Article

2006-08-11 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-08-11 09:15|| || Front Page|| [11 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 They expend it on both armor and infantry. Regardless of cost, it works. And it doesn't cost as much as Merkava's. Israel/Olmert has really screwed this war up and will pay for it in the next one.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-11 09:23|| 2006-08-11 09:23|| Front Page Top

#2 Usually pay now or pay more later.

Posted by JohnQC 2006-08-11 09:25|| 2006-08-11 09:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Its not the tanks its the tactics.

Dont hit the enemy all oover jsut do "pinpricks" from the air. Send the tanks in by ones and twos, then keep them static and pussyfooting aroudn to try to avoid inflicting casualties, then withdraw them after a day or two. Thats terrible operational art and crap armor tactics. And thats why they are losing their armor - they are using it wrong due to political constraints. WW2 had a ton of examples of this sort of operational stupidity.

Israel blew this when they decided to dribble forces in, instead of dealing a hammerblow by roulling up to Typer and down the Litani at the start with several divisions. The casualties are a result of that piss-poor half-assed way of doing things.

You cannot bend reality to fit your fantasy in the military or you will get your people killed. No matter how much the Liberals want to beleive that such alterred reality is possible, it just results in death when the messy real world comes crashing in on their unworkable ideals.

I think the Israeli political leaders need to spend less time on Marx & Engls and other leftists and pacifists, and more time on Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Boney Fuller, Guderian, Rommel, and Patton (as well as Giap for what they are facing). they might jsut get a clue before they get even more of their citizenry and soldiers killed.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-08-11 09:38|| 2006-08-11 09:38|| Front Page Top

#4 Israel was famous for its armored strikes deep into enemy territory. To bad Olmert fucked that up.

Posted by DarthVader 2006-08-11 09:42|| 2006-08-11 09:42|| Front Page Top

#5 "You cannot bend reality to fit your fantasy in the military or you will get your people killed. No matter how much the Liberals want to beleive that such alterred reality is possible, it just results in death when the messy real world comes crashing in on their unworkable ideals.

I think the Israeli political leaders need to spend less time on Marx & Engls and other leftists and pacifists, and more time on Frederick the Great, Napoleon, Boney Fuller, Guderian, Rommel, and Patton (as well as Giap for what they are facing). they might jsut get a clue before they get even more of their citizenry and soldiers killed."

1. Olmert is not a socialist. Hes a long time Likud member, and afaik a loyal defender of free markets and capitalism.

2. Peretz, the Defense Minister, who IS a leader of a leftist party, and who is certainly more left on economic issues than any leader Labour has had in 30 years (though hes still not a Marxist) has actually been pushing for a more aggressive stance militarily, at least in the last couple of weeks.

3. Olmerts approach does seem to have messed up, falling in between two approaches that might have worked better - going in with a big ground force from the beginning, OR switching to a focus on diplomacy after the first few days of air attacks. (I note again the main advocate of the latter seems to be FM Lipni, also from an old Likud background, NOT a socialist)

4. Its not clear now what Israel military intell was telling the govt about the strength of Hezb on the ground, and how much this was an intell failure vs how much a failure of Olmert. That will be thrashed out in Israel after the war - they are very good at recriminations. If Olmert cant establish a rock solid defense of his approach (IE a better defense than Rumsfelds) Olmert will be history, I have little doubt.

5. Once again, folks here who comment on Israeli politics would be well served to follow it more closely. While Bibi IS both VERY pro-capitalist, and (lately) very hawkish, and the old Mapam party was both socialist and dovish, Hawk vs Dove doesnt map all that well to Capitalist vs Socialist in Israeli politics. Ben Gurion and Golda Meier were both probably more socialist than any major Israeli pol today (and probably actually HAD read Marx) but both were firm hawks. OTOH many of the doves in Israels Meretz party, are yuppies who with little real enthusiasm for leftie economics. Sharon grew up on a Kibbutz, started a party that he intended to ally with Labour, and switched to supporting the Israeli right strictly on security policy grounds.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-11 10:03|| 2006-08-11 10:03|| Front Page Top

#6 and whatever gave anyone the idea that Marxists are pacifists?

Guderian, who was mentioned by the above poster, was beaten soundly by a bunch of Marxist-Leninists.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-11 10:05|| 2006-08-11 10:05|| Front Page Top

#7 Halutz should not get off scot free, either. It appears he sold Olmert the "Air Power can do it all" bill of goods. It is also going to be interesting to see what comes out of the Kaplinski-Adam swap. Israel has way too many uncontrolled internal divisions. Such divisions are inseparable from the big egos required to run these organizations. But part of leadership is keeping them under control and moving in the same direction. That was Eisenhower's skill. Ultimately, Olmert is responsible and has failed miserably to provide strong unified leadership.

What is starting to astound me is how long Israel is willing to be led by Olmert after his incompetence has become plain for all to see.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-08-11 10:22|| 2006-08-11 10:22|| Front Page Top

#8 Oldspook:

I believe most of your points are spot on save perhaps for your call for an IDF headstrong push into Lebanon.

Hezbos are fighting a conventional, fixed position battle, and that means IDF should have overwhelmed their fortified positions with a combination of firepower and massive infantry assaults.

Flamethrowers and napalm, incidentally neither of which are outlawed by internationl law, should be used along with HE, tank fire, and air power.

It now appears that Israel's liberal-leftist politicians have blown this war.

Consequences will be severe.

Idiotic comment of the Year:

Simon Peres: "Since Israel did not start this war, she does not have to win it. She only has to stop it."

Posted by Lancasters Over Dresden 2006-08-11 11:15|| http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp]">[http://www.michaelcalderonscall.com/HomePage.asp] 2006-08-11 11:15|| Front Page Top

#9 The IDF lost a lot of armor in 73 war early on due to not using tanks on close cooperation with infantry so that the infantry could take out the AT teams.

After a pause, IDF changed tactics and beat the Egyptians. Could be same thing here - using tanks too forward.

Posted by Oldcat 2006-08-11 11:27|| 2006-08-11 11:27|| Front Page Top

#10 Nimble Spemble you're a loudmouthed ignoramus with a serious chip on your shoulder about Israel.

Oldspook. Shuf Mountains are not armor country. And most of these Merkavas will be back in operation a week from now.
p.s. The US military would take 10 times the casualties for the same results.

Oldcat Nice to hear a reasonable voice.

Posted by gromgoru 2006-08-11 11:42|| 2006-08-11 11:42|| Front Page Top

#11 It is much easier to develop a better missle than a better tank. Oldspook and Oldcat are correct it is all about the tactics and politics as well.

Posted by TomAnon 2006-08-11 12:02|| 2006-08-11 12:02|| Front Page Top

#12 Thanks Oldspook,

furstus and foremost Armor and Armies must shock, surprise and overwhelm and crush their opponents.

In the beginning I was hoping that Israel would have also assulted Lebanon/Hizzbos simultaneously from the Med. North of the Latani. [but what the fark do I know]

Of course kofi, al-MSM, and the Libs would have gone ape shit, shed crock tears and wrung the skin off their hands.

road net in S. Leb

Posted by RD 2006-08-11 12:02|| 2006-08-11 12:02|| Front Page Top

#13 I don't know whether this is relevant, but tanks don't seem to be playing a big part in the slaughter of the Taliban. It's mostly about infantry units calling in pinpoint airstrikes as required. The Israelis don't seem to be using these tactics: their bombing seems to be mainly strategic.

Posted by Apostate 2006-08-11 13:06|| 2006-08-11 13:06|| Front Page Top

#14 Grom makes an excellent point about the "destroyed" term in the article. Most of the vehicles will be repaired. I'm also interested to know how many of these "tanks" are really APC's, which are thinner skinned and more vulnerable. I'm guessing that the idiot journos wouldn't know the difference.

Posted by remoteman 2006-08-11 13:09|| 2006-08-11 13:09|| Front Page Top

#15
De-capitate Iran and the tank rocket issue will go away.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-08-11 13:12|| 2006-08-11 13:12|| Front Page Top

#16 Well, Remoteman, I don't know if they've used them in the present conflict, but I think the Israelis ahve experimented with using tank hulls as the basis for APC's.

Posted by Phil 2006-08-11 13:22|| 2006-08-11 13:22|| Front Page Top

#17 Phil, there are two kinds that I've seen on TV. One is a modified M113 and the other appears to be what you are talking about.

Posted by remoteman 2006-08-11 13:31|| 2006-08-11 13:31|| Front Page Top

#18 Libhawk you're so wrong its comical. Call yourself a hawk, and don't know Guderian?

Guderian cleaned the Soviet's clocks until he was forced into fixed positional warfare by Hitler's idiocy. And as far as Guderian and his brilliance as an operational armored commander goes, the Soviets respected the hell out of him - they used his history, writings and methods to train their tankers for their offensive in WW2, and continued to do so generations that followed WW2. Heinz Guderian was an idol for Soviet tankers and his doctrines formed the basis for a lot of the teachings at the Malinovskiy armor academy in the old Soviet Union. At the Frunze General Staff Academy they also study Guderian - indeed "Guderian" was a nickname given to Soviet tankers (as a mark of respect). Learn history sonny - all of it, don't leave out the bits that discredit your ideology - something liberals always seem to try to do. You guys seem to always color your history until its no longer recognizable, robbing it of any educational or probative value.

Additionally, the political labels of Israeli politicians are not entirely accurate, but their combined actions and political policies are reflective of typical liberal and leftist sentiments - pacifists, and tend towards half measures. That much is very clear with the vacillation and nature of the conduct of the wa as driven by the politicians. And any of these would be called Liberal in the US, which is what I was using for the standard.

A further correction for you Libhawk: Marxists are pacifists when it comes to western nations defending themselves against marxists. Or did you miss the entire 1970's and 80's peace movements that were sponsored by Communist and Soviet organizations (Remember the Pershing missiles?) Once again , your grasp of history is tenuous at best due to the ideological blinders you place on yourself as a liberal. You make a useful fool for them if you cannot see that clearly.

Grom, you didn't read what I wrote. The Litani from Tyre along IS armor country for that stretch - where I said the advance should have been done. And armor is effective in combined arms teams in the more broken terrain. Or can you not read English and a map? The point is to not push into the mountains bit by bit, but to cut them and isolate those in them in a hard blow, quickly and harshly. Its called shock - that and hitting the C3I elements hard early on would have caused a disruption and possibly even shattered a large number of those Hezbollah hedgehog positions. That would have forced them to either starve out under artillery and air bombardment, or come out and fight in more open terrain - unsupported by command control comms or intel, they would have been chopped up and destroyed. Either way its more favorable than the slow bleed Israel needed up using. Its called "shaping the battlefield". Also Grom, its an idiotic assertion that the US would take 10x the casualties. Look to the initial armored sweep into Iraq and the casualty rates there - far more opposition, far longer range action, far larger scale. In modern armored warfare, its mobility that saves lives, and Israel has failed to use their mobility to any real advantage. To deny that is to deny reality - is that where you are coming from, what color is the sky in your imaginary place?

Also, there was a complete lack of operational surprise and audacity - hallmarks of ops that will be successful. Israel was give a green light but decided to half-step into things, and the political leadership with the DM being a former pacifist was stupid enough to believe that it would work.

here's a free clue to all you who apparently know nothing of the operational art:

FM 100-5.

Read it, know it, live it.

And pick up an good military history book or two. There are normally a few at the local library. Or go to a university library and grab the West Point Atlas series, and some DoD histories, as well as the aforementioned Field Manuals (The USMC has a good one on the Operational art as well).

Posted by Oldspook 2006-08-11 13:43|| 2006-08-11 13:43|| Front Page Top

#19 Isn't the Merkava built up from an M-60 chassis, with new turret & fire control/electronics suite? IDF looked at M1A2, but too big/heavy for bridges and narrow streets - same reason they couldn't up-armor the Merkava.

Posted by Sparks 2006-08-11 13:48|| 2006-08-11 13:48|| Front Page Top

#20 "Guderian cleaned the Soviet's clocks until he was forced into fixed positional warfare by Hitler's idiocy. And as far as Guderian and his brilliance as an operational armored commander goes, the Soviets respected the hell out of him - they used his history, writings and methods to train their tankers for their offensive in WW2, and continued to do so generations that followed WW2. Heinz Guderian was an idol for Soviet tankers and his doctrines formed the basis for a lot of the teachings at the Malinovskiy armor academy in the old Soviet Union. At the Frunze General Staff Academy they also study Guderian - indeed "Guderian" was a nickname given to Soviet tankers (as a mark of respect). Learn history sonny - all of it, don't leave out the bits that discredit your ideology - something liberals always seem to try to do. You guys seem to always color your history until its no longer recognizable, robbing it of any educational or probative value. "

I admit I have more to learn about the details of operational armored warfare in WW2. Nonetheless, Guderian made the wrong strategic choices, standing with a man who was a lunatic, and invading a country that Germany almost certainly couldnt have beaten whatever choices Hitler had made.

"Additionally, the political labels of Israeli politicians are not entirely accurate,"

Change that to not at all accurate.

" but their combined actions and political policies are reflective of typical liberal and leftist sentiments - pacifists, and tend towards half measures."

Pacficists dont believe in war by half measures. They dont beleive in war at all.

"That much is very clear with the vacillation and nature of the conduct of the wa as driven by the politicians."

Politicians of all stripes have historically used half measures in war. Sometimes its the right strategy, sometimes its not. Depends on the value of the objectives, and the political context.

" And any of these would be called Liberal in the US, which is what I was using for the standard. "

I dont think Olmert would be called a liberal in the United States.

"A further correction for you Libhawk: Marxists are pacifists when it comes to western nations defending themselves against marxists. Or did you miss the entire 1970's and 80's peace movements that were sponsored by Communist and Soviet organizations (Remember the Pershing missiles?)"

I didnt miss the cold war. And I knew of at least a few Marxists who opposed pacifist policies in the cold war, cause they were not Leninists, and they saw what the USSR did to Marxists who were not Communists.

In any case, Hezbollahs not Marxist so its not relevant.

"Once again , your grasp of history is tenuous at best due to the ideological blinders you place on yourself as a liberal. You make a useful fool for them if you cannot see that clearly"

A useful fool for whom? For Hezbollah? I hate Hezbollah, and am trying to help figure out a strategy against them? A fool for Peretz? Ill admit to have a grudging respect for Peretz, contingent on how he comes out in Israels postwar investigations. Olmert? I still think Olmerts general approach to the Pal question is right, but im quite open to the possibility that he screwed up royally here. It has nothing to do with him being a socialist, a pacifist, or a liberal, none of which he is.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-11 14:06|| 2006-08-11 14:06|| Front Page Top

#21 quick question - do you think Dayans advance to the Canal in 1967 was a half measure?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-11 14:09|| 2006-08-11 14:09|| Front Page Top

#22 I admit I have more to learn about the details of operational armored warfare in WW2. Nonetheless, Guderian made the wrong strategic choices, standing with a man who was a lunatic, and invading a country that Germany almost certainly couldnt have beaten whatever choices Hitler had made.

Ding! Use of historicism! Minus Fifty DKP!

Seriously, though, it's hard to discuss Guderian's mistakes and non-mistakes if it's approached from the standpoint that no matter what he did he was doomed to lose anyway.

In fact, it's hard to discuss history in general anyway if everything is viewed as inetivable.

Posted by Phil 2006-08-11 14:19|| 2006-08-11 14:19|| Front Page Top

#23 BTW, FM 100-5 is now FM 3-0. All of the services are moving to a joint numbering system for their pubs.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-08-11 14:30|| 2006-08-11 14:30|| Front Page Top

#24 not everything is inevitable, by any means. Much depends on accident. Germanys defeat in WW2 is probably one of the better candidates for historical inevitability though.

Guderian, if was so brilliant, could have advised that the war was unwinnable, as Yamamoto, IIUC, advised the govt of Japan.

He also could, later, have joined the plot against Hitler, as did several German generals, including, of course, Rommel.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-11 14:32|| 2006-08-11 14:32|| Front Page Top

#25 "That would have forced them to either starve out "

How long would it have taken to starve them out?

How much material is crossing the Litani in the face of the Israeli air campaign anyway?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-08-11 14:34|| 2006-08-11 14:34|| Front Page Top

#26 1) The Merkava looks nothing like a M60 Patton. If anything, it bears a family resemblance to the Centurion series, although it is an Israeli design from the ground up.

2) The Merkava is easily confused with an APC, since it has an oversize crew compartment located in the rear of the tank for maximum forward defensive potential, with a rear hatch for emergency use as an APC. There are armoured ambulance versions of the Merkava, and apparently at least one battalion's worth of actual Merkava APCs, which may have seen action with the Golani.

3) Where they're operating is, in fact, terrible tank country, and I wish I had been wrong two weeks ago when I said that early reports boded poorly about their mis-use of armour in hill-and-village country.

4) The Israelis just don't have enough dismounted infantry to fight the grinding attritional bunker war they *ought* to be fighting, and this seems to be creating a crippling sense of indecision on the part of the politicals. Nevertheless, they *have* to let go of this indecision, and wholely commit to the fight. Israel may not survive continued demonstrations of weakness because

5) Those rockets raining into Israel could easily be fitted with nasty, persistent chemical weapons, and make the north uninhabitable for weeks or months. If Olmert's ongoing weakness makes the Syrians think that the Israelis won't be able to retaliate, or only retaliate with conventional weapons, then they might take the safeties off, and the only thing keeping Hezbollah & Iran from gassing Israel off the map is the Samson threat.

6) August 22nd might be the promise of such a comprehensive gassing, regardless of the Samson threat, possibly because of an Iranian nuke.

I don't know about you, but I'm far enough from the coastal cities here in the states that I'm pretty sure I'll survive August 22nd if the surprise is a backpack in New York or Baltimore. It makes me sick to think something like that. I just spent a week working a convention in Baltimore...

Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H. 2006-08-11 15:38|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2006-08-11 15:38|| Front Page Top

#27 Been gone a while--please help me catch up. Isn't part of the problem that Israel didn't actually realize how dug-in and outfitted the Hezbos were in terms of the tunnels/supplies/infrastructure/communications/pr campaign with US and other Western news media? And isn't the terrain an issue (tank problems)? Also--wouldn't a real "shock and awe" for a week, followed by massive
ground troops provided a better equation for winning this? Is it too late now? And what's with August 22nd? What does that mean? THANKS.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-08-11 18:16|| 2006-08-11 18:16|| Front Page Top

#28 In any case, taking out Israeli artillery, etc. is REALLY gonna embolden the Hezbos, as well as the rest of the Islam-ick facists, and there's no doubt about that. All the philosophy/politicing in the world can't stand up to a raw fight, and in the end it only matters WHO wins.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-08-11 18:18|| 2006-08-11 18:18|| Front Page Top

#29 ex-lib,

the 22nd is the date Iran "must" answer the UN

The UN Security Council has taken up a new resolution which if approved would give Iran until August 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and accept a package of international incentives.

Iran had previously set August 22 as the date when it would formally respond. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed his country will never surrender its right to pursue uranium enrichment, a process that could lead to the production of a nuclear weapon.

Iran picked the 22nd but since that also happens to be one of Islam's holiest events, the great cataclysm that Shiite Muslims believe will forever resolve the battle between "good" and "evil."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liberal Hawk ~~pfffsts this one out of his ass and sneaks it into the discussion about armored warfare:~~

"Nonetheless, Guderian made the wrong strategic choices, standing with a man who was a lunatic.."

Liberalhawk lectures Guderian telling him he made the wrong StraTEGery!

I call MORON! Liberalhawk do you want to keep digging? Or how low do you actually want to go?

>::)

Posted by RD 2006-08-11 22:07|| 2006-08-11 22:07|| Front Page Top

#30 Linky, UN..Iran

Posted by RD 2006-08-11 22:10|| 2006-08-11 22:10|| Front Page Top

#31 Thanks RD.

In Tehran, Kazem Jalali, a spokesman for the Iranian parliament's foreign affairs and security commission, said the resolution was "unacceptable" and would create a situation where no one benefits.

"It seems America has done its utmost to divert Iran's case from the path of dialogue and drag it into crisis," Jalali told the Students News agency."

This is PR, and it is designed to play into the hands of the US Dems.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-08-11 23:35|| 2006-08-11 23:35|| Front Page Top

00:16 Phil
00:13 Jan
23:59 ex-lib
23:52 FOTSGreg
23:51 Thoth
23:47 ex-lib
23:39 ex-lib
23:39 Phil
23:35 Frank G
23:35 ex-lib
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:29 ex-lib
23:23 djohn66
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:18 ex-lib
23:17 Thoth
23:15 Barbara Skolaut
23:13 Angomoting Shong7365
23:13 Thoth
23:13 Frank G
23:04 Thoth
22:59 Frank G
22:58 Remoteman
22:56 Zhang Fei