How Hot is Israel Gonna Get?

[Probus]

Released IDF footage:

 

[Bulletpoint]

I've been thinking about what Hamas and their backers are hoping to get out of this war. Because they must have known it would end up like this. They are fanatics and indifferent to human life, but I don't think they are stupid as such.

Not really sure which explanation is more correct, but I think it must be one of these two:

1) It's basically one big suicide attack, involving the whole organisation. They are already used to do what they call "martyrdom operations", so maybe they thought they'd just all go out in a blaze of what they consider glory and take as many Israelis with them as they can. Also damage Israel's reputation by provoking them to attack civilian targets, which has already happened.

2) Or maybe Hamas actually think they can mount a proper defence against the Israeli army. The purpose of the hostages is to prevent Israel from simply flooding their tunnels, which would be their major weak point. And then Hamas thinks they can keeping fighting and ambushing their enemies inside Gaza for a long time. Maybe indefinitely, if they can keep supplies coming in through tunnels to Egypt? So basically moving the battle to a place where they have the home advantage.

 

[MHW]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I've been thinking about what Hamas and their backers are hoping to get out of this war. Because they must have known it would end up like this. They are fanatics and indifferent to human life, but I don't think they are stupid as such.

Hamas leaders may have thought that there was no strategic alternative. Saudi Arabia was on the verge of normalizing relations with Israel. The other Arab leaders might make noise about the plight of the Palestinian people, but they have no interest in becoming involved. The Oct. 7 attack puts Palestine back in the foreground.

Edited November 7, 2023 by MHW

[Probus]

Latest from Gaza:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/israel-gaza-situation-report-hamas-lost-control-in-the-north-idf-says

 

[Erwin]

Good pic to demonstrate tank positioning for greatest armor slope. 

 

[Centurian52]

The intensity of the fighting may increase as the IDF moves deeper into Gaza city. ISW thinks that Hamas may not have committed heavily to defending the outskirts. Still, the loss ratio should continue to heavily favor the IDF. This is definitely an asymmetric war, not a peer vs peer or near-pear war.

It's basically CMSF2 NATO vs uncon, if the NATO forces had APS.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Centurian52

[Probus]

More footage from the IDF:

 

[Bulletpoint]

On 11/11/2023 at 6:31 PM, Probus said:

More footage from the IDF:

 

What are those shells fallng in the last seconds of the video?

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

What are those shells fallng in the last seconds of the video?

That's smoke of some sort.

[Probus]

@JM Stuff

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/israeli-troops-chefs-hat-helmet-covers-explained

Isn't that a home grown machine gun?

Edited November 13, 2023 by Probus

[JM Stuff]

2 hours ago, Probus said:

@JM Stuff

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/israeli-troops-chefs-hat-helmet-covers-explained

Isn't that a home grown machine gun?

 

Very interresting webpage Greg !

Yes it is, but not only from belgium !

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_MAG

 

General list of Weapons and Equipments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

PS I try to reproduce the helmet cover like picture above (the Clown hat), (and many more) perhaps will be usefull one day in sf2, I saw also on your picture that the Hamas, Poland and Ukraine... are using it !

 

 

JM

Edited November 13, 2023 by JM Stuff

[Seedorf81]

Just to show how stunningly horrible the numbers of deaths in Israel-Gaza conflict are, I calculated what those numbers would be for the USA with their 340 million population. Israel has 9 million, Gaza 2 million.

 

7 october Hamas-attack killed 1200 Israeli's, so that would be 45.300 Americans. (FIFTEEN times all deaths from 9/11/2001).

Gaza Palestinian deaths so far 12.000, so that would be (340:2x12.000=) 2.040.000 American dead.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Seedorf81

[Redwolf]

6 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

Just to show how stunningly horrible the numbers of deaths in Israel-Gaza conflict are, I calculated what those numbers would be for the USA with their 340 million population. Israel has 9 million, Gaza 2 million.

 

7 october Hamas-attack killed 1200 Israeli's, so that would be 45.300 Americans. (FIFTEEN times all deaths from 9/11/2001).

Gaza Palestinian deaths so far 12.000, so that would be (340:2x12.000=) 2.040.000 American dead.

 

 

 

Mumble Hamas numbers about Palestinian casualties mumble reliable mumble.

[Probus]

6 hours ago, Seedorf81 said:

Just to show how stunningly horrible the numbers of deaths in Israel-Gaza conflict are, I calculated what those numbers would be for the USA with their 340 million population. Israel has 9 million, Gaza 2 million.

Let's steer away from this subject.  All war is horrible for both the folks fighting and for the civilians.  I don't want this thread to get shut down for discussing politics.

[akd]

Another compilation of close RPG / hand-held grenade attacks on Israeli armor and positions:

 

[kohlenklau]

Should I bore you with my Israel story? Skip over it if you want.

I am not an army guy. I was a navy guy. Diving & Salvage, ship repair, dry-docking. I had the job as 6th Fleet Salvage Officer in Naples and in late 2000 my old Nokia banana phone rings in the middle of the night. Long story short. An FFG ran aground off of Alexandria. yada yada yada. Israel Shipyard In Haifa got the contract to do repairs. Sonar Dome gone. Rudder and single screw all effed up. Towed to Haifa. I was there 6 weeks to do the drydocking (floating drydock). What a great time. Haifa reminded me of Carmel, California. I was lucky to be there during a peaceful timeframe. I drove all over Israel with shipyard buddies. Went bowling in Israel? Yep. As usual, I learned a little of some language. Hebrew? Yiddish? Maybe both. Alcol beseder! I saw all the young soldiers walking around with their weapons slung. Almost all the guys at the same shipyard had been in the IDF. Moshe was a paratrooper. He got sent to Ghana to guard the embassy after Yom Kippur 73 and banged some local girls. Love the local food. 

Sonuvabidge but I was right back there a few months later when a big amphib ran aground in the Great Bitter Lake. Like a reunion back at the same shipyard. I visited the Golan Heights and saw some cool stuff. I was a tourist I guess but we fixed those ships. When I was in my hotel room I always talked out loud and said hello in case "they" were listening to me. At the airport when I left the 2nd time I rattled off a bunch of answers to the very pretty female questioner. I had already heard all their questions of why I was there, etc. She said "I will ask the questions!" 

I never have met any Palestinians or Hamas guys. But I love the Israelis I met. SHALOM! 

[Centurian52]

15 hours ago, akd said:

Another compilation of close RPG / hand-held grenade attacks on Israeli armor and positions:

 

Very interesting. Unfortunately, as always, none of the footage clearly shows whether or not any of the vehicles were actually knocked out.

I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen any footage of Hamas fighters firing salvos of two or more rockets at the same time at an Israeli tank. It's one of the obvious adaptations to APS. Theoretically the APS shouldn't be able to reset in time to intercept the second rocket of such a salvo. Possible explanations that I can think of at short notice include:

1. The APS is less effective or less common than I'd assumed. Making such tactics unnecessary.

2. The APS is more effective than I'd assumed. Making such tactics ineffective.

3. Hamas fighters just haven't thought of it. Hamas my lack enough of a centralized system for disseminating lessons learned to implement such a tactic on a wide scale.

4. They may not have enough RPGs to implement such a tactic. Obviously firing a salvo of two or more rockets at a tank at the same time requires that you have two or more RPGs in the same place at the same time.

5. Other tactics may be effective enough to limit the value of implementing this particular tactic. We've seen Hamas fighters running up to place warheads directly on Israeli tanks, which would get the warhead past the APS. And APS have a limited number of charges, so it may be enough to simply saturate the APS with one rocket at a time until one finally gets through.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Very interesting. Unfortunately, as always, none of the footage clearly shows whether or not any of the vehicles were actually knocked out.

I'm surprised that I haven't yet seen any footage of Hamas fighters firing salvos of two or more rockets at the same time at an Israeli tank. It's one of the obvious adaptations to APS. Theoretically the APS shouldn't be able to reset in time to intercept the second rocket of such a salvo. Possible explanations that I can think of at short notice include:

1. The APS is less effective or less common than I'd assumed. Making such tactics unnecessary.

2. The APS is more effective than I'd assumed. Making such tactics ineffective.

3. Hamas fighters just haven't thought of it. Hamas my lack enough of a centralized system for disseminating lessons learned to implement such a tactic on a wide scale.

4. They may not have enough RPGs to implement such a tactic. Obviously firing a salvo of two or more rockets at a tank at the same time requires that you have two or more RPGs in the same place at the same time.

5. Other tactics may be effective enough to limit the value of implementing this particular tactic. We've seen Hamas fighters running up to place warheads directly on Israeli tanks, which would get the warhead past the APS. And APS have a limited number of charges, so it may be enough to simply saturate the APS with one rocket at a time until one finally gets through.

One thing I've seen argued is that the APS doesn't work at the very short distances they are firing their rockets from. So I guess that would be your option 1.

But I am also wondering how effective these attacks really are. I have not yet seen any videos of burning Israeli tanks inside Gaza.

[Erwin]

39 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I have not yet seen any videos of burning Israeli tanks inside Gaza.

Slightly OT, but the above note made me wonder if there has been any reports of the usefulness or otherwise of the Abrams, Bradleys and Leopards supplied to Ukraine.  I heard that Bradleys are being used mostly as ambulances as they are too vulnerable and the tanks turned out to be as vulnerable as the Russian ones.  Along with the Israeli experience, drones seem to be signalling the end of AFV usefulness.  

[Probus]

19 hours ago, akd said:

Another compilation of close RPG / hand-held grenade attacks on Israeli armor and positions:

 

Dang it @akd, the video was taken down before I got a chance to view it. 

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Slightly OT, but the above note made me wonder if there has been any reports of the usefulness or otherwise of the Abrams, Bradleys and Leopards supplied to Ukraine.  I heard that Bradleys are being used mostly as ambulances as they are too vulnerable and the tanks turned out to be as vulnerable as the Russian ones.  Along with the Israeli experience, drones seem to be signalling the end of AFV usefulness.  

They haven't started using the Abrams yet as far as I know (at least none have shown up on Oryx yet), so no information on them just yet. But they should perform similarly to the Leopard 2s. What I've heard about the Bradleys and Leopard 2s so far has been glowing, emphasizing crew survivability. Overall my impression is that the usefulness of these vehicles is severely limited by the small numbers that they have been provided in. After nearly two years of war Ukraine just doesn't have enough tanks and IFVs left to be able to accept any further significant losses, and the small numbers of western tanks and IFVs being provided isn't enough to give them confidence that any losses taken now will be replaced. Regardless of how good a piece of equipment is on a one for one basis, numbers still matter. That's mainly why I really don't think that the 31 Abrams that have been provided are going to make any difference. The M1A1 Abrams that have been provided are good tanks, but no 31 of any tank will ever be enough to move the needle. I was hopeful back when the delivery of Abrams was first announced that the 31 reported merely represented the first batch, not the total number to be sent. But I have yet to hear of any further batches.

I seriously doubt that we are witnessing the end of the tank. Drones do represent a significant change in warfare. The battlefield is significantly more transparent now than it used to be. Drones have significantly changed how battles are viewed and coordinated by the leaders involved (company commanders in Ukraine now coordinate their engagements from a command post in the rear, from which they can see the drone feeds from each of their platoons (company commanders are relatively low ranking as officers go (only around 100-200 men under their command), and in earlier wars they would have been in the frontline with their men)). They have significantly enhanced the capabilities of artillery. They have increased the emphasis on overhead concealment and made tactical surprise far more difficult to achieve. But they don't really impact the relevance of tanks. They are an additional threat that tanks need to worry about. Drones can direct precision artillery onto tanks that remain stationary for too long in inadequately concealed positions. Loitering munitions are one more asset that can be used to damage or destroy tanks. But none of this has increased tank losses out of proportion to what we've seen in past wars, nor have they replaced the tank's ability to provide responsive and accurate flat-trajectory fire.

People who argue for the obsolescence of tanks point to the large numbers of tanks that we can see being knocked out in the abundance of available combat footage, and to the sparing use of tanks by the Ukrainians. I think people who bring up the first point have a poor understanding of military history. Tanks have always been lost in large numbers in every single war in which they have played a significant role. The anti-tank gun repeatedly proved its superiority over tanks in head to head engagements as early as 1941 in North Africa. The British lost huge numbers of tanks in the Battle of Cambrai in 1917 because the Germans had figured out they could be easily knocked out by artillery firing in the direct-fire role. Pointing to heavy tank losses alone can't prove the obsolescence of tanks in modern warfare, since such heavy losses do not set a modern war apart from any other war in history.

The second point, that the Ukrainians have been very sparing in their use of tanks, preferring to use small groups of infantry in most of their attacks, is much more valid. But I think it is easily explained by the fact that the Ukrainians cannot count on timely and substantial replacements for any tanks they lose. Heavy tank losses in earlier wars were acceptable because the armies involved could count on those losses being replaced. The Russians have also started switching to less mechanized, and more infantry heavy attacks. And I think it is for the same reason. They don't have the industrial might of the old Soviet Union, so can't produce new tanks at the rate they are being lost in the war. They've been counting on their large stockpile of stored tanks to replace losses. But a large portion of their stored tanks have already been used up, and it doesn't look like the war is going to end anytime soon. If they are going to make their finite reserves of tanks last as long as they probably need to, they need to be much more sparing in their use of tanks. If the US found itself in a major war today I doubt we'd have the same problem. Like the Russians, we also have thousands of tanks in storage (though not as many thousands), and unlike the Russians we have considerably more industrial potential. We probably couldn't scale up tank production to the tens of thousands per year that was achieved in WW2 (Abrams are a tad more complicated than Shermans), but I'd bet that we could probably scale up into the thousands per year. Not that anyone really knows for sure. No one in US industry in 1940 had the slightest idea of what US industry would be capable of in 1942 either, so we might be able to manage more than we think.

Frankly the line that the tank is obsolete is pretty tired at this point. People heralded the death of the tank after WW1, WW2, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In each case they turned out to be wrong. I think there is a long running assumption that tanks are the modern cavalry, and therefore must eventually suffer the same fate as cavalry. I wish I didn't need to point out how absurdly over simplistic that point of view is. Tanks and motorized infantry may have finalized the obsolescence of cavalry, but they are not cavalry.

To get things back on topic for this thread, I think the Israelis probably can afford tank losses on the scale we've seen so far. Even if the footage we've seen in Gaza so far really does represent actual knocked out Merkavas (which remains unclear, since none of the footage lasts long enough to show whether or not the hits actually destroyed the tanks (or even whether they were genuine hits, and not intercepted by the APS just short of the tank)). They have fewer tanks than the Ukrainians (I heard around 400 tanks at the beginning of the war, though I'm not sure if that was prewar active-duty tanks or total tank in their inventory). But they are fighting a smaller war, and they can count on their own domestic industry to replace losses without having to count on donations from allies.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Centurian52

[Probus]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

They haven't started using the Abrams yet as far as I know (at least none have shown up on Oryx yet), so no information on them just yet. But they should perform similarly to the Leopard 2s. What I've heard about the Bradleys and Leopard 2s so far has been glowing, emphasizing crew survivability. Overall my impression is that the usefulness of these vehicles is severely limited by the small numbers that they have been provided in. After nearly two years of war Ukraine just doesn't have enough tanks and IFVs left to be able to accept any further significant losses, and the small numbers of western tanks and IFVs being provided isn't enough to give them confidence that any losses taken now will be replaced. Regardless of how good a piece of equipment is on a one for one basis, numbers still matter. That's mainly why I really don't think that the 31 Abrams that have been provided are going to make any difference. The M1A1 Abrams that have been provided are good tanks, but no 31 of any tank will ever be enough to move the needle. I was hopeful back when the delivery of Abrams was first announced that the 31 reported merely represented the first batch, not the total number to be sent. But I have yet to hear of any further batches.

I seriously doubt that we are witnessing the end of the tank. Drones do represent a significant change in warfare. The battlefield is significantly more transparent now than it used to be. Drones have significantly changed how battles are viewed and coordinated by the leaders involved (company commanders in Ukraine now coordinate their engagements from a command post in the rear, from which they can see the drone feeds from each of their platoons (company commanders are relatively low ranking as officers go (only around 100-200 men under their command), and in earlier wars they would have been in the frontline with their men)). They have significantly enhanced the capabilities of artillery. They have increased the emphasis on overhead concealment and made tactical surprise far more difficult to achieve. But they don't really impact the relevance of tanks. They are an additional threat that tanks need to worry about. Drones can direct precision artillery onto tanks that remain stationary for too long in inadequately concealed positions. Loitering munitions are one more asset that can be used to damage or destroy tanks. But none of this has increased tank losses out of proportion to what we've seen in past wars, nor have they replaced the tank's ability to provide responsive and accurate flat-trajectory fire.

People who argue for the obsolescence of tanks point to the large numbers of tanks that we can see being knocked out in the abundance of available combat footage, and to the sparing use of tanks by the Ukrainians. I think people who bring up the first point have a poor understanding of military history. Tanks have always been lost in large numbers in every single war in which they have played a significant role. The anti-tank gun repeatedly proved its superiority over tanks in head to head engagements as early as 1941 in North Africa. The British lost huge numbers of tanks in the Battle of Cambrai in 1917 because the Germans had figured out they could be easily knocked out by artillery firing in the direct-fire role. Pointing to heavy tank losses alone can't prove the obsolescence of tanks in modern warfare, since such heavy losses do not set a modern war apart from any other war in history.

The second point, that the Ukrainians have been very sparing in their use of tanks, preferring to use small groups of infantry in most of their attacks, is much more valid. But I think it is easily explained by the fact that the Ukrainians cannot count on timely and substantial replacements for any tanks they lose. Heavy tank losses in earlier wars were acceptable because the armies involved could count on those losses being replaced. The Russians have also started switching to less mechanized, and more infantry heavy attacks. And I think it is for the same reason. They don't have the industrial might of the old Soviet Union, so can't produce new tanks at the rate they are being lost in the war. They've been counting on their large stockpile of stored tanks to replace losses. But a large portion of their stored tanks have already been used up, and it doesn't look like the war is going to end anytime soon. If they are going to make their finite reserves of tanks last as long as they probably need to, they need to be much more sparing in their use of tanks. If the US found itself in a major war today I doubt we'd have the same problem. Like the Russians, we also have thousands of tanks in storage (though not as many thousands), and unlike the Russians we have considerably more industrial potential. We probably couldn't scale up tank production to the tens of thousands per year that was achieved in WW2 (Abrams are a tad more complicated than Shermans), but I'd bet that we could probably scale up into the thousands per year. Not that anyone really knows for sure. No one in US industry in 1940 had the slightest idea of what US industry would be capable of in 1942 either, so we might be able to manage more than we think.

Frankly the line that the tank is obsolete is pretty tired at this point. People heralded the death of the tank after WW1, WW2, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In each case they turned out to be wrong. I think there is a long running assumption that tanks are the modern cavalry, and therefore must eventually suffer the same fate as cavalry. I wish I didn't need to point out how absurdly over simplistic that point of view is. Tanks and motorized infantry may have finalized the obsolescence of cavalry, but they are not cavalry.

To get things back on topic for this thread, I think the Israelis probably can afford tank losses on the scale we've seen so far. Even if the footage we've seen in Gaza so far really does represent actual knocked out Merkavas (which remains unclear, since none of the footage lasts long enough to show whether or not the hits actually destroyed the tanks (or even whether they were genuine hits, and not intercepted by the APS just short of the tank)). They have fewer tanks than the Ukrainians (I heard around 400 tanks at the beginning of the war, though I'm not sure if that was prewar active-duty tanks or total tank in their inventory). But they are fighting a smaller war, and they can count on their own domestic industry to replace losses without having to count on donations from allies.

That's a Steve ( @Battlefront.com ) and @The_Capt kind of answer! (Not to mention a few others)

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Frankly the line that the tank is obsolete is pretty tired at this point. People heralded the death of the tank after WW1, WW2, and the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In each case they turned out to be wrong.

I think they were sort of right after 1973 though. Trying to think of any later conflict where tanks played a decisive role. Not bush wars, but major conflicts.

Iran/Iraq war turned into a stalemate and was then won by overwhelming Iranian human wave attacks, as far as I know. Desert Storm was won by airpower and massive tech/resource advantage in ideal flat terrain. Tanks were not useless but not really necessary either. The coalition could have entered Iraq in APCs...

When people talk about the death of the tank, they don't mean tanks can no longer participate in war. They usually mean that tanks can no longer play the breakthrough role they were intended to. And therefore no longer cost effective weapons.

I'd be extremely surprised if we see countries reveal new tank purchases or development programs after the current war in Ukraine. What I do expect are large investments in drones and maybe some unmanned and lightly armed weapons platforms for direct infantry support.

There might be an exception when it comes to Israel, but then again their situation is different, usually fighting poorly armed irregular forces.

[Probus]

11 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

What I do expect are large investments in drones and maybe some unmanned and lightly armed weapons platforms for direct infantry support.

And mines.  Lots of mines.  

[Splinty]

14 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think they were sort of right after 1973 though. Trying to think of any later conflict where tanks played a decisive role. Not bush wars, but major conflicts.

Iran/Iraq war turned into a stalemate and was then won by overwhelming Iranian human wave attacks, as far as I know. Desert Storm was won by airpower and massive tech/resource advantage in ideal flat terrain. Tanks were not useless but not really necessary either. The coalition could have entered Iraq in APCs...

When people talk about the death of the tank, they don't mean tanks can no longer participate in war. They usually mean that tanks can no longer play the breakthrough role they were intended to. And therefore no longer cost effective weapons.

I'd be extremely surprised if we see countries reveal new tank purchases or development programs after the current war in Ukraine. What I do expect are large investments in drones and maybe some unmanned and lightly armed weapons platforms for direct infantry support.

There might be an exception when it comes to Israel, but then again their situation is different, usually fighting poorly armed irregular forces.

Speaking as a Bradley infantry guy. I'll have to disagree with the ground war could have been won with APCs part. I was with 1st Armored at Medina Ridge, and that was a hell of a fight. The Air War cleared the way for us, But it was the Ground War that finished the Iraqi military.