I think they get too much credit.  They are the best in their region, but that isn't saying much.

Who's better?

There aren't many militaries that combine their level of sophistication (technological and otherwise) with extensive combat experience.

Not overrated.

Just hamstrung by liberal/socialist politicians.

I think they're the best at fighting kids throwing rocks.

They are "one" of the best, yes. Judging from their tactics, planning, professionalism, dedication and survival, they "are" the best yes. The "Raid on Entebbe" said it all. They planned, went there (thousand of miles from home), killed all the terrorists (plus some), and freed all the hostages with the death of "one" of their officers. Apart from the raid, the Yom Kippur war (the demise of the Syrian Air Force) and the bombing raid over Iraq were also well planned by true military professionalism.

I wonder about the use of terms like "fifth rate" to describe armies.  How do you distinguish the fourth rate armies from the fifth rate armies? [:\]

[size=4]YeeeeHaaaawww![/size=4]

Overrated by whom? Surely not by any Arab military analyst!

Remember Entebbe? The only soldier killed was the leader of the Israeli forces, Jonathan (Yonatan) Netanyahu, the older brother of Benjamin Netanyahu, the former and next Prime Minister of Israel.

Now that was [i][b]chutzpah![/b][/i]

Eric The(Pro-IDF)Hun[>]:)]

THERE THE BEST AMERICAN MONEY CAN BUY!  Oh and it's not that there so good... it's just everyone around them suck so bad!  [:)]

I agree

Do you have anything to back up that claim?....It's easier said than done huh?

I'd say there are among the best in the world.  They 'practice' just about every day.  Practice makes perfect.

The IDF is one of the best armies around. They are at least the quivalent of any well-funded Western European military, and the really remarkable part is that they manage this in spite of the fact that their forces are largely composed of conscripts, which is the usual recipe for a mediocre military. In some areas, especially small-unit tactics and equipment, and the use of special operations forces, they are innovators and trailblazers. In others, they make excellent use of existing technology, and they have done an excellent job of taking older equipment and extending its service life, like the Sabra MBT, which is the oboslete M48 upgraded to an M1 Abrams equivalent.

It is unfair to characterize all of their enemies as incompetent. In the various wars they have fought over the last 50 some years or so, they have fought capable enemies (although some were laughinly inept). The Egyptians, in particular, have displayed some very good professionalism and tactics, due in no small part to their secular government and Soviet help.

If the Israelis did NOT have a military that was fairly competent, they would not exist, which by itself is probably all of the argument one needs to make as to the IDF's competence.

Overrated
Having fought with and against Arab and N African forces, as well as Asian , European,and Central American...my .02..
Is the Isrealis are overrated..What makes them key are gunnery and the tactics that go with that..as well as having close air support. and coordination as a ground air team.They don't fight like cowboys.They're organized
Its nothing most (if not all) western armies don't do.
But the Arab armies don't..Their gunnery is horrible, engagment ranges for tanks are closer to our heavy machine gun ranges and less at max effective range.The leaders are more gentry oriented than capable.
Isreali equipment allows for more accurate night engagements..thermal imaging..technology is often difficult to overcome.
The Isrealis aren't as good as the Arabs are bad.

The one thing that's different about the Israeli army, is that they don't get to lose a battle.  One loss will mean the entire country gets overrun and wiped out.  

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best):
- Where would you rank the Israelis?
- Where would you rank most of the Arabs?
- Where would you rank most of the NATO armies?

Oh, I don't know about that AR.

The over 100 Billion dollars in foreign aid (Tax Payers Money) Not including surplus weapon give aways to Israel. I guess for the "everyone else sucks statement," the Persian Gulf War.

They are over-rated, but that doesn't mean they are not good.
They will have no problem taking on ALL of their neighbors AGAIN, and winning AGAIN.

I've trained with Israelis, and I think they lack discipline (at least the supposedly elite "Golanis" that I met.

Many forces around the world are over-rated (Ghurkas, FFL).

The US Military, however, is underrated.

First off, your taxes dollars did not win the war or any battle, it's the men who fought these wars and who won them. During the 1967 war, the Israelis fought with second rated European guns, tanks (British Centurion), and planes (French Mirage III), and still won with no help from the U.S.

As for everyone suck statement, would the outcome of the Gulf war be the same if the U.S fought it with "Surplus give away weapons" and with Second rated tanks and planes? LOL!

over rated? yes

If it wasn't for the US(#1) support/equipment they would have been gone a long time ago.

Somewhere behind the Brits, Germans.

Maybe 4th or 5th.

I maybe wrong but I feel that they aren't overrated.  I hardly hear about how great they are.  I don't really know much about all there "spec ops" cuz they don't stop and pose for the cameras like the SEALS do.  The good, well trained units seem to stay mystified, and that's good.

There skill/achievements may be given alot of press because of the situation over there.  But hell they're doing what they have to do to help their country.

I'm probably just young and stupid but I respect anyone willing to step up and serve/protect their nation.

Post from Joe_556 -

Not true at all!

The US had a arms embargo against Israel for the 1948 War of Independence and the 1956 Suez Canal War.

There was no US military aid to Israel until AFTER the Six Day War in 1967!

Until then, Britain and France were Israel's arms suppliers and supporters!

But we liked what we saw in the 1967 Six Day War and changed course to keep Israel strong in order to support US interests in the Middle East!

Eric The(Historical)Hun[>]:)]

Wel, unlike OUR intelligence services, THEIRS WORKS

Exhibit A,B,C, Etc.; Capture of the Karine-A:

[img]http://www.mcgeedigital.com/assets/Pics/KarineA/k12.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.mcgeedigital.com/assets/Pics/KarineA/a9.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.mcgeedigital.com/assets/Pics/KarineA/k13.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.mcgeedigital.com/assets/Pics/KarineA/k6.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.mcgeedigital.com/assets/Pics/KarineA/k11.gif[/img]

IDF, taking out the trash.....

Bulldog OUT

[size=3]Hey, I know this is completely off topic, but bear with me, please![/size=3]

In May, 1940, the United States had the [b]18th[/b] largest Army in the World!

When Holland surrendered to Nazi Germany that month, we moved up to [b]17th[/b]!

Then, a mere four years later....

Eric The(WaxingNostalgic)Hun[>]:)]

Actually I have to agree with those who say the IDF are 2nd raters fighting 5th raters. The IDF is living on its technological advantage right now.

Renamed is quite wrong, the IDF has very little combat experience. Its been 20 years since "Peace for Galilee". In that time there have been only a very few small unit actions, mostly conducted by Spec Ops forces. Now the IDF's spec ops people are some of the busyist in the world, but that doesn't filter down to their conscript army. In the "good ole days" the IDF was almost constantly at war so their troops were always getting experience, both in police action and in real overt military actions. Both sides used raids by conventional forces back then as a means of making political statemnts and gathering intelligance. Also, look at how many wars there were in that period that called for full mobilization of the IDF. Even then, the IDF had a imbalance in that their Reserve units were usually better than their Active units.

Now because of 20 years of relative peace, when what military actions there have been have overwhelmingly been handled by the Air Force and the Special Forces the bulk of the IDF has lost its edge. And even the special operators have become too dependant on gadgets. In the last 15 years the US and British military have gained far more experience in the use of conventional forces than the IDF has, and because we both employ volunteer, professional militaries we have retained more of that knowledge in our NCO and officer corps than the IDF has. One good thing though is that the people in the IDF are at least aware of the shortcomings they have as a result of having to depend on short service conscripts. Or at least that is the impression I get from isayeret.com.

If there was a "top ten", they would probably be in there... so I would say that would make them "one of the best".

My .02

Tyler

They've been fighting arabs the entire time. Only in the '73 war did the Egyptians finally get equipment that actually worked.

Listen, one Bundeswehr panzer division would roll up all of their armor (if it was without air superiority).

They are as good as any army in the Middle East, and that is how good they need to be.

Man for man, I would put them in the ranks of the the average NATO army, but in many areas, like intelligence, they are the best in the world and most experienced.

Even all the Arab armies combined are not willing to take them on.

On the bright side, your comment is only ignorance and can be solved with an education.

Compared to the US or the UK, you're right.  Perhaps "extensive" was too strong a word.  But here are a few armies with comparable professionalism and technology but less experience:

Norway
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Ireland
Netherlands
Switzerland
Germany
Japan
New Zealand

And who, aside from the US and the UK, has [b]more[/b] experience?  

They might not be as good as they used to be, but they're still top 10 material.

They also have the advantage of being tightly focused on a very small area of operations.  It's not as if they have to do what the US military does and be prepared to fight anywhere from the arctic to the jungle.  And they do have the motivation of living only a few miles from the front lines.

I think they have a good , well trained military. However they are not as good as advertised , I think the reason alot of people think they are " great" is that where they stand out is they have the guts to do what others cannot or will not.

Yeah, I would agree with that Renamed they are a top ten army. But I would not only put the US and GBR in front of them but Germany as well. Germany has gone out of its way to get its troops back into combat in the last few years. Contributing heavily to the Bosnian ops and now to Afghanistan. Coupled with their technology and the extensive training they do with the USA and UK, and their greater size and budget, they probably could handle the IDF.

The IDF is the best there is in the region though, thats for sure.

The reason they have such a reputation is because of the fantastic kill ratios they've achieved on the ground and in the air over their military history. Again, against arabs with 2nd class equipment and training. How did we do in the Gulf War? The ratios were unheard of.



Dude, if it stayed conventional Israel would be crushed. It is a small country. I don't fault them for that.

Renamed


Hard to say on all counts..armies vary by nation and unit.
I'd give the Isrealis a six and a half as average.
  *they use conscripts and reserves as a large bulk of thier combat force,lower discipline.They're good in the areas and tactics locally..but they live there..they could be more well rounded.Their equipment and ability to replace it makes them king as well.
  *The Arabs I have seen, a two...there are exceptions..Their gunnery is horrible, no night fighting ability,their weapons were poorly taken care of (poor training and discipline)They run...without fall back positions.They make noise, light cigarettes and fires.Thier commanders are crap who get their postion by social graces rather than tactical and leadership ability.The only armies I would put below them would be say, Zimbabwe.and some other African armies.
  *NATO armies..they vary greatly from unit to unit,country to country.As for the LE.. someone mentioned them...they are dirty pigs..they piss where they live..but having shot with and done a two SHORT training excercises with them in Korea and SA..those boys can shoot the balls off the USMC.Of course those were both times the 2eme REP.The other units may be less.They do tend to get the creme of the French officer corps.And they fight a lot

you asked...my .02  

LE = Legion Etrangere = French Foreign Legion

Oui? [;)]

SA = South America or Saudi Arabia or South Africa or ? [:\]

BOTH sides used second-rate equipment till after the Six Days War. Even then, Mirage IIIs and 5s, MiG19s and 21s, and ISherman, Centurion, M48, JS1, T34, and T55 tanks were being phased out of true frontline service (less true for the Soviet equipment but that doesn't make it any less second-rate.) Using relatively equivalent weapons and achieving spectacular victories with it is strong evidence that the IDF itself was the determining factor. I'm sure not saying that the Arab armies were a match for the IDF, but I think that Israel's victories came more from the IDF's superiority than the Arabs' inferiority.

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best):
a] Where would you rank the Israelis?
b] Where would you rank most of the Arabs?
c] Where would you rank most of the NATO armies

a] 6
b] 3
c] 6/7

The only reason I say C]6 is that in the US, being a member of nato, there is not enough training, equiptment is left to rot, the Merchant Marine and Sealift capabilities are all way too understrength, and they are about 1 million men short in the event of all out war.
Oh yeah, there fighter wings are understrengthed, almost division is underequipted.  So given 6 months to get these up to par and 6 months to produce enough munitions by the time we go into Iraq we might have it up to par.

Benjamin