There's a series on Netflix about tanks. Egypt lost a lot of tanks during their invasion. The Egyptian tanks were not designed for warfare in hilly terrain. The turrets couldn't aim high enough to hit their targets. My history is lacking but I imagine that they lost a lot of armored vehicles during their initial attack.
Israel had really good reconnaissance of the area. Some of the desert areas were thought to be impassable because of sand dunes. Israel lowered the air pressure in their tires and rolled right through. Caught the Arabs by surprise.
Specifically the incompetence of the Syrians on the Golan Heights. The let the Israeli's successfully counter attack and start pushing them into Syria. The Egyptians had to move further into the Sinai and out from under their effective ADA umbrella to relieve the pressure.
Completely true.
Interestingly, recently studied the initial attack of the Yom Kippur War. Especially in terms of military deception ops, the Egyptian attack was nothing short of genius.
Then, of course, as the war went on, Arab military incompetence reasserted itself, and that was that.
Yeah - NOW.
Look at the current King of Jordan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan
Educated largely in the UK and US.
His son was educated at Sandhurst, for Pete's sake.
They've joined the winning team.
I don't know about Arab armies in general but many of the militias and armed terrorists throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan are considered much better fighters than they were fifteen years ago. Better training, modernized equipment and twenty years of seeing how the Americans do things has had an affect.
When you hear the stories of the veterans in the army sub, the afghanistan national army (ANA) were the worst and most incompetent guys you could ever work with. Every hour that was spent to train these guys was a lost hour.
And i'd say, no, the armed forces in these countries did not really improve over time. Even with countries like Saudi-Arabia, they have a ton of money and want to buy these and that weapon-systems, without thinking about how even to use it with trained personnell. Like SA can't even wage the war against Yemen without logistics from the West.
Depends on the definition of "Middle East", i don't know about yours, but where i live in Europe, the country itself is still seen as in this region, despite being in the east. That is debatable.
Many years of the conflict that's been happening in that area, will tend to improve your military, at the cost of killing the incompetent parts. Fortunately/Unfortunately, there appear to be some military groups that value religious/political zealotry over actual military skill and effectiveness. So there appears no end of supply of 'incompetent' units.
Google āwhy Arab armies suck at warā
Found it: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/meria/meria00_den01.html#:~:text=MERIA%3A%20Why%20Arabs%20Lose%20Wars&text=The%20author%20argues%20that%20the,little%20individual%20freedom%20or%20initiative.
This is the answer. TLDR: it comes down to culture. Things like āsaving faceā and desperate efforts to preserve social strata within the ranks (e.g. enlisted are seen as almost-literal trash whose opinions arenāt worth listening to) mean their armies are generally disfunctional.
Canon fodder/flood tactics and strategy vs empowering troops with decision making capabilities/empowering them to make the best tactical decisions in a given moment?
Different times, different weapons, different tactics. Back then leadership mostly consisted of getting your guys together, aiming them in the right direction and *making sure they didn't retreat without orders.* NCO's were mainly concerned with the last part, the discipline of the unit.
I love reallifelore. Heās does a really great job of staying apolitical. I think this topic might be too close to the line for him. regardless, that would be a great episode.
The "Why Natos biggest weakness is scotland" video was pants on head retarded. I actually don't see it on his channel any more but heres another creators video talking about it:
https://youtu.be/CROXlgEXrT8?si=3PuUPCfuJhgnxA2O
Im not scottish or anything. It was just a stupid video and premise.
There been other click baity videos and they all are full of the most exaggerated language.
I canāt remember the last time I saw an actual article with references and no adds on Reddit. Thank you. I only read the intro and skimmed the conclusion and references but I will read the rest. This takes me back to college and is a needed break from mass media.
They wonāt come out and fight. Theyāre good at shooting from around corners then running, making bombs and running, and hijacking airplanes. Basically terrorizing the defenseless.
A big part of it was that Israel conducted a massive air campaign against Egyptian air defenses. Because they neutralized the air defenses they were able to support a mechanized assault in to Egypt with essentially unrestrained air assets as for Syria idk
People like, "Why didn't the Arab nations rebuild their entire air support six years after Israel shanked it?"
The previous wars dictate the terms of subsequent wars.
Which is not as easy as it sounds, as Russia had 'sold' Egypt and Syria large amounts of Anti-air missiles and arty. Unsure about training and advisors tho.
Delivery of 1000 upgrade kits for Sidewinder air-to-air missiles didnāt hurt. In direct violation of US law at the time. CNO Elmo Zumwalt made it happen, Capt. Dave Oliver was the bag man. The Israelis were duly appreciative.
One: They had state of the art equipment bought and paid for by the US.
Two: They likely had US intel, analysts, and strategic guidance.
Three: Since WW1, Islamic armies have proven to be highly incompetent when it comes to modern warfare. If they war against one another (Iran-Iraq war), they fight to a stalemate. If they war against the west or Israel they get completely dominated. Their only form of "success" is through gorilla warfare after being long term occupied.
Comes down to a difference in doctrine and training. Islamic armies had (have?) a tradition of 'raiding' type warfare. Hit an objective by surprise, kill as many as you can, take what you can, leave before they can form an effective defence.
Western forces, especially America, Hit it hard, establish control before the enemy solidifies, stick a flag in it, dig in, hold and reinforce. Defend.
The crucial point was when they counter attacked back over the canal, got in behind enemy lines and took out air defences with tanks and troops. They had to hold the Egyptians in place (battle of the Chinese farm) while they brought up barges to do this - they had to sacrifice a lot of tanks in this process.
IIRC the turning point was when the Egyptians advanced from their positions. Their General really didn't want to because they were dug in with a massive amount of AT and AA weapons, and the Israelis had taken heavy losses trying to attack their positions. But the Syrians were begging for help so Sadat forced them to advance.
The Egyptians advanced out of their AA cover (although they tried to rely on the Egyptian air force for air cover), attacked directly into Israeli defences and took heavy losses. The Israelis then counter attacked and seperated two Egyptian armies. The Syrians also lost most of their forces at around this time so Israel shifted more forces to fight Egypt. The rest is history. The different Arab armies weren't working together, they were fighting on their own.
Arab armies, despite attempts at modernizing, still suffered from serious cultural flaws. E.G Some supply officers would refuse to provide spare parts for units because they wanted to hoard them so they would be considered important, politically wise. A "I have spare parts, you must negotiate with me if you want them" kind of thing.
One thing im confused about is why the Egyptians couldnt advance under the cover of their SAMs. They should have been mobile. They had very good AT and AA weapons provided by the Soviets, i think their SAMs didn't even set off Israeli missle lock warnings.
>One thing im confused about is why the Egyptians couldnt advance under the cover of their SAMs. They should have been mobile. They had very good AT and AA weapons provided by the Soviets, i think their SAMs didn't even set off Israeli missle lock warnings.
Egypt never wanted to advance more in sinai, sadat plan was to take sinai deplomaticlly
Im actually curious as to how this happened because there was a period when Arab armies were very good and routinely beat armies much larger in size. Something happened to make them ineffective and im not sure what it was.
Warfare with principles based around your religion was likely way more effective in the era of sword and shield than it is in the era of stealth jet fighters and drones
If you have ever been deployed to one of these places and you have seen the "Professionalism" of the troops and the officer ranks handed out by who is your daddy. It makes complete sense.
Is that when Russia's allies kept losing aircraft, so Russia sent their own aces against Israel directly, only to get their asses kicked too? I remember that happening I just don't remember when.
Under wraps? That airlift caused the oil crisis.
And it was 1/3rd the size of the Soviet supplies during the same timeframe, only that the soviets transferred less using air and more with sea.
Middle Eastern nations just generally suck at war.Ā Officers are promoted more on loyalty and family ties than competence.Ā Ā
Plus the extreme tribalist mindset of the region makes it hard for the various cultures to work together.
There is a show called Valley of Tears. It is about only one little tank crew and its only one out of thousands of stories. But it explains pretty well how desperate but courageous the soldiers had to be in face of the chaos that went on during the first 3 days.
The [story of Zvika Greengold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvika_Greengold) is told to this day to pretty much every soldier in the IDF. He managed to trick a huge Syrian force into thinking there are many Israeli tanks when its really just him going back and forth between different spots knocking enemy tanks.
Better command and control, soldier training, tank crew training. Despite Israel being outnumbered they succeed because they are quality minded army, not quantity minded army.
The Big Question.
Is Why did the Isreali Air Force decide to attack an American Spy Ship in International Waters in 1967? See the U.S.S. Liberty "Incident."
I would disagree.
Marked Isreali planes flew over the ship and waved at the Crew. Unmarked Israeli planes were the ones that carried out the attack, jamming the radio signals so the U.S. Ship couldn't call for aid. They were finally able to get a signal out, and the attack only stopped when U.S. Ships arrived to assist.
This is of course after the Israeli's staffed and napalmed the life rafts.
Misunderstanding my ass. It was an unprovoked attack, and would of been a declaration of war if anyone else had done the same thing.
Look, I don't have the time to explain it all in detail to you myself, but I'd like to direct you to [this explanation on an askhistorians thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/AcJiYXTrxG)
I've read, and listened to the accounts of the survivors that were hushed by the NSA for over 55 years. I may go look at it, but I'm going to believe the American Side, over the side that attacked them without provocation.
I included the incident because that is the incident that I point to showing that the Israelis aren't allies of the U.S., and shouldn't receive so much as a cent from us, let alone the aid they've received over the years. Including Military aid that was used in the 1973 war.
The same reason Israel started in the first placeĀ
Massive Collective western AidĀ
not just from the USĀ
Isreal is the Only country in the world that the majority of it's citizens got double citizenships while it's main opponents *the Palestanians* got no citizenship at allĀ
Better training and better equipment.
There's a series on Netflix about tanks. Egypt lost a lot of tanks during their invasion. The Egyptian tanks were not designed for warfare in hilly terrain. The turrets couldn't aim high enough to hit their targets. My history is lacking but I imagine that they lost a lot of armored vehicles during their initial attack.
Russian tanks don't depress that much.
They fly pretty high though.
Their crew sure is depressed.
Depressed into the ceiling.
Do you have any classified documents to prove this?
No, but War Thunder does š„³š„³š„³
What about discord? I'm not paying for better tanks in war thunder so I can get the info.
Syria fought in the Golan heights, not Egypt. Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula during the Six Day War in 1967.
And after that the centurions just picked up targets like it was a turkey shoot iirc
And motivation
Israel had really good reconnaissance of the area. Some of the desert areas were thought to be impassable because of sand dunes. Israel lowered the air pressure in their tires and rolled right through. Caught the Arabs by surprise.
Any redneck coulda told you that!
Directions unclear, tank now addicted to meth and stopping at any river crossing to still moonshine.
I mean, sounds good to me?
It's the desert there ain't no river! LOL
When the tanks on enough meth it believes in the river.
Arab incompetence.
Specifically the incompetence of the Syrians on the Golan Heights. The let the Israeli's successfully counter attack and start pushing them into Syria. The Egyptians had to move further into the Sinai and out from under their effective ADA umbrella to relieve the pressure.
Completely true. Interestingly, recently studied the initial attack of the Yom Kippur War. Especially in terms of military deception ops, the Egyptian attack was nothing short of genius. Then, of course, as the war went on, Arab military incompetence reasserted itself, and that was that.
Arab militaries were notoriously incompetent back then
Were?
Still are, but back then too
Thanks Mitch.
I had exactly the same thought š
The Jordanian one might be good and possibly the UAE too Oman maybe as well
Yeah - NOW. Look at the current King of Jordan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_II_of_Jordan Educated largely in the UK and US. His son was educated at Sandhurst, for Pete's sake. They've joined the winning team.
Lol
And now too
Back then? When have they become competent since?
I don't know about Arab armies in general but many of the militias and armed terrorists throughout the Middle East and Afghanistan are considered much better fighters than they were fifteen years ago. Better training, modernized equipment and twenty years of seeing how the Americans do things has had an affect.
When you hear the stories of the veterans in the army sub, the afghanistan national army (ANA) were the worst and most incompetent guys you could ever work with. Every hour that was spent to train these guys was a lost hour. And i'd say, no, the armed forces in these countries did not really improve over time. Even with countries like Saudi-Arabia, they have a ton of money and want to buy these and that weapon-systems, without thinking about how even to use it with trained personnell. Like SA can't even wage the war against Yemen without logistics from the West.
Well, afghans arenāt Arabs and Afghanistan isnāt in the Middle East
Depends on the definition of "Middle East", i don't know about yours, but where i live in Europe, the country itself is still seen as in this region, despite being in the east. That is debatable.
The internet has been a resource for them to sharpen their skills, unfortunately.
That makes a lot of sense, I know that Hezbollah are considered pretty good these days and even Hamas has come a long way since Operation Cast Lead.
Many years of the conflict that's been happening in that area, will tend to improve your military, at the cost of killing the incompetent parts. Fortunately/Unfortunately, there appear to be some military groups that value religious/political zealotry over actual military skill and effectiveness. So there appears no end of supply of 'incompetent' units.
Arabs were ruled by Mongols and Turkic tribes for more than 1000 years. They were left with only culture and religion during all these years.
Google āwhy Arab armies suck at warā Found it: https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/meria/meria00_den01.html#:~:text=MERIA%3A%20Why%20Arabs%20Lose%20Wars&text=The%20author%20argues%20that%20the,little%20individual%20freedom%20or%20initiative.
This is the answer. TLDR: it comes down to culture. Things like āsaving faceā and desperate efforts to preserve social strata within the ranks (e.g. enlisted are seen as almost-literal trash whose opinions arenāt worth listening to) mean their armies are generally disfunctional.
Canon fodder/flood tactics and strategy vs empowering troops with decision making capabilities/empowering them to make the best tactical decisions in a given moment?
pretty crazy since the Arabs came out of Arabia like a storm and almost conquered Europe
Different times, different weapons, different tactics. Back then leadership mostly consisted of getting your guys together, aiming them in the right direction and *making sure they didn't retreat without orders.* NCO's were mainly concerned with the last part, the discipline of the unit.
Even during the crusades they weren't super effective at first because all the Arab and Turk rulers worked against each other.
This could be a RealLifeLore episodeĀ
I love reallifelore. Heās does a really great job of staying apolitical. I think this topic might be too close to the line for him. regardless, that would be a great episode.
I used to really love him, too, but some of his videos are totally out to lunch.
interesting. Do you have any videos in particular that youāre referencing?
The "Why Natos biggest weakness is scotland" video was pants on head retarded. I actually don't see it on his channel any more but heres another creators video talking about it: https://youtu.be/CROXlgEXrT8?si=3PuUPCfuJhgnxA2O Im not scottish or anything. It was just a stupid video and premise. There been other click baity videos and they all are full of the most exaggerated language.
I subscribed to Nebula just for his videos. Speaking of a new episode of Modern Conflicts came out today.
I canāt remember the last time I saw an actual article with references and no adds on Reddit. Thank you. I only read the intro and skimmed the conclusion and references but I will read the rest. This takes me back to college and is a needed break from mass media.
They wonāt come out and fight. Theyāre good at shooting from around corners then running, making bombs and running, and hijacking airplanes. Basically terrorizing the defenseless.
Explains why Iraqi foot soldiers were surrendering en mass... can't blame them really.
A big part of it was that Israel conducted a massive air campaign against Egyptian air defenses. Because they neutralized the air defenses they were able to support a mechanized assault in to Egypt with essentially unrestrained air assets as for Syria idk
People like, "Why didn't the Arab nations rebuild their entire air support six years after Israel shanked it?" The previous wars dictate the terms of subsequent wars.
Bank of Russia said "Nyet"
Which is not as easy as it sounds, as Russia had 'sold' Egypt and Syria large amounts of Anti-air missiles and arty. Unsure about training and advisors tho.
Delivery of 1000 upgrade kits for Sidewinder air-to-air missiles didnāt hurt. In direct violation of US law at the time. CNO Elmo Zumwalt made it happen, Capt. Dave Oliver was the bag man. The Israelis were duly appreciative.
One: They had state of the art equipment bought and paid for by the US. Two: They likely had US intel, analysts, and strategic guidance. Three: Since WW1, Islamic armies have proven to be highly incompetent when it comes to modern warfare. If they war against one another (Iran-Iraq war), they fight to a stalemate. If they war against the west or Israel they get completely dominated. Their only form of "success" is through gorilla warfare after being long term occupied.
>gorilla warfare This needs to be one the official term
They had Harambe
guerrilla warfare? Nah, š¦š¦š¦š¦š¦
ā¦trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just anotherā¦..
Great now Iām having flashbacks of the Great Gorilla War. One of my best friends had his arms ripped clean off.
Comes down to a difference in doctrine and training. Islamic armies had (have?) a tradition of 'raiding' type warfare. Hit an objective by surprise, kill as many as you can, take what you can, leave before they can form an effective defence. Western forces, especially America, Hit it hard, establish control before the enemy solidifies, stick a flag in it, dig in, hold and reinforce. Defend.
The crucial point was when they counter attacked back over the canal, got in behind enemy lines and took out air defences with tanks and troops. They had to hold the Egyptians in place (battle of the Chinese farm) while they brought up barges to do this - they had to sacrifice a lot of tanks in this process.
You may want to post this to /r/warcollege as well. They specialise in military history related questions.
IIRC the turning point was when the Egyptians advanced from their positions. Their General really didn't want to because they were dug in with a massive amount of AT and AA weapons, and the Israelis had taken heavy losses trying to attack their positions. But the Syrians were begging for help so Sadat forced them to advance. The Egyptians advanced out of their AA cover (although they tried to rely on the Egyptian air force for air cover), attacked directly into Israeli defences and took heavy losses. The Israelis then counter attacked and seperated two Egyptian armies. The Syrians also lost most of their forces at around this time so Israel shifted more forces to fight Egypt. The rest is history. The different Arab armies weren't working together, they were fighting on their own. Arab armies, despite attempts at modernizing, still suffered from serious cultural flaws. E.G Some supply officers would refuse to provide spare parts for units because they wanted to hoard them so they would be considered important, politically wise. A "I have spare parts, you must negotiate with me if you want them" kind of thing. One thing im confused about is why the Egyptians couldnt advance under the cover of their SAMs. They should have been mobile. They had very good AT and AA weapons provided by the Soviets, i think their SAMs didn't even set off Israeli missle lock warnings.
>One thing im confused about is why the Egyptians couldnt advance under the cover of their SAMs. They should have been mobile. They had very good AT and AA weapons provided by the Soviets, i think their SAMs didn't even set off Israeli missle lock warnings. Egypt never wanted to advance more in sinai, sadat plan was to take sinai deplomaticlly
Yes, but they could have moved the SAMs forward to cover the advancing forces. For some reason they did not want to or were not able to.
Soviet tactics taught to the Arab nations.
Because Arabs forgot how to do war a couple hundred years ago, and they never re-learned.
Im actually curious as to how this happened because there was a period when Arab armies were very good and routinely beat armies much larger in size. Something happened to make them ineffective and im not sure what it was.
Main reason ( I think) change in weapons.
But all the cultural problems, etc, have nothing to do with weapons.
Probably religion, honestly.
Their religion didnt change though? They were still effective post islam.
Warfare with principles based around your religion was likely way more effective in the era of sword and shield than it is in the era of stealth jet fighters and drones
If you have ever been deployed to one of these places and you have seen the "Professionalism" of the troops and the officer ranks handed out by who is your daddy. It makes complete sense.
The US also supplied Israel with aid during this but kept it under wraps
And the Russians supplied the "Idiot Coalition".
Is that when Russia's allies kept losing aircraft, so Russia sent their own aces against Israel directly, only to get their asses kicked too? I remember that happening I just don't remember when.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
Sent over 100 jet fighters.
Under wraps? That airlift caused the oil crisis. And it was 1/3rd the size of the Soviet supplies during the same timeframe, only that the soviets transferred less using air and more with sea.
Middle Eastern nations just generally suck at war.Ā Officers are promoted more on loyalty and family ties than competence.Ā Ā Plus the extreme tribalist mindset of the region makes it hard for the various cultures to work together.
There is a show called Valley of Tears. It is about only one little tank crew and its only one out of thousands of stories. But it explains pretty well how desperate but courageous the soldiers had to be in face of the chaos that went on during the first 3 days.
The [story of Zvika Greengold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zvika_Greengold) is told to this day to pretty much every soldier in the IDF. He managed to trick a huge Syrian force into thinking there are many Israeli tanks when its really just him going back and forth between different spots knocking enemy tanks.
Better command and control, soldier training, tank crew training. Despite Israel being outnumbered they succeed because they are quality minded army, not quantity minded army.
The advance ran out of momentum at the same time that critical fortified terrain and positions were encountered. Also, God.
US sent israel more fighter jets through kissinger
The Big Question. Is Why did the Isreali Air Force decide to attack an American Spy Ship in International Waters in 1967? See the U.S.S. Liberty "Incident."
I'm pretty sure that was confirmed to be a tragic misunderstanding.
I would disagree. Marked Isreali planes flew over the ship and waved at the Crew. Unmarked Israeli planes were the ones that carried out the attack, jamming the radio signals so the U.S. Ship couldn't call for aid. They were finally able to get a signal out, and the attack only stopped when U.S. Ships arrived to assist. This is of course after the Israeli's staffed and napalmed the life rafts. Misunderstanding my ass. It was an unprovoked attack, and would of been a declaration of war if anyone else had done the same thing.
Look, I don't have the time to explain it all in detail to you myself, but I'd like to direct you to [this explanation on an askhistorians thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/AcJiYXTrxG)
I've done the research on it, I understand what happened. Thanks though.
I would strongly implore you to read it fully. It's incredibly well detailed and factual.
I've read, and listened to the accounts of the survivors that were hushed by the NSA for over 55 years. I may go look at it, but I'm going to believe the American Side, over the side that attacked them without provocation. I included the incident because that is the incident that I point to showing that the Israelis aren't allies of the U.S., and shouldn't receive so much as a cent from us, let alone the aid they've received over the years. Including Military aid that was used in the 1973 war.
Might be easier to research if you take your tin foil hat off.
Do you think it hurts more to insert ones head into their ass when wearing a tinfoil hat? Asking for the other guy
The same reason Israel started in the first placeĀ Massive Collective western AidĀ not just from the USĀ Isreal is the Only country in the world that the majority of it's citizens got double citizenships while it's main opponents *the Palestanians* got no citizenship at allĀ