Jump to content

Video Thread


Recommended Posts

Footage from the Golan height taken during the 1973 war:

Halftracks, Centurions, M-50 Shermans and T-62s (from Syria's 1st armored division) are seen between 0:25-1:15 and from 2:40 on.

Looks like the central sector (Hushniya area) around October 10th.

Edited by Iarmor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a long time i was under the impression the IDF were masters of armored warfare.

What i find quite interesting is some very well informed members on this site disagree with that.

And they consider the IDF to be a third rate army, fighting fifth rate opponents.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wars are being won by the least incompetent army.



You will always find elements in any army where there's a lot of room for improvement. One should not underestimate this, but at the same time one shouldn't overestimate the overall incompetence from a few anecdotal observations either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember some US observers and at least one high ranking ex officer saying something like the IDF wasn't as awesome as they are portrayed to be- for the reason they could never win a war against the Russians like NATO would be tasked to do.


So, in reality that sort of thinking applies to everyone- the IDF may not be able to win a war against the Russians in Europe, but they're not configured to do so in any way. That's not a reality that they plan for, that's not a reality they live in, and their armed forces aren't designed to do that. By the same token, the super powers have had their problems with relatively poorly equipped irregulars and guerrilla units in their conflicts, when theoretically that type of resistance is supposed to be cake compared to a modern, first rate opponent opponent. It's not comparing like with like in other words. All we have are analogies to draw comparisons in this way, whether this nation is better or like another and analogies by definition are approximations rather than direct copies of a thing, and those approximations will have always have room for debate.


Even a country's own ethics in war could be a relative 'weakness', for example Saddam Hussein put down a bloody, armed uprising post 1991 probably faster than the United States could have done it- because the US would tend to follow some more nuanced, convoluted procedure in how to do it rather than take a Saddam-esque approach of just destroying huge swaths of territory in order to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2016 at 2:25 PM, Marko said:

Some very valid points Matsimus.

One mistake made, the Abrams was exported to Iraq not Syria. 

Unless your referring to ISIS who captured some from the Iraqi army   

Not sure if they have used them in Syria.


would they even know how to effectively user M1, unless Iraqi defectors are working with them ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Saudis have them and there are lots of clips of Saudi M1s, M2s, LAV-25s, etc. being captured or destroyed. It doesn't speak ill of 'the tank' per se.


Context matters- tanks involved in a type of insurgency warfare where people can show up and shoot them from behind and what have you is no more or less an argument for the existence than tanks if one nation had them but their entirely military was eclipsed by a bigger, stronger one. It's funny how fortuna often throws itself in with the side that has more going for it.

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Homer locked and unlocked this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...