Arabs at War

[Tom.G]

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.

[Ratamacue]

Israelis can fight. Hard.

[Tom.G]

They lose against every one, even Iranians.

(Im not saying anything against Iranians)

:cantbeli:

[Maverick77]

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.

Arab army training is also terrible compared to such nations as United States , Britain Canada and Israele

[One]

All the wars that were engaged with the Israelis happened at the wrong time and was led by the wrong people.

Syria for example had several military coupe's and everytime a new president takes over he wipes out the old leadership. And the old leadership would be military officers. So the experienced officers get executed and when war comes the inexperienced officers are in charge of massive ammounts of soldeirs.

The egyptians had a similar issue. Abdul Naser appointed one of his buddies as Chief of command. Because he was inexperienced and couldnt lead he gave Naser false information on the battlefield. He would tell him we are winning when infact they were loosing ground.

The NCO and low ranking officers have to follow orders and cannot think for themselves.

They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.



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.

They did not have varied opinions...the leaders opinion was the one to follow just like Hitler's army. He would do what he tells them to do, even though they know its wrong and will make them loose.

[Maverick77]

When your losing all the Platoon level battles you lose the war its just that simple thats where NCOs come into play

The varied opinions High Ranking officers have are due to the fact some Arab countires are like 3 countries put together

I.E The Iraqi Military Sunnis, Kurds ETC


Those high ranking officers could not work together in battle.

you lose when that happens.

[IDFM203]

“ONE” there are all sorts of reasons why the Arab’s with their latest soviet equipment and their 13 or 14 or 15 or 20 to one!! Odds (13 to 20 to one is depending on different historians) against Israel and yet they still lose or get their a** kicked at times, but I think the main factor is that besides what you said which has some truth to it, the fact is that you cant take anything away from the superior training and fighting skills and the Israeli ingenuity that the Israelis have used that has been the decisive factor to Israel’s wins more so then what the Arabs did or did not do in their defeats……….

Now with that said, one quote of yours stands out and it reminded me of a joke I posted a while back on this thread.
Here is your quote from above that’s followed by my joke that I posted before.


They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.


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

[EvanL]

“ONE” there are all sorts of reasons why the Arab’s with their latest soviet equipment and their 13 or 14 or 15 or 20 to one!! Odds (13 to 20 to one is depending on different historians) against Israel and yet they still lose or get their a** kicked at times, but I think the main factor is that besides what you said which has some truth to it, the fact is that you cant take anything away from the superior training and fighting skills and the Israeli ingenuity that the Israelis have used that has been the decisive factor to Israel’s wins more so then what the Arabs did or did not do in their defeats……….

Now with that said, one quote of yours stands out and it reminded me of a joke I posted a while back on this thread.
Here is your quote from above that’s followed by my joke that I posted before.


They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.


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

Somehow im not laughing as hard as you are idfm.. haha :)

[Guttorm]

Dig in and wait for winter

rofl

[IDFM203]

“ONE” there are all sorts of reasons why the Arab’s with their latest soviet equipment and their 13 or 14 or 15 or 20 to one!! Odds (13 to 20 to one is depending on different historians) against Israel and yet they still lose or get their a** kicked at times, but I think the main factor is that besides what you said which has some truth to it, the fact is that you cant take anything away from the superior training and fighting skills and the Israeli ingenuity that the Israelis have used that has been the decisive factor to Israel’s wins more so then what the Arabs did or did not do in their defeats……….

Now with that said, one quote of yours stands out and it reminded me of a joke I posted a while back on this thread.
Here is your quote from above that’s followed by my joke that I posted before.


They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.


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


Shalom :D

Somehow im not laughing as hard as you are idfm.. haha :) ok so ill erase one of those laughs for you in my response here...I hope thats better mate ;) :D

(or perhps you didnt get it.....wait for winter rofl oh and in the middle east and its climate rofl etc.... oh well ;) )

shalom :D

[EvanL]

No i got it., I guess joke means something else in hebrew. Because in english it means something funny. haha jk man. Im just rattling your Cage.

[IDFM203]

No i got it., I guess joke means something else in hebrew. Because in english it means something funny. haha jk man. Im just rattling your Cage. No I was just rattling you ;) I thought you got it but I was just having fun with your response.

man you candians are fun ;)

shalom :D

[One]

I forgot to add that the Israeli's had more technology at their disposal. And having a larger army is not always a good thing. As it requires more equipment for every soldeir.

[IDFM203]

I forgot to add that the Israeli's had more technology at their disposal. And having a larger army is not always a good thing. As it requires more equipment for every soldeir. well the Arabs always had the latest and best Russian technological equipment and especially in the 1948 war, Israel did not have anywhere near the technological advantage that the arabs had

But later on I will concede that we had better technology for I believe that U.S. technology is superior then Russian technology (as I see you now agree as well) and with Israeli innovations and add on to that, yes Israel did achieve better technology.

But still, 13 or 15 or 20 to 1 odds and the best in Russian technology and yet the Arabs still lost every time, well credit does have to also go to the superior Israeli training and innovative and ingenious battlefield tactics and superior planning that Israel has used throughout its wars.

Shalom :D

[Mr. Nielsen]

The following link is to a quoted article from an ealier discussion on the forum. I think it mentions some relevant issues, but don't bother yourself with reading the rest of the thread:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4225&highlight=arabs&sid=d00bfbd6c2af475ffe8f86b9e3b26ce2

[Mr. Nielsen]

I think the basic issue is that the israelis were coming from europe bringing with them the effectiveness of western states: democracry, education, how to organize a state etc.

One has to remember that the arab states first got their independence after world war two. And they didn't have the above mentioned ballast.

I believe the one single important factor is that they arab states were and still are, third world countries.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Another important thing to remember is that israel initiated every war apart from the one in 1973. The one one in 1973 is also the only one which ended without a decisive outcome.

As to the importance of being the attacker just look at the german accomplishment of world war two. There they used the blitzkrieg to overcome numerical disadvantages by use of surprise, and concentration of forces where the enemy were weak.

[S'13]

Another important thing to remember is that israel initiated every war apart from the one in 1973.

The 1948 War of Independence is also a war which wasn't initiated by Israel. In this war Israel was at it's weakest.

[IDFM203]

Another important thing to remember is that israel initiated every war apart from the one in 1973. The one one in 1973 is also the only one which ended without a decisive outcome.

. first of all besides 1973, 1948 the Arabs initiated as well. Secondly 1967 the arabs were planning on initiating and were about to attack, but Israel smartly pre-empted that.

Anyways 1973 was a decisive victory, for the Arabs did not achieve their objectives to destroy Israel or even to get any land, while Israel met theirs in holding them off and in actually turning them back and defeating them and in fact holding on to all the land. That seems pretty decisive to me!!

Shalom :D

[Tom.G]

The following link is to a quoted article from an ealier discussion on the forum. I think it mentions some relevant issues, but don't bother yourself with reading the rest of the thread:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4225&highlight=arabs&sid=d00bfbd6c2af475ffe8f86b9e3b26ce2

Thanks Mr. Neilson, thats exactly what I wanted

[duck]

Arab forces with proper leadership can apparently achieve some success.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of FEC and its Divisions

Corps Expéditionaire Français - CEF or French Expeditionary Corps, FEC, or also known as
Corps Expéditionaire Français en Italie - CEFI - or the French Expeditionary Corps in Italy
When the Allies landed on North Africa, the Vichy government was hostile towards the US and especially the British and planned to oppose any landings. In 1942, the Allies were planning to move American troops to North Africa to help the British fight the Germans under Rommel. General Mark Clark was sent on a secret mission to persuade the French to ally with them to open a second front in support of the British 8th Army. General Clark was flown from the GHQ in UK to Gibralter by a Major Tibbets. From there he was secretly landed on the coast by a submarine. There he met with Admiral Jean Darlan, the commander of all the French forces and a member of the Vichy government in North Africa. Soon after the landing, General Clark met General Juin at a conference with the French commanders on 10 November. Darlan ordered the end to all resistance to the Allies. The French joined the Allies' cause and a new French army was organized using American material. General Clark had high respect for General Juin as the FEC was assigned to his command. They became good friends.

At the beginning of 1943, three Algerian divisions and two Moroccoan divisions were constituted. The existing Free French Division was reorganized into two Free French brigades and other units. The north African colonial troops had their own nationalistic fervor and had little in common with each other. These unit had to learn to work and fight together as one a single unit.

The FEC was originally designated as the 1e Armée Français or the 1st French Army. This would cause problems with the US 5th Army command, to which the French army was subordinated. Therefore, General Juin decided to name the his force the CEF.

After the fall of Rome, the FEC continued to fight until it took Sienne on the 3rd July. The 1st DFL were the first to pull out of combat on the 20 June 1944. The last was the 4th DMM on the 20-22 July. All divisions were directed to Naples area for regrouping and refiting. At 00:00 on 23 July, 1944, the FEC was officialy dissolved and was absorbed into the 1st French Army under General de Lattre de Tassigny. From Naples, the divisions embarked for southern France.

1e Division Française Libre (DFL) (1st Free French Division) or 1st Division Motorisee d’Infanterie (1st Motorized Infantry Div). The 1st DFL was formed in February 1943 out of a combination of the 1st and 2nd Free French Brigades. After a reorganization in August, it was designated as the 1e Division Motorisee d’Infanterie (1st Motorized Infantry Div) and then again as the 1e Division de Marche d’Infanterie, which is a general term use by French for a mixture of diverse units. This division arrived in Italy in April 1944 and continued to be called the Free French Division and the 1st Motorized Infantry Division.

2e Division d'Infanterie Maroccaine (DIM) (Moroccan Infantry Division) The 2nd DMI was formed on 1 May 1943 and was the first French formation on active service in Italy. It arrived in Italy in end November 1943.

3e Division d'Infanterie Algérienne (DIA) (Algerian Infantry Division). The 3rd DIA was stationed near the Tunisian border when the Allies landed in North Africa. They participated in the operations that led to the liberation of Tunisia. On 3 May 1943, the Division of Constantine was redesignated as the 3rd DIA or 3rd Algerian Infantry Division. After some amphibious training it embarked for Italy and relieved the US 45th Division.

4e Division Marocaine de Montagne (DMM) (Moroccan Mountain Division) The 4th DMM was originally formed as the 3e Division d’Infanterie Marocaine but changed to the 4th DMM. Later it was renamed simply the Division Marocaine de Montagne, but it was continued to be referred to by the 4th DMM. Units of this division participated in the liberation of Corsica in September & October 1944.

Other units
The 2nd & 6th RTM (Moroccan Infantry Rgts) were redesignated, after their heavy combat losses, as the 2nd & 6th Regiments Mixtes de Tirailleurs Marocains et Algerians. Later, in August 1944, they were renamed 1st Regiments de Tirailleurs Algeriens and 6th RTM.

Morroccan Tabors - Morroccan “goums” were initially formed for internal security in 1908. They were eventually absorbed into the military with a ‘goum” equivalent to a ‘company’. A “tabor” was the equivalent to a battalion and consisted of three goums. Three tabors formed a “group”. The tabors were never used on the battlefield as a group but were deployed as replacements for infantry units. “Goumiers” were the name of those serving in these units.

Quoting from General Mark Clark's autobiography, he describes how the FEC broke through the GUSTAV Line in May of 1944.

"Meantime, the French forces had crossed the Garigliano (River) and moved forward into the mountainous terrain lying south of the Liri River. It was not easy. As always, the German veterans reacted strongly and there was bitter fighting. The French surprised the enemy and quickly seized key terrain including Mounts Faito Cerasola and high ground near Castelforte. The 1st Motorized Division helped the 2nd Moroccan division take key Mount Girofano and then advanced rapidly north to S. Apollinare and S. Ambrogio. In spite of the stiffening enemy resistance, the 2nd Moroccan Division penetrated the Gustave Line in less than two day’s fighting.
"The next 48 hours on the French front were decisive. The knife-wielding Goumiers swarmed over the hills, particularly at night, and General Juin’s entire force showed an aggressiveness hour after hour that the Germans could not withstand. Cerasola, San Giogrio, Mt. D’Oro, Ausonia and Esperia were seized in one of the most brilliant and daring advances of the war in Italy, and by May 16 the French Expeditionary Corps had thrust forward some ten miles on their left flank to Mount Revole, with the remainder of their front slanting back somewhat to keep contact with the British 8th Army.
"For this performance, which was to be a key to the success of the entire drive on Rome, I shall always be a grateful admirer of General Juin and his magnificent FEC."
(and a little further)
"The 8th Army’s delay made Juin’s task more difficult, because he was moving forward so rapidly that his right flank---adjacent to the British---constantly was exposed to counter-attacks".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[One]

The Egyptians did win the firt couple of days in 1973. The pushed in 12 KM having complete air superiority.

Saddat wanted to implement phase 2. The plan was to push forward to help the syrian army. The Join Chief of Staff refused to proceed with plan 2 because the SAMs were still being moved to the front lines to provide another 12KM of air support.

He was kicked out of the presidents office and Saddat asked the Commander of the 2nd army to advance. As soon as the 2nd army moved out of the 12km range of the SAMs they were hunted by the IAF. This created the infamous gap wich allowed sharon and his tanks to move in.

---------


Arabs prior to 1948 had no experience in "organized" wars. All they had was some experience in gurilla warfare fighting the british and the french. While the Jews were fighting the German S.S. Some of them were officers in British and US forces along with the Canadian forces. If I'm not mistaken the 7th Armored Brigade that was in the Golan was found by a Canadian-Jew Officer.


Also we all know that US technology is far more advanced than the Russian technology.

Russians had the sagger while the US had the laser guided TOW.

[IDFM203]

The Egyptians did win the firt couple of days in 1973. The pushed in 12 KM having complete air superiority. . yes and this just proves that they do have a few ( well a FEW is the optimal word here ;) )quality military commanders and you cant simply say that they lose wars or that one because they don’t have any

No, again even with 13 or 15 or 20 to 1 odds and the best in Russian technology and equipment, and they still lost, well credit does have to also go to the superior Israeli training and innovative and ingenious battlefield tactics and superior planning that Israel has used throughout its wars and that war.

I do in fact give arabs credit for the way they performed in the beginning of that war but alot of it also has to go to the idiocy of Israeli leadership for knowing that this war was going to happen (yes a lot of historians recognise that it was not a surprise as a lot believe it is today) but yet refused to pre-empt like they smartly did in 1967 and this refusal to do so cost Israel more then it had to.

Arabs prior to 1948 had no experience in "organized" wars. All they had was some experience in gurilla warfare fighting the british and the french. While the Jews were fighting the German S.S. Some of them were officers in British and US forces along with the Canadian forces. If I'm not mistaken the 7th Armored Brigade that was in the Golan was found by a Canadian-Jew Officer. . first of all, most of the Jews who fought in 1948 did not have any war experience in world war two. Yes there were some that came and helped and they were of a major contribution but6 most did not have that experience and besides so too did the arabs that had some people with British as well as other experience as well as military advisers that came and helped them.

Anyways regardless of all that, the Arabs in that war outnumbered the Israelis around 15 or 20 to 1 and on top of that had better and more equipment (understatement!!)

This is from armourdov who responded to you in another thread…

Here are some figures about the weapons each side had in the 1948 war in format of:
<weapon name> : <how many Israel had> vs <how many Arabs had>
Tanks: 1 (without cannon) vs 40 ;
Armoured wheeld gun cars: 2 vs 200 ;
APCs: 120 vs 300 ;
Field artillery: 5 vs 140 ;
AA and AT guns: 24 vs 220 ;
Warplanes: 0 vs 60 ;
Bombers: 0 vs 14 ;
Cargo and scout planes: 28 vs 57 ;
Armed ships: 3 vs 12 ;

(Source: Carta Atlas for Israel's History)

You must be a real idiot to loose when you have a large force and armour force and your opponent have none.

Israel had better trained and highly motivated soldiers!!!!


Also we all know that US technology is far more advanced than the Russian technology.

Russians had the sagger while the US had the laser guided TOW. yes but Israel fought three wars without U.S. technology. 1948,1956 and 1967,

In 1948 as you see above, Israel had much less technology as well as actual equipment.

And also in the1973 Yom kipper war, the gap wasn’t huge between U.S. and Russian equipment. The arabs had the latest and best Russian equipment and 13 or 20 to 1 odds and still lost!!!

That cant be explained solely by better equipment! No the fact is that again Israeli training and ingenuity and fighting spirit gets most of the credit for winning and surviving against these huge odds.


The gap now is that Israel has better technology for yes the U.S. technology is better but also Israeli innovations and Israeli inventions and add-ons which have even made that gap bigger…….(although Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia now have U.S. technology and weapons……oh well……I guess thats for anther topic)


Shalom :D

[Marxist203]

“ONE” there are all sorts of reasons why the Arab’s with their latest soviet equipment and their 13 or 14 or 15 or 20 to one!! Odds (13 to 20 to one is depending on different historians) against Israel and yet they still lose or get their a** kicked at times, but I think the main factor is that besides what you said which has some truth to it, the fact is that you cant take anything away from the superior training and fighting skills and the Israeli ingenuity that the Israelis have used that has been the decisive factor to Israel’s wins more so then what the Arabs did or did not do in their defeats……….

Now with that said, one quote of yours stands out and it reminded me of a joke I posted a while back on this thread.
Here is your quote from above that’s followed by my joke that I posted before.


They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.


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

...I suppose you have a point about Israeli ingenuity, you guys did invent terrorism. Dont tell me you didn't...cause we all know its not true. You guys used to do clandestine attacks against the British before you got your homeland.

[IDFM203]

Ok first of all you are off topic here and you know it. I guess you realise the futility of arguing for the arabs wars so you resort to this. I mean we are talking about the Arabs inability to win an all out war against Israel or even anyone else (go check the title of this thread) even after they have their huge numbers and odds on their side, and yet you come here with you off topic and inflammatory post......oh well :roll:



...I suppose you have a point about Israeli ingenuity, you guys did invent terrorism. Dont tell me you didn't...cause we all know its not true. . yes like how you put it, we all know what you just said is not true!!

Secondly, this has been talked about already in great detail but just in general, the arabs invented and were committing terror attacks (like the 1929 massacre of over a 100 Jewish man women and children) way before any Jew were attacking British targets.

No, the arabs invented terrorism.

We can go on here but being as this is off topic, I suggest you find those other threads and post there.

Shalom :D

[EvanL]

Ok first of all you are off topic here and you know it. I guess you realise the futility of arguing for the arabs wars so you resort to this. I mean we are talking about the Arabs inability to win an all out war against Israel or even anyone else (go check the title of this thread) even after they have their huge numbers and odds on their side, and yet you come here with you off topic and inflammatory post......oh well :roll:



...I suppose you have a point about Israeli ingenuity, you guys did invent terrorism. Dont tell me you didn't...cause we all know its not true. . yes like how you put it, we all know what you just said is not true!!

Secondly, this has been talked about already in great detail but just in general, the arabs invented and were committing terror attacks (like the 1929 massacre of over a 100 Jewish man women and children) way before any Jew were attacking British targets.

No, the arabs invented terrorism.

We can go on here but being as this is off topic, I suggest you find those other threads and post there.

Shalom :D

Actually if i am not mistaken, the dinosaurs invented terrorism. :|

[[AFSOC]]

What kind of bull**** is that Arabs invented Terrorism? HATE CREATED TERRORISM.

[Ichhabe]

The Arabs did it!!! *sob*

No, the Jews did it!!! *sob sob*

Nah... Terrorism was even by 1929 standars not news.

Ever heard of the "Black Hand" out of Serbia?
And Russian anarchists used it in the 1880-s.
And terrorism has been in use at least since 3 days after dawn of man. It is just that it has not been known under that name. So stob giving credits to them and that. This is just plain childish.

[Aussie2093]

I think the jews provoked the 1948 war by trying to claim the land in the first place.

[IDFM203]

Geez and this is your contribution to this thread. :roll: :bash: :roll: This thread is about the Arabs and their inability to win wars. We have enough threads that deal with the whys and whose at fault. If you want to make your one liner and false statements well do it there. I mean geez not every topic has to be an argument about this conflict. :bash:

Again this thread is about the Arabs inability to win all out wars and its on a military level not on a political or a regurgitating of the Arab/ Israeli conflict reasons, so please try to keep focused on the original theme of this thread.

Anyways I will answer very brief what you wrote for I have gone over in much more detail in other threads.
I think the jews provoked the 1948 war by trying to claim the land in the first place. that is false in both the historical record and in the context. The Jews living there only wanted to live in peace. The British were the rulers of that land at the time, a land that had both Jews and Arabs living there, then when they left the UN drew a line on a map which divided up that land, and the Jews accepted even though most of it was uninhabited desert land while the Arabs got most of the habited lush green land, and were hoping to live in peaceful co existence with the Arabs. Well they refused and seven Arab nations, where most had nothing to even do with that land (I mean its one thing to talk about the native Arabs, which are now called the Palestinians, but the other nations that attacked never lived there), attacked in an effort to seize the whole land for themselves and kill off all the Jews (all the Jewish man women and children) that were living there.

Now please get back on the original topic………………………..

shalom :D

[Aussie2093]

OK, first off mate, youre the one who started going down the "Israel is great" bull****-road. You said Israel didn't start the 1948 war, I believe they do. Who's going off topic?? :bash: :bash: :bash:

Your blind patriotism is clouding your vision, if I wanted to go down the 'Israel-Palestine' path again I'd just call you an arrogant jew, but I didn't did I.. :roll:

Your arguments are sound and well backed-up, but your paranoia is making you excessively defensive. Chill the **** out.

[IDFM203]

to Aussie2093,

First off mate I suggest you follow your own advise and chill out your self. I mean I am pretty calm but it seems clear with your vulgarities that your not :roll:

Second of all, when I argued about who started what before, I said it in response to someone else bringing it up first. and that person was also a bit off topic but not as blatent as your post was.

Thirdly it was in the context of the military discussion whereas that individual was trying to claim that the Arabs lost because Israel attacked first and thus the disadvantage was with them. This is incorrect as I pointed out.

Now your one liner was not in that context but was in an off topic way to rehash the whole Middle East debate that can go for pages. Your word “provoke” is a rehash of the long debate and it is not relevant to this discussion.

As for “Israel is great bull****”. I don’t know where you got that from but we are talking about the wars here and if you took my responses to mean that I implied that Israel was great, well that’s you reading of it not mine. I was simply responding in the context of this thread.

As for who started. No, the Arabs did and that is historical record. Now if you believe differently then that’s fine. Many people believe all sorts of things. I can’t stop that. But the historical record is fact and it is not belief. What I brought down was from the historical record and not some arcane belief.

As for this diatribe “Your blind patriotism is clouding your vision, if I wanted to go down the 'Israel-Palestine' path again I'd just call you an arrogant jew, but I didn't did I.. :roll: “ well I too can call you blind and call you an arrogant anti Semite, but I don’t now do I.. :roll:

Now I suggest that we get off this impending flame fest before it turns ugly
listen I am not looking for a fight here and i hope to avoid one but I will repond as to how I am being treated.

No, whats clear to me was that you were off topic and your making my responses now stay off topic as well. I ask that you please get back on topic and discuss the theme of the original thread and topic……….The Arab’s at war and the military reasoning and factors for them losing

Shalom :D

[Aussie2093]

All is well and good, but I must say that the only thing more extreme than my anti-semitism is your 'semitism', if that makes sense. As much as you should believe what you have learnt, your view is a bit more bias than mine even when backed up by 'historical fact'. Of course youre never going to believe anything that is anti-semetic, sort of like how I'll never give you guys a fair chance ;) . I do not wish to ignite the flame war that is the Israel-Palestine conflict once again, and I certainly dont want to put you through all that typing that you would no doubt pursue :) . However, you must cease your defensive behaviour for I am only stating my beliefs. I believe that you guys caused the 1948 war that in-turn spawned all those other wars. I know the jews didn't go in there and start shooting arabs, but their mission there (forming their own state) did entice neighbouring arab countries into aggression. Israel has achieved alot and has alot of be proud of, its birth however, was not the smartest event for that time in that region. It's not exactly all your fault and whatnot, but you are responsible. And in regards to keeping it on topic....ok....hmmm....lets see. Yes, the Israeli's have fought very hard and bravely for the last 55 years. But if the Arabs could actually work together and form a tactical alliance and be smart about it (in regards to the major wars from '48-'73), then you guys wouldn't exist anymore. Thats my .02

[IDFM203]

All is well and good, but I must say that the only thing more extreme than my anti-semitism is your 'semitism', if that makes sense. I am not sure I understand fully what your saying but as close as I do, I will just say that you are a bit out of line with that comment. If you have read my posts you will see that I have always been reasonable and I have put forth logical arguments that are based on facts. It behooves you to read carefully what I write as opposed to making these false insinuations about me :roll:

As much as you should believe what you have learnt, your view is a bit more bias than mine even when backed up by 'historical fact'. every one has their bias. Of course I have bias for I am involved in this conflict. And I understand arabs bias as well but your bias is not so understandable or explained :roll: (well to me its clear but you know where that can lead if I pursue my thoughts there ;) …..oh well :roll: )

Of course youre never going to believe anything that is anti-semetic, sort of like how I'll never give you guys a fair chance ;) . of course I am not going to believe anti Semitic falsehoods, but why aren’t you going to give me a fair chance being that it is I that is extremely and personally involved in this conflict :roll:

I mean your not, so this whole your not going to give me a fair chance is a bit preposterous, aye mate ;) ( hope I did that "aye mate" in the right contaxt ;) )

I do not wish to ignite the flame war that is the Israel-Palestine conflict once again, well you say that and yet you continue to follow up with you assertions which are again off topic and do lead into the whole Israel /Palestinian debate.

and I certainly dont want to put you through all that typing that you would no doubt pursue :) . yeah I will concede that I will perhaps do that, but that is most of the times in reponse to you (in this case) are others typing away at length their views.

However, you must cease your defensive behaviour for I am only stating my beliefs. this is a forum. You went off topic and stated a false belief (as I tried to show you), albeit yours, and all I did was respond. It seems that it is you that is pretty defensive here ;)

Anyways this is all pettiness for we can go in circles here. Fine I know what you believe and you know what I do...lets try to leave it at that :roll:

I believe that you guys caused the 1948 war that in-turn spawned all those other wars. and I repeat “that is false in both the historical record and in the context. The Jews living there only wanted to live in peace. The British were the rulers of that land at the time, a land that had both Jews and Arabs living there, then when they left the UN drew a line on a map which divided up that land, and the Jews accepted even though most of it was uninhabited desert land while the Arabs got most of the habited lush green land, and were hoping to live in peaceful co existence with the Arabs. Well they refused and seven Arab nations, where most had nothing to even do with that land (I mean its one thing to talk about the native Arabs, which are now called the Palestinians, but the other nations that attacked never lived there), attacked in an effort to seize the whole land for themselves and kill off all the Jews (all the Jewish man women and children) that were living there”

Your terms, “spawned” and “provoked” “entice” etc are all ambiguous terms in an attempt to twist and cloud the facts that the Arabs attacked, invaded, started a full-blown war in an effort to wipe out all the Jews. Those are actions that happened not some warped rationales that you are trying to give as an excuse for that behaviour.

I know the jews didn't go in there and start shooting arabs, but their mission there (forming their own state) did entice neighbouring arab countries into aggression. there was Jew’s living there for years before any intentions to create a state. Anyways that intention came as a result of anti Semitism around the world as well as the constant attacks on Jews by the Arabs way before that declaration.

Anyways all this by you is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to falsely rationalize 7 Arab nations refusing to live in peaceful coexistence with the Jews as the Jews wanted and not only that but starting a war (yes that’s a fact) to try to kill every Jewish man, women and child and to get all the land for themselves.

Israel has achieved alot and has alot of be proud of, its birth however, was not the smartest event for that time in that region. It's not exactly all your fault and whatnot, but you are responsible. yes because we are Jews we must be responsible for everything…… :roll: :roll: (that’s not paranoia but rather a correct reading of what you are trying to say or insinuate)


Yes, the Israeli's have fought very hard and bravely for the last 55 years. But if the Arabs could actually work together and form a tactical alliance and be smart about it (in regards to the major wars from '48-'73), then you guys wouldn't exist anymore. Thats my .02 phew finally. We are back on topic now woot woot

Well yes the Arabs were not always together and yes some of thier failures is due to that but again 13 or 15 or 20 to one odds and in 1948, where they had better as well as most of the equipment period (for Israel practically had nothing) and in 1973 where they had the latest soviet equipment, and yet they still lost, well a lot of credit most go to Israel and its superior training and ingenuity as well as fighting spirit that has enabled Israel to win more so then the Arab failures enabled them to lose.

Again As for fighting spirit, as golda mair once said, “Israel’s ultimate secret weapon is that we have no choice”!!


Again I don’t mean to sound rude and I am still hoping that we can be rational about things here and not let it slip out of control but I will always respond to how I am being treated, that is not paranoia or defensiveness but rather human nature and common sense.

Shalom :D

[One]

Even I'm sick of this topic. No one will admit its his fault so there is no point of arguing. :bash:




Salam :D

[IDFM203]

Even I'm sick of this topic. No one will admit its his fault so there is no point of arguing. hey if you admit the truth that for the most part its your sides fault then we can stop arguing ;) :bash: ;)

But seriously I hear you for believe me I am sick of it as well (remember I am not the one who made this thread go off topic and I have been begging now for it to get back on topic, which is not the whole large debate) and I understand that we are entrenched in our perspective views but with that said I do enjoy talking to you and I do listen to what you say even if I don’t agree with it, I can only hope that you show me the same courtesy as well

Shalom :D

[Kingpin]

They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.

This is direct insult. Please specify which tactics and why proved to be useless in battle.

[Russian Texan]

Here is an anecdote about Soviet assistance to arabs during arab/israeli wars.

Two tanks: an arab and israeli meet up on top of a hill. None can pass because of lack of space, someone has to back off.
An israeli tanker pops out of the hatch and says: "You stupid arab, get out of my way, I have an american advisor inside"
An arab tanker responds with: " Poshel na huj"! (Go f*** yourself would be an approximate english translation from russian). Then looks down into the hatch and asks: "Did I say it right?"

On the serious note, the statement about arabs having latest Soviet equipment is false. USSR supplied arab countries with so called "monkey" models that were stripped down versions of the same equipment in the Soviet military. Pretty much it had looks but no substance ;)

[Pyle]

i guess arabs pray more and train less so during crunch time the best tactic they can come up is blowing themselves up and hope it will do harm to the enemy.

[UoUo]

They "great" alla won't won the wars for them.

[Deuterium]

I've had a little experience training Arabs and Muslims. I've trained European Muslims and Arab Muslims. There is a world of difference.

1. The overriding principle for Arabs is "inshallah". This applies to whether the enemy is attacking or whether or not sandbags will be filled.

2. Arabs are industrious and inventive if pointed in the right direction. Left to their own devices all I ever saw was bickering and indecisiveness. It seems in the West that at all levels we are prepared to make decisions, even wrong ones. But decisions are made.

3. Acceptance of ineptness and poor conditions. I go on a deployment and wind up in a ****hole. I start improving on my condition on day one. I don't accept my lot and cry. I go to a local vender and ask for a service. The service is poorly given. I complain and either fix the problem by telling him my standards or I get a new vendor.

4. Jumping to conclusions and paranoia. Rampant and prevent throughout the Arab world.

These factors all combine in a military sense to form units with poor abilities to react to change, make decisive timely decisions, understand commander's intent, and separate the BS from the important tasks.

[IDFM203]

On the serious note, the statement about arabs having latest Soviet equipment is false. USSR supplied arab countries with so called "monkey" models that were stripped down versions of the same equipment in the Soviet military. Pretty much it had looks but no substance ;) that’s not exactly true. I mean the MIGs and SAMs that you gave were of the latest variant. Listen I cant account for every major piece of equipment but the fact is that up until the 80's the arabs had received for the most part the latest in soviet technology and equipments.

Also they had soviet advisers throughout all their wars that were very prevalent in their training and battle order and formation (now whether they understood what they were learning, well that’s for each one to decide on their own, but they had those advises)

On top of all that, it is a fact that Russian pilots at times flew their planes in battle on behalf of the Arabs. I don’t know if you knew this but the Israeli air force shot down russian piloted migs in the early 70's. And before. In truth we don’t know the extent of actual Russian participation so it could have been more Russian piloted jets throughout the years but what I bring down below is a fact that is known. (there are many books that have this fact writtin but this is what i found quickly on the net)

IAF pilots also faced Russian pilots who occasionally participated in the defense of Egyptian air space. Encounters between Russian and Israeli pilots reached a climax on 30 July 1970 when four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. In the ensuing air battle, five Russian-piloted planes were shot down.
http://cp.yahoo.net/search/cache?va=israeli+planes+shoot+down+soviet+jets&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&url=St7zTe8KRPAJ:www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jul_98/jul2a_98.html
I bring this down to show that while yes I can go off about the Arabs this and the Arabs that, the soviets also played a huge part and as a Russian with all your equipment and all you advisers and at times actual participation, to blame everything on the Arabs and not at all on any advice or perhaps weaker soviet technology, well it seems to me as a bit of a copout.

The fact is that yes the arabs have a lot to look at as their own fault and perhaps could have changed some things but again, 13 or 15 or 20 to 1 odds and the best in Russian technology and yet the Arabs still lost every time, well credit does have to also go to the superior Israeli training and innovative and ingenious battlefield tactics and superior planning that Israel has used throughout its wars

I end off with a repeat of my joke that fits in with the theme of this post.

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


Shalom :D

[Kingpin]

Sorry - big pic

http://airbase.ru/wars/arab-israel/1973/EgyptianAirForce-2/img/Photo4.jpg

[Kingpin]

Israeli Mirage shot down by Egiptian Mig-21. Gun camera.

http://airbase.ru/wars/arab-israel/1973/EgyptianAirForce/img/05.jpg

[Kingpin]

Downed Israeli Mirage in sands

http://airbase.ru/wars/arab-israel/1973/EgyptianAirForce/img/foto2.jpg

[Kingpin]

And for those who have enough patience to use online translator: memoires of soviet advisor who have been in Syria this time (1973).

http://airbase.uka.ru/wars/arab-israel/1973/jashkin/

[Russian Texan]

The latest, fully equiped models of tanks and airplanes were never given to arabs for two reasons:
#1 They could be captured and forwarded to the US (primary concern)

#2 In order to take advantage of the latest equipment extensive training was needed and arabs didn't have it.

So like I have said before: It looked like Mig but didn't have all of the insides of the same plane in the Soviet airforce.
For example, USSR used T 64 but exported similar but less capable T 72.

Soviet pilots did fly for the arabs, although on the much much smaller scale than in Korea.

[IDFM203]

“cockdila”
Aahhhhhhhhhh so the Russians didn’t like what I just said ;) :petting: ;) …oh well :roll:

Listen if we play this picture game I can guarantee you that you wouldn’t like the result of it. I mean besides the astronomical amount of Russian equipments and planes that we have shot down, or the tanks that were destroyed or captured which don’t even come close to the low level of Israeli equipment that was shot down or captured by Russian stuff we also have museums that have tons(not a mere few)of that crap as well as actual APC that are in service now that are converted from Russian tanks. I suggest we not go there. Your few pictures don’t have any meaning here.

I simply repeat.

On top of all that, it is a fact that Russian pilots at times flew their planes in battle on behalf of the Arabs. I don’t know if you knew this but the Israeli air force shot down russian piloted migs in the early 70's. And before. In truth we don’t know the extent of actual Russian participation so it could have been more Russian piloted jets throughout the years but what I bring down below is a fact that is known. (there are many books that have this fact writtin but this is what i found quickly on the net)

IAF pilots also faced Russian pilots who occasionally participated in the defense of Egyptian air space. Encounters between Russian and Israeli pilots reached a climax on 30 July 1970 when four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. In the ensuing air battle, five Russian-piloted planes were shot down.
http://cp.yahoo.net/search/cache?va=israeli+planes+shoot+down+soviet+jets&ei=UTF-8&n=20&fl=0&url=St7zTe8KRPAJ:www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jul_98/jul2a_98.html
I bring this down to show that while yes I can go off about the Arabs this and the Arabs that, the soviets also played a huge part and as a Russian with all your equipment and all you advisers and at times actual participation, to blame everything on the Arabs and not at all on any advice or perhaps weaker soviet technology, well it seems to me as a bit of a copout.

The fact is that yes the arabs have a lot to look at as their own fault and perhaps could have changed some things but again, 13 or 15 or 20 to 1 odds and the best in Russian technology and yet the Arabs still lost every time, well credit does have to also go to the superior Israeli training and innovative and ingenious battlefield tactics and superior planning that Israel has used throughout its wars

I end off with a repeat of my joke that fits in with the theme of this post.

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


Shalom :D

[IDFM203]

The latest, fully equiped models of tanks and airplanes were never given to arabs for two reasons:
#1 They could be captured and forwarded to the US (primary concern) yes that’s a good concern for Israel did do that on a lot of occasions.

But they did get the latest in soviet air defences (which are very good indeed) and while perhaps they got a level down in other things, they did get the best. It’s like Israel gets the latest F16I While the Egyptians get the F16D which is a bit less but still top of the line.



#2 In order to take advantage of the latest equipment extensive training was needed and arabs didn't have it. exactly my point. They did get that training and advice from the Russians so they were influenced by Russian training and battle doctrine.

As such some of the failures can be attributed to that as well.

So like I have said before: It looked like Mig but didn't have all of the insides of the same plane in the Soviet airforce. yes its like the Russians had F16I and the Arabs had F16D but still both are top of the line jets (obviously my example is with U.S. jets but you get my point)

Soviet pilots did fly for the arabs, although on the much much smaller scale than in Korea. yes as I mentioned in my previous posts.

Shalom :D

[Kingpin]

“cockdila”
Aahhhhhhhhhh so the Russians didn’t like what I just said ;) :| ;) …oh well :roll:

Listen if we play this picture game I can guarantee you that you wouldn’t like the result of it. Shalom :D

Please post links to pics here. I'll be grateful

[IDFM203]

Well I would have to do the research and I prefer not to. ( I mean besides your types of pictures that there are as well there are also videos of the wars which show those Russian equipments all over the desert floor)

however I can suggest the websites of the Latrun tank museum and the Israeli air force museum which do have a lot of Russian equipments on display.

In fact if you were serious about you request (and not in a condesanding flame fashion) you might actually like to see those pics or visit those museums.

Shalom :D

[UoUo]

I will try....wait a few minutes and i will bring some nice fhotos of soviet weopns.

[UoUo]

Oh well....just for now


http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/katyusha/katyusha.jpg

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/katyusha/katyusha_b2.jpg


http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/tiran/tiran5.jpg


The Ti-67 is another term for the Israeli use of the T-54/55 (Tiran 4/5)
Israel's chronic lack of AFV's on one hand and it's phenomenal victory in the 1967 Six Days War on the other, brought the IDF to adopt captured enemy vehicles for it's use. The Arab armies lost hundreds of fighting vehicles - mostly Egyptian T-54 and T-55 MBT's which were abandoned by their crews.

The first combat use of captured tanks by the IDF was in operation "Raviv" (8-9 September 1969) - an amphibious raid across the Suez channel. Three T-54 tanks and six BTR-50 apc's were used to wreak havoc behind the Egyptian lines (also see the "Operation Raviv" scenarios).

In order to allow for greater standardization in it's armor corps, the IDF initiated a conversion program. The captured tanks were re-engined and re-gunned (with the standard 105mm gun used in the Centurion and Patton MBT's). Chief was the several hundred captured T-54/T-55 tanks that were taken and modified into the Tiran 4 (T-54) and Tiran 5 (T-55), called Ti-67 (Tank Israeli -1967) in the west. The main difference between the two versions is the main gun armament. The Tiran 4 having a 100 mm main gun and the Tiran 5 having a 105 mm main gun.

The Tiran 5 conversion includes: hollow cast turret with numerous IDF details cast in, empty bustle cast to the turret, IDF modified loaders and drivers hatch, 105mm gun tube. 60mm mortar and spare round box, commanders and loaders m.g. mounts, correct machine guns, .30 caliber and correct ammo boxes. Turret side storage box, four IDF jerry can racks molded empty, five IDF jerry cans, separate, rear hull storage bin with medical box attached, IDF infantry comm. box. Late pattern fuel cells, accurate pattern oil storage box, two fender storage boxes, IDF Pattern driving lights and IDF pattern mud flaps with "rubber" dust guards molded separately.

Tirans were used along Israel's borders -mostly at the Suez front. In the 1973 Yom Kippur war Tirans were used in combat in the southern front - against Egyptian T-54/55 (which caused a lot of confusion).

During the early 1980's Tiran MBT's were withdrawn from active duty. Some were sold to foreign states (including, reportedly, to Iran during it's war with Iraq), some were given to Israel's allies in Lebanon and some were converted into the Achzarit APC.




[/img]http://www.iaf.co.il/sip_storage/files/6/226.jpg



Arabs plains destroyded by israel.


..ha...i will bring more...

After all over 600 Arab Air crafts were suth down by israel..for 48.

woot

[IDFM203]

here let me help you out there chaver :D

http://www.iaf.co.il/sip_storage/files/6/226.jpg

shalom :D

[S'13]

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~yakov/album/peter-99/tanks7.jpg
T-34 tank displayed in Tel-Aviv

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is3/is3_19.jpg
The ex-Egyptian IS-3M on military parade in Israel, 1967.

p-)

[citizen-k]

I've had a little experience training Arabs and Muslims. I've trained European Muslims and Arab Muslims. There is a world of difference.

1. The overriding principle for Arabs is "inshallah". This applies to whether the enemy is attacking or whether or not sandbags will be filled.

2. Arabs are industrious and inventive if pointed in the right direction. Left to their own devices all I ever saw was bickering and indecisiveness. It seems in the West that at all levels we are prepared to make decisions, even wrong ones. But decisions are made.

3. Acceptance of ineptness and poor conditions. I go on a deployment and wind up in a ****hole. I start improving on my condition on day one. I don't accept my lot and cry. I go to a local vender and ask for a service. The service is poorly given. I complain and either fix the problem by telling him my standards or I get a new vendor.

4. Jumping to conclusions and paranoia. Rampant and prevent throughout the Arab world.

These factors all combine in a military sense to form units with poor abilities to react to change, make decisive timely decisions, understand commander's intent, and separate the BS from the important tasks.

In simple words: You killed the commander - you killed the entire unit.

Another differences:

A syrian tank driver graduated 3-4 years of elementary school unlike his Israeli friend which graduated high school (12 years) or university...

The syrian air force commander is the brother/brother in law/neighbour of the Syrian president (just like all the other high ranked officers in the army). The reason is that the president wants to make sure the army will remain loyal. (A thing you won't see in Israel or the US)

[One]

Its funny because you think the arab army is what you saw in afghanistan. A bunch of illeterate turban wearing horse riding farmers.


The egyptians and syrians are both well educated (as education is free in socialist countries). On the other hand saddam likes to appoint his buddies and family in commanding positions because he is scared for his life. Chemical Ali used to be a guard at the Ministry of Defence. When saddam came into power he became responsible for developing weapons. A former Iraqi minister was on TV and he was talking about the Saddam days. He said an Iraqi officer was sent to russia for SF training, and he graduated at the top of his class. When he returned to Iraq he got executed for no reason. Saddam didn't like anyone who is better than him.

The soldeirs were willing to die for their country and nothing could stop them.

The commanders had no choice but to do what the Commander in Chief tells them to do. So in some cases they had to lie to protect their asses.

If it wasn't for the bastard saddat giving a direct order to the Commander of the 2nd Army bypassing the Joint Chief of Staff who knows what would have happened to the Israeli army.

They egyptians fooled the Israelis for quite a long time and they moved all their equipments to the front lines without anyone noticing (well actualy Sharon noticed but it was too late). The first couple of days the Israelis were loosing massive casualties, their airforce was useless, one of the commanders in the frontline bunkers asked HQ to stop sending fighters because they are not lasting in the sky.


Yes the Syrians did get whatever they want. Brejnev(sorry for mispelling his name) asked Assad if he wanted the migs with or without pilots. But the IAF was recieving american technology in the airplanes with computers. We all know the russian planes are aerodynamicaly advanced but not computerized.


Yes the Syrians and egyptians lost 400 planes but they were all parked in the air force base they were bombed.

Back before the Yum Kippur war the King of Jordan gave Golda Meir the whole plan of attack of the arab armies, yes an arab country betrayed the rest. So when the war started the Israelis knew what was going on.


Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were trained by the Soveits. The rest are trained by the west. Mostly the gulf countries go to england. Lebanon goes to the US for their training (they've been doing so for who knows how long).


Give the arabs the same technology that Israel has and see who will win. Well that will never happen because that will be an extra fair fight.


Now there are 23 arab countries. 2 are willing to fight and the rest don't give a **** anymore. All they care about is themselves.


PS: Inshallah is the muslim way of saying "ok" or "alright". And not all muslims are arabs and not all arabs are muslims.

[IDFM203]

They egyptians fooled the Israelis for quite a long time and they moved all their equipments to the front lines without anyone noticing (well actualy Sharon noticed but it was too late). well there is strong evidence that what you said is not true!!
There have been many books and articles that cited former Mossad and Israeli military intelligence interviews of how they had intelligence and other factors before that knew of that and that they warned Galda Mair but she refused to attack. As I said before, It is clear now that Israeli leadership was also duplicit (sp?) in the failure in the beginning for they did know that this war was going to happen (yes a lot of historians recognise that it was not a surprise as a lot believe it is today) but yet refused to pre-empt like they smartly did in 1967 and this refusal to do so cost Israel more then it had to

Yes the Syrians and egyptians lost 400 planes but they were all parked in the air force base they were bombed. yes a lot were destroyed while they were parked in the wars but a lot were also shot down in air to air battles.

In fact I believe it is a fact that the Israeli air force has the most successful air to air record based on ratios and percentages in the history of air to air battles.

I mean I don’t think you need to be remained of the 81 to 1 (yes 81 syrian planes were shot down while only 1 Israeli one was shot down), success rate that Israeli planes had against Syrian ones over the skies of Lebanon in 1982. :D

This is just one example of many of such success rates during the past fifty years of conflict between the sides.



Back before the Yum Kippur war the King of Jordan gave Golda Meir the whole plan of attack of the arab armies, yes an arab country betrayed the rest. So when the war started the Israelis knew what was going on. A, where did you get this from?? :roll:

B, so now you admit that they were not fooled for they did know before?!? make up your mind which is it :roll:

C, if it’s true then it even further proves the fault of the Israeli leadership for knowing and yet even still refusing to pre-empt as they should have done.


Iraq, Syria, and Egypt were trained by the Soveits. The rest are trained by the west. Mostly the gulf countries go to england. Lebanon goes to the US for their training (they've been doing so for who knows how long). so they had some quality training and yet they still lost.

It just goes to show…………… ;)



Give the arabs the same technology that Israel has and see who will win first of all,
In 1948, the Israelis had less equipments and less technology.
In 1967 they also had less. Remember Israel by then had French stuff and not U.S.
And in 1973 they had U.S. but at the time, U.S. equipment was not better then soviet equpment.

So yes the Arabs had the same or better equiptment in those wars and yet they still lost!!

Secondly, so you now want to give the Arabs, American as well as Israeli technology, which is what the Israeli have……..hmmmm :roll:

So lets see, they had the best in Russian equptment and their astronomical numerical advantage, and we see how they did with that, what makes you think things will be different with American and Israeli stuff?!? :roll:


Well that will never happen because that will be an extra fair fight. wow thanks for the compliment!! :D

I mean right here you admit that with the same technology, in your eye it would be a fair fight even though numerically the odds on their side are 15 or 20 to one!!!

Yes that’s still a fair fight :roll: ;) :roll:

I mean in essence you are saying that with everything being equal, the arabs will still need 15 or 20 Arabs soldiers to kill one Israeli soldier.

It seems that to you is fair :roll:


shalom :D

[One]

Give them the same ammount of F16I loaded with the latest Python4 and then go up in an air to air battle :P


Moshe Deyan called the reserves/regulars 4 (or 5) times in 1973. When the egyptians announced for the 6th time that all reservists and regular personell to join their units Deyan thought it was another bluff, so he didnt get his troops ready. Well it turned it that it wasnt a bluff.

Sharon on the other hand recieved intel from his unit and he told them that the egyptians are preparing for a war. So if he was the minister of defenece he would of found out.


King Abdullah's actions are known thats why the jordanians are called "khawanat il arab" (translated to betrayers of the arabs), and he got assasinated. He told Meir that the egyptians want to attack Israel so they initiated a pre-emptive attack (1967).

If you want to fight the egyptian or syrian army you should remove the leadership first and then start a war. Because they will fuk everything up and if they question the leaders actions he will get kicked out.

[IDFM203]

Give them the same ammount of F16I loaded with the latest Python4 and then go up in an air to air battle :P actually Israel now came out with the Python5 ;)

Ahhh so you want Israeli technology now ;) :roll:

I mean geee do you want us to give over the mossad for your benefit as well :roll:

Again I repeat

“wow thanks for the compliment!! :D

I mean right here you admit that with the same technology, in your eye it would be a fair fight even though numerically the odds on their side are 15 or 20 to one!!!

Yes that’s still a fair fight :roll: ;) :roll:

I mean in essence you are saying that with everything being equal, the arabs will still need 15 or 20 Arabs soldiers to kill one Israeli soldier.

It seems that to you is fair :roll: "


Moshe Deyan called the reserves/regulars 4 (or 5) times in 1973. When the egyptians announced for the 6th time that all reservists and regular personell to join their units Deyan thought it was another bluff, so he didnt get his troops ready. Well it turned it that it wasnt a bluff. yes but there were people in the intelligence community that disagreed with dayen and they told him that they had solid intelligence that he was wrong.

Either way you look at it, there was a failure in Israeli leadership to listen to what their intelligence people were rightfully telling them.

With Israel’s extreme disadvantages, even if the Arabs were bluffing again, Israel simply has no choice but to call up the reserves every time. I don’t care if they were bluffing a hundred times, they need to call them up that many times.

Sharon on the other hand recieved intel from his unit and he told them that the egyptians are preparing for a war. So if he was the minister of defenece he would of found out. first of all, there were people in the intelligence community that knew besides Sharon. Secondly what Sharon knew he passed on to the others.
Either way, the government knew and yet they still did not act.

King Abdullah's actions are known thats why the jordanians are called "khawanat il arab" (translated to betrayers of the arabs), and he got assasinated. He told Meir that the egyptians want to attack Israel so they initiated a pre-emptive attack (1967). oh so before you said the 1973 war now you change it to the 1967 war :roll:

I am sorry to say but You are clealy confused (be it on purpose or you are actually confused ;) )and don’t have your facts in order.
I mean Golda mair was not a amjor player in 1967 as you have said here :roll:

Secondly king abdullh did not do any such thing for if he did, then why did he attack during the 1967 when Israel told him to stay out of it?!? :roll: , lets not forget that in that war, it was Jordan that attacked Israel first. I mean if he was helping israel then why would he attack Israel during that war?!? :roll:

shalom :D

[One]

Back before the Yum Kippur war the King of Jordan gave Golda Meir the whole plan of attack of the arab armies, yes an arab country betrayed the rest. So when the war started the Israelis knew what was going on.

I wasn't talking about the 1973 war. I said back before the yum kippur war.


And no I'm not saying give them 15 to 1 odds. I'm saying give them the same technology and have the same amount of soldeirs or tanks or planes and then fight it out.

And no we don't need the mossad, you can't deny that the egyptians were good in the intel war.


Russian tactics called for large amounts of soldeirs and for Egypt 300 tanks is nothing. They have a massive land to cover. But thats not the point.


I dont see anything wrong with saying that Israeli technology is better....hell its better then US technology. Like I told you before I respect any army or person that defends a cause regardles of it being right or wrong.



Salam :D

[IDFM203]

“Back before the Yum Kippur war the King of Jordan gave Golda Meir the whole plan of attack of the arab armies, yes an arab country betrayed the rest. So when the war started the Israelis knew what was going on. “

I wasn't talking about the 1973 war. I said back before the yum kippur war.
I don’t mean to sound rude but are you not understanding what you are writing??? :roll:

In a previous post you said “King Abdullah's actions are known thats why the jordanians are called "khawanat il arab" (translated to betrayers of the arabs), and he got assasinated. He told Meir that the egyptians want to attack Israel so they initiated a pre-emptive attack (1967)”

So there you are saying the 1967 war.

Now here you say the same thing but you change it to the Yom kipper war.

You said before the Yom kipper war they gave information and then go on to say that when the Yom kipper war started, the Israelis knew. Well that’s a pretty clear link to the same war. Secondly, Golda mair, who you claim he gave the information to, was only a major part (the prime minister) in the Yom kipper war and you say that he gave her the information well that is only for the Yom kipper war.

Also, besides all that, how do you know this in the first place??? :roll:

Secondly if you are talking about the 1967 war, well it is simply implausible that the king of Jordan would do this.

I repeat “king abdullh did not do any such thing for if he did, then why did he attack during the 1967 when Israel told him to stay out of it?!? :roll: , lets not forget that in that war, it was Jordan that attacked Israel first. I mean if he was helping israel then why would he attack Israel during that war?!? :roll:”


And no I'm not saying give them 15 to 1 odds. I'm saying give them the same technology and have the same amount of soldeirs or tanks or planes and then fight it out. ohh so now you say that………………….. :roll: ;) :roll:

So all those pitched battles throughout the wars where individual Israeli units were outnumbered and yet still won and all that was do to what exactly??? :roll: ;) :roll: I mean do you remember the “zvikah force” where one Israeli tank fought alone for over 20 hours and single handily destroyed anywhere from 25 to 50 tanks (estimates vary, but that was the minimum).

Or the same amount of planes and the latest in technology and yet the Syrians lost 81 planes to Israel only losing one in air to air battles.

Listen the fact is that by the Yom kipper war and the 1967 war and the 1948 war, the wars were fought with the Arabs having the same (in 1973) or better technology (in 1967 and in 1948)!!!!! Also they had more numbers (understatement!!) and yet they still lost.

Again they had not only the same but also better technology and they still lost.

Other then your wishful thinking, the facts prove other wise as to the past and as to the future if that were to happen again or if it were to be the same numbers as well.(I mean again, if the Arabs could lose with better technology or the same, like in 1973,67,48 and with more numbers, they sure as hell would get creamed with the same amount of troops as well!!!)


And no we don't need the mossad, you can't deny that the egyptians were good in the intel war. ok besides the Russians giving you most of the intelligence, what Egyptian intelligence?!? :roll: Seriously this is not meant as a flame, I honestly don’t know of any.

Remember not Russian but actual Egyptian intelligence is what I am asking about!!

I dont see anything wrong with saying that Israeli technology is better....hell its better then US technology. my new best friend ;) :hug: ;)

Again, all this has been the case for the past 25 years, but not before that.



Shalom :D

[Kingpin]

1982

81:1 - no
from 3:2 to 5:1 (depends of time passed since beginning of war)

1973

from 3:2 to 5:2

my approximation. Not 100% correct but your approx much worse :)

I never said that arab pilots is better than israeli but definitely not so bad as you saying.

[Kingpin]

And I'm still waiting for pics of destroyed Soviet made arab equipment :)

Actually i can post here some by myself but i hope you provide my with new stuff :)

[IDFM203]

It is clear to me that you are talking about the ratio of Israeli planes shot down vs. Arab ones period… well that’s faulty logic for we are talking about air to air battles and not take down by SAMs or other air defences which account for most of the Israeli losses

Remember again we are also talking about the arabs having astronomical numerical advantages in equipment as well.

1982

81:1 - no
from 3:2 to 5:1 (depends of time passed since beginning of war) first if all here you are way off. It is higher then 5:1 no matter how you look at it.

But anyways you make a mistake of including SAM kills which accounted for most of the losses of Israeli jets.

In air to air battles, which I was discussing, the Israeli’s were dominant.
That 81 to 1 success rate by Israel was just one battle and it is considered the most lopsided air to air victory in modern warfare.

Again throughout the wars, in the air to air battles, Israel has been dominant.



1973

from 3:2 to 5:2 here you are closer to the truth in terms of ratioes but again most of it was due to Russian supplied air defences (which I said before are good) and not to air to air battles.
In that war again, the air to air battles, the Israelis were dominent.



my approximation. Not 100% correct but your approx much worse :) no mine is not.

But anyways I think you misunderstood my points.

Again we are talking about air to air battles and not take down by air defence systems.



I never said that arab pilots is better than israeli but definitely not so bad as you saying. no they are as bad and Israel’s is as good!! (I know that is very arrogant of me to say but it is the truth in terms of air to air battles and pilot skills)

I repeat, I believe it is a fact that the Israeli air force has the highest success rate in modern warfare in terms of air to air battles then any one in the world. This is not on the number of kills but based on the percentage and ratios.


As for pics. We showed you; go back to the other pages. I also told you about links and about videos.
Secondly there are more out there but with the above facts, I think it is silly to play this pics game.

But wait if you want I can try although I cant guarantee you success in finding the pics of those downed Russian piloted jets that the Israeli pilots shot down. I can try to look for that. (But hey if I don’t find the pics you can believe that it never happened ;) …I guess ignorance is bliss :roll: )

Shalom :D

[Kingpin]

Let's discuss less sensitive matters. Mig Alley for example :)

[Kingpin]

Quote:
IAF pilots also faced Russian pilots who occasionally participated in the defense of Egyptian air space. Encounters between Russian and Israeli pilots reached a climax on 30 July 1970 when four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. In the ensuing air battle, five Russian-piloted planes were shot down.


As for this case i found it in Soviet records. All is correct except note that it was 4 Russian piloted planes were down (and 3 pilots died). Before and after this case Soviet pilots didn't partcipate in active dogfights until yom kippur. This case recorded as radar base mistake - they were not ready and gave wrong directions to Migs wings.

[IDFM203]

Let's discuss less sensitive matters. Mig Alley for example :) yes Russians are perhaps good against other air forces but when its up against the Israeli one…well ;) woot ;)

(now I am not sure if you meant the game or acutall events but if actuall events, I did some reasurdh after your mention and I am still not sure as to what mig alley is.........perhaps a bit of explanation :D )

Quote:
IAF pilots also faced Russian pilots who occasionally participated in the defense of Egyptian air space. Encounters between Russian and Israeli pilots reached a climax on 30 July 1970 when four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. In the ensuing air battle, five Russian-piloted planes were shot down.


As for this case i found it in Soviet records. All is correct except note that it was 4 Russian piloted planes were down (and 3 pilots died). Before and after this case Soviet pilots didn't partcipate in active dogfights until yom kippur. This case recorded as radar base mistake - they were not ready and gave wrong directions to Migs wings. ok I am not even going to try to refute what you said for its pointless.

Listen of course the soviets are going to put their spin on it.(as they always do) :roll:

The fact is that in the only known air to air engagement involving Israeli piloted jets vs. soviet piloted jets was this instance, and the fact is that Israeli piloted jets shot down 5 soviet piloted jets(ok so you say 4) to Israel not getting a single jet shot down!!

Now you want to say the soviets did this and this wrong but I don’t see how that relates to when all is said and done, they were in the air engaging in dogfights and yet they still lost. Everything else is inconsequential and not relevent.


Shalom :D

[Undo]

I think Deuterium made a valid point that has gone by the wayside, particularly where the effectiveness of Russian advisors/tactics are concerned.
I have an example. A few years ago the US gave several frigates to Pakistan. A skeleton crew of 5 US sailors was on board to monitor things, but the ship was crewed by a large compliment of Pakistanis for the crossing. En route, one of the ships had a fire in the boiler room. The Pakistanis said "insha allah" and started abandoning the vessel. The five man US crew relied on their training and put the fire out by themselves and then picked up the panicked Pakistanis. I don't think the training the Pakistanis recieved was insufficient nor were the US crew effective at all in getting the Pakistanis to employ the training. I imagine that the Russians met with the same amount of success. Even the best tactics and advisors amount to nothing if those being advised don't have the proper mindset. This is a HUGE generalization, but my personal experience bears it out, in as much as it is a plausable explanation of the ineffectiveness of the Arabs to conduct a modern war. I appologize if this offends anyone. I also don't want to take anything away from the Isrealis, who clearly have some advantage over their adversary that is difficult to quantify. It may be as both Sun Tsu and Golda Meir pointed out, that an enemy surrounded has no choice but to win. Anyway, just my oppinion.

[ArmoredDov_D9]

Actually, the casualties rate in Yom Kippur war is about 1:7. On each Israeli soldier who got killed, 7 Arab soldier died.

In the Six-Days-War the ratio was more than 2 times higher: about 1:16.

In the battles reupted in the Golan Heights after the 1973 war, Israeli forces killed about 300 Syrian forces in 3 days battles.

[StarvingStudent47]

In four pages of posts, I think the number one reason for the weakness of Arab militaries has been completely overlooked.

Arab dictators are afraid of military coups, and the steps they take to prevent coups also lower military effectiveness.

1) They do not train lower-level officers to have initiative, because you don't want any Corporals driving up to their palaces. During battle, though, this cripples the entire military as soon as the chain of communication and command starts to decay.

2) They limit access to live ammuntion, because they're afraid of rogue units shelling the capital. But without live ammo during practice, units don't learn marksmanship.

[StarvingStudent47]

may be as both Sun Tsu and Golda Meir pointed out, that an enemy surrounded has no choice but to win.

But the Republican Guard couldn't hold Baghdad for more than a couple days. There's more to it than that.

[fantassin]

Now, that's a very interesting thread...a race trying to assert it is superior to another for a lot of reasons that are, I truly believe, valid.

You've gone a long way since you were, 60 odd years ago, treated as "Untermensch"

BTW, read "Carnage and Culture", a truly excellent book by a scholar who explains why a caucasian army is very hard to beat except in a few scenarios (being far away from its home country without support being one...)

[Roger Rabbit]

Ever thought it might be something to do with culture as opposed to race?

[S'13]

Now, that's a very interesting thread...a race trying to assert it is superior to another for a lot of reasons that are, I truly believe, valid.

You've gone a long way since you were, 60 odd years ago, treated as "Untermensch"

Strange, the only person here who seems to introduce race into the debate and ignoring the subject of the thread is you... :roll:

[perdurabo]

so arab armys get ass whoopin because of ****ty leaders? or maybe because something else?
i've heard that almoust all of them want to shoot only like one of panzer brigades trained wery hard shooting but almoust no manouver training no other only doing big bang... is that true?

[fantassin]

The concept of race needs to be introduced if you want to understand how the arabs get beaten; they were beaten before by Brits, French, Spaniards....but they beat a lot of other races before.

Now if you want to get arsy about it and be paranoïd, it's not my problem.

[Roger Rabbit]

Once upon a time there was a thing called racism. Read the following very carefully. Race is irrelevent. Culture is the important bit. Being white does not make you a better fighter than somebody who is not white. If you want to believe that then your a racist. If however you believe that the cultural differences(i sound like such a hippy) along with politics and the history of the people in question not to mention training, equipment and what not are the reasons for one people winning/losing a war then your looking in the right direction.

[fantassin]

Racism....have you visited a Household Regiment lately? :D

According to "Carnage and Culture", race does matter; but it's just the informed opinion of a scholar.

[Roger Rabbit]

The Army welcomes applications from young men and women no matter what their marital status, race, ethnic origin or religious belief. No account is taken of sexual orientation or social background in considering applications. The Army is fully committed to equality of opportunity.

:roll:

[fantassin]

Try getting a commission in the Coldstream Guards if you are black, if your first name is Winston and if you come from Brixton...

There is the official version and the ground truth...with such a profile, he'd end up in a County Regiment if he's lucky.

But true, Equal Opportunity is supposed to exist...

[Mr. Nielsen]

What is this talk about race as a factor? Isn't the people of Israel and the arabs both from the same race?

[perdurabo]

prabably ppl think race=culture

[StarvingStudent47]

Try getting a commission in the Coldstream Guards if you are black, if your first name is Winston and if you come from Brixton...

There is the official version and the ground truth...with such a profile, he'd end up in a County Regiment if he's lucky.

But true, Equal Opportunity is supposed to exist...

Your military must have more trouble with that then ours, then. I have never heard of African-Americans being barred from military academies or from command positions (in modern times). Just ask Colin Powell.

[fantassin]

The Guards division is very conservative in the way it recruits its officers; that means no minorities, no officers from poor backgrounds or areas. They prefer to recruit somebody with a name and a family history whose forbears have already served in the considered regiment before.

It is an unswritten rule but since prospective officers have to have an interview with the officers of the regiment before joining the Military Academy (RMA Sandhurst), they know exactly where they are standing. They'll never be told "we wont have you 'cause you're black"; they'll say instead "we are afraid you wouldn't feel very comfortable among us"

There has been a few isolated cases of blacks in the Guards but very few and far between.

On the other hand, you find them and other racial groups in all the other units and corps of the British Army.

[StarvingStudent47]

I think it's sickening that Britain still has white-folks-only units. It stinks of Jim Crow.

[fantassin]

Call it tradition of what is probably, man-for-man, the best Army in the world.

[Tom.G]

The British power is in decline and has been for fifty years. Man-for-Man, I think Uncle Sam has the best Army in the world.

[Roger Rabbit]

Check every forum which has anything to do with the military be it real military, airsoft or a game and you will find a thread about which army is better. Lets not turn this into another one.


After all its the Brits :lol: . Anyway everyone has their own point of view. Your not going to change anybodies mind so lets leave it at your opinion is the Americans are the best and my opinion that the British are the best man for man. :hug:

[Royal]

The Guards division is very conservative in the way it recruits its officers; that means no minorities, no officers from poor backgrounds or areas. They prefer to recruit somebody with a name and a family history whose forbears have already served in the considered regiment before.

True 10 years ago. Not so now - I've met Guards Officers from Comprehensive schools recently.

It is an unswritten rule but since prospective officers have to have an interview with the officers of the regiment before joining the Military Academy (RMA Sandhurst), they know exactly where they are standing. They'll never be told "we wont have you 'cause you're black"; they'll say instead "we are afraid you wouldn't feel very comfortable among us"

Bollocks. You do not need a Regimental sponsor to go to Sandhurst, it may help but about a third don't have. Another third join an entirely different unit. If that interview happens at all it is in the two months prior to commissioning.

[Roger Rabbit]

Well being at UOTC then i've been told a bit about the different ways to become an Officer. On a side note apparently 63% of Officers come from State Schools now.

You can take a Bursury, Gap Year Commision, or something which Medical, Dental and Vets can do where they get lots and lots of money. I was told you choose your particular service prior to completing your 44 weeks at Sandhurst and then you go on to do 6 months learning the more detail aspects of your particular service be it Infantry, Engineers or what not. Its also at this particular time that you choose a Regiment you would like to join but there is still a chance you will just be put where your needed.

[Kingpin]

Javehn, my dear, translate this to our Israeli friends. :)
That how Israel win his wars - proper motivation rofl rofl rofl


"Да", - сказал Жуликович своему наводчику Шломику Декаданскому, а боекомплекта то на них всех не хватит!".

"Абрашик!" - заныл Декаданский, -"Сколько же дней можно с такой нагрузкой вкалывать? Мы же уже за последние 5 дней уничтожили танков в шесть раз больше, чем их произвели русские танковые заводы за последние 5 лет!".

"Вот что, Шломик!" - командир погрозил наводчику пальцем, - "Решение у меня уже есть! Мы будем выжидать момент когда арабские танки будут по пять штук оказываться на линии прицеливания и в этот момент будем бить их навылет!"

"Завтра шаббат, командир" - продолжал скулить наводчик.

"А ты представь, что каждый из этих 500 танков и БМП занял у тебя по 2 бакса и не отдал ничего" - мудро ответил Жуликович.

"Вот суки!!!" - коротко бросил Декаданский и прилип к прицелу...


rofl rofl

[Russian Texan]

А вот ещё один.

Гонится Израильский танк за арабом по пустыне, араб отстреливается. Вдруг перестает стрелять и останавливается, к нему подезжает израильтянин и спрашивает, почему мол остановился и не стреляешь? Араб говорит: "Патроны кончились."
Еврей ему: "А ты у меня купи..."

[Javehn]

Так уж и быть .... :lol:

Во время шестидневной войны попал репортер на Израильские линии обороны . Подхотит он к одному майору и спрашивает : " В чем дело , как вам удается их побеждать ? " - "а ты смотри " - говорит этот майор , и поворачиваясь кричит - "Эй Ибрагим выгляни на секунду , это я , Мустафа !" - " Что случилось , Мустафа ? " - описивается небритая рожа Арабского солдата , раздается выстрел , и солдат падает на землю уже без признаков жизни . "Невероятно"-думает этот репортер , перебирается на Арабские линии и расказывает все что он видел ( сто пудов BBC-шник :) ) . Тут арабы начинают раздумывать и решают . Один молодой солдатик начинает кричать - " Авраам Авраам выгляни ! " . " А кто зовет ? " - вопрос с другой стороны .
" Да это я , Махмуд ! " - поднимается солдат , раздаётся выстрел и солдатик падает на землю ....

[Chris1]

I think it's sickening that Britain still has white-folks-only units. It stinks of Jim Crow.
Best soldiers I met?
Fijians
Guess what colour they are (it ain't pink mate)
Yes, I have met racially prejudiced soldiers, one particular SNCO who I would not piss on if he was on fire because of it.
I've also met some **** in good black soldiers.
Such Regiments are not racially prejudiced, they hate all 'poor' (ie anyone less than upper-upper class) people equally :)

[Kingpin]

During Israel-Arab wars as confirmed by some sources there was not intensive digfights between Soviet and Israeli pilots. Only couple of cases disclosed and it is supposed there isn't any more at all.

From Soviet advisors memoirs i can confirm that israeli airforce proved to be one of the best in the world during these conflicts. About arabs we all agreed that they showed themselves as weak warriors and i suppose we should limit our arms supplies to them because they only discredit our weapons.

[Loco]

King Abdullah's actions are known thats why the jordanians are called "khawanat il arab" (translated to betrayers of the arabs), and he got assasinated. He told Meir that the egyptians want to attack Israel so they initiated a pre-emptive attack (1967).

The king Abdullah you´re talking about actually died well before 1967. He was the grand-grandfather of today´s king Abdullah of Jordan. The first king Abdullah, king of the then "Transjordania", had privileded channels of comunication with jews dirigigents of the Pre-Israel. King Abdullah was friend of jews yet stablished prior to 1948, and a big rival of the Mufti of Jerusalem, well known by his simpathy of nazism. King Abdullah wanted and agreement with jews prior the decission of the UN and he had many motives for thinking it was possible and agreement, he really alerted jews of the arab plan to attack the new state of Israel, but at the end, Ben Gurion and Golda Meir felt enogh strong to not listen the propositions of king Abdullah, who the nexts years was seen as a traitor by arab people. Really, king Abdullah was betrayed by Golda Meir and Ben Gurion, who betrayed the confidence Abdullah gave them long years before the war. Ben Gurion and Golda Meir weren´t satisfied with propositions of UN, they wanted more land than they had, and at first they agreed with Abdullah but they calculated theirs rivals and asumed they could conquer more territory. They preferred the interests of their people rather than the posibility of a peaceful agreement with Transjordan. They risked and they won, that´s because I don´t blame them and they were braves. But it can´t being said that ALL ARABS where against Israel. In many ways, jews dirigigents forced the situation to the point they wanted to be. And of course, king Abdullah was a vicitim of this situation, isralies didn´t let anyother option to Transjordania than fighting, that´s was the realitiy, jews didin´t an agreement with Transjordania although they could having it, only wanted more territores. Then, talking of a surprise attack in 1948 is not exactly. BTW, Transjordania was a former british protectorate, and jordan army, specially the Arab Legion, was trained by british since the time of Lawrence of Arabia, and they did fight certainly well, in fact jordan soldiers where one of the bests in 1948, the luck of israelies is that they limited basically to being stationated in defensive positions, and they hold their positions in the most of cases.
Other thing, this began as "Arabs at war", but everybody reduced it to "Arabs at war with Israel". Arabs, if we consider all this countries a single country, have a loooong history. Hammuraby was an arab, Ramses II, too, Sargon too, Hannibal, a descendent of phoenicians(the sirians of today), was an ethnic arab, and so on. I think arabs have some of the most outstanding warriors and armies of history, but if we limit ourselves to the last 50 years they don´t. Some one talked here about the algerians and marroqs soldiers, the "goumiers", who fought in french army in the IIWW, they really were some of the best infantry of that war, even they perhaps aren´t very popular out France. But they did they duty in Italy better than others more famous soldiers, and it´s not a surprise. I don´t know if it would be exact consider algerians and marroqs as arabs, they certainly are muslims, but many of them are berbers, the originary people of North Africa. In Spain we do know they are very hard soldiers, we spent more than 1.000 years dealing with them. In 1911 Spain was engaged in a war in the north of Marroq with Rif Tribes, and organized a force of native troops to fighting against their brothers of rebels tribes, they were known as "Tropas Regulares(officially members of spanish army) Indigenas" and in 30 years they became the most condecorated unit of spanish army. They fought fiercely and with discipline against their rebels brothers leaded by Abd El Krim, and they fought in spanish civil war in 1936-39 and were some of the best troops, equaled but nor overpassed, in the battle field.
And, a last consideration: When an army usually win battles against enemies superiors in a rate of 15-1, then the enemy simply isn´t so superior. Men are men, Superman doesn´t exists, and nobody want to be sent to war for being dead without any chance. It´s as simply like that: or the equipment of enemy isn´t so superior as they say, or enemy ins´t as bigger. The problem of arabs in their history is that they developed many civilizations, not only the muslim one, but they hardly could develope an stable state through centuries, with the exception of Egypt. In the case of Europe, well, we are many countries and very differents ones of others, but one decissive thing I think is that our big luck is having the Roman Law, but well, this is totally off topic here, but : Could we talk in other thread about the step of Roman and Greeks in the europe of last 500 years?
Edited: I forgot to mention it, king Abdullah was killed in 1951 by a man who considered him a traitor to his own country.

[Havoc]

my little opinnion is that arabs beleave too much on allah. They think that it will turn war on them if they pray really hard.

[Groove]

well besides all the religion and training stuff - israel have a "big brother" and they helped them often with satellite imagery...

But isreal have a strong an well organized army and arabs... well read the last UN report about the development of the arabian world.

Groove

[IDFM203]

well besides all the religion and training stuff - israel have a "big brother" and they helped them often with satellite imagery... yes and the Arabs also had a “big brother” the soviets (that gave them everything that they needed and had, including all their military equipment, soviet advisers, soviet intelligence at times).

Listen there is no doubt that Israel has gotten help from the U.S. (and before 1967 not from the U.S. but from France and Britain) and that has helped big time, but just note that a lot of what Israel uses is actually Israeli made and invented and also a lot of the foreign equipment that it uses have Israeli modifications and electronics added to them and all the tactics are mostly Israeli and the same goes for the training and intelligence that are mostly Israeli (and now even satellite imagery is Israeli from Israeli made satellites like the "ofek" versions that are in space)

So when you compare the Arabs to the Israelis in the wars, where the Arabs got ALL their stuff from the soviets and a lot of their training and tactics are either theirs or its learnt from their soviet advisers and them getting a lot of times soviet intelligence on Israel and their 15 to one numerical advantage against Israel, where israel on the other hand has made a lot of their own stuff and devised their own training and tactics and relied a lot on their own intelligence and was at a disadvantage numerically 15 to 1, well a lot (not all, for yes again they did get outside help)of the credit in Israel’s victories and the fact that it has survived and survived strong to this day, has to go to Israel!!

Shalom :D

[Sergei]

They were trained by the russians and had "russian tactics" wich proved to be useless in battle.



Hey, don't be too ignorant. You know what was the foundation for Operation Iraqi Freedom and strategical blitzkrieg. It is even studied in US war colleges.


How about that?

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp

regards,

[MARINO]

You gonna kill my, but i think that arabs, are not specially a courageous people, only when they are in advantage, specilly those of maghreb, we know in spain we have had many wars with them, if they win they are specilly savage and cruel with thei prissobers, they generally don't left prissoniers, even if they surrender.

[Nunavut's sewage]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already but look at how the Ancient Greeks kicked the Persian empire's ass.

Battle of Marathon the greek hoplites were outnumbered and they beat em.

Thermopalyae the spartans held off thousands of Persians.

Then the macedonian empire crushed the Persians.

Just thought I'd point out that part of history.

[Trigger1027]

I think it comes down to who's fighting for what. The Israelis are fighting for their very homes/lives. Arabs are fighting for some more territory and exterminate Israel.
Israel has better equipment and training while the Arabs have neither.
And the historical part seems to suggest that Arabs will most likely lose any battle where they don't have a huge advantage...
Just my 2 canadian cents

[ogukuo72]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already but look at how the Ancient Greeks kicked the Persian empire's ass.

Battle of Marathon the greek hoplites were outnumbered and they beat em.

Thermopalyae the spartans held off thousands of Persians.

Then the macedonian empire crushed the Persians.

Just thought I'd point out that part of history.

Persians are NOT Arabs.

And if you want to go that far back in history, then you should also mention the rapid expansion of Islam in the 6th and 7th century. Arab warriors pushed all before them, all the way to Spain.

And if you want to be imprecise, and include the Turks as well, then we'll have to talk about the Ottoman Empire that at one stage threatened the gates of Vienna.

In more recent history, groups of Arab had proven that they have the will to fight and were skilled enough to do so. For example, the Arab Legion gave the Israelis a hard time during the 1967 war, and the Jordanians performed creditably overall in that war.

Another example is the skilled guerilla warfare waged against the Ottoman Empire by the Arab tribes druing the WW I. And don't tell me that's because a British adventurer named Lawrence provided them with proper leadership. The movie contained a lot of fiction. Read the book Seven Pillars of Wisdom, and you'll realise that the Arabs already possessed a sophisticated organisation before he came on the scene.

[EYE SPY]

well first off, many of the Arab nations that fought in these wars, specifically Egypt & Syria. But you may include, Jordanian, and the other smaller contingents.

They used Soviet Doctrine, but they didnt have the resources that the Soviets would use. Such mass, set peice attacks need upwards of 3 million+ men. Why do you think the Soviet Army itself was larger than most of Nato combined for most of the Cold War.

Second, Arab officers mainly securied their commissions through nepotism, cronyism and interservice politics. Arab armies have rarely had any tradition of meritorious advancement.

Third, there was no such thing as a NCO Corps in these armies. Even with inferior officers, a unit with good NCO's can at least halt the enemies attack or even continue the attack. Examples. German Whermact, Modern US Army.

4th, the set-peice battles that western armies are fixated on are not the tradition among arab armys. Arab militaries were traditionally Raider forces. Today it would be called Asymmetrical warfare. Note. T.E. Lawrance was succesfel against the Ottoman Forces using precisly the hit and run tactics of the arabs,(with great success)
Arab armys have always considered the Roman Manacle formation, and Hellenic Greek Hoplites as just suicide.

If you look at casualty figures, historically when two wester armies fight, the victor may suffer the same or even more casualties than the defeated foe. While arab victories are traditionally lop sided when it came to casualty figures.

The Persian army that fought against the Greeks was made up of various units, even large contingents of Greeks., and they did fight the set peice battle. The Greeks knew this, and used the terrain to their advantage, terrain that was largely unknown to the persians. Persians i might add are not Arabs at all, Persians or Iranians are part of the Indo-European groups. Arabs are of the hamito-semitic group. Infact arabs are very much related to Hebrews, which were only known as Jews after their diaspora under the Assyrians.

Another factor is that Arabs as a people, are some of the least warlike in the world. (i know you must be laughing) There is a great historical tradition of solving disputes in arabian history, with nonviolence. Such as marrage, bribery, assasination, political intriguew etc etc etc.

The traditional war like peopls in the region of the mideast, eastern mediterranian and Caspian region were Turkic and Mogolian Horsemen. and caucasian Scythians, Cirassians and other horse peoples as well
Going way back in history to the Huns,
at first these peoples invaded and pillaged many of the arab and persian lands. Part of the reason why much of persia and iraq, and central asia is such a wasteland is becuase of the scorched earth tactics of the Mongolians. Whole communities were massacred, irrigation canals destroyed, mineral rich farmlands were razed and salted. These acts actually instigated the desertification of the region that is growing ever rapidly to this day, leading to many conflicts over freshwater resources.

Eventually Turks converted to Islam, including many Mongolian groups, (the Hazaras of Afghanistan for example). on the same token they became the vassals of the traditional arab nobility and autocrats. eventually Turks in particulare carved out an Empire of their own that was very large, affluent and threatening to the West. In its hey day the Ottoman Empire was the largest contiguous empire in the world. Unfortunatly time went on with corrupt leaders, the ottoman military built upon honor, skill and merit, gave way to cronyism, nepotism and corruption. and then the ottomans were swept away.

Notice, under new leadership Turkey once again became a military power. What turkey hasnt had in technology in the past75 years, it has made up for in discipline and effective leadership, how long that will last i dont know. Turkey is not like the rest of the arab nations, its not even arab. And it has a tradition of the set-peice battle but more importantly assymetric warfare, which is much more necessary in todays military world.

wow that was a long rant... time for sleep... politics and history angries up the blood

[ogukuo72]

Dear Eye Spy,

As you correctly pointed out, Ottoman Turks were not Arabs.

I believe you are also right that part of the poor performance of Arab armies in recent years was a result of their adoption of Soviet doctrine and equipment (and probably Soviet organisational culture as well). Significantly, the one Arab contingent that did fight well - the Jordanians - subscribed to Western (i.e. British) doctrines, used Western (US and British) equipment, and were trained by Western advisors.

Having said that, I believed that the Egyptians also performed creditably during the opening days of the 1973 war. A lot of analysts subscribed their good performance to major mistakes and intelligence failures made by the Israelis.

But a lot of credit should go to the Egyptian army - especially their general staff - as well for planning an operation that puts three armies across a major defended waterway within twenty-four hours from the start.

It was also a creditable achievement to launch a major operation like this right under the noses of the Israelis (with their formidable intel capabilities).

The use of SAMs and ATGMs to neutralise Israeli strength was also a significant military achievement.

All in all, not bad at all!

[EYE SPY]

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

[Sergei]

Dear Eye Spy,

As you correctly pointed out, Ottoman Turks were not Arabs.

I believe you are also right that part of the poor performance of Arab armies in recent years was a result of their adoption of Soviet doctrine and equipment (and probably Soviet organisational culture as well). Significantly, the one Arab contingent that did fight well - the Jordanians - subscribed to Western (i.e. British) doctrines, used Western (US and British) equipment, and were trained by Western advisors.

Having said that, I believed that the Egyptians also performed creditably during the opening days of the 1973 war. A lot of analysts subscribed their good performance to major mistakes and intelligence failures made by the Israelis.

But a lot of credit should go to the Egyptian army - especially their general staff - as well for planning an operation that puts three armies across a major defended waterway within twenty-four hours from the start.

It was also a creditable achievement to launch a major operation like this right under the noses of the Israelis (with their formidable intel capabilities).

The use of SAMs and ATGMs to neutralise Israeli strength was also a significant military achievement.

All in all, not bad at all!

Once again, for the deaf or the blind or whatever.
There is nothing wrong with Soviet operational doctrine, it works and it has been proven many times. The cornerstone is how you implement it. If you have stupid officers, low-morale soldiers and low training personnel I bet any doctrine will not succeed. And this goes for the majority of the Arab countries.
Yes, the Arabs copied Soviet organisational docrtine, culture and philosophy, but at a vert mediocre level?
Take Iraqis for example, their Republican Guards division OOB resembles that of Soviet Tank division with only minor exception and a SIGNIFICANT ONE.
A soviet tank division would have so many AA means such as Tunguska, Shilka, S-300 complexes plus dozens of portable MANPADS with the supporting mortorized infantry that any attempt of any airforce to interrupt its action would be useless.
NATO in Europe estimated the initial loss of aircraft on the first strike mission against such division to be 62% of aircraft. Now the remaining 38% of pilots would just quit flying their second sortie cause the statistics would be heavily against them.
What we see with the Iraqi army is a poor organization and command structure, absense of any AA capability in tank divisions, which makes any tank to be a siting duck. Arabs are just crap warriors.
I hope I explained clearly enough the whole idea.

Regards,

[Resevoir Hogs]

Ya I know and Greeks weren't one united nation neither are they Americans or Brits.

But our cultures decended from them.

As for the Persian warriors what I intended to point out was that their army mainly consisted of subjugated peoples with little or no armor and the Hoplites had heavy armor and superior tactics.

What I mean is that Western militaries seem for the most part in history to be beyond the middle eastern militaries.

[obd]

haha I like his quote "There is great history of Arabs solviing disputes in nonviolent fashions, such as bribery, negotitiaion, marriage and ASSASINATION!!!! ROLFMAO> Last time I checked, assassination WAS violent means of solving a dispute. It should read "stabbing the guy in the back as he walks away and then having a blood fued in which your two family's kill eachother off at every opportunity for the next hundred years. Lets not forget "honor killings", no a staple in Britain, for Muslum women who marry outside their faith to British blokes. Sometimes Muslum Marrainge an be violetn too hehe.

[EYE SPY]

assassination is highly concentrated violence towards one individual, killing one man does not constitute a battle or warfare. I miss-spoke when i included it in the nonviolent statement that preceded it.

Furthermore, my assertion about soviet tactics still stands. Soviet tactics do work, but only if you can mass as many troops and echelons that the soviet armies of 1945-1989.

Even with the proper TOE, Soviet tactics do not work well without the manpower. Soviet doctrine involves large amounts of firepower and manpower through attrition warfare. Notice, the Chinese used essentially the same tactics with thier intervention in the Korean war. Masses of light infantry supported by some artillery with sub-machine guns using large volumes of firepower.

Desert warfare, if anything is not about full frontal attritional battle. Desert battles are historically very quick due to the qualities inherent of the terrain.

to summarize, Soviet Doctrine works only if you can mass such astronomically large armies.
and assassination does not constitute open warfare or battle. it may however instigate open warfare. but that is another matter

[ogukuo72]

Greek hoplite infantrymen were definitely a force to be reckoned with in their days. As has been pointed out above, there was no effective way for lightly armoured and lightly armed Persian calvary and infantry to deal with the solid Phalanx of the Greeks.

But the Greek Phalanx was also a highly inflexible formation that could be easily out maneouvered. More flexible Macedonian and Roman formations, incorporating calvary for the former, and javelin armed infantry for the latter, cut the Greek Phalanx into pieces, ensuring the decline of Greek arms.

Soviet military docrine of the 1960's and 1970's rely heavily on strict chains of command, circumscribed freedom of initiative, and massed formations of armour. The doctrine has little flexibility in them, made worse by inadequately trained conscripts that had to execute them.

The Soviet way of fighting would work in set-piece battles such as the crossing of the Suez in 1973, when the troops can be trained and exercised repeatedly to perform their roles well, and when the actions of individual units could follow a fix plan.

The whole thing would start to fall apart once the battle become fluid and initiative and flexibility become necessary - which was why things started to go wrong when the Egyptians tried to move into central Sinai after their initial gains.

The Syrian assault on Golan reflected the same 'bloody mindedness' and 'bash on regardless' way of fighting, sweeping armoured mass across a broad front. The sweeping formations of tanks looked good for propaganda purposes, but were vulnerable to Israeli counter fire, picking one tank after the other.

If concentrated attacks on selected fronts had been used, the Syrians might have penetrated the Israeli front on the first day and swept into the rear areas of the Golan heights, trapping Israeli front line units and capturing key defensive position to repel the attacks from the reserves.

[martinexsquaddie]

Soviet tactics may work well when used by the US army :lol:
but the red army was far from as fearsome as people like to imagine.
I doubt the old red armys logistics were up to much and those trucks would'nt have been bristiling with AA not trucks no fuel no ammo :(
real soldiers study logistics

[Kingpin]

Soviet tactics may work well when used by the US army :lol:
but the red army was far from as fearsome as people like to imagine.
I doubt the old red armys logistics were up to much and those trucks would'nt have been bristiling with AA not trucks no fuel no ammo :(
real soldiers study logistics

Man, you know, i have difficulties when trying to understand text wrote in Russian with mistakes, without point and commas. When i see text in English without any signs of syntax and grammar i don't understand anything.

Did you mean that Soviet army had weak logistics? Or what?

[Loco]

I don´t know how a whole race can be judged in that global way. I wonder where were the british, germans, russians, spanish, americans? generals 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500 and 4.000 years ago. Arabs kicked out crussades out of Palestina in a relatively short time, but they still are in Constantinopla, ummm? what are the great christian warriors waiting for reconquer the capital city of the east roman empire??? And before anybody tell me that turks aren´t arabs, just saying that the old otomans that conquered Constantinopla had an army with people of the whole muslim world, in which arabs were prominents, and the biggest contingent of otoman navy, whick almost controlled the mediterranean sea in the XVI, was built mainly around the egyptian navy, and although the Capital was in Istambul, Egypt, an arab country, always played a main role in that empire.

You gonna kill my, but i think that arabs, are not specially a courageous people, only when they are in advantage, specilly those of maghreb, we know in spain we have had many wars with them, if they win they are specilly savage and cruel with thei prissobers, they generally don't left prissoniers, even if they surrender.
Marino, I copy what I wrote before: "" In Spain we do know they are very hard soldiers, we spent more than 1.000 years dealing with them. In 1911 Spain was engaged in a war in the north of Marroq with Rif Tribes, and organized a force of native troops to fighting against their brothers of rebels tribes, they were known as "Tropas Regulares(officially members of spanish army) Indigenas" and in 30 years they became the most condecorated unit of spanish army. They fought fiercely and with discipline against their rebels brothers leaded by Abd El Krim, and they fought in spanish civil war in 1936-39 and were some of the best troops, equaled but nor overpassed, in the battle field."" I remember you that in battle of Annual they weren´t in numerical advantage, and certainly the moors are braves like the most braves. Sadly for us, but the biggest failings, if not defeats, of spanish armys since the last 500 years were always in N.Africa.
I repeat: the most condecorated unit today in Spain is Tropas Regulares, and all their medals were winned when they were 100% berbers. And Varela, the most condecorated spanish soldier of XX century, won his medals commanding berbers soldiers. And the best french infantry in IIWW was the units of marroqis and algerians, the famous goumiers who fought in Italy.

[ogukuo72]

Soviet tactics may work well when used by the US army :lol:
but the red army was far from as fearsome as people like to imagine.
I doubt the old red armys logistics were up to much and those trucks would'nt have been bristiling with AA not trucks no fuel no ammo :(
real soldiers study logistics

Remember Ken Connor's book "Ghost Force" on the SAS? He was with BRIXMIS in East Germany for a while when in the SAS, and had a chance to get a first-hand look at the Warsaw Pact armed forces.

He has a low opinion of their professional abilities. He believed that the entire Soviet war machine would get lost if road marshals guiding traffic at critical intersection were killed!

[martinexsquaddie]

sorry kingpin.
The soivet Army had good simple tactics for amoured Fighting.
BUT could they really pull them off against a determined enemy.
the arab armys used soviet style tactics and they lost every war they fought against israel. taking the old soviet army massive but a mostly conscript army with minimal training against Nato more professional solders with more training and a technological edge and fighting on there home ground. how good really were the soviets logistics for high intenstiy warfare?

[Kingpin]

sorry kingpin.
The soivet Army had good simple tactics for amoured Fighting.
BUT could they really pull them off against a determined enemy.
the arab armys used soviet style tactics and they lost every war they fought against israel. taking the old soviet army massive but a mostly conscript army with minimal training against Nato more professional solders with more training and a technological edge and fighting on there home ground. how good really were the soviets logistics for high intenstiy warfare?

I can talk about how good it was - 16 obr spn said that for him it worked well enough.
As for today - i heard that 2004-2005 years scheduled for intensive testing of russian army mobility with excersices concentrated around dispatching different forces into diferent conflict zones with all logistics included. So soon we'll see how currently it works.

As for more training... you know, many units in Russian army now have more training than some NATO armies :)

[16 OBr SpN]

I'm gonna ask the same question to all the "specialists" again:

WHAT is the Soviet Military Doctrine? :roll:

martinexsquaddie:

The soivet Army had good simple tactics for amoured Fighting.

What do you mean by "simple"? :lol:

BUT could they really pull them off against a determined enemy.

What is "determined enemy"?
What theater of war are we talking about?
What is ratio of forces?
What formation: offence, defense?


Regards,
16 OBr SpN

[ogukuo72]

Russian tactical doctrine was to an extent a product of its manpower base. A huge conscript force of mediocre training requires either very close control by excellent officers (as in Napoleon's Grand Armee) or reliance on a number of easily rehearsed and understood battle drills. The Soviets, unable to guarantee the quality of their officer corps, had to go with option B. However, I think the Soviet military doctrine allowed some degree of ooportunism. The emphasis was on continually reinforcing sucess. For example, a Motor-Rifle division might attack with 2 BTR regts in it's first echelon, its BMP Regt in the second echelon and the Tank Bn in the exploitation echelon. The BMP regt and Tank Bn would be comitted in the sector of the BTR regt that acheives the greatest sucess. This applies operationally and strategically as well. The Tank division Operational Maneuver Group would be comitted in the sector of the motor rifle division that acheives the greatest advance.The Ai-Land battle concept, when fully applied, could defeat this. However for some NATO armies, AirLand battle existed more on paper then in the force structure.If the Soviets had broken the Belgians or Dutch's line and got an OMG into the rear of US V Corps/GE II Korps/UK BAOR,it could of got quite sticky

[gilgoul]

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.


Well, corruption, nepotism, slandering of training budget, waste, absence of military academy and serious infrastructure, poor education level, soviet era comanding and finally complete lack of coordination between units, arms and command (see the total lack of coordination between air force and ground force in the last major example, the 82 lebanon war)
That said, you still have pretty tough and good units who will put up a fight, I think of the Arab Legion of Jordan, that despite it`s serious lack of budget still has a tradition of qualityu over quantity, we can add to the list a few small "para-co" unit from egypt, and some from Syria, known for their higher level of recruitement.
Still, fortunately for us (in Israel), we are not facing the most serious ennemies nowaday, and we have "peace" with at least two of them.

[TriggerPuller]

Because they are inherently pussies!!!!!!!

TP

[Sergei]

Soviet tactics may work well when used by the US army :lol:
but the red army was far from as fearsome as people like to imagine.
I doubt the old red armys logistics were up to much and those trucks would'nt have been bristiling with AA not trucks no fuel no ammo :(
real soldiers study logistics

Remember Ken Connor's book "Ghost Force" on the SAS? He was with BRIXMIS in East Germany for a while when in the SAS, and had a chance to get a first-hand look at the Warsaw Pact armed forces.

He has a low opinion of their professional abilities. He believed that the entire Soviet war machine would get lost if road marshals guiding traffic at critical intersection were killed!

Opinions like arseholes, everybody's got one! :lol:

Well, you opened my eyes on the subject. :cantbeli:
All this time I thought that Soviets brought to Berlin 10000 tanks and SPGs, 20000 pieces of artillery and mortars and managed to amass them for proper employment due to superb logistics.

Now it has to be those damn road marshalls that the Germans didn't kill that screwed up all of the german war effort.


I suggest Ken Connor and you to research the topic of Czechoslovakian "velvet revolution" and how within 3 days the Soviets were able to secure entire Czechoslovakia with its tank divisions with the help from Poland and East Germany.

[zenmaster]

Since WW2 Soviet doctrine called for massive numbers fighting against equally massive numbers. The arabs had the numbers but not the training or coordination between units. The Israelis were better trained, fighting for their survival and focused on individual intitive instead of generals moving pins on a map. If anyone wants to read more about it, read The Arab-Israeli Wars by Chaim Herzog.

[Vance]

A book I'm thinking of picking up:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0803237332/qid=1077328963/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3113610-8659218?v=glance&s=books

[Groove]

Maybe im late but

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

Man this is real funny! omg i laughed my ass away !

Groove

EDIT:

I like the "boots" of the "soldier" pushing the Projectile up there !

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/katyusha/katyusha_b2.jpg

[SAS Britain]

I forgot to add that the Israeli's had more technology at their disposal. And having a larger army is not always a good thing. As it requires more equipment for every soldeir. well the Arabs always had the latest and best Russian technological equipment and especially in the 1948 war, Israel did not have anywhere near the technological advantage that the arabs had

But later on I will concede that we had better technology for I believe that U.S. technology is superior then Russian technology (as I see you now agree as well) and with Israeli innovations and add on to that, yes Israel did achieve better technology.

But still, 13 or 15 or 20 to 1 odds and the best in Russian technology and yet the Arabs still lost every time, well credit does have to also go to the superior Israeli training and innovative and ingenious battlefield tactics and superior planning that Israel has used throughout its wars.

Shalom :D



Well, I see you like US tech, I can give many examples of Russian tech superbly out performing US tech. For example, Russia never gives it's best equipment to other nations but equipment which has been used and there are better replacements and modified versions of the equipment. OK, lets start with aviation. Russia has the most combat effective aircraft in the world, SU-37. The Most effective attack helicopter KA-50 black Shark ohh and did I mention the most technologically advanced. Russian image intensifiers are better and have a reputaion for having the most crisp and clear image transmissions in the world. BTW if the SU-37 took on the F-22 the F-22 would loose within seconds. SU-37 can fire missiles at targets at six o clock. also can shutdown engine for a few seconds and reactivate them to full power in a matter of seconds, this results in the aircraft spining 180 degrees to enguage the F-22. I also need to mention the best rifle in thw world at this moment is the AN-94 1800RPM(Amazing) also has a 2 round burst which both rounds will land only a milimeter apart from eachother even when the rifle is fired with folded buttstock. Now what have you to say?????

[-Max-]

Russia has the most combat effective aircraft in the world, SU-37. The Most effective attack helicopter KA-50 black Shark ohh and did I mention the most technologically advanced. Russian image intensifiers are better and have a reputaion for having the most crisp and clear image transmissions in the world. BTW if the SU-37 took on the F-22 the F-22 would loose within seconds. SU-37 can fire missiles at targets at six o clock. also can shutdown engine for a few seconds and reactivate them to full power in a matter of seconds, this results in the aircraft spining 180 degrees to enguage the F-22

Bull****s.

Another armchair military expert... :roll:

I also need to mention the best rifle in thw world at this moment is the AN-94 1800RPM(Amazing) also has a 2 round burst which both rounds will land only a milimeter apart from eachother even when the rifle is fired with folded buttstock. Now what have you to say?????

AN-94 Abakan, best AR in the world ? I dont think so. Even the Russkies were disappointed by his performances...

[Javehn]

Maybe im late but

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

Man this is real funny! omg i laughed my ass away !

Groove

EDIT:

I like the "boots" of the "soldier" pushing the Projectile up there !

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/self_propelled_artillery/katyusha/katyusha_b2.jpg

You know , that's actually a picture of IDF katyusha team , remember seing this picture long time ago .

[SAS Britain]

At least the SA80A2 and the AK74 are better rifles tham the M-16. SA80 highly accurate now that H&K have stepped in they have modded the weapons to produced a highly effective and reliable weapon. As for the AK74, Rivaled accuracy same as the M-16 also by far more rugged than the Colt weapons(Not saying anything about quality of Colt) This thing can be beated over a rock and still function very efficiently. Can be covered in Ice and shoot straight, It can fire under water and fire with mud and sand ungulfing the mechanism. Ohh and BTW Max, Do not under estimate the technological advantage the KA-50 and MI-28 have over the Ah-64 and UH-60 and last but not least F-22(which is an amaxing aircraft).
I also don't know why you are saying it is "bull****" because look at the technical specs and performance. KA-50 can deflect a 12.9X109 anti-tank round not to mention a small artillery shell 40mm. Ohh and 1 last thing, Russia has the perfect CT weaponry AS VAL and the VSS vintorez with silencer and VSK. All complete with silent cartriges Perfect for CT I wonder why the SAS have not adopted these weapons. They can also he used as highly accurate assault rifles and with optics attached can be used longdistance sniping.

[Royal]

At least the SA80A2 and the AK74 are better rifles tham the M-16. SA80 highly accurate now that H&K have stepped in they have modded the weapons to produced a highly effective and reliable weapon. As for the AK74, Rivaled accuracy same as the M-16 also by far more rugged than the Colt weapons(Not saying anything about quality of Colt) This thing can be beated over a rock and still function very efficiently. Can be covered in Ice and shoot straight, It can fire under water and fire with mud and sand ungulfing the mechanism. Ohh and BTW Max, Do not under estimate the technological advantage the KA-50 and MI-28 have over the Ah-64 and UH-60 and last but not least F-22(which is an amaxing aircraft).
I also don't know why you are saying it is "bull****" because look at the technical specs and performance. KA-50 can deflect a 12.9X109 anti-tank round not to mention a small artillery shell 40mm. Ohh and 1 last thing, Russia has the perfect CT weaponry AS VAL and the VSS vintorez with silencer and VSK. All complete with silent cartriges Perfect for CT I wonder why the SAS have not adopted these weapons. They can also he used as highly accurate assault rifles and with optics attached can be used longdistance sniping.

I go away for a while and look what happens :cantbeli:

The L85A1 was probably the most accurate assualt rifle on a range long before H&K played with it, but it takes a lot more than accuracy to make a good AR.

I'm a great fan of AK's, but there is no way that they are more accurate than the M16 'family' at over 300m, and at under that range any hillbilly with his daddies shotgun is going to drop the target.

As you're so proud of your 'SAS' tag and your mates, brother's, grandads dogs Regimental familiarity maybe you can explain why UKSF prefer the L119A1 to the L85A2, or for that matter the AK74?

Since when has any sniper (as opposed to sharpshooter) used a gas operated weapon?

[SAS Britain]

The AK-74 has the same accurace as the M-16. The AK-47 is best used for CQ spraying. BTW who ever said anything about snipers using gas operated weaaponry, I meant CT assault teams and law enforcement sharpshooters. Do understand that what Russia has the US does not understand eg, 1970s mass production of Russian silent cartriges 30 years on still no response from the US. These next gen assault rifles can be used with the upmost reliability.

[MolliG]

Russia has the most combat effective aircraft in the world, SU-37. The Most effective attack helicopter KA-50 black Shark ohh and did I mention the most technologically advanced.
But there are only a tiny number of Su-37, IRC there's only one flyable (711). And again with the Ka-50/52 they are only a few compared to the number of Hinds, and I think it was Russian Texan who said that Mil (Mi-28 'Havoc') has been chosen over the Kamov by the Russian Army/Armed Forces.

:)

[IDFM203]

I forgot to add that the Israeli's had more technology at their disposal. And having a larger army is not always a good thing. As it requires more equipment for every soldeir. well the Arabs always had the latest and best Russian technological equipment and especially in the 1948 war, Israel did not have anywhere near the technological advantage that the arabs had

But later on I will concede that we had better technology for I believe that U.S. technology is superior then Russian technology (as I see you now agree as well) and with Israeli innovations and add on to that, yes Israel did achieve better technology.

But still, 13 or 15 or 20 to 1 odds and the best in Russian technology and yet the Arabs still lost every time, well credit does have to also go to the superior Israeli training and innovative and ingenious battlefield tactics and superior planning that Israel has used throughout its wars.

Shalom :D

Well, I see you like US tech, No I like Israeli tech or if it U.S. tech, well I like it with Israeli add-ons and innovations to it :D

That’s is what I like :D (since you phrase it that way ;) )




I can give many examples of Russian tech superbly out performing US tech. and there are a lot more examples of where the opposite is true!!

Listen I don’t know why you chose my post or this thread to compare and contrast Russian and U.S. equipments for that was not the intention of this thread and it was a mere side point.

We are talking about why the Arabs lose wars and my posts specifically deal with why the Arabs lost wars to Israel (or more specifically, why and how Israel defeated the combined forces of the Arabs with their soviet equipments)

The fact is that the Arab forces outnumbered Israel’s forces something around 15 to 1 and those Arab forces had all of the latest soviet equipment (though a lot were, yes not all was the latest but even those that weren’t were still of high quality……I liken it to for example the soviets flew for example the F-16c while the Arabs had the F-16b and although the c model is better its not a quantum leap better and both are very good F-16’s…and of course my example translates over into soviet weapons and the ones they gave to the Arabs) and they had soviet advisers for training and they got a lot of soviet intelligence and still the Arabs got defeated on the battlefield to the Israelis and what is drawn from that is that Israel had better training, better tactics, superior communication between various units on the battlefield and with its equipment, knew how to get optimal performance out of them by adding on a lot of its own ingenuity and innovations and technology that gave it its edge.


That is what this thread has been about.

I just want to stress this has nothing to do with how the soviets themselves fight, no I am simply stating the facts of the help that the Arabs got and hot they fought with it……..that is all

About the M16 Vs. the AK (which I and others also have gone over in other threads ) or some of the other newer weapons that you discussed, they all have no bearing on what this topic is about and as such I wont get into it here.


Now what have you to say????? yes indeed ditto to you ;) , but about what this thread is really about.

P.S. I am not against soviet weapons and technology, hell in the IDF we use a lot of it ;) and as for helicopters, hell this one here is very good as well. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-50-2.htm) ;) :D

Shalom :D

[Russian Texan]

Do not under estimate the technological advantage the KA-50 and MI-28 have over the Ah-64 and UH-60 and last but not least F-22(which is an amaxing aircraft).

Uh? What does UH 60(transport helo) have to do with Ka and Mil?

I also don't know why you are saying it is "bull****" because look at the technical specs and performance. KA-50 can deflect a 12.9X109 anti-tank round not to mention a small artillery shell 40mm.
False, would be great but it is simply not true...

Ohh and 1 last thing, Russia has the perfect CT weaponry AS VAL and the VSS vintorez with silencer and VSK. All complete with silent cartriges Perfect for CT I wonder why the SAS have not adopted these weapons. They can also he used as highly accurate assault rifles and with optics attached can be used longdistance sniping.
From what I have heard their limitation is about 300 meters, hardly "long range sniping weapon".

[Russian Texan]

P.S. I am not against soviet weapons and technology, hell in the IDF we use a lot of it ;) and as for helicopters, hell this one here is very good as well. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-50-2.htm) ;) :D
Shalom :D

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. ;)

[IDFM203]

P.S. I am not against soviet weapons and technology, hell in the IDF we use a lot of it ;) and as for helicopters, hell this one here is very good as well. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-50-2.htm) ;) :D
Shalom :D

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. ;)hehe ;) hey it was a nice effort ;) :D

Btw what’s is so bad about this helicopter?

Listen this thread was about the Arabs in war and SAS Britain somehow took it into purely a topic of soviet technology vs. American one and it was a bit of a side topic, and perhaps because we use American technology and like it, it might have come off to him that I don’t respect soviet technology when that is not the case at all (and like I said above, we use a lot of it in our military).

As for the Ka 50/52 series, In truth I don’t know much about it and I didn’t bring it up for the interesting reason that you brought, I simply brought it to show that I am not against soviet technology and weaponry and I have respect for some of it, especially when Israel is involved ;) (Also I know that besides this, Israel is involved in a lot of good quality upgrade packages on various Russian equipments and not just on this helicopter)

Shalom :D

[Russian Texan]

This conversation definitely got sidetracked and turned into US vs Russian equipment, although Arabs vs Israelis back in those days did mean US vs Russia.

Anyway you look at it - Israel won every war with arab nations. The way I look at it: either Israel is that good or arabs suck that bad, I think its both


Here is the link about Ka & Erdogan helicopters
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3839&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

[IDFM203]

This conversation definitely got sidetracked and turned into US vs Russian equipment, although Arabs vs Israelis back in those days did mean US vs Russia. Well it is only relevant somewhat only after 1967 for in the 1948 war, it was no countries equipment (Israel had very little heavy equipments) and in the 1956 and 1967 wars, it was mostly British and French equipments and not American(for the most part).

Only after the 1967 war did American equipment (and Israeli equipment and Israeli add-ons ;) :D ) become any factor against the soviet weaponry.


Anyway you look at it - Israel won every war with arab nations. The way I look at it: either Israel is that good or arabs suck that bad, I think its both Interesting way of looking at it ;) :D


Here is the link about Ka & Erdogan helicopters
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3839&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60 Thanks for the link :D Ok I looked at the link (and at your post) and scaned over other posts and perhaps I missed it, but where is there any conversation about the negatives of this helicopter to where you termed it a monstrosity (of course with adding ;) )

Again I don’t know a lot about this, and as such I ask what is bad about this helicopter?

Shalom :D

[Russian Texan]

Oh, don't get me wrong - it is not a bad helicopter but it is somewhat adapted/downgraded to Turkish standards. It is not the question about avionics, Israelis have always been up to the challenge, but rather survivability/armoring.

Just look at its bubble canopy on Erdogan
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka-50-2_erdogan_pic1.jpg

now look at Russian spec Ka 50
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ka50/images/Ka50_10.jpg

and Ka 52
http://www.hudi.republika.pl/ka-50/Ka-52%2001.jpg

Which one do you think can take more damage?

Also Ka, unlike Erdogan, has an ejection system.
Erdogan also packs less firepower (20mm vs 30mm)

When I have said "monstrocity" I referred to its overall visual appearance.
Combat characteristics aside, in my opinion, Ka 50/52 are the most beautiful attack helicopters built up to date, while Erdogan is one of the ugliest ever, not that it matters in combat but still... ;)

[IDFM203]

Oh, don't get me wrong - it is not a bad helicopter but it is somewhat adapted/downgraded to Turkish standards. It is not the question about avionics, Israelis have always been up to the challenge, but rather survivability/armoring. ok it got downgraded on purpose as you say, well I guess in hindsight it was a bad choice for it was not selected. correct?


Ok a couple of questions, why did we only go with that version as opposed to adapting the Israeli avionics and weapons delivery system to the other versions as well? Or at least having that option?

I mean if turkey doesn’t like that version well they might like the other ones…I bet your military industry can use the sale (as well as ours)

Or was it a question of economics where turkey couldn’t afford anything better even a different upgraded Russian/Israeli model....if indeed the other ones are more expensive.


Btw the site I linked (globalsecurity.org), they say that it is “the world's most powerful attack helicopter” just sayin………. ;) :D


When I have said "monstrocity" I referred to its overall visual appearance. ok I hear you, I personally don’t think it looks that bad but that’s just my opinion on it.


Combat characteristics aside, in my opinion, Ka 50/52 are the most beautiful attack helicopters built up to date, while Erdogan is one of the ugliest ever, not that it matters in combat but still... ;) You know when it comes to beauty and ones opinion on it, well its like with women, where beauty is in the eye of each individual and a girl that’s beautiful for one person will be ugly or not as pretty for another one and this isn’t about logic or reasoning per say but more to do with ones own tastes (which varies from individual to individual).

The same here, you think the Ka 50/52 are the most beautiful and I think that the Apache or even the Cobra’s are the most beautiful attack helicopters.


I guess I like the look of blonds and burnets while you like the look of red heads ;) :D (Remember we are just talking the outside looks and not the stereo types of what comes with those looks ;) …just like the helicopter looks is strictly on outside looks and nothing to do with Combat characteristics or their abilities)

I could go on and on but you get my point ;)

Shalom :D

[Pyle]

an army that humps camels, goats and sheeps cannot win a war....

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I'm not posting this to enrage any Arabs (or others) who may read it - it's not my intent. After typing in my main point, I thought I'd better put in a disclaimer first so that my intent is clear. I'm simply asking a question that's interested me since observing events of late.

People judge others through the lens of their own culture. What one culture holds as sacred, another may disregard. Eating dogs is accepted in parts of the world - abhorred in others - etc. So I'm asking, in the Arab world - are there similar notions of honor, honesty - "virtues" similar to those in the West - or do they march to a different drummer, as it were?

Case in point - anybody read "Band of brothers"? One of the statements in the book that I thought was kind of telling was towards the end, when Ambrose described how the men regarded the various groups that they'd encountered during the war.

They described the Arabs that they fought alongside as "despicable", "dirty" "liars and thieves" - they were the least liked of all the groups they'd encountered. They had similarly colorful descriptions of others they'd met (English, French, German, Italian etc.) - this may seem a tad on the racist side, but they appeared to be judging them not racially, but based on their nationality. Thus these are more to be taken as assessments of a culture or nationality, not race. Also, these were not politically correct times, nor were these guys very concerned with niceties after all they'd been through.

Others have commented on the cultural issues that affect the command structure of Arab armies. Is it possible that due to the values that their culture embraces, that a "western" type organization is not practical for them?

[MaDuce]

Arabs haven't been succesful in wars since Salidin and the crusades.

[ALBANIAN]

Because Israeli had no choice! Fight for their life.
And I don't think that coscripted arab armies, strongly divided insiande by tribal and religious reasons, were so motivated.

[cold0]

Well, I see you like US tech, I can give many examples of Russian tech superbly out performing US tech. For example, Russia never gives it's best equipment to other nations but equipment which has been used and there are better replacements and modified versions of the equipment. OK, lets start with aviation. Russia has the most combat effective aircraft in the world, SU-37. The Most effective attack helicopter KA-50 black Shark ohh and did I mention the most technologically advanced. Russian image intensifiers are better and have a reputaion for having the most crisp and clear image transmissions in the world. BTW if the SU-37 took on the F-22 the F-22 would loose within seconds. SU-37 can fire missiles at targets at six o clock. also can shutdown engine for a few seconds and reactivate them to full power in a matter of seconds, this results in the aircraft spining 180 degrees to enguage the F-22. I also need to mention the best rifle in thw world at this moment is the AN-94 1800RPM(Amazing) also has a 2 round burst which both rounds will land only a milimeter apart from eachother even when the rifle is fired with folded buttstock. Now what have you to say?????

Of all the clueless BS that I have read on internet these are probably some of the best. Are you jocking, right? rofl

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Well, I see you like US tech, I can give many examples of Russian tech superbly out performing US tech. For example, Russia never gives it's best equipment to other nations but equipment which has been used and there are better replacements and modified versions of the equipment. OK, lets start with aviation. Russia has the most combat effective aircraft in the world, SU-37. The Most effective attack helicopter KA-50 black Shark ohh and did I mention the most technologically advanced. Russian image intensifiers are better and have a reputaion for having the most crisp and clear image transmissions in the world. BTW if the SU-37 took on the F-22 the F-22 would loose within seconds. SU-37 can fire missiles at targets at six o clock. also can shutdown engine for a few seconds and reactivate them to full power in a matter of seconds, this results in the aircraft spining 180 degrees to enguage the F-22. I also need to mention the best rifle in thw world at this moment is the AN-94 1800RPM(Amazing) also has a 2 round burst which both rounds will land only a milimeter apart from eachother even when the rifle is fired with folded buttstock. Now what have you to say?????

Of all the clueless BS that I have read on internet these are probably some of the best. Are you jocking, right? rofl

Yeah, that's pretty bad.

[Fox2]

Others have commented on the cultural issues that affect the command structure of Arab armies. Is it possible that due to the values that their culture embraces, that a "western" type organization is not practical for them?

I think you are very right in saying that it is more a cultural issue than a racial one. I am as American they come, in mind and spirit, but part of my history and ethnicity is Middle-Eastern. I don't think that simply because some of my ancestors might have come from that part of the world means that, in war, or life, I would behave similarly.

When you speak of a race, you must be careful, because it means you are talking about a large chunk of the world's population. As far as the topic of this thread goes, I think many discount the fact that there are Arabs in Israel, ethnically similar to those who attack Israel, but who believe in Israel, and even fight for Israel! My ancestors were an example of those people.

I read much of this thread, and some of the comments are directed towards Middle-Easterners in general, as if they are all one people, and that, I believe, is wrong. I would hope that as a society we have progressed to realize that the color of one's skin, hair, or racial background has no real impact on one's behavior. It is more a question of culture and environment than biology or genetics.

To say that all of a race, or ethnicity, are inherently weak, or genetically predispositioned to some behavior trait is wrong. Would you say the same of black people? Can you honestly look at the violence, famine, and genocide in Africa, and then make a blanket statement about all black people, saying they are all murderous and impovershed? I'm sure many black Americans I am friends with would be offended by that statement.

I am an American, and I will always be emphatically American. My culture, my mindset, and my heart are all deeply rooted in this country. If some of my ancestors were ethnic Arabs, does that mean that I am genetically predisposed to cowardice or lack of resolve, such as that shown by the Arab countries neighboring Israel in the 60s and 70s? I don't think so, at least I don't feel that way. I believe I am endowed with the boldness of spirit and heart that my American forefathers wove into this country's ethos. In short, I am just as American as the next guy, regardless of where my ancestors came from, whether my hair is black, blond, or red.

Anyway, as Tane Angle would say, have a good one, and just some thoughts... (I'm thinking that needs to become the official forum motto. p-) )

[SerbPVO]

Its pretty simple:

Arabs are lousy fighters.

[Fox2]

Nice racial generalization, there, buddy.

EDIT: Generalization on my own part omitted. I apologize to the parties I generalized about.

This whole generalization stuff needs to end. Look how this great forum has been polluted. The problem is that people start generalizing, and in return, someone else generalizes (as happened just above, and I apologize for generalizing the Serbians as a whole in that statement). I think we need to realize that the actions of a few are not necessarily indicative of the actions of the group as a whole.

As always, just my opinion...

[Tane Angle]

Some nice posts there, Fox2. How are you doing buddy?

I feel that I must disagree about the idea that all Arabs are lousy fighters. I've seen extraordinarily skillful fighters who were Arab. Sometimes they were our allies, sometimes they were our enemies, but regardless, I've personally seen some very capable, and brave, Arab soldiers. I've also disagreed with some tactics used, for example, becoming terrorists, but that is not to say that I do not respect their intelligence and ability to adapt to exploit the self-imposed weaknesses of their enemies. While a bad job, many were all too good at being terrorists.

Something to keep in mind, perhaps, is the fact that groups can have multiple levels of forces. Some might be terrorists, but others might be very professional looking soldiers, complete with tanks, helmets, flak jackets, rifles, roadblocks and fortifications. Both parts might be our enemy, and both might be very intelligence, but the differ very much in tactics.

By the way, you guys are considering the Druze and Christians over there to be Arabs, no? Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Vance]

Arab armies are lousy armies. They stick to the book, hardly ever improvise, hardly ever counter-attack, and when they do it's usually a fumbled frontal assault. They're generally poor shots. They are horrible at offensives, unless they are thought out and rehearsed repeatedly until everyone knows what to do, to a man. And even then, when things start to change, they panic and just get wiped out.

[MaDuce]

Not to mention that they use AK's that havent been cleaned since they where made almsot 50 years ago.

[Fox2]

Some nice posts there, Fox2. How are you doing buddy?

Doing fine, Tane, thanks for asking. How about yourself?

I feel that I must disagree about the idea that all Arabs are lousy fighters. I've seen extraordinarily skillful fighters who were Arab. Sometimes they were our allies, sometimes they were our enemies, but regardless, I've personally seen some very capable, and brave, Arab soldiers. I've also disagreed with some tactics used, for example, becoming terrorists, but that is not to say that I do not respect their intelligence and ability to adapt to exploit the self-imposed weaknesses of their enemies. While a bad job, many were all too good at being terrorists.

I do not dispute the fact that most of the Arabic countries in the Middle East have a very bad record as far as warfighting goes. I was trying to say that to equate it to something racial or genetic is wrong, and I would have hoped we have learned from our history enough to see that genetics play second fiddle to environment and culture. As far as I can see, the problem with the past way in which the Middle-Eastern countries fought, is more an issue of the command structure, the leadership, morale, and less of something to do with race.

My culture, my environment, and my idealogy are all engraved with "Made in USA". My ethnic heritage, whether it be the Middle Eastern part, the German part, the Scottish, and whatever else is mixed in there, does not have any bearing on my thought process or my character traits. And that is all I am really trying to say, I fear too ineffectually.

Generalizations, labels, and ethnic prejudice usually do not breed good results.

By the way, you guys are considering the Druze and Christians over there to be Arabs, no?

I think when someone thinks "Arab" nowadays they automatically think of Islam, especially now that Islamic extremism is on the rise, or at least has a lot more of our attention.

I think some of what you will see in the posts on this thread, and others like it, people tend want to characterize their problems, fears, or enemies. They need a "label" for them, and then to make them less human than themselves, or inferior. It was the same in World War 2, in Vietnam, and today.

All I'm trying to say, in too many words, is be careful not to use too broad a brush when painting your enemies. I am not personally affected by what people say about "Arabs and their terrible war record", since I am an American. But belitting all Arabs, or any ethnic group really, is not the way to win friends, which is what we need to be doing in the Mid-East. I think just by looking on this forum, we can see that ethnic hatred, or just general hatred of any type can lead to unnecessary problems.

Happy April Fool's, uh...Eve and don't party too hardy. p-)

[Tane Angle]

That's good to hear. I'm getting by, thanks for asking.

One thing I wanted to add, that highlights my points, perhaps. As horrible and sick and wrong and a thousand other adjectives as the attack on the convoy yesterday showed our enemy to be, it shows something else as well. It shows that the enemy is not stupid. They enemy knows our ROEs, and knows how to use them against us. The enemy knows the morals common in most humans, knows that people will hesitate before shooting children. The enemy knows us.

The enemy is many things, but it is not stupid or poor at fighting. They are sickeningly good at doing horrible things. While we may disagree with their tactics, indeed, finding it revulsing, it might be unwise as a nation to underestimate the extent to which the enemy has learned and developed it's tactics. Underestimating their intelligence or their resolve is dangerous. That literally is underestimating the threat. It costs lives.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[bluffcove]

SAS Britain silent cartridges only have a very limited range and cannot be used for long range sniping. The propellant gas is held captive inside the cartridge therefore the "power stroke" behnd the bullet is remarkably short not hte full ength of a rifle barrel as would noramlly occur whereby the venting gas create a mauzzle "crack"

[Coop]

King Abdullah's actions are known thats why the jordanians are called "khawanat il arab" (translated to betrayers of the arabs), and he got assasinated. He told Meir that the egyptians want to attack Israel so they initiated a pre-emptive attack (1967).

The king Abdullah you´re talking about actually died well before 1967. He was the grand-grandfather of today´s king Abdullah of Jordan. The first king Abdullah, king of the then "Transjordania", had privileded channels of comunication with jews dirigigents of the Pre-Israel. King Abdullah was friend of jews yet stablished prior to 1948, and a big rival of the Mufti of Jerusalem, well known by his simpathy of nazism. King Abdullah wanted and agreement with jews prior the decission of the UN and he had many motives for thinking it was possible and agreement, he really alerted jews...The King Abdullah I made secret peace with Israel in 1949, not much more. That's why he was assassinated on the entrance to the al-Aqsa mosque, in Jerusalem, in 1950.

BTW, Transjordania was a former british protectorate, and jordan army, specially the Arab Legion, was trained by british since the time of Lawrence of Arabia, and they did fight certainly well, in fact jordan soldiers where one of the bests in 1948, the luck of israelies is that they limited basically to being stationated in defensive positions, and they hold their positions in the most of cases.The Jordanians are usually described by Israeli authors as the best organised, and most brave in 1967 too. Their main problem was that their overall commander - an Egyptian General - caused a complete chaos in the organisation of the battlefield on 6 June 1967. The rest was delivered by the young and chaotic King Hussein, who couldn't decide if he would like to fight Israel, just shell it for show, or stay out of the war.

[roland]

I didn't read all the thread so I don't know if it had already been said, but from all what I've read, from all the experiences I got from family and friends, I'm sure: the Arab fighters are among the best fighters in the world when well trained and commanded.
For example, the French African army, that incorporated a lot of Arabs from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, were among the best troops of WWII. The record of the French Expeditionary Corp in Italy, notably around Monte Cassino, speaks for itself.
More than others, the Arab soldiers need to trust a strong leadership. The leadership must let them express there qualities and must not ask them to behave exactly like a Europeans/Americans would do. These quality are endurance, instinct of the ground, loyalty to the chief, great, quasi fanatical, courage.
Need to be said.

[Dennis G]

Wow, this is an old thread.

My two cents,

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it would be about Kenneth Pollack's book "Arabs at War." Not entirely coincidentally, his book looks at this very question.

His conclusion is that the concern with face saving, endemic to Arab culture, makes it nearly impossible for an Arab officer to admit to his superiors that the officer or his unit are not performing well or convey bad news in general. This effectively precludes HHQs from receiving timely and accurate intelligence on which to base decisions.

From some people I would be inclined to dismiss this as overly simplistic and perhaps racist, but Pollack makes the case convincingly. He points out that after the '72 war against Israel the Egyptian General Staff looked at their defeat (Egypt had initiated the war striking on Yom Kippur, caught Israel by surprise, followed a well rehearsed plan, had both numbers and technology on their side and still lost decisively.)

The Egyptian study concluded that once things were no longer going as planned, and "No plan survives contact with the enemy," is one of the immutable laws of war, the field officers could not adjust and more importantly, could not admit that they were having difficulties - so they claimed successes that were not occurring and claimed to be advancing when they were not, or if they could bring themselves to admit they were not advancing it was only after great delay and always, they claimed, because they were fighting ferociously against a numerically superior and better armed and equipped force.

The Egyptian study concluded that this was cultural and would be nearly impossible to change.

A similar study was conducted by the Iraqi high command in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War and reached a nearly identical conclusion.

There are other factors, of course, e.g., the disdain of the officer class for the men they command, the unwillingness to develop effective NCOs, poor health among conscripted troops, and illiteracy, but the main reason is as described.

Arab armies certainly perform poorly when employing the western method of conventional war but they seem to enjoy greater success when fighting at irregular warfare which harkens back to the days of their light cavalry raids.

IIRC, several years back during the IDF raid on the militant enclave of Jenin I believe that the Palestinians lost only 30 fighters to 23 KIAs for the IDF.

If what I read of that account was accurate the Palestinians employed a form of "Urban Swarm" (a tactic the Soviets used to great effect against Wehrmacht at Stalingrad) which consists of small, semi independent elements which would attack an intruder from all points along the compass.

[Lokos]

Umm, well, the Soviet method would more have been Shock Group infiltration than any 'Urban Swarm'. For example, a six to twelve man detachment would use shovels to dig through a wall, come up behind the Germans, and wreak havoc with their SMGs (these were SMG squads). The Germans constantly found themselves taking a street during the day, then having to refight the whole battle during the night, as Soviet infiltrators struck their rear.

I'm not sure if that method is what you're describing in terms of the Palestinians.

Lokos

[Coop]

Wow, this is an old thread.

My two cents,

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it would be about Kenneth Pollack's book "Arabs at War." Not entirely coincidentally, his book looks at this very question.

His conclusion is that the concern with face saving, endemic to Arab culture, makes it nearly impossible for an Arab officer to admit to his superiors that the officer or his unit are not performing well or convey bad news in general. This effectively precludes HHQs from receiving timely and accurate intelligence on which to base decisions.That's very nice and certainly sounds "plausible" - especially in the light of all the anti-Arab BS-PR of the last 60 years. But...

I suggest here reading of such books like Shazly's "The Crossing of the Suez", or the newest one by Gen. Wassel (former CO 3rd Egyptian Army, in 1973), which just came out early this year.

Both clearly point at the fact that this has nothing to do with factors that might be "endemic to Arab culture", but far more with the fact that most of Arab countries are ruled by dictators. These dictatorships function so that the rulling clique cannot accept or admit own failure: they present themselves as "infailable" (a good example for this is the current Moubarak's regime in Egypt: Mobarak recently explained in public that he can't have a Vice President, then there's nobody clever enough in whole Egypt to do the job...).

Of course, whenever there is a failure scapegoats are very much sought for by such regimes. The first on the target list are usually people ready to talk openly about all the possible problems and mistakes - like Shazly, for example. They are swiftly removed from their position (usually because of "health problems") and then either (mis)used as scapegoats, or executed.

Because of such a situation, the chain of command in the militaries of such countries is considerably "bent": "political" officers, usually those in good relation to the regime - and considered "loyal" - have best chances to came away from whatever BS they might create. There will always be scapegoats to pay for mistakes of the others.

This in turn creates an atmosphere of mutual mistrust between different branches of military, between different secret services, officers at all levels etc. And, because of such mistrust, the situation with officers' responsibility is also bent: why should, after all, some officer bear responsibility for a mistake of some "loyal" superior, who's not going to bear the responsiblity any way?

This is nothing "endemic" in nature to the Arabs, but rather to every single dictatorship - so also those in the West.

From some people I would be inclined to dismiss this as overly simplistic and perhaps racist, but Pollack makes the case convincingly. He points out that after the '72 war against Israel the Egyptian General Staff looked at their defeat (Egypt had initiated the war striking on Yom Kippur, caught Israel by surprise, followed a well rehearsed plan, had both numbers and technology on their side and still lost decisively.)

The Egyptian study concluded that once things were no longer going as planned...Here is also the essence of the problem at hand: Pollack's thesis is based on what Col. Trevor Dupuy - the leader of the 28-strong US military delegation on the conference about the war in 1973, held in Egypt, in 1974 - reported. And, Dupuy's report was based on what the at the time new Egyptian Chief of Staff, Gen. Gamassy, reported. Gamassy's report, in turn, concentrated on refusal to admit any wrongdoing on the part of the Egyptian military of political leadership.

In response to this report (from Gamassy), and also in response to Sadat blaming Shazly for the encirclement of the 3rd Army in his biography, in 1979 Shazly published "The Crossing of the Suez", revealing what was actually going in the Egyptian High Command during the war, as well as the actual number of tanks and aircraft at Egyptian disposal.

Result: Egypt had far less tanks than is usually claimed (especially far less were left operational by the time of the Israeli counteroffensive: in fact, by the time the Israelis had a clear numerical superiority in tanks on Sinai), and it was Sadat and his Minister of War - Gen. Ismail - who caused the catastrophic situation that led to the encirclement of the 3rd Army by Israelis. Given, however, that Sadat and his government were "infailable", they could not admit any such mistake. The scapegoat was Shazly: he was forced into exile, and sentenced in absence, for "revealing military secrets" in his book (which remains black-listed in Egypt until today). And, until today the broad Egyptian public knows about this war only as much as that the Egyptian troops successfully "destroyed the Bar-Lev Line", and were thus "victorious against Israel" - and actually nothing else.

... and "No plan survives contact with the enemy," is one of the immutable laws of war, the field officers could not adjust and more importantly, could not admit that they were having difficulties - so they claimed successes that were not occurring and claimed to be advancing when they were not, or if they could bring themselves to admit they were not advancing it was only after great delay and always, they claimed, because they were fighting ferociously against a numerically superior and better armed and equipped force.This is wrong in the basis. During the planning stages for Egyptian counterattack in Sinai, Shazly and his HQ produced two plans: the "Attack on Passes" and "The High Minarets". The first was an "ideal" solution, depending on Soviets delivering all the weapons the Egyptians wanted to have, and Egyptians being able to handle all these weapons all by themselves. This situation could not occurre if for no other reason then because Ismail was so fiercely anti-Soviet, that he ignored even the fact that the USSR was the only nation that would supply even the amounts of weapons it supplied to Egypt at such favourable terms.

High Minarets, on the contrary, was a plan tailored on the actual capabilities of the Egyptian military. It envisaged the crossing of the Suez, establishing a small bridgehead - and not much else but an "operational phase" in which the Egyptians would only defend their positions until the ceasefire. Ismail disliked this plan, and several times asked for modifications that were to include an advance towards passes in central Sinai. Shazly eventually convinced him that not much more was actually possible.

Once the war started the Egyptians acted according to High Minarets - i.e. Granite, a slight modification. For completely unclear reasons - then there was absolutely no strategic or tactical necessity (the Syrian front on Golan stabilized already by 12 October) - Sadat then ordered the "Attack on Passes". This caused a massive loss in Egyptian tanks. When Shazly then demanded the remaining tanks to be returned to the Western side of Suez, Sadat and Ismail turned this request down....

In total: the High Minarets/Granite plan could "not survive the contact with the enemy", because it envisaged no attack towards the passes. Also, it envisaged that two Egyptian armoured divisions would be left west of Suez: a sufficient force (total of four armoured brigades) to later stop the Israeli counterattack "into Africa". What failed was the idea behind the "Attack on Passes" - a plan the Egyptians originally did not act upon - and that exactly in the way Shazly & CO concluded it would fail already in 1971, because Egypt lacked weapons and capability.

So, the explanation about the Egyptian study concluding that this was cultural and would be nearly impossible to change is a lots of baloony, not supported even by Gamassy today any more.

A similar study was conducted by the Iraqi high command in the aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War and reached a nearly identical conclusion....After interviewing several former Iraqi Generals, I can confidently say that no study with such a conclusion was produced by the Iraqi high command after the Iran-Iraq War. They run several studies - the one run by the air force alone was as large as 3.000 pages, and included an in-depth study of every single aircraft and helicopter loss that occurred during the whole war (another one includes the CVs of each single Iraqi officer above the rank of full Colonel at the end of that war) - and none came anywhere near anything like "cultural" explanations.

Arab armies certainly perform poorly when employing the western method of conventional war but they seem to enjoy greater success when fighting at irregular warfare which harkens back to the days of their light cavalry raids.The essence is the Arab way of thinking about the war. The Arabs have military for two purposes:
- for keeping own regimes in power
- for deterrence against foreign aggressors.

Their militaries are in essence neither organized nor equipped, and even less so trained, for protracted campaigns, manoeuvring warfare and similar facetes of modern armed conflict. Their regimes do not consider such capabilities as important: they can only consider them as "dangerous" (for themselves).

On the contrary, the Arab fighting is that of surprising "first strike" and short conflict, after which the matters are solved through political negotiations on the basis of the situation established in that "first strike". That's how Sadat and Shazly planned the war against Israel in 1973, how Sadat and Gamassy planned the war against Libya in 1977, and how most of the other "inter-Arab" wars were also planned and fought (including Syria vs. Jordan in 1970, as well as a plethora of minor conflicts between Algeria and Morocco, two Yemens, Saudi Arabia and Bahrein, Saudi Arabia and UAE, Iraq and Kuwait etc.).

[Belrick]

How was the 1967 Israelis preemptive attack any less morally wrong than Pearl Harbour?

Just in case you wernt aware the pacific fleet was rebased to Pearl as a direct threat to Japan.

[CMEPTb]

The US wasn't planning to attack Japan, the Arabs were planning to attack Israel

[Coop]

Well, actually, they were not.

Their politicians were doing as if they would be planning such an attack, but even Israeli sources (for example Hammel) confirm that there was no plan for an invasion of Israel by Arab armies in 1967.

Even if some of higher Arab - exclusively Egyptian - officers have had a rough clue what their units would be doing in the case of a war with Israel, all plans available were of defensive nature: the Arab militaries expected Israel to start the war, they to defend and then react with a counterattack.

Arab leaders - foremost Nasser - did not care about this any way: they were not really intending to attack: Nasser was acting as if, but actually expected to bag a similar political victory like in 1956 - but without fighting a war.

[Praetorian 05]

Arabs are overall; unmotivated, and slightly ignorant compared to other races. If you don't believe this then go there and live for a while. Illiteracy is also major problem in the middle east. That combined with Clerics being held in such high esteem is one reason that there are so many religious fanatics in the Muslim faith when you compare it other religions.
Ignorance and Militant religious leaders is a bad combination. If you had been indoctrinated since birth and could only listen to and not read for yourself about your religion, you could be easily swayed into things like suicide bombing and such.
They throughout history have committed to wars but have mostly been defeated has largely to do with the belief that Allah's will be done and the outcome will be in their favor. Their belief is such that if Allah's will is for them to die then nothing will prevent it. This mindset, one would think, would make an unstoppable foe. But Individual initiative is something that is not appreciated in Middle Eastern culture. There is such a "Pecking Order" established that everyone is afraid to do anything that might offend their superiors.
I personally watched as two different emergency departments tried to coordinate during a Mass Casualty Drill. It was sadly comical as you watched to Buffoons trying to out posture the other. In the meantime if this drill were a real event many would have died while the departments were trying out show the other. The Fire Department arrived 20 minutes after alerted (They are located 4 Kilometers away). The came with a 2000 gal. capacity engine that has a 1200 gpm pump. It took 40 minutes for the water truck to arrive. Do your math, not much time actually fighting the fire. On top of all this, one of the firefighters suggested cutting a hole in the roof of the burning building inorder to aid in casualty evacuation. I had to step in advice them that could lead to a chimney effect and actually increase the fires burn rate.
The ambulance service was just as screwed; out of the 70 + ambulances in the entire country 0nly about 30 or so (could never get an actual number) were operational. I was told that the will of Allah determines who lives and dies. :roll:

[Belrick]

The US wasn't planning to attack Japan, the Arabs were planning to attack Israel

How did the Japanese know American intentions and how did the Israelis know Arab intentions?

Both were guesses, both were equally 'illegal' underhanded days of infamy.(sp?)

[CMEPTb]

The US wasn't planning to attack Japan, the Arabs were planning to attack Israel

How did the Japanese know American intentions and how did the Israelis know Arab intentions?

Both were guesses, both were equally 'illegal' underhanded days of infamy.(sp?)

Arab leaders have been saying that they will push Israel into the sea ever since 1948. Name one US president who went in front of Congress prior to 1941 and said that we will push the Japanese back onto their island.

[Coop]

Who came to the idea to introduce oil embargo against Japan, in 1941?

[CMEPTb]

So an oil embargo is the equivalent of publicaly anouncing that you will wipe a country off the face of the earth? Was the US and Europe an aggressor for making embargos against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Does the fact that Japan was taking control of Asia by force change anything in your mind?

[ronin2172]

So an oil embargo is the equivalent of publicaly anouncing that you will wipe a country off the face of the earth? Was the US and Europe an aggressor for making embargos against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait?

Does the fact that Japan was taking control of Asia by force change anything in your mind?
game... set... match.

[UoUo]

Well, actually, they were not.

Their politicians were doing as if they would be planning such an attack, but even Israeli sources (for example Hammel) confirm that there was no plan for an invasion of Israel by Arab armies in 1967.

Even if some of higher Arab - exclusively Egyptian - officers have had a rough clue what their units would be doing in the case of a war with Israel, all plans available were of defensive nature: the Arab militaries expected Israel to start the war, they to defend and then react with a counterattack.

Arab leaders - foremost Nasser - did not care about this any way: they were not really intending to attack: Nasser was acting as if, but actually expected to bag a similar political victory like in 1956 - but without fighting a war.

Did you get that info out of your ass?

The arabs did plan to attack us.
And this subject even don't worth to talk about.

[Coop]

So an oil embargo is the equivalent of publicaly anouncing that you will wipe a country off the face of the earth?That oil embargo has left Japan with reserves for barely six months. It was the same as declaration of a war - even if that was not intended.

Was the US and Europe an aggressor for making embargos against Iraq after Iraq invaded Kuwait?Technically speaking: yes.

Iraq was practically invited to invide Kuwait by the passivity of the USA. Besides, the US admins have never released any kind of photos or other kind of official documentation showing traces of Iraqi military concentrations along the border to Saudi Arabia - this despite multiple FOIA-request from over 30 different journalists and historians.

Consequently, while the liberation of Kuwait was a legal action, based on an international agreement, the initial reaction to the Iraqi "business" in Kuwait - that of deployment of US troops into Saudi Arabia (which in turn caused the current quarrel with al-Qaida) - appears to have been based on extremely shaky legs, and unjustified, to say the least.

Does the fact that Japan was taking control of Asia by force change anything in your mind?Japan was "taking control" of China: the rest was a result of its need to secure oil sources in SEA.

Did you get that info out of your ass?
Specifically speaking - and if you have to use such expressions - I've got it from an "Israeli ass". Regardless if you consider it worth talking about or not, I strongly suggest you reading of such books like "Six Days in June", by Eric Hammel or "Six Days of War", by Michael B. Oren - instead of guessing and offending others because of your own ignorance.

[Rammy]

The thing is Egypt didn't really loose in 1973...They might have not accomplished the hole initiative, but they got back sinai and the suez canal which was the most important of the mission in my opinion.

On top of that, keep in mind that Israel has heavy support by western allies. Arabs pretty much depend on what they have.

And regarding why they always loose, well if you put for example the war with israel/syria and lebanon, Mig 21's against F-15's isn't really the ideal match up.

Finally, another thing to...I'm not to sure about this, but I haven't seen any middle east fondementaly built equipment...You can't just depend on russian equipment.

[alexz]

The thing is Egypt didn't really loose in 1973...They might have not accomplished the hole initiative, but they got back sinai and the suez canal which was the most important of the mission in my opinion.

On top of that, keep in mind that Israel has heavy support by western allies. Arabs pretty much depend on what they have.

And regarding why they always loose, well if you put for example the war with israel/syria and lebanon, Mig 21's against F-15's isn't really the ideal match up.

Finally, another thing to...I'm not to sure about this, but I haven't seen any middle east fondementaly built equipment...You can't just depend on russian equipment.

You are wrong on every single item.

1) The war ended with the Israeli army 101 KM from Cairo and 45 KM
From Damascus. The Egyptian 3rd army was sorounded and thanks
to Kissinger they were kept alive with supplies of water. The peace
deal signed 6 years later returnd the Sinai to Egypt (without the
Gaza stript which Sadat smartly refused to take back).

2) Not only there was no support to Israel from the "western allies".
But European nation closed their airspace and landbases to US planes
that needed refuling on arial resupply missions to Israel.

3) There was massive resupply to Egypt and Syria by the USSR. It was
known as the arial train, because it looked like one line of planes
one after the other.

4) Israel didn't have F-15 in 67 or 73. The Dog fight won were by
F-4 and French Mirages which didn't have better manouvers then the
Mig-21.

[Rammy]

The thing is Egypt didn't really loose in 1973...They might have not accomplished the hole initiative, but they got back sinai and the suez canal which was the most important of the mission in my opinion.

On top of that, keep in mind that Israel has heavy support by western allies. Arabs pretty much depend on what they have.

And regarding why they always loose, well if you put for example the war with israel/syria and lebanon, Mig 21's against F-15's isn't really the ideal match up.

Finally, another thing to...I'm not to sure about this, but I haven't seen any middle east fondementaly built equipment...You can't just depend on russian equipment.

You are wrong on every single item.

1) The war ended with the Israeli army 101 KM from Cairo and 45 KM
From Damascus. The Egyptian 3rd army was sorounded and thanks
to Kissinger they were kept alive with supplies of water. The peace
deal signed 6 years later returnd the Sinai to Egypt (without the
Gaza stript which Sadat smartly refused to take back).

2) Not only there was no support to Israel from the "western allies".
But European nation closed their airspace and landbases to US planes
that needed refuling on arial resupply missions to Israel.

3) There was massive resupply to Egypt and Syria by the USSR. It was
known as the arial train, because it looked like one line of planes
one after the other.

4) Israel didn't have F-15 in 67 or 73. The Dog fight won were by
F-4 and French Mirages which didn't have better manouvers then the
Mig-21.

Alright, well you pretty much owned me in every case here, but for the record, I was stating what I understood from the show I watched on the Military channel, named battlefront, in which they clearly said "Israeli forces where near Cairo, but sadat would not let Sinai go". Regarding the F-15, I was making a coment on the israel/syria and lebanon in 1982 where Syrian Mig 21's did go in the air against the F-15's.

[alexz]

The thing is Egypt didn't really loose in 1973...They might have not accomplished the hole initiative, but they got back sinai and the suez canal which was the most important of the mission in my opinion.

On top of that, keep in mind that Israel has heavy support by western allies. Arabs pretty much depend on what they have.

And regarding why they always loose, well if you put for example the war with israel/syria and lebanon, Mig 21's against F-15's isn't really the ideal match up.

Finally, another thing to...I'm not to sure about this, but I haven't seen any middle east fondementaly built equipment...You can't just depend on russian equipment.

You are wrong on every single item.

1) The war ended with the Israeli army 101 KM from Cairo and 45 KM
From Damascus. The Egyptian 3rd army was sorounded and thanks
to Kissinger they were kept alive with supplies of water. The peace
deal signed 6 years later returnd the Sinai to Egypt (without the
Gaza stript which Sadat smartly refused to take back).

2) Not only there was no support to Israel from the "western allies".
But European nation closed their airspace and landbases to US planes
that needed refuling on arial resupply missions to Israel.

3) There was massive resupply to Egypt and Syria by the USSR. It was
known as the arial train, because it looked like one line of planes
one after the other.

4) Israel didn't have F-15 in 67 or 73. The Dog fight won were by
F-4 and French Mirages which didn't have better manouvers then the
Mig-21.

Alright, well you pretty much owned me in every case here, but for the record, I was stating what I understood from the show I watched on the Military channel, named battlefront, in which they clearly said "Israeli forces where near Cairo, but sadat would not let Sinai go". Regarding the F-15, I was making a coment on the israel/syria and lebanon in 1982 where Syrian Mig 21's did go in the air against the F-15's.

Syria also had Mig-23 and Mig-25 which didn't fare better then the
Mig-21. The results were the same with Israeli F-16 and F-4.
Once the Israelis cut the communication between the Syrian Jets
and Ground control via Electronic warfare means, it was like shooting
fish in a barrel. Doesn't matter which fish are inside and what guns
you use. The results will be equal.
As far as Sinai was concerned, It wasn't up to Saddat to decide.
Ariel Sharon (current PM) and his troops snicked in behind the
Egyptian armoured and controled the other side of the Suez canal.
Therefore all the Egyptian forces in the Sinai didn't have supplies.
Without water they all be dead in a week. This is were Kissingers
genius came to play and he made the best of the situation.
The Egyptian realized diplomacy is the only way to solve their
problem with Israel and Israel realized the price is to painfull
to pay to keep the Sinai.

[Coop]

You are wrong on every single item.

1) The war ended with the Israeli army 101 KM from Cairo and 45 KM
From Damascus. The Egyptian 3rd army was sorounded and thanks
to Kissinger they were kept alive with supplies of water. The peace
deal signed 6 years later returnd the Sinai to Egypt (without the
Gaza stript which Sadat smartly refused to take back).This is no point at all: to Egyptians, Israelis could've even captured Cairo - and it wouldn't matter.

What mattered to people like Sadat, Shazly & CO (i.e. Egypt) - and actually most of Arabs backing Egypt - and the reasons they went to a war was:
- a) return of Sinai under Egyptian control
- b) recovering Arab military pride, shattered by SDW.

Given that because they caused a complete surprise and shock in Israel, the Egyptians forced Israel to take the Egyptian military seriously - and to negotiate. These negotiations ended with return of Sinai to Israel. With other words: Egypt could've lost all of its Army, air force and navy, but if the results were these, this was an Egyptian victory. Period.

Clearly, this can be disputed to the lenght as much as anybody likes, but this is what mattered to Egyptians, and why they went to a war.

2) Not only there was no support to Israel from the "western allies".
But European nation closed their airspace and landbases to US planes
that needed refuling on arial resupply missions to Israel.And so it happened that 36 F-4Es from 36th TFW, based in Bittburg, West Germany, were directly flown from their base to Israel, eh?

Nobody in Europe closed their airspace for US planes underway to Israel...

3) There was massive resupply to Egypt and Syria by the USSR. It was
known as the arial train, because it looked like one line of planes
one after the other.The same was going on from the USA and Europe to Israel: the difference was only that the US airbridge had a much more massive capability than the Soviet effort...

4) Israel didn't have F-15 in 67 or 73. The Dog fight won were by
F-4 and French Mirages which didn't have better manouvers then the
Mig-21.Mirages were more manoeuvreable at low levels and speeds, where MiG-21s were prone to fall into a spin. Even more important: more advanced US-supplied and Israeli AAMs were suitable for dogfights, while the Soviet-supplied AAMs couldn't hit anything - and Soviets had no developed tactics for deploying their fighters in air-to-air combst. Consequently, the Egyptians and Syrians actually have had to develop a completely new tactics of flying MiG-21s in dogfights at low levels and speeds in order to become able to engaging Israelis first of all...

Syria also had Mig-23 and Mig-25 which didn't fare better then the
Mig-21. The results were the same with Israeli F-16 and F-4.You're mixing 1973 with 1982 here: F-16s were not even existing in 1973, and were introduced in IDF/AF service only in 1980; first MiG-23s were delivered to Syria in October 1973, but they saw no combat service until April 1974 (and then a single SyAAF MiG-23MS shot down two IDF/AF F-4Es in one battle).

Once the Israelis cut the communication between the Syrian Jets
and Ground control via Electronic warfare means, it was like shooting
fish in a barrel. Doesn't matter which fish are inside and what guns
you use. The results will be equal.Well, 1973 really wasn't that "easy" for IDF/AF: surely, we're hearing how only five Israel fighters were shot down in air combats from all possible sources (foremost Israeli), but actually up to 40 IDF/AF aircraft and helicopters were shot down in air combats with Arabs. That's at least what comes out if you research each single IDF/AF loss in that war.

As far as Sinai was concerned, It wasn't up to Saddat to decide. It was: he chose the place and time of delivering a blow against Israel...

Ariel Sharon (current PM) and his troops snicked in behind the
Egyptian armoured and controled the other side of the Suez canal.
Therefore all the Egyptian forces in the Sinai didn't have supplies. Only one part of the Egyptian military - the 3rd Army - was cut off, not all the Egyptian forces. And, besides, it didn't matter: the Israelis couldn't hold their troops "in Africa" forever. They had to give up, to negotiate and - eventually - give up Sinai too.

Without water they all be dead in a week. This is were Kissingers
genius came to play and he made the best of the situation.The role of Kissinger was anything but pro-Arab...

The Egyptian realized diplomacy is the only way to solve their
problem with Israel and Israel realized the price is to painfull
to pay to keep the Sinai.Remember that the war is continuation of diplomacy, "by other means". The Arabs had a strategy which called for a war that would lead to a diplomatic solution - which was impossible before the war in 1973, because the Israelis were not taking Arabs seriously enough.

[Rammy]

Coop you seem to know alot about this conflict..Any book you can recommend for me?

[Coop]

There are a lot, depending on what's most interesting for you; here's my "should read" list....

If you're interested in the Arab point of view, Shazly's "The Crossing of the Suez" is unavoidable. I'd recommend the latest, expanded edition.

BTW, Gen. Wasel, former CO Egyptian 3rd Army, recently published his memoirs too. Sadly, that book was not yet translated in English: i've got few excerpts, however, and must say it's extremely interesting. Will be able to say something more in few months, after I've got my copy in Arabic...

If Shazly's work is not going sufficiently "in-depth" for your taste (Shazly is providing rather a "strategic" than tactical picture), D. K. Palit's "Return to Suez" is quite interesting too: it's an "early after the war" view, as seen by Indian military attache in Cairo. Lots of good - but also obsolete - info, it's also somewhat biased against Israel, which is understandable considering where the author was posted at the time. I'd say this book is "recommended for advanced students".

A very good insight can be found also in Edgar O'Ballance's "No Victor, No Vanquished": regardless if one agrees with everything O'Ballance wrote in that book, it's a "must" because it is one of few well-ballanced books about this war. While many of the things he writes about were subsequently corrected by more in-depth, substantiated and -detailled publications, O'Ballance is one of few authors who seriously tackled with the task of finding Arab officers that participated in this war. Some of his descriptions based on their narratives are simply "evergreens".

From the other side, I found Adan's "On the Bank of the Suez" very intriguing: I understand that "Bren" Adan has an axe to grind with "Sharik" Sharon, but I'd say this book is not only a history of that war as seen by one of IDF division commanders. It's also a lesson in organisation of armoured force in battle. Trully excellent and very detailled read: highly recommended.

An extremely detailled account of the battle on Golan is "Duel for the Golan", by Jerry Asher and Eric Hammel. Sometimes a little bit too "heroic/epic" in descriptions of specific Israeli actions, it's nevertheless really a blow-by-blow account of the fighting there. I'd say it's as close as you'll ever get to a feeling for the all the terror and butchery both sides went through on Golan in that October...

If you want to save yourself reading through all these books, try Simon Dunstan's "The Yom Kippur War, 1973", published by Osprey in their "Campaign" series, last year. Part 1 deals with "The Golan Heights", and Part 2 with "The Sinai".

Dunstan is mainly concentrating on the ground battle, and too much on the Israeli side; he's almost neglective regarding the air war. On the contrary, he goes quite in-depth in regards of the ground war. But, at least he explains why (his specialisation - in armoured warfare - lack of space and lack of Arab sources; the second is Osprey's, the former and last are Dunstan's problems). Otherwise, both books are excellently illustrated and nothing else but perfect sources of basic reference for further reading or researching about the ground warfare in 1973.

I guess that a combo of Dunstan's and Shazly's work should provide the most ballanced insight into the general flow of this war for the start. Besides, this is also the cheapest variant available.

In regards of air warfare, there are several books, but you'll not find any kind of "definitive history" - even if some works might pretend to be this by their title: it appears no author went so far to properly research the whole story of both sides.

Lon Nordeen's "Fighters over Israel" is a "classic" work of the late 1980s: full of Israeli reports, many of which were previously published in different Israeli magazines (foremost "Born in Battle"), and most of which talk about "pilot N", and "Capt. M" as opposed by Arabs who are, "of course", shot down in droves. What surprised me was that Nordeen greately neglected Arabs: this foremost because as somebody who used to work for McDonnell Douglas, he should've actually had no problems to get an insight into ALL the documents sent in by different branches of the US military, not only those covering Israel...

"Israel's Best Defense" by Col. Eliezer "Cheetah" Cohen was quite a "hit" at the time it came out (mid-1990s), but today is considered (at least in circles in which I'm active) as not only biased, but also outright misleading and hiding anything possibly unpleasant for the Israelis. Some say this is based on the work of censors: the original version in Hebrew should be better.

"Phoenix over the Nile" by Lon Nordeen and David Nicolle covers the history of the Egyptian Air Force. The chapter about the war in 1973 is quite chaotic, consisting of excerpts from interviews with different EAF pilots - some of which were misplaced in time and context. Can be very misleading for any "beginner"...

David Nicolle later teamed with Tom Cooper to make "Arab MiG-19 & MiG-21 Units in Combat", published by Osprey last year. This is quite a great work: I've never seen anybody going that much in-depth in regards of Arab air forces ever before. You get names, types, numbers and bases. However, although unique, this book is not perfect: not only do I have a strong feeling the editors cut out a better part of the manuscript for space purposes, but it's also a first-hand account - and thus biased.

Their counterpart is Shlomo Aloni. Last year he published "Israeli Mirage & Nesher Aces" and "Israeli F-4 Phantom II Aces". Both are probably the most detailled books ever to the topic of Israeli fighter-force's involvement in this war. Really excellent, in-depth, with very rare photos - and plenty of first-hand accounts.

Now, my feeling is that Aloni is a little bit too much "The sun is rising in the East, and the IDF/AF rules the skies" author for my taste, while Nicolle and Cooper are still years away from gathering comparative amounts of in-depth knowledge and insight about Arabs. The gap is closing, but it will take time... Nevertheless, a throughout cross-examination of these three books - but also a number of articles Nicolle/Cooper and Aloni published in specialized magazines - reveals some trully eye-opening details about air war in 1973...

That's at least what comes to my mind right now.

BTW, I found no really good work on naval aspects of this war - at least not in the form of the book. I remember to have read an account of the "Battle of Latakiyah" somewhere on the internet, but that's also all - and this despite the fact that at least something like a dozen of engagements were fought between the Israeli, Egyptian, and Syrian naval forces.

[alexz]

You are wrong on every single item.

1) The war ended with the Israeli army 101 KM from Cairo and 45 KM
From Damascus. The Egyptian 3rd army was sorounded and thanks
to Kissinger they were kept alive with supplies of water. The peace
deal signed 6 years later returnd the Sinai to Egypt (without the
Gaza stript which Sadat smartly refused to take back).This is no point at all: to Egyptians, Israelis could've even captured Cairo - and it wouldn't matter.

What mattered to people like Sadat, Shazly & CO (i.e. Egypt) - and actually most of Arabs backing Egypt - and the reasons they went to a war was:
- a) return of Sinai under Egyptian control
- b) recovering Arab military pride, shattered by SDW.



True. There was also a side matter of the soviets (via their advisers)
testing a new stategy of quick attack and then defending the area.
It totally failed.


Given that because they caused a complete surprise and shock in Israel, the Egyptians forced Israel to take the Egyptian military seriously - and to negotiate. These negotiations ended with return of Sinai to Israel. With other words: Egypt could've lost all of its Army, air force and navy, but if the results were these, this was an Egyptian victory. Period.

Clearly, this can be disputed to the lenght as much as anybody likes, but this is what mattered to Egyptians, and why they went to a war.


True. That is a cultural thing. Saddam declared the first Gulf as a victory.

2) Not only there was no support to Israel from the "western allies".
But European nation closed their airspace and landbases to US planes
that needed refuling on arial resupply missions to Israel.


And so it happened that 36 F-4Es from 36th TFW, based in Bittburg, West Germany, were directly flown from their base to Israel, eh?

Nobody in Europe closed their airspace for US planes underway to Israel...

3) There was massive resupply to Egypt and Syria by the USSR. It was
known as the arial train, because it looked like one line of planes
one after the other.The same was going on from the USA and Europe to Israel: the difference was only that the US airbridge had a much more massive capability than the Soviet effort...


The F-4 took off from a US airbase in Germany. They didn't need
permission (goes back to WWII end of war treaties).

As far as Operation Nickel Grass is concerned; Exept the Portoguses
dictatorship (at the time) most European countries had denied overflight
and landing rights to the United States, fearing that the Arabs would
retaliate by withholding vital oil supplies.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/krisinger.html
[/quote]


4) Israel didn't have F-15 in 67 or 73. The Dog fight won were by
F-4 and French Mirages which didn't have better manouvers then the
Mig-21.Mirages were more manoeuvreable at low levels and speeds, where MiG-21s were prone to fall into a spin. Even more important: more advanced US-supplied and Israeli AAMs were suitable for dogfights, while the Soviet-supplied AAMs couldn't hit anything - and Soviets had no developed tactics for deploying their fighters in air-to-air combst. Consequently, the Egyptians and Syrians actually have had to develop a completely new tactics of flying MiG-21s in dogfights at low levels and speeds in order to become able to engaging Israelis first of all...

Syria also had Mig-23 and Mig-25 which didn't fare better then the
Mig-21. The results were the same with Israeli F-16 and F-4.


You're mixing 1973 with 1982 here: F-16s were not even existing in 1973, and were introduced in IDF/AF service only in 1980; first MiG-23s were delivered to Syria in October 1973, but they saw no combat service until April 1974 (and then a single SyAAF MiG-23MS shot down two IDF/AF F-4Es in one battle).


I tought i was self understood. The F-4 fought the Mig-21 in 73 and
the F-16 fought the Mig-23 in 81-82 obviously no F-16s or Mig-23 took
part in the 73 war.


Once the Israelis cut the communication between the Syrian Jets
and Ground control via Electronic warfare means, it was like shooting
fish in a barrel. Doesn't matter which fish are inside and what guns
you use. The results will be equal.


Well, 1973 really wasn't that "easy" for IDF/AF: surely, we're hearing how only five Israel fighters were shot down in air combats from all possible sources (foremost Israeli), but actually up to 40 IDF/AF aircraft and helicopters were shot down in air combats with Arabs. That's at least what comes out if you research each single IDF/AF loss in that war.


The refrance is to the Lebanon war were the 73 lesson was implemented.
Do you have a source that shows the 40 IDF/AF aircraft downed in
air combat?


As far as Sinai was concerned, It wasn't up to Saddat to decide. It was: he chose the place and time of delivering a blow against Israel...

Ariel Sharon (current PM) and his troops snicked in behind the
Egyptian armoured and controled the other side of the Suez canal.
Therefore all the Egyptian forces in the Sinai didn't have supplies. Only one part of the Egyptian military - the 3rd Army - was cut off, not all the Egyptian forces. And, besides, it didn't matter: the Israelis couldn't hold their troops "in Africa" forever. They had to give up, to negotiate and - eventually - give up Sinai too.

Without water they all be dead in a week. This is were Kissingers
genius came to play and he made the best of the situation.The role of Kissinger was anything but pro-Arab...

The Egyptian realized diplomacy is the only way to solve their
problem with Israel and Israel realized the price is to painfull
to pay to keep the Sinai.Remember that the war is continuation of diplomacy, "by other means". The Arabs had a strategy which called for a war that would lead to a diplomatic solution - which was impossible before the war in 1973, because the Israelis were not taking Arabs seriously enough.[/quote]

[K-9s BEST]

Although this thread was about the inability of the Arabs to compete in 20th century warfare, (ie: vs Israel -1948, 1956, 1967, 1969-1970 War of Attrition, 1973, Peace For Galilee), it quickly went off course. U.S. weapons vs Russian weapons? Culture/Race? And people getting their info from THE INTERNET? Sounds like many here weren`t even born during the bulk of these wars. The answer for the Big Question is VERY simple. Travel to the Arab countries then travel to Israel. Stick a 16th century mindset into the complexities of combined-arms mobile warfare and you get ...disappointed. Oil buys a lot of expensive toys but ignorance doesn`t get results. Israelis are not supermen, they get shot, wounded, and also die. Heck, in 1967, they were using Shermans, Centurions, M3A2 halftracks!!!!! By all accounts, they should have lost, as the modern military dictum for any attacker is to have at least a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio over the defenders. For the record, the 1973 war has the most disputed "facts" of them all, probably followed by the Lebanon invasion. By ANY sane military conclusion, the Arabs lost. BIG. Was their performance improved vs a lesser effort by the IDF? Was the U.S. resupply effort the turning point for Israel? Look at the timetable of events, For the first 3 days of the war, the Egyptians crossed the canal, overran the Bar-Lev line, (a string of fortified lookout bunkers), sent hundreds of AT teams to dig in on the east bank, and moved up their SAMS to provide an umbrella for their armor. 5 days later, the IDF was on the west side of the canal attacking Suez City and cutting off the 3rd Army. (Once the IDF started using infantry/engineers against the AT teams, their armor were able to roll again... opposite to SOP using armor at the front of any attack.) On the Golan, Syria made poor use of the terrain and got suckered into a gunnery shoot out with superior IDF tankers. (T-55/T-62s with infrared, Centurions w/o...advantage to Syrian tankers? None.) The U.S. supply was more Nixon`s reply to the Soviet resupply effort than enabling Israel. (My unit handled the correspondence between Nixon & Kissinger & Pentagon. Our Satellite photos showed Nixon the IDF crossing BEFORE he ok`d the supply. Also, the photos showed Russian paratrooper regiments w/light armor massing at air bases alongside transport planes...the IDF was 21kms from Damascus.) The military conclusions are best paraphrased in the words of an IDF General to PM Golda Meir on day 6 when she inquired on the actual events...he simply replied "they (the arabs) are reverting to what they do best, and we, (the IDF) are NOW doing what we do best."

[K-9s BEST]

Although this thread was about the inability of the Arabs to compete in 20th century warfare, (ie: vs Israel -1948, 1956, 1967, 1969-1970 War of Attrition, 1973, Peace For Galilee), it quickly went off course. U.S. weapons vs Russian weapons? Culture/Race? And people getting their info from THE INTERNET? Sounds like many here weren`t even born during the bulk of these wars. The answer for the Big Question is VERY simple. Travel to the Arab countries then travel to Israel. Stick a 16th century mindset into the complexities of combined-arms mobile warfare and you get ...disappointed. Oil buys a lot of expensive toys but ignorance doesn`t get results. Israelis are not supermen, they get shot, wounded, and also die. Heck, in 1967, they were using Shermans, Centurions, M3A2 halftracks!!!!! By all accounts, they should have lost, as the modern military dictum for any attacker is to have at least a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio over the defenders. For the record, the 1973 war has the most disputed "facts" of them all, probably followed by the Lebanon invasion. By ANY sane military conclusion, the Arabs lost. BIG. Was their performance improved vs a lesser effort by the IDF? Was the U.S. resupply effort the turning point for Israel? Look at the timetable of events, For the first 3 days of the war, the Egyptians crossed the canal, overran the Bar-Lev line, (a string of fortified lookout bunkers), sent hundreds of AT teams to dig in on the east bank, and moved up their SAMS to provide an umbrella for their armor. 5 days later, the IDF was on the west side of the canal attacking Suez City and cutting off the 3rd Army. (Once the IDF started using infantry/engineers against the AT teams, their armor were able to roll again... opposite to SOP using armor at the front of any attack.) On the Golan, Syria made poor use of the terrain and got suckered into a gunnery shoot out with superior IDF tankers. (T-55/T-62s with infrared, Centurions w/o...advantage to Syrian tankers? None.) The U.S. supply was more Nixon`s reply to the Soviet resupply effort than enabling Israel. (My unit handled the correspondence between Nixon & Kissinger & Pentagon. Our Satellite photos showed Nixon the IDF crossing BEFORE he ok`d the supply. Also, the photos showed Russian paratrooper regiments w/light armor massing at air bases alongside transport planes...the IDF was 21kms from Damascus.) The military conclusions are best paraphrased in the words of an IDF General to PM Golda Meir on day 6 when she inquired on the actual events...he simply replied "they (the arabs) are reverting to what they do best, and we, (the IDF) are NOW doing what we do best."

[K-9s BEST]

Sorry about the double post. :cantbeli:

[Coop]

True. There was also a side matter of the soviets (via their advisers)
testing a new stategy of quick attack and then defending the area.
It totally failed.Sorry, but what kind of tactics (ground or air?) should've this been, and where was it "tested"?

If you're talking about the ground, then I'd say at least the Egyptians proved able to attack and conquer an area, and then hold it in face of Israeli counterattacks. How much this had with any kind of Soviet tactics is unclear to me: Soviet "tactics" of the 1970s and 1980s was one of attack, attack, and attack - i.e. purely offensive. Their troops barely trained defense...


Given that because they caused a complete surprise and shock in Israel, the Egyptians forced Israel to take the Egyptian military seriously - and to negotiate. These negotiations ended with return of Sinai to Israel. With other words: Egypt could've lost all of its Army, air force and navy, but if the results were these, this was an Egyptian victory. Period.

Clearly, this can be disputed to the lenght as much as anybody likes, but this is what mattered to Egyptians, and why they went to a war.

True. That is a cultural thing. Saddam declared the first Gulf as a victory.That's no "cultural thing", that's a fact regardless the culture.

The fact was: before 6 October 1973 the Israelis were not ready to seriously negotiate with Egypt. The fact was also: after that war, they were ready to negotiate - and indeed so much, that they returned Sinai.

Have the Israelis seriously negotiated with or returned Golan to Syria?

No, they have not.

Why?

Because the Syrians were not as successful as Egyptians.

That's why I repeat for at least third time in this thread: to Egyptians, it wouldn't matter if they've lost their whole Army, Air Force and Navy in this war, suffered 100.000 casualties and whatever else. Surely, the Israeli counterstrike from 15 October (not 12th, as K-9 explains: the US-airbridge, BTW, began on 14th October), and its results were not pleasant for Egypt: but, even these successful Israeli operations have not resulted in re-establishing the situation from before the war.

War, gentlemen, consists very much of psychology, propaganda etc.: it consists of fear, concerns, guessing - and it is based on assumptions about own and enemy's abilities. With hindsight, we can today discuss to the lenght about who was better trained, who had better weapons etc. What counted at the time, and especially to Egyptians, was: cross the Suez, take positions and defend against Israeli counterattacks so to force their politicians to negotiate. That's what counts for them - and that until today: their action returned them Sinai, regardless anybody here likes it, or not, or how is their military performance qualified.

The Syrians did a mistake in launching a general attack on the full width of Golan, instead of limiting their objectives to such tasks like - for example - recapture of al-Kunaitra. They were not successful, and the Israelis therefore were able not only to throw them back, but would also completely ignore any chance of negotiating with them.

K-9,
in regards to "stick to 16th century mindset": you are suggesting others to travel to Arab countries.... Perhaps you've been to Egypt or Jordan: in that case I could agree with you. But, I'd most kindly recommend you a trip to Syria, and then you can search for anything of the mindset you're talking here about. Then travel to Turkey, and compare: and get ready for quite a few surprises....

The military conclusions are best paraphrased in the words of an IDF General to PM Golda Meir on day 6 when she inquired on the actual events...he simply replied "they (the arabs) are reverting to what they do best, and we, (the IDF) are NOW doing what we do best."I really like such quotes. They explain everything, don't they? :roll:

Or, could it be that generalizing is not going to help anybody to understand better what was going on during this war?

[Warlord]

I have a simple analogy.

Have you guys ever seen two arab guys argue? I mean with raised voices. That's it. That's the extent.

Guy 1 "I can kick your butt...."
Guy 2 "I can kick your butt to the street!!!"
Guy 1 "I can kick you butt to the moon!!!!"

So on and so forth.

Compare to the Filipino way.

Guy 1 "I can kick your butt...."
Guy 2 "I can kick your butt to the street!!!"
Guy 1 comes back to stab Guy 2, 17 times

[alexz]

True. There was also a side matter of the soviets (via their advisers)
testing a new stategy of quick attack and then defending the area.
It totally failed.Sorry, but what kind of tactics (ground or air?) should've this been, and where was it "tested"?

If you're talking about the ground, then I'd say at least the Egyptians proved able to attack and conquer an area, and then hold it in face of Israeli counterattacks. How much this had with any kind of Soviet tactics is unclear to me: Soviet "tactics" of the 1970s and 1980s was one of attack, attack, and attack - i.e. purely offensive. Their troops barely trained defense...


The soviets doctorine called for an attack, in 3 they were testing the
effects of surprise attack, gain land and defending it and having
missile umbrela as a protection. the theiory worked intially and the
Israeli air force suffered huge loses. But in the end diging in and
not protecting the rear proved disastrous.


Given that because they caused a complete surprise and shock in Israel, the Egyptians forced Israel to take the Egyptian military seriously - and to negotiate. These negotiations ended with return of Sinai to Israel. With other words: Egypt could've lost all of its Army, air force and navy, but if the results were these, this was an Egyptian victory. Period.

Clearly, this can be disputed to the lenght as much as anybody likes, but this is what mattered to Egyptians, and why they went to a war.

True. That is a cultural thing. Saddam declared the first Gulf as a victory.[/quote]That's no "cultural thing", that's a fact regardless the culture.

The fact was: before 6 October 1973 the Israelis were not ready to seriously negotiate with Egypt. The fact was also: after that war, they were ready to negotiate - and indeed so much, that they returned Sinai.

Have the Israelis seriously negotiated with or returned Golan to Syria?

No, they have not.

Why?

Because the Syrians were not as successful as Egyptians.

That's why I repeat for at least third time in this thread: to Egyptians, it wouldn't matter if they've lost their whole Army, Air Force and Navy in this war, suffered 100.000 casualties and whatever else. Surely, the Israeli counterstrike from 15 October (not 12th, as K-9 explains: the US-airbridge, BTW, began on 14th October), and its results were not pleasant for Egypt: but, even these successful Israeli operations have not resulted in re-establishing the situation from before the war.

War, gentlemen, consists very much of psychology, propaganda etc.: it consists of fear, concerns, guessing - and it is based on assumptions about own and enemy's abilities. With hindsight, we can today discuss to the lenght about who was better trained, who had better weapons etc. What counted at the time, and especially to Egyptians, was: cross the Suez, take positions and defend against Israeli counterattacks so to force their politicians to negotiate. That's what counts for them - and that until today: their action returned them Sinai, regardless anybody here likes it, or not, or how is their military performance qualified.

The Syrians did a mistake in launching a general attack on the full width of Golan, instead of limiting their objectives to such tasks like - for example - recapture of al-Kunaitra. They were not successful, and the Israelis therefore were able not only to throw them back, but would also completely ignore any chance of negotiating with them.

K-9,
in regards to "stick to 16th century mindset": you are suggesting others to travel to Arab countries.... Perhaps you've been to Egypt or Jordan: in that case I could agree with you. But, I'd most kindly recommend you a trip to Syria, and then you can search for anything of the mindset you're talking here about. Then travel to Turkey, and compare: and get ready for quite a few surprises....

The military conclusions are best paraphrased in the words of an IDF General to PM Golda Meir on day 6 when she inquired on the actual events...he simply replied "they (the arabs) are reverting to what they do best, and we, (the IDF) are NOW doing what we do best."I really like such quotes. They explain everything, don't they? :roll:

Or, could it be that generalizing is not going to help anybody to understand better what was going on during this war?[/quote]


You are contradicting yourself. You claim that if egypt or any other
Arab country loses a war with it's army distroyed and 100,00 dead
but it gained respect than it was worth it )a statement that is true BTW).
It is not a reflection of their culture. Well do you think if the American
get wiped out in a war and the enemy is at Washingtons gate they
will consider it victoy? Is the Vietnam war considered a victory?
The Argentianian gain some respect in the Falkland war but they don't
see it as a victory.

Finally Let me make some order here and put events in sequence.
Israel signed a peace deal in 79 with Egypt not because it feared it's
army but because of the radical change in Egypt philosophy which
severed ties with the USSR and moved to the US sphere of influance.
With US guarentees and NO Egyptian army in Sinai, Israel has nothing
to fear. Sadat's speech in the Knesset sealed the deal.
Syria didn't fare as bad as you portray it. Syrian tank conquared all but
a small part of the Golan and only a few Israeli tanks seperated it
them from victory. There were and still are attempts to reach a peace
deal with Syria despite it lack of military strenght.

[Coop]

The soviets doctorine called for an attack, in 3 they were testing the
effects of surprise attack, gain land and defending it and having
missile umbrela as a protection. the theiory worked intially and the
Israeli air force suffered huge loses. How could the Soviets have been testing anything there, when both, the Egyptian and Syrian war plans were prepared completely without their knowledge or involvement?

The Soviets were never even permitted anywhere near the Egyptian war HQ, and the Syrians left two of their officers to see their situation maps only between 10th and 12th October....

But in the end diging in and
not protecting the rear proved disastrous.Sorry, but what should this mean?

The Israeli counteroffensive "into Africa" or on Golan was not successful because the Soviets tested anything, or have left either Egyptians or Syrians to "dig in and not protected the rear", but because:

- a) the Syrians stopped their advance in the critical moment

- b) the Egyptian president, for no valid reason, ordered the Egyptian armored reserve - originally held back to defend exactly against a possibility of an Israeli counterattack - to cross the Suez and be spent in futile attack on 14 October, and then ignored the Israeli counterattack for two days.

Soviets "testing" anything had nothing to do with this at all.

You are contradicting yourself. You claim that if egypt or any other
Arab country loses a war with it's army distroyed and 100,00 dead
but it gained respect than it was worth it )a statement that is true BTW).
It is not a reflection of their culture. Well do you think if the American
get wiped out in a war and the enemy is at Washingtons gate they
will consider it victoy? Is the Vietnam war considered a victory?
The Argentianian gain some respect in the Falkland war but they don't
see it as a victory.Americans are Americans, and Argentinians are Argentinians: neithere are "Arabs" in the situation the Arabs were before 1973.

Finally Let me make some order here and put events in sequence.
Israel signed a peace deal in 79 with Egypt not because it feared it's
army but because of the radical change in Egypt philosophy which
severed ties with the USSR and moved to the US sphere of influance.
With US guarentees and NO Egyptian army in Sinai, Israel has nothing
to fear. Sadat's speech in the Knesset sealed the deal.Read a little bit more about the shock this war caused in Israel and its effects on the Israeli way of considering their situation...

Syria didn't fare as bad as you portray it. Syrian tank conquared all but
a small part of the Golan and only a few Israeli tanks seperated it
them from victory.Syrians penetrated Israeli lines only in the south, destroying the 188th Brigade IDF in the process: in the north, they never managed to push past the 7th Brigade IDF positions on "Booster". Have you never even tried to read anything about the story of the Battle of Golan, in 1973?

There were and still are attempts to reach a peace
deal with Syria despite it lack of military strenght.There is nothing of this kind: since 1973 until today, Israel turned down - or outright ignored - no less but 29 Syrian and several Saudi, Kuwaiti and other negotiation proposals about Golan. That's, between others, also the reason why Assad then started supporting Palestinian terrorism against Israel...

[alexz]

The soviets doctorine called for an attack, in 3 they were testing the
effects of surprise attack, gain land and defending it and having
missile umbrela as a protection. the theiory worked intially and the
Israeli air force suffered huge loses. How could the Soviets have been testing anything there, when both, the Egyptian and Syrian war plans were prepared completely without their knowledge or involvement?

The Soviets were never even permitted anywhere near the Egyptian war HQ, and the Syrians left two of their officers to see their situation maps only between 10th and 12th October....

But in the end diging in and
not protecting the rear proved disastrous.Sorry, but what should this mean?



The 20,000 soviet advisers where not there to teach the Egyptians
how to play ice hockey. Altough Sadat kicked them out in July 73,
the plan was ready and the soviets remined behind the scene.
The soviets helped in a massive air lift of supplies and threantend
Sadat that it wil stop if his forces don't push north and relieve the pressure of the Syrians. Hardly the actions of some one who didn't
know or wasn't involved.

1) Diging in (of the Egyptian army) mean occupieng a chunk of land
which is within the SAM umbrerla and defending it. This part worked
great for Egypt.
2) Protecting the Rear means not securing the supply root.
When Sharon and his troops arrive at the canal there was
very little resistance. They plantes Israeli flags every where to
create the appearance of a large Israeli force that secured the
area. This was the begining of the end of the Egyptian campaign.




The Israeli counteroffensive "into Africa" or on Golan was not successful because the Soviets tested anything, or have left either Egyptians or Syrians to "dig in and not protected the rear", but because:

- a) the Syrians stopped their advance in the critical moment

- b) the Egyptian president, for no valid reason, ordered the Egyptian armored reserve - originally held back to defend exactly against a possibility of an Israeli counterattack - to cross the Suez and be spent in futile attack on 14 October, and then ignored the Israeli counterattack for two days.

Soviets "testing" anything had nothing to do with this at all.


Syria didn't stop the advance but was delyed from advancing into
Israel some time by a few lonly tanks and some times by a single
crew that jumped from on damged tank to the other for example
Lieutenant Zvi Greengold (Tzvika force).
This bough enough time for the Israeli reserves to get into battle.


You are contradicting yourself. You claim that if egypt or any other
Arab country loses a war with it's army distroyed and 100,00 dead
but it gained respect than it was worth it )a statement that is true BTW).
It is not a reflection of their culture. Well do you think if the American
get wiped out in a war and the enemy is at Washingtons gate they
will consider it victoy? Is the Vietnam war considered a victory?
The Argentianian gain some respect in the Falkland war but they don't
see it as a victory.Americans are Americans, and Argentinians are Argentinians: neithere are "Arabs" in the situation the Arabs were before 1973.


O.K. then which other nation would consider the having the enemy at
the gate as a victory.

Finally Let me make some order here and put events in sequence.
Israel signed a peace deal in 79 with Egypt not because it feared it's
army but because of the radical change in Egypt philosophy which
severed ties with the USSR and moved to the US sphere of influance.
With US guarentees and NO Egyptian army in Sinai, Israel has nothing
to fear. Sadat's speech in the Knesset sealed the deal.


Read a little bit more about the shock this war caused in Israel and its effects on the Israeli way of considering their situation...


The shock lasted for a very long time. However the Israelis didn't
elect (1977) the peace oriented labour party but the mor enationalist
likud. clearly thet were shock but not stuiped enough to trust Golda
and her friends (specialy after the desgausting agranat commision
white wash).


Syria didn't fare as bad as you portray it. Syrian tank conquared all but
a small part of the Golan and only a few Israeli tanks seperated it
them from victory.Syrians penetrated Israeli lines only in the south, destroying the 188th Brigade IDF in the process: in the north, they never managed to push past the 7th Brigade IDF positions on "Booster". Have you never even tried to read anything about the story of the Battle of Golan, in 1973?

There were and still are attempts to reach a peace
deal with Syria despite it lack of military strenght.There is nothing of this kind: since 1973 until today, Israel turned down - or outright ignored - no less but 29 Syrian and several Saudi, Kuwaiti and other negotiation proposals about Golan. That's, between others, also the reason why Assad then started supporting Palestinian terrorism against Israel...

Syria didn't capture the booster position but it's commandos captured
the Hermon position in the North and where advancing into Israel in the
south.

Israel and Syria were close to agreement in 1993 then at Wye
in late 1995 and had peace negotiations in Shepherdstown in 2003.

http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/Isreal_Syria99_12_13.asp

[Coop]

The 20,000 soviet advisers where not there to teach the Egyptians
how to play ice hockey. Altough Sadat kicked them out in July 73...Please, read Shazly: Sadat kicked them out already in 1972, at the time when the planning for Suez crossing was still at the stage of High Minarets.

The soviets helped in a massive air lift of supplies and threantend
Sadat that it wil stop if his forces don't push north and relieve the pressure of the Syrians....Sorry, this is utter nonsence. Their air-bridge was mainly flying supplies to Syrians; Egyptians were re-supplied from other countries, including Algeria and Yugoslavia.

And, Soviets never threatened Sadat with anything, especially not for his forces to "push north" (pushing north from the Sinai Peninsula means ending in the Mediterranean Sea). Please, read my previous posts: this with the Egyptian "offensive" on 14 October was exclusively an idea and order by Sadat and Ismail - and stood actually not even in connection with the situation on Golan: by 14th October the Syrian frontlines were stabilized since already two days, and Israelis not on advance any more.

1) Diging in (of the Egyptian army) mean occupieng a chunk of land
which is within the SAM umbrerla and defending it. This part worked
great for Egypt.Yes, but it was not a Soviet idea. The Soviet doctrine at the time envisaged only attack & advance; their troops did not even train defensive operations.

2) Protecting the Rear means not securing the supply root.
A reason more to conclude that the Egyptian plan had absolutely nothing to do with Soviets.

When Sharon and his troops arrive at the canal there was
very little resistance.When Sharon first attempted to drive on Suez, on the evening of 15 October, he lost control of the battle: his division fell apart and the operation ended with pieces and bits of his units being cut off deep in the Egyptian flank and rear - still short of their aims, and suffering heavy casualties. It required an armour tactician, like Adan, to set the situation straight, open Tirtur and Akavish roads and clean the Chinese farm - all of which was accomplished at heavy loss again. If you call this "very little resistance", then OK.

Syria didn't stop the advance but was delyed from advancing into
Israel some time by a few lonly tanks and some times by a single
crew that jumped from on damged tank to the other for example
Lieutenant Zvi Greengold (Tzvika force).
This bough enough time for the Israeli reserves to get into battle.Why don't you read Hammel and similar authors to see what happened?

O.K. then which other nation would consider the having the enemy at
the gate as a victory.Don't know, and it does not matter. What matters is that - regardless if you like it or not, if you think this is logical or not, and however you turn it - the Arabs consider the 1973 their victory for reasons I explained.

Finally Let me make some order here and put events in sequence.
Israel signed a peace deal in 79 with Egypt not because it feared it's
army but because of the radical change in Egypt philosophy which
severed ties with the USSR and moved to the US sphere of influance.
With US guarentees and NO Egyptian army in Sinai, Israel has nothing
to fear. Sadat's speech in the Knesset sealed the deal.I see. So, the shock caused by the war, ruine of the Israeli economy caused by immense defence spending of the 1970s and other, similar developments, US admin and Egyptian pressure have had nothing to do with this?


Read a little bit more about the shock this war caused in Israel and its effects on the Israeli way of considering their situation...

The shock lasted for a very long time. However the Israelis didn't
elect (1977) the peace oriented labour party but the mor enationalist
likud. clearly thet were shock but not stuiped enough to trust Golda
and her friends (specialy after the desgausting agranat commision
white wash).So, there was a shock, after all.

Re. this with elections: don't you think this happened because it was Golda Meir's admin that was in power at the time of the War, in 1973?

Israel and Syria were close to agreement in 1993 then at Wye
in late 1995 and had peace negotiations in Shepherdstown in 2003.Yeah, amazing how often were they "close to agreement" - the cases you mentioned are only three out of 29 - and how there is still no peace between Israel and Syria...

[alexz]

The 20,000 soviet advisers where not there to teach the Egyptians
how to play ice hockey. Altough Sadat kicked them out in July 73...Please, read Shazly: Sadat kicked them out already in 1972, at the time when the planning for Suez crossing was still at the stage of High Minarets.

You seem to forget that Syria was involved in a the war which it co-ordinated with Egypt. The Soviet advisers remined in Syria and one of the
first signes of the impeding war was the rapid departure of the families
of this advisers from syria a few days befire the start of the war.
seems like the Russian were very aware of the war plans despite
your deniles.


The soviets helped in a massive air lift of supplies and threantend
Sadat that it wil stop if his forces don't push north and relieve the pressure of the Syrians....Sorry, this is utter nonsence. Their air-bridge was mainly flying supplies to Syrians; Egyptians were re-supplied from other countries, including Algeria and Yugoslavia.


Operation Operation Nickel Grass was in response to soviet resuply
of the Egyptian and Syrian armies. Niether Algeria or Yugoslvia
had enough equipment to tranfer or the means for an air lift.
I'm not sure the soviet equiped algeria with SAM-2 and Saggers but
i could be wrong. How ever non of that would have happened
(if it happened) without soviet approval in the first place.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/yom_kippur.htm


And, Soviets never threatened Sadat with anything, especially not for his forces to "push north" (pushing north from the Sinai Peninsula means ending in the Mediterranean Sea). Please, read my previous posts: this with the Egyptian "offensive" on 14 October was exclusively an idea and order by Sadat and Ismail - and stood actually not even in connection with the situation on Golan: by 14th October the Syrian frontlines were stabilized since already two days, and Israelis not on advance any more.

1) Diging in (of the Egyptian army) mean occupieng a chunk of land
which is within the SAM umbrerla and defending it. This part worked
great for Egypt.Yes, but it was not a Soviet idea. The Soviet doctrine at the time envisaged only attack & advance; their troops did not even train defensive operations.

2) Protecting the Rear means not securing the supply root.
A reason more to conclude that the Egyptian plan had absolutely nothing to do with Soviets.

When Sharon and his troops arrive at the canal there was
very little resistance.When Sharon first attempted to drive on Suez, on the evening of 15 October, he lost control of the battle: his division fell apart and the operation ended with pieces and bits of his units being cut off deep in the Egyptian flank and rear - still short of their aims, and suffering heavy casualties. It required an armour tactician, like Adan, to set the situation straight, open Tirtur and Akavish roads and clean the Chinese farm - all of which was accomplished at heavy loss again. If you call this "very little resistance", then OK.



On Oct 15th Sharon's offensive attacked the Egyptian line just north of Bitter Lake, near Ismailiya (North Of the Canal). The Israelis struck at a weak point in the Egyptian line, the "seam" between the Egyptian second Army in the north and the Egyptian third Army in the south.
Thos was the Major supply rout and this section wasn't well defended.
the Chinese farm battle was onethe most brutal fighting of the war
with many Israeli casualties. This was in preperation to cross the canal.
The Fighting was done by the Israeli paratrooper which were not backed
by tanks or were a division as you claim. A small force crossed the
canal and on oct 16/17 Adan's division crossed and raced south to cut
off the Egyptian third Army and Adan sent commandos to destory artillery
and SAM batteries still operating just east of the canal.



O.K. then which other nation would consider the having the enemy at
the gate as a victory.Don't know, and it does not matter. What matters is that - regardless if you like it or not, if you think this is logical or not, and however you turn it - the Arabs consider the 1973 their victory for reasons I explained.


There is no dispute that the arabs consider 73 war as a victory.
I just claimed that it results in cultural deferences unique to the
arabs.


Read a little bit more about the shock this war caused in Israel and its effects on the Israeli way of considering their situation...

The shock lasted for a very long time. However the Israelis didn't
elect (1977) the peace oriented labour party but the mor enationalist
likud. clearly thet were shock but not stuiped enough to trust Golda
and her friends (specialy after the desgausting agranat commision
white wash).[/quote]So, there was a shock, after all.

Re. this with elections: don't you think this happened because it was Golda Meir's admin that was in power at the time of the War, in 1973?
[/quote]

Duh. Yes, The government that allowed the enemy to fool it and
cause so many casualties and then tries to obsove it's from responsiblity
didn't last long. What a surprise.


Israel and Syria were close to agreement in 1993 then at Wye
in late 1995 and had peace negotiations in Shepherdstown in 2003.Yeah, amazing how often were they "close to agreement" - the cases you mentioned are only three out of 29 - and how there is still no peace between Israel and Syria...[/quote]

You claimed that Israel turned down 29 negotiation proposals. I just
proved that not only they weren't turned down but they were actually negotiating. There is no deal because there isn't a solution that satisfies
but sides. There was no sincerity in assad (the father) or willingness
for peace that Sadat has.

[Coop]

You seem to forget that Syria was involved in a the war which it co-ordinated with Egypt.Syria and Egypt coordinated only one thing: the time of the initial strike.

All their other moves - and aims - were uncoordinated: they were, after all, impossible to coordinate.

The Soviet advisers remined in Syria and one of the
first signes of the impeding war was the rapid departure of the families
of this advisers from syria a few days befire the start of the war.
seems like the Russian were very aware of the war plans despite
your deniles.As a matter of fact: a small number of Soviet advisers remained in Egypt too.

However, this does not mean that they were involved in planning for the war - regardless if in Egypt or Syria. There were no Soviet advisers in High Commands of either country, nor anywhere above the brigade level.

Operation Operation Nickel Grass was in response to soviet resuply
of the Egyptian and Syrian armies. Niether Algeria or Yugoslvia
had enough equipment to tranfer or the means for an air lift.Algeria had a SAM-brigade (two battalions with three SAM-sites each) in Egypt already since 1970; plus, it has sent 40 fighter-bombers already on 7 October, followed by a ship-load of T-55s few days later. Yugoslavia sent a ship with 160 T-55s already around 12th October, when the Soviet airlift was still minimal and mainly concentrating on Syria, just for example. Such supplies were of ultimate importance considering the fact that:
- a) Egypt lost over 1.000 MBTs between 14 and 16 October
- b) not a single T-55 arrived as replacement from the USSR before the ceasefire, on 24 October.

I'm not sure the soviet equiped algeria with SAM-2 and Saggers but
i could be wrong. How ever non of that would have happened
(if it happened) without soviet approval in the first place.Algerians did not care the least about Soviet aprovals or not. And, don't worry: they've had both, the SA-2 and SA-3, and also AT-3s, in 1973 - and plenty of them. After all, they could afford such stuff, because of their oil resources.

On Oct 15th Sharon's offensive attacked the Egyptian line just north of Bitter Lake, near Ismailiya (North Of the Canal).I'm sorry, but task of Sharon's division was to outflank Egyptian positions along the shores of the Great Bitter Lake, then secure Akavish and Tirtur roads, and simultaneously establish a bridgehead "in Africa", over which Adan's division was to stampede first to the West and then South. Out of these three, Sharon managed only one: crossing the Suez.

Ismailia, BTW, is almost 40km from the place this was going on: looks close on the map, but - trust me - is quite a different not only when you try to drive that route in Egyptian traffic, but even more so when you put all the millitary that was stationed there at the time.

The Israelis struck at a weak point in the Egyptian line, the "seam" between the Egyptian second Army in the north and the Egyptian third Army in the south.In essence, there was no "seam" between the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian Army: they never managed to join their bridgeheads into one. That's also the reason why the Egyptian 25 Armoured Brigade was mauled on the morning of 16th: it attempted to pass the open area between these two bridgeheads, along the shores of the Great Bitter Lake.

Thos was the Major supply rout and this section wasn't well defended.There were no major supply routes in this area: it was empty until the Israelis captured it, on 16 October 1973.

the Chinese farm battle was onethe most brutal fighting of the war
with many Israeli casualties. This was in preperation to cross the canal.
The Fighting was done by the Israeli paratrooper which were not backed
by tanks or were a division as you claim.I never claimed anything even similar.

I would, however, always immediately confirm that the Chinese Farm was no "preparation" for crossing the Canal. It was a necessity.

The fact was that the Egyptian positions on the Chinese Farm were in the middle between the Akavish, Tirtur and Lexicon roads, and therefore blocking all the main communication routes the Israelis needed in order to bolster their bridgehead over the Suez, and to bring in their heavy pontoon bridges to the Suez.

The Israeli paras were brought in to mop up the Chinese Farm, because this was impossible to be done by Israeli armour. Besides, they attacked by night - which was also the reason why were they not supported by tanks (at least not until the following morning).

There is no dispute that the arabs consider 73 war as a victory.
I just claimed that it results in cultural deferences unique to the
arabs.And I'll again say that this has nothing with the culture as such. It has to do with the way one fights wars. One could say that this is a part of somebody's culture, but I'd say it is not.


Read a little bit more about the shock this war caused in Israel and its effects on the Israeli way of considering their situation...

The shock lasted for a very long time. However the Israelis didn't
elect (1977) the peace oriented labour party but the mor enationalist
likud. clearly thet were shock but not stuiped enough to trust Golda
and her friends (specialy after the desgausting agranat commision
white wash).So, there was a shock, after all.

Re. this with elections: don't you think this happened because it was Golda Meir's admin that was in power at the time of the War, in 1973?


Duh. Yes, The government that allowed the enemy to fool it and
cause so many casualties and then tries to obsove it's from responsiblity
didn't last long. What a surprise.Then we're in agreement here.

You claimed that Israel turned down 29 negotiation proposals. I just
proved that not only they weren't turned down but they were actually negotiating. There is no deal because there isn't a solution that satisfies
but sides. There was no sincerity in assad (the father) or willingness
for peace that Sadat has.Yes, I said Israel turned down 29 negotiation proposals, and I'm sure this figure is correct. Negotiating three times about something, while turning down almost ten times as many proposals is the same as not negotiating at all - especially if one is at the same time doing whatever is possible to isolate the other side, show it that it is isolated and unheard, and then also annecting parts of its soil. Such behaviour is provocative, not anything that develops trust or shows sincere intentions for negotiations.

[Coop]

...double post

[Mr. Nielsen]

Coop:

In regards to your comments on litterature on the 1973 war, I was wondering if you had some comments on Chaim Herzogs: the war of atonement?

[Coop]

Sorry, I never read it, so can't comment about that book.

[K-9s BEST]

Dear Coop, ... the actual truth about Operation Nickle Grass and the myth of how it "saved" Israel. This comes from the GAO (General Accounting Office) in its assessment of Airlift Capabilities and Their Results.
1) The first request from Israel was on Oct. 7 (refused)
2) The second request came on Oct. 8 from the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. (also refused)
3) On Oct. 12 tacit approval for air-to-air missiles to be shipped via El Al from USAF Bases in U.S.A. was granted. 2 flights were made before El Al stopped due to impracticality of this effort.
4) Nixon receives intel from ASA that USSR has initiated resupply of Syrian SAMs and agrees with Kissinger to allow the USAF C-141s & C-5s to carry arms to Lod Airport. Nixons` order to Defense Dept. is dated Oct. 13, and is publicly reported in NYT on Oct. 15.
5) It took 9 hours to load the first flight. (100 tons of 105mm howitzer shells) leaving from Dover AFB and was delayed another 4-6 hours due to bad weather and political dickering over landing rights. In the end, all flights had to refuel in the Azores.
6) The USAF supplied only 32 ALCE (airlift control element) personnel to Lod. (12 cargo handlers-20 communications) Israeli schoolchildren helped in the unloading.
7) 4 M-60 tanks were delivered between Oct 18-22. 25 more arrived after the ceasefire took effect. (!)
8) Only 39% of the total material supplied arrived BEFORE the ceasefire.
9) Israel expressed its gratitude to the U.S. ...the GAO concludes its report stating..."in our opinion, the small quantities of armor delivered had NO effect on the war".

[K-9s BEST]

Re: 1973. The Israelis realized that the Syrian threat took precedence over pushing the Egyptians back over the canal and reacted as such. By Oct 9, the Syrians had in effect lost all gains other than Mt. Hermon.
On the Southern Front, had Gen. Shmuel Gonen not made his armored attack before waiting for infantry support, things would have looked better. Sharon who had planned for a canal crossing for several years, (he was against the Bar-Lev Line from the onset) was SUPPOSED to only secure the crossing site and allow a fresh tank division to roll thru his.
Ego and the delay of getting the bridging equipment to the canal caused the bulk of the casualities.
Sidenotes: of the 17 bunkers that made up the Bar-Lev Line, 4 were unoccuppied on Oct. 6. Of the 290 Israeli tanks that were SUPPOSED to be in the Sinai, less than 100 actually were anywhere near the canal. They had to contend with a crossing force of 5 infantry divisions, 1700 tanks.

[Mr. Nielsen]

On the Southern Front, had Gen. Shmuel Gonen not made his armored attack before waiting for infantry support, things would have looked better.

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.

[Mr. Nielsen]

Sorry, I never read it, so can't comment about that book.

Ok.

[Coop]

Dear Coop, ... the actual truth about Operation Nickle Grass and the myth of how it "saved" Israel....Feel free to correct me, but I don't remember to have ever said anything of this kind - on this forum or anywhere else.

I did, however, say to Alex, that the USAFE had no problems to fly its F-4Es to Israel because of - as he explained - certain European countries closing their airspace for these (on the other side: even if anybody did something of this kind, it was their full right to do so).

And, I think it should definitely be remarked, that these 43 F-4Es delivered to Israel were much more important than four M-60s. Also, if the deliveries you mentioned were as "unimportant" and "late" as you imply, then why have the USA sent all the 20.000+ tonns top Israel per own transport aircraft (not to talk about all the stuff transported by El Al aircraft)? This would be definitely a very stupid (and expensive) thing to do if these supplies were not urgently needed....Or, would you like to say that the Israelis lied to the USA?

Well, it wouldn't be the first or the last time....

[K-9s BEST]

Mr. Neilsen, I use the reference to Gen. Gonen not as an "ifs, ands, or buts" option, but to illustrate what happens when even generals DON`T follow orders. Dayan wanted the IDF to withdraw all armor to the Mitla Pass, Sharon wanted to attack and cross at a location code named "Lakekan", and Elazar was undecided. In the first few days after the Oct. 6, there was not enough IDF armor to mount offensive operations, and those few armored forays (1 batallion 24 tanks) the first day and another batallion the 2nd day were to RESCUE those soldiers trapped in the Bar-Lev bunkers. Those ops failed with one of the batallions losing 22 tanks and the other 16. Orders for Gonens` attack were never issued and rather than wait for more reserves, he acted.
In its failure, it also emboldened the Egyptian 21st Army to send its` armor into the Sinai on Oct. 14, where it promptly lost 320 tanks vs 6 Israeli tanks in its first day. The next day, Elazar gave the order to cross the canal on Oct 16. (Gonen left the IDF in disgrace & now lives in Africa.)

[K-9s BEST]

Dear Coop... notwithstanding your view of past events, I am TRYING to explain how Nixons` decision(s) were purely Cold War politics against the USSR and NOT thru any motivated interest for Israel or her war. If the reverse were true, the first 4 requests would not have been rejected. On Oct 5 the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. was implicitly told that if Israel preempted, there would definitely be NO aid from the U.S. (Something a really good friend would do?) The State Dept advocated never sending any aid. To defer to Kissinger, Nixon ordered the Defense Dept to prepare but not start until he gave the order. The Soviet rush to re-supply Syria was the deciding factor. Kissinger in his role as National Security advisor viewed no aid to Israel as a Soviet "victory".
Again, by Oct. 10, Syria was NO LONGER the serious threat ,and IDF resources began to be transfered to the Southern Front. IDF armor began successful OFFENSIVE operations on Oct. 14, before the U.S. supply could have any influence. The U.S. response was also a WARNING to Russia that if Soviet TROOPS entered on Syrias` behalf, that the U.S would get further involved. The line about Israeli "lies"... while revealing about your mindset, should be replaced back in your conspiracy file until the next political thread. Ciao.

[K-9s BEST]

My last words on this topic... while opinionated discourse is the premise of this forum, it invariably convolutes into a miasma of the uninformed, partially informed ,informed but biased, outright ignorant, and sometimes the truth. People accept what they WANT to accept. Coop draws his historical inferences from books, and the internet, and what else? Regarding the 1973 war, I was in the U.S.Army whose unit was tasked in analyzing ALL intel, (photo, satellite, radio intercept,etc.) and forwarding the assessment to Washington. We handled the encrypted communications for Kissinger starting in !972. The media was not usually a reliable translation of events as they happened. A few months after the ceasefire took effect, I had the opportunity (in a lifetime) to visit the Sinai battlegrounds and ask questions to IDF veterans (tankers & paratroops) who crossed with Sharon and those who fought at the Chinese Farms area north of Tritur. (Colonels, Capts., and Sgts.) The highlight was visiting the Golan and the Valley of Tears where many of the destroyed Syrian tanks still lay. The blackened patches of earth showed where other tanks had been destroyed before IDF cleanup crews removed them.
Again I got to interview combat veterans. And, the bonus was being in a group addressed by Yitzak Rabin as he went over the events of the war.
My views come with THAT slant. If I have to argue with those who "read" about the Yom Kippur War... well,...never mind.

[K-9s BEST]

And to Coop... if you`re lazy you`ll say that the Phantoms came from the 36th TFW based at Bittburg, cause it says so on some internet sites.
A little good research from USAF says the planes came from the 4th TFW, an Air National Guard Unit based at Seymour Johnson AFB North Carolina, and the 401st TFW based at Torrejon AFB, Spain. The majority arrived between Oct. 18-22, with the remainder after Oct. 25.
At the start of the war the IAF had 120 operational Phantoms, and lost 22 to enemy fire. Tom Cooper lists the serial #s of all downed F-4Es in IAF service.

[Coop]

I always wonder how many people with such special capabilities like ability to read one's mind over thousands of kilometres - are out there on the internet?

There must be thousands - including K-9. Then, thanks Lord and your capabilities, Mister, you know that all of my knowledge about this topic comes from books. Better than that: you know my mindset, you know I talk about conspiracies, know I never served in the military or where I've been the last 30-40 years or so...I guess you also know the name of my grandpa and the size of my shoes, eh?

Sorry, but I can't explain by any other means how else could you came to the idea to conclude anything of what you're accusing me above, then all I mentioned in this context was an answer to question for suggested reading. That is, except you have telepathic capabilities... Have you got these in the US Army, or is your service automatically translating into the fact that you know everything better, and are always right, regardless if you miss the whole context of discussion at hand?

Well, of course, it is impossible for anybody else to have served anywhere in any kind of military - US or not, ever before or after - except you. This is especially the case if this somebody has - regardless if only to a specific part - different opinion and standpoints than yours. Namely, if somebody has a different opinion than you, then it's of no importance that this somebody perhaps travelled to these battlefields (not to talk about quite some other), have seen them with his own eyes, or - Lord forbid - talked with participants and eyewitnesses. Even if, what's the point: hell, you were in the US Army intelligence. What a better place to be informed about the Arab-Israeli wars, but to sit there in that office, 7.000km away...

notwithstanding your view of past events, I am TRYING to explain how Nixons` decision(s) were purely Cold War politics against the USSR and NOT thru any motivated interest for Israel or her war.And? Please, be so kind and point me at the place where I said anything different?

Ho do you actually want to know that my opinion regarding the US or Soviet/Russian view at Arab-Israeli wars is different than yours - especially if you never asked me?

Because this is a thread about Arabs in War, and I'm trying to explain the Arab viewpoints and their way of thinking?

If the reverse were true, the first 4 requests would not have been rejected. On Oct 5 the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. was implicitly told that if Israel preempted, there would definitely be NO aid from the U.S. (Something a really good friend would do?) The State Dept advocated never sending any aid. To defer to Kissinger, Nixon ordered the Defense Dept to prepare but not start until he gave the order. The Soviet rush to re-supply Syria was the deciding factor. Kissinger in his role as National Security advisor viewed no aid to Israel as a Soviet "victory".Beautiful. Really magnificent explanations. I could discuss some details then what I read in various US intel documents I've got released according to FOIA procedure things look differently, but who cares now. What I'd like to know is: in which context does this stands to anything I ever stated, wrote, or else - privately or in public - so that you're "teaching" me about this all in the first place? Who told you that I don't know about this all?

The line about Israeli "lies"... while revealing about your mindset, should be replaced back in your conspiracy file until the next political thread.Read that line again and leave my mindset be my own problem.

And, re. conspiracy: don't put your own words into my mouth.

Coop draws his historical inferences from books, and the internet, and what else? Regarding the 1973 war, I was in the U.S.Army whose unit was tasked in analyzing ALL intel, (photo, satellite, radio intercept,etc.) and forwarding the assessment to Washington. We handled the encrypted communications for Kissinger starting in !972....Nice. Tell me now something: are you the only one to have ever been to Sinai, especially to the area known as "Chinese Farm"? Are you the only one to have ever been to Golan, or could it be there are people who visited both sides? Are you going to say that you're the only one to have ever had the opportunity to de-brief vets of these battles?

Oh, and, BTW, you talked with Israelis: so what? I'm doing the same since years: I'm still in contact with a party of people that used to serve with Adan's Ugdah. But, have you ever de-briefed any Arab vets from that war (and that for days)?

This is not making me anything special, nor do I find this a reason to brag at anybody at each and every opportunity, or threat him like an adolescent. The point is that such sources are not available to everybody here: so, should I now be explaining to some interested teenager, "son, travel to Egypt and find yourself few of former Egyptian T-62-drivers in order to learn what was going on there...."?

Is it now so that one can behave the way you do, bash somebody, put the words into his mouth and do whatever you want, because you've been there and talked with few Israelis?

Oh, yeah: you met Yitzak Rabin. I guess I'll have to throw myself on the ground whenever you post a single additional sentence - while wondering what should you be doing if I post the list of people I met....

Could you, please, come down from this ivory tower, Mr. "K-9", or is that too much to ask from you?

I could understand if realization that you're not the only one here who served in the military ever might be too much to grasp, but, you could do so at least for the sake of this discussion. After all, there might be a prupose for existence of internet forums - like this one. If nothing else, you could at least try to read more carefully...

[Coop]

And to Coop... if you`re lazy you`ll say that the Phantoms came from the 36th TFW based at Bittburg, cause it says so on some internet sites.Who said my source was internet - or are you reading my mind again?

A little good research from USAF says the planes came from the 4th TFW, an Air National Guard Unit based at Seymour Johnson AFB North Carolina, and the 401st TFW based at Torrejon AFB, Spain. The majority arrived between Oct. 18-22, with the remainder after Oct. 25.If you want to talk about such details, then get them right at least.

Op Nickel Grass began already on 13 October, with first exUSAF F-4Es arriving in Israel already by 15 October. If the first F-4Es were delivered only between 18 and 20 October, namely, it would be impossible for at least four of them - including 66-0352, 67-0326, 67-0346 and 71-0246 - to have been shot down by Arabs already by 20 October. In fact, the 66-0352 was lost already on 17 October.

The fact that none of these transfers was shown in any FMS transfer list before 19 October, means not that they did not take place. It only shows that too much dependence on official documents is not leading in the right direction either. Call it a "conspiracy", if you like, but the USAF is not always taking greatest possible care about such "details" like dates or serials: it didn't do that in the case of RF-4Cs that operated out of Israel already in 1967, and even less so in the case of A-wired RF-4Cs that flew recce missions over the USSR - from Iran, in the early 1970s - and were subsequently sold to IIAF...

At the start of the war the IAF had 120 operational Phantoms, and lost 22 to enemy fire. Tom Cooper lists the serial #s of all downed F-4Es in IAF service.I know about Cooper and his blow-by-blow research: I'd say it's the only way to find out what happened there.

But, I don't know where did he ever list the serial Nos. of all the IDF/AF F-4Es downed in 1973. If he did so, I missed something extremely interesting. How about supporting this with some evidence?

[K-9s BEST]

Wow, ...such umbrage taken!!!
I didn`t brandish the background of my "experiences" as the delineating final WORD on the events of the Yom Kippur War, to the exclusion of other participants whom might have knowledge of events others would not be privy. My main responses to your posts (May 23, 6:28-May 25, 6:01-Jun 27, 6:04-Jun 28, 9:36) are fostered not with animus to your opinions, but you`re rewriting of events not borne out fact.
Example: May 23, 6:28 "Syrian front stabilized Oct 12..." WRONG!
By Oct 9, there was no further advance by Syrian tanks, allowing the IDF to began transfering units on Oct 10.
"their militaries are neither organized or equipped..." RIGHT! All IDFs` casualities were caused spitballs. (can you read a TOE?)
"Arab fighting...first strike...short conflict...matters solved through political negotiation,,," What Middle East are YOU watching? (I guess -throw the Jews in the sea - is just flowery prose?)
"...more Israeli tanks than Egyptian..." You probably MEANT to say -at the END of the fighting?
May 25, 6:01 "...even Israeli sources confirm that there was no plan for an invasion...in 1967." See, when you say something like that the logic just goes away.
Jun 27, 6:04 " reasons they(Arabs) went to war...recovering military pride" "Egypt could`ve lost all of its army, navy, air force..." Military pride is victory of arms, or in defeat, a valiant stand against overwhelming force.
"40 IAF aircraft/helos downed in air combat..." No proof of THAT.
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/losses
It lists all victories & losses by the IAF since 1948.
Jun28, 9:36 "a) the Syrians STOPPED their advance at the critical moment..." NO, the IDF stopped the Syrian advance. (small point)
"b) the Egyptian president...and then ignored the Israeli counterattack for 2 days" Yeah, 2 IDF tank divisions cross the canal & Sadat says-Let`s ignore them! Maybe you meant to say he was IGNORANT of their presense until Kosygin showed him satellite photos?
"like Adan to...clean the Chinese Farm". Maybe the friends of yours in your last post forgot to mention that it was 300 paratroopers from the 890th Battalion who ACTUALLY did the cleaning w/o armor.
See, Coop, I don`t know everything about EVERY THING, and documents can be inaccurate, and heavens knows that 5 years living in the Middle East doesn`t make me an EXPERT, and my military service pales besides others, and I never interviewed Egyptian/Syrian Generals for their opinions, and I have little,...mmm NO, interest in your grandpa`s age or your shoe size. OBVIOUSLY, you have access to "facts" I or others don`t, and THAT`S just fine. I somehow get the impression you really know MORE about the IDF than even Israelis do, and an even BETTER comprehension of the Arab mind over everyone else.
I can`t say its` been fun, cause it hasn`t. You may have the last word and declare "victory", but if you do have a riposte, keep it clean and pithy.

[speckfire]

All this talk is bla bla bla this bla bla bla that. There is only 1 thing that saves Israel time and time again against full scale wars and that's it's Airforce. Everything else is extra !!!! The IAF is the key. When Israel controls the skies... that's it..... the game is over for it's enemies. No but's.. ifs ... or ..why's. It's a clear fact.

[Kaplanr]

If you can get a hold of it, the other good book to read, albeit from the Israeli side, is David Elazar's biography Dado: 48 Years and 20 More Days by Hanoch Bar-Tov.

What makes it an intriguing read is the look at mid level staffers in the IDF General Staff. Usually we read books that focus on the National command structure or the tactical level, this falls in-between. You also get the idea that Sharon was a loose cannon, though Bar-Tov isn't as harsh as Adan is in his book.

As to the Golan. The Syrians didn't stop us as much as we ran out of steam, and saw no reason to continue. There was nothing else to be gained by continuing on. We got to the point of being one artillery battery from Damascus.

[Coop]

Interesting, K-9, how you blissfully ignored EVERY single of my questions.... rofl rofl rofl

I guess you didn't even read them, right?

Wow, ...such umbrage taken!!!
I didn`t brandish the background of my "experiences" as the delineating final WORD on the events of the Yom Kippur War, to the exclusion of other participants whom might have knowledge of events others would not be privy. My main responses to your posts (May 23, 6:28-May 25, 6:01-Jun 27, 6:04-Jun 28, 9:36) are fostered not with animus to your opinions, but you`re rewriting of events not borne out fact.
Example: May 23, 6:28 "Syrian front stabilized Oct 12..." WRONG!
By Oct 9, there was no further advance by Syrian tanks, allowing the IDF to began transfering units on Oct 10.
How often did I already say, you should be reading more carefully?

That would help you to see that I was explaining about situation from the SYRIAN side - because the talk was that the Egyptians have launched their offensive in order to decrease Israeli pressure upon Syria. The Syrians, K-9 - repat: SYRIANS - have stabilized THEIR frontlines by the 12 October. This is an important fact, then - according to what such ignorants like you explain - Egypt launched its offensive on 14 October in order to decrease Israeli pressure upon Syria.

Now, if you'd really know what this mean in the whole context of this war, it would perhaps make sence to explain you why is this fact so important. Given, however, that yo do not read, and even less so understand, what I write, it makes no sence at all.

You'll illustrate this as next explaining that there was only one side in that war - that of Israel, and there is nothing else that matters or counts...

It was their
"their militaries are neither organized or equipped..." RIGHT! All IDFs` casualities were caused spitballs. (can you read a TOE?) :roll:
I said already several times: READ CAREFULLY.

My WHOLE sentence says: Their militaries are in essence neither organized nor equipped, and even less so trained, for protracted campaigns, manoeuvring warfare and similar facetes of modern armed conflict. Their regimes do not consider such capabilities as important: they can only consider them as "dangerous" (for themselves).

Having problem with READING WHOLE SENTENCES?

No? Then, how comes you draw a completely - and utterly - wrong conclusion on the basis of its first few words?

"Arab fighting...first strike...short conflict...matters solved through political negotiation,,," What Middle East are YOU watching? (I guess -throw the Jews in the sea - is just flowery prose?)What has THIS to do with what I said about the ARAB WAY OF FIGHTING WARS?

"...more Israeli tanks than Egyptian..." You probably MEANT to say -at the END of the fighting?Aha. And? If you find this "wrong", then why are you so obviously too lazy to show you're right and explain us how many MBTs has the Egyptian Army had at the onset of the war? How many MBTs has the Syrian Army had at the onset of the war - and how many MBTs has the Israeli Army had at the same time?

May 25, 6:01 "...even Israeli sources confirm that there was no plan for an invasion...in 1967." See, when you say something like that the logic just goes away.Can you cite any of your phantastic US Army documents, any Israeli or Arab document, specifying any kind of details of any kind of an Arab military plan for an invasion of Israel, Mr. Logic?

Jun 27, 6:04 " reasons they(Arabs) went to war...recovering military pride" "Egypt could`ve lost all of its army, navy, air force..." Military pride is victory of arms, or in defeat, a valiant stand against overwhelming force.Are you only able of unrelated, nonsensical babbling, or could you finally state also something that makes sence?

If the later is the case: how do you then explain the reasons for Arabs going to a war with Israel, in 1973? Show me that you're at least worth loosing time...

"40 IAF aircraft/helos downed in air combat..." No proof of THAT.
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/losses
It lists all victories & losses by the IAF since 1948.As first: we are not talking about "all victories & losses by the "IAF" (the correct designation is IDF/AF) since 1948: we are talking about IDF/AF losses in air-to-air combats during the war in 1973.

As second, you mentioned Tom Cooper as your source: he is the first better-known (in the public) author who mentions such a figure for Israeli losses during that war.

As third: you complained I'm using "only books & internet": all the "evidence" you're now providing is an internet website.

So, can you at least provide a list of Israeli losses, one by one, in 1973 - in order to show me wrong?

Jun28, 9:36 "a) the Syrians STOPPED their advance at the critical moment..." NO, the IDF stopped the Syrian advance. (small point)I see. So, how do you explain the reasons for the Syrian 132 Mechanised Brigade to stop its advance toward el-Fiq - when there was actually nothing in front of it left to defend the road towards the Sea of Galilee?

"b) the Egyptian president...and then ignored the Israeli counterattack for 2 days" Yeah, 2 IDF tank divisions cross the canal & Sadat says-Let`s ignore them! Maybe you meant to say he was IGNORANT of their presense until Kosygin showed him satellite photos?Can you cite even a single Arab source that would confirm this statement of yours?

"like Adan to...clean the Chinese Farm". Maybe the friends of yours in your last post forgot to mention that it was 300 paratroopers from the 890th Battalion who ACTUALLY did the cleaning w/o armor.To which Ugdah was Col. Uzzi Ya'iri's Paratroop brigade attached?

To Laner's? To Peled's, to Sharon's - or, could it have been Adan's?

Considering the answer, what is actually your point? Quarrel at any price?

See, Coop, I don`t know everything about EVERY THING, and documents can be inaccurate, and heavens knows that 5 years living in the Middle East doesn`t make me an EXPERT, and my military service pales besides others, and I never interviewed Egyptian/Syrian Generals for their opinions, and I have little,...mmm NO, interest in your grandpa`s age or your shoe size. OBVIOUSLY, you have access to "facts" I or others don`t, and THAT`S just fine.You could've been born somewhere in the Middle East, and that would change nothing on the fact that what you're talking about here, what you're criticising me about, is nonsence. You failed even to read a single sentence of what I posted to the end. This is result of your sheer ignorance, resulting in prejudice and supositions, nothing else.

Let me now show you how good I am at reading your mind: You've noticed that there is somebody posting more to this topic, you've caught a glimpse of what he posted, you "know everything better", and so you started quarreling without writing my posts and - even less so having a point in the first place.

I somehow get the impression you really know MORE about the IDF than even Israelis do, and an even BETTER comprehension of the Arab mind over everyone else.
I can`t say its` been fun, cause it hasn`t. You may have the last word and declare "victory", but if you do have a riposte, keep it clean and pithy.Babblablah... You're leaving no impression at all - except that of somebody who got confused in time and space, mainly because you ignored plenty of road-signs - and even your own wrist-watch...


As to the Golan. The Syrians didn't stop us as much as we ran out of steam, and saw no reason to continue.That's disputable, to say the least. The fact is, that Laner definitely stopped his advance because of the appearance of the Iraqi 6th Mechanised Brigade/3rd Armoured Division and the Jordanian 40 Armoured Brigade in his southern flank.

Arguably, after the Iraqis were mauled, on the early morning of 13 October, there were further discussions about the sence of an advance towards Damascus. By the time Laner was ready to go on, the Iraqis bought time for the Syrians to close the gap in the lines of their 3rd Armoured Division: further advance would only cause additional heavy losses - like those sustained during over-confident and unsupported armour attacks against Tel Shams, on 11 October. It was this - together with arrival of additional Arab reinforcements (foremost the rest of the Iraqi 3rd Armoured) that resulted in the idea of stopping advance.

[K-9s BEST]

Well, Coop, you kept it clean but, bereft of any pithiness.After all this, I`m wondering just who you are and what your qualifications are other than your "debriefings" of every combatant, politician, etc. You have the audacity to actually challenge ANY point offered by anyone you take issue with. Apparently, you do know EVERYTHING about the YOM KIPPUR WAR (other than the little interest you`ve expressed about reading something on the internet about the naval Battle of Latakia).
Let me say this as succinctly as I can: I have absolutely NO, repeat, NO interest in the Arab view of the 1973 war. (WTF-how shocking!) I am not Israeli, not a Jew, and my loyalty is solely to the U.S. And I tend to rely on the more credible source of information emanating from the Middle East, and if that doesn`t meet YOUR level of verification ...pfft. You would have me believe you rather than my lying eyes. IMO, the Arabs view the truth as something to hide when it displeases them. You are more than welcome to use their input to shape your view of the war.
BTW, the website I listed does show the IAF losses in the 1973 war as claimed by the IAF. (Yeah right, I`ll post IAF instead of IDF/IAF if I want)
And , your previous post of me being 7000kms away, (even in a figurative sense), is WAAAAAAAY off.
If you have any Israeli IDF sources you use for your historical view, and can ID them on this website, please do. While removed from any MidEast contacts over the last 25 years, I have a friend here in NY whose father was in the Entebbe Raid in 1976 and is a storehouse of knowledge of what happened behind the scenes in 1973. If the sources are still alive in Israel, "Tom" is willing to contact them for me. (I`ll have to pay the phone bill, no matter.)

[Coop]

Oh, pittifull K-9...

You mix into a discussion explaining that - in essence - you're not accepting any other opinions, then you drank with Rabin and worked for US Army intel, which makes you an expert on Middle East par excellence; you don't read posts of the others but interpret excerpts from their sentences and read their minds; you don't answer even a single question pointed at you; do not supply any kind of evidence supporting your babbling, don't even have your own points right... (Nickel Grass should've been the code-name for the whole US air-bridge to Israel, in 1973, eh?)

You actually talk with yourself all the time about something that is not even interesting to you - but are then surprised with my reaction?

If you have "NO, repeat, NO interest in the Arab view of the 1973 war", then what to hell are you doing here?

(Or have you failed to read even the title of this thread?)

Let me conclude that I don't give a damn about you, your experiences, telephone numbers you (might) have or your opinion about Arabs, Chinese, even the USA at all: I doubt you see further than the tip of your nose. Even if you would have been a former President of the USA you're no authority in regards of Middle East because you're completely ignoring one of involved parties. Given you so openly refuse to study one of involved parties, your opinion about this conflict is completely and utterly irrelevant: you're not a schoolar, you're a clueless ignorant (which is what I said about you already several times, but also something you admit now yourself) with an illusion of grandeur - and as such you cannot contribute anything useful to this topic.

[K-9s BEST]

Someone needs a diaper change.

[Coop]

Yep; please, take a look into the nearest mirror. :roll:

[Turhapuro]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v336/Turhapuro/Hauskat/internet.jpg

[alexz]

Why Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Coop]

Because there are always people who have "NO, repeat, NO interest..." - in anyhting else but their own opinions.

[Coop]

Coop:

In regards to your comments on litterature on the 1973 war, I was wondering if you had some comments on Chaim Herzogs: the war of atonement?
I've found a copy today in the local bookshop and am reading it in the moment.

On the first look it appears to provide a very detailled account about Israeli political actions shortly before the war - which is no surprise: after all, it is a book by an Israeli military officer, and written only in 1974 or so. The author couldn't go into details about which he did not know.

[Coop]

To complete this "review":
The War of Atonement is - IMHO - a decent work to this topic, roughly equal to "No Victor, No Vanquished" but neither as detailled nor as well ballanced.

What disturbed me are two or three things I've heard about this book even before begining to read it, and which proved right:

- a) Herzog is emphasizing the Israeli perspective only; he describes some events related to Arabs, but in generaly neglects going more in-depth, especially about their combat performance

- b) there appear to be endlessly many heroic Israelis, and only "hundreds" of anonymous Arabs (to a degree it's good he did not use the expression "hordes" for the later)

- c) Herzog actually failed completely to detail the air war: he's not mentioning the heavy losses the IDF/AF survived on 7 October over Golan even with a single word, just for example. This is somewhat estranging given on the other side he's going into such details like mentioning that the SyAAF attempted to bomb Haifa, on 6 October, but that one of two Sukhois crashed underway... (in fact, the SyAAF attempted no such attacks - especially not on 6 October: the Syrians studied carefully the Israeli expectations; their conclusion was that the IDF/AF would in the case of such an surprising attack expect strikes against its own bases; consequently, the SyAAF flew no such strikes; as a result, for the first one hour the IDF/AF hardly flew a single mission over Golan, instead flying CAPs over central Israel, waiting for Syrian attacks that never came...).

- d) Herzog also neglects the SAM-impact and goes on to exaggerate the number of Arab SAM-sites supposedly destroyed in IDF/AF air strikes..

Also, his explanation that the IDF/AF lost "only five aircraft in air combats with Egyptians" appears to have been developed into a general acceptation as "five" being the figure for IDF/AF fighters lost in all air combats of this war. In fact, several other books about the Yom Kippour War I read cite this statement of Herzog in the sence that these "five" were all the losses the Israelis suffered in air combats, in 1973. Hard to believe the IDF/AF suffered no losses in air combats with Syrians or Iraqis, when the former have meanwhile published a number of gun-camera films.

Finally, he mentions plenty of sources, but credits none: there are no footnotes and no bibliography, leaving the reader wondering what are no few "Western published sources" Herzog mentions repeatedly.

In total, down to few details that are in an obvious need of more in-depth research, I don't think this book helped me understand this war better, or learn anything really interesting about it. This conclusion should be taken carefully, however: bear in mind I read a number of publications that came out much later, and were based on a much better and more detailled information. Plus, there are always first-hand sources...

[Mr. Nielsen]

To complete this "review":
The War of Atonement is - IMHO - a decent work to this topic, roughly equal to "No Victor, No Vanquished" but neither as detailled nor as well ballanced.

Thanks for the review. Read the "war of atonement" and to balance it, "No Victor, No Vanquished" some 10 years ago. Now was interesting to hear a review of them, from someone that put them in perspective with other and newer materials.

[Kaplanr]

Given who Herzog was and when he wrote the book, he didn't pen it to be balanced. In retrospect I think his goal was to write a military history that would be largely legitimate and take some of the sting out of Israel's failures during and preceding the war. He certainly had the credibility to do that. He didn't have any Arab sources available to him, save what the Israelis may have captured, and even the "official" Israeli records weren't open to him. O'Ballance had the advantage of 3-4 years on Herzog when his work was published.

As an aside. The "Official" IDF history of the Yom Kippur has yet to be released in English. What has been produced is still missing important elements, especially concerning the conduct of Israel's MI and of General Arik Sharon.

[Coop]

Nielsen,
bear in mind that there are people who consider "The War of Atonement" as "better" than "No Victor, No Vanquished". I found the later "better" for reasons I mentioned above, plus because I find it highly interesting - given that the author took great care to find Syrian, Iraqi and Egyptian commanders, eyewitnesses etc.


Kaplan,
we're in an agreement here - both, regarding Herzog, and re. Israelis not releasing their official history of that war.

In fact, most of the documents produced by their Agranat commission after the war are still held closed.

[Vorster]

I've been watching this thread for a while and here is my insight into a few points.

First tactics. The russian tactic of micro managing a battle is what cost the arabs. The russians are to rigid in their planning with lower echolon commanders having to follow the plan to the letter and not being allowed any iniative. If the plan fails he has to wait for the guy above to contact the guy above until they reach a high up enough guy which can make the decision. This was what NATO was barging on. That they can throw a sercious monkey wrench into the russians plans and then go onto the offensive when they are off balance.

Second Monkey Models. Jup the arabs got monkey models in large quantities and where well trained in their use. Take the sagger or RPG as example. Where they lacked was the application of these weapons.

Third Isreali Aerial Losses. Lets face it guys during the intial stages of the Yom Kippur war the ADS handed the IAF it's planes back in pieces. I believe they lost 80 planes in the first few days. These were mostly due to the ADS. But where the IAF met the arabs in the sky they sent them reeling down in flames. And this would be true for any airforce on the world - the IAF will beat them pants down. The US used them in the agressor role in the 80s but had to send them back because they were just to good and kept on winning. The SAAF sent some of our best fighter jocks there for training in the 80s and the results where the same.

Forthly IDF battle prowess. No one doubts the training and ability of the IDF. But they can sometimes be a bit cocky. Point in case was when they got their asses handed to them during the initial stages of the Yom Kippur war during the ill fated counterattack on day two of the war. Still the deciding factors which places the IDF above all other armies is motivation, training, tactics and expierence. Their motivation cannot be stronger: Fail and my country is destroyed. Training is some of the toughest and realistic in the world based on expierence gained during numerous wars. Tactics, even old Fast Heinz and Liddle-Hart would be impressed with what the IDF did with their baby. Their tactics for LIC and armored warfare is unparalleled in the world. But here is the kicker it is only applicable to their terrain and would fail misserably in the african bush down here. And lastly expierence. They have it in truck loads having fought, by the account of some, 7 wars.

My honest opinion was that the arabs were out generaled and out fought. Equipment isn't a major factor. It is the application of that equipment.

Before you start saying I am talking out of a twisted sense of patriotism here is two facts. I live in South Africa and I am a protestant. So no dice on that argument

[Lokos]

The russians are to rigid in their planning with lower echolon commanders having to follow the plan to the letter and not being allowed any iniative.

This is only a given as a Western stereotype. The Soviets, historically, were famously introspective and retrospective doctrinally (tactically, operationally and strategically). Whilst there was an emphasis on following orders 'to the letter', these orders were objective-driven - lower echelon commanders had plenty of leeway in how to go about achieving a given objective.

Lokos

[Vorster]

I might be wrong but this was the impresions whe got from fighting the Russian trained Angolans. Despite this it might not be the battalion level tactics which fail but the platoon level where the "The metal meets the meat", and the weapons have to be used.

[Lokos]

Having Russian advisors does not 'Russian-trained' equal. Especially when it comes to officer/NCO material.

Afghanistan was a pertinent example of Soviet low-level tactics. When the textbook solution failed - and it sometimes did - the textbook was changed to incorporate lessons learned from failure. Please, refrain from drawing conclusions about the Soviets from the performance of Angolans, who happened to have Soviet advisors on hand.

The entire Croat army received instruction from US sponsored, private security company personnel made up of former US soldiers between 1992 and 1995. Yet, the Croat army was not an indomitable foe on any level. I would hesitate to conclude that, therefore, the US would also be a weak foe. I am just trying to create an analogous situation, here.

Lokos

[Vorster]

I'll agree on that. If so the arabs are poor pupils and don't take the teachings of their masters to hart.

[Praetorian 05]

We have a saying in WV. "It's not the size of the dog in the fight; it's the the size of the fight in the dog than matters".

[Coop]

I've been watching this thread for a while and here is my insight into a few points.

First tactics. The russian tactic of micro managing a battle is what cost the arabs. The russians are to rigid in their planning with lower echolon commanders having to follow the plan to the letter and not being allowed any iniative.Vorster, beg your pardon, but.... The pure logic indicates, that for an army to be able to fight the way the Soviets were readying to fight in Central Europe for almost 40 years, this army needs also lower-rank officers (Lieutenants and NCOs) who are not only flexible, but also very much capable of adaptation to circumstances. That's what a war of swift manoeuvres and advances requires.

With other words: it must've been something else in the Arab case.

If the plan fails he has to wait for the guy above to contact the guy above until they reach a high up enough guy which can make the decision.That's the way the Arabs fought. The reason for this was not the inability of Arabs as soldiers, NCOs and officers, however, but the requirement for their regimes to survive, as well as the requirement for Syria and Egypt to attack simultaneously - at least in 1973. The Syrians, just for example, originally put together a really outstanding and highly promissing plan, which required a massive air and artillery onslaught in the early morning, followed by a massive heliborne operation against bridges on the River Jordan (to prevent Israeli reinforcements to reach Golan), and then a massive onslaught of their mechanised formations - led by the Republican Guards.

This plan was shelved - for several reasons, mainly different compromises between security and politics.

Assad didn't feet safe until other large units of his army were involved in fighting on Golan. Consequently, the Republican Guards units were held back in Damascus, as "strategic reserve" and for the defence of regime, until 8 October. The heliborne assault was dropped because the air strike had to become much smaller; in turn, the reason for this was that because of sinchronisation of the attack with Egypt, the preparations for the whole operation had to be executed on a quite minimal scale. Otherwise, the Israelis would recognize that the Syrians were coming etc.

Second Monkey Models. Jup the arabs got monkey models in large quantities and where well trained in their use. Take the sagger or RPG as example. Where they lacked was the application of these weapons.This was a part for which the Soviet design is to blame - if at all. The Soviets knew they'd be losing large number of tanks in a conflict with NATO, but they planned to overcome these by sheer numbers. Consequently, their tanks were not planned to last long, nor to provide the crew with some special kind of comfort - there was none of this in Soviet Army any way.

Equipped with Soviet weapons, the Syrians couldn't but follow this pattern, in 1973 - at least on the ground, and that's what they did. This does not mean that this is something like "wrong" or "good". That's the way that things are. It did not work for Syrians for a number of reasons - including eventual exhaustion of available stocks of tanks, slow deployment of specific reserves in specific points in time, the compromising background of the final battle-plan etc., and for other reasons. But, certainly not exclusively because the Israelis are always so "clearly superior" and the "Arabs always so clearly inferior", or because there should be a similar difference in quality between Western and Soviet weapon design.

The later was foremost felt in the air, where Arab MiG-21s were still equipped with the nifty R-3S (AA-2 Atoll): a weapon that simply couldn't track any kind of target manoeuvring at more than 2gs - but had to be deployed by Arab pilots against hard-manoeuvring targets...

Third Isreali Aerial Losses. Lets face it guys during the intial stages of the Yom Kippur war the ADS handed the IAF it's planes back in pieces. I believe they lost 80 planes in the first few days. These were mostly due to the ADS.This is partially truth (in the sence of 80+ losses in the first three days). But, subsequently, the Arab ADS became much less effective. SA-6s, for example, did not score a single kill after around 11th October. Interestingly, the MiGs were effective already on 7 October (surely, no Israeli source would confirm this), and continued being effective - almost to the same degree the SAMs were - during the second and third phase of the war, when the effectiveness of the SAMs gradually dropped to zero.

Forthly IDF battle prowess. No one doubts the training and ability of the IDF. But they can sometimes be a bit cocky. Point in case was when they got their asses handed to them during the initial stages of the Yom Kippur war during the ill fated counterattack on day two of the war. Still the deciding factors which places the IDF above all other armies is motivation, training, tactics and expierence. Their motivation cannot be stronger: Fail and my country is destroyed.That's right. This was a main force beyond their motivation even during that war - when there was definitely no Arab military plan nor intention for destruciton of Israel.

Training is some of the toughest and realistic in the world based on expierence gained during numerous wars. Tactics, even old Fast Heinz and Liddle-Hart would be impressed with what the IDF did with their baby.Here I agree only to a specific part: the IDF training was excellent, no doubt, but their discipline in 1973 was miserable, and courage was that of actually a limited number of persons in decisive positions. Read Asher and Hammel's "Duel for the Golan" to find out about Israeli troops time and again questioning the purpose of the whole war, about droves of them being forced back to the frontlines by officers that stopped them somewhere deep behind the frontlines.

Besides, the Arab tactics was not that much poorer than the Israeli: it did not came out of nothing that - especially on Golan - a number of IDF units was ambushed and suffered heavy losses; some were even wipped out. While it is clear to me that you'll find plenty of sources describing "magnificent" tactical moves of Israeli commanders, hardly any goes into details about reasons for whole companies being wipped out in return. A classic example is Rabinovich's account of Kotler's "heroics" on 6 October; the author gave a detailled account of how this commander fought that afternoon, but would not explain in detail how comes he ended the day with only two out of eleven original tanks in operational condition by the evening.... Also, most of the books about this war ignore Sharon's inability to smash Egyptians on Missouri despite days-long attacks, fiercely supported by IDF/AF, artillery and plenty of other stuff, not to talk about at least a dozen of different Arab "RPG-aces" this war produced. There must be a reason for this...

My honest opinion was that the arabs were out generaled and out fought. Equipment isn't a major factor. It is the application of that equipment.No and yes: it is the application of the equipment. But, if that equipment is almost as much used for the defence of own regime, and the whole battle plan adapted accordingly, that does not mean that the users are really inferior or anybody "out-generaled".

Under similar circumstances, however, you could say that the Israelis in Lebanon, in June 1982 were "out-generaled". For example, despite their (supposed) air superiority and so endlessly good integration of all kind of sensors, recce and C3-systems, they completely failed to get a proper picture of Syrian positions, and then also were fooled by the Syrian manoeuvre.

Namely, the IDF did not manage to break through the positions of the Syrian 1st Armoured Division, even if they forced parts of it to pull back (no wonder, given they deployed five own divisions against one Syrian). And then, when the Syrians - again in complete accordance with Soviet tactics - started replacing the battered units of the 1st Armoured by better-equipped 3rd Armoured - the cooky Israelis understood this manoeuvre as a "retreat" and ordered (on the evening of 10 June) their units into a pursuit.

As result a whole battalion of their tanks got trapped behind Syrian positions at Soultan-as-Yacub (and had to be extricated at quite a price on the following day), the 3rd Syrian Armoured Division got enough time to deploy even if being 12 hours late, and the IDF never managed to break through to the Beirut-Damascus highway.

Now, we can certainly argue about relatively heavy Syrian losses (in exchange for the fact that actual Israeli losses remain unknown), and Israeli descriptions about their successes against SAMs, MiGs, and T-72s are definitely nice, but: again, it was 1 vs. 5 in divisions alone.

[Vorster]

The Arabs made some gross tactical mistakes during the war. Take the battle near the bitter lakes when a brand new brigade was boxed in a destroyed by the isrealis. Also the ill fated attack by the Egyptians, which if properly coordinated would have punch through the isreali lines. Instead the units were deployed peacemeal.

On the overall I believe the Isrealis made less mistakes than the Arabs that was why they won.

A tanker in our tank corps once told me an isreali tanker told him that they only won because the arabs made silly mistakes.

On the disipline I cannot comment. I know that disipline isn't one of the strong points of the IDF. But reports that they had to force troops back into line? How did that get past the vaunted isreali sensors?

On the monkey models. The soviets apparently build large amounts of simpler versions for export. These versions were downgraded versions of the real thing so that if they are captured the west couldn't ascertian the true potential of the weapon.

Under application I would like to point to the construction of western tanks vis a vis russian tanks. The russian tanks had low profiles making them harder to hit on the move, but it cost them in the hull down especialy in the desert behind dunes. In Angola our Ratel 90 with their high profile would sit in the long buffalo grass and watch the T55 move by totally blind. They would then start driving round and round it shooting round after round of 90mm into it until it brewed. This is the same in the desert with the centurion siting behind a dune with a beter depresion angle on the gun brewing enemy vehicles as they climb up the slope. This is good as only the turret is exposed making a small target.

If the arabs new how to apply their equipment they would have know it was suicide to try dug in isreali tanks and though up of another plan playing on their strong points.

The syrians did this to a extend on the golan during the first night using the infra red lamps to target isreali tanks in the dark when they are blind. The egyptians did it with their atgw deployments in the sinia.

In defense the arabs seem to get their act to gether but in attack they don't seem so with it. Why did the syrians stop when the were so close to the jordan river. Why did the egyptians stop behind the canal. I know there is some talk of limited objectives. But if I were the commander on the spot I would have planned to go over to pursuit if my assault was an sucess.

The first principle of warfare in my book is to know your and your enemy's limitations and strengths and plan and develop tactics around them.

[Coop]

Let me start from the rear....

The Arabs made some gross tactical mistakes during the war. Take the battle near the bitter lakes when a brand new brigade was boxed in a destroyed by the isrealis. Also the ill fated attack by the Egyptians, which if properly coordinated would have punch through the isreali lines. Instead the units were deployed peacemeal.These two matters were not a mistake of "Arabs" as such, but that of Sadat and Ismail. As such, they were what can only be described as Egyptian Army "political" officers, a kind that developed already during the WWII, and which never brought any good to any Arab military.

It was these two who were ignoring the Israeli crossing of Suez for two days, and it was these two who ordered the 25th Brigade to launch a counterattack along the eastern side of the Great Bitter Lake, instead - as Shazly proposed - to be returned to the western side of Suez, then brought to north, and then sued to launch a counterattack directly against the Israeli bridgehead.

Re. Egyptian attack: I'm not sure which one are you talking about, but if it's the one from 14th October, then let me again say that this attack was not only completely unnecessary, but also could never succeed. No way. It was never a part of any other plan but the "High Minarets", which envisaged that the Soviets would have delivered all the weapons Egyptians were requesting - a situation Sadat and Shazly (and especially somebody as fiercely as anti-Soviet, as Ismail) knew could and would never occur. As such, the Spark plan saw no advance into Sinai further than the "Artillery Road" - and that was good so. Anything beyond that point was out of abilities of the Egyptian Army: Shazly knew this, Sadat too, and they accepted this fact. Ismal did not, and later Sadat changed his opinion. That's what led to the catastrophe of 14th October.

In defense the arabs seem to get their act to gether but in attack they don't seem so with it. Why did the syrians stop when the were so close to the jordan river.They were "as close" only at one point, and in that case the 132 Brigade stopped its advance for several reasons: losses, exhaustion, and temporary break-down of supply and command chains. Part of this unit, and an armoured brigade nearby were actually sent to patrol ahead, but were ambushed by the Israelis only four kilometres from B'not Jacuv bridge, and wipped out.

Why did the egyptians stop behind the canal. I know there is some talk of limited objectives. But if I were the commander on the spot I would have planned to go over to pursuit if my assault was an sucess.There were no "limited objectives" as such, but an overall strategy, based on condition and capabilities of the Egyptian Army at the time. Shazly knew they could no manage anything more without jeopardising the whole enterprise. Consequently, he was against doing anything else.

What could local field commanders do under such circumstances? Drive out against their orders, just because destruction of their units would be "more sexy" to describe in future history books? They did fine and Sinai is again in Egyptian hands; that's why they started the war first of all.

On the disipline I cannot comment. I know that disipline isn't one of the strong points of the IDF. But reports that they had to force troops back into line?Yes, and not only few or in just one or two cases....
How did that get past the vaunted isreali sensors?
You mean "censors"? Don't know.

On the monkey models. The soviets apparently build large amounts of simpler versions for export. These versions were downgraded versions of the real thing so that if they are captured the west couldn't ascertian the true potential of the weapon.

Under application I would like to point to the construction of western tanks vis a vis russian tanks. The russian tanks had low profiles making them harder to hit on the move, but it cost them in the hull down especialy in the desert behind dunes....And, lower hulls mean also lower clearance. Take the T-62 and Syrians as example: the Syrian Army got its first 200 T-62s only in summer 1973. Of course, the mass of their T-62-drivers were ex-T-55 drivers. Now, basically, these two tanks are the same, the difference being the larger gun of the T-62...

AND, something else: the clearance between the lower hull of the T-62 and the ground is lower than that on T-55. This resulted in many T-62s becoming immobilised on hard lava rocks on Golan, in 1973. The Syrians encountered similar problems in Lebanon, in 1982. Some reports I've heard say that up to 50% of Syrian T-62-losses in these two wars were caused by this reason; photos showing large numbers of T-62s captured "intact" by Israelis seem to confirm this.

This, however, has only to a limited degree to do with the design of Soviet tanks itself: after all, the T-62 was not designed for driving on lava-fields of Golan, but over plains of central Europe. This does not mean the Arabs are poor soldiers: it's not easy to measure the size of each rock lying in front of your tank while you try to charge an enemy position under murderous defensive fire...

Another problem is that - when hit - Soviet tanks are less likely to survive. They more usually suffer detonation of their ammo. This means that they are less likely to be recovered after suffering battle damage. Given the war in 1973 turned into a battle of attrition, the Arabs were therefore more likely to run out of replacement tanks, while the Israelis could recover and repair most of their battle-damaged tanks.

If the arabs new how to apply their equipment they would have know it was suicide to try dug in isreali tanks and though up of another plan playing on their strong points.How would you do that job in their place? Re-capture Golan via Lebanon or Jordan?

I don't know if you've ever been on Golan or not, but I think that already a look at a good map of that area shows that a mechanised force just has not much place to manoeuvre there. And, places where it can manoeuvre were covered by Israelis - in their hull down positions. There is no other way but to charge frontally in specific areas, regardless the cost: the Israelis were doing the same, and were suffering similar losses. This does not mean the Syrians never attempted to outflank specific Israeli positions: they did and - like Israelis - sometimes with success, other times not.

Of course, it is obvious that - at least in 1973 - they were less often as successful as the Israelis.

[Vorster]

I am aware of the lava on the golan. If there is a problem with the type of vehicle operating in a specific type of terrain then don't deploy it there. The T55 was a good tank and a even match for the Isreali vehicles. Use them in numbers on the golan instead of the T62. Employ them at night when the isrealis are blind. Keep the T62s back as a reserve incase the Isrealis counterattack across the damascus plain.

As to dug in Isreali tanks. Shell the positions with a mixture of smoke of high explosives to keep the tanks buttoned up and blind. A lucky shell may even destroy on or two. Cover your own advance with smoke. Put up fake smoke screens to confuse the Isrealis is to the position of your schwerpunkt. Concentrate all available forces in that attack. The weight of a few divisions crashing into the enemy onto a small frontage is often enough to gain a breakthrough. Be prepared to take losses.

Question if the Egyptian leaders did not have real faith in the october 14 attack but still went ahead on political grounds why does it seem that this permated down to the commanders in the field. Commiting forces piecemeal is an inexcusable offense in warfare. Concentration is the watch word. Launching piecemeal attacks will only alow your force to be chewed up by the defenders. Once you commit you must commit everything at the same point and keep the pressure up.

Despite this I agree that the Arabs made a fine showing agianst the IDF. The IDF just made less mistakes.

[Vorster]

I am aware of the lava on the golan. If there is a problem with the type of vehicle operating in a specific type of terrain then don't deploy it there. The T55 was a good tank and a even match for the Isreali vehicles. Use them in numbers on the golan instead of the T62. Employ them at night when the isrealis are blind. Keep the T62s back as a reserve incase the Isrealis counterattack across the damascus plain.

As to dug in Isreali tanks. Shell the positions with a mixture of smoke of high explosives to keep the tanks buttoned up and blind. A lucky shell may even destroy on or two. Cover your own advance with smoke. Put up fake smoke screens to confuse the Isrealis is to the position of your schwerpunkt. Concentrate all available forces in that attack. The weight of a few divisions crashing into the enemy onto a small frontage is often enough to gain a breakthrough. Be prepared to take losses.

Question if the Egyptian leaders did not have real faith in the october 14 attack but still went ahead on political grounds why does it seem that this permated down to the commanders in the field. Commiting forces piecemeal is an inexcusable offense in warfare. Concentration is the watch word. Launching piecemeal attacks will only alow your force to be chewed up by the defenders. Once you commit you must commit everything at the same point and keep the pressure up.

Despite this I agree that the Arabs made a fine showing agianst the IDF. The IDF just made less mistakes.

[Coop]

I am aware of the lava on the golan. If there is a problem with the type of vehicle operating in a specific type of terrain then don't deploy it there. The T55 was a good tank and a even match for the Isreali vehicles. Use them in numbers on the golan instead of the T62. Employ them at night when the isrealis are blind. Keep the T62s back as a reserve incase the Isrealis counterattack across the damascus plain.That's all very nice, but....as first, it is obvious that nobody - not even the Soviets - considered this fact when delivering first T-62s to Syria (why should they? they had no such problems), nor was sticking to T-55s actually a solution, considering the fact how many IDF tanks survived hits even from such a heavy cannon like T-62's calibre 115mm.

When you're in a position that there is only one country ready to supply you at least most of the weapons at such favourable therms like the Soviets were supplying Arabs in the early 1970s, then you don't ask questions.

As to dug in Isreali tanks. Shell the positions with a mixture of smoke of high explosives to keep the tanks buttoned up and blind. A lucky shell may even destroy on or two. Cover your own advance with smoke. Put up fake smoke screens to confuse the Isrealis is to the position of your schwerpunkt. Concentrate all available forces in that attack. The weight of a few divisions crashing into the enemy onto a small frontage is often enough to gain a breakthrough. Be prepared to take losses.All of this was done in 1973. That was not the problem.

Question if the Egyptian leaders did not have real faith in the october 14 attack but still went ahead on political grounds why does it seem that this permated down to the commanders in the field. Commiting forces piecemeal is an inexcusable offense in warfare. Concentration is the watch word. Launching piecemeal attacks will only alow your force to be chewed up by the defenders. Once you commit you must commit everything at the same point and keep the pressure up.Sorry, but I prefer not to go into any details regarding this: talking about decisions of Arab politicians would move us outside the scope - which is Arab military, not Arab politics. Sufficient to say that this had to do with the drive of leading Egyptians to become "Arab leaders" - the kind of Nasser, and that the whole story behind this actually began already in 1971, and Sadat's jealousy for Syrian "Battle Days"....

Despite this I agree that the Arabs made a fine showing agianst the IDF. The IDF just made less mistakes.Agreed. The point is that less is known about what the Arabs did well, because most of the books available in the West talk only about what the Israelis did right, while implying that anonymous hordes of Arabs did - practically - everything wrong.

[UoUo]

Hmmm i just want to say something.


Arab world vs Israel isn't a fair fight.

3 and more arabic army vs IDF

I hope you can get my point.


Coop iran fight with 1 arabic army for years and years and didn't won the war.

[Coop]

Hmmm i just want to say something.


Arab world vs Israel isn't a fair fight.

3 and more arabic army vs IDF

I hope you can get my point.I'm getting your point, but find it not really valid.

Yes, there are (far) more Arabs than Israelis. But: no, Arab armies were never stronger than the Israeli, not even in 1948 - even if they sometimes had numerical advantages in specific classes of weapons.

Coop iran fight with 1 arabic army for years and years and didn't won the war.If this should mean that the Iranians are incompetent fighters, let me remind you that as long as the Iranian regular army and air force were really involved in the fighting (period September 1980 - June 1982), the Iraqi invasion was not only stopped, but also the capability of the Iraqi military to operate offensively was completely destroyed, and then the Iraqi forces kicked out of Iran. From that moment onwards it wasn't the Iranian military that was fighting the war any more - but the IRGC.

Something similar can be said about the Iraqis: as long as they were following military plans and searching for military solutions, their military fought well (September/October 1980). The fact was that it could not win, because it was sent into an unwinable war, against a military force that was clearly superior (especially in the air), but said death not only by Iraqis, but also by different supporters of Iraq - including the USA.

The moment the Iraqi political leadership started searching for its own solutions the whole plan went straight out of the window and Iraq found itself in jeopardy of being overrun (period December 1980 - February 1986). The moment the political leadership returned the command over military to military commanders (from mid-1986), the situation again became favourable for Iraq...

In conclusion: whenever one observes all these wars, don't ever forget to first understand the political strategy and principles of involved nations, and then also the actual aims of their regimes (1st: own survival, 2nd ascertaining security of own survival in the near future, 3rd: ascertaining own security in longer therms; and 4th: making own political and strategic ideas into those of the whole nation).

It is exactly this later - actual aims of involved regimes - what actually counts.

[UoUo]

In not a singal war Israel had better weapons than the arabs had.
I don't know where you get this from.

Most battels between we and the arabs we fight in ratio of 1:10 and even war.

the arabs had better weapons (or the more or less the same) they have more of them, far far more. and they had much more man force.


You try to make this like it was fair war is lame.


regarding Iran - Iraq war.
I don't know **** about that war.
All i know is that more than million people been killed and no side as came as victory.

[Coop]

In not a singal war Israel had better weapons than the arabs had.
I don't know where you get this from.So, you mean, the Merkava Mk.1 MBT - as deployed during the Lebanon War - is inferrior to T-55 or T-62?

Most battels between we and the arabs we fight in ratio of 1:10 and even war. the arabs had better weapons (or the more or less the same) they have more of them, far far more. and they had much more man force.Would you mind offering some evidence for this?

You try to make this like it was fair war is lame.Can you point at a place where I ever mentioned "game" and "war" in the same sentence - or would you admit putting words into my mouth?

regarding Iran - Iraq war.
I don't know **** about that war.Then don't comment about it.

All i know is that more than million people been killed...Given the figures released by Tehran two years back, that with 1 million killed is definitely not truth.

...and no side as came as victory.You don't know why neither side came out as victorious because you don't know enough about that war. That's why commentary of this kind is completely futile and useless.

[UoUo]

In not a singal war Israel had better weapons than the arabs had.
I don't know where you get this from.So, you mean, the Merkava Mk.1 MBT - as deployed during the Lebanon War - is inferrior to T-55 or T-62?

Most battels between we and the arabs we fight in ratio of 1:10 and even war. the arabs had better weapons (or the more or less the same) they have more of them, far far more. and they had much more man force.Would you mind offering some evidence for this?

You try to make this like it was fair war is lame.Can you point at a place where I ever mentioned "game" and "war" in the same sentence - or would you admit putting words into my mouth?

regarding Iran - Iraq war.
I don't know **** about that war.Then don't comment about it.

All i know is that more than million people been killed...Given the figures released by Tehran two years back, that with 1 million killed is definitely not truth.

...and no side as came as victory.You don't know why neither side came out as victorious because you don't know enough about that war. That's why commentary of this kind is completely futile and useless.

In lebanon war we faced the T-72 as well.
Any way what are you talking about? what about 67? 48? 73?

Back than we had better weaopns?

Well in know fact that most of the battels we fight against the arabs the arabs had the uper hand more man power.
more tanks more aircrafts.

[Inquisitor]

why is this thread alive?


P.S.

anybody can give me maps of the israeli - arab war were offensives,dates,counter-offensives are shown?

[AlexNenadic]

Yet, the Croat army was not an indomitable foe on any level. I would hesitate to conclude that, therefore, the US would also be a weak foe. I am just trying to create an analogous situation, here.

Lokos

The Croat army wasn't a formidable opponent compared to other regional armies, but it certainly became poweful enough to very quickly defeat Republika Srpska Krajina. And in the end that was their goal, wasn't it?

[Lokos]

AlexNenadic:

Considering the absolute numerical and technological supremacy the Croat army had at that point in the war (in comparison to the Army of RSK), I don't think the defeat of that particular opponent was ever really in question. Nevertheless, your comment seems to be completely removed from the context of mine.

Lokos

[Coop]

In lebanon war we faced the T-72 as well.So what?

The T-72 was never built to be superior to any Western tank. It was built to be affordable and built in large numbers. Its armour and armament are at best compared with M-60: in the IDF, as of 1982, even the M-60s were better protected than brand-new Syrian T-72s.

Finally, this "confrontation" with T-72s in 1982...

There was a lonesome Para-unit of TOWs mounted on M-151 jeeps that was holding a position in olive groves few clicks south of the Beirut-Damascus highway on that morning. A column of Syrian T-72s drove down the higway and took a left turn towards the south, to reach former positions of the 3rd Armoured Division they were to replace. They had no clue that there were Israelis ahead of them and drove in a column, out of a specific village into a piece of open terrain - like on a shooting galley. Then the TOWs hit them: out of 14 missiles fired, at least ten scored hits, setting between five and seven T-72s afire.

A great "victory" indeed. Nothing more but an ambush of a type both sides set up for the other countless times during that war - even the results were similar... Given the terrain, no surprise at all.

Any way what are you talking about? what about 67? 48? 73?Whichever war you want.

Back than we had better weaopns?Yes, you did. Not all, of course, but you (meaning Israel) were on average better armed and had better weapons.

Well in know fact that most of the battels we fight against the arabs the arabs had the uper hand more man power. more tanks more aircrafts.I'm asking you again to be specific: which war, which planes, which tanks, what source do you use so we can see if it's giving correct figures or not?

why is this thread alive?
Because there are always people in need of information about Arab-Israeli wars, I guess.

So also those who are looking for maps of these conflicts...

[Inquisitor]

hehe don't worry coop what I to say was not lock this or anything else I am just surprised it is still alive after all this time p-)

[Coop]

No prob: I just couldn't hold my sarcasm back. I guess next time I'll put one of these on the end of such a sentence: :D

[GrimReaper]

coop, btw, have you read any of Uri Milstein books? what are your thoughts about them?

[nagant_m44]

The arabs fought great against the Ottomans when they were led by Lawrence of Arabia.

[Coop]

coop, btw, have you read any of Uri Milstein books? what are your thoughts about them?Sadly not. In fact, I never heard about this author.

Can you point me at any of his titles?

[GrimReaper]

coop, btw, have you read any of Uri Milstein books? what are your thoughts about them?Sadly not. In fact, I never heard about this author.

Can you point me at any of his titles?
Uri Milstein is doctor of political science but mainly a military historian and theorist.
He has written several books on Israel's military history, and unlike most Israelies,he is one of the biggest critics of our military and system.
Is practicly blacklisted by the academia in Israel, due to his habit of killing "holy cows" especially his comments about the Late Y.Rabin in the independance war books.
His military books include a series about the war for independance,one about sayeret shaked,three around the yom kipur war, a series about the history of Israeli paratroopers, and more political and theories books.
Throughout his books he outlines his theory of military survival.
The main criticism of him is that he is not an objectivly "dry"historian, and I say at least he doesn't hide it like others do.

the most critical book I think is "The lssons of a collapse- from the six day war to the suicide attacks" where he basicly says Israel has lost strategicly every war since after 67. although contains a lot of political criticism it also contains a lot of military content and some nice theories about the reasons for the behavior of our military and political leaders.

here's some info,sadly I don't think most of the yom-kippur books have been translated:


Dr. Uri Milshtein CURRICULUM VITAE

February, 2000

Military Service at the Israel Defense Forces Paratroops, 1958-1960 Record: Fought in the Six Day War 1967 and the Yom Kippur War 1973

Education

1963 B. A. in Philosophy and Economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1966 M. A. in Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1972 Ph. D. in Political Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Experience

1973-1979 Research and publications in behavioral and political sciences 1979-1985 Lectures on Israeli history at various institutions 1983-1986 Lectures on strategic thinking for senior managers of Israel Military Industries 1985-1987 Lecturer of military history at the Israeli Air Force 1985-1994 Lecturer of Military philosophy, strategy and military history at Bar Ilan University, Dept. of Social Sciences 1985- President of the Survival Institute 1995 Member . of the New York Academy of Science 1995-1996 Lecturer of Military philosophy, strategy and military history at the Judea and Samaria College : Dept. of National Security 1996-1997 Lecturer on the development of arid and undeveloped areas at the Eilat College. 1997 Lecturer on Communication at the Department of Communication, University of South Africa ? The Israeli Branch. 1998 Lecturer and tutor in B. A.. & M. A. studies in Education and in Business Administration at the University of Latvia ? The Israeli Branch ? Beer Shva.

Books

Military History

1968 The Wars of the Paratroopers 2 vols. (Hebrew) 1968-1980 Various publications on social, political, and military issues in Israel 1985-1987 The History of the Paratroopers, 4 vols. (Hebrew) 1989-1991 The History of the War of Independence, 4 vols. out of 12 projected (Hebrew) 1994 Shaked Patrol (Hebrew) 1995 The Rabin File, Hebrew, (Russian edition in 1996, English edition, 1999.) 1996 History of Israel's War of Independence Vol. 1 ? A Nation Gird for War (English) 1997 History of Israel's War of Independence Vol. 2 ? The First Month (English) 1998 History of Israel's War of Independence Vol. 3 The First Invasion (English) 1999 History of Israel's War of Independence Vol. 4 Out of Crisis Came Decision, (English).

Critique of Military Reason Series

1992 The Outbreak of War (Hebrew) 1992 The Crossing Which Wasn't (Hebrew) 1993 The Lesson of a Collapse (Hebrew)

Critique of the Present Civilization Series 1991 The General Theory of Security - The Survival Principle (English & Hebrew) 1993 New Administration for Israel - An Intellectual-Political Alternative (English & Hebrew) 1994 An End to Life (English & Hebrew)

Papers

1991 "Le mythe des 'geants' d'Israel." Revue d'Etudes Palestiniennes, 38 : 121-144. 1991 "The Myth of Security." International Problems - Society & Politics > XXX/ 56(1-2) : 7-17. 1991 "The Preservers of the Security Mythos." International Problems - Society & Politics XXX/ 57(3-4) : 17-29. 1991 "Joshua's pursuit." Nativ - Journal of Politics and the Arts 5 (22) : 31-37. 1992 "Israel as a Mythological Democracy." International Problems - Society & Politics XXXI/58 (1-2) : 28-40. 1993 "Strategic Initiative and the Wall Project." Nativ - Journal of Politics and the Arts 6 (4) : 53-59. 1997 "The Six Day War : Why is Israel Abandoning Its Gains?" Nativ - Journal of Politics and the Arts 10 (4) : 73-77. 1999 "The Agranat Commission", Theory and Criticism, Vol.. 12-13, 1999.

[Coop]

Thanks for the info. Interesting stuff, so much is sure.