1 Merkava per day, what a dosage !!!
-
Tank supposed to provide protection to the combat personnel, but ironically, most IDF ground troopers died inside it. What ATM or RPG did the most damage to Merkava that letÂ’s see the power of the asymmetric war?
30 Tanks Wiped Out in Lebanon
12:01 Aug 11, '06 / 17 Av 5766
(IsraelNN.com) IDF officials admit that the biggest surprise of the ongoing war against Hizbullah is the ease by which terrorists have destroyed IDF tanks.
At least 30 tanks have been totally destroyed or seriously damaged in bomb and anti-tank rocket attacks involving state-of-the-art Russian anti-tank rockets.
About one-half of the military personnel killed in southern Lebanon were inside tanks. -
Dun think RPG can dent the Merkava.. but given enuf firepower, any tank and its crew can be killed. Also, MBT is an attractive target, thus usually attracting most fire.Originally posted by coolant:Tank supposed to provide protection to the combat personnel, but ironically, most IDF ground troopers died inside it. What ATM or RPG did the most damage to Merkava that letÂ’s see the power of the asymmetric war?
I'm personally disappointed at how IDF fought this war. I think they have done poorly. They focus too much on technology, but individual soilder not as capable when meeting enemy face to face.
In recent days, we have many examples that demonstrates a "high tech" army has difficulity engaging "low-tech" enemy. And since SAF is very similar to IDF, with performance at most on par wif IDF, I'm worried. Enemy only need to dig in, withstand our stand-off attacks, wait for our zero experience ground troops to move in and fight face to face. -
State of the art Russian Anti-Tank Missiles, anti-ship missiles = low tech?
-
But I heard there is an effective weapon called RPG29, rumors suggest the militia got this RPG29 in their inventory. Talking about MBT is attractive targets, then one may raise his eyebrow on IDF’s tactics of sending in so many heavy beasts which contributing more casualty than other less armored. I think that’s why I emphasis the “asymmetric”, when “superiority” in common sense becomes “legacy”. Of course there should be more talking points from here.Originally posted by siaokao:Dun think RPG can dent the Merkava.. but given enuf firepower, any tank and its crew can be killed. Also, MBT is an attractive target, thus usually attracting most fire.
I'm personally disappointed at how IDF fought this war. I think they have done poorly. They focus too much on technology, but individual soilder not as capable when meeting enemy face to face.
In recent days, we have many examples that demonstrates a "high tech" army has difficulity engaging "low-tech" enemy. And since SAF is very similar to IDF, with performance at most on par wif IDF, I'm worried. Enemy only need to dig in, withstand our stand-off attacks, wait for our zero experience ground troops to move in and fight face to face.
Talking about what the ATM is used by the militia, most people suggesting the aged AT-3 Sagger and its variants. It happened some time ago, when other former here posted some Pakistani made ATM that acquired by our neighbor across the causeway. I think that could be one of the Sagger variants, who knows, after all, they all the same religious brothers. -
AT-3 is nothing new hereOriginally posted by Shotgun:State of the art Russian Anti-Tank Missiles, anti-ship missiles = low tech? -
LoL... staying in the air is better then on ground or tank.
No to submarines too.
Ships at least survival chances are higher...!
tank i think is one of the worst.. -
Yom Kippur War, 1973
IDF was surprised at how easily their tanks were destroyed by Egyptian infantrymen generously supplied with Sagger and RPG-7.
Lebanon, 1982
IDF armoured forces get whacked by Syrian tank-hunting teams of commandos & Gazelle choppers. http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml
"The aim was to ambush and tie down Israeli mechanized formations by ground-forces, preferably at short range and within urban areas, and then hit them by attack helicopters that would approach using local hilly terrain.
By early June 1982 the Syrian Army had the whole 20 Commando Battalion with a total of 50 hunter-killer teams deployed in Lebanon, mainly in the areas south and west of Beirut, but also in eastern and southern suburbs of the city. Each of Syrian teams consisted of between four and six men, armed with some of the best Western and Soviet anti-tank weapons of the time, including RPG-7s, RPG-18s (disposable 64 mm antitank rocket launcher), AT-4 Spigot ATGMs (only early-production 9P135 units), and MILAN ATGMs from France. Usually there were two shooters and two loaders in each team. Every six-man team had two additional members equipped with SA-7 MANPADS. Syrian anti-tank troops were older, more experienced soldiers of the SA, showing strong military skills and determination, and were later described by the Israelis as having a very professional attitude towards their mission. They operated with predilection in urban areas, where narrow streets of Lebanese towns and villages could easily be turned into shooting galleries for Israeli tanks."
After Lebanon 1982 the Israeli concentrated on building better Merkavas and heavily armoured APCs like the Nagmashot etc. But it would sppear they did not alter their tactics much. -
Just having ATGMs and anti ship missiles are not considered high tech. SAF is going into this 3G thinge where focus is on network centric warfare (ie, Scholar generals fighting war in front of computers much like playing C&COriginally posted by Shotgun:State of the art Russian Anti-Tank Missiles, anti-ship missiles = low tech? 
). While on paper, it works great, with low risk stand off attack cap, good air and arti cover for ground troops. But looking at iraq and the recent Israeli experience, you cannot win a war without effective troops on the ground.
Dun get me wrong, I'm not against high tech warfare, it make us more efficient and reduces unnecessary risk for our troops. But my opinion is that due to our focus on technologies, our troops are not as "tough" as some lower tech (non 3G) enemies are when it comes to close quarter combat.
For me, I have seen changes on how troops are trained. Our current training are too "Humane".. our young troops are not exposed to battle like stress.. too much safety build in training and no battle experience.
I'm old school.. I believe there are things you learn only with live rounds flying around u.
-
They need infantry.... better infantry.
tanks are really too easy to hit. But i suppose , to sacrifice a tank so that infantry can move in.. but i am sure they have sone tactical use of the tanks and they know of this weakness but still apply it. So maybe they got some kind of master plan... or else IDF just plain dumb lo. -
I believe amoung its roles, MBT is suppose to attract fire, thats why they are so heavily amoured. This, in effect will save the rest of the force from being targeted.Originally posted by coolant:But I heard there is an effective weapon called RPG29, rumors suggest the militia got this RPG29 in their inventory. Talking about MBT is attractive targets, then one may raise his eyebrow on IDF’s tactics of sending in so many heavy beasts which contributing more casualty than other less armored. I think that’s why I emphasis the “asymmetric”, when “superiority” in common sense becomes “legacy”. Of course there should be more talking points from here.
Talking about what the ATM is used by the militia, most people suggesting the aged AT-3 Sagger and its variants. It happened some time ago, when other former here posted some Pakistani made ATM that acquired by our neighbor across the causeway. I think that could be one of the Sagger variants, who knows, after all, they all the same religious brothers. -
IDF troops are still great fighters. But there seems to be a death of creative thinking when it comes to strategy these days. Very unlike the spectacular successes of earlier conventional wars even when Israel was outgunned, out-numbered and even out-manuevered.
As I have posted above, what's happening now in Lebanon 2006 seems to be a repeat of 1982, twenty over years ago: Armoured columns goes into town, get whacked by enemy infantry.
High tech is great but when ground war happens, high tech will often be the first thing to go out the proverbial window. Computers crash even in my comfortable aircon office while I am trying to send a leisurely email. In a battlefield? Good luck. -
hightech for long range , or lets say more sophisticated warfare.Originally posted by moca:IDF troops are still great fighters. But there seems to be a death of creative thinking when it comes to strategy these days. Very unlike the spectacular successes of earlier conventional wars even when Israel was outgunned, out-numbered and even out-manuevered.
As I have posted above, what's happening now in Lebanon 2006 seems to be a repeat of 1982, twenty over years ago: Armoured columns goes into town, get whacked by enemy infantry.
High tech is great but when ground war happens, high tech will often be the first thing to go out the proverbial window. Computers crash even in my comfortable aircon office while I am trying to send a leisurely email. In a battlefield? Good luck.
Only time where hightech is really hightech is if Eq's are virtual controlled , instant response. X-RAY, all that mambo jambo.... but when it comes down to door to door..building to building slugging it out mano a mano.. i think high tech or not has little to do with success. Training , experience THEN backed by hightech is o.k. -
One has to obviously think of this:
How come a far better equipped Former Iraqi force deliveries much less damage to the US armor force in a much large scale of war than what the Hezbollah has done?
Any comment?
-
The unlucky Merkavas caught in fire.
-
The Iraqis did not really want to put up a frontal fight. The First Gulf War - when Iraq was much stronger - already showed what a folly it would be to fight the US head on.Originally posted by coolant:One has to obviously think of this:
How come a far better equipped Former Iraqi force deliveries much less damage to the US armor force in a much large scale of war than what the Hezbollah has done?
Any comment?
You must also remember that the Second Gulf War was started by US on false pretences with little provocation from Saddam's Iraq. Hence, there was also a corresponding lack of preparation and will to fight conventionally on the side of the Iraqis.
What is happening now is actually what Saddam had in mind. Let the US come in - you can't stop them anyway - and then bleed them slowly.
And are you sure the US is suffering less casualty than the Israelis in Lebanon? -
Thirty tanks? Ouch.
That goes to show one thing: when it comes to a head-on battle between infantry and armour, it's usually the infantry that wins.
And don't pooh-pooh the RPG as a poor man's anti-tank weapon. The RPG-29 is especially a weapon which is not to be dismissed. From the Wikipedia article on the weapon:The warhead is extremely powerful, and in tests conducted against T-80 and T-90 tanks it penetrated the tanks over their frontal arcs. If these reports are true about frontal penetration, the Russian HEAT (shape charge) weapons engineers have made an astonishing advance as a 105mm warhead is considered inadequate. The French with their ERYX short range antitank weapon stated that a HEAT warhead had to be at least 135mm in diameter to defeat the newer Russian main battle tanks frontally. Its average cost on the weapons market is around 500 US dollars per launcher and 300 US dollars per rocket.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-29
A dirt-cheap RPG-29 costing US$800 for a launcher and rocket is able to take out a T-90. So it's really not too much of a leap to presume that it can defeat a Merkava. -
Honestly, I have yet to see the Israelis field a so called "Hi-tech" army in Lebanon. Their troops look conventionally equipped, no "3-g" systems etc. Just some basic innovations like "Mushroom camouflage nets." Even the Israeli armored vehicles have not fielded the much "anticipated" TROPHY anti-missile/rpg system.
So far, on the surface, it looks like a conventional mechanised infantry + armored force with superior air-support. Perhaps the most interesting weapon fielded so far is the FAE-mine-clearing thingy. -
I wonder if anyone's noticed ......
there are many interesting parallels between the SAF and our friendly neighbours up north, and the IDF and their friendy neighbours surrounding them ...
both us and the Israelis are very averse to casualties, not that it's a bad thing, but it's how we go about solving the problem ....
we focused on building a relatively large armoured force and a highly mechanized army, while our friendly neighbours focused on the cheaper solution of fielding a wide assortment of (relatively) cheap anti-tank weapons, to the point that they have one of the widest array of anti-tank weapons in S.E.A .... while we're learning from the Isrealis, our friendly neighbours seemed to have been learning from Israel's friendly neighbours too .....
good lessons for us here, which the Israelis and the Americans have found out the hard way ... that all the newfangled gadgetry and button-pushing doesn't count for much in the end .... war, when we come down it, still depends on the individual grunts on the ground ....
I hope the senior scholar brass in the SAF doesn't think that pushing buttons and this whole 3G thingy will be the be-all and end-all of things .... -
AGREE 110%Originally posted by Fatum:I wonder if anyone's noticed ......
there are many interesting parallels between the SAF and our friendly neighbours up north, and the IDF and their friendy neighbours surrounding them ...
both us and the Israelis are very averse to casualties, not that it's a bad thing, but it's how we go about solving the problem ....
we focused on building a relatively large armoured force and a highly mechanized army, while our friendly neighbours focused on the cheaper solution of fielding a wide assortment of (relatively) cheap anti-tank weapons, to the point that they have one of the widest array of anti-tank weapons in S.E.A .... while we're learning from the Isrealis, our friendly neighbours seemed to have been learning from Israel's friendly neighbours too .....
good lessons for us here, which the Israelis and the Americans have found out the hard way ... that all the newfangled gadgetry and button-pushing doesn't count for much in the end .... war, when we come down it, still depends on the individual grunts on the ground ....
I hope the senior scholar brass in the SAF doesn't think that pushing buttons and this whole 3G thingy will be the be-all and end-all of things .... -
The only way to beat with so called Superior Hi Tech.. is if ur systems are 15 to 30 years ahead.
Like lasers vs projectiles
Shields vs KEvlar
Ion cannons vs ASTRO's
Mechwarrior like Machines vs Tanks
Genetically modifed super soldiers vs conventional troops.
THEN we can say hi-tech beats all. -
Anti-Tank Weapons Inflict Heavy Losses on Israeli Army
Reuters
Fri, 11 Aug 2006, 02:10
Powerful anti-tank missiles manufactured by Russia and Iran are being used with deadly effectiveness by Hizbollah against the Israeli army in southern Lebanon, military sources say.
A large proportion of the 68 Israeli soldiers who have died in south Lebanon since the start of the offensive a month ago were killed by such missiles.
Top-selling daily Yediot Aharonot reported Aug. 10 that out of 25 anti-tank missiles fired, about one-quarter of them pierced the armor of targeted tanks and caused heavy losses.
”The terrorists know where the weak spots are, and we are being badly hit,” the newspaper quotes a senior official as saying.
The attacks are a blow to the pride of IsraelÂ’s army. Merkava III and IV tanks are considered among the most powerful in the world and have a reputation for extremely resistant armor and protective systems.
Merkavas boast 1,200 horsepower and are equipped with state-of-the-art electronic systems that should make them some of the safest and most mobile tanks in the world.
But IsraelÂ’s tanks, crucial for any ground operation in southern Lebanon, have proved vulnerable to the attacks of Hizbollah and ill-adapted to the hilly and heavily wooded terrain.
Israeli military officials have also admitted surprise at the level of resistance they are meeting from Hizbollah fighters, who are well-trained and have been firing at tanks from very close range.
The bulk of the Shiite militiaÂ’s anti-weapons are Russian-made models, although some were manufactured in Iran, said expert Yiftah Shapir from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies.
”The most efficient missiles are the Metis-M and the Kornet manufactured by Russia and delivered to Syria in the nineties,” he told AFP.
”They are very lethal because they have been designed to penetrate active armor on modern tanks such as those the Israelis were the first to introduce in the early eighties,” Shapir said.
Hizbollah also has the latest Sagger missile, a Russian weapon manufactured in Iran, as well as the Russian Spigot, the expert said.
These missiles have the ability to pierce armor as thick as one meter (39 inches) and have a range of 1.5 to five kilometers (one to three miles).
”The Israeli army knew that Hizbollah had a large arsenal of missiles, but maybe they didn’t know they had the Metis-M and the Kornet,” Shapir added.
Yediot Aharonot quoted a senior military official as saying the army’s lack of preparedness for the threat of anti-tank missiles “is a bigger failure than that which preceded the Yom Kippur War.”
The Israeli army has dramatically underestimated EgyptÂ’s ground forces ahead of the 1973 Arab-Israeli conflict.
”The problem isn’t technical,” said Shapir. “They will always end up finding the answer to the new generation of missiles just like they did in the past.”
”The most important thing is that the Israeli army finally understand that they are not up against a gang of terrorists but a real army.” http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/Anti-Tank_Weapons_Inflict_Heavy_Losses_on_Israeli_Army.php -
What kind of tanks were hit? There are many variants of Merkavas. There are also Sabras. The Israelis do not have the money to 'up-armour' every single Merkava; from the old Merkava 1 onwards. If thier intention was to smash the Hizbollah para-military units, I reckon they would reserve the majority of thier better tanks for a possible wider conflict with, say, Syria or even Iran...they have thousands for heaven`s sake. There are some meant to be cannon fodder anyhow.
-
Heard that there's an improved version of RPG rockets with armour-piercing delayed fuse (APDF) capabilities which can explode after piercing through armoured surfaces and delayed the explosive fuse rather than explode upon impact...
-
the MERKAVA needs a TUSK upgrade, if they are intended to be use in FIBUA.
and seriously.... someone needs to tell the isrealis.. its stupid to wear military uniform inside an enemy town...
their army camo would not camo them in a hostile city... it makes them stand out as targets.
they should wear hizbollah uniform (civies), put on some islamic worded headscarf and learn to speak arabic with a lebanese accent.
and carry AK-47 and RPGs.
remember how they beat the egyptians during the 1973 war? an entire isreali division, wearing egyptian uniform, operating egytian equipment and move about like they own egypt. -
Huh???!!!Originally posted by tripwire:the MERKAVA needs a TUSK upgrade, if they are intended to be use in FIBUA.
and seriously.... someone needs to tell the isrealis.. its stupid to wear military uniform inside an enemy town...
their army camo would not camo them in a hostile city... it makes them stand out as targets.
they should wear hizbollah uniform (civies), put on some islamic worded headscarf and learn to speak arabic with a lebanese accent. and carry AK-47 and RPGs.
You are joking, right?
Do you have a link or any source that I can read about this?Originally posted by tripwire:remember how they beat the egyptians during the 1973 war? an entire isreali division, wearing egyptian uniform, operating egytian equipment and move about like they own egypt.