Talk:Islamic Republic of Iran Army Ground Forces/Archive 1

Untitled
Deleted POV: "At the time, it was the world's 5th strongest army." Maurreen 08:44, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I reinserted the statement...I don't seen what's POV about stating that Iran's army was the 5th largest in numbers and thus, the 5th strongest in raw numerical strength. Maybe the sentence requires some clarification, but then, the whole article requires some hefty expansion work... -- Ferkelparade &pi; 09:53, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seconded--Sennaista 00:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

This logo image does not belong to the Army! this is the logo of the ministry of defense, which is quite differnt from the army's logo. It even says so in Persian text right under the logo: Ministry of Defense and Logistics --28 Feb 2006.
 * Fixed it User:ArmanJan

Garbled sentence
ArmanJan, this doesn't make sense: "Its low amount of active duty soldiers may be explained by it not requiring compulsory military service and requiring only two years of active duty." Why is 420,000 troops a "low amount"? What are you trying to say? PRRfan 00:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For a country the size of Iran, I would say that is low, yes. However, I forgot that Iran also has the IRGC with 350.000+ soldiers and 100.000 reserves. This whole two armed forces thing is even confusing me. :) ArmanJan 00:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The basij - total troop strength
the basij can only mobilize about 1 million troops.. the 11 million number is misleading as it includes grandfathers and children ect.. and is not a verified number. the 1 million number is more accurate as to actual useful combat avail forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.251.183 (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't include grandfathers and children all men from 18 to 45 are 1/5 of irans population that is 14,000,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.138.90 (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundent weblink
Why is the same Janes article quoted four times? 145.253.108.22 11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fateh 110.jpg
Image:Fateh 110.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria
The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — M o e   ε  19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IranSoldiers.jpg
Image:IranSoldiers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Takavar2.jpg
The image Image:Takavar2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename?
Rename to "Iranian Army"? Not all of the information is regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially sections on the Persian Empire. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget that, I've just had a closer read. My bad. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The most important point of interest has not been considered in the article
As has been proven over and over again in both ancient and modern history the quality of a military is mostly derived from the individual quality of its people rather than its numbers and even to some extent its level of equipment. The question of any real relevance when studying this subject is just how comparatively capable is the Iranian military? If we consider the eight years of primitive toe to toe warfare during the Iran Iraq war where First World War type trench warfare with missiles in addition to poison gas resulted in near stalemate and the deaths of at least a million people the conclusion is that the Iranian military is no better than the Iraqis were. Iraq's carefully prepared and well equipped defences were demolished in a metaphorical instant by Western forces and at no point anywhere along their military system were they able to display the merest hint of professional or tactical expertise when confronted by 'rational modernism'. Bullshit may baffle brains but when push comes to shove the odds overwhelmingly point to the probability that Iran’s military is all front and no trousers. Despite all the posturing so beloved of the current Iranian regime with their Soviet style parades and goose stepping ranks, Iran would be reduced to the same state as Iraq in very short order in any confrontation with reality; hence their desperate efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the West’s certain goal to prevent that from happening. Therefore the complete lack of any qualitive potential in Iran’s military assets makes the counting of their numbers of only academic interest.


 * While you may be correct, wikipedia requires references rather than your assurances. The references need to be reliable (see WP:RELIABLE). Nor can we form our own conclusions from apparently supporting evidence - the conclusions needs to be in the source itself (see WP:SYNTH, WP:OR}. Hopefully you can point to some reliable sources. Hohum (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly; for definitive reference from multiple sources simply refer to what must be thousands of reference sources detailing the data and history of the Iran Iraq war, then consider the absolute self evidence of the rapid conclusions of the two later Gulf wars and it hardly needs the brains of a rocket scientist to extrapolate the maths or to observe clear reality. The somewhat pedantic box ticking level of scholarship we can observe amongst those editors here who's own narrow perspective of the objectives of academic learning are overly in awe of faux empirical intellectual development handed to them by others whose presumptions are in any case being challenged by an ever increasing rate of Academic Revision is not as good for the advancement of learning as the ‘We only learn by rote’  community  believe. Nevertheless it is peculiar how even 'Modern History' that was regarded only just the other day as 'Current Affairs' is often perverted by wishful thinking, the poor perspectives of being far too close to the events, as in “Not being able to see the wood for the trees” or too often, patriotic pride and jingoism. The ‘True and Complete History of World War Two’ for example has yet to be written and indeed is unlikely to ever be written even though thousands of ‘qualified experts’ have written millions of words on the subject. Consequently there are millions of people who go around believing things about World War Two that are simply incorrect. Indeed practically the whole of academic history proffered throughout the World must be regarded with a great deal of caution regardless of the Doctorates of their authors. Nevertheless there are certain events that have taken place in our recent and living experience that hardly require the validation of dubious scholars due to the unassailable citation of overwhelming self evidence. The reality of the comparative capabilities of conventional military forces in the Middle East is one such certainty. Notwithstanding the forgoing however any such observations are aside from other considerations such as courage, toughness or moral fibre. This observation is simply with regard to conventional Armies, Air Forces and Navies within the modern conventional warfare context. We can plainly observe without referring to academic citations that demolishing the entirety of what seems on paper to be a huge conventional force such as Iraq’s was or even to a lesser extent Taliban ruled Afghanistan, is not enough to win complete control where insurgent forces can redeploy amongst a civil population who have no alternative but to acquiesce to the will of whoever stands before them and also carries a gun. That however, is entirely another matter.
 * Well, you wrote a lot, but didn't provide any actual sources. That is what wikipedia needs. Please read the links I provided. If you simply disagree with what wikipedia policy requires, you're out of luck. Here it is in a nutshell: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Hohum (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Material from website in case it disappears
"During the late 1970s the Imperial Iranian Ground Forces, was undergoing a rapid increase in strength. In 1979 it was a largely mechanized and armored force of about 285,000 troops, organized in 3 corps, with headquarters in Tehran area, in Shiraz in the south, and in Kermanshah near the Iraq border. There was even Plans for a fourth corps, to be established at the new Chah Bahar complex at the eastern end of the Persian Gulf. Major ground formations included 3 armored divisions (One more in organization in Sistan) each with six tank battalions and five mechanized infantry battalions, 3 infantry divisions, 2 Imperial Guard Divisions and 4 independent brigades (1 armored, 1 infantry, 1 airborne and 1 Special Forces) and the Army Aviation Command. These combat units, backed up by the usual complement of support units, were said to be 85 percent operational. During the mid-1970s fully 80 percent of Iran's ground forces were deployed along the Iraqi border, though official sources maintained that a large portion of these could be sent anywhere in the country within twenty-four hours by means of air force transports. Troop deployment was expected to shift south during the late 1970s with the opening of the Chah Bahar facility."

Total (in 1979): 285,000

Reserves: 300,000

Main Unites:

16th Armored Division - Ghazvin 81th Armored Division - Kermanshah 92th Armored Division - Khuzestan 88th Armored Division - Sistan 1th Infantry Imperial Guard Division (After the revolution changed to 21th Infantry Div.) 2th Imperial Guard Division (After the revolution changed to 21th Infantry Div.) 28th Infantry Division - Kurdistan 64th Infantry Division - Rezaieh 77th Infantry Division - Khorasan 84th Infantry Brigade - Khoramabad (Division during the war with Iraq) 55th Airborne Brigade - Shiraz (Division during the war with Iraq) 23th Special forces Brigade - Nohed -Tehran (Division during the war with Iraq) 37th Armored Brigade - Shiraz 11th Artillery Unit 22th Artillery Unit 23th Artillery Unit 44th Artillery Unit 55th Artillery Unit Hawk missiles Battalions (4 units) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

History.
It would be better to have a separate article titled History of the Iranian Army, rather than cram in the entire history of the army, into this, one article. This has been done with the Iranian navy and air force articles, which have a simple summary of their subject's history since 1979 and link to articles titled History of the Iranian Navy and History of the Iranian Air Force. Can someone please do this for the Islamic Republic of Iran Army, as well? --Dreddmoto (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the relevant rules here are WP:BOLD and WP:SIZERULE. Comparing this article, to for example, the United States Army article would indicate that it can grow a great deal before being split. SIZERULE says that articles over 40kB possibly should be split; yet this article in total with pictures, hypertext links etc, is only ~20kB. The 'readable text size' which is the SIZERULE measuring stick will be even less. In other words, this article could be easily *doubled* before any split needs to be considered. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. This article article has possibilities for expansion.

In the long term, I still think that it would be a good idea to have a separate article titled "History of the Iranian Army". It would be better, not to cram the entire history into this one, article. Also, the article is about the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (the army since 1979). Therefore, information about it before 1979, is not actually, the subject. --Dreddmoto (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Republic of Iran Army → Islamic Republic of Iran Ground Force – In Persian, the phrase Iranian Army included the "Islamic Republic of Iran Ground Force", the "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy" , the "Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force"  and the  "Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force".

The current page "Islamic Republic of Iran Army" introduces only the ground force of the Iranian army. I think we must transfer the content of "Islamic Republic of Iran Army" to the page "Islamic Republic of Iran Ground Force" and redirect the page "Islamic Republic of Iran Army" to "Iranian Army". And the page "Iranian Army" must be rewrited, it should contain the introduction of the "Islamic Republic of Iran Ground Force", the "Islamic Republic of Iran Navy", the "Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force" and the "Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force". Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC) --MacArthur1945 (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment instead of translations, how does English language sources treat these? There should be enough coming out of Washington, the Pentagon, etc to show usage. -- 70.24.245.16 (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed – both "Islamic Republic of Iran Army" and "Islamic Republic of Iran Ground Force" sound labo/ured / clumsy / contrived (select your preference) here. Mesuspects "Iranian Army" or "Iranian Ground Force" is likely to suffice. CsDix (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. From what I can tell, ارتش can translate as either "army" or as "military"/"armed forces". The other elements translate as "ground force", "marine force" and "air force" respectively. Since "ground force" and "army" are essentially the same thing, just as "marine force" and "navy" are essentially the same thing, I see no problem. It would however appear that قرارگاه پدافند هوایی ارتش جمهوری اسلامی ایران should translate as Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Command, not force. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As is said above, the primary question is how English sources use the term. Only if there is no English term do we look to foreign language sources and attempt our own translation, which is extremely rare and unlikely in this case considering the worldwide interest in the Iranian military. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seal
The image at the top of this article, that has the caption "The seal of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army", seems not to be. It includes a bird and an anchor, obviously non-army symbols. Not only that, it has the caption "Iranian Armed Forces" in the Islamic Republic of Iran (1979 to Present) section of the Military history of Iran' article. In that same section, the genuine army logo/seal can be seen to the right side of it.

I suggest replacing the image at the top of this article with the genuine seal. It would require moving that image up from the Islamic Republic of Iran section of this article.

In addition, it could be replaced in the Islamic Republic of Iran section with another image of something relevant to the Islamic Republic of Iran Army. --Dreddmoto (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Ground Forces of Islamic Republic of Iran Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080725033831/http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jwar/jwar060829_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jwar/jwar060829_1_n.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091016110850/http://www.janes.com:80/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw010827_1_n.shtml to http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jdw/jdw010827_1_n.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ارتشبد فتح الله مین باشیان.jpg
 * سپهبد عبدالعلی بدره ای.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ارتشبد عبدالحسین حجازی.jpg