about the batches if the modern weapons that the Egyptians bought...
Source?True, the packing list was impressive: 200 MiG jet fighters and Ilyushin light bombers, 100 tanks, 6 torpedo boats, and even 2 destroyers—plus munitions and spare parts. The arms deal’s weakness lay in its insufficient provision for training and technical support: the agreement called for East bloc technicians to provide only 90 days’ instruction in maintenance and operation of the equipment to the Egyptians. With that little training, the new armaments would not give the Egyptians anywhere near the fighting power that its quantity seemed to indicate.
Nonetheless, the infusion of so much new military hardware into Egypt’s arsenal would be alarming to the Israelis. The CIA further predicted that as the Egyptians’ perceptions of their own military strength relative to that of the Israelis increased, so would their militancy. Premature Arab combativeness would in turn give the Israelis pretexts to launch a preemptive war before the arms deliveries were completed.7
well its CIA itself
the collective IQ of some posters on this thread gives me the chills.
I hope you were merely jesting.but rather the too strict adherence of Egyptian commanders to
their Soviet advisors' strategy.
Soviet advisors were military professionals from one of the most prestigious military institutions on the planet. These are people who were trained and instructed by the guys who brought you such hits as the Vistula-Oder operation, Operation August Storm, Iassy-Kishinev, Bagration etc. etc.
August Storm was used by the US as a template for Desert Storm. Note the name similarities.
But suddenly their advice somehow failed the Arabs? If anything, it was the lack of technical proficiency, training and discipline that failed the Arabs - hand in hand with their lack of modern military institutional experience - not their Soviet advisors.
arabs loose as they can neevr gather.400 millons arabs and 6 millon challlange them .this is shame
Modern war requires a dedication to detail and technology that is not easily maintained by any force. Masses mean very little on the modern battlefield so long as the opposing sides have effective application of fire power. Precision and target acquision in quick time will win the modern war. Mass merely means more targets to hit and more confusion on the mass holding side. I think the Arabs traditionally rely on mass and very little on preparation and planning. If fighting sprit and dedication were important factors in modern war, the Japanese would have most certainly won WWII...however, if planning and execution with high technology were the most important, the Germans would have won WWII. I think the deciding factors in war are the ability to resupply well trained, well prepared, well equipped, well disciplined units that are fighting with great dedication and determination. Lets face it, the Arab units were not well trained, though they may have been well supplied initially. Also, their dedication to the fight was greatly lagginf behind the dedication of the sea trapped Israelis, who had no place to retreat to, and no space to trade for time. Arabs knew they could always fall back and regroup...not so with the Israeli forces....with them, it was win or die. Arab units were and are traditionally led by political favorites rather than well trained and disciplined military professionals. This was a very delicate point of contention the Soviets had with their Arab trainees...often, the officers would not show up for exercises, or even meet with their own men. And, almost certainly, religous differences play a very significant point in the ranks of the Arab military. For Arabs fighting along side total strangers is very demoralizing..they are very family oriented and do not do well outside their own clans.
Arab armies do quite well when led by strong, charismatic leaders who lead from the front with a ruthless hand.
These are just a few of my personal opinions based on several history readings.
VIII th century
Arab islamic empire in green
During Middle Age
They defeated many times Byzantine Persian and "Spanish"
They occupied Al Andalus during 8 centuries fought against "Spanish" French and portuguese.
At the Middle-East with Turks they finally defeated Crusaders.
Egyptians even defeated Mongols.
After they declined, they suffered more defeats than victories it's true but they (there it was egyptian) defeated Ottoman empire in 1832 1839.
Abd El Kader fought pretty well against French during the conquest of Algeria (1830 1857)
Arabs fought also pretty well in French army ( Tabors Goumiers etc) and also in the Ottoman army.
1921 Morroccan rebbels crushed Spanish army at Anoual ( in this battle Spanish lost more than 10 000 soldiers against only 1000 arabs).
2006 Hezbollah (only one milice) resisted to Tsahal.
So no arabs aren't bad fighters, it's rather Arab regular armies which are bad since 4 or 5 centuries but arabs as fighters not at all.
Or rather, the prime minister Olmert and his govt managed to run this war so incredibly bad that they caused way too many un-necessary casualties, all the while not allowing Tshal to do what it take to win.2006 Hezbollah (only one milice) resisted to Tsahal.
Like cleaning up the hezbis hidden among the shi'ite population, which was often a willing accomplice and sometimes not. Cleaning up meant killing a lot of civilians as well as hezbis, and that was precisely their strategy. But if Olmert didn't have the balls to do this, then he should not even have goten into that village at all. Politicians can always be more unscrupulous than others can imagine.
In my book, the 2006 war was not so much a win by hezbis as it was an act of Israel's own politicians. Those guys can defeat even Tshal. Yuck.
So, again we are faced with the ugly strategy of clearing the weeds by killing the grass....in otherwords, genocide. Although, I am sure, no one except the Isamists are suggesting such a thing, sometimes the enemy does all in it's power to bring it on as a specific tactical exercise. This is particularly true in this day of instant communications and massive importance of world opinion. The strength of this enemy is his willingness to use ruthlessness as a weapon. He has utterly no regard for his own population...not for old men, women and even his own children. Once shed of such an emotional burden, and well aware of how important innocent people are to the enemy...the enemy is even burdened with concern for the Islamists own civilians.
Throughout the history of war, there has generally been at least a small concern for the plight of innocent non-combatants by all sides...with certain notable exceptions. However, the modern moralists place non-combatants almost on a pedistal of concern, to a point of a nation defending itself from barbarains using a civilian population as a shield is practically hamstrung in that effort. And, in the case of the Palistinain and even Sunni non-combatants (to name a few), there seems to be a will to be used as human shields. In that case...what is the defending military organization to do?
In ancient times, civilian populations were much closer to the front of combat. Almost every citizen, regardless of age or gender, were hardly more than a few stages distant from the battles, and certainly stood at dire threat in the event the defending men at arms lost. Therefore, there was a kind of blanket ruthlessness in their efforts to achieve victory...there simply was no other option. The utter eradication of an enemy and his entire civilization was the rule rather than exception. Why? To prevent future threats...an enemy and his people left even slightly intact was likely to return in regained strength or with new allies to exact terrible retribution on the victors.
In otherwords, barbarism was resisted most successfully, with stronger and more terrible barbaraism. The ancient people understood the need for utter victory and the consequinces of failure or partial victory. Negotiated settlements hardly ever produced the lasting results necessary for survival.
Now, we have the nasty habit of painting the face of the enemy with our own tints. We actually believe peace, prosperity and well being is the end-all-be-all for the daily esiztance of all people on this rock. That is a dangerous assumption. Some people, like the "Jihadists" and the "Militant Islamists" personified by the Hezzbolla and the Al Qaida types, have absolutely no desire for that level of paradise. They are more than ready to do all that is necessary to achive their goals. The western civilizations have simply not come to that point ...not yet.
There are certain things in war that are luxuries. Treating the most barbaric enemy as honorable soldiers and giving them respect they are not due is a luxury the west can presently afford...not for the welfare of the enemy, but for their own peace of consicience. Treating the barbaric enemy population with respect is another luxury we expend for our own peace of mind. But, there likly will come a day, when the barbarian has finally exceeded his cost/benefit limit, the west can no longer affor such luxuries in war. There will come a day...very much like 9/11 was, that will awaken the defending population to the stark realty ...that is move them close enough to the front....of what is at stake in this war. Then, we will no longer afford the petty luxuries of paused consciences in a war for survival. It is at that point, we begin to win and the present day barbarains and their doting, shielding populations are swept into the dust of history.
These are "Peace of Cosncience" luxuries that only a very wealthy and secure nation can afford. Eventually, if the battle gets overly heated and security is really threatened, we will disband the hord of lawyers and get on with real fighting.
Every nation enters war with the most civilized and glorious intentions. Eventually the mud, dust and blood overwhelm the combatants...glory and justice are the first victims of war...it almost always devolves into it's true nature...bloody hell on Earth.
The trouble is: the longer this quagmire in the ME lasts, the more extremists (and thus terror) is Israel going to face. The best example is that of Palestinians. Initially, 30-40 years ago, there were only nationalistic organisations; then they began with terror, then there were religious organisations, and now there are extremists Islamists in power - at least in Gazah. Only dear Lord knows what comes as next - but I'm sure we'll get an answer if the level of provocation is kept at its current level.
These "modern weapons" were downgraded, B-export variants, and nothing of the kind the Arabs were demanding at the time. Certainly also nothing comparable to what was available to Israel at the time. The Soviets were particularly careful not to supply offensive weapons, and so it happened that Tu-22 bombers (demanded by Egypt in 1970) were sold only to Iraq and Libya after the 1973 War; Su-20s were supplied to Egypt and Syria, but only in summer 1973, when it was actually too late to properly train their crews etc. There is a number of similar examples in other arenas. Until delivery of MiG-29SMTs to Yemen, few years back, Soviets/Russians have never supplied a top-notch system to any Arab state ever.Originally Posted by kukri
Does this include the guy... what was his name...?... he was trained to become the first Soviet astronaut, together with Gagarin, but dropped out due to alcoholism... Was sent to Syria in the late 1960s, and committed suicide shortly later. Or 18-years old boys sent to man S-200 SAM-sites, in Syria, in the mid-1980s? Or such like Victor Babich, who is constructing history of Syrian air combats on basis of some Syrian nick-names he's heard sometimes, but nobody in Syria knows about?Originally Posted by Lokos
Not to talk about likes of certain Marshall Koldunov (later C-in-C V-PVO), who was in Libya back in 1986, only to make himself really laughable while reporting about (citate), AGM-88s with "range of 130km", "Paveway LGBs with a range of 60km" or Bullpup "lasertargeting devices".... No wonder Gorbachev was more than glad to replace him in the wake of Matthias Rust affair...
Whenever one asks the Arabs, these Soviet "military professionals" from "most prestigious military institutions on the planet" were a bunch on ignorants and drunkards, with more interest in prowling local basars for kilims and boze, but training anybody. And, what they trained was unsuitable for Arab purposes. Nobody in Egypt back in 1973 operated according to what the Soviets trained them. In fact, I recall only one instance where an Arab army acted clearly according to Soviet methodology in the last 40 years: the Syrians in Lebanon, in 1982, when they pulled the battered 1st and 10th Armoured Divisions out of southern Lebanon, in order to make place for the 3rd Armoured. The Israelis promptly misinterpreted this as a "retreat" and ordered one of their armoured battalions right into the trap at Sultan Jacub - with well-known results...
Well, did we ever really try the trick with "peace & prosperity"?Originally Posted by Mastermind
The only example that comes to my mind is that of Marshall Plan. I'd say that one worked rather well. Surely, in a different part of the world. But, nobody ever tried something similar in the Middle East. At least not seriously. So, why not do that there as well?
Then, otherwise, you'll have to explain one thing: what do you imagine, how should Arabs get their backyards into working orders?
Their regimes were imposed to them, and are currently supported, by the very same foreign powers they are now fighting against. Take the example of al-Saud family in KSA, or Saddam in Iraq (the later was on CIA's paylist in the 1950s and 1960s, mainly with the purpose of countering the local pro-Communist regime). In cases like that of Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the regime is by purpose leaving its population to the mercy of religious fanatics. They have corresponding agreements with Wahabists already since 60 years. Means: the population cannot expect regular authorities to support them - down to such exceptions like organisations supported by specific governments for their own purposes (but also dropped at minute notice, or without any, like recently in Lebanon).
In summary: aggression and oppression do not work (see Palestinians); leaving them to the mercy of religious fanatics does not work (see KSA, Yemen, Pakistan etc.) - quite on the contrary; dictatorships do not function (see Egypt)... what else is left in your opinion? What should they do?