ZFBoxcar

again, you are trying to prove a negative. Their history has been victories against what you call bad armies. That does not prove that they cannot fight strong armies. And their equipment is damn good.

Officer of Engineers

Easiest solution to this thing. Wargame it. I believe that there is now a commercial version of JANUS you can try.

__________________
Chimo

troung

"Their history has been victories against what you call bad armies. That does not prove that they cannot fight strong armies. And their equipment is damn good."


The point is they have just had better weapons. They will not out gun the USA so they don't really have to much of a chance.

And they get thier equipment from the USA, so please don't pretend like they could surive and embogro which would precend any conflict.

ZFBoxcar

dude, I never, ever said that Israel could beat the US. Nobody here has said that. Actually, the embargo would only make things more expensive, not harder to get (with the exception of fighters). Israels factories can make all the parts needed for maintanence, as well as all the ammunition required, it just buys from the US so money from US aid can be used for it. Of course Israel would run out of fuel after a few weeks of combat so the US would definetly win that way even if they didnt in a different way.

As for the better weapons, thats debatable. The Soviets did their best to arm the Arabs to the teeth. They gave their most advanced SAMs, fighters (including Soviet pilots, who flew for Egypt in 1973). Israels best tank before the creation of the merkava was the M-60. The Arabs had T-64s and T-72s so not much disparity there. In aircraft Israel did not have superiority until 1973. Before 1969, the US sold barely any military equipment to Israel and Israel was forced to rely on France who put the inevitable arms embargo in favour of the Arabs who at this point had a mix of french, british and russian equipment compared to israels older french and british (and trickles of American equipment). And the Arabs had more of it.

troung

"The Soviets did their best to arm the Arabs to the teeth."

No, they armed them for limited defensive wars.

"They gave their most advanced SAMs, fighters (including Soviet pilots, who flew for Egypt in 1973)."

The sold downgraded MiG-21PFs and a handful of bombers for PR reasons. And the Arabs only AAM before the 1980s was the R-13.

"As for the better weapons, thats debatable."

No its not.

Do you want to compare the MiG-21PF with the Mirage IIICJ? The MiG-21F-13 with the F-4E? Or the F-16A/B with the MiG-21SM? Or this one is better, the MiG-23MS with the F-15A?

"Israels best tank before the creation of the merkava was the M-60. The Arabs had T-64s and T-72s so not much disparity there"

No when the IDF was using the M-60, M-48A5 and Centurion the Arabs had the T-62 and T-55.

"Before 1969, the US sold barely any military equipment to Israel and Israel was forced to rely on France who put the inevitable arms embargo in favour"

The emborgo came after Israels attacks on the Lebanese air port get it right. Anyways the British and French sold Israel better equipment then the Arabs were getting from the Russians. The Russians only gave export model Mig-21PF which lacked guns now compare that with the heavily armed Mirage IIICJ.


"f the Arabs who at this point had a mix of french, british and russian equipment compared to israels older french and british (and trickles of American equipment)."

ehhhhhhhhhhh.

The Arabs (Libya) did not get French planes (Mirage 5ED) until the early 1970s and those played a part in one war (1973).


"and the Arabs had more of it."

Not by a huge margin. Add that the the fact that a MiG-21 cannot fight a F-4E over Israeli air space due to its short range and very poor avoinics and weapons.


So please spare me the David vs. Goliath thing.

ZFBoxcar

your the one who is saying israel sucks for WINNING just because you dont think the fight was fair.

Having looked at some websites, I have to concede the the point about superior aircraft. Yes, for all of the wars (except 1948 and 1956) Israel did have much better planes that the Arabs. This should have been balanced at least partially by the Arabs vastlly superior SAM network as well as greater numbers of aircraft (im not trying to do a david and goliath thing, but in aircraft their numbers were a lot larger even though they were mig-21s).

No, you get it right. After the six day war France and Britain put an arms embargo on Israel. That is why the Nesher and Kfir were built. If Israel were still getting mirages they would not have felt the need.

On the ground Arab equipment was far closer to being equal. But poor tactics, lack of NCOs, too rigid a command structure, and yes, Israeli air superiority due to superior planes (happy now? lol) (but also because of superior pilots).

What I dont understand is that you seem to be implying that Israel had no right to win simply because they had better equipment which is absurb. I could be discerning to much from your posts but thats the way they seem to me.

troung

"No, you get it right. After the six day war France and Britain put an arms embargo on Israel. That is why the Nesher and Kfir were built. If Israel were still getting mirages they would not have felt the need."

Actually the Nesher was the Mirage 5J which the French delievered due to US pressure. The whole Nesher thing was a cover story so the French could sell the Mirage III/5 to the Arabs and the Kfir was built in the later 1970s after the USA already provided the IDF/AF with planes. And the French "stopped" selling to Israel after they attacked the Lebanese air port in 1968.

"Having looked at some websites, I have to concede the the point about superior aircraft. Yes, for all of the wars (except 1948 and 1956) Israel did have much better planes that the Arabs."

In the 1956 France and Britian did the dirty work in the air war.

"What I dont understand is that you seem to be implying that Israel had no right to win simply because they had better equipment which is absurb. I could be discerning to much from your posts but thats the way they seem to me."

No I'm implying that that the IDF is not as tough as it's PR wing claims it to be. I actually find this topic a joke seeing as the IDF/AF would lose really fast to the USAF.

Stinger

Reminds me of an old Joke "The French Army? whats that?" You feel compelled to downgrade Isreals military ability due to their wins against (supposedly) inferior enemies. Yet when I bring up a country that has never even won a major war without military support from other countries (UK primarily) you have no doubt that they could beat Isreal... I happen to disagree, and I doubt the French people would be very happy after the Isreali's start an experiment involving one French CVN and the bottom of the Ocean.

__________________
Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

Officer of Engineers

Stinger,

What time period are you talking about? Who can forget the Napoleonic Wars?

WWI and II, the French needed help. However, post WWII, the French has been very active in Africa, especially the French Foreign Legion. They've domainated Africa.

It was the French who broke the Serb seige at Sarajevo while the Brits relieved it. FREBAT supported CANBAT (2 PPCLI Battle Group) when we destroyed the Croat 9th Lukid "Wolves" Brigade. The French division was part of the hook in the Kuwait War. French paratroopers maded the deepest thrust into Kosovo when the go was given.

In the meantime, the Israelis got tied down by the intifada and lost alot of doctrine development.

markaspen

Maybe we should make it US v. Canada, less emotional content.

You're both right on the French embargo. DeGaulle suspended shipments right after June, 1967, though there was still a relationship (much like right after the bombing of the reactor). After the Beirut attacks, France suspended and ultimately ended the sales of military goods to Israel.

US sleas had been sporadic and diplomatically incorrect (the State Dept. at work) through the 60s. The F-4s and A4s delivered in 69 and 69 had been agreed to as early as 66. The discussions actually began while JFK was still in office.

The Mirage 5, pretty much designed to IAF specs was paid for but never delivered. The same is not true of the Saar class (Cherbourg) missile boats. Hence the subterfuge and espionage in designing and producing the Nesher and later the Kfir. The Kfir was primarily an economic step, designed to keep IAI tooled and employed until export orders could be attained.

Who would win? M-21, your arguments about Israel apply equally to the US. Americans haven't faced a comparably equipped and motivated army since the N. Koreans and Chinese. I don' think Churchill would have called Grenada and Panama the military's "Finest Hour." What the first Gulf War proved, is that the US is a logistical giant, and can project force worldwide. How does the buildup and outcome change if the Soviets had supported Saddam, even half-heartedly.

You can quibble about the qualitative edge Israel had at any given time, its a wash with the Jordanians in 67, the Legion was comparably trained, and had superior equipment, except for air cover. Again 67 on the Golan, an attacking force going uphill against an entrenched position. Of course the Israelis were more numerous, isn't that a basic infantry rule, attackers need to have a 3:1 margin over defenders to even the odds? Same can be said of the Israeli defense on the Golan in 73, they held against tremendous odds, and went over to the offensive in 6 days. Sinai a little more murky, and its a shame we won't see the Official history for a few more years. Sharon probably should have been relieved for insubordination.

As for PR machines, what about the deification of Jessica Lynch?, and the 3 rows of tags and ribbons that the average recruit earns after bing in the service 6 months? Somewhere there's the truth or legend of the Marine DI who yelled at his recruits, "POWs are guys that failed at their jobs." Our DIs were much less emphatic, but more practical; "You each have a Red Cross Prisoner's ID if you get captured, I wouldn't worry about it, the Syrians don't take a whole lot of prisoners."

__________________
Pa'am Tzanhan, Tamid Tzanhan.

Stinger

I try very hard to live in my own little world Colonel, your facts are bursting my bubble :D

In actuality I have (what I consider) a moderate view on the French Military. I have read of many examples of the Foreign Legion fighting exceptionaly well, however what I see as French arrogance (yes yes I know we Americans are very arrogant ourselves) and a marginal at best historical military record cause me to hold a less than favorable opinion overall. In theory (and practice in relatively small formations ie non-corp level or above) the French Army is very capable, however historical stigma is very hard to over come.

Look at how Vietnam is perceived against the US military, and that was our only defeat (and Arguably not a defeat at all, we did make the bastards sign a peace agreement, and won damn near every single engagement).

troung

"Look at how Vietnam is perceived against the US military, and that was our only defeat (and Arguably not a defeat at all, we did make the bastards sign a peace agreement, and won damn near every single engagement)."

I would say the USA won most of the fights but no all of them.

And we are no "bastards".

ChrisF202

Plus they lost way more men then we did (2 million, to 58,000 plus casulties taken by the ARVN, South Koreans, Australians, Thai and other forces fighting on our side)

Stinger

The bastards I was refering to were the communist leaders and not the general population. I appologize if you took it as a condemnation of the people, however I make no apologies about it in reference to the Communist leaders of Vietnam.

ChrisF202

Is that the joke about the brown pants?