Why the IDF isn't that great

silverharp

http://www.exile.ru/2006-July-28/a_hezbollah_upon_all_of_thee.html


http://www.exile.ru/2006-August-11/gophers_by_tko.html

A couple of interesting articles about who the IDF is not all it's cracked up tobe

bk

I'm sorry, while this guy does have a few good points, for the most part he is talking complete BS.

Mick86

silverharp wrote:

http://www.exile.ru/2006-July-28/a_hezbollah_upon_all_of_thee.html


http://www.exile.ru/2006-August-11/gophers_by_tko.html

A couple of interesting articles about who the IDF is not all it's cracked up tobe

Muslim country with a Christian minority that's trying to emigrate as fast as it can fake up its resume for Uncle Sam's Migras.

Yes Gary, including the ones that murdered Irish soldiers back in the 1980's.

And Hezbollah has great soldiers.

Yep. Probably Iranian.

When I saw those pitiful Arab "soldiers" crawling toward US camera crews on their hands and knees to surrender,

Morale, Gary, Morale. Who wants to die for Saddam Hussein? Nobody. Who was conscripted, leaderless, had no logistics and had been bombed by the most technologically advanced airforces in the world for a month. Those poor Iraqi bastards that's who. The same lads are not doing so bad in Fallujah these days.

One of the top US commanders in GW I called the IDF "a bunch of arrogant pricks who wouldn't last ten minutes on a European battlefield."

Pretty much what everybody thinks of the US army Gary.

Passage of time, plus difference in birthrate, means that by now the IDF has a thin, real thin, crust of Ashkenazi brains'n'brawn on top and a bunch of flabby mama's boys under them.

Newsflash Gary, you're a bit of a flabby cnut yourself.

You can see it in the design of the Merkava -- a brilliant design, one that gives infantry the full protection of MBT armor, but also an indication that this army is terrified its guys might get hurt.

Until 2003 the US was terrified of using ground troops anywhere outside Fort Benning.

you never, ever see an armed Hezbollah fighter. They're there, all right. You better believe it.

Of course they're there. They're never on television because people only believe what they see on television. Pics of Israeli tanks and planes coupled with dead Lebanese babies mean that the nasty Zionists are doing the Waffen SS on the poor defenceless Arabs again. That picture would be ruined by scenes of armed to the teeth Hezbollah and dead Israeli children. Why haven't the Israelis figured out propaganda yet?

Manic Moran

Mick86 wrote:

Morale, Gary, Morale. Who wants to die for Saddam Hussein? Nobody. Who was conscripted, leaderless, had no logistics and had been bombed by the most technologically advanced airforces in the world for a month. Those poor Iraqi bastards that's who. The same lads are not doing so bad in Fallujah these days.

1973 was considered to be the resurgence of Arab military prowess. The Egyptian Army in its crossing of the Suez did something that the Americans, Israelis and Soviets all thought impossible. For a week, it was a matter of regional pride.

Only problem was that after the Israelis recovered from the shock, they still cut off the Egyptian Army. See this article:
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html entitled "Why Arabs lose wars". It's an excellent, and not too long read.

a brilliant design, one that gives infantry the full protection of MBT armor, but also an indication that this army is terrified its guys might get hurt.

Right idea, wrong argument. Whilst it is true that Merk was designed with the survivability of the crew in mind, the concept of putting troops in the back was a discovered benefit, not a design goal. The Merk came about from the concept that it is easier to build tanks than train tank crews, so survivability of the crew was paramount. The rear hatch was designed primarily for safe and easy evacuation of injured crewmen, and is orders of magnitude easier than a conventional tank. The secondary purpose was for replenishment of the tank without need to fall back or expose crewmen. The extra space by the hatch was also made available for increased ammunition storage: The tank battles of 1967 and 1973 showed that 'normal' ammunition loadouts were insufficient. Indeed, it is more common to find a chemical toilet in the back of a Merkava than troops. The Israelis do have heavy APCs based on a tank hull (Achzarit/T-55, Nagmasho't/Centurion), however, much like the Canadian Ram Kangaroos of WWII which were based on M3 Grant hulls. The idea has taken off, the Soviets have come up with a similar design (BTR-T) which they developed after their experiences in Grozny. I seem to recall other countries are looking at the concept as well. Incidently, Groznyy also provides a baseline of capability. If one assumes that in both Chechnya and Lebanon the defenders were equally motivated, equipped and skilled, the comparative loss rates of the Russians and the Israelis indicate that the Israelis seem to be better at it, and Israel is a conscript army.

At any rate, I don't think that protecting troops is really a sign of being afraid of getting hurt more than avoiding taking un-necessary risks, as long as it doesn't interfere with the capabilities of those troops. (i.e. you can take armouring too far)

NTM

Flying

The IDF is the fourth biggest army in the world.

It is the most combat experienced army in the world.

It does not get involved with the BS of Western Armies of Bulling Boots and looking the part.

They train to fight and to defend their country that person is Full of it and the current IDF could conventional defeat all the Arab armies.

Hizbollah is the lebanesse wing of the Iranian revolutionary Guard, they are good but all brutal ruthless and have zero regard for life.

Their aim is to kill civilians and soldiers alike, unlike the IDF who make mistakes but are made accountable for their actions.

silverharp

Flying wrote:

They train to fight and to defend their country that person is Full of it and the current IDF could conventional defeat all the Arab armies.

Hizbollah is the lebanesse wing of the Iranian revolutionary Guard, they are good but all brutal ruthless and have zero regard for life.

Their aim is to kill civilians and soldiers alike, unlike the IDF who make mistakes but are made accountable for their actions.

Focusing on the military aspect of this, the point is, will the IDF strategy work when peasants with a $100 RPG can take out a $10m tank? in general terms the cost of "violence " has decreased so that the balance of power has shifted somewhat from standing armies to insurgents.

Flying

silverharp wrote:

Focusing on the military aspect of this, the point is, will the IDF strategy work when peasants with a $100 RPG can take out a $10m tank? in general terms the cost of "violence " has decreased so that the balance of power has shifted somewhat from standing armies to insurgents.

An RPG Cannot take a tank out and point to note have you ever been in combat or seen an RPG, I have been at the business end of one and have served in several area's of conflicts.

Hizbollah are not insurgents they are actual again an army.

No tanks have been taken out by an "RPG" they can be immoblised but not taken out.


A Spigot, Milan, Tow, Milan 2 etc have stopping potential to take a tank out of action.

In Iraq where I served Abrahams were taken out generally by several hundred pounds of explosive.

An RPG would bounce of it.

Again, if anyone is a master of combat the Israeli's are both conventional and non-conventional.

You cannot defeat terrorism but you sure can slow it down.

Again I would put them as one of the best armies in the world, I have seen them in action and worked with them and compared to most western armies which don't have the stomach to fight they are sh1t hot.

silverharp

Flying wrote:

An RPG Cannot take a tank out and point to note have you ever been in combat or seen an RPG, I have been at the business end of one and have served in several area's of conflicts.

I copied the piece below from the second article, can you comment on it, ie are his comments abouthe RPG 29 incorrect?
Thanks

Once they'd provoked the massive attack they hoped for, Hezbollah assumed the defensive, sticking to their bunkers and launching an incredible number of guided and unguided missiles against the Israelis. The most devastating weapon they have is the RPG 29, the newest Russian version of our old friend the RPG 7. The RPG 29 seems to be able to knock out the IDF's MBT, the Merkava 4. That's a big, big blow to the IDF, because the newer Merkavas are supposed to be invulnerable to anything but huge shaped charges laid as mines. They're equipped with all the latest tricks in anti-missile defenses, like reactive armor and screens that are supposed to make the warhead detonate prematurely -- The RPG 29 has a simple but effective counter for all this last-ditch defensive stuff: a tandem warhead, where the first warhead blasts the reactive armor or screen and the second, the really deadly shaped-charge one, has a free path right into the tank. By sticking to their bunkers, where they could fire from safety at the Merkavas, the Hezbollah antitank teams destroyed the Merkava 4's rep in a few weeks.

Flying

silverharp wrote:

I copied the piece below from the second article, can you comment on it, ie are his comments abouthe RPG 29 incorrect?
Thanks

Once they'd provoked the massive attack they hoped for, Hezbollah assumed the defensive, sticking to their bunkers and launching an incredible number of guided and unguided missiles against the Israelis. The most devastating weapon they have is the RPG 29, the newest Russian version of our old friend the RPG 7. The RPG 29 seems to be able to knock out the IDF's MBT, the Merkava 4. That's a big, big blow to the IDF, because the newer Merkavas are supposed to be invulnerable to anything but huge shaped charges laid as mines. They're equipped with all the latest tricks in anti-missile defenses, like reactive armor and screens that are supposed to make the warhead detonate prematurely -- The RPG 29 has a simple but effective counter for all this last-ditch defensive stuff: a tandem warhead, where the first warhead blasts the reactive armor or screen and the second, the really deadly shaped-charge one, has a free path right into the tank. By sticking to their bunkers, where they could fire from safety at the Merkavas, the Hezbollah antitank teams destroyed the Merkava 4's rep in a few weeks.

Well I was assuming a standard RPG 7 not 29 eventhough with the reactive armour they would still be pushed to breach it unless there was continous direct hits to the same spot.

As for the amount of tanks destroyed I believe the one at the start was destroyed by an RSB (Road Side Bomb), One was taken out in a Mine Field and the other two were destroyed by Spigots( Russian Anti Tank Muntions) very similar to US Tow's

Manic Moran

Flying wrote:

No tanks have been taken out by an "RPG" they can be immoblised but not taken out.

You've got to be joking, right?

It ain't easy to kill a tank with an RPG, particularly from the front, but there have been enough over the years to show that tankers do not want to ignore them, particularly in confined areas.

NTM

Flying

Manic Moran wrote:

You've got to be joking, right?

It ain't easy to kill a tank with an RPG, particularly from the front, but there have been enough over the years to show that tankers do not want to ignore them, particularly in confined areas.

NTM

I agree but with todays tanks, say at standard RPG 7, it would be hard pressed penetrating armour but Sustained Fire in a Pinned Confined Posistion could have determental effects but in non-confined area's the most that could happen is blow tracks and pin it down.

Have you seen the chain mail type addition to merkava's that are also used to blowing RPG's before they impact ?

Manic Moran

Flying wrote:

I agree but with todays tanks, say at standard RPG 7, it would be hard pressed penetrating armour but Sustained Fire in a Pinned Confined Posistion could have determental effects but in non-confined area's the most that could happen is blow tracks and pin it down.

Depends on how you define a 'pinned confined position', I guess. Any place where you can get a side or roof shot on an M1 runs the risk of penetrating into the crew compartment, and it's been done. This could be a dense urban area, or it could be from a road embankment. You could also hit the engine. At any case, if it takes the tank out of the fight, either because the ammunition is blowing up, the crew is disabled, or the engine is on fire, it's good enough for government work, even without blowing the tank in question to smithereens.

have you seen the chain mail type addition to merkava's that are also used to blowing RPG's before they impact ?

Many people call them 'dreadlocks', but yes, I have.

As for the amount of tanks destroyed I believe the one at the start was destroyed by an RSB (Road Side Bomb), One was taken out in a Mine Field and the other two were destroyed by Spigots( Russian Anti Tank Muntions) very similar to US Tow's

Most of the knocked out M1s have been caused by RPGs. They have never been catastrophic kills in these cases, but severe enough to warrant the removal or destruction of the vehicle, or incapacitation of the crew. At least two have been taken out by under-floor bombs of impressive size, those were catastrophic kills. I don't know about the minefield one, and there's no evidence of an M1 being hit, let alone destroyed by Spigots. (Which are much closer to MILAN than TOW). In late 2003 there was thought that an AT-14 Kornet might have been used to punch a hole through an M1, but it was later determined that it was just an RPG.

NTM

bk

silverharp wrote:

Focusing on the military aspect of this, the point is, will the IDF strategy work when peasants with a $100 RPG can take out a $10m tank? in general terms the cost of "violence " has decreased so that the balance of power has shifted somewhat from standing armies to insurgents.

While the lads argue here I just want to make the point that IDF tanks have not been "taken out" by peasants with cheap crappy RPG's.

They are facing well trained troops, trained by the Iranians, firing modern and expensive Russian made anti-tank missiles.

I think you are falling for the propaganda that Hezbolloah likes to spread, that it is a poor peasant army of davids fighting the mighty goliath of Isreal, while in reality Iran is fighting a war with Isreal via proxy.

BTW for the most part Hezbolloah hasn't been firing their RPG's and missiles at the IDF main battle tanks, instead they have been targeting the lighter armoured vehicles and groups of troops with their RPGs and missiles.

newby.204

bk wrote:

BTW for the most part Hezbolloah hasn't been firing their RPG's and missiles at the IDF main battle tanks, instead they have been targeting the lighter armoured vehicles and groups of troops with their RPGs and missiles.

While i may become unpopular here but it seems that over the history of war, changing technology/tactics has changed the battlefiled.

e.g. Rifling ment that standing in ranks firing volley after volley was just plain idiocy hence tactics changed etc etc eg's comin out of my ass!!:D

Why in gods name, if what you all say is true, would an army(Hezbollah) waste a perfectly good RPG on a tank/apc/armor if it wont do anything to it. It would seem to me if i found out that my rockets bounce off vehicles i wouldnt target vehicles anymore id pick something else to shoot at.........

Manic Moran

newby.204 wrote:

Why in gods name, if what you all say is true, would an army(Hezbollah) waste a perfectly good RPG on a tank/apc/armor if it wont do anything to it. It would seem to me if i found out that my rockets bounce off vehicles i wouldnt target vehicles anymore id pick something else to shoot at.........

We oftentimes asked ourselves the same question in Iraq.

Usually they would do as you suggest: Run away rather than face a tank, but on occasion, they'd take the odd shot. Partially, I'd say, it was because we were there, they were there, and we were about the only target that they could shoot at, and damned if they weren't going to shoot at something.

The other thing is that if you throw enough darts at a board, you'll eventually hit a bull's eye. On the one hand you can have a result such as the Challenger 2 which took 8 RPGs and an ATGM with no ill effects to the lads inside, or the Israeli Merkava which was shown on TV receiving a half-dozen hits without any apparent damage last November, but if you're lucky, you can get a Cojone Eh or a casualty-producing effect.

Because of the psychological impact of a tank, I wouldn't be surprised if it is preferable to burn up a tank with no loss to its crew than to blow up an APC carrying 6 people and killing all of them. The tank has an aura of invincibilty, and killing one both enhances one's own status and is a blow to the other side.

NTM

Sgt. Sensible

Flying wrote:

Again I would put them as one of the best armies in the world, I have seen them in action and worked with them and compared to most western armies which don't have the stomach to fight they are sh1t hot.

So how come Hezbollah have kicked their arses twice now?

Flying

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

So how come Hezbollah have kicked their arses twice now?

explain, hezbollah never defeated the IDF, as for the recent action... that is a mutal ceasefire.

And if your talking about the 2000 pull out that is also not a arse kicking.

Israel have never been defeated and if you think your right lets see the facts !

Clare gunner

system out there that WILL give a one shot one kill on a modern MBT???From what I gather here you need multiple hits in or about the same area,or a massive under road bomb.One is difficult to do and the other sounds like a trap situation?

bk

newby.204 wrote:

While i may become unpopular here but it seems that over the history of war, changing technology/tactics has changed the battlefiled.

e.g. Rifling ment that standing in ranks firing volley after volley was just plain idiocy hence tactics changed etc etc eg's comin out of my ass!!:D

Why in gods name, if what you all say is true, would an army(Hezbollah) waste a perfectly good RPG on a tank/apc/armor if it wont do anything to it. It would seem to me if i found out that my rockets bounce off vehicles i wouldnt target vehicles anymore id pick something else to shoot at.........

Nothing unpopular about what you say, every war sees a change in tactics.

There was actually nothing surprising about Hezbollah using this tactic. In the 1973 war one in every three Egyptian and Syrain soldier was armed with an anti-tank missile.

So it isn't any surprise that many of those missiles have fallen into the hands of Hezbollah from Syria.

On the other hand after 1973, the Israelis became the world experts in defeating such weapons. They invented the reactive armour that is so effect at stopping these weapons and is now being widely used in Iraq.

In the 1973 war Isreal also found the tactic of sending in ground infrantry without armour to get behind the anti-tank positions and take them out. The Isrealis forgot that one at the start of this campaign, but quickly relearned it.

Victor

Flying wrote:

Well I was assuming a standard RPG 7 not 29 eventhough with the reactive armour they would still be pushed to breach it unless there was continous direct hits to the same spot.

Ah, I smell back-tracking!

At least one M-1 was taken out in Iraq with an RPG-7V and another with a petrol bomb.

Of course, since WWII its been well known that there are two stages to a tank battle, the fighting and the recovery. Many a tank damaged in the fighting can be recovered and put back into action, save those that have suffered catastrophic damage or fire.

I'm waiting for someone to develop and anti-tank missile that carries a liquid warhead, that burns instead of explodes.

Maskhadov

They used to try and hide their number of forces by not giving any units numbers but the strength of the IDF when it goes into lebannon is only about a division.

I agree about the thread title. The IDF is in a weak region and if it werent for the american military equipment then they could well find themselves in a spot of bother.

Sgt. Sensible

From the Jerusalem Post.

With 40 damaged tanks and 30 tank crew members killed in fighting in Lebanon, the Armored Corps began Monday to gear up for its next battle - this coming October when it tries convincing high-school graduates to enlist in its ranks.

Thousands of antitank missiles were fired over the days of fighting at tanks and infantry forces in southern Lebanon. But while soldiers told stories of deadly missile attacks on tanks, OC Armored Corps Brig.-Gen. Halutsi Rudoy revealed Tuesday that out of the almost 400 tanks that operated in Lebanon, only a few dozen were hit by antitank missiles and only 20 were actually penetrated.

Assuming that the losses aren't being understated for various reasons, and bearing in mind that much of the fighting was in terrain unsuited to tanks, that looks like serious casualties.

cushtac

With four men to each tank, 400 tanks means 1600 troops manning them. If they're being honest about the number of tanks damaged (40) and the number of tankers dead (30) then the maximum number of casualties suffered would be 160, with 30 of those dying. So overall casualty rates are around 10%, while the death rate is around 2%.

Doesn't seem that serious to me.

Manic Moran

Assuming that a couple of them were carrying troops in the back (at least one tank had six casualties), the rates are actually a little lower.

I don't think they'll have much of a problem getting recruits.

1) Tanks are cool.

2) The Armoured Corps still has a massively public and proud history.

NTM

bk

Maskhadov wrote:

I agree about the thread title. The IDF is in a weak region and if it werent for the american military equipment then they could well find themselves in a spot of bother.

Actually Israels military industry is considered one of the best in the world.

For instance when they buy F16's from the US, they only get the Frame and engines, they then kit it out with their own avionics and weapons systems. Many claim that these are far superior then the US systems.

(Not surprising when you consider that all of Intels new CPU's are being designed in Israel).

They were the first country to develop tactics for and use in battle UAV's

They invented reactive armour and other systems to protect against anti-tank weapons.

They created the UZI and are now introducing a new assault rifle designed by them called the TAR-21.

Almost all their tanks and armoured vehicles are designed and built in Israel.

They build their own Nuclear warheads and their own long range ballisitc missiles.

In fact they are probably one of the most self sufficient military forces in the world.

Really the only stuff they really get from the US is planes (after the US convinced them to end their own military aviation industry, something a lot of Israelis regret), rifles (M16, M4) which are now being replaced by Israeli design and German submarrines.

Where would Hezbollah be without Syria and Iran?

WHere would Syria and Iran be without all the weapons they buy off of Russia?

Maskhadov

Thats all nonsense bk.

The IDF have not been accepted as being equal to a western military force. The Merkava is not in the same standard of main battle tank as used with other western forces. the average israeli soldier isnt too great either.

cushtac

Maskhadov wrote:

Thats all nonsense bk.

So you're saying that Israel doesn't have a well developed, technically proficient and innovative defence industry?

Maskhadov wrote:

The IDF have not been accepted as being equal to a western military force. The Merkava is not in the same standard of main battle tank as used with other western forces. the average israeli soldier isnt too great either.

What are you basing this on?

bk

Maskhadov wrote:

Thats all nonsense bk.

The IDF have not been accepted as being equal to a western military force. The Merkava is not in the same standard of main battle tank as used with other western forces. the average israeli soldier isnt too great either.

LOL, I'm sorry but you are simply wrong. Israel has one of the finest military services in the world, supported by one of the best military industries in the world.

I have absolutely no idea how you could think otherwise, just about every military analyst in the world would agree with me.

Just go read about the 6 day war and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, when they crushed their opponents decisively while being attacked on at least two fronts.

You may not like the politics or actions of the Israelis, but then this is a military board, not the politics board and from a purely detached, military perspective, the Israelis have one of the best militaries in the world.

BTW you are right the Merkava is designed quiet differently from western MBT's. It is designed for high crew survivaility and urban warfare, basically it is designed more for the types of battles Israel faces every day, rather then the cold war US versus Russia type of tanks that the west mostly has. In fact supposedly the US is looking very closely at the design, as it is more suitable for the type of guerilla urban fighting that it is engaged in Iraq then their Abrahams and they have already borrowed a number of features off it such as the reactive armour.

BTW how is anything I said nonsense, every single thing I said is factually correct, please point out a single thing that I said that is factually incorrect.

Manic Moran

Maskhadov wrote:

The Merkava is not in the same standard of main battle tank as used with other western forces.

This is like watching a train wreck.

Please, educate this tanker as to why this might be the case.

NTM

Maskhadov

The fact of the matter is that a merkava facing a leopard, challenger or M1A2 hasnt a chance.

Anyone could take an IFV/APC and add tons of armour and improve its survivability but it would stand up to an uranium tipped shell fired from a leopard MBT.

The arab forces werent up to much. They were hardly even properly trained units.

Im just looking at this from a military point of view also... the israelis arent muck but they arent at the same level as the western armies are.

bk

Maskhadov wrote:

The fact of the matter is that a merkava facing a leopard, challenger or M1A2 hasnt a chance.

Anyone could take an IFV/APC and add tons of armour and improve its survivability but it would stand up to an uranium tipped shell fired from a leopard MBT.

The arab forces werent up to much. They were hardly even properly trained units.

Im just looking at this from a military point of view also... the israelis arent muck but they arent at the same level as the western armies are.

FFS, no MBT would survive an impact from a Uranium tipped round.

All the tanks you mention above were primarily designed for cold war, European slugfests against large formations of Russian tanks.

The Israelis don't have to deal with that, so instead they designed and built a tank that meets the requirements for the type of enemy they are likely to face. They realised that no matter how well designed your tank is, there will always be something that can disable it (Uranium tipped rounds, hellfires, mines, etc) and they realised that a damaged tank can easily be recovered and repaired, but given their relatively small population it was more important to protect the crew who are hard to train and replace.

So they designed their tank for very high survivabilty of the crew and the ability for the crew to quickly evacuate the tank (through the back door).

The tanks ia also designed to allow the crew to operate for long periods of time in hostile urban environments (they often have a portable toilet in the back).

This has made it this tank highly succesful and excllent at it's job.

Again I'll point out that it is so good, that the US has been studying it carefully and copying many of it's features as the cold war is over and the US tank crews are now operating in an environment in Iraq more similar to what Israel has faced (urban warfare, RPG's, etc.).

In this sense, Israeli tanks are actually ahead of the Abrahams, Challengers, Leopards, etc. (no disrespect to any of these, they were just designed for a different type of warfare).

Your problem is that you are looking at this in the wrong way, you can't simply compare Israel against European armies, why would you, they will never fight. Instead you need to compare them against their likely enemies and see how their weapons, tactics and strategys are designed to deal with their neighbours and the Israelis look very good in this regard.

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that a lot of the anti-terrorist and anti-guerilla warfare weapons and tactics have come out of Israel, they have been dealing with it for years and now the western armies are learning a lot from them.