America propped Iran's military up when the white-envying Shah was ruling the country, being equipped with F-14's wielding the AIM-54 missiles means you are a privileged one back in the 80's. We could say that you were the UAE of the 80's when it comes to weapons you wanted.
Iraq had to uparm its military to deal with the shiny American equipment Iran had, whilst fighting a larger enemy with more manpower. An enemy which can utilize its Shia force, as well as influence Iraq's Shias. Whilst Iraq had to rely on a smaller population, and infact.. a certain percentage of that population.
Say what?
Iraq enjoyed a far numerically superior (professional trained) fighting force, as well having more military hardware in its inventory.
Iraq: 9 well-armed divisions, 2750 tanks, 1400 artillery pieces, 4000 ACPs and 340 fighter bombers
Iran: 2 badly-depleted divisions and equally brigades, 500 tanks, 300 artillery pieces and no less than 100 operational aircraft.
I'm quoting Kenneth Pollack:
''Iraq's ground assault was no better. Its greatest problem was that Iraqi forces moved at a snail's pace against meager Iranian resistance. Overall, the balance of forces heavily favored Iraq because the desertions, demoralization, purges, and other distractions attending the Iranian revolution had left few operationally ready military forces. Iraq deployed 2,750 tanks, 1,400 artillery pieces, 4,000 Arcs, and 340 fighter-bombers. Against this, Iran could muster no more than about 500 operational tanks, probably no more than 300 functioning artillery pieces, and less than 100 operable aircraft. Iran had close to 100,000 troops in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), or Revolutionary Guard, but at the time these were little more than militant students and street thugs who had secured the revolution but had no formal military training. Roughly one-quarter of Iran's army was tied down fighting a Kurdish revolt, and Iran had only two badly depleted divisions, two equally reduced brigades, and some lightly armed security forces along the border to contend with the nine wellarmed divisions that Iraq committed to the invasion.
The local balance of forces in Khuzestan was even more favorable to the Iraqis. The 92d Armored Division at Ahvaz was the only major Iranian formation in the area, and it took several days before it could deploy even company-sized formations let alone the entire division. Otherwise, the Iraqis faced small platoon- and company-sized elements from the Iranian army, Revolutionary Guards, and Iranian gendarmerie fighting mostly with small arms and without any central direction. Most of the Iranian forces did not even try to delay the Iraqi invasion but retreated to the cities and other defensible positions. Nevertheless, two weeks into the campaign, the deepest Iraqi penetrations were only 65 kilometers into Iran, and in most sectors the Iraqis had gone no more than 20-3o kilometers. Whether in the mountains of the Zagros or the dry, open terrain of Khuzestan, the quickest Iraqi units advanced only an average of 5-6 kilometers per day, facing only scattered bands of lightly armed and, in the case of the gendarmerie and Revolutionary Guards, essentially untrained Iranian defenders.The primary reason for this glacial advance was Iraq's tactical doctrine.''
The chemical attacks were needed due to the human-wave tactics used by Iran, deploying even children whom were brainwashed as you can see in the video below.
The chemical attacks were coordinated with American intelligence, which proved to be pivotal, as Iran was about to breach Iraqi defenses. Quote:
''In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose.''
The U.S. knew Hussein was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in history -- and still gave him a hand.
foreignpolicy.com
Let me tell you something and this is without pride, Iran's military performance in the 80's was a joke. A tactic (human wave assaults) which the PMU, our Iran worshipping lot copied in the battle of Tikrit.
You keep referring to these human wave assaults as if they were some WW1-like tactic. It wasn't.
Quote:
According to historian Stephen C. Pelletiere, the idea of Iranian "human wave attacks" was a misconception. Instead, the Iranian tactics consisted of using groups of 22 man infantry squads, which moved forward to attack specific objectives. As the squads surged forward to execute their missions, that gave the impression of a "human wave attack". Nevertheless, the idea of "human wave attacks" remained virtually synonymous with any large-scale infantry frontal assault Iran carried out. Large numbers of troops would be used, aimed at overwhelming the Iraqi lines (usually the weakest portion manned by the Iraqi Popular Army) regardless of losses.
According to the former Iraqi general Ra'ad al-Hamdani, the Iranian human wave charges consisted of armed "civilians" who carried most of their necessary equipment themselves into battle and often lacked command and control and logistics. Operations were often carried out during the night and deception operations, infiltrations, and maneuvers became more common. The Iranians would also reinforce the infiltrating forces with new units to keep up their momentum. Once a weak point was found, the Iranians would concentrate all of their forces into that area in an attempt to break through with human wave attacks.
The human wave attacks, while extremely bloody (tens of thousands of troops died in the process), when used in combination with infiltration and surprise, caused major Iraqi defeats. As the Iraqis would dig in their tanks and infantry into static, entrenched positions, the Iranians would manage to break through the lines and encircle entire divisions. Merely the fact that the Iranian forces used maneuver warfare by their light infantry against static Iraqi defenses was often the decisive factor in the battle. However, lack of coordination between the Iranian Army and IRGC and shortages of heavy weaponry played a detrimental role, often with most of the infantry not being supported by artillery and armor.
As a result they lost a lot of people with little gain, then the military stepped in and did a better job. Today your land forces are not any better, your technology has improved, although some of you have become delusional thinking this would save you in an all out war with the US. Better hope there won't be an all out war, you won't survive it.
I don't think a professional fighting force ever ridiculed itself as much as Iraq's in its fight with ISIS. If it wasn't for a certain Iranian ayatollah in Najaf, American aerial support and Iranian assistance, your Sunni compatriots would have still ruled over large swaths of your territory.
Don't come here whining about Iran toxics influence in Iraq, while your country shamelessly and purposefully invaded its neighbor in the '80s while using chemical weapons on both civilians and soldiers. Iran has every reason to distrust both its neighbour as well as the western forces that it is housing.
