Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arab countries turn to West for Help

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    Yes but what I was tring to say is that the failure of arabs does not neccesarily mean the failure of soviet tactical doctrines
    Ah, now we get to it- not baching Arabs so much as defending that which was Soviet.
    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    Most of them came back as soon as the war started and iranians were flying most of their F-14s as well
    In fact, there were so few F-14 available at any one time & place that they were used more like AWACS, hanging back to coordinate other aircraft, for the most part.

    Originally posted by nastle View Post
    It depends on how its employed, one on one the soviet equipment is DEFINATELY inferior to NATOs no one can question that, however the ease with which the arabs ( soviet armed) have been defeated in the arab isreali conflicts should not lead us to believe that soviet /WP forces would have collapsed in a similar way in any conflict with NATO.
    The numerical balance was even more unfavorable to the Isrealis than it would have been to NATO, and they were not getting the very best we had, either.
    Anwar el-Sadat noted in his book that IAF attacks were largely ineffective against his SAM sites until one day towards the end when whole batteries were being taken out by single missiles. He said this alerted him to the fact that the US was finally sending in the good stuff, and it was time to negotiate.
    Take it for what it's worth, but that is what he said.
    "Why is the Rum gone?"

    -Captain Jack

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nastle View Post
      If the arabs specially Egyptians and Syrians had turned to the West ( France and Britain) for most of their military hardware what would have been the outcome of the Arab Isreali wars ?]
      IMHO it woud not have made a difference
      3 things-

      1) Why would they deploy Western equipment?

      2) If they would have, the entire course of history would have been different. I tend to assume the west would be less positive about annihilating Israel.

      3) Like previously mentioned, the Egyptians and Syrians deployed cutting edge technologies (such as ATGMs and NVGs) against Israel and also had Russians fly their fighters against us...

      Comment


      • #18
        The Arabs were armed by the British following World War Two, many of their soldiers used .303 rifles, Bren Guns, Shermans, etc etc. The Jordanian Legion was even trained by an Englishman, Sir John Glubb. On the other hand, the Haganah was armed mostly with black-market weapons, Sten guns, Czech Mausers, German MG's etc.
        You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

        -- Ataturk

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Golani View Post
          Why would they deploy Western equipment?
          Not so farfetched. Like I said in my post above - the Arabs were armed with Western small arms during the fighting in 1948. Even today, you can see insurgents armed with US rifles and carbines. (Some of them shipped directly from the US to the PA).

          Seems to be a case of you take what you get. The Arab governments don't exactly have a history of turning down US arms.

          But, as you said, it requires the idea of the US and the West being cool with the destruction of Israel. Now, that is farfetched.
          You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

          -- Ataturk

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
            Not so farfetched. Like I said in my post above - the Arabs were armed with Western small arms during the fighting in 1948. Even today, you can see insurgents armed with US rifles and carbines. (Some of them shipped directly from the US to the PA).
            Correct, but I was assuming he was talking more like Egypt after 1979. i.e a state under the Western umbrella, as opposed to under the USSR umbrella.

            Even though, you are again correct. Egyptian forces were armed with British equipment until the 50's and the Jordanians weren't only armed but also trained by (and in some instances even commanded and lead) by the Brits so far as the Six Day War (which they lost miserably).
            But, as you said, it requires the idea of the US and the West being cool with the destruction of Israel. Now, that is farfetched.
            US- yes, West- not so much, i.e Britain&Egypt+Jordan.

            Though it's era dependent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Golani View Post
              Correct, but I was assuming he was talking more like Egypt after 1979. i.e a state under the Western umbrella, as opposed to under the USSR umbrella.
              Ah, I see. If history had gone a different route and Egypt refused to sign that treaty, I imagine the Soviets would have continued to arm the Arabs as well as threaten against Western intervention.

              Another question to ask is - in such a scenario, how would the Arabs get their arms following the fall of the USSR? Black market deals? Other countries?

              Originally posted by Golani View Post
              Even though, you are again correct. Egyptian forces were armed with British equipment until the 50's and the Jordanians weren't only armed but also trained by (and in some instances even commanded and lead) by the Brits so far as the Six Day War (which they lost miserably).
              Is it true that the IDF considered the Arab legion one of their better foes? This British help might have had something to do with it.

              Originally posted by Golani View Post
              US- yes, West- not so much, i.e Britain&Egypt+Jordan.

              Though it's era dependent.
              I could see some countries being actively in favour of annihilation and others either indifferent or trying to go through "diplomatic means". Some countries - like the US - might try to intervene. Like you said it's era dependent, especially now that the West aren't trying to court anti-Communist Arab leaders.
              You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

              -- Ataturk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
                Another question to ask is - in such a scenario, how would the Arabs get their arms following the fall of the USSR? Black market deals? Other countries?
                Like they do today. China/Iran/Reverse engineering/Legal and illegal franchises.
                Is it true that the IDF considered the Arab legion one of their better foes? This British help might have had something to do with it.
                Yes, the Arab legion is considered the best equipped, trained and deployed enemy the IDF faced.
                I could see some countries being actively in favour of annihilation and others either indifferent or trying to go through "diplomatic means". Some countries - like the US - might try to intervene. Like you said it's era dependent, especially now that the West aren't trying to court anti-Communist Arab leaders.
                I can't think of a scenario in which the US intervenes pre the 70'sish.

                The best way to look at it is through the independence war. Israel was seemingly on the brink of complete annihilation and no one stepped in.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Golani View Post
                  I can't think of a scenario in which the US intervenes pre the 70'sish.

                  The best way to look at it is through the independence war. Israel was seemingly on the brink of complete annihilation and no one stepped in.
                  That and the Yom Kippur War. US aversion to intervention seemed to be based on their desire to court Arab nations in the Cold War; this led to Eisenhower calling for an end to the Suez War as well as the decision to reach a cease fire in 73 before Soviet troops were sent to the Middle East. The US deemed the threat sufficient enough to move to Defcon 3.

                  With those Cold War games out of the picture, whether or not the US gets involved will probably depend on the political mood in the States.
                  You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

                  -- Ataturk

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Actually Yom Kippur is an example of US intervention in favor of us at its maximum, but even then it did not involve boots on ground (while at the Arab side- the Soviets were flying aircrafts and employing weapon systems for the Arabs) involvement was through equipment aerial trains and debated in the U.N. Some forces in Europe are said to have been on alert to deploy, but I don't know about that.

                    The only time the Americans deployed forces in Israel in a state of war (or more precisely in readiness for war) was in the Gulf War and OIF, when we were under the threat of Iraqi biological and chemical missiles and the U.S had an interest of keeping us uninvovled, so they deployed PAC systems, some manned by IDF crews, some by American crews and some mixed IIRC.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Golani View Post
                      Actually Yom Kippur is an example of US intervention in favor of us at its maximum, but even then it did not involve boots on ground (while at the Arab side- the Soviets were flying aircrafts and employing weapon systems for the Arabs) involvement was through equipment aerial trains and debated in the U.N. Some forces in Europe are said to have been on alert to deploy, but I don't know about that.
                      You reminded me of another post I read on this forum, a Vietnam veteran who said that shortly after he returned from in-country his unit was mobilized for possible deployment in the Middle East.

                      For the life of me I can't remember who the poster was or when it was posted.

                      Originally posted by Golani View Post
                      The only time the Americans deployed forces in Israel in a state of war (or more precisely in readiness for war) was in the Gulf War and OIF, when we were under the threat of Iraqi biological and chemical missiles and the U.S had an interest of keeping us uninvovled, so they deployed PAC systems, some manned by IDF crews, some by American crews and some mixed IIRC.
                      Didn't know that. Can't be too careful of course.
                      You, the mothers, who sent their sons from faraway countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace, after having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

                      -- Ataturk

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Crackshot View Post
                        Didn't know that. Can't be too careful of course.
                        In the Gulf War they saw action (don't know if American crews specifically, but the PACs), PAC-1s (I believe, don't think it was 2) with 0% success (intercepted 0 out of 39 scuds that landed in Israel, I'd assume at least some of the Scuds had multiple PACs fired at them).
                        That lead to the development of the PAC-3 (which was more suitable for intercepting missiles, not planes) and the Arrow.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Can we please get a POD.
                          After 56 i dont think that this is possible

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The numerical balance was even more unfavorable to the Isrealis than it would have been to NATO, and they were not getting the very best we had, either.
                            Anwar el-Sadat noted in his book that IAF attacks were largely ineffective against his SAM sites until one day towards the end when whole batteries were being taken out by single missiles. He said this alerted him to the fact that the US was finally sending in the good stuff, and it was time to negotiate.
                            Take it for what it's worth, but that is
                            No in 1982 Bekee valley the Syrians are OUTNUMBERED by SUPERIOR IDAF jets , SYrian af has essentially FLogger E ( a few not many) which is a mig-21mf missiles/radar and mig-21s
                            In 1967 a lot of arab hardware was French british and yet it was decisively defeated by the isrealis same thing in 1948.

                            Also in 1991 the comparison between Iraq AF and western coalition is laughable , the 100 or so modern Iraqi jets against 500 + equivalent modern coalition planes

                            What Im suggesting is that e.g if in 1973 or 1982
                            Isreal had mig-21mf, mig-23ms , su-17 , mirages and Syria /other arab countries had mirages , F-4/A-4 the outcome of the air battle would not have been much different
                            EXCEPT that the AWACS in 1982 was a big factor in favor of isrealis

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by nastle View Post
                              And still were heavily defeated when they deviated from the soviet tactics
                              Hmmmmm,... actually, the Egyptians beat up the initial Israeli counterattacks in 1973 pretty badly with soviet tactics and only began losing when the Israelis discarded the high mobility tank attacks that had worked in 67. What the Israelis had forgotten was that a defended front with reserves cannot simply be hustled - not when the enemy is prepared to fight. Even in 67 they had to break the front before dashing about in the rear (even if that front was compartively weakly held).

                              The Isrealis switched to set piece combined arms assaults that battled their way into the Egyptian defences and then took on the reserves until these were defeated (Chinese Farm, etc.). Then the Isrealis were able to push over the Canal and encircle the Egyptian forces to the east. It was yet another example of firepower trumping manoeuvre until the defences were so undermined the line could no longer be held.
                              Last edited by The Purist; 06 Oct 15, 13:08.
                              The Purist

                              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X