Why the IDF isn't that great

cushtac

Maskhadov wrote:

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

Since none of the above tanks have ever faced each other and all are broadly similar in performance and vital statistics, you've no way of telling this. There's no 'fact' there, only your opinion which so far you've failed to validate with any sort of evidence.

Manic Moran

Maskhadov wrote:

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

Please provide some quantative reasons for this statement.

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.

Notwithstanding the fact that I can't think of any Leopard user which has DU rounds in their inventory, and that Israel does have DU rounds in theirs, Merkava is not an IFV. It's a tank, designed from the start as such. The heavy APCs that Israel has come up with (Such as Puma, Achzarit) are tank hulls which have the weight of the turret removed and replaced with additional armour, making them just as tough as a regular tank.

NTM

Maskhadov

wasnt it the leopard that america got its new gun for the M2A2 ? I belive so.. the germans may not have DU shells but the gun is top quality.

The Merkava is a good tank for the region but I dont think they have the same ability as the Germans to build a tank or England or USA for that matter.

bk

Maskhadov wrote:

wasnt it the leopard that america got its new gun for the M2A2 ? I belive so.. the germans may not have DU shells but the gun is top quality.

Huh? The M2A2 is the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, it is armed with a 25 mm M242 Chain Gun, it is not a MBT. The Leopard 2 has a 120mm smooth bore gun. Your probably thinking of the Abrams M1A2 which, yes, uses the same 120mm gun as the Leopard 2

BTW The Merkava also has a 120mm gun, but one designed and built in Israel (damned those incompetent Israelis).

Maskhadov wrote:

The Merkava is a good tank for the region but I dont think they have the same ability as the Germans to build a tank or England or USA for that matter.

Ok It is a little childish, but lets compare them, see:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/specs.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/specs.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/specs.html
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/merkava4/specs.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1a2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2_tank

Actually looking at all the specs they are all very similar, with pretty much the same guns and advanced targeting systems and electronic systems.

The only noticeable difference is that the Merkava comes with a 60mm mortar.I take back what I said earlier, the Merkava is more then capable of taking on any of the other modern western tanks.

BTW if the Merkava is so bad, why does Israel do $400 million worth of exports of it?

Manic Moran

bk wrote:

Actually looking at all the specs they are all very similar, with pretty much the same guns and advanced targeting systems and electronic systems.

Merk IV has an adaptive fire control system, which makes it more advanced than the British, American or German counterparts. I'm unsure about the French, Italian or Japanese.

BTW if the Merkava is so bad, why does Israel do $400 million worth of exports of it?

It doesn't. To my knowledge, no other country uses Merkava. There was talk of South Africa getting some to replace the old Olifants, but that didn't happen. IMI has sold the Sabra upgrade of the M60 to Turkey, and of course has a large ammunition export industry.

NTM

bk

Manic Moran wrote:

Merk IV has an adaptive fire control system, which makes it more advanced than the British, American or German counterparts. I'm unsure about the French, Italian or Japanese.

Yes, it seems to have the capability to take out helicopters!!

I

Manic Moran wrote:

t doesn't. To my knowledge, no other country uses Merkava. There was talk of South Africa getting some to replace the old Olifants, but that didn't happen. IMI has sold the Sabra upgrade of the M60 to Turkey, and of course has a large ammunition export industry.

Sorry, yes the $400 million is for various parts and components from the Merkava that they sell around the world.

Manic Moran

bk wrote:

Yes, it seems to have the capability to take out helicopters!!

A number of tanks do. For example, the US M830A1 round has an 'air' mode which turns it into a proximity-fuzed anti-aircraft shell. Get the round close enough to a chopper, and it'll blow. It'll fire from any smoothbore 120mm.

Russian tanks use their missiles in an anti-chopper mode.

And all tanks are capable of having a swing at it with a sabot/fin round.

NTM

Morse

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

So how come Hezbollah have kicked their arses twice now?

I couldn't let this reply go without a reply.

When did the Hezbollah kick the IDF's arse?.

Fact. In Ehud Baraks election manifest he promised he'd withdraw his forces from Lebanon inside two year's of being elected. He was elected, and withdrew his forces inside six months, catching us all off guard (I was serving with the 87th Bn when they withdrew).

Ehud Barak also promised limited autonomy to the Palestinians during the same election and kept to that promise too, but thats a different discussion. What I'm saying is that the Israel people voted in Barak because he ran on a peace manifest, and they longed for it.

Cut short, the IDF withdrew in March 2000 as part of Ehud Baraks election promise and not because of any military victory.

In the latest outbreak the IDF didn't send in overwhelming forces because Olmert was a weak military officer and a weak Israeli PM. Sharon would have sorted Hezbollah out, no doubt.

Btw Israel still maintains an air and sea blockcade of Lebanon, so what have the Hezbollah achieved?. Certainly not a military victory.

uberpixie

Morse wrote:

In the latest outbreak the IDF didn't send in overwhelming forces because Olmert was a weak military officer and a weak Israeli PM. Sharon would have sorted Hezbollah out, no doubt.

Btw Israel still maintains an air and sea blockcade of Lebanon, so what have the Hezbollah achieved?. Certainly not a military victory.

Political victory.

Hezbollah has more support than ever in the Lebanon.

Has highlighted the weakness in Israelie leadership: whose decisions have made the IDF look weaker not stronger.

The real question is what has Israel accomplished?

Manic Moran

uberpixie wrote:

Political victory.

Hezbollah has more support than ever in the Lebanon.

There is some dispute about that. The BBC recently quoted a Lebanese newspaper poll as showing that the slight majority of Lebanese now want Hezbullah to disarm after the little quarrel with Israel. The ratios depended highly on the group being questioned, with some 80+% of Shias saying 'keep the weapons', and the majority of Christians and Druze saying "Lose 'em"

The real question is what has Israel accomplished?

He certainly got people's attention, both inside and outside Lebanon.

NTM

bk

uberpixie wrote:

Political victory.

Hezbollah has more support than ever in the Lebanon.

Sorry, that is simply not true, it totally ignores the history of the area and couldn't be further from the truth.

The Lebanon is made up of 40% Christians, 30% Shia Muslims, 25% Sunni Muslims and 5% Druze. These factions fought a 15 year civil war that left 100,000 dead. Hizbollah represented the military arm of the Shia community during this civil war and later worked closely with the Syrians in forcing control over the other parts of the Lebanonese community. The Christians, Sunni Muslims and Druze hate Hezbollah, blame Hezbollah for causing the war and destruction in Lebanon and want to see them disarmed.

The rest of Lebanon realises that if Hezbollah didn't exist that they could have a normalised relationship with Israel (just like Egypt) and they could get on with developing their country and economy.

uberpixie wrote:

Has highlighted the weakness in Israelie leadership: whose decisions have made the IDF look weaker not stronger.

The real question is what has Israel accomplished?

- Destruction of at least 50% of Hezbollahs infrastructure and GDP worth.
- Killing of about 600 Hezbollah members (this is an estimate, Hezbollah don't realise any figures).
- Gathering intelligence information on Hezbollah, the organisation and leadership. [1]
- Proof that Iran and Syria have been supplying weapons to Hezbollah [2]
- Movement of Lebanese army into Southern Lebanon for the first time ever.

Ok, for the last 4 years the rest of Lebanon has been wanting to disarm Hezbollah, but was afraid to do so, as they were afraid to reignite the civil war. However with Hezbollah now significantly weakened and with the Lebanonese army now in southern Lebanon, Israel is hoping that for the first time the Lebanonese will be in a position and have the balls to start disarming Hezbollah.

[1] This is exactly what Israel has done in Palestine. They first go in militarily, destroying infrastructure and gathering intelligence, they then started a second phase where they use the intelligence gathered to assinate the Palestinian leadership and technical personal (the engineers who build bombs etc.) this has proven very succesful in reducing the terrorism coming from Palestian. It is possible that the same may happen in southern Lebanon.

[2] This will be greatly helpful to the US if they decide to attack Iran at a later time.

The middle east is a complicated place, secrecy, deception and misdirection have always been a strong part of Arabic cultures, you can't believe everything you read in the papers, there is often far more going on then meets the eye.

philologos

bk wrote:

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

They are the best in Asia from what I heard anyway, Saudi Arabia are also v.well catered for (they bought 70 or so Eurofighters from Britain recently)

Dub13

Lads this is getting very Political,remember this is the Military forum.

Flying

bk wrote:

Sorry, that is simply not true, it totally ignores the history of the area and couldn't be further from the truth.

The Lebanon is made up of 40% Christians, 30% Shia Muslims, 25% Sunni Muslims and 5% Druze. These factions fought a 15 year civil war that left 100,000 dead. Hizbollah represented the military arm of the Shia community during this civil war and later worked closely with the Syrians in forcing control over the other parts of the Lebanonese community. The Christians, Sunni Muslims and Druze hate Hezbollah, blame Hezbollah for causing the war and destruction in Lebanon and want to see them disarmed.

The rest of Lebanon realises that if Hezbollah didn't exist that they could have a normalised relationship with Israel (just like Egypt) and they could get on with developing their country and economy.



- Destruction of at least 50% of Hezbollahs infrastructure and GDP worth.
- Killing of about 600 Hezbollah members (this is an estimate, Hezbollah don't realise any figures).
- Gathering intelligence information on Hezbollah, the organisation and leadership. [1]
- Proof that Iran and Syria have been supplying weapons to Hezbollah [2]
- Movement of Lebanese army into Southern Lebanon for the first time ever.

Ok, for the last 4 years the rest of Lebanon has been wanting to disarm Hezbollah, but was afraid to do so, as they were afraid to reignite the civil war. However with Hezbollah now significantly weakened and with the Lebanonese army now in southern Lebanon, Israel is hoping that for the first time the Lebanonese will be in a position and have the balls to start disarming Hezbollah.

[1] This is exactly what Israel has done in Palestine. They first go in militarily, destroying infrastructure and gathering intelligence, they then started a second phase where they use the intelligence gathered to assinate the Palestinian leadership and technical personal (the engineers who build bombs etc.) this has proven very succesful in reducing the terrorism coming from Palestian. It is possible that the same may happen in southern Lebanon.

[2] This will be greatly helpful to the US if they decide to attack Iran at a later time.

The middle east is a complicated place, secrecy, deception and misdirection have always been a strong part of Arabic cultures, you can't believe everything you read in the papers, there is often far more going on then meets the eye.

Very Well said but again this is a Military Forum not political, one correction, there has always been Lebanese Soliders in the south but at most a few hundred if that, a token force

bk

Dub13 wrote:

Lads this is getting very Political,remember this is the Military forum.

You are right, sorry.

My interest in this is from a more military history, strategy and tactics point of view, I actually don't have much of a political view on this myself.

It is just very hard to look at the military strategy without understanding the politics, demographics and history of the war.

bk

Jakkass wrote:

They are the best in Asia from what I heard anyway, Saudi Arabia are also v.well catered for (they bought 70 or so Eurofighters from Britain recently)

Saudi Arabia has always bought the best military technology but has never shown the capability to make use of it. Military strategist have always looked down on the Saudi defence forces. They might have very good jets, but they don't train their pilots very well and the jets wouldn't fly without round the clock support from foreign contractors and engineers.

Many argue that the problem is that they have so much money that they just spend it on fancy toys like new fighters, but for the most part the members of the defence forces are just there for jobs for the boys (relatives, etc.) and it isn't really geared to defending itself, instead they rely heavily on the US for their defence.

Mick86

Manic Moran wrote:

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

And if they don't volunteer they'll be drafted.:D