PDA

View Full Version : Israel Strongest Player in MidEast



bigross86
23 Sep 03,, 07:18
According to these figures recently released, Israel is perhaps the strongest country and has the largest military force in most of the Middle East

Israel
538 Airplanes
3,930 MBT's
8,000 APC/IFV's
1348 Cannons
186,500 Regular Forces
445,000 Reserve Forces
239 Helicopters


Iran
207 Airplanes
1,700 MBT's
1,570 APC/IFV's
2,700 Cannons
520,000 Regular Forces
350,000 Reserve Forces
345 Helicopters


Syria
490 Airplanes
3,700 MBT's
5,060 APC/IFV's
2,600 Cannons
380,000 Regular Forces
132,500 Reserve Forces
225 Helicopters

Saudi Arabia
345 Airplanes
750 MBT's
4,630 APC/IFV's
410 Cannons
171,500 Regular Forces
20,000 Reserve Forces
214 Helicopters

Jordan
91 Airplanes
990 MBT's
1,606 APC/IFV's
838 Cannons
100,700 Regular Forces
60,000 Reserve Forces
74 Helicopters

Egypt
505 Airplanes
3,000 MBT's
3,400 APC/IFV's
3,530 Cannons
450,000 Regular Forces
254,000 Reserve Forces
225 Helicopters

Jay
25 Sep 03,, 09:35
but again Israel is not gonna fight with them Arab countries seperately, it'll be all out once! and as usual the result is pretty obvious :D

bigross86
25 Sep 03,, 10:00
Safe to assume Egypt and Jordan won't fight. Which leaves Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia can't/won't, which leaves Iran and Syria. Iran is too far away to be a major player.

Praxus
25 Sep 03,, 20:28
Egypt may have Abrams tanks but they have to pass through over 100 miles of open desert on the Siani. Let's not forget Israel has the trump card. Over 300 Nuclear weapons that is. If it comes down to it, Israel could stop any advance by Arab countries.

TopHatter
25 Sep 03,, 21:23
And in my humble opinion, the Israelis will not shrink from using nuclear weapons if the situation was desperate enough. Nor should they shrink from it, again in my humble opinion.
I think Syria is the only country who would be a possibilty to attack Israel directly with a conventional force. I just can't see them doing that. I mean, once you've beaten your head up against a brick wall several times, you start to realize that the brick wall just ain't gonna budge :brick It would still be fun to see them try though (in the abstract that is) :dbanana

Jay
25 Sep 03,, 21:31
well also these numbers are misleading!

Israel's 530 odd planes are totally in a different league than 400 odd planes in Syria :lol

TopHatter
25 Sep 03,, 21:36
Oh you mean there's a difference between a MiG-21 and an F-15?:D And should we even bother to talk about the differences between an Israeli pilot and a Syrian pilot? Nah, I'll just re-read that stuff on the Bekaa Valley back in the early Eighties ('82 wasnt it?). Talk about a turkey shoot :clap:

Jay
25 Sep 03,, 22:05
Turkey shoot...hmm i call them target practice :dbanana

Ray
26 Sep 03,, 06:16
********************************************
From Times of India Sep 28

Air Force Pilots' Mutiny Shocks Israel

'Israel is reeling from the shock refusal of a group of air force pilots to carry out missions against Palestinians militants in which civilians could be killed.

'The Pilot's Mutiny' was how Israel's largest newspaper 'Yedioth Ahronoth' described ….speculated…whether other soldiers will follow suit….

****************************************


I am posting this here since this pertains to the Israeli Air Force, even though not quite along with this thread.

This is a most extraordinary development especially when the militants have stepped up their terrorist strike the world over. I wonder what could have caused this quirk in behaviour.

This will have repercussion on the roadmap to the Palestinian Question. I just hope it will not cause suicide bombings to be stepped up since such violent and thoughtless actions lead to nowhere. There has been enough bloodletting. It has got to stop.

Since I have very little idea about Israel poltical environment, could some one explain all this? I believe that the Israeli armed forces are very professional.

TopHatter
26 Sep 03,, 16:11
Check a couple of threads down, there is an AP article post on there as well

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 22:32
The outcome of every middle eastern conflict will be simple nowadays: Israel will win.
Unlike in 1973, Israel will not have to fight for its survival.
With the backing of the United States, if the tables will turn against Israel there will be either massive indirect involvement from the US or even direct involvement, especially with the US now in Iraq.
If the Arabs had resiliance they would have wiped the floor with Israel either in 1967 or 1973, but unfortunately (or fortunately for the Jews) resiliance and willpower is one thing they lack!

and one more thing bigross:
numbers mean nothing at all!

Leader
21 Oct 03,, 23:00
Originally posted by s_qwert63
and one more thing bigross:
numbers mean nothing at all!

Your wrong. Proof: If I have one gun and you have none. You lose. There numbers mean something.

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:25
and one more thing bigross:
numbers mean nothing at all

Your right, Israel has more and theirs is better.

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:27
I mean in the broader context.
For example the French Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht in every field in 1940. In tanks, airplanes, manpower and artillery. They still lost however.
Let me make this a bit clearer for you: it is not the size of your cock, it is how you use it!

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:28
Originally posted by Praxus
Your right, Israel has more and theirs is better.

right...
I see you are not advanced in mathermatics.

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:29
That's a bad example, the French were stupid enough to believe Belgium was gonna protect their north eastern border with Germany. The French also did not use their tanks like the Germans. The French had them spread out, instead of consalidated were they could be the most powerful.

There is no such situation in Israel.


I see you are not advanced in mathermatics.

I see you are not advanced in SPELLING. We are talking about Israel and Syria right:roll

Syria only outnumbers Israel in artillery and Israels artillery has a faster rate of fire, has a longer range, and is more acurate.

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:33
Well I would not consider my typo as a spelling error, but you do need to improve your spelling skills... consolidated not consalidated, where not were.
anyway, fuck that.
We are talking about an Arab coalition against Israel.

Praxus
21 Oct 03,, 23:36
Since, when???

We already ruled out anyone else's involvment. This happened at the THIRD post.

s_qwert63
21 Oct 03,, 23:40
You considering Bigrosses suggestion as valid?
Egypt will fight, unless Mubarak wants to meet the same fate as Sadat, the general populace are very anti-zionist.
Iran will be happy to airlift some forces to Syria.
Lebanon's Hezbollah will provoke the rest of the country to fight.
The Palestinians will surely fight. So will the Jordanians, since most of their population are Palestinians.

Ironduke
21 Oct 03,, 23:50
Egypt will fight, unless Mubarak wants to meet the same fate as Sadat, the general populace are very anti-zionist.
His fate would be decided after his disastrous defeat.

Iran will be happy to airlift some forces to Syria.
What kind of airlift capability does Iran have? Hardly none. What countries would they fly over? Iraq? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Or would they fly around the Arabian peninsula, up the Red Sea, over the Suez Canal, and over to Syria?

Lebanon's Hezbollah will provoke the rest of the country to fight.
Maybe the Shi'ites. The Christians wouldn't.

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 00:03
Originally posted by ironman420
His fate would be decided after his disastrous defeat.

lets not get skeptical please.



What kind of airlift capability does Iran have? Hardly none. What countries would they fly over? Iraq? Turkey? Saudi Arabia? Or would they fly around the Arabian peninsula, up the Red Sea, over the Suez Canal, and over to Syria?

Iran has C 130 hercules aircraft, their Chieftain tanks could also be transported in those.
the second variant is possible.



Maybe the Shi'ites. The Christians wouldn't.

the christians are only 30% of the population, and why wouldn't they?
i have a lebanese christian friend, who hates one people more than he hates muslims and that is jews.

Ironduke
22 Oct 03,, 00:14
No, I will get skeptical.

Iran has C 130 hercules aircraft, their Chieftain tanks could also be transported in those.
the second variant is possible.
How have those been working? We sold them to the Iranians over 20 years ago.

Their fleet of C-130's don't have the capability to airlift much.



the christians are only 30% of the population, and why wouldn't they?
i have a lebanese christian friend, who hates one people more than he hates muslims and that is jews.
They fought on the side of the Israelis during the Lebanese Civil War.

They are the economically dominant people in Lebanon.

I don't think they'd see it as their fight, anyways.

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 00:19
Iran has C 130 hercules aircraft, their Chieftain tanks could also be transported in those.
the second variant is possible.

Are you nuts?

Israel has the densist amount of SAMS in the world. The US has Patriot Batteries in Iraq and Kuwait. They aren't getting anywhere.

In order to move a sufficent force in less then an eon you would require a few hundred Herculees.

Chieftains are peices of shit that couldn't stand against a Merkava or M60A3.

Leader
22 Oct 03,, 00:25
Originally posted by s_qwert63
i have a lebanese christian friend, who hates one people more than he hates muslims and that is jews.

That a bunch of BS. I know a Lebanese family, and they hate Muslims. And no wonder, the Syrians have been oppressing that country for years.

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 01:35
Originally posted by Praxus
Chieftains are peices of shit that couldn't stand against a Merkava or M60A3.

pure speculation!



Israel has the densist amount of SAMS in the world. The US has Patriot Batteries in Iraq and Kuwait. They aren't getting anywhere.


read carefully:
"Or would they fly around the Arabian peninsula, up the Red Sea, over the Suez Canal, and over to Syria?"

see attachment!

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 01:38
Originally posted by ironman420
No, I will get skeptical.

Iran has C 130 hercules aircraft, their Chieftain tanks could also be transported in those.
the second variant is possible.
How have those been working? We sold them to the Iranians over 20 years ago.

Their fleet of C-130's don't have the capability to airlift much.



the christians are only 30% of the population, and why wouldn't they?
i have a lebanese christian friend, who hates one people more than he hates muslims and that is jews.
They fought on the side of the Israelis during the Lebanese Civil War.

They are the economically dominant people in Lebanon.

I don't think they'd see it as their fight, anyways.

the christians might not!
but the muslims will. they are nonetheless the majority!

Ironduke
22 Oct 03,, 01:42
Originally posted by s_qwert63
pure speculation!



read carefully:
"Or would they fly around the Arabian peninsula, up the Red Sea, over the Suez Canal, and over to Syria?"

see attachment! [/B]
No, it's not speculation. The Iranians have no spare parts to repair them.
C130 specs:
Normal Passenger Seats Available: Up to 92 troops or 64 paratroops or 74 litter patients.

Range 2,356 miles (2,049 nautical miles) with maximum payload;
2,500 miles (2,174 nautical miles) with 25,000 pounds (11,250 kilograms) cargo;
5,200 miles (4,522 nautical miles) with no cargo.

That trip is about 3500 miles. If they could make it, (with 1 light tank or a few dozen troops per trip) there's the probable chance they'd get shot down.

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 01:49
By saying speculation I was talking about the Chieftain encountering the Merkava or the M60A3.

about their range:
well the C130's could fly over Saudi Arabia, in an event of war against Israel it is highly likely that they will permit a fly over their air space.
they do also have a refuelling capability.
they would most likely airlift troops in boeing 707's however, those do have the range to get to syria across the route you assigned.
i have to agree however that the state of the IIAF is quite poor.

Ironduke
22 Oct 03,, 01:49
Originally posted by s_qwert63
By saying speculation I was talking about the Chieftain encountering the Merkava or the M60A3.

about their range:
well the C130's could fly over Saudi Arabia, in an event of war against Israel it is highly likely that they will permit a fly over their air space.
they do also have a refuelling capability.
they would most likely airlift troops in boeing 707's however, those do have the range to get to syria across the route you assigned.
i have to agree however that the state of the IIAF is quite poor.
Saudi Arabia and Iran are archenemies! :w00t

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 01:51
they are...
but in an event of war they will most likely rather side with the muslims rather than the jews, you have to agree.
anyway im off to sleep, cya 2moz, mazzle.

Ironduke
22 Oct 03,, 01:53
Originally posted by s_qwert63
they are...
but in an event of war they will most likely rather side with the muslims rather than the jews, you have to agree.
anyway im off to sleep, cya 2moz, mazzle.
No, I don't. The animosity between the two is extreme.

Ray
22 Oct 03,, 04:39
The strategic equation will soon queer out there in the Middle East. As per the news, Saudi Arabia has signed a nuclear deal with Pakistan!

If Saudi Arabia makes the nukes and the US still continues to haul them over the coals, then they may rebel. Arafat will become the winner. In fact, the Middle East will be a real interesting region to watch with so many players including the US and Russia jockeying for power. Everything else will pale in comparison.

Though the Malaysian PM, Dr Mahatir, said that the Jews rule the world, the Middle East is not far behind as far as cash is concerned,

The plot thickens as they would say in an Agatha Christie mystery thriller!

PiggyWiggy
22 Oct 03,, 06:15
I know quite a few lebanese. and they dont like jews. come to think of it, if given the choice, who would in the region?

It comes down to this, lebanese christians and muslims are devided, because of israel. I know some lebanese (he is not the voice for all, but he gave me his opinion) that if lebanon were to fight, he would help muslims regain their territory, because he says they devided them up in the first place.

Which is true. dont see this in the point as ISRAEL is our ally, see it as what is right or wrong.

Indians and ***** are practically the same, religion seperates them, it didnt a 100 yrs ago, but the british took advantage of this and divided a strong nation.

kind of like what is going on here, just subsitute.

ZFBoxcar
22 Oct 03,, 06:27
the lebanese civil war started before Israel got involved.

PiggyWiggy
22 Oct 03,, 06:37
really?

wow.

exactly how do you know this? read from an article perhaps?

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 07:58
A cheiftain will not even physicly fit in the cargo hold of a C-130. Even if it would, the Herc would never get off the ground. A Herc can't even handle an M-2 Bradley.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 08:01
"about their range:
well the C130's could fly over Saudi Arabia, in an event of war against Israel it is highly likely that they will permit a fly over their air space.
they do also have a refuelling capability.
they would most likely airlift troops in boeing 707's however, those do have the range to get to syria across the route you assigned.
i have to agree however that the state of the IIAF is quite poor."

What is the Israeli airforce doing during all this? Taking a nap?

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 08:02
The route you drew on that map is about 3 times the range of a Herc when loaded with cargo.

bigross86
22 Oct 03,, 15:57
First, the IAF is the best in the region excepting maybe the USAF.

Second, I think that like in 1967, when the IDF sees a large military buildup against them, there will be preemptive strikes against airfields, troop emplacements, tank laagers, etc...

Third, due to the US presence in the region, and the fact that the US and Israel are allies, nothing will fly without permission, and this can be enforced.

Fourth, the Merkava Mk III is arguably one of the top four tanks in the world (along with Abrams, Challenger and Leo), and it's definitely better than any equipment that the Arabs have. The IDF is also much better trained than the Arab armies.

In conclusion, I see a complete Israeli military victory. The IDF has been at the gates of Damascus before, no reason they can't do it again.

Ironduke
22 Oct 03,, 16:16
Originally posted by PiggyWiggy
Indians and ***** are practically the same, religion seperates them, it didnt a 100 yrs ago, but the british took advantage of this and divided a strong nation.
**** is considered a racist term by alot of Pakistanis, in America it really isn't, but we decided along time ago not to use it here.

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 16:21
read carefully:
"Or would they fly around the Arabian peninsula, up the Red Sea, over the Suez Canal, and over to Syria?"

see attachment!

We got destroyers, frigates, and cruisers in the area you are flying over, they won't make it more then 50 miles before they get shot down.

The Siani is well within the range of Radars in Israel.

Then of course you are forgetting the 75 F-15 Fighters, 70 Upgraded F-4 Fighters, and 232 F-16 Fighters.

Israel has 17 batterys of HAWK SAMS, 3 Patriot Batteries, 8 Chapparal Batteries, and probley around a thousand stingers, and of course the lovely Arrow 2.

In that map you drew they pass over areas with American Destroyers and Cruisers, and areas well within Israels area of control.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 20:04
"First, the IAF is the best in the region excepting maybe the USAF. "

LOL, don't start this again BR.

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 20:10
He should have said

"The best in the region excluding the USAF"

Stinger
22 Oct 03,, 20:15
Originally posted by Praxus
and probley around a thousand stingers, Which is THE best SAM there is... of course I'm slightly biased given my name and all.....

Jay
22 Oct 03,, 21:12
may be we also need to include those ballistic missiles and SLBM's in the equation??

Iran has a considerable BM force and Israel has nukes and nuke tipped cruise missiles.

Its pretty much like a deadlock, India Vs Pakistan. But the blood may be boil and everything will come crashing down.

What about Israel's supply route in case of a war?? Say if the war goeson for more than a week, is Israel self sufficient of Oil and etc??

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 21:17
well since israel is the 51st state of the USA, the yanks would probably airlift everything from baby dipers to F15's to israel.
did you know that during yum kippur war, the americans took their own F4's out of their service and supplied them to israel.

Praxus
22 Oct 03,, 21:21
Yah that tends to happen when allys of the Soviet Union attack Israel.

We need to supply anything to Israel, just make sure a good supply of oil gets to Israel from Iraq.

Bill
22 Oct 03,, 21:22
You have a problem with us helping an ally in a time of war?

The Russkies supplied everything to the N. Koreans and N. Vietnamese.

You don't hear us whining about it do you?

s_qwert63
22 Oct 03,, 21:25
Originally posted by M21Sniper
You have a problem with us helping an ally in a time of war?

The Russkies supplied everything to the N. Koreans and N. Vietnamese.

You don't hear us whining about it do you?

where did i say i had a problem? was i whining, fuck?
the soviet union airlifted supplies to egypt as well.
and we supplied the n koreans and the n vietnamese, but you went beyond that, you directly intervened!

bigross86
22 Oct 03,, 21:57
How did the US intervene? And the amount of Russian "advisors" in Vietnam was quite large...

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 00:32
So sending three wings of Mig-15's with russian pilots to N. Korea wasn't 'directly intervening'?

The only reason the Reds didn't more directly intervene was because they would have gotten nuked into the stone age, then we wouldn't have nit wits like you to listen to today.

What a loss that would be... :brick

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 00:33
"well since israel is the 51st state of the USA, the yanks would probably airlift everything from baby dipers to F15's to israel."

Sounds like whining to me... :w00t

ZFBoxcar
23 Oct 03,, 00:36
Besides, werent there Russian pilots fighting for the Egyptians?

s_qwert63
23 Oct 03,, 01:03
Originally posted by bigross86
How did the US intervene? And the amount of Russian "advisors" in Vietnam was quite large...

so were the soviet advisors ever fighting?


The only reason the Reds didn't more directly intervene was because they would have gotten nuked into the stone age, then we wouldn't have nit wits like you to listen to today.


nuked into the stone age?
you think truman would be that fucking dumb?
jesus...
the USSR also had nukes at that time, and the 500 or so that the US had would not be enough to shatter the USSR a great deal, since they were only a powerfull as the ones dropped on hiroshima, and the number of B29's that would penetrate soviet airspace would be very small...


Besides, werent there Russian pilots fighting for the Egyptians?

no...
sadat expelled all soviet advisers in 1972.

s_qwert63
23 Oct 03,, 01:04
Originally posted by M21Sniper
"well since israel is the 51st state of the USA, the yanks would probably airlift everything from baby dipers to F15's to israel."

Sounds like whining to me... :w00t

well to me it doesnt.

Praxus
23 Oct 03,, 01:11
nuked into the stone age?
you think truman would be that fucking dumb?
jesus...
the USSR also had nukes at that time, and the 500 or so that the US had would not be enough to shatter the USSR a great deal, since they were only a powerfull as the ones dropped on hiroshima, and the number of B29's that would penetrate soviet airspace would be very small...

Russia would not go to war over China.

By the 1950's we had Hydrogen Bombs. They were in the 100-500 kiloton class.

500 Nuclear Weapons could turn the Soviet Union into a glowing pile of Ruble.

Leader
23 Oct 03,, 01:11
Originally posted by s_qwert63
so were the soviet advisors ever fighting?

Yes.


nuked into the stone age?
you think truman would be that fucking dumb?
jesus...
the USSR also had nukes at that time, and the 500 or so that the US had would not be enough to shatter the USSR a great deal, since they were only a powerfull as the ones dropped on hiroshima, and the number of B29's that would penetrate soviet airspace would be very small...

No 500 nukes would have made no difference at all. :roll

s_qwert63
23 Oct 03,, 01:20
Originally posted by Praxus
Russia would not go to war over China.

By the 1950's we had Hydrogen Bombs. They were in the 100-500 kiloton class.

500 Nuclear Weapons could turn the Soviet Union into a glowing pile of Ruble.

ever heard of Saharov?
we had the H bomb before you...
and lemay's primary targets were in china and north korea and only the east of the USSR.
not the west, there is no way your bombers could have penetrated that deep into our territory.


Yes.


evidence? arguments?

ZFBoxcar
23 Oct 03,, 02:01
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jul_98/jul2a_98.html



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.

If you dont like that source i can find others, but im a bit busy right now.

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 02:02
"nuked into the stone age?
you think truman would be that fucking dumb?
jesus...
the USSR also had nukes at that time, and the 500 or so that the US had would not be enough to shatter the USSR a great deal, since they were only a powerfull as the ones dropped on hiroshima, and the number of B29's that would penetrate soviet airspace would be very small..."

How exactly was the Soviet Union going to deliver any nukes onto US soil in 1950?

The Mk1 wishful thinking missile?

Oh, but that's right, the US had a fleet of 3 THOUSAND heavy bombers that could reach the Soviet Union from CONUS in 1950.

The Hydrogen bomb was invented in the United States. Sorry Skippy.(Russia didn't even detonate a fission device until late 1947).

s_qwert63
23 Oct 03,, 02:03
(-)

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 02:06
We could have filled those bombers with incendiarys and made the Soviet Union glow in the dark.

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 02:07
THANK YOU FOR FINALLY INSULTING ME DIRECTLY, Now i get to edit your posts. :)

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 02:10
Why do people try to get into pissing match with a moderator?

I have an edit button, you don't Squirt.

What are you trying to accomplish?

If you wish to be banned, just say so.

bigross86
23 Oct 03,, 16:53
You know, think of how the world would have changed if Eisenhower let whatsisface into Disneyland?

Ray
23 Oct 03,, 18:10
How sad.

I came in late and missed the edited parts!:brick

Bill
24 Oct 03,, 01:03
He's banned now....fireworks are over. ;)

bigross86
24 Oct 03,, 10:13
Jeez, Snipe, you take the fun out of everything.

s_qwert63
26 Oct 03,, 15:39
Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jul_98/jul2a_98.html



If you dont like that source i can find others, but im a bit busy right now. [/QUOTE]

what a load of crap! :clap:
whoever wrote that is an idiot.

That article looks like it was written by a pro-zionist 20 year old crackhead. If Soviet and Israeli pilots met each other in the skies, the results would not be as described.
Not only is it a bias source, it is also politically incorrect. There were Soviet pilots in Egypt, not Russian ones. And they were only a minority, because the bulk of Warsaw Pact personnel in Egypt at the tim was from Hungary and Poland.

bigross86
26 Oct 03,, 16:01
Direct Translation From Israeli Air Force Official Website (http://www.iaf.org.il):

One of the most famous battles in the War of Attrition is the meeting of MiG-21s flown by Russian pilots. On June 30, 1970 during the afternoon Israeli F-4's attacked Radar positions in the Suez Canal area. They were protected by other Phantoms and Mirages. Soon, six flights of four MiG-21's flown by Russian pilots were launched. Within seconds there was a melee in the air with 5 Russian piloted planes being shot down, three by Mirage's and two by Phantoms.

s_qwert63
26 Oct 03,, 16:11
I'm gonna verify that with my Israeli friends.

bigross86
26 Oct 03,, 16:14
And when you discover I'm right, will we hear an apology from you? Didn't think so...

bigross86
26 Oct 03,, 16:20
A plan began forming for a purely Soviet-Israeli confrontation where the Russians were to be taught that they are out of their league. Set to take place a third of the way between the city of Suez and Cairo, 12 of Israel's best fighter pilots, together credited with 59 enemy aircraft kills, were recruited for this specific mission.

On thurday, April 30th, a pair of F-4 Phantoms attacked an Egyptian radar station on the west bank of the Canal, escorted by 4 Mirage IIIs. No Russian response was sighted and the 4 Mirages begun penetrating deeper into Egypt. 12 minutes after the intial penetration 8 Russian Mig-21s were scrambled against the IAF fighters and first contact was made at 14:20. Coming from the east, the Mirages lured the Migs westward towards Cairo, when another quartet of Israeli Mirages appeared behind the Russians. With the confrontation clearly about to take place, every available Russian fighter was launched againt the Mirages and within seconds another 12 Migs were in the air. The air battle began with 8 Mirages facing 20 Mig-21s, but soon 4 Israeli Phantoms which had entered the area below radar coverage appeared from below and joined in the fight. Led by Avihu-Ben-Nun, Israel's first Phantom squadron commander (and IAF chief of staff during the Gulf War of 1991), the new addition to the battle caused the Russians to launch yet another 4 Migs into the air, bringing the total number of aircraft participating in the dog fight to 36 aircraft.

The first Russian loss was shot down by the lead of the first Mirage III quartet, soon followed by an AIM-7 Sparrow kill from Avihu-Ben-Nun's aircraft, and a cannon kill by another Mirage III. After a fourth Mig was shot down by an F-4, the Russian pilots began breaking off. The Israeli fighters started giving chase but were ordered to return to Israel, with a desire by the IAF high command not to see any aircraft loss on the part of the IAF. Details of the dogfight were kept a secret, even from the aircraft ground crews which painted the Egyptian air force emblem as kill markings on the aircraft. Only after the story was published two months later in the British "Daily Express" were these markings changed to the Soviet air force's Red Star. The story revealed that besides the 4 known kills, another damaged aircraft had crashed approaching its air base, bringing the final result to 5:0 in favour of the IAF. Three Russian pilots parachuted to safety and two were killed. The source of the media report was apparently Egyptian, spurred by Russian arrogance and claims of Egyptian incompetence in earlier dealings with the Israeli Air Force.

s_qwert63
26 Oct 03,, 17:04
well don't you think that a source from the IAF can be biased?
how do you know that those were Soviet pilots and not EAF pilots?

Stinger
26 Oct 03,, 18:13
"The source of the media report was apparently Egyptian, "
Where the Hell do you get the source being IAF?

s_qwert63
26 Oct 03,, 18:25
Originally posted by Stinger
"The source of the media report was apparently Egyptian, "


even better!
when was it published?
the egyptians could not complete even the simplest tasks, although they were supplied with the right equipment in large amounts.
i read that when Sharons division encountered a group of T62's in the middle of a desert in the night, his T55's and M51's (Shermans) illuminated the targets and neutralized them. the egyptians were seen abandoning their tanks after they were illuminated.
even though the T62's possessed night vision equipment while the Israeli tanks didn't hte egyptians were routed.
they were simply a bunch of pussies.
don't be getting the impression that the egyptians were our allies.

bigross86
26 Oct 03,, 21:14
well don't you think that a source from the IAF can be biased? how do you know that those were Soviet pilots and not EAF pilots?

Cuz like you stated, the Egyptians are pussies. If it was EAF, it would be alot more than 5 dead.


don't be getting the impression that the egyptians were our allies.

Hmmm, you sent troops, equipment, "advisors" during time of war, you spied for them in times of peace, you had bases on their land. Of course you guys weren't allies!!!

s_qwert63
27 Oct 03,, 01:06
Originally posted by bigross86
Cuz like you stated, the Egyptians are pussies. If it was EAF, it would be alot more than 5 dead.

right... lets speculate.



Hmmm, you sent troops, equipment, "advisors" during time of war, you spied for them in times of peace, you had bases on their land. Of course you guys weren't allies!!!

we were close friends under Nasser.
not Sadat, he scrapped the treaty and released all the radical muslims that Nasser put behind bars, in 1980 Sadat realised that Nasser did it for a reason, too bad that was when he got killed by them.

bigross86
27 Oct 03,, 17:10
Yeah, and Sadat brought peace instead of war...

s_qwert63
27 Oct 03,, 23:24
peace without honour...
he really stabbed in the back the whole of the egyptian army that did quite make an effort in 1973, when you compare it to the performance of other arab armies.
he also stabbed his people in the back.
speaking before the knesset 5 years after the war...
that is why he was killed, because most of his people didn't like him.

bigross86
28 Oct 03,, 14:45
Cua he was the only one decent enough to want peace when everyone else wanted war.