PDA

View Full Version : Arabs at War



Pages : 1 [2]

PELEIDES
11-09-2006, 05:32 PM
ok go and read some history and then understand how stupid what you wrote

Gee, you guys are right, how could I have posted something so stupid?

In June of 1973, United States President Nixon and Soviet Chairman Brezhnev held talks and issued a communiquť which made no mention at all of the Middle East. Arabs were outraged. They concluded that there was no way to get the Middle East back on the front burner of superpower attentions except through war.

So, Egypt and Syria started what was planned to be a limited war against Israel. Egypt and Syria wanted a short war with a quick ceasefire, the aim being to break the political stalemate.

Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, had secretly urged Israel not to launch a preemptive attack because it would have been too embarrassing for the U.S. Besides, Sadat had moved his troops around before and no attack had come. On two of these occasions, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir had mobilized Israel's armed forces at great expense. She did not want to do it again unnecessarily. Besides, both Israel and the U.S. doubted Egypt could launch a successful attack anyhow. So, this time around the Israelis did nothing. Thus, it can be said that when Egypt finally did attack, they achieved at least an element of the "total surprise" that Sadat later boasted about in his memoirs.

At 2:00 p.m., October 6, 1973, Egypt attacked Israel moving 10,000 troops across the Suez Canal digging in on the east bank along the "Bar Lev" line. Meanwhile, Syria attacked Israel from the Golan heights. The Arab armies were better trained and more aggressive than had been the case in the previous wars: Israel suffered heavy casualties in the early days of the fighting. Along the canal, the Israelis responded with a tank attack in which practically every tank was lost. Egyptian soldiers, demonstrating tremendous courage while standing fully exposed, fired wire-guided missiles at each tank as it approached. Initial attacks by the Israeli air force failed miserably as well.

Within twenty four hours, three Egyptian armies had established themselves on the east bank of the canal inside Israeli territory. Nevertheless, Israel, bolstered by a fresh supply of arms from the U.S., pushed into Syrian territory, and encircled the Egyptians by crossing the canal and taking its west bank.

Back in Egypt, what happened next was something military historians continued to wrangle over for some time afterward. After digging in, the three Egyptian armies just sat there and did nothing for the entire week that followed. They could have advanced, and they could have taken much Israeli territory in the Sinai. But, they did not make a move. This was fatal, because it gave the Israelis time to dig in and plan their own attack.

Egypt's allies, the Syrians, were thoroughly bewildered. President Asad sat in a bunker in Damascus waiting hour after hour for the Egyptians to move unaware that Sadat had been in constant secret contact with Henry Kissinger and had promised Kissinger that Egypt intended to advance no further (Seale, 208). By the time Asad angrily realized he had been set up by Sadat it was too late. The Israelis had themselves figured out what was happening or were told by the US and knew they were free to redeploy forces to the north to deal with the Syrians.

Therefore, Israel temporarily abandoned efforts on the western front and concentrated on containing and repelling the Syrian attack from the northeast. The Syrian threat was perceived as the greater of the two anyway, with the Golan Heights and the Galilee at stake. The Syrians were soon driven back behind the 1967 armistice line. At the end of hostilities, the Syrians had lost 6,000 men and 800 tanks.

The problem with the Egyptians was that they were as surprised as anyone at their success up to that point and had not drawn up a battle plan beyond taking the Bar Lev line. After the war, Army Chief of Staff General Shazli and Sadat traded accusations over this. The important point is that it was not at all certain that Sadat himself ever expected to get across the canal, and after he did, it may well have been a "total surprise" for him. It was also a stunning political victory for him and indeed for all Egypt. Subsequently, the event was remembered with great pride by Egyptians and October 6 became one of the biggest national holidays.

Other reasons have been advanced for the curious failure of the Egyptian armies to push further. One is that the Egyptians were afraid that advancing beyond the range of their Soviet-equipped protective missile system would render them vulnerable to Israeli air attack. Another is that the commander of the second army had a heart attack as his troops were digging in, apparently throwing the field command structure into disarray.

A related and more general point had to do with the overall character of Egypt's military. Egyptian officers and troops had been trained by the Soviets. The Soviet command structure did not highly regard independent decision making among junior officers. The preferred modus operandi was to establish a centralized command network that issued orders for limited tactical missions. After carrying out their orders, field commanders typically sat and waited for further instructions. Under this scenario, the Egyptian troops crossed the canal, dug in, then simply waited for their next set of orders which never came.

One week after the Egyptians crossed the canal, when they finally did decide to push their attack further, 600 of their tanks were wiped out almost immediately as the Israelis had by then dug in and were waiting for them. At the same time, an Israeli tank division, commanded by General Ariel Sharon, who had a bad reputation among Israeli military figures as a political opportunist and a poor tactical commander, nevertheless successfully drove through the ten kilometer gap separating the second and third Egyptian armies and crossed over to the western side of the canal initially escaping the attention of the Egyptians, who, as indicated above, were just sitting there in their trenches.

Sharon ordered his tanks to fan out from north to south to create the illusion of a vast Israeli presence inside Egyptian territory with a knife at the backs of Egypt's army. It worked. The Egyptians thought there were far more Israelis surrounding them than in fact was the case. Sharon concentrated on cutting off the Egyptian third army. This was all that was needed for Sadat to capitulate and accept the ceasefire.

On October 22, 1973, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 338 calling for a ceasefire and the start of negotiations aimed at implementation of Resolution 242. Fighting had ended on all fronts by October 26.

Following the ceasefire in November and the peace agreement on January 18th, US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger began what was quickly dubbed his "shuttle diplomacy" to try to find a settlement favorable to US interests.

Israel, for its part, had in one sense indeed been taken by surprise since the attack came on Yom Kippur, "the Day of Atonement," a high and solemn religious holiday in Israel. However, it was also the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Israel was not expecting an Arab attack during a time when Muslims traditionally were fasting. To that extent, the attack was a surprise. However, the U.S. had been feeding Israel satellite reconnaissance pictures of Egyptian troop movements for some time prior to the attack. So, the Israelis knew something was up.

One of the many interesting things about the '73 war is that Egypt considered it a victory. The nation continued to celebrate the occasion annually on October 6; this in spite of the fact that once the Israelis had neutralized the Syrian threat on the northeastern front, they were able to turn their full attention toward taking care of the Egyptian penetration from the West.

In spite of the Israeli military victory, the war was very bad for Israeli morale. The 1973 war was the first Arab-Israeli war in which Israel suffered a high number of casualties (3,000 dead). The myth of the invincibility of Israel was shattered. The war spawned reactions from both the Left (the Israeli peace movement) and the Right, especially the "religious Right." With respect to the Right, such groups as Gush Emunim, "army of the faithful," whose aim was to consolidate Jewish sovereignty over all the ancient lands of Judea and Samaria, gained ground . Israeli settlement activity increased markedly after this point, and a new rightist political party -Likud- quickly rose up to support it.

The war served to strengthen even further American support for Israel, which had taken a big leap forward in the aftermath of Black September. In the wake of the '73 war, U.S. aid quadrupled from $500 million annually to $2.1 billion in loans and grants.

eugenlitwin
11-12-2006, 10:20 AM
[quote=Fazla;2065960]I don't get what the hell does bosnia have to do with this but I shall comment



The fact that Izetbegovic (as any muslim) considers Islam as a way to end the most of those problems doesn't really make him an extremist in my eyes.

Yes IN YOUR EYES, SAUDI, AND I Guess Taliban as well.
Fazla (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=21449) i met many bosniacs in Sweden, most of them i Can describe as average Europeans, but it s not make from Izetbegovic "Holy man", your can t take words away from song..

Quote
He argued that the Declaration advocated an Islamic revival starting with a religious revolution to be followed by a political revolution. Izetbegovic rejected Kemal Ataturkís Turkish secular model as framework for the Muslim state,.the model the U.S. favours for islamic countries. There should be no separation between the state and religion. The state should be govermned by Sharia, Islamic religious code. Izetbegovic was sentenced to 12 years in prison but pardoned in 1989 and set free. Five of the defendents were accused of urging Muslims not to marry non-Muslims and of planning a trip to Ayatollah Khomeiniís Islamic fundamentalist Iran. There were riots organized by clerics who had been trained in Qom (holy city for Shiite Muslim in Iran) and sent back to Yugoslavia by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

AK74
11-13-2006, 06:34 AM
this thread should be renamed:

"Arabs at war with themselves."

Fazla
11-13-2006, 09:43 AM
[quote=Fazla;2065960]I don't get what the hell does bosnia have to do with this but I shall comment



The fact that Izetbegovic (as any muslim) considers Islam as a way to end the most of those problems doesn't really make him an extremist in my eyes.

Yes IN YOUR EYES, SAUDI, AND I Guess Taliban as well.
Fazla (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=21449) i met many bosniacs in Sweden, most of them i Can describe as average Europeans, but it s not make from Izetbegovic "Holy man", your can t take words away from song..

Quote
He argued that the Declaration advocated an Islamic revival sta

rting with a religious revolution to be followed by a political revolution. Izetbegovic rejected Kemal Ataturkís Turkish secular model as framework for the Muslim state,.the model the U.S. favours for islamic countries. There should be no separation between the state and religion. The state should be govermned by Sharia, Islamic religious code. Izetbegovic was sentenced to 12 years in prison but pardoned in 1989 and set free. Five of the defendents were accused of urging Muslims not to marry non-Muslims and of planning a trip to Ayatollah Khomeiniís Islamic fundamentalist Iran. There were riots organized by clerics who had been trained in Qom (holy city for Shiite Muslim in Iran) and sent back to Yugoslavia by the Islamic Republic of Iran.


In my eyes? Saudis?

first of all my views on Islam and those of saudis and talibans are so different that your comment is laughable. Ask any pious muslim if he thinks Islam lived the right way can end world problems. C'mon just ask them. I guess they are all taliban extremists tough, aren't they?

Second, you mention sharia... I am not sure if it's even mentioned in the islamic declaration, but as I see you know it, what school of law would it follow? hanafi, hanbali, maliki? For sure it would not follow the last version of it, the one of the ottoman empire as for an example it allows harems while as I showed you Izetbegovic is against them. So again what Sharia (as you said izetbegovic proposes that) would it follow?

As for the rest of your post - I don't get it. Are you trying to prove he was a bad man because he was arrested? Wow, a believer who expressed his views in a communist state was arrested. Damn, he must have been really a bad man...

Coop
11-18-2006, 03:14 AM
So, Egypt and Syria started what was planned to be a limited war against Israel. Egypt and Syria wanted a short war with a quick ceasefire, the aim being to break the political stalemate.The aim was to break the political stalemate, but none of their military commanders - and several have published hefty books meanwhile - said anything about "quick" or "short".

"Limited" - in sence of the aim being to recover the military dignity and lost territories (instead of "destroying Israel" as many claim until today) - yes. But there was no time limit.


Within twenty four hours, three Egyptian armies had established themselves on the east bank of the canal inside Israeli territory. Nevertheless, Israel, bolstered by a fresh supply of arms from the U.S., pushed into Syrian territory, and encircled the Egyptians by crossing the canal and taking its west bank.By the time Israel was on counterattack on Golan, 10 October, it was not yet receiving any resupplies from the USA. Correspondingly, it cannot be said that "Israel was bolstered by fresh supply of arms" when it pushed into Syrian territory. The first C-5s and C-141s began arriving only on 14 October.


Back in Egypt, what happened next was something military historians continued to wrangle over for some time afterward. After digging in, the three Egyptian armies just sat there and did nothing for the entire week that followed. They could have advanced, and they could have taken much Israeli territory in the Sinai. But, they did not make a move. This was fatal, because it gave the Israelis time to dig in and plan their own attack.Fatal or not, that's exactly what Chief-of-Staff, Gen. Shazli - probably the best Arab general of the whole war - knew his army could do for sure.

Surely, there was a plan for going deeper into Sinai, called "High Minarets". But, Shazly knew the Egyptian Army couldn't do that. It was not trained for this kind of operations, nor were air force and air defence equipped for it.


Egypt's allies, the Syrians, were thoroughly bewildered. President Asad sat in a bunker in Damascus waiting hour after hour for the Egyptians to move unaware that Sadat had been in constant secret contact with Henry Kissinger and had promised Kissinger that Egypt intended to advance no further (Seale, 208). By the time Asad angrily realized he had been set up by Sadat it was too late.Asad never thought he's been "set up" by Sadat. He was informed about the limited scope of Egyptian plans in advance. He knew the Egyptians wanted just to secure a part of Sinai and keep it until the ceasefire, while he wanted to liberate all of Golan - in spite of suggestions that Syria should go for a similar aim like Egypt.


The problem with the Egyptians was that they were as surprised as anyone at their success up to that point and had not drawn up a battle plan beyond taking the Bar Lev line.Complete nonsence. Egyptians went for crossing the Suez and taking positions up to 12-15km deep. Nothing else. That's what they knew they could take - and hold. Absolutely no surprise here.

What caused not a little euphoria was the capability of Arab infantry to easily smash Israeli counterattacks by their RPG-7s and Malutkas, as well as the effectiveness of SA-6s, combined with ZSU-23-4s, on the Golan front. But that was also the only surprise (except the strategic surprise caused by the timing of the whole attack).


After the war, Army Chief of Staff General Shazli and Sadat traded accusations over this. The important point is that it was not at all certain that Sadat himself ever expected to get across the canal, and after he did, it may well have been a "total surprise" for him.Read Shazly's "Crossing the Suez": you're a long way off.

The reasons Sadat and Shazly had a quarrel (and Shazly was finally dismissed), was that Sadat - against his original stated intention, but on advance from MoD Ismail - suddenly began pushing for "High Minarets". Shazly knew this would not work, and he protested. There was no point in launching the offensive on 14 October, and losing a mass of tanks for nothing.

As second, Shazly wanted the armour to be brought back to the western side after the failed offensive, in expectation - and later in reaction - to the Israeli breakthrough at Deverosoir. Sadat stupidly insisted this not to be done. The Israelis therefore confronted no Egyptian armour (down to very few poorly-equipped units) west of Suez.


It was also a stunning political victory for him and indeed for all Egypt. Subsequently, the event was remembered with great pride by Egyptians and October 6 became one of the biggest national holidays.Yeah, BUT: see how do they cherish the 6 October today. Nothing else but the crossing of the Suez is mentioned. As if nothing happened afterwards.

Why, if the whole war was so tremendously successful?

Because if they'd talk about the rest, then some unpleasant questions would have to be answered by Mubarak, the "most clever man in Egypt", then CO EAF, and one of closest aides of Sadat...


Other reasons have been advanced for the curious failure of the Egyptian armies to push further. One is that the Egyptians were afraid that advancing beyond the range of their Soviet-equipped protective missile system would render them vulnerable to Israeli air attack.Egyptians were not "affraid", but they knew their army could not advance beyond the SAM-belt.


Another is that the commander of the second army had a heart attack as his troops were digging in, apparently throwing the field command structure into disarray.This is something new. Ma'amon's attack "threw the field command structure into disarray"?

Interesting. As far as I know, he was instantly replaced by Maj.Gen. Abd el-Munem Hallil. No problem. As second, I doubt the vets of Sharon's Ugda attacking Missouri and similar places for the whole next week would say the Egyptian chain of command there was in "dissarray". As a matter of fact, the 2nd Army blocked Sharon's advance towards north, and lost only a few clicks of ground on the western side. So, if the 2nd Army had its field command structure in dissarray, it functioned excellently.


A related and more general point had to do with the overall character of Egypt's military. Egyptian officers and troops had been trained by the Soviets. The Soviet command structure did not highly regard independent decision making among junior officers.This is again nonsence. Urban legend at most. The Soviet command structure did highly regard independent decision making by junior officers. Hell, they planned to advance into West Europe at a tempo of 40-80km a day! How do you think they could do this without junior officers making decisions?

In regards of Egyptians: they have had their plan, training and orders. And that's exactly what they did. Except for 14 October, and then the failure to react to Israeli breakthrough in timely fashion, they did everything right. If nothing else, the fact that Sinai is today in their hands is a strong confirmation for this.


The preferred modus operandi was to establish a centralized command network that issued orders for limited tactical missions. After carrying out their orders, field commanders typically sat and waited for further instructions. Under this scenario, the Egyptian troops crossed the canal, dug in, then simply waited for their next set of orders which never came....sigh... the orders did come: dig in, deploy missiles and artillery and defend against Israeli attacks. But, don't advance.


One week after the Egyptians crossed the canal, when they finally did decide to push their attack further, 600 of their tanks were wiped out almost immediately as the Israelis had by then dug in and were waiting for them. At the same time, an Israeli tank division, commanded by General Ariel Sharon, who had a bad reputation among Israeli military figures as a political opportunist and a poor tactical commander, nevertheless successfully drove through the ten kilometer gap separating the second and third Egyptian armies and crossed over to the western side of the canal initially escaping the attention of the Egyptians, who, as indicated above, were just sitting there in their trenches.Sharon's division did not drove through anything. His three brigades suffered heavy casualties while advancing on Suez, and he lost the control of the battle. It took Adan and his Ugda to set things straight (i.e. open roads leading to the crossing site, then push pontoon bridges through), otherwise Sharon would be fighting for Chinese Farms until today.


Sharon ordered his tanks to fan out from north to south to create the illusion of a vast Israeli presence inside Egyptian territory with a knife at the backs of Egypt's army. It worked. The Egyptians thought there were far more Israelis surrounding them than in fact was the case.Egyptians thought nothing. Sadat and Ismail ignored reports about the Israelis crossing the Suez for two days. Shazly was permitted to deploy only minimal reinforcements into the area.


Sharon concentrated on cutting off the Egyptian third army.Then it's highly interesting that his Ugda was assigned the task attacking the 2nd Army, while Adan' was sent towards the south - with the task of encircling the 3rd Army...


This was all that was needed for Sadat to capitulate and accept the ceasefire.I stated this already once in this thread, and I repeat: the Egyptians would not "capitulate". Forget about this. Even if Israel would have completely defeated the 2nd and 3rd Army, and then captured Cairo: Egypt would not capitulate in that war.


However, the U.S. had been feeding Israel satellite reconnaissance pictures of Egyptian troop movements for some time prior to the attack. So, the Israelis knew something was up.Yeah... as a matter of fact, it was the US assessements that reinforced the Israeli position that nothing would happen...


One of the many interesting things about the '73 war is that Egypt considered it a victory. The nation continued to celebrate the occasion annually on October 6; this in spite of the fact that once the Israelis had neutralized the Syrian threat on the northeastern front, they were able to turn their full attention toward taking care of the Egyptian penetration from the West.Is Sinai Egyptian again?

Given the answer, tell me, in summary, what was the sence of all the Israeli casualties?

And, what does this mean about who won?


In spite of the Israeli military victory, the war was very bad for Israeli morale.On Sinai, there was no victory. At best, it was a draw. If it was an Israeli victory, Sinai would still be in Israeli possession - like Golan is. The later was a clear-cut victory, if that's so important.

TR1
11-18-2006, 03:31 AM
lol....

I will responde with the same stupid post

Arabs would be pushed into the sea if SU would not come to their aid in 1967,1973,1982.... [/sarcasm)


Right......
yep, thats true what you say.
without SU aid, they would have neve declared war on Israel.
even with the toys we gave them, the proved inept often. not always though.

AK74
11-18-2006, 01:42 PM
without SU aid, they would have neve declared war on Israel.
even with the toys we gave them, the proved inept often. not always though.

inconsistant is the word.

When fighting an "enemy" like Israel whos always consistant in "warfare" (defence) , they need the "toys" to "bark" but then they cant "bite" when the "toys" gets captured or used up.



excuse me for the sarcasm.

Freedom-Fries
11-22-2006, 03:52 PM
yes, the Egyptians were able to surprise the Israeli's with thier vaunted Intelligence System. But in the end Israel still came on top. Why, Israel has consistently proven to have top notch officers and motivated soldiers.

It is not enough to get the first touchdown, you have to improve your score without letting the other team rebound.

The Israelis were able to rebound, but after that initial success, Egypt was once again on the losing side.

I mean if you want to look at it, Japan surprised the US at Pearl Harbor, wiped out a large portion of the Pacific fleet. Left a military, psychololgical defeat to the United States, but that was only temporary. Just like the initial temporary advantage of the Egyptians vs. the Israelis.

As far as the Egyptian General Staff, i cannot comment on them, but you know how the old saying goes

"Losers tell themselves they did their best, Winners go home and f**k the prom queen"

sorry for the profanity

United States put tremendous pressure on the Israelis to refrain from destroying the trapped third Egyptian army

Vane
11-30-2006, 06:26 PM
look here I am an arab but I agree that we were defeated[yeah right].
But look at the bright side we destroyed the invincible ber lev line and crushed the israeli armored division.I have many pic of destroyed Israeli tanks.

SrB-23Q
12-01-2006, 12:46 PM
what wars have the arabs won??? not including ones among eachother

nu4idf
12-01-2006, 01:22 PM
look here I am an arab but I agree that we were defeated[yeah right].
But look at the bright side we destroyed the invincible ber lev line and crushed the israeli armored division.I have many pic of destroyed Israeli tanks.

I'm not an arab and want to agree you were defeated! I mean how open was the road to cairo?(there were very few units inbetween sharon and taking the city, but honestly why would we want an arab city)

You crushed an israeli armored division, ok. We destroyed your air force in 67' and in 73 it took awhile but we wound up defeating you, ok you got to our side of the cannal but we got on yours and in range of cairo your presious capital city. We have many pictures of destroyed and captured egyptian tanks and equipment(some actually served against you). Honestly you brought the hammer down upon yourself. We wanted and still want to live in peace, but you attempted to "push us into the sea" multiple times and now you let the terrorists run rampant in gaza(your people as well as territory). So we'll see what happens in the future the hammer may need to be brought down again if Mubarakas government loses power.

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:49 AM
http://www.***********.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=3246&stc=1&d=1164336821

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:53 AM
we lost in 67 because the russians stabbed us in the back.the russians
gave old really old weps plus really old and bad tactics.WE LOST IN 48
because from king faruq who bought ruined british weps.AND many egyptian soldiers lost there lives because rifles used to blow up in your
faces.if you asked me britian is responsible for all muslims and jews that lost there life.

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:54 AM
I am not afraid from the israeli nukes.it will take them to launch 4 or 5 to destroy egypt but a couple biological missles from us will make Israel evaporate

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:55 AM
Mubarak is a big fat traitor working for our cousins.{you know them].He and his allies and sons are corrupted.All f themmust have there head hacked off.

DoubleEagle
12-06-2006, 11:56 AM
They lose against every one, even Iranians.

(Im not saying anything against iranians)

:cantbeli:
Iraq didn't lost from Iran,if you knew a little bit about it you wouldn't talk.
militarly Iraq won the war!
stop talking **** that iran won.

Snoshi
12-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Mubarak is a big fat traitor working for our cousins.{you know them].He and his allies and sons are corrupted.All f themmust have there head hacked off.

And Islamic Brotherhood is better?

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Experts says that in the near future in Egypt another coup will happen

Snoshi
12-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Iraq didn't lost from Iran,if you knew a little bit about it you wouldn't talk.
military Iraq won the war!
stop talking **** that Iran won.

Well... It was a draw... Both sides took casulties and neither side got and land grabs..

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:57 AM
welll..........YA.As long that they dont carry Ak47 and rpgs

Vane
12-06-2006, 11:58 AM
true.but we got sinai back.That was our objective

Vane
12-06-2006, 12:00 PM
Plus Israel has many allies like:Germany Usa Russia china Britain France Poland

Snoshi
12-06-2006, 12:01 PM
true.but we got sinai back.That was our objective

Sinai was not returned during the war.. It only happened later on..

And dont you think that your country will suffer more with Islamic Brotherhood in charge?

Snoshi
12-06-2006, 12:03 PM
Plus Israel has many allies like:Germany Usa Russia china Britain France Poland

Germany is not technicaly our allie, its our friend.. Sure USA is. Russia?? Are you sure that was not a typo from you? China is not our allie... They just buy some technology from us. France???? Poland is not our allie.

Vane
12-06-2006, 12:05 PM
Israelis are living in fumes of 67

Snoshi
12-06-2006, 12:07 PM
Israelis are living in fumes of 67

That stopped in 73.... Dont know what you are talking about

Vane
12-06-2006, 12:08 PM
In 73 we found many french weapons plus china latley had many some weapons deal with you guys.maybe not poland

Vane
12-06-2006, 12:08 PM
rusiia
is now your best pals.they are helping you against the iranis

foxtrot023
12-06-2006, 12:51 PM
rusiia
is now your best pals.they are helping you against the iranis

dude get your facts straight.

Connaught Ranger
12-09-2006, 08:27 AM
[quote=PELEIDES;2067369]

Gee, you guys are right, how could I have posted something so stupid?


Egyptian soldiers, demonstrating tremendous courage while standing fully exposed, fired wire-guided missiles at each tank as it approached. Initial attacks by the Israeli air force failed miserably as well.
[quote]

Hallo PELEIDES:)

As the Russian made Sagger Anti-tank missle was controled by a joy-stick fixed inside a suit-case sized box, how did the courageous egyptian soldier manage to stand up, hold onto the box and use the joy-stick and follow the flight of the missile to its target??

If these super-soldiers were so competant, why then did they not follow up their intial success at crossing the Canal and move deep into the Sinai?

Or is that, not taught to Egyptian officers at military school, to exploit their success, or were they too afraid to use their iniative for fear of offending higher up the chain of command?

10 out of 10 for the breaching of the sand barriers on the Canal by using high preasure water hoses.

Connaught Ranger.

Connaught Ranger
12-09-2006, 11:35 AM
Experts says that in the near future in Egypt another coup will happen

Vane you sound like a little kid, blaming everybody else but yourself.

Its the Russians fault,

Its the Brits fault,

Its Jordans fault,

Its King farug's fault,

Its Mubaraks fault,

Why dont you come out and recognise that your Egyptian Army, Officers and men, were just not up to doing their job through poor training.

With regards a coup, what experts?? Egyptian?? Klingon,??:-P

Point 1. The Russian weapons were good enough to be accepted by YOUR military.

Point 2. The Russian weapons were thought good enough by the Egyptian Military Command to be used to start a war on Israel.

Point 3. The Russian tactics and training were thought good enough by Egyptian Military Staff, to roll over and conquer Israel.

Point 4. Israel will never use it's nukes first.

Point 5.Only a bad workman blames his tools:|

Point 6. I hope your military experts are watching the way the wind blows before they use Bio weapons, sure wouldnt want to poison Syrians, Lebanese, etc... or would that be acceptable to the Egyptians??

Connaught Ranger.

Gon4z
12-13-2006, 07:24 PM
I've been reading a lot about Arab-Israeli wars and Desert Storm. I have one question: why do Arabs always lose wars? In all their major wars against Israel (1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973) the technological gap was not that great, and yet their forces were always slaughtered.

Could someone please explain?

P.S. They probably use terrorism because their governments cannot effectivly exert conventional force.

see if you wer a bit more educated you would know that terrorism dident exist until the 80's when the Palestinians first started using it, Israelis wone all wars because tehy had hundreds of billions of $$$ worth of weapons donated by Europe 7 America and it constantly dose, israel got US Satelite suport in all the wars from teh 1960 tillt his day, so its basicly the same as asking why was america able to invade iraq

Midav
12-13-2006, 09:38 PM
see if you wer a bit more educated you would know that terrorism dident exist until the 80's when the Palestinians first started using it, Israelis wone all wars because tehy had hundreds of billions of $$$ worth of weapons donated by Europe 7 America and it constantly dose, israel got US Satelite suport in all the wars from teh 1960 tillt his day, so its basicly the same as asking why was america able to invade iraq

Arabs also got a lot of support from the Soviets.

Also, don't forget all the aid Iraq received during the Iran-Iraq war. This also included satellite footage and from my understanding, US generals helped in some of the planning.

Didn't seem to have helped Iraq much...

Gon4z
12-13-2006, 10:00 PM
Arabs also got a lot of support from the Soviets.

Also, don't forget all the aid Iraq received during the Iran-Iraq war. This also included satellite footage and from my understanding, US generals helped in some of the planning.

Didn't seem to have helped Iraq much...

The only time Iraq got Satelite images was when teh US suplied them when they wer fighting Iran, no one suported the Arabs during teh Israeli invasion of Palestine, infact iam dissapointed in my country for not duing anything its was our collony and we just let a war happen in it, cant belive iam saying but shame on us...

Midav
12-13-2006, 10:54 PM
The only time Iraq got Satelite images was when teh US suplied them when they wer fighting Iran, no one suported the Arabs during teh Israeli invasion of Palestine, infact iam dissapointed in my country for not duing anything its was our collony and we just let a war happen in it, cant belive iam saying but shame on us...

You are reinforcing my point :) I do understand that English is not your first language so perhaps you just misunderstood.

Gon4z
12-13-2006, 11:29 PM
You are reinforcing my point :) I do understand that English is not your first language so perhaps you just misunderstood.

I am British, both parents are British but I was born and raised the first 10 years of my life in a different country so I spoke 2 languages and English, and I understood you perfectly :) But the Iraq Iran war has nothing do with the Israeli wars, all of the Arabs countries militaries put together are not as strong as Israelís, Because America keeps it well armed Whilst the Soviets donít give a **** about Arabs why should or would they, they are already having hard time keeping their people from starving and let alone think of others, It didnít help Iraq because it was a pointless war would satellites help America is they went to war with china humm I think not, or would Satellite photos help South Korea if the north was to attack, humm not that much, 2 evenly matched militaries can not beat each other, can the two north sided of the magnet attack no itís a fact, so neither side was going to win, did it help Israel yep, what helped them more, the British attack on Egypt, Egyptís lack of air support, Sanctions, oh and also the ability of being twice more equipped than the enemy, would satellite photos help Taiwan beat chain or would satellite photos would of helped Kosovo beat Serbia, No they help you when you out match the enemy, and not when your equal or worse than the enemy then they are no use.

nu4idf
12-14-2006, 12:13 AM
I am British, both parents are British but I was born and raised the first 10 years of my life in a different country so I spoke 2 languages and English, and I understood you perfectly :) But the Iraq Iran war has nothing do with the Israeli wars, all of the Arabs countries militaries put together are not as strong as Israelís, Because America keeps it well armed Whilst the Soviets donít give a **** about Arabs why should or would they, they are already having hard time keeping their people from starving and let alone think of others, It didnít help Iraq because it was a pointless war would satellites help America is they went to war with china humm I think not, or would Satellite photos help South Korea if the north was to attack, humm not that much, 2 evenly matched militaries can not beat each other, can the two north sided of the magnet attack no itís a fact, so neither side was going to win, did it help Israel yep, what helped them more, the British attack on Egypt, Egyptís lack of air support, Sanctions, oh and also the ability of being twice more equipped than the enemy, would satellite photos help Taiwan beat chain or would satellite photos would of helped Kosovo beat Serbia, No they help you when you out match the enemy, and not when your equal or worse than the enemy then they are no use.

Excuse me but Israel was not in any of the wars more armed then Egypt but yet with better training, use of weaponry(inguenity aka using super shermans(105mm) against 4th generation tanks and winning) and tactics were far superior than syrian, jordanian, iraqi, saudi and egyptian mass amounts of far superior equipment.satellites mean **** with out determination to want to keep your state free and Jewish! Am Ysrael Hai!

Gon4z
12-14-2006, 12:56 AM
Excuse me but Israel was not in any of the wars more armed then Egypt but yet with better training, use of weaponry(inguenity aka using super shermans(105mm) against 4th generation tanks and winning) and tactics were far superior than syrian, jordanian, iraqi, saudi and egyptian mass amounts of far superior equipment.satellites mean **** with out determination to want to keep your state free and Jewish! Am Ysrael Hai!

Yep Egypt had 3 times more thanx than Israel in the 70's nut it had no air force, so most of those tanks were destroyed before they even reach the Israeli border by half way, They were fighting you with T-55 whilst you had several types of tanks, dozens of aircraft types...etc you should think about keeping you state safe by learning to live with your neighbors, and giving other equal rights... Determination and heart only can go so far, in the modern age what matters more is technology and who has the most fire power…

Doesn’t it say on the Toura you were slaves of the Faro once and you know what it is like to be one, so don’t enslave others, well you should get along with the Palestinians, stop building Inhumane walls and if history has thought us one things is that walls don’t keep people out, I know that the Palestinians make it hard sometimes for negotiations and that’s something Israel should do to help the Palestinian authorities bring them under control, my point is you It was wrong of you to go and invade Palestine out of no were, I do think that Jew have every right to live in the Holly land, but so do others and not just the Jews it’s a Holly land to 3 religions and all 3 should share it

Connaught Ranger
12-14-2006, 06:09 AM
rofl
see if you wer a bit more educated you would know that terrorism dident exist until the 80's when the Palestinians first started using it,rofl

Oh! so what were the IRA doing since the 1920 - 1968, 1970s, etc...etc... setting off bombs in England, and carrying out attacks against British Forces in Germany.

The Protestant UVF in Northern Ireland.

What was ETA in Spain doing for all those years?

The Palastinians came into the terrorism game when it became quite fashionable, with the PLO and hijacking aeroplanes, along with the Germans, the Japanese.

Not to mention all the small African "Liberation" army types, terrorising various sections of the country, I supose if a list was to be drawn up just starting from Post 1945 we would have a couple of hundred names on it, and not just the Palastinian PLO etc..

I suppose all of the above were only playing at being "soldiers.":-P I suggest you do some basic research before making such statements, when it comes to "terrorism" a whole lot more nationalities have been involved than the Palastinians.

Connaught Ranger :)

Gon4z
12-15-2006, 03:14 PM
rofl rofl

Oh! so what were the IRA doing since the 1920 - 1968, 1970s, etc...etc... setting off bombs in England, and carrying out attacks against British Forces in Germany.

The Protestant UVF in Northern Ireland.

What was ETA in Spain doing for all those years?

The Palastinians came into the terrorism game when it became quite fashionable, with the PLO and hijacking aeroplanes, along with the Germans, the Japanese.

Not to mention all the small African "Liberation" army types, terrorising various sections of the country, I supose if a list was to be drawn up just starting from Post 1945 we would have a couple of hundred names on it, and not just the Palastinian PLO etc..

I suppose all of the above were only playing at being "soldiers.":-P I suggest you do some basic research before making such statements, when it comes to "terrorism" a whole lot more nationalities have been involved than the Palastinians.

Connaught Ranger :)

No i think you should just look at what you said, terrorism started around 70's IRA was fighting after teh british after WWII befer that ther wer no conflicts, maby some shoot ups but tahts it... you just spoke a big bunch of crap

Flamming_Python
12-15-2006, 03:40 PM
No i think you should just look at what you said, terrorism started around 70's IRA was fighting after teh british after WWII befer that ther wer no conflicts, maby some shoot ups but tahts it... you just spoke a big bunch of crap

Actually terrorism started in Russia during the secound half of the 19th centuary, when Revolutionaries struggling against the autocracy (of various political movements be they Socialist, Liberal, Nationalist or whatever) started trouble.

Huge amounts of arson were commited all around the country, and there were several failed assassination attempts on the Tsar via the use of bombs, etc... which ended up killing many people. It all pretty much cumiliated with the successfull assassination of Tsar Alexander II by a Polish suicide bomber (yes the Russian Empire underground organisations perfected the technique a while before the Arabs did ;)).

There were then further assassination attempts on the next Tsar, but the terrorism failed to get the support of the people, and was successfully supressed by Alexander III. Gradually it was realised that revolutionary movements that gained the people's support were the only hope for change in the Empire, rather than terrorist attacks.

The Islamic extermists have done things ass backwards though. They started off as revolutionary movements, but then faded into terrorist ones.

Gon4z
12-15-2006, 03:47 PM
Actually terrorism started in Russia during the secound half of the 19th centuary, when Revolutionaries struggling against the autocracy (of various political movements be they Socialist, Liberal or whatever) started trouble. Many acts of arson were commited all around the country, and there were several failed assassination attempts on the Tsar via the use of bombs, etc... which ended up killing many people. It all pretty much cumiliated with the successfull assassination of Tsar Alexander II by a Polish suicide bomber (yes the Russian Empire underground organisations perfected the technique a while before the Arabs did ;)). There were then further assassination attempts on the next Tsar, but the terror movement lost the people's support, and was successfully supressed. Gradually it was realised that revolutianary movements that gained the people's support were the only hope for change in the Empire.

Ohh GOD if you start back tracking like that your going to end up finding out that terrorism started in the Roman empire, and it a way it did the Romans killed civilians burned houses, carried out assassinations...etc
Modern day terrorism is some what different and it didnít turn into terrorism until around the 70's because before we had 2 world wars and then the Israeli Arab war Korea, and many others....
Suicide for a cause and to take some one with you was first done by the Japanese samurais way before the Russians did... ;-)
like I said if you keep back tracking hundreds and even thousands of years back your taking your self on a wild goose hunt...:grin:

foxtrot023
12-15-2006, 03:59 PM
actually assasination comes from the middle east. Check the roots of the word

Flamming_Python
12-15-2006, 04:00 PM
Ohh GOD if you start back tracking like that your going to end up finding out that terrorism started in the Roman empire, and it a way it did the Romans killed civilians burned houses, carried out assassinations...etc
Modern day terrorism is some what different and it didn’t turn into terrorism until around the 70's because before we had 2 world wars and then the Israeli Arab war Korea, and many others....
Suicide for a cause and to take some one with you was first done by the Japanese samurais way before the Russians did... ;-)
like I said if you keep back tracking hundreds and even thousands of years back your taking your self on a wild goose hunt...:grin:

True True. My point was more that Terrorism has a long history, and is not a uniquely Arab Muslim phenomenon. In terms of use of bombs & explosives in terrorism, it more or less started in Russia. But yeah I agree with you.


actually assasination comes from the middle east. Check the roots of the word

Well it was often practised in the Chinese Dynasties, Japan probably as well as many other parts of the world (including Roman empire, etc...), all around the same time period, not just because the English word "Assassin" derives from the Arabic "Hashish" :)

Gon4z
12-15-2006, 04:03 PM
True True. My point was more that Terrorism has a long history, and is not a uniquely Arab Muslim phenomenon. But yeah I agree with you.

Koolio... hehe
man when u looka at it in a serious levle wer all bunch of idiots, humans just love to kill and couse evil in this world, we will never learn to love each other it just show in all the religions of the book the world ends with a holly war...


actually assasination comes from the middle east. Check the roots of the word

Well most probaly it did but most words in almost every language originate from teh midle east from Arabic & Persian, it is said that the whole of man kind came from Egypt... right i mean 90% of the names of military ranks originate from arabic, like general, captain, marshall, colonel...etc

Flamming_Python
12-15-2006, 04:11 PM
Koolio... hehe
man when u looka at it in a serious levle wer all bunch of idiots, humans just love to kill and couse evil in this world, we will never learn to love each other it just show in all the religions of the book the world ends with a holly war...


Maybe they were trying to tell us something eh? p-)
All humans die anyway, and killing is just another part of human life. Can't be any other way...

Connaught Ranger
12-15-2006, 05:25 PM
No i think you should just look at what you said, terrorism started around 70's IRA was fighting after teh british after WWII befer that ther wer no conflicts, maby some shoot ups but tahts it... you just spoke a big bunch of crap

For your informationGon4z:roll: and if you check all the dates in BOLD you will see they are all pre-1970*, again you will notice that BOMBS were used and not just "shoot ups".

* that means before the year 1970:-P and wether its guns or bombs terrorism is terrorism.

SHORT HISTORY LESSON:

In 1939 the IRA began a bombing campaign in English cities, this was effectively over by 1941 (admitedly with few attacks having taken place.
In 1951 the IRA began its campaign to attack the British in Northern Ireland.

A second campaign was launched on the night of December 11th1956.

Sources: Bell J. Bower; The Gun in Irish Politics: An Analysis of the Irish Political Conflict 1916 -1968, Published in July 1987.

Foster. R. F. Modern Ireland 1600-1972, Penguin Press London published 1988.

Also;

The Border Campaign (December 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_12), 1956 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956) – February 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_26), 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962)) was a campaign of guerrilla warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare) (codenamed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_name) Operation Harvest) carried out by the Irish Republican Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army_%281922-1969%29) (IRA) against targets in Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland), with the aim of overthrowing that state and creating a United Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland). The campaign was a failure.


The Border Campaign was the first major military undertaking carried out by the IRA since the 1940s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940s), when the harsh security measures of the Republic of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland) and Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland) governments had almost destroyed the organisation.

In 1939 the IRA had tried a bombing campaign in England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabotage_Campaign_%28IRA%29) to try to force British withdrawal from Northern Ireland. From 1942-1944 it also had an ineffective campaign within the North (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Campaign_%28IRA%29). Internment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment)on both sides of the border as well as internal feuding and disputes over future policy all but destroyed the organisation. These campaigns were officially called off on March 10, 1945.

By 1947, the IRA had only 200 activists according to its own general staff.

In theory, the IRA wished to overthrow both "partitionist" states in Ireland, which it deemed to be illegitimate entities, imposed by Britain at the time of the Anglo-Irish Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish_Treaty) in 1922. However, in 1948, the Chief of Staff, Tony Magan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Magan) issued General Order Number 8, prohibiting "any armed action whatsoever" against the forces of the Republic of Ireland. This amounted to a de facto recognition of the Southern Irish state. From now on, armed action would be focussed on Northern Ireland, which was still part of the United Kingdom and which was dominated by Protestant Unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionists_%28Ireland%29). The idea of a campaign launched from the Republic against the North, first mooted by Tom Barry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Barry) in the 1930s, gained currency within IRA circles as the 1950s went on.

By the middle of this decade, moreover, the IRA had substantially re-armed. This was achieved of arms raids launched between 1951 and 1954, on British military bases in Northern Ireland and England. Arms were taken from Londonderry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derry), Omagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh), Essex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex), Berkshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkshire) and Armagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armagh). At the latter raid on Gough barracks in Armagh in June 1954, the IRA seized 250 Lee Enfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Enfield) rifles, 37 sub machine guns, 9 Bren guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_gun) and 40 training rifles.


By 1955, splits were occurring in the IRA, as several small groups, impatient for action, launched their own attacks in Northern Ireland. One such activist, Brendan O'Boyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendan_O%27Boyle&action=edit) blew himself up with his own bomb in the summer of that year. Another, Liam Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Kelly) founded a breakaway group Saor Uladh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saor_Uladh) ("Free Ulster") and in November 1955, attacked aRoyal Ulster Constabulary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ulster_Constabulary) barracks at Roslea (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roslea&action=edit) in county Fermanagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Fermanagh). One RUC man was badly injured and a Republican fighter was killed in the incident. In August of the following year, Kelly and another IRA dissident, Joe Christle (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joe_Christle&action=edit), burned down some customs posts on the border.


In November 1956, the IRA finally began its own border campaign. They were partly motivated by a desire to prevent any more splits in their organisation. They were also encouraged by the results of the British General Election of 1956, in which two Sinn Fein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_Fein) (since 1949, the IRA’s political wing) candidates were elected in Northern Ireland, with a total of 152,310 votes. This appeared to show that there was a substantial Irish Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican) support base within the North.


The plan for the Border Campaign – codenamed, "Operation Harvest" – was devised by Sean Cronin (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Cronin&action=edit). It envisaged flying columns, initially four of about 50 men each, operating from within the Republic of Ireland attacking military and infrastructure targets within Northern Ireland. In addition, another 20 organisers were sent to various locations within the North to train new units, gather intelligence and report back to the leadership in Dublin.

An IRA document seized in the Republic in 1956 stated that the aim of the campaign was to: "break down the enemy’s administration in the occupied area until he is forced to withdraw his forces. Our method of doing this is guerrilla warfare within the occupied area and propaganda directed at its inhabitants. In time as we build up our forces, we hope to be in a position to liberate large areas and tie these in with other liberated areas – that is areas where the enemy’s writ no longer runs"

The reference to "liberated areas" shows that IRA leaders had been influenced to some degree by Maoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maoist) guerrilla ideas.


No actions were to take place in Belfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast), the capital and biggest city in Northern Ireland. There were two reasons for this. Firstly, the IRA in the city was believed to have been infiltrated by informers. Secondly, it was implicitly recognised that IRA actions in Belfast would provoke reprisals by loyalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalists) against the Catholic/nationalist population there. This had happened on a large scale in 1920-22, during and after the Irish War of Independence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence).


The campaign was launched with simultaneous attacks by around 150 IRA men on targets on the Border on the night of 11 December (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_11) 1956. A BBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC) relay transmitter was bombed in Derry, a courthouse was burned in Magherafelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magherafelt), as was a B-Specials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-Specials) post near Newry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newry)and a half built Army barracks at Enniskillen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enniskillen) was blown up. A raid on Gough barracks in Armagh was beaten off after a brief exchange of fire.


The IRA issued a statement on 12 December 1956 announcing the start of the Campaign, "Spearheaded by Ireland’s freedom fighters, our people have carried the fight to the enemy…Out of this national liberation struggle a new Ireland will emerge, upright and free. In that new Ireland, we shall build a country fit for all our people to live in. That then is our aim: an independent, united, democratic Irish Republic. For this we shall fight until the invader is driven from our soil and victory is ours".


On December 14, 1956 an IRA column under Sean Garland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Garland) detonated four bombs (one of which blew in the front wall) outside Lisnaskea RUC station before raking it with gunfire. Further attacks on Derrylin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrylin) and Roslea (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roslea&action=edit) RUC barracks on the same day were beaten off.


In response, on December 21, 1956, the government of Northern Ireland under Basil Brooke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Brooke) used its Special Powers Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Powers_Act) to intern several hundred Republican suspects without trial. This, in time, severely limited the IRA’s capacity to build up units within Northern Ireland.


On January 1, 1957, an IRA column under Noel Kavanagh attacked the Derrylin RUC barracks again, killing RUC constable John Scally, the first fatality of the campaign. The following day, Sean Garland and DŠithŪ ” Conaill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1ith%C3%AD_%C3%93_Conaill) led an attack on the Police station at Brookeborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookeborough). Two IRA men, SeŠn South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_South) and Fergal O'Hanlon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergal_O%27Hanlon), were killed in the abortive attack and the remainder were pursued back over the border by 400 RUC, B Specials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_Specials) and British soldiers.


The funerals of South and O’Hanlon in the Republic produced a strong emotional reaction among the general public there. (The two young men are still considered martyrs in Irish Republican circles) Up to 50,000 people attended their funerals. However, the Republic’s government, led byJohn Costello (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Costello) of Fine Gael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Gael), feared that the IRA’s action would drag it into a diplomatic confrontation with Britain and in January 1957, it used the Offences Against the State Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Offences_Against_the_State_Act&action=edit) to arrest most of the IRA’s leadership, including its Chief of Staff, Sean Cronin. Fine Gael’s coalition partner, Clann na Poblachta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clann_na_Poblachta) (led by former IRA Chief of Staff Sean MacBride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_MacBride)) resigned from government in protest over this policy. In the ensuing Irish general election, 1957 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election%2C_1957), Sinn Fťin won four seats and polled 65,640 votes (c. 5% of those cast).


However, the new government, of Fianna Fail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fianna_Fail), led by Eamon de Valera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eamon_de_Valera) proved even more hostile to the IRA than its predecessor. In July 1957, after the killing of an RUC man, de Valera introduced wholesale internment without trial for IRA suspects. The use of internment on both sides of the Irish border made it impossible for the IRA, most of whose leadership was imprisoned, to maintain the momentum of their campaign.


The year 1957 was the most active year of the IRA's campaign, with 341 incidents recorded. In the summer of 1958, two IRA men (James Crossan and Aloysius Hand) were killed in separate gun battles with the RUC.


In November 1958, the IRA suffered its worst loss of life in the period when four of its members died preparing a bomb in a farm house at Edentubber (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edentubber&action=edit), county Louth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Louth), which exploded prematurely. The civilian owner of the house was also killed. In 1959, only 77 incidents were recorded in the campaign and in 1960, this fell to just 26. Moreover, many of these actions consisted of minor acts of sabotage, for example the cratering of roads.


The final fatality of the conflict came in November 1961, when an RUC officer, William Hunter, was killed in a gun battle with the IRA in south county Armagh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_Armagh).


By late 1961, the campaign was effectively over. It had cost the lives of eight IRA men and four republican supporters. Six RUC members had been killed and 32 wounded. A total of 256 Republicans were interned in Northern Ireland in this period and another 150 or so in the Republic. Of those in the North, 89 had signed a pledge to renounce violence in return for their freedom.


That the IRA’s campaign had run its course by 1960 is testified by the fact that the Irish government released its internees (judging them to be no further threat) in that year. The Northern Irish government followed suit on the 25 April 1961.


Although it had petered out by the late 1950s, the Campaign was officially called off on February 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_26), 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1962). In a press release (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_release) issued that day, widely believed to have been composed by RuairŪ ” BrŠdaigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruair%C3%AD_%C3%93_Br%C3%A1daigh), the IRA Army Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRA_Army_Council)stated:


"The leadership of the Resistance Movement has ordered the termination of the Campaign of Resistance to British occupation launched on December 12, 1956. Instructions issued to Volunteers of the Active Service Units and of local Units in the occupied area have now been carried out. All arms and other matťriel have been dumped and all full-time active service volunteers have been withdrawn... Foremost among the factors responsible for ending the campaign has been the attitude of the general public whose minds have been deliberately distracted from the supreme issue facing the Irish people, the unity and freedom of Ireland. The Irish resistance movement renews its pledge of eternal hostility to the British forces of occupation in Ireland. It calls on the Irish people for increased support and looks forward with confidence – in co-operation for the final and victorious phase of the struggle for the full freedom of Ireland".

Implicit in the statement was a recognition that the IRA, after a promising start in 1957, had failed to mobilise much popular support behind its campaign.

Sources:

<LI id=_note-0>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Campaign_(IRA)#_ref-0) Bishop, Mallie, the Provisional IRA, page41 <LI id=_note-1>^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Campaign_(IRA)#_ref-1) Bishop, Mallie, page 41
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Campaign_(IRA)#_ref-2) Bishop, Mallie, page45, M.E. Collins, Ireland 1968-1966, page 464, Richard English, Armed Struggle page 75Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Campaign_%28IRA%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Campaign_%28IRA%29)"

Monte
12-16-2006, 03:56 PM
Kosovo beat Serbia


rofl wtf are you talking about?

Bullterrier
12-16-2006, 06:49 PM
rofl wtf are you talking about?
About this-

Suspended for infractions:)

Russian_dude
12-18-2006, 06:46 AM
Yep Egypt had 3 times more thanx than Israel in the 70's nut it had no air force, so most of those tanks were destroyed before they even reach the Israeli border by half way, They were fighting you with T-55 whilst you had several types of tanks, dozens of aircraft types...etc you should think about keeping you state safe by learning to live with your neighbors, and giving other equal rights... Determination and heart only can go so far, in the modern age what matters more is technology and who has the most fire powerÖ

Doesnít it say on the Toura you were slaves of the Faro once and you know what it is like to be one, so donít enslave others, well you should get along with the Palestinians, stop building Inhumane walls and if history has thought us one things is that walls donít keep people out, I know that the Palestinians make it hard sometimes for negotiations and thatís something Israel should do to help the Palestinian authorities bring them under control, my point is you It was wrong of you to go and invade Palestine out of no were, I do think that Jew have every right to live in the Holly land, but so do others and not just the Jews itís a Holly land to 3 religions and all 3 should share it

Arabs just LOOOVVE to blame Soviet weapons for defeats. North Vietnam had worse weapons then the Arabs and still did pretty well.
Israels weapons have for most part always lagged behind the Arabs. Super Shermans? Puh-leeze, those things were obsolete in 1943.

Gon4z
12-26-2006, 09:17 AM
wtf are you talking about?

Hummm.... Kosovo war is over serbs moved out & now kosoov is a different nation, serbs have no influance there and it seems like they are geting independence in early 2007, YEP!!! thats whats called wining...
Ohh and i belive serbs are not know for wining wars but lousing them, Lost while fightin the Ossmans, Lost in WWI had to have europe pull you out of the **** you got your self into, lost WWII until again russia 7 the west pulled you out of your crap, and same in teh Yugoslav wars, serbia ahs never won a war in its history.



Arabs just LOOOVVE to blame Soviet weapons for defeats. North Vietnam had worse weapons then the Arabs and still did pretty well.
Israels weapons have for most part always lagged behind the Arabs. Super Shermans? Puh-leeze, those things were obsolete in 1943.

No they dont complain & i never said they did, but iam saying Tanks & ground troops with out air suport are usles, and Egypt had a pretty terrible air force at taht time & it was fightin Israel USA & a couple other countries at the time, ohh and your wrong Israelis wer allways more suprerior than its naighbours, a T-54 is not much better then a super sherman...
as far as iam conveard Soviet military equipment are verry good and i would prefer them over most western ones.
M48A5
M60A3 (sabra) & (Magach)
Sh'ot tanks (centurions)
Merakava's
Compearting to Egypts T-54 & T-55 or Syrias T-72s & T-62...:roll:
Israel = over 2,500 tanks Egypt around = 700 Tanks

fantomas
12-26-2006, 12:01 PM
we lost in 67 because the russians stabbed us in the back.the russians
gave old really old weps plus really old and bad tactics.WE LOST IN 48
because from king faruq who bought ruined british weps.AND many egyptian soldiers lost there lives because rifles used to blow up in your
faces.if you asked me britian is responsible for all muslims and jews that lost there life.


this is the #1 reason why arabs lose wars (at least conventional ones) and why so much of the arab world is in such stagnation. failure to accept personal responsibility for your own actions.

thats why the arab street is full of "zionist" stories about the Stonemasons, Elfs, etc, anything to put the blame of responibility on someone else's shoulders. In this case our friend Vane blames the Russians and teh Brits for Egypt getting its ass handed to it by Israel.

nevermind that Egypt had the latest Russian T tanks, Mig and Su fighter bombers and SA-7 batteries (numerically many times more than IDF equipment), but offcourse you dont see Egyptians investigating why they lost (incompetent commanders, shaky officer corps, poor battle tactics, lack of unit cohesion, etc), the blame easily goes to the outsiders, be it israelis, russians or the brits. typical.

fantomas
12-26-2006, 12:08 PM
re: arabs blaming 'poor russian equipment' on their losses to IDF


theres an old Russian saying, "plohomu tanzioru, yaitza meshayut"

it means "if you are a bad dancer, your balls will get in the way"

a bad performer will blame his equipment first.

fantomas
12-26-2006, 03:54 PM
Israel = over 2,500 tanks Egypt around = 700 Tanks

this is utter nonsense.


from wikipedia (1973 war)


Israel

415,000 troops; 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored carriers; 945 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 561 airplanes, 84 helicopters; 38 warships.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-strength1)

Egypt: 800,000 troops (300,000 deployed); 2,400 tanks, 2,400 armored carriers; 1,120 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 690 airplanes, 161 helicopters; 104 warships
Syria: 150,000 troops (60,000 deployed); 1,400 tanks, 800-900 armored carriers; 600 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 350 airplanes, 36 helicopters; 21 warships
Iraq: 60,000 troops; 700 tanks; 500 armored carriers; 200 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 73 airplanes[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-strength1)
see also Other participants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Participation_by_other_states)

Gon4z
12-26-2006, 03:56 PM
this is utter nonsense.


from wikipedia (1973 war)


Israel

415,000 troops; 1,500 tanks, 3,000 armored carriers; 945 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 561 airplanes, 84 helicopters; 38 warships.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-strength1)

Egypt: 800,000 troops (300,000 deployed); 2,400 tanks, 2,400 armored carriers; 1,120 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 690 airplanes, 161 helicopters; 104 warships
Syria: 150,000 troops (60,000 deployed); 1,400 tanks, 800-900 armored carriers; 600 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 350 airplanes, 36 helicopters; 21 warships
Iraq: 60,000 troops; 700 tanks; 500 armored carriers; 200 artillery units;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-100mm) 73 airplanes[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#_note-strength1)
see also Other participants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#Participation_by_other_states)


HaHa... dont use Wikipedia as you back up coz your just showin that you dont ahve any hard sources, wiki is a public place and one one can edit and write that. right? so 60% of the political and history in Wikipedia is nonsence and propaganda, that enemys write about each other or people write to make their enenmys look bad, try looking somw were els...

fantomas
12-26-2006, 04:30 PM
HaHa... dont use Wikipedia as you back up coz your just showin that you dont ahve any hard sources, wiki is a public place and one one can edit and write that. right? so 60% of the political and history in Wikipedia is nonsence and propaganda, that enemys write about each other or people write to make their enenmys look bad, try looking somw were els...


#1 you need to learn how to spell, youre giving me a headache

#2 wiki is generally a very reliable source, much more reliable than your silly numbers (700 egyptian tanks vs 2500 idf tanks, laughable)

Gon4z
12-26-2006, 04:38 PM
#1 you need to learn how to spell, youre giving me a headache

#2 wiki is generally a very reliable source, much more reliable than your silly numbers (700 egyptian tanks vs 2500 idf tanks, laughable)

Humm... I didnít know this was a spelling contest, but since you asked for it then okay, what about you do you type your message in word first then post it so you donít come around as an illiterate. And then accuse others spelling, you donít want me to start correcting your previous spellings, I miss spell when Iíam in a rush like now, Iíam really tired and want to go to bedÖ

wiki is full of propaganda I can go there right now and write a 7 page long propaganda about some one or some nation and then people will be using it as a reliable source yep very reliable, try reading a history book, or maybe going doing some time in the military thatís where you learn real military history and not propaganda even if your own side lostÖ

Gon4z
12-26-2006, 04:44 PM
These are the troop deployments during all the Israeli Arab wars, you are putting figures of the amount of troops a country had, not the amount it deployed into combat.


Israelis ----Arabs

109,000 ----35,000 ===1948 war Israelis out equip & out number the Arabs
265,000 ---245,000 ===1967 war Israelis out equip & out number the Arabs
420,000 ---425,000 ===1973 war Arabs out equip & slightly out number the Israelis

conclusion: Israel wins all wars, due to advance equipment and other western support.

It is stupid to say Arabs have never won a war...

Suez Crisis 1956 - 1957

Israeli ------- Egypt
British
French

250,000 ------ 300,000

Egypt out numbers enemy but are out equipped, conclusion Egypt wins the war


Lebanon 1982 - 2000

Israeli ----- Arabs

62,000 ----- 12,000

Arabs extremely out number & out equipped conclusion Arabs in the war and drive Israel out of south Lebanon.


Lebanon 2006

Israeli ----- Arabs

35,000+ ---- 3,000

Arabs extremely out number & out equipped conclusion Arabs in the war and drive Israel out of south Lebanon.


to me it looks pretty even Israelis won 3 wars, Arabs won 3 to me it looks pretty even Israelis won 3 wars, Arabs won 3... if you want to get into to it deeper you might consider the Algerian conflict against the french, Afghan war in 1980's even tough they wer techincaly not arab but there wer thousands of arab fighters...
Ohh and most of those figures are backed by your favorite place for sources Wiki, but it seems that Wiki had them a little to high, and maybe you should read the into very carefully and not copy and paste the first numbers that you see

a peace of advice try searching into google and reading about things in several places and not running to wiki straight away and if you still use wiki maybe you should read the information more than once because i can see you are having a hard time understanding it... ;)

fantomas
12-26-2006, 05:03 PM
Humm... I didnít know this was a spelling contest, but since you asked for it then okay, what about you do you type your message in word first then post it so you donít come around as an illiterate. And then accuse others spelling, you donít want me to start correcting your previous spellings, I miss spell when Iíam in a rush like now, Iíam really tired and want to go to bedÖ

wiki is full of propaganda I can go there right now and write a 7 page long propaganda about some one or some nation and then people will be using it as a reliable source yep very reliable, try reading a history book, or maybe going doing some time in the military thatís where you learn real military history and not propaganda even if your own side lostÖ


i do read historical books and accounts, and your numbers regarding the force strenghts is laughably ludicrous. where did you pull these numbers from? i'd like your source.

wikipedia was rated as more accurate and more precise than other encyclopedias, including brittanica. your charges against inaccuracy simply do not apply. if you want me to be convinced that your silly numbers are in fact accurate, show me a source (you can use wiki as well) that backs up your numbers.

ive read a number of books about both the 67 and 73 wars including Michael Oren's classic Six Days of War and Rabinovich's The Yom Kippur War

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0805241760.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

in all accounts that ive read, the Israeli forces were outgunned both in personnel and equipment by large margins.

you should read up on this, you can start here

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf%5F1967to1991%5Fykwar%5Fcourse.php

Gon4z
12-26-2006, 05:06 PM
i do read historical books and accounts, and your numbers regarding the force strenghts is laughably ludicrous. where did you pull these numbers from? i'd like your source.

wikipedia was rated as more accurate and more precise than other encyclopedias, including brittanica. your charges against inaccuracy simply do not apply. if you want me to be convinced that your silly numbers are in fact accurate, show me a source (you can use wiki as well) that backs up your numbers.

ive read a number of books about both the 67 and 73 wars including Michael Oren's classic Six Days of War and Rabinovich's The Yom Kippur War

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0805241760.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

in all accounts that ive read, the Israeli forces were outgunned both in personnel and equipment by large margins.

you should read up on this, you can start here

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf%5F1967to1991%5Fykwar%5Fcourse.php

YEP, I think I might just do that since I have some free time... p-)

fantomas
12-26-2006, 05:10 PM
woa woa woa!!

hold up.

youre joking right? you cant just pull numbers from thin air, like this gem here,



109,000 ----35,000 ===1948 war Israelis out equip & out number the Arabs
265,000 ---245,000 ===1967 war Israelis out equip & out number the Arabs
420,000 ---425,000 ===1973 war Arabs out equip & slightly out number the Israelis


where did you get these numbers?

dude this is silly.



conclusion: Israel wins all wars, due to advance equipment and other western support

that was a pretty fast conclusion. are you sure about that?




re: Suez War
Egypt out numbers enemy but are out equipped, conclusion Egypt wins the war


pretty good at rewriting history are ya. Suez War was a brillian military success for IDF, so much so that they were within visual sight of Cairo and could have invaded that city if external powers like UK, France and NATO didnt stop them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_War#Cease-fire_and_withdrawal
The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view, but a political disaster due to external forces. Along with Suez, the United States was also dealing with the near-simultaneous Soviet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union)-Hungary crisis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Hungarian_revolution), and faced the public relations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations) embarrassment of criticizing the Soviet Union's military intervention there while at the same time avoiding criticism of its two principal European allies' actions. Perhaps more significantly, the United States also feared a wider war after the Soviet Union threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side and launch attacks by "all types of weapons of destruction" on London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London) and Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris).



Lebanon 1982 - 2000

Israeli ----- Arabs

62,000 ----- 12,000

Arabs extremely out number & out equipped conclusion Arabs in the war and drive Israel out of south Lebanon.


Lebanon 2006

Israeli ----- Arabs

35,000+ ---- 3,000

Arabs extremely out number & out equipped conclusion Arabs in the war and drive Israel out of south Lebanon.

again, where do youget these silly numbers from? this is total bollocks. arabs never drove IDF out of lebanon (i think u mean hezbola). This summers war, IDF was in full control of most of S.Lebanon and withdrew only after a UN-mandated force came in and took over. How the hell is this a 'victory for the arabs'??






to me it looks pretty even Israelis won 3 wars, Arabs won 3 to me it looks pretty even Israelis won 3 wars, Arabs won 3...

youre a funny guy, throwing out random numbers, rewriting history, etc.

AN_TPS_63A
12-26-2006, 05:14 PM
jwdjjkkdkkd

AN_TPS_63A
12-26-2006, 05:15 PM
i do read historical books and accounts, and your numbers regarding the force strenghts is laughably ludicrous. where did you pull these numbers from? i'd like your source.

wikipedia was rated as more accurate and more precise than other encyclopedias, including brittanica. your charges against inaccuracy simply do not apply. if you want me to be convinced that your silly numbers are in fact accurate, show me a source (you can use wiki as well) that backs up your numbers.

ive read a number of books about both the 67 and 73 wars including Michael Oren's classic Six Days of War and Rabinovich's The Yom Kippur War

http://ec3.images-amazon.com/images/P/0805241760.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

in all accounts that ive read, the Israeli forces were outgunned both in personnel and equipment by large margins.

you should read up on this, you can start here

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf%5F1967to1991%5Fykwar%5Fcourse.php

Second that dude. Wikipedia is a very reliable source. I've remember once I couldn't understand some electronics stuff in the book, then I turned to wikipedia and understood immediately.

fantomas
12-26-2006, 05:20 PM
article on wiki's accuracy


http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html


Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

Gon4z
12-26-2006, 05:25 PM
article on wiki's accuracy


http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html


Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.


wikipedia was rated as more accurate and more precise than other encyclopedias, including brittanica.

hummmm...I believe at first you said its more accurate than Britannica and now as, but again the article says nothing about political accuracy that’s a subject you can never find 100% accuracy its a subject that you can never find more than 55% accuracy...
it very reliable when it comes to conventional learning, but not politics, I use winki for a lot of thinks that I want to know more about subjects from my university... but politics is a different things and it’s a Wikipedia is a great place to spared propaganda...


Hezbollah are Arab, & Israel withdrew because it wanted to it didn’t seem to give a crap about withdrawing until it got more than it barged, and they didn’t seem to care about the UN like they have never done...

Suez Israel didn’t invade it probably could but didn’t they with drew why well it would have gotten its self into very deep ***** which would of resulted into the disappearance of the Jewish state, think about is Israel holding the whole of Egypt under you need at leas 1 million men and many military hardware they would be facing intense fighting and would have to concentrate most of its forces into Egypt making Israel venerable to Syria & Jordan...

Kaplanr
12-26-2006, 06:51 PM
woa woa woa!!...

pretty good at rewriting history are ya. Suez War was a brillian military success for IDF, so much so that they were within visual sight of Cairo and could have invaded that city if external powers like UK, France and NATO didnt stop them.


Careful there; I like your postions but make sure the facts fit the right war. In 1956 the IDF stopped short of the Canal as part of the arrangement with the British and French in Musketeer. The premise behind the Anglo-French invasion/intervention was to keep the "threat" away from the canal. Israel withdrew from Sinai primarily under US pressure. In return Ike promised or reassured Ben-Gurion that the US would guarantee Israel the right of passage through Gulf of Aqaba / Eilat from the Red Sea.

In 67 the IDF made it to the Canal and sat there until 1973. In 73 they crossed and could have proceeded to Cairo - but for no good reason.

As to Gon4z's numbers, wow I hope his income tax returns aren't as imaginative. I'm not sure there are reliable numbers for the Arab armies prior to 1967. According to the US Country Study for Israel, the IDF fielded 100,000 fighters by the end of the war. It gives no mobilized numbers for Egypt. Our friend also fails to note that the Arab Legion got the better of the Israelis throughout the War of Independence. Other than that, his numbers are crap.

Gon4z
12-27-2006, 06:53 AM
Careful there; I like your postions but make sure the facts fit the right war. In 1956 the IDF stopped short of the Canal as part of the arrangement with the British and French in Musketeer. The premise behind the Anglo-French invasion/intervention was to keep the "threat" away from the canal. Israel withdrew from Sinai primarily under US pressure. In return Ike promised or reassured Ben-Gurion that the US would guarantee Israel the right of passage through Gulf of Aqaba / Eilat from the Red Sea.

In 67 the IDF made it to the Canal and sat there until 1973. In 73 they crossed and could have proceeded to Cairo - but for no good reason.

As to Gon4z's numbers, wow I hope his income tax returns aren't as imaginative. I'm not sure there are reliable numbers for the Arab armies prior to 1967. According to the US Country Study for Israel, the IDF fielded 100,000 fighters by the end of the war. It gives no mobilized numbers for Egypt. Our friend also fails to note that the Arab Legion got the better of the Israelis throughout the War of Independence. Other than that, his numbers are crap.

Yep and we all know in whus side US is on... :roll:

Russian_dude
12-27-2006, 08:52 AM
Hummm.... Kosovo war is over serbs moved out & now kosoov is a different nation, serbs have no influance there and it seems like they are geting independence in early 2007, YEP!!! thats whats called wining...
Ohh and i belive serbs are not know for wining wars but lousing them, Lost while fightin the Ossmans, Lost in WWI had to have europe pull you out of the **** you got your self into, lost WWII until again russia 7 the west pulled you out of your crap, and same in teh Yugoslav wars, serbia ahs never won a war in its history.




No they dont complain & i never said they did, but iam saying Tanks & ground troops with out air suport are usles, and Egypt had a pretty terrible air force at taht time & it was fightin Israel USA & a couple other countries at the time, ohh and your wrong Israelis wer allways more suprerior than its naighbours, a T-54 is not much better then a super sherman...
as far as iam conveard Soviet military equipment are verry good and i would prefer them over most western ones.
M48A5
M60A3 (sabra) & (Magach)
Sh'ot tanks (centurions)
Merakava's
Compearting to Egypts T-54 & T-55 or Syrias T-72s & T-62...:roll:
Israel = over 2,500 tanks Egypt around = 700 Tanks

You are comparing modern Israel tanks with old Egyptian ones. Israel never used Merkavas against Egypt. It basically used Shermans, AMX13s (light crummy tanks), Centurions (WW2 design).

Also, Egypt has that many M1s alone. In previous wars, the Arabs had a vast quantitative edge. In 1973 war, when Syria attaked the Golan heights with over 1500 tanks, Israel only had a few dozen there.

Also in 1948 Israel had no aircraft and no tanks.

Russian_dude
12-27-2006, 08:58 AM
The problem with the Arabs is their goddamn pride which stems from extreme insecurity. If you do not admit you have a problem, you cannot solve it. And Arabs can not admit to ANY wrongdoing. Hence they will continue to loose wars, proclaim them as victories, blaming the JOOOOS and economically regressing to the Middle Ages.

Gon4z
12-27-2006, 09:04 AM
You are comparing modern Israel tanks with old Egyptian ones. Israel never used Merkavas against Egypt. It basically used Shermans, AMX13s (light crummy tanks), Centurions (WW2 design).

Also, Egypt has that many M1s alone. In previous wars, the Arabs had a vast quantitative edge. In 1973 war, when Syria attaked the Golan heights with over 1500 tanks, Israel only had a few dozen there.

Also in 1948 Israel had no aircraft and no tanks.

My bad about the Merkava but Israel did have M48 M60 Centurions Sherman Amx-13, ohh and maybe you should look at some of the videos of the 1948 war what are those things that they are riding on I believe they are called Sherman tanks...

The only time Israel was out number & out gunned was in 1973, Israelis had the advantage in all the other wars except 1973 but also they did have advantage because they were constantly supplied with satellite photos and other surveillance from the USA

at that time 1948 Egypt had T-34 and after that it bought T-54, whilst Israel had Centurions M48 M60…etc



The problem with the Arabs is their goddamn pride which stems from extreme insecurity. If you do not admit you have a problem, you cannot solve it. And Arabs can not admit to ANY wrongdoing. Hence they will continue to loose wars, proclaim them as victories, blaming the JOOOOS and economically regressing to the Middle Ages.

I do agree with you there but its stupid to say they louse all wars and they will continue to louse wars, they drove the Jews and the Christians from Israel 2wice you they kept the crusaders from coming back in several times, they kicked the westerners as in Algeria is Egypt in Lebanon…etc so it is RETARTED to say that…

some things you cant win even if you admit you have a problem when you have no support and the other side as all then its stupid its like trying to break a brick wall with your hands, highly impossible, if you do get some suport then good...


Ohhh and I’am not Arab if that’s what you thinking

Gon4z
12-27-2006, 09:14 AM
I personally think that to key to wining a war is not being dependent on any one especially when you know that most of the power full nations are against you... I mean Egypt has M1 Abrams tanks right. if Egypt & Israel had another war you think that the US will provide Egypt with parts for their US made equipment or any other European nation, very unlikely...
That’s why I think that the Arabs nations are very rich they can afford to invest why not invest into building their own arsenal, if all the Arab country came together and put their best minds on one project they ill guarantee you that they will come out with some things even better then the west I mean they are still the same Arabs & Muslims that discovered Mathematics & medicine and many other things that we use to day... then they would not be dependant on the US or the Russians or any one else… (like they say 2 minds are better than one)
One thing I really respect about the Israelis is that they are hard working people, when the UK first created the Helicopters helmet that moves the gunship cannon by moving your head the Israelis asked to buy the technology from the British but the British refused to self it at that time so what the Israelis did they went and build their own that’s what I rally respect about the Israelis if they don’t get something they want at first they go and try to get is some other way.

Israel dose not have to worry about that because most likely they will get full support of the west but I still respect that they have decided to make their own arsenal because it makes them less dependant on the US even though they still do depend on them for most things…

fantomas
12-27-2006, 10:56 AM
I personally think that to key to wining a war is not being dependent on any one especially when you know that most of the power full nations are against you... I mean Egypt has M1 Abrams tanks right. if Egypt & Israel had another war you think that the US will provide Egypt with parts for their US made equipment or any other European nation, very unlikely...
Thatís why I think that the Arabs nations are very rich they can afford to invest why not invest into building their own arsenal, if all the Arab country came together and put their best minds on one project they ill guarantee you that they will come out with some things even better then the west I mean they are still the same Arabs & Muslims that discovered Mathematics & medicine and many other things that we use to day... then they would not be dependant on the US or the Russians or any one elseÖ (like they say 2 minds are better than one)
One thing I really respect about the Israelis is that they are hard working people, when the UK first created the Helicopters helmet that moves the gunship cannon by moving your head the Israelis asked to buy the technology from the British but the British refused to self it at that time so what the Israelis did they went and build their own thatís what I rally respect about the Israelis if they donít get something they want at first they go and try to get is some other way.

Israel dose not have to worry about that because most likely they will get full support of the west but I still respect that they have decided to make their own arsenal because it makes them less dependant on the US even though they still do depend on them for most thingsÖ


Egypt today is getting nearly same amount of aid as Israel, Egypt recieves something like 1.5 billion a year


from http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

"Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975. "


Israel recieves 2.3 bill a year of usaid.

also during the 67 and 73 war, Egypt and Syria both recieved massive Soviet airlift of weapons including T-72 tanks, and Syria outnumbered Israeli armor in the north by massive amounts. The Barak brigade lost 80% of its armor during the initial arab attack and replused hundreds of syrian tanks coming through Kuneitra and what is now called Valley of tears.

furthermore US shared their reconaissance pictures with both sides, with egypt and israel in order to stop the war, this is a fact.

Russian_dude
12-27-2006, 11:23 AM
My bad about the Merkava but Israel did have M48 M60 Centurions Sherman Amx-13, ohh and maybe you should look at some of the videos of the 1948 war what are those things that they are riding on I believe they are called Sherman tanks...

The only time Israel was out number & out gunned was in 1973, Israelis had the advantage in all the other wars except 1973 but also they did have advantage because they were constantly supplied with satellite photos and other surveillance from the USA

at that time 1948 Egypt had T-34 and after that it bought T-54, whilst Israel had Centurions M48 M60Öetc




I do agree with you there but its stupid to say they louse all wars and they will continue to louse wars, they drove the Jews and the Christians from Israel 2wice you they kept the crusaders from coming back in several times, they kicked the westerners as in Algeria is Egypt in LebanonÖetc so it is RETARTED to say thatÖ

some things you cant win even if you admit you have a problem when you have no support and the other side as all then its stupid its like trying to break a brick wall with your hands, highly impossible, if you do get some suport then good...


Ohhh and Iíam not Arab if thatís what you thinking

Jews were not with the crusaders, in fact they were also targeted by Crusaders. As they did not have any army and lived as dhimmis, it wasn't exactly hard that time.

Israel did NOT have M60s in 1949, neither it had Centurions, I think a handfull of Shermans towards the end. Israels first weapons were Chezh, like the Bf-109 wannabe they purchased from the Czechs with SOVIET support.

Jordan had M48 in 1967 wars. AMX13 is nowhere near as good as a T55, barely up to T34 standard. The Sherman was a dud that was obsolete in WW2.

Oh, and Soviet Union suplied the Arabs with intel also. Very high quality.

BTW, the Crusaders lost because of internal squabling and very tenious supply lines. Also the nights Templar were stabbed in the back by the Pope. If the West was interested, they could have taken the Holy Land from the Arabs anytime between 1800 and 2006.

The sheer numbers of the Arab countries arrayed against Israel boggle the mind, and they still lost.

Russian_dude
12-27-2006, 11:24 AM
I personally think that to key to wining a war is not being dependent on any one especially when you know that most of the power full nations are against you... I mean Egypt has M1 Abrams tanks right. if Egypt & Israel had another war you think that the US will provide Egypt with parts for their US made equipment or any other European nation, very unlikely...
Thatís why I think that the Arabs nations are very rich they can afford to invest why not invest into building their own arsenal, if all the Arab country came together and put their best minds on one project they ill guarantee you that they will come out with some things even better then the west I mean they are still the same Arabs & Muslims that discovered Mathematics & medicine and many other things that we use to day... then they would not be dependant on the US or the Russians or any one elseÖ (like they say 2 minds are better than one)
One thing I really respect about the Israelis is that they are hard working people, when the UK first created the Helicopters helmet that moves the gunship cannon by moving your head the Israelis asked to buy the technology from the British but the British refused to self it at that time so what the Israelis did they went and build their own thatís what I rally respect about the Israelis if they donít get something they want at first they go and try to get is some other way.

Israel dose not have to worry about that because most likely they will get full support of the west but I still respect that they have decided to make their own arsenal because it makes them less dependant on the US even though they still do depend on them for most thingsÖ

The arabs would then need to spend less time banging their forehead against the floor and more time studying, and not in the Madrassa mind you.

Kaplanr
12-27-2006, 11:42 AM
Israeli armor in 1948.

2 Cromwells
several Sherman variants (less than 10 altogether), most without ammo.
home made armored trucks and buses
2 French Hotchkiss tanks
White scout cars.

The only combat arm to show material improvement during the war (as opposed to after) was the air force; because it could bring in its own equipment on 2 C-54s, 3 Connies and 6 C-46 Curtiss Commandos amd 2-3 Dakotas. The IAF was abe to buy several Avia S-199s (ME109 with Jumo engine), they rebuilt or cobbled together 2-3 Spitfires including 1 captured after being shot down over Herzliya. They picked up an additional one after capturing El-Arish.

The AMX-13 was used in the 1956 ear and was very lightly armored, BUT very mobile and the 75mm gun could take on the T-34's armor plate.

sp2c
12-27-2006, 12:08 PM
what?
Egypt won the Suez crisis?

learn something new here every day!

tanks_alot
12-27-2006, 12:30 PM
The AMX-13 was used in the 1956 ear and was very lightly armored, BUT very mobile and the 75mm gun could take on the T-34's armor plate.



AMX-13 tanks were also used in the six day war, i remember reading about a battle in Sinai, where a company of AMX-13's were guarding a night camp (hanyon layla) and they were attacked by a T-55 unit.
the AMX's main gun couldn't penetrate the T-55's front armor so the crews used their mobility in order to flank the T-55's and hit them from the side.



Egypt won the Suez crisis?

learn something new here every day!
Egypt lost militarely but in the end they nationalized the canal and Nasser came out as the leader of the arab world that wasn't afraid to stand up to Euorpean powers and Israel, the UK and France lost face as a result from the pressure put on them by the US and USSR plus at least in the UK the goverment was under internal pressure.

Israel regained access to the canal with a promise by the US that it will stay that way, a UN force in the Sinai (that proved worthless) and the IDF tested it's new army successfully and proved it's worth to all those involved.

Monte
12-28-2006, 12:43 PM
Hummm.... Kosovo war is over serbs moved out & now kosoov is a different nation, serbs have no influance there and it seems like they are geting independence in early 2007, YEP!!! thats whats called wining...
Ohh and i belive serbs are not know for wining wars but lousing them, Lost while fightin the Ossmans, Lost in WWI had to have europe pull you out of the **** you got your self into, lost WWII until again russia 7 the west pulled you out of your crap, and same in teh Yugoslav wars, serbia ahs never won a war in its history.

History lessons, take some!

Mastermind
12-28-2006, 01:00 PM
Why Arabs lose wars....hmmmmm. It all depends on what kind of war we are speaking of. If they have failed on shooting battlefields, they have apparently learned to avoid that arena and have chosen the much more sinister immigration and subversion method with just a little mix of random terror...a tactic that is working very well so far. I figure they will easily have all of Europe by 2050, kicking the slats out from a large Israeli support base...the USA will fall within the following fifty years...Democracies are far too flawed to resist...Israel probably will fall sooner than later. Of course, the "Arabs" will not be able to capitalize on their gains. As soon as the world economy collapses, they will return to their feudal systems and dissolve into inter-tribal chaos. Typcial Islamic progress. The world survivors will be left to climb out of the ashes and start it all over again. MM

reya
12-28-2006, 02:11 PM
I've been reading a lot about Arab-Israeli wars and Desert Storm. I have one question: why do Arabs always lose wars? In all their major wars against Israel (1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973) the technological gap was not that great, and yet their forces were always slaughtered.

Could someone please explain?

P.S. They probably use terrorism because their governments cannot effectivly exert conventional force.Read the torah/Bible, and you
will know, exactly why.

Gon4z
12-28-2006, 05:10 PM
History lessons, take some!

YEP!!! you really should...




Why Arabs lose wars....hmmmmm. It all depends on what kind of war we are speaking of. If they have failed on shooting battlefields, they have apparently learned to avoid that arena and have chosen the much more sinister immigration and subversion method with just a little mix of random terror...a tactic that is working very well so far. I figure they will easily have all of Europe by 2050, kicking the slats out from a large Israeli support base...the USA will fall within the following fifty years...Democracies are far too flawed to resist...Israel probably will fall sooner than later. Of course, the "Arabs" will not be able to capitalize on their gains. As soon as the world economy collapses, they will return to their feudal systems and dissolve into inter-tribal chaos. Typcial Islamic progress. The world survivors will be left to climb out of the ashes and start it all over again. MM

Your right about some parts of that, it is true taht the US will destroy it self and with ou US Israel will fall as weall, it will go into a WWIII & with biblical & Islamic texts it is said taht the word will go back to fightin in Horse back & swords not a lot of technology the world will go back teh way it was 1000 years ago by Nostradamus views & by Islamic view the Muslims will win the war Islam will dominate wthe world and soon after the some 27 year old War ends Judgment day will come & we will all face our LORD...

No there wont be a second chance for the world there will not be any survivors, we will all be judged and the world will be destroyed and we will be put in our earned and deserved place either Hell or Heven...

Mastermind
12-28-2006, 06:36 PM
Who is to say then what is heaven and what is hell...there will always be survivors. But, to survie into what is the real question. It deeply saddens me to see such idiotic ways of people today...refusing to stand up to terror ....The barbarians stand at the gates and all we can do is try to select our prettiest daughters to give over in hopes the bastards will be appeased and go away. What a wonder of a civilization to just pass away with such a snivvling whimper. MM

Gon4z
12-29-2006, 05:41 AM
Who is to say then what is heaven and what is hell...there will always be survivors. But, to survie into what is the real question. It deeply saddens me to see such idiotic ways of people today...refusing to stand up to terror ....The barbarians stand at the gates and all we can do is try to select our prettiest daughters to give over in hopes the bastards will be appeased and go away. What a wonder of a civilization to just pass away with such a snivvling whimper. MM

OKey... :)

Freedom-Fries
04-13-2007, 02:44 AM
what?
Egypt won the Suez crisis?

learn something new here every day!

indeed we do !

Sharmen
04-14-2007, 05:59 AM
Israelis can fight. Hard.
ISREALI FIGHT AGAINST ARAB IS SURVIVAL RUN....
IF THEY DON,T FIGHT BRAVELY THERE ARE NO JEWISH STATE IN OUR EARTH.
THEY ARE LIKE FOX OR JUNGLES DOGS(THEY ALWAYS UNITED AND WELL ORGANIZED).
US IS A LION,ISREALI ARE LIKE FOX.....
IDF ARE NOW POWERFUL THAN PAST WARS TIME.
I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM ISREAL,MOST OF ISREALI ARE WORK HARD,SELFISH,THEY JUST LOOK MONEY FACE,FRIENDSHIP IS 2ND PRIOR: IN BUSINESS.
SO THEY RECEIVED REFLECTION OF THEIR WORKS,EXAMPLE:THEY GOT MISSILE TECHNOLOGY FROM US BUT THEY SELL THE TECHNOLOGY TO ANTI US STATES ,CHINA,NORTH KOREA,PAKISTAN.NORTHKOREAN AND CHINESE ALSO TRANSFERED OR SOLD OUT THEIR MISSILE TO ARABS STATES.ARABS LAUNCHED INTO THE ISREAL CITIES...ISREALI PEOPLES WERE DIED BY THEIR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERING& $$$$$$.

Martel
04-14-2007, 06:37 AM
ISREALI FIGHT AGAINST ARAB IS SURVIVAL RUN....
IF THEY DON,T FIGHT BRAVELY THERE ARE NO JEWISH STATE IN OUR EARTH.
THEY ARE LIKE FOX OR JUNGLES DOGS(THEY ALWAYS UNITED AND WELL ORGANIZED).
US IS A LION,ISREALI ARE LIKE FOX.....
IDF ARE NOW POWERFUL THAN PAST WARS TIME.
I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM ISREAL,MOST OF ISREALI ARE WORK HARD,SELFISH,THEY JUST LOOK MONEY FACE,FRIENDSHIP IS 2ND PRIOR: IN BUSINESS.
SO THEY RECEIVED REFLECTION OF THEIR WORKS,EXAMPLE:THEY GOT MISSILE TECHNOLOGY FROM US BUT THEY SELL THE TECHNOLOGY TO ANTI US STATES ,CHINA,NORTH KOREA,PAKISTAN.NORTHKOREAN AND CHINESE ALSO TRANSFERED OR SOLD OUT THEIR MISSILE TO ARABS STATES.ARABS LAUNCHED INTO THE ISREAL CITIES...ISREALI PEOPLES WERE DIED BY THEIR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERING& $$$$$$.
Do you have any trouble with the Caps Lock key ?

Crystal_sword
04-14-2007, 08:44 AM
Well depends what you mean by Arabs.

The Arab Nations are hardly Buddies to being with.

The leaders are really Corrupt. I'd say its wrong to say Islam plays a crucial Part.

Remember, The Islamic Armies took out all the other major armies that tried wiping them out such as in the Crusades and the Roman Armies, along with the Persians etc.

Godspeed-
04-14-2007, 12:18 PM
Remember, The Islamic Armies took out all the other major armies that tried wiping them out such as in the Crusades and the Roman Armies, along with the Persians etc.

How many decades ago? :)

Crystal_sword
04-14-2007, 12:49 PM
dunno mate, those wars were along time ago. if im correct the islamic empire was one then.

Nowadays, its all about how "this Arab country is better than the next Arab country" etc.

nu4idf
04-14-2007, 02:40 PM
ISREALI FIGHT AGAINST ARAB IS SURVIVAL RUN....
IF THEY DON,T FIGHT BRAVELY THERE ARE NO JEWISH STATE IN OUR EARTH.
THEY ARE LIKE FOX OR JUNGLES DOGS(THEY ALWAYS UNITED AND WELL ORGANIZED).
US IS A LION,ISREALI ARE LIKE FOX.....
IDF ARE NOW POWERFUL THAN PAST WARS TIME.
I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM ISREAL,MOST OF ISREALI ARE WORK HARD,SELFISH,THEY JUST LOOK MONEY FACE,FRIENDSHIP IS 2ND PRIOR: IN BUSINESS.
SO THEY RECEIVED REFLECTION OF THEIR WORKS,EXAMPLE:THEY GOT MISSILE TECHNOLOGY FROM US BUT THEY SELL THE TECHNOLOGY TO ANTI US STATES ,CHINA,NORTH KOREA,PAKISTAN.NORTHKOREAN AND CHINESE ALSO TRANSFERED OR SOLD OUT THEIR MISSILE TO ARABS STATES.ARABS LAUNCHED INTO THE ISREAL CITIES...ISREALI PEOPLES WERE DIED BY THEIR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERING& $$$$$$.

your an idiot if anything the US has vetoed Israel from selling any weapons to the chinese! The truth of the matter is that deal never went through and the US has done there share of catering to Israel's enemies, for example selling an M1A1 production line to egypt as well as apaches, f-16, and E-2 Hawkeyes(presently being upgraded to E-2000)! Business is first in the business world but you must understand that the game of politics is different and that Israel and the US are good friends but like any other alliance the US has the conflict of interest sometimes shows. So before you start trashing israel on that then you must know the entire story!

nu4idf
04-14-2007, 02:41 PM
dunno mate, those wars were along time ago. if im correct the islamic empire was one then.

Nowadays, its all about how "this Arab country is better than the next Arab country" etc.
well they're going to have to man up and look to the east cause they've gotta lot of problems named iran

Crystal_sword
04-14-2007, 02:59 PM
indeed Iran is a Problem.

Its being Provoked foolishly by the US, whom i think, is the last country right now to get advice to other countries.

i think USA is going to have to make some sacrifices before Iran makes any.

IMO, UN has/had the only power to negotiate with Iran.

However, since many 'Powerful' Countries dont take UN seriously. Its naive to think a country like Iran will listen to the UN.

Ren987
04-14-2007, 08:49 PM
Nowadays, its all about how "this Arab country is better than the next Arab country" etc.
The Arab Nations are hardly Buddies to being with.

The leaders are really Corrupt. I'd say its wrong to say Islam plays a crucial Part.

Remember, The Islamic Armies took out all the other major armies that tried wiping them out such as in the Crusades and the Roman Armies, along with the Persians etc.

Are you trying to suggest that an islamic caliphate would be more appropriate today than your actual arab nationalist leaders?

I ask because such a thing (ie : caliphate) will put you to a collision course with Israel and the other infidel nation in the ME, namely Turkey (not to mention the US)...

LRPV
04-17-2007, 04:39 AM
ISREALI FIGHT AGAINST ARAB IS SURVIVAL RUN....
IF THEY DON,T FIGHT BRAVELY THERE ARE NO JEWISH STATE IN OUR EARTH.
THEY ARE LIKE FOX OR JUNGLES DOGS(THEY ALWAYS UNITED AND WELL ORGANIZED).
US IS A LION,ISREALI ARE LIKE FOX.....
IDF ARE NOW POWERFUL THAN PAST WARS TIME.
I HAVE MANY FRIENDS FROM ISREAL,MOST OF ISREALI ARE WORK HARD,SELFISH,THEY JUST LOOK MONEY FACE,FRIENDSHIP IS 2ND PRIOR: IN BUSINESS.
SO THEY RECEIVED REFLECTION OF THEIR WORKS,EXAMPLE:THEY GOT MISSILE TECHNOLOGY FROM US BUT THEY SELL THE TECHNOLOGY TO ANTI US STATES ,CHINA,NORTH KOREA,PAKISTAN.NORTHKOREAN AND CHINESE ALSO TRANSFERED OR SOLD OUT THEIR MISSILE TO ARABS STATES.ARABS LAUNCHED INTO THE ISREAL CITIES...ISREALI PEOPLES WERE DIED BY THEIR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERING& $$$$$$.

You have many Israeli friends? Why not send all your friends this post for their reading pleasure? Wanka.

Freedom-Fries
06-19-2007, 03:45 PM
If and if...

had the egyptians not rushed out for the passes with their armour to relief
the pressure on the syrians, then things would also have looked better for them.

poor examples

dan_pub
06-23-2007, 05:06 PM
Remember, The Islamic Armies took out all the other major armies that tried wiping them out such as in the Crusades and the Roman Armies, along with the Persians etc.

Hmmm... Poitiers, 732.
'nuf said p-)

khukuri
06-26-2007, 08:08 PM
about the batches if the modern weapons that the Egyptians bought...




True, the packing list was impressive: 200 MiG jet fighters and Ilyushin light bombers, 100 tanks, 6 torpedo boats, and even 2 destroyersóplus munitions and spare parts. The arms dealís weakness lay in its insufficient provision for training and technical support: the agreement called for East bloc technicians to provide only 90 daysí instruction in maintenance and operation of the equipment to the Egyptians. With that little training, the new armaments would not give the Egyptians anywhere near the fighting power that its quantity seemed to indicate.

Nonetheless, the infusion of so much new military hardware into Egyptís arsenal would be alarming to the Israelis. The CIA further predicted that as the Egyptiansí perceptions of their own military strength relative to that of the Israelis increased, so would their militancy. Premature Arab combativeness would in turn give the Israelis pretexts to launch a preemptive war before the arms deliveries were completed.7



Source?

well its CIA itself
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol51no2/the-art-of-strategic-counterintelligence.html

kamaz
06-26-2007, 08:34 PM
the collective IQ of some posters on this thread gives me the chills.

Vympel
07-03-2007, 07:41 PM
“ONE”
The major contribution to the Israeli Military successes in
the wars of 1967-73 was not any great superiority of Israel's
Defense Forces, or military inferiority of the Egyptian army,
but rather the too strict adherence of Egyptian commanders to
their Soviet advisors' strategy.

Dig in and wait for winter rofl rofl


Shalom :D

? do you know real sssr contribution to arabs? ps.i dont anyone insult but our prapochik allways told us we are arabs if we couldnt do something:) maybe its an answer to all questions?

Lokos
07-04-2007, 11:44 AM
but rather the too strict adherence of Egyptian commanders to
their Soviet advisors' strategy.


I hope you were merely jesting.

Soviet advisors were military professionals from one of the most prestigious military institutions on the planet. These are people who were trained and instructed by the guys who brought you such hits as the Vistula-Oder operation, Operation August Storm, Iassy-Kishinev, Bagration etc. etc.

August Storm was used by the US as a template for Desert Storm. Note the name similarities.

But suddenly their advice somehow failed the Arabs? If anything, it was the lack of technical proficiency, training and discipline that failed the Arabs - hand in hand with their lack of modern military institutional experience - not their Soviet advisors.

Lokos

NewsMan
07-16-2007, 02:41 PM
The Arab militaries are full of varried opions and relgion plays a large part in the militaries. Units almost never train together and there is a massive lack of NCOs being very few to none in a lot of units.


Hence the trouble in Iraq.

8mm
07-21-2007, 07:22 PM
arabs loose as they can neevr gather.400 millons arabs and 6 millon challlange them .this is shame

Mastermind
07-22-2007, 06:33 PM
Modern war requires a dedication to detail and technology that is not easily maintained by any force. Masses mean very little on the modern battlefield so long as the opposing sides have effective application of fire power. Precision and target acquision in quick time will win the modern war. Mass merely means more targets to hit and more confusion on the mass holding side. I think the Arabs traditionally rely on mass and very little on preparation and planning. If fighting sprit and dedication were important factors in modern war, the Japanese would have most certainly won WWII...however, if planning and execution with high technology were the most important, the Germans would have won WWII. I think the deciding factors in war are the ability to resupply well trained, well prepared, well equipped, well disciplined units that are fighting with great dedication and determination. Lets face it, the Arab units were not well trained, though they may have been well supplied initially. Also, their dedication to the fight was greatly lagginf behind the dedication of the sea trapped Israelis, who had no place to retreat to, and no space to trade for time. Arabs knew they could always fall back and regroup...not so with the Israeli forces....with them, it was win or die. Arab units were and are traditionally led by political favorites rather than well trained and disciplined military professionals. This was a very delicate point of contention the Soviets had with their Arab trainees...often, the officers would not show up for exercises, or even meet with their own men. And, almost certainly, religous differences play a very significant point in the ranks of the Arab military. For Arabs fighting along side total strangers is very demoralizing..they are very family oriented and do not do well outside their own clans.

Arab armies do quite well when led by strong, charismatic leaders who lead from the front with a ruthless hand.

These are just a few of my personal opinions based on several history readings.

Guerrier_Franc
07-30-2007, 08:06 AM
VIII th century
Arab islamic empire in green



http://histoireenprimaire.free.fr/images/islam_empire_grand.jpeg


During Middle Age

They defeated many times Byzantine Persian and "Spanish"
They occupied Al Andalus during 8 centuries fought against "Spanish" French and portuguese.
At the Middle-East with Turks they finally defeated Crusaders.
Egyptians even defeated Mongols.

After they declined, they suffered more defeats than victories it's true but they (there it was egyptian) defeated Ottoman empire in 1832 1839.
Abd El Kader fought pretty well against French during the conquest of Algeria (1830 1857)
Arabs fought also pretty well in French army ( Tabors Goumiers etc) and also in the Ottoman army.
1921 Morroccan rebbels crushed Spanish army at Anoual ( in this battle Spanish lost more than 10 000 soldiers against only 1000 arabs).
2006 Hezbollah (only one milice) resisted to Tsahal.

So no arabs aren't bad fighters, it's rather Arab regular armies which are bad since 4 or 5 centuries but arabs as fighters not at all.

dan_pub
08-03-2007, 08:37 AM
Arabs fought also pretty well in French army ( Tabors Goumiers etc) and also in the Ottoman army.

This summarizes it well. It is not the individuals who are bad warriors, it is the collective organization which is failing. Agree with you, it's not bad soldiers, it's bad armies and bad states.



2006 Hezbollah (only one milice) resisted to Tsahal.
Or rather, the prime minister Olmert and his govt managed to run this war so incredibly bad that they caused way too many un-necessary casualties, all the while not allowing Tshal to do what it take to win.

Like cleaning up the hezbis hidden among the shi'ite population, which was often a willing accomplice and sometimes not. Cleaning up meant killing a lot of civilians as well as hezbis, and that was precisely their strategy. But if Olmert didn't have the balls to do this, then he should not even have goten into that village at all. Politicians can always be more unscrupulous than others can imagine.
In my book, the 2006 war was not so much a win by hezbis as it was an act of Israel's own politicians. Those guys can defeat even Tshal. Yuck.

Mastermind
08-03-2007, 10:09 AM
So, again we are faced with the ugly strategy of clearing the weeds by killing the grass....in otherwords, genocide. Although, I am sure, no one except the Isamists are suggesting such a thing, sometimes the enemy does all in it's power to bring it on as a specific tactical exercise. This is particularly true in this day of instant communications and massive importance of world opinion. The strength of this enemy is his willingness to use ruthlessness as a weapon. He has utterly no regard for his own population...not for old men, women and even his own children. Once shed of such an emotional burden, and well aware of how important innocent people are to the enemy...the enemy is even burdened with concern for the Islamists own civilians.

Throughout the history of war, there has generally been at least a small concern for the plight of innocent non-combatants by all sides...with certain notable exceptions. However, the modern moralists place non-combatants almost on a pedistal of concern, to a point of a nation defending itself from barbarains using a civilian population as a shield is practically hamstrung in that effort. And, in the case of the Palistinain and even Sunni non-combatants (to name a few), there seems to be a will to be used as human shields. In that case...what is the defending military organization to do?

In ancient times, civilian populations were much closer to the front of combat. Almost every citizen, regardless of age or gender, were hardly more than a few stages distant from the battles, and certainly stood at dire threat in the event the defending men at arms lost. Therefore, there was a kind of blanket ruthlessness in their efforts to achieve victory...there simply was no other option. The utter eradication of an enemy and his entire civilization was the rule rather than exception. Why? To prevent future threats...an enemy and his people left even slightly intact was likely to return in regained strength or with new allies to exact terrible retribution on the victors.

In otherwords, barbarism was resisted most successfully, with stronger and more terrible barbaraism. The ancient people understood the need for utter victory and the consequinces of failure or partial victory. Negotiated settlements hardly ever produced the lasting results necessary for survival.

Now, we have the nasty habit of painting the face of the enemy with our own tints. We actually believe peace, prosperity and well being is the end-all-be-all for the daily esiztance of all people on this rock. That is a dangerous assumption. Some people, like the "Jihadists" and the "Militant Islamists" personified by the Hezzbolla and the Al Qaida types, have absolutely no desire for that level of paradise. They are more than ready to do all that is necessary to achive their goals. The western civilizations have simply not come to that point ...not yet.

There are certain things in war that are luxuries. Treating the most barbaric enemy as honorable soldiers and giving them respect they are not due is a luxury the west can presently afford...not for the welfare of the enemy, but for their own peace of consicience. Treating the barbaric enemy population with respect is another luxury we expend for our own peace of mind. But, there likly will come a day, when the barbarian has finally exceeded his cost/benefit limit, the west can no longer affor such luxuries in war. There will come a day...very much like 9/11 was, that will awaken the defending population to the stark realty ...that is move them close enough to the front....of what is at stake in this war. Then, we will no longer afford the petty luxuries of paused consciences in a war for survival. It is at that point, we begin to win and the present day barbarains and their doting, shielding populations are swept into the dust of history.

Ddavid
08-07-2007, 05:14 PM
There are certain things in war that are luxuries. Treating the most barbaric enemy as honorable soldiers and giving them respect they are not due is a luxury the west can presently afford...not for the welfare of the enemy, but for their own peace of consicience. Treating the barbaric enemy population with respect is another luxury we expend for our own peace of mind.

Peace of conscience ? Come on, that one doesn't exist in the West, if it ever. It's just a matter of taxes and save both legs of your son.

Mastermind
08-09-2007, 10:35 AM
Peace of conscience ? Come on, that one doesn't exist in the West, if it ever. It's just a matter of taxes and save both legs of your son.
Most certainly it does exist. Think about the appalling judiciary/lawyer influence on the US battlefields now. Commanders in the field are required to get permission from some legal nerd back in Florida or the Pentagon before attacking knowns enemy positions. Captured enemy non-uniformed combatants are rendered legal protection immediately when they are detained. POW status for each and every guerilla captured is decided in courts now, with the partisan being given full recognition and rights as any US citizen. Soldiers actions, down to indivitual squad levels are being scrutinized by "Rights Protectors" to see if any infraction of one sided rules and imaginary "Geneva convention" statutes are violated...US Marines and soldiers are immediately relieved and threatened with Courts Martial in event of even a suspected infration. I could go on listing ...but to save time I won't.

These are "Peace of Cosncience" luxuries that only a very wealthy and secure nation can afford. Eventually, if the battle gets overly heated and security is really threatened, we will disband the hord of lawyers and get on with real fighting.

Every nation enters war with the most civilized and glorious intentions. Eventually the mud, dust and blood overwhelm the combatants...glory and justice are the first victims of war...it almost always devolves into it's true nature...bloody hell on Earth.

Coop
08-16-2007, 06:27 AM
Are you trying to suggest that an islamic caliphate would be more appropriate today than your actual arab nationalist leaders?

I ask because such a thing (ie : caliphate) will put you to a collision course with Israel and the other infidel nation in the ME, namely Turkey (not to mention the US)...Any caliphate would be much better than what Israel is facing right now. For no other reason but because the Arabs would find their reputation recovered, and not feel under dictatorships of regimes imposed to them by foreign powers. Besides, Caliphates were well-organised states, with standing armies; no regimes that tollerated or even cooperated with terrorist organisations.

The trouble is: the longer this quagmire in the ME lasts, the more extremists (and thus terror) is Israel going to face. The best example is that of Palestinians. Initially, 30-40 years ago, there were only nationalistic organisations; then they began with terror, then there were religious organisations, and now there are extremists Islamists in power - at least in Gazah. Only dear Lord knows what comes as next - but I'm sure we'll get an answer if the level of provocation is kept at its current level.


about the batches if the modern weapons that the Egyptians bought...These "modern weapons" were downgraded, B-export variants, and nothing of the kind the Arabs were demanding at the time. Certainly also nothing comparable to what was available to Israel at the time. The Soviets were particularly careful not to supply offensive weapons, and so it happened that Tu-22 bombers (demanded by Egypt in 1970) were sold only to Iraq and Libya after the 1973 War; Su-20s were supplied to Egypt and Syria, but only in summer 1973, when it was actually too late to properly train their crews etc. There is a number of similar examples in other arenas. Until delivery of MiG-29SMTs to Yemen, few years back, Soviets/Russians have never supplied a top-notch system to any Arab state ever.


Soviet advisors were military professionals from one of the most prestigious military institutions on the planet.Does this include the guy... what was his name...?... he was trained to become the first Soviet astronaut, together with Gagarin, but dropped out due to alcoholism... Was sent to Syria in the late 1960s, and committed suicide shortly later. Or 18-years old boys sent to man S-200 SAM-sites, in Syria, in the mid-1980s? Or such like Victor Babich, who is constructing history of Syrian air combats on basis of some Syrian nick-names he's heard sometimes, but nobody in Syria knows about?

Not to talk about likes of certain Marshall Koldunov (later C-in-C V-PVO), who was in Libya back in 1986, only to make himself really laughable while reporting about (citate), AGM-88s with "range of 130km", "Paveway LGBs with a range of 60km" or Bullpup "lasertargeting devices".... No wonder Gorbachev was more than glad to replace him in the wake of Matthias Rust affair...

Whenever one asks the Arabs, these Soviet "military professionals" from "most prestigious military institutions on the planet" were a bunch on ignorants and drunkards, with more interest in prowling local basars for kilims and boze, but training anybody. And, what they trained was unsuitable for Arab purposes. Nobody in Egypt back in 1973 operated according to what the Soviets trained them. In fact, I recall only one instance where an Arab army acted clearly according to Soviet methodology in the last 40 years: the Syrians in Lebanon, in 1982, when they pulled the battered 1st and 10th Armoured Divisions out of southern Lebanon, in order to make place for the 3rd Armoured. The Israelis promptly misinterpreted this as a "retreat" and ordered one of their armoured battalions right into the trap at Sultan Jacub - with well-known results...


Now, we have the nasty habit of painting the face of the enemy with our own tints. We actually believe peace, prosperity and well being is the end-all-be-all for the daily esiztance of all people on this rock. That is a dangerous assumption. Some people, like the "Jihadists" and the "Militant Islamists" personified by the Hezzbolla and the Al Qaida types, have absolutely no desire for that level of paradise.Well, did we ever really try the trick with "peace & prosperity"?

The only example that comes to my mind is that of Marshall Plan. I'd say that one worked rather well. Surely, in a different part of the world. But, nobody ever tried something similar in the Middle East. At least not seriously. So, why not do that there as well?

Then, otherwise, you'll have to explain one thing: what do you imagine, how should Arabs get their backyards into working orders?

Their regimes were imposed to them, and are currently supported, by the very same foreign powers they are now fighting against. Take the example of al-Saud family in KSA, or Saddam in Iraq (the later was on CIA's paylist in the 1950s and 1960s, mainly with the purpose of countering the local pro-Communist regime). In cases like that of Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the regime is by purpose leaving its population to the mercy of religious fanatics. They have corresponding agreements with Wahabists already since 60 years. Means: the population cannot expect regular authorities to support them - down to such exceptions like organisations supported by specific governments for their own purposes (but also dropped at minute notice, or without any, like recently in Lebanon).

In summary: aggression and oppression do not work (see Palestinians); leaving them to the mercy of religious fanatics does not work (see KSA, Yemen, Pakistan etc.) - quite on the contrary; dictatorships do not function (see Egypt)... what else is left in your opinion? What should they do?

Lokos
08-16-2007, 06:55 AM
Actually, forget it. I'm not arguing with a person whose initial position is: 'the Soviets were drunkards'.

Lokos

Coop
08-16-2007, 07:14 AM
Actually, forget it. I'm not arguing with a person whose initial position is: 'the Soviets were drunkards'.Right thing to do, as we're not talking about me.

This thread is about Arabs and their military history, and it is completely irrelevant what you see as my "initial position".

I said what quite a number of Arab military officers said to me. In their opinions, their Soviet instructors were anything else but "military professionals from one of the most prestigious military institutions on the planet". As mentioned above, most were wannabes, many were drunkards, and plenty of others greenhorns. Yet others were zampolits of no military knowledge or value, searching for glory. If this was the best the Soviets could offer, then I'm affraid we've all been feed an entirely wrong picture about the Soviet Army.

There is surely as hell plenty of evidence for this (and not only from Arabs), just like it is more than obvious that not a single Soviet instructor in any Arabic country ever has had anything like combat experience of the people they were supposed to "instruct".

murahochris
08-16-2007, 07:30 AM
I think that part of the problem was that the Israelis cannot afford to loose. They are usually fighting for their survival and therefore fight much harder than their enemies.

Add to this better training, leadership, tactics and (sometimes) better weapons and you can see why the IDF always win.

Coop
08-16-2007, 10:34 AM
I think that part of the problem was that the Israelis cannot afford to loose. They are usually fighting for their survival and therefore fight much harder than their enemies.This is a (quite popular) myth. Except in the first phase of the 1948 War, the Israelis never fought for "survival". Available intelligence materials confirm that during all the subsequent armed confrontations (starting with the second phase of 1948 War), the Israelis enjoyed military supremacy, and there was in general very little to absolutely no, doubt about eventual outcome.

I can only repeat (I recommended this book already several times on this thread, a year or more ago), that reading Stephen Green's "Taking Sides" is obligatory for anybody with serious interest in this topic. Even for people who want to be in position to say a word or two.


Add to this better training, leadership, tactics and (sometimes) better weapons and you can see why the IDF always win.Better weapons and better leadership yes. But, this is conditioned on the way Arab armies are built (this is also a repeat from earlier in this thread). Their primary purpose was always protection of the regime, i.e. denying them the ability to stage coup attempts. The less dangerous they can get for the "great leader" at the top - whoever this might be - that better.

Because of this, one can - when reading himself through Arab military-history literature - find literal thousands of examples of excellent fighters, deploying sound tactics, using all kinds of weapons to their full, also achieving not few successes etc. Where they usually fail when it comes to ground fighting, are command structures above company- and level of lieutenants (no surprise, then larger exercises are very seldom conducted).

In other disciplines, foremost such that depend on operator's ability to act independently from his superiors, the situation was actually completely different. This can be seen foremost in regards of air- and naval warfare. In the 1960s, the Arabs suffered terribly from listening to the Soviets too much. This opened a gap of 15-20 years that remains open until today. Once they began to develop own doctrines and methods, in the late 1960s and early 1970, the gap began to close. The trouble remained their equipment, then the Soviets flatly refused to deliver their best. Today it doesn't matter any more, then they do not want to contest any more.

In naval matters, Arabs were even ahead of Israel - whenever it was the Soviet wish to make some kind of a point in its relations to Israel or the USA.
Otherwise, it was again the equipment that counted - and this later factor is a very important one. The history of conventional wars between Arabs and Israelis (foremost those in 1967, 1973 and 1982) developed in the shade of the Cold War.

Correspondingly, relations between the Soviets and the West were throwing a thick shade on Arab armament. When one reads about Arab-Soviet relations, especially works by former leading Soviet dignitaries, they were always looking for what kind of gains or opportunities were there for them, especially in regards of what kind of damage they could cause to the USA, or how much could they influence the host country politically. They saw Arab actions in the contect of this conflict, acting accordingly. Without interest to provide Arabs with technological edge over the Israelis, on the other side, they were more than happy every time they could blame them for failure of second class weapons supplied. Therefore, they never stopped wondering why were Arabs asking them for so many - and then also so advanced weapons. And, they never delivered any that could provide a true advantage (arguably, often enough, there was nothing of that kind to deliver).

9mmRifle
09-09-2007, 09:39 AM
That thing there, is an embarrasment to Ka 50/52 series
You like it only because it was a joint Russian/Israeli venture designed to screw Turkey into buying this monstrosity. ;)

Turkish is not Arab