forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Apr 13, 2019 10:17:56 GMT
We all know that a Soviet invasion of Iran was considered as CENTCOM's biggest threat during the 80s.
In a limited (as in confined to the Middle East) war, could the US have actually held Iran against a Spviet armoured thrust?
Presumably, when the Soviets invade from the north and northeast, 2nd Marine Division & the 82nd Airborne go in at Bandar Abbas. The 9th Motorized, 10th Mountain, 101st Air Assault, & 24th Mech go in behind them...Would this have been enough to prevent the Red Army reaching the Gulf in say 1984 or 85?
IMHO, no, it wouldn't be; the Soviet armies (three at least, probably more in CENTCOMs estimates) were all armoured or mechanized, with the US only having one heavy division. Is it possible that the XVIII Airborne Corps would be destroyed or forced to pull a Dunkirk?
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 13, 2019 15:19:02 GMT
From how I understand it, by the late-80s, the Zagros Doctrine was fully in-place under CentCom. This would have had the Americans attempt to defend the Zagros Mountain passes and thus stop an invasion reaching the Straits of Hormuz around Bandar Abbas. However, that would have left western stretches of the Iranian coastline - Bushehr and everything near to it - all in Soviet hands, right on the Americans flank and allowing the Soviets a shot at Dhahran in Saudi & Kuwait & Bahrain & Qatar too. CentCom would be distracted by that, let alone trying to keep the Soviets out of the part of Iran they themselves occupied.
This was the late-80s.
In the mid-80s, as you say 84 to 85, I'm not sure what the plans were before the Zagros Doctrine was fully formed. I imagine it would be a similar strategy, just not one yet ready to be implemented.
The Americans would have been in the sticky stuff with such light forces. Those Soviet armies north of Iran - maybe as many as five - would all be heavy units with tank divisions at 300+ tanks and MR divs with at least 200. Then guns, lots of heavy guns: a good few thousand of them. All their infantry units, even the airborne divisions, were fully mechanised with armoured vehicles aplenty.
I'd expect that the Americans would, literally, be run over under the treads of the tanks & armoured vehicles as well as blown apart by all of those heavy guns. Iran would be a bloodbath for them - fighting the Soviets and the Iranians too - and they might not even manage a Dunkirk from Bandar Abbas.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Apr 13, 2019 18:58:48 GMT
Wouldn't this be further complicated by the fact that until 1988 Iran is at war with Iraq so there would be three hostile intruders as far as the Iranian government were concerned? Are you assuming that Moscow and Baghdad decide to co-operate, as they probably have compatible interests? If so then I suspect any American attempt to hold part of Iran other than possibly in the extreme SE would be pretty much hopeless. However if all three groups are hostile to each other things are even more complex. The priority would be to secure the oil states, from Kuwait southwards and do what they could to protect the shipping lines out of the Gulf.
Taking Iran is one thing but as the Soviets found out with Afghanistan holding it is likely to be something else. Especially since your almost certain to have western aid to the Iranian resistance while there would be other opportunity costs with a further heightening of tension with the west and probably significantly higher western defence spending, as well as alliances/links between the west and other powers such as China strengthened.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Apr 13, 2019 19:39:57 GMT
You would have the Iranians fighting the Iraqis, the Soviets and the Americans each as independent enemies. Iraqi-Soviet forces would more than likely cooperate in an invasion - foolish otherwise - if it was right in the middle of the Iran-Iraq War. Yet, Baghdad and Moscow could fall out leading to Saddam allying with America.
Possible, though not too likely.
Holding Iran, even with local support (it took the regime a long time after 1979 to fully get rid of communist opposition) would be worse than Afghanistan for the Soviets. It would be bloody for the Americans in any stretch of territory too as the 'Great Satan' would still be fought.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,996
Likes: 49,391
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 14, 2019 18:48:53 GMT
|
|
