User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/31/2011 10:58:10 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Insha' allah doesn't count as muchas Israeli training Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The Israeli military is not what it used to be. Remember they got there asses handed to the by Hezbollah in the recent past. Thats because their freedom of action was restricted by Olmert's lack of a spine |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 7:19:44 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Plus, the thought that 'Israel is going to fight a defensive battle' implies that Egypt would be the one attacking... Which is ABSURDLY unlikely. If Israel and Egypt fight, the odds are roughly 100% that Egypt would be the attacker. Not at all. The LAST thing that a new regime - MB or otherwise - is going to want to do, is take on a neer-peer adversary in open 3rd-gen warfare... Which is what Izzy vs (whoever) ends up being. The ONLY way you'd see another war, is if Israel decides that they do not 'agree' with the new Egyptian regime, and decides to go pre-emptive. Which is their right as a sovreign nation, and gives them a claim at a 'defensive' operation politically. But militarily, an offensive defense, is still offense. I have resisted saying this for a long time, but I do believe you may be insane. There is no fucking way that Israel would invade Egypt to effect regime change. None. ETA: Egypt has 10x the population, and Israel would have to cross the Sinai and Suez to attack. Pure suicide, and they are smart enough to know it. The attacking Israeli Merkavas would never live long enough to see an Egyptian tank. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 7:35:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. Israel moved against Jordanian troops in a town on the West Bank. Jordanian. The King of Jordan bitched at Egypt for being a pussy, bad in a shame-based culture. Russia provided false information to Egypt that Israel was attacking, though Israel made no move against Egypt. Egypt expelled peacekeepers, closed the Straits, and were deploying troops. Israel moved against the deploying troops, believing that Egypt had already started the war. It's easier to kill tanks on the move than when they are prepared. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:05:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: Quoted: The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. Israel moved against Jordanian troops in a town on the West Bank. Jordanian. The King of Jordan bitched at Egypt for being a pussy, bad in a shame-based culture. Russia provided false information to Egypt that Israel was attacking, though Israel made no move against Egypt. Egypt expelled peacekeepers, closed the Straits, and were deploying troops. Israel moved against the deploying troops, believing that Egypt had already started the war. It's easier to kill tanks on the move than when they are prepared. I never said they started it by pre-emptively attacking Egypt. I said they started the war pre-emptively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:09:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
abrams easily ETA: oops, egyptian abrams? merkava Maybe an even match. Israel didn't look too hot when they went up against hezbollah recently. They weren't the Israel of the 6 day war, that's for sure. Not to start a shit storm, but when was the last time American tankers went up against an enemy with such a technological capability, will to fight, and terrain advantage? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:11:09 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree with Israel having better training, but it seems their leadership is not up to the task like in the past.
Quoted:
Quoted:
abrams easily ETA: oops, egyptian abrams? merkava Maybe an even match. Israel didn't look too hot when they went up against hezbollah recently. They weren't the Israel of the 6 day war, that's for sure. I definetly wouldn't say Israel is a for sure win. That being said though, Israel's tank crews are definitely better trained I wouldn't know, but I do know that the Israeli government was pissed off with the military with not having been training for such an event and producing poor results on the battlefield. Some Generals got shitcanned because of it. Their Chief of Staff was an airforce guy in 2008. Gabi Ashkenazi, in command during Cast Lead, was an infantry guy. The IDF kicked ass in Gaza compared to Lebanon. 08 doesn't accurately reflect the state of Israeli leadership today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:12:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: abrams easily ETA: oops, egyptian abrams? merkava Maybe an even match. Israel didn't look too hot when they went up against hezbollah recently. They weren't the Israel of the 6 day war, that's for sure. Not to start a shit storm, but when was the last time American tankers went up against an enemy with such a technological capability, will to fight, and terrain advantage? 1991. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:35:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Egypts military has probably learned a lot from the US as part of all those Operation Bright Star's we did with them. I think the last one we did was in
2009 with the 82ND Airborne. A lot of their officers have trained in the US as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:45:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. Israel moved against Jordanian troops in a town on the West Bank. Jordanian. The King of Jordan bitched at Egypt for being a pussy, bad in a shame-based culture. Russia provided false information to Egypt that Israel was attacking, thouh Israel made no move against Egypt. Egypt expelled peacekeepers, closed the Straits, and were deploying troops. Israel moved against the deploying troops, believing that Egypt had already started the war. It's easier to kill tanks on the move than when they are prepared. I never said they started it by pre-emptively attacking Egypt. I said they started the war pre-emptively. And you said that (ambiguous) statement as a rebuttal/refutation to my statement that Israel would not preemptively attack EGYPT. There is no fucking way that Israel would invade Egypt to effect regime change. None.
To which you said: The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel.
They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:48:58 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. Israel moved against Jordanian troops in a town on the West Bank. Jordanian. The King of Jordan bitched at Egypt for being a pussy, bad in a shame-based culture. Russia provided false information to Egypt that Israel was attacking, thouh Israel made no move against Egypt. Egypt expelled peacekeepers, closed the Straits, and were deploying troops. Israel moved against the deploying troops, believing that Egypt had already started the war. It's easier to kill tanks on the move than when they are prepared. I never said they started it by pre-emptively attacking Egypt. I said they started the war pre-emptively. And you said that (ambiguous) statement as a rebuttal/refutation to my statement that Israel would not preemptively attack EGYPT. There is no fucking way that Israel would invade Egypt to effect regime change. None. No but they may do it to capture the Sinai, there is certainly a history of that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:50:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
No but they may do it to capture the Sinai, there is certainly a history of that... They voluntarily gave it back last time, why would they launch a war to take it again? They could have just kept it, like the Golan or Palestinian Strip. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:52:00 PM EDT
[#12]
we should send them a specialist in armor
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Frankly, I find it improbable that a very non-western culture could successfully implement western doctrine.Quoted: Egyptian Abrams has no depleted Uranium Armor. They are still styled on Warsaw pact doctrine. Once those Abrams move out of their SAM battery protection, they are going to be toast. The Isreali isn't going to make the same mistake as in 73 where they basically defended the eastern bank of the Suez to the death and wasted their airpower. The Isreali is going to fight a defensive battle this time.  From what I am told, they moved away from the Soviet doctrine and adopted Western military doctrine. From wikipedia: Today conscripts without a college degree serve three years as enlisted soldiers. Conscripts with a General Secondary School Degree serve two years as enlisted soldiers. Conscripts with a college degree serve one year as enlisted or three years as a reserve officer. I have never seen a military adopt Western military doctrine with conscripts. Escpecially where conscripts serve longer then educated men. With that large number of conscripts there will be a need for centralized command or the whole system will collapse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:56:29 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Whatever Egypt sends up will be quickly sent downQuoted: Why wouldn't you just send up the Cobras/Apaches first and then use the Merkavas to mop up? Because Egypt has a few hundred decent fighters and a whole bunch of ADA,not to mention a couple dozen Apaches of their own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 8:58:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Quoted: No but they may do it to capture the Sinai, there is certainly a history of that... They voluntarily gave it back last time, why would they launch a war to take it again? They could have just kept it, like the Golan or Palestinian Strip. They gave it back for a shitload of cash and a promise that we would continue to bribe those in charge of Egypt. If the brotherhood takes the reins then they maybe more inclined to take it back. Plus there is always the chance the British and French will try to play colonial power again  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:00:50 PM EDT
[#15]
what power can they project?
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: No but they may do it to capture the Sinai, there is certainly a history of that... They voluntarily gave it back last time, why would they launch a war to take it again? They could have just kept it, like the Golan or Palestinian Strip. They gave it back for a shitload of cash and a promise that we would continue to bribe those in charge of Egypt. If the brotherhood takes the reins then they maybe more inclined to take it back. Plus there is always the chance the British and French will try to play colonial power again |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:08:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
what power can they project? The French are a hell of a lot more capable than Americans realize, or are willing to admit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:12:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
I have never seen a military adopt Western military doctrine with conscripts. How would you describe the Israeli docrine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:14:09 PM EDT
[#18]
yeah, they have a carrier and some ships but their carrier can't stay at sea indefinitely and their aircraft need spare parts. the med isn't a little pond.
they don't even have 500 leclerc mbt iirc. how many airborne divisions do they have the put in place quickly and what massive airlift capability? yeah, they have a helo troop ship but bfd. Quoted: Quoted: what power can they project? The French are a hell of a lot more capable than Americans realize, or are willing to admit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:17:50 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: yeah, they have a carrier and some ships but their carrier can't stay at sea indefinitely and their aircraft need spare parts. the med isn't a little pond. they don't even have 500 leclerc mbt iirc. how many airborne divisions do they have the put in place quickly and what massive airlift capability? yeah, they have a helo troop ship but bfd. Quoted: Quoted: what power can they project? The French are a hell of a lot more capable than Americans realize, or are willing to admit. I was just making reference to the Suez Incident of the 50s with my post about French and British colonialism |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:22:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Against an ARAB nation.
Probably overkill. BTW, WTH is this top-posting? Not how things are done around here, dude. Quoted:
yeah, they have a carrier and some ships but their carrier can't stay at sea indefinitely and their aircraft need spare parts. the med isn't a little pond. they don't even have 500 leclerc mbt iirc. how many airborne divisions do they have the put in place quickly and what massive airlift capability? yeah, they have a helo troop ship but bfd. Quoted:
Quoted:
what power can they project? The French are a hell of a lot more capable than Americans realize, or are willing to admit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 9:30:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Egypts military has probably learned a lot from the US as part of all those Operation Bright Star's we did with them. I think the last one we did was in 2009 with the 82ND Airborne. A lot of their officers have trained in the US as well. American gear and American doctrine are predicated on a competent, professional NCO and junior officer corps. I am less than convinced Egypt has that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 10:28:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. Israel moved against Jordanian troops in a town on the West Bank. Jordanian. The King of Jordan bitched at Egypt for being a pussy, bad in a shame-based culture. Russia provided false information to Egypt that Israel was attacking, thouh Israel made no move against Egypt. Egypt expelled peacekeepers, closed the Straits, and were deploying troops. Israel moved against the deploying troops, believing that Egypt had already started the war. It's easier to kill tanks on the move than when they are prepared. I never said they started it by pre-emptively attacking Egypt. I said they started the war pre-emptively. And you said that (ambiguous) statement as a rebuttal/refutation to my statement that Israel would not preemptively attack EGYPT. There is no fucking way that Israel would invade Egypt to effect regime change. None. To which you said: The 1967 Arab-Israeli war was started preemptively by Israel. They believed that if they did not attack first, the Arabs would attack them. I see NO reason why Israel would not do this again, if the circumstances justified it. And you absolutely positively suck at context. 'Would not do this again' = 'Preemptively start a war'. In the past, it was Jordan. Now, it *could* be Egypt.... All depends on what happens, and how threatened B.N. feels... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 10:53:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
And you absolutely positively suck at context. 'Would not do this again' = 'Preemptively start a war'. In the past, it was Jordan. Now, it *could* be Egypt.... All depends on what happens, and how threatened B.N. feels... Whatever dude. Everyone but you sees through you by now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 11:25:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: I've heard being a PVT in the Egyptian military is much like it being Thursday..everyday..for your entire enlistment.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 11:29:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly, I find it improbable that a very non-western culture could successfully implement western doctrine.
Quoted:
Egyptian Abrams has no depleted Uranium Armor. They are still styled on Warsaw pact doctrine. Once those Abrams move out of their SAM battery protection, they are going to be toast. The Isreali isn't going to make the same mistake as in 73 where they basically defended the eastern bank of the Suez to the death and wasted their airpower. The Isreali is going to fight a defensive battle this time.
From what I am told, they moved away from the Soviet doctrine and adopted Western military doctrine. From wikipedia: Today conscripts without a college degree serve three years as enlisted soldiers. Conscripts with a General Secondary School Degree serve two years as enlisted soldiers. Conscripts with a college degree serve one year as enlisted or three years as a reserve officer. I have never seen a military adopt Western military doctrine with conscripts. Escpecially where conscripts serve longer then educated men. With that large number of conscripts there will be a need for centralized command or the whole system will collapse. Western militaries have had conscript armies and being Western, used Western doctrines. It's not just an Eastern thing (cadre-conscript armies); the cadre-conscript army is actually a Prussian concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 11:31:41 PM EDT
[#26]
bought?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/1/2011 11:39:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Plus, the thought that 'Israel is going to fight a defensive battle' implies that Egypt would be the one attacking... Which is ABSURDLY unlikely. If Israel and Egypt fight, the odds are roughly 100% that Egypt would be the attacker. Not at all. The LAST thing that a new regime - MB or otherwise - is going to want to do, is take on a neer-peer adversary in open 3rd-gen warfare... Which is what Izzy vs (whoever) ends up being. The ONLY way you'd see another war, is if Israel decides that they do not 'agree' with the new Egyptian regime, and decides to go pre-emptive. Which is their right as a sovreign nation, and gives them a claim at a 'defensive' operation politically. But militarily, an offensive defense, is still offense. I agree with your logic. Other than your Third Reich-style belief that preemptive warfare is the "right" of a "sovereign nation." It was actually the widespread belief up until the world wars. The thoughts on war in the wake of WWI changed considerably in many countries. It is the right of a sovereign nation provided they do it according to the procedures that the West came up with for such things (like declaring war). There wasn't some requirement that war had to be purely reactionary to be okay. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:26:27 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
abrams easily ETA: oops, egyptian abrams? merkava Maybe an even match. Israel didn't look too hot when they went up against hezbollah recently. They weren't the Israel of the 6 day war, that's for sure. Not to start a shit storm, but when was the last time American tankers went up against an enemy with such a technological capability, will to fight, and terrain advantage? 1991. The Kuwaiti desert and Lebanon confer similar terrain advantages to infantry antitank teams? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 4:46:09 AM EDT
[#29]
From my experience one big problem the Egyptians would face is the maintenance of their gear. I remember (this was MANY years ago) that most of their armor was either very poorly maintained or not maintained at all. Most wouldn't start. I am not sure but I would bet the M1's they do have would need some major maintenance before they stood any kind of chance.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:02:32 AM EDT
[#30]
I was in OP Bright Star '86. Don't know about today but I can tell you that back then the Egyptian military was amateuristic at best. Think keystone cops and you'd have a good picture of what I saw.
And what's with that smell? Little bro said Iraq had the same stench. If I lived in a world with that stink I'd be perpetually pissed off as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:08:49 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Frankly, I find it improbable that a very non-western culture could successfully implement western doctrine.
Quoted:
Egyptian Abrams has no depleted Uranium Armor. They are still styled on Warsaw pact doctrine. Once those Abrams move out of their SAM battery protection, they are going to be toast. The Isreali isn't going to make the same mistake as in 73 where they basically defended the eastern bank of the Suez to the death and wasted their airpower. The Isreali is going to fight a defensive battle this time.
From what I am told, they moved away from the Soviet doctrine and adopted Western military doctrine. From wikipedia: Today conscripts without a college degree serve three years as enlisted soldiers. Conscripts with a General Secondary School Degree serve two years as enlisted soldiers. Conscripts with a college degree serve one year as enlisted or three years as a reserve officer. I have never seen a military adopt Western military doctrine with conscripts. Escpecially where conscripts serve longer then educated men. With that large number of conscripts there will be a need for centralized command or the whole system will collapse. Germany just got rid of conscription, do they count as "Western military doctrine." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:27:02 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Why would Israel and Egypt even be at war? The new Egytian government will be pro radical moslem and will attack Isreal along with bordering countries. Its all going to be part of the new Arab Alliance to come. I have no pity of what will happen to the land of Moab. It will be a dreadfull mistake by those countries that attack Isreal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:31:54 AM EDT
[#33]
Been awhile since I reviewed any tank spec's but if I remember the Merk is designed for what the main Israeli operations entail - operating on interior lines, carries infantry support on board and has good frontal/side armor for operations in urban/populated areas. Its a good tank with an intended role that is somewhat different than an M1A1. I don't see the Merkava as primarily an open country blitzkreig tank. Its adaptible to that of course, because fast is a relative term depending on just how far you are going.
It has good mobility, protection and firepower, it was designed with the need for infantry support at hand in populated areas in mind, but is not a fast tank and I don't believe it has a very long range compared to other main battle tanks. Current M1A1's would be more than a match all else being equal. Older export M-1's not so much but could still fight effectively all else being equal. That "all else being equal" is the qualifier. The Egyptians were not equal in training or individual unit capability. Unless they have drastically overhauled their command structure, they would have to win by sheer numbers instead of tactics and expertise. And as they say, overwhelming numbers are a tactic in themselves if thats all you have. I think the Israeli AF would make quick work of massed armor and troops as well. The first fight as always will be the one for air superiority and that would favor Israel in my limited opinion.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:32:52 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
First, we don't sell those dudes the same Abrams that we use. They are much more limited tech wise. Others will be along shortly to explain the details I'm sure. Second, nothing can replace a well trained professional crew. If the Egyptian military is anything like the othe Arab militaries I've worked with, the Israelis don't have much to worry about. Not only are you totally right, I don't get why people keep re-hashing this... Arab nations have tried time and again to take on Israel. Even with us restraining them, the Israelis always thrash the Arab Armies... And badly, too. We just keep them from "finishing the job". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:36:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
abrams easily ETA: oops, egyptian abrams? merkava First post wins. Hopefully we have "kill switches" for all that stuff we equipped Egypt with. Starving them of parts takes a long time to be effective (ala Iran). Kill Switch: A-10 with 30mm depleted Uranium rounds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:36:59 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Egyptian Abrams has no depleted Uranium Armor. They are still styled on Warsaw pact doctrine. Once those Abrams move out of their SAM battery protection, they are going to be toast. The Isreali isn't going to make the same mistake as in 73 where they basically defended the eastern bank of the Suez to the death and wasted their airpower. The Isreali is going to fight a defensive battle this time.
From what I am told, they moved away from the Soviet doctrine and adopted Western military doctrine. Including C and D model F-16s as the bulk of their AF. Plus, the thought that 'Israel is going to fight a defensive battle' implies that Egypt would be the one attacking... Which is ABSURDLY unlikely. Israel is well known for taking the initiative... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 5:39:00 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Insha' allah doesn't count as muchas Israeli training Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile The Israeli military is not what it used to be. Remember they got there asses handed to the by Hezbollah in the recent past. Remember we tied their hands to their dicks with that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 6:04:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Wonder how Americans will react to pictures of the Sinai filled with burning M1 hulks.
I think that if the MB gets in charge that they will feel quite a bit of pressure to attack Israel, their constituency is going to demand a lot, and attacking Israel is the only thing they'll be able to deliver on. An all out war on both their northern and southern border is going to be rough for Israel, the Arabs only have to get lucky once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 8:59:50 AM EDT
[#41]
I was thinking about this today on the way to work.
Tag |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:04:19 AM EDT
[#42]
 Just sayin'... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:17:57 AM EDT
[#43]
Here, go read about Egypt's M1A1 Abrams program. It was a multi-stage export effort which essentially eased them into the capability of building them for themselves. 555 of them (so far)
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1160.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:23:39 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Egyptian Abrams has no depleted Uranium Armor. They are still styled on Warsaw pact doctrine. Once those Abrams move out of their SAM battery protection, they are going to be toast. The Isreali isn't going to make the same mistake as in 73 where they basically defended the eastern bank of the Suez to the death and wasted their airpower. The Isreali is going to fight a defensive battle this time.
From what I am told, they moved away from the Soviet doctrine and adopted Western military doctrine. Including C and D model F-16s as the bulk of their AF. Plus, the thought that 'Israel is going to fight a defensive battle' implies that Egypt would be the one attacking... Which is ABSURDLY unlikely. Israel is well known for taking the initiative... Unlike many Arfcommers, the leadership of Israel generally isn't retarded. They aren't attacking Egypt anytime soon. Replace PMAG covers and relax. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:29:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
abrams easily ETA: oops, egyptian abrams? merkava Maybe an even match. Israel didn't look too hot when they went up against hezbollah recently. They weren't the Israel of the 6 day war, that's for sure. Not to start a shit storm, but when was the last time American tankers went up against an enemy with such a technological capability, will to fight, and terrain advantage? The IDF drank its own Kool-Aid, and paid the price. Hopefully they won't make the same mistake again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2011 9:32:52 AM EDT
[#46]
needs more Merkava
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
