Best Trained Soldiers

[Viking]

You're welcome Mark.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Neubob
You're saying that as if 'kicking' a large group of highly-embedded, locally-integrated guerillas out of anywhere is easy. Many of these rockets are produced in basements, then fired from nearby wooded areas. To 'kick them out' would mean to torch much of the country, combatant and non-combatant alike--which the Israelis are physically capable of doing.

Cite one example of a modern army dislodging and disarming a substantial and locally-supported guerilla army.

I might be crazy for suggesting this, but in making these proclaimations, you might want to broaden your in-depth, scientific analysis to periods of time not limited to last year.

The rockets that were fired into Northern Israel were Katyusha Rocket "Multiple Rocket Launcher" BM-21 and not the home made kind fired from the Palestinian territories.

Yes, the Hezbollah were/are a highly trained (by Syrian and Iran), locally intergrated military force that did not use guerilla tactics though when fighting the Israelis during the summer war.  It was pretty much a set piece battle.  This was and is totally different from the insurgency that the US forces are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan were the opposition is using insurgent and terrorist tactics such as car bombs, suicide bombers and ambushes with improvised explosive devices.

The level of resistance and tactics used by Hezbollah was not expected by the Israeli army, as they expected Hezbollah to resort to more traditional guerilla/insurgent like tactics.  Nor did the war stop the firing of Katyusha rockets into Northern Israel, in fact the number of launches increased dramatically.  Nor did it win the release of the two soldiers that were kidnapped from northern Israel.  So in short, Israel did not accomplish any of its goals it set out to accomplish.  it ended up costing the top general his job.

The US forces, when they invaded Iraq at the onset of the war did accomplish their goals and in fact the invasion and drive to the Iraqi capital is something that will be taught in military academies and war colleges for years to come as an example of a brilliant invasion strategy.  Unfortunately, the same can't be said of how our forces have been trying to contain the insurgency after the war ended.


ack-ack

[Dago]

Be realistic, the Marines aren't even close to the best trained soldiers in the world.

[bozon]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
They couldn't even kick Hezbollah out of Lebenon.  Isreali army didn't accomplish one of its goals during their summer war.  Hezbollah kept firing rockets and still has those 2 Isreali soldiers.  

There was much more to that then the military ability to stop the rockets. Stoping the short rage rockets meant capturing south Lebanon. Israel did not withdraw from there and let the friggin UN paint the border 6 years ago just to go back in.

It was not about getting the soldiers back. That was hopeless from the begining. It was much more about putting an end to the regular, periodic Hizballa attacks during the last 6 years, that Lebanon did nothing to prevent.

An Israeli "win" was impossible because all Hizballa needed to do was not getting Nasralla killed and keep firing short range rockets - even if the vast majority don't hit nothing. What they did hit was Israeli moral and pride.

Most of their long range rockets and vehicle launchers were destroyed a few minutes after launch by the IAF. Most of the long range stocks were destroyed in the first air strikes wave. Hizballa was unable to successfuly launch rockets aimed south to Haifa although the many threats (save one that hit nothing but empty ground). The launches to Haifa were significantly decreased when the UN pulled out of Tyre and the IAF was allowed to strike there. In the last weeks, the accuracy of rockets droped significantly and they reverted to hitting Kiryat-Shmone (which is the closest and easiest target) and firing in the "general direction" of Israel. Some rockets even reached Syria. Their armed drones, Nasralla's promised "big suprise", were shot down and none reached its target. Their big rocket (almost scud size), able to hit Israel from the Beirut area, and which was saved to the last day of the war, was destroyed on the ground minutes before launch. At least 500 Hizballa soldiers were killed (of an organization not numbering more than a few thousands). I'm not reading this from the papers. I was there.

Hizballa were no suckers, but not that impressive either. They avoided direct confrontation as much as possible and did not attempt to stop the ground invasion. The only thing they attempted was to cause as much Israeli casualties, accumulate enough Lebanese civilian casualties, hope that a few UN schmucks get killed and wait for the public oppinion and the world press to do theirs. That was a smart tactic on their side.

The silly thing is that the Israeli public accepts civilian casualties better than it accepts soldier casuaties. Our leaders prefer a few more Israeli civilians killed by rockets than a few soldiers killed by preventing rockets from being fired. They also handled the political front in the worst possible manner.

The real difference between the US and Israel is that if Israel kills 30 people with a bomb the world is shocked. If the US bombs a wedding and kill 50, nobody gives a damn. The funny thing is that I agree with this as I do expect my country to be better.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Benny Moore
I don't know about their ground forces, but Israel's air force puts ours to shame.  Their fighter pilots would probably beat the snot out of ours at Red Flag.  A little research on their combat records would clear up why we admire Israel's fliers.

Combat records against whom?
anyone with any credibility?

I fail to see how it is claimed they put ours to shame

[Neubob]

Again, Ack Ack, I refer you to the history of the Israeli army that preceded that of the last year.

What do you say about that?

[bozon]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Combat records against whom?
anyone with any credibility?

I fail to see how it is claimed they put ours to shame

It doesn't put anyone to shame because it can't be compared. Also, I'm pretty sure that in big joint manuvers they will not stand out significantly.

It is just that the way they are trained and the entire fighting philosophy is different. Most modern airforces emphesize "over the horizon" stand-off fights that start at 50 miles apart. This is not as important to the IAF as the country, including the Golan hights and west bank is not 50 miles wide at the thickest point. The Syrian front is barely 30 miles long and there would be over 100 planes, helies and drones along it stacked up from 0 to 40,000 feet. The amount of electro-magnetic interference would probably fry the birds in the air and blind a lot of the equipment. The IAF thus emphesize close range dogfights and tighter work with the ground control, much more than any other modern air-force.

There were joint training with the USAF in the past. IAF pilots wanted to learn stand off tactics from the americans and the american wanted to train dog-fights with the IAF. USAF pilots said they were also very impressed by the way IAF works with its ground control.

As for combat records, if you consider the Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian and Iraqi un-creditable Then who is? The soviets?
In 1970 Several soviet new Mig21 squadrons were deployed to Egypt and were attempting to intercept Israeli flights over the Suez. In a massive dog-fight that included 20 Mig 21s vs. 4 F4 phantoms and 8 Mirage III, the Soviets lost 5:0 and left Egypt after a few weeks.

Air 2 ground? In 1973 the IAF suffered losses to SAM batteries similar to what the US faced in Vietnam. 7 years later, in 1980 Lebanon, the IAF learned its lesson and anihilated the entire Syrian SAM batteries without a single loss and were free to fly over Lebanon (not to mention the 83:0 record in dogfights, but that is not credible). The only survivors were 2 SA8 mobile SAM vehicles that roamed around the Baqa valley and attracted the SAM hunters every time they turned on their radars. BTW, the radar guided a2a missiles preformed misserebly due to EM interference. Most of the a2a kills were in dogfights using short range heat seakers and the good old 20mm cannon.

[Dago]

Funny how people will buy into the hype about Israels military when they haven't done all that much to prove themselves.  People are just gullible, they suck into anything they see in a movie or on TV.

[uptown]

Who do you guys think trains the israelis,not to mention the the equipment to train with? That's right , the good ole U,S,of A! Just because the Israelis can beat rock throwing a-rabs with F-16s doesn't make them well trained.
The Fighting men and women of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are the best trained fighting force on earth, followed closely by CHINA,THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND RUSSIA

[Bluedog]

On the strength of the individual soldier not the overall Armed Forces you say?

Nepal.

[VooWho]

Originally posted by Viking
Strange then that you didn't include the Russians in your list. They also have to serve for two years. Granted it is only the men, but then there are about 60-70 million Russian men.

Also I find it curious (but not entirely disagreeable) that you chose a conscript army as #1.

As I stated at the beginning, the best trained individual soldier, not the whole Forces. The reason I didn't add Russia, is because they still throw in 18-21 year olds into action, with little training even when they have a massive army. Research the First and Second Chechen Wars. You well found that the Russians lost thousands of men, because of the lack of training. The Russian army has good technology, but its troops are lacked in proper training. After the First Chechen War the Russians did start training their soldiers better, but I put Russia somewhere between the top 6 thru 10, if I made a list of the Top 10.

[VooWho]

Originally posted by uptown
Who do you guys think trains the israelis,not to mention the the equipment to train with? That's right , the good ole U,S,of A! Just because the Israelis can beat rock throwing a-rabs with F-16s doesn't make them well trained.
The Fighting men and women of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are the best trained fighting force on earth, followed closely by CHINA,THE UNITED KINGDOM, AND RUSSIA

Your right the Israelies did get training from the U.S. like in late 1940s and maybe early 50s. Israel training is own their own now. Yes they do use American M4 Carbine Rifles, but they use their own equipment on them. The Israel Forces now have a new rifle, the Tavor. Its lighter than the M4, and if more accurate than the M16. (If you watch Future Weapons you would have seen this one) I don't know why people bash the Israel Army. I guess its because they are surrounded by Arab Nations, and can't kill Hezbollah, but I tell you they are well trained. An individual Israelie soldier is basically trained like an U.S. soldier, but the one factor that an Israelie has over the U.S. soldier, is Urban fighting. An Israelie soldier is well trained for Urban fighting, as most of the fighting they do is taken place in cities, and villages. Their training revolves mostly around urban fighting. Yes the U.S. does urban training, but it isn't as complex and well developed as Israels urban training. Thats the difference between the two.

[bozon]

How long is a typical infantry training in the US army and marines? I mean basic training and advanced training till he is considered fit to be cannon fodder.

[Suave]

Define training. Depending on your job in the US army, training might mean practicing the trombone or making meatloaf or teaching a woman how to use a breast pump, or twirling an antique rifle.

[bozon]

I did say infantry. I see how teaching a woman to use a breast pump relates to the subject of infants, but that is still not called infantry as far as my meger english vocabulary goes.