Quote:
Originally Posted by shilka77
I have no answer to this as I apparently was not on the ground to confirm what was taken out and of what or by what, remember all official reports are to be considered sugared, as it would not be healthy to display actual numbers.
|
There is a problem, just as the US in Iraq, it would be pretty difficult for the Israelis to mask up the casaulties and number of destroyed equipment, esp. as they left no destroyed or damaged tank behind. And the same goes for cause of loss.
Quote:
|
From what I have seen the IEDs was no major factor in the 2006 war what so ever as it was a highly mobile war with ambushing Hezbollah Commando units and Hamas units firing their RPGs and Kornet ATGMs with great skill and from short distances (hills) down on the tanks in the valleys and the few roads available to the IDF.The movie shows attacks on Merkava tanks using this tactics. Getting up close and fire away.
|
Sorry, I would not call it highly mobile. It got highly mobile in last two days when IDF was given the order it should have been given right at the beginning - to advance to the Litani river, crushing any resistance on the way. THAT was mobile war and that was also a war where Hamas was unable to do a thing.
Up until then, it was rather statical war with IDF operating in relatively small area with predictable routes, IE ideal for IED operations. Sort of like with those few large IED's that got Merkavas in Gaza and West Bank.
As for the movie, of course Hezbollah likes more to present its fighters running around with RPGs and ATGMs than with shovels and wheelbarrows
Quote:
Now this was not the reaction I was looking for, as if you have a game what would be most likely to use if you went to war, would you take out the training PG-7M or would you equip your forces with a more effective warhead?
The issue stockpiles vs the need when going to war I think all silver bullets available would be pulled out to be honest. Defense budgets all over the globe is tight but the cost to actually go out and build a brand new T-90 vs equipping your soldiers with the inexpensive improved rocket-propelled grenades is by all means the most likely a nation would do if it was pulled into a war.
|
They were not for sure in Georgia, most pics I saw (and where I bothered to ID)showed Russian troops sporting excessive amounts of old RPG-18's. The same went for example for Chechnya, AFAIR in the region of LAW's/RPG's Chechen fighters got often better stuff than the line troops opposing them. The question whether you pull out your silver bullets is also a question whether you need them and whether you do not have to ship them across half the country - after all (again Georgia) the VDV units deployed there (which had to be moved in-theatre) got older variants of BMD's while there already are units with BMD-3/3M/4's. Not to mention that almost half of 58th army's BMP fleet consisted of BMP-1, the other half of BMP-2 and it operated T-72B tanks of both 1986 and 1989 patterns. And 42nd army that sent in some units after the end of major operations operated T-62's without even BDD armour. Definitely no "silver bullets" there. This is what that Rumsfeld's quote with "army as you have" was about. You can take luxury of handing out new toys to the troops if you have enough time to teach them how to use them (the different RPG warheads would have atleast different ranges and ballistics which the operator must take into account). You do not have that luxury when actually fighting in a higher-intensity op.
Sorry, but things as "70 KH-11 satellites hovering over Korea" or "American tanks are made for open terrain" or "T-62 have 155mm guns" do not lend the author much credibility and lead not to trust him too much at the very least on technical matters. And claiming superiority of MiG-21 over F-15?
Quote:
|
Hahaha yes well I wish I could agree with you here mate but I can't of obvious reasons this is Geopolitics and we (the west) had a clear picture of exactly what happened the moment the Russian Federation went in to stop the killings of South Ossetians in this particular conflict. The friendly Georgian fairy tale is all but inept at its best.
|
Sorry, where did I write anything about friendly Georgia there? I was just commenting on the "US trained" by showing which parts of the Georgian army were US trained.
Quote:
|
A smashing victory a complete defeat of Georgian forces tells another story as if we the west would not had intervened (political) Georgia would had looked a bit different today.
|
Well, Japanese and German armies also had many shortcomings that didn't show up in rapid battles again disorganised and inept enemy but which surfaced when being opposed by atleast half-competent foe. Point I saw often cited was for example bunching up of Russian columns and other sins against basic air raid precautions - if only the Georgian Su--25 pilots were able to hit their target, such basic faults would prove very costly, as the Georgian AF managed to mount few (if inaccurate) strikes aven pretty late in the war.
Quote:
|
Feb 27 1991 Bush Senior declares aggression have been defeated it didn’t include the rest of the war that didn’t end until 1995. March 1991 a Republican Guard unit got smashed when on retreat by American forces. The battle has no name as it become a controversy due to the violence used in the attack on the retreating forces.
|
Except that the "highway of death" happened between 26th and 27th February, 1991, ie before "end of major military operations" and it definitely was not a ground battle and it was intensive just for one side. It would be as if I claimed proficiency of Wehrmacht based on intesive fights in Dresden in February 1945.
Best health to your kids and strong nerves to you, have no kids myself but done enough babysitting for my brothers
Re: Long lost tactical manual
Threaded Mode