khalij Fars does its job.

The regular military has only ever focused on home defence. In fact, the recent deployment of the Army's 65th Airborne Brigade (considered one of, if not the most elite and skilled group of fighters in the Iranian military) was the first time it had gone on foreign soil since the Iran-Iraq war.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Assuming that such is true, then it's a good thing I didn't consult it. I just went on my knowledge of history and US military affairs.



While that may be true, that was not the point I was disagreeing with. I was pointing out that I am unaware of any battle in which the USMC "spearheaded" a battlefield as shock troops for the US Army to then follow up on. The US Army has conducted it's own amphibious landings and provided it's own forces on the battlefield without needing the very fine Marine Corps to do it for them.

You may well be right. However (history is filled with 'howevers') here is the Battle of Saipan, in an extract that starts with a 'however':

However, by nightfall the 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions had a beachhead about 6 mi (10 km) wide and 0.5 mi (1 km) deep. The Japanese counter-attacked at night but were repulsed with heavy losses. On 16 June, units of the U.S. Army's 27th Infantry Division landed and advanced on the airfield at Ås Lito (now the location of Saipan International Airport). Again the Japanese counter-attacked at night. On 18 June, Saito abandoned the airfield.

As understand, the USMC is like a rapid reaction force, designed to be the first (and sometimes only) forces on the ground. Their high level of training and skill, as well use of combined arms tactics, is what make them so deadly.

While the IRGC may be somewhat similar to the USMC in terms of tactics and role, its not really that analogous. Its operations are split into two spheres - domestic and overseas. The overseas operations - primarily conducted by the elite Quds force - are designed to sponsor, train, equip and even lead militia forces on the battlefield. The Iraqi PMUs are a great example of this. The Quds force also conduct combat operations, like putting boots on the ground in Syria. This is why the Quds force is secret, and its operations are largely covert. The fact Iran has an entire branch of the IRGC conducting these operations is telling. The other overseas role of the IRGC is operating the sizeable ballistic missile force, which is a very strategic role indeed.

The domestic role of the IRGC is largely home defence, intelligence gathering, and border patrol in some areas. It heavily emphasises the use of asymmetric warfare in its operations. This is designed to counter the large conventional tactics used by many western militaries. For example, the IRGC Navy emphasises speed, mobility and swarming, tactics that are thought to be used for distracting a US Carrier Strike Group while the Khalij Fars does its job.

The regular military has only ever focused on home defence. In fact, the recent deployment of the Army's 65th Airborne Brigade (considered one of, if not the most elite and skilled group of fighters in the Iranian military) was the first time it had gone on foreign soil since the Iran-Iraq war.

This (more detailed) explanation makes far more sense. Many thanks.

 

[HAIDER]

look like Hazarra/mangol tribe origin...

 

[Aramagedon]

I think wasting time for some stupid individuals is useless (not pointing at any specific person).

Thumbs up for either Army and IRGC.

 

[Desertfalcon]

You may well be right. However (history is filled with 'howevers') here is the Battle of Saipan, in an extract that starts with a 'however':

You put some effort into finding the exception although even so, it's not really an exception. The Battle of Saipan was fought by a joint Army/Marine Corps infantry corps called the Amphibious Corps under a single commander so it was not really the Marines acting as "shock troops" for the Army. They were just part of the same unit. For instance, in the Battle of Iwo Jima it was the Army that was part of the Amphibious Corps V, that saved the Marines...

"This tactic caused many casualties among the Marines, as they walked past the reoccupied bunkers without expecting to suddenly take fresh fire from them. In response to the heavy resistance on the beach, the Army's 147th Infantry Regiment was ordered to climb from landing craft with grappling hooks to scale a high ridge about 3/4 mile from Mount Suribachi. The mission was to fire on the enemy opposing the Marine landings on the beaches below."

 

[Joe Shearer]

You put some effort into finding the exception although even so, it's not really an exception. The Battle of Saipan was fought by a joint Army/Marine Corps infantry corps called the Amphibious Corps under a single commander so it was not really the Marines acting as "shock troops" for the Army. They were just part of the same unit. For instance, in the Battle of Iwo Jima it was the Army that was part of the Amphibious Corps V, that saved the Marines...

"This tactic caused many casualties among the Marines, as they walked past the reoccupied bunkers without expecting to suddenly take fresh fire from them. In response to the heavy resistance on the beach, the Army's 147th Infantry Regiment was ordered to climb from landing craft with grappling hooks to scale a high ridge about 3/4 mile from Mount Suribachi. The mission was to fire on the enemy opposing the Marine landings on the beaches below."

That's good enough for me. Clearly we have the Army and the Marines mounting separate campaigns. Whether this is a parallel to the IGRC / Iranian Army relationship is another matter.