Israeli ground tactics in S. Lebanon

[oren_m]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Woah! Freaky.

3 MBTs in a line. On a road along a hill-side. All stationary.

Suddenly an explosion hit's the lead tank. (Actually, I can't tell if the tanks are lined up headed LEFT to RIGHT, or vice-versa. Apon repeat viewing, it looks like they are headed LEFT to RIGHT, so the explosion occurs on the REAR tank.)

Then you see 2 to 3 crewmen jumping off the tank.

Amazing.

The crew was lightly injured and came back to the fighting a few hours later.

They had to bail out because of the fire extiguising system went off due to the impact of the AT missile, but, by looking at the impact i think it was some recoiless gun firing.

Oren_m

[oren_m]

Here are some pictures of the demaged Merkava Mk.4, as you can see there was no penatration and the demage is not serious.

Oren_m

[flammenwerfer]

Anyway... my point is that we feel that a modern, mechanized force can be countered with the right mix of circumstances. Grozny and other recent urban conflicts also show this to be the case. So expect us to model this reality and not some sort of fantasy best case turkey shoot expedition.

Steve [/QB]

I'm wondering if this type of modern conflict will limit scenarios to a hiders vs finders type engagements?

[DavidFields]

I enjoy CM games immensely. I don't post on the boards much. And I am not sure if it is reasonable to post on this subject, except that I do think it has relevance to CM:SF.

I must respectfully disagree with the Board Administrator on the issue on the term "terrorist"--used by anyone, about anyone--even if there is some support in International Law for the term. The tactics used by the "Islamic Extremists" would not be a surprise to Ghenghis Khan, Alexander the Great (historians riding with him, I believe, described the wholesale destruction of cultures on his conquests through Persia), or the frontier families during the American frontier expansion. (Are we going to call some of the original American colonizers, stateless--in many cases renouncing their European state--fighting the natives, as terrorists? One can, but where does that get you?)

The problem with the term, terrorist, in my opionion, is that it often seems to imply, almost petulantly: these people are not playing by the rules, so we don't have to either. This neglects the ideas that the rules are not only meant for the enemy, but to preserve our own humanity. We abide by the Geneva convention for, in large part, our own good. For our own humanity. Labeling someone a terrorist seems to me the usual Vietnam "gook" de-humanizing strategy, echoed in similar lingo from some of the problems with US units in Iraq (and I have no doubt that this is a superb army, more disciplined than what the US fielded in WW2).

And why the current combatants the West is facing are worse than when we had thousands of nuclear warheads pointing at us in the Cold War, sometimes cruising right up to our coast, is unclear to me (a couple of crackpots in the Kremlin or the US...the "State" need not have launched the war, a few people could have done it without general population approval).

Israel and the Arab world are in a struggle. Islam and the West are in a struggle. Whether it is best for either side to go to "hot" or "cold" in that struggle at any particular time could be debated. We can hope, I think, that a "Cold War" peaceful resolution might eventually occur. But to take one tactic, and label it "terrorist" reminds me of the middle age knights who thought citizen archers where unsporting. Evolving tactics, whether Napoleon or Ghandi, can be the essence of victory.

As regard to Battlefront, the issue, it seems to me, is that they wish to concentrate on certain aspects of war. Not what the NKVD, or German police units did after the main battlefront went through (Ah...your name is not an accident?) Sales of WWII Eastern Front games might drop off if one had to regularly watch footage of those behind-the-lines activities.

Vietnam simulations? It is hard to think of Vietnam without seeing napalm, and a child running down the road.

At some point, years from now, we may be playing simulations of the IDF assaulting a Hezboulah position in Southern Lebanon. Or a counter-assault/ambush. Personally, I would be quite interested, and would be interested in discussing the various simulated weapons and their effects. I would even argue that it is an important exercize, learning the tactics of projecting force.

But today, such a simulation would bring to mind crying parents. Not fun, no matter which side is doing the crying, and what each side calls the other.

I think Battlefront is going to have some unavoidably difficult decisions to make. (For awhile, I think modern Russia vs China was picked for some simulations, set in someplace like Mongolia or Siberia, just to minimize thoughts of civilian causualties.)

[John Kettler]

oren_m,

Thanks for the most interesting pictures and the clarification of the Merkava crew's status. Am not quite sure whether in the primary impact zone I'm looking at the aftermath of ERA detonation, significant damage to the outer layers of a Chobham

type armor array, or both. What seem to be studs to hold ERA may very well be spacers to keep armor layers apart. Hard to say, since I've never seen this kind of hit before, let alone such good pictures. Also, it's been reported Israel was mobilizing thousands of reserves. Are you on that list? Finally, am presuming fire extinguishers on your AFVs are not like the toxic ones Warsaw Pact vehicles used to carry, but more like Halon or similar.

Rankorian,

Superb, thoughtful, and well argued post!

Regards,

John Kettler

[oren_m]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

oren_m,

Thanks for the most interesting pictures and the clarification of the Merkava crew's status. Am not quite sure whether in the primary impact zone I'm looking at the aftermath of ERA detonation, significant damage to the outer layers of a Chobham

type armor array, or both. What seem to be studs to hold ERA may very well be spacers to keep armor layers apart. Hard to say, since I've never seen this kind of hit before, let alone such good pictures. Also, it's been reported Israel was mobilizing thousands of reserves. Are you on that list? Finally, am presuming fire extinguishers on your AFVs are not like the toxic ones Warsaw Pact vehicles used to carry, but more like Halon or similar.

Rankorian,

Superb, thoughtful, and well argued post!

Regards,

John Kettler

Thanks John,

I am not in the reserves lists right now, but if the war will go wider, i might be called in to service.

About the fire extinguishers, you are right they are some kind of Halon gas, but you really dont want to breath it more than 10 seconeds, longer exposure could lead to lung edema.

Oren_m

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the pics Oren. Looks like a pretty good chunk of reactive armor has served its purpose.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Rankorian,

The problem with the term, terrorist, in my opionion, is that it often seems to imply, almost petulantly: these people are not playing by the rules, so we don't have to either.

True. Very true. Unfortunately, it is a "loaded word" just like "traitor" is. Here in the US if you disagreed with Bush the hardline right wingers would call you a "traitor". They don't even have a clue what the word means, but used it just the same. Likewise, when someone calls a group "Terrorists" the name is also often misused. Especially by hardline left wingers who use it to describe pretty much any killing by anybody in any situation. As I started out in this thread saying... words are meaningless if people don't use them according to their meaning. That being said, there is often a fine line between these various definitions. And sometimes the groups morph and change over time, making qualifications necessary to bracket timeframes.

However, I strongly disagree with your historical perspective. One must never, ever judge today's ethics, morals, sense of government responsibilities, etc. with those of perhaps anything beyond 50 to 100 years ago. Different epochs are rarely similar enough to compare against one another. So yes, Ghengis Kahn would not find the tactics of Islamic extremists to be out of the ordinary, but that has nothing to do with anything becaue the context is so completely unrelated.

One must also be very careful about cultural norms. This is a tougher thing to tackle. WWII PTO is a great example of this. The Japanese had their own notion of surrender, which was completely opposite to that of the US (and other nations fighting against them). This produced some rather horrible results which are still being sorted through even today. Was it unethical for the US Marines to take no prisoners when the Japanese they faced were likely to take no Americans prisoners? It can be argued either way, depending on how you view ethical conduct in war and society as a whole (legality is a different matter).

Anyway, I did not mean to make it sound like there is only one right way to look at these thorny issues. What I was trying to do was remind people that purposefully misusing words, contrary to their generally accepted meanings, to grind an axe is a bad thing to do.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, most media calls the Hezbollah fighters Israel is currently battling "militants", not "terrorists". That is accurate in my opinion. Much the same way the Waffen SS should not be called death squads or concentration camp guards. Organizationally there is a difference, even if they are siblings and in some way responsible to/for the other.

Steve

[ July 31, 2006, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Well put, we should judge by the standards of today not the distant past, I often get annoyed when politicians talk about 300 years of democracy when women only got the vote in the 1920's.

The problem with the "war on terror" is that it started as a sound bite which then went on to become a strategy. Once you call something a war, on, terror or drugs or poverty, people start approaching it as one, and other alternative ways of dealing with it get sidelined.

Equally it leads to over generalisation where lots of different act, drugs or types of deprevation are lumped together and the different causes and solutions that are key to the different types get lost .

It's lke the Red Menace, where the splits between russia and China were overlooked because they didn't fit in with the idea of a monolithic communist block, and where we in the west ended up supporting any dodgy leader from Noriega to the Shah if they said they were anticommunist.

At the end of the cold war there seemed to be a window where we were moving to judge states by how they treated there own people and there respect for human rights and international law.

9/11 seems to have put an end to that, and we are back to backing thugs like the warlords we fought in Mogadishu, because they oppose the Islamic Courts, who ironically seem to be the only people who can bring any law and order.

I remember back to the rise of the Taleban when Afghan people rallied to them as saviours because the ended the chaos of the civil war that had erupted in the wake of the Russian withdrawal, that was the point at which we should have backed them as a force for stability and reconstruction, and got a popular movement on our side.

Whether it be tha Taleban, Hamas or Hezbollah, we seem unable to spot early the people's choice and establish good relations with them, and I think that is because the overaching "us v Them" framework is stopping us making pragmatic choices in individual cases.

Peter.

[oren_m]

From Wikipedia:

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence targeted against non-combatants to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands.[1] The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.

So, by this definition Hizballah is a terror organization and it's "militants" are terrorists.

They shoot rockets into civilian centres, kiddnaping people for political gain and use fear as a means to get their goals.

Oren_m

[Drusus]

First, this is not my opinion about Israel.

Doesn't Israel drop large bombs in civilian buildings? Didn't they arrest a lot of Hamas ministers? Haven't Israel been long engaged in retaliation attacks?

So couldn't Israel be considered using terror by the same definition? Interestingly enough Hizbollah seems to have better civilians vs. soldiers record than Israel. Ofcourse Hizbollah's record would be worse if they had the means... Israel has been bombing civilian infrastructure. One can claim that anything in Libanon is supporting Hizbollah. For example, couldn't any single farmer be killed because he is supporting Hizbollah by producing food to them. And wouldn't it be considered a terrorist attack if Hizbollah was able to destroy some TV-antennas in Israel?

Ok, maybe the thing that defines Israel as non-terrorists is that they aren't _trying_ to attack non-combatants. Their number one strategy isn't causing fear. But in my opinion Hizbollahs number one goal isn't causing fear either.

Maybe it would be better to say that they aren't using fear as means to get their goal, unless their goal is trying to do a suicide. They know that by firing rockets to Israel, Israel is forced to fight back. And their short time goal seems to be just to be able to make a stand against IDF. To show that they can hurt Israel. This way they can get much more support. Not to say that this is any less evil from Israeli POW. Just not terrorism.

My point isn't if Israel is using terror or not. My point is that in my opinion who is labeled as terrorist is more about who is against west and who isn't than who is using terroristic means and who not. A bit like democracy/communism in 80's South America.

Just trying to bring up a different point of view...

PS. I find kind of a fun parallel between a certain if they run, if they stand joke and the Israeli warning about bombing South Lebanon cities. And bombing road traffic.

[c3k]

Dear God!

Are some of you SERIOUSLY equating hooded, video-porning thugs who decapitate their drugged and bound captives with sawing knives, swords, and power tools to be on par with the actions of various militaries?

Debate terminology all you want, but let's keep a little focus on what differentiates the actions being talked about.

Ken

[DavidFields]

To the Administrator:

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

To Oren_m:

And the implications of labeling some group a terrorist organization? I presume, in part, it signifies which side should be generally supported by the world. But this is a particular and peculiar time with regard to that term being such an important factor. In the future, likely there will be other considerations. (Such as access to "vital" goods being blocked...we would need some perjorative term...."economic terrorism"....."destabilizing elements")

More pointedly, from a tactical, operational stand-point, fighting a terrorist organization allows what tactics and procedures that would not ordinarily be used against soldiers?

With regard to CC:SF

I am sure you have already worked this out, but one way to go would be to ride directly into the storm.

Scenarios:

1. Iran invasion of Bahrain. (Premise--US withdraws from gulf, being massively occupied elsewhere, leaving some equipment for its allies. A general Sunni/Shia war erupts. Iran has control over the Gulf's waterway (+/- its airspace). Put the Kingdom's markings on US equipment.

2. Turkey invades northern Iraq. (Premise--Turkey has soldiers snatched by Kurds. Gets the green light from NATO to invade.) We could possibly get quite a lively debate on what equipment the Turks would likely encounter.

3. Keep your Syria battles. But, if you have not already done so, have maps based on actual terrain. Actual bridges. Actual buildings.

The sell-line: "Battles ripped from the head-lines, today's and tomorrow's". Sort of "Law and Order", with ordinance. Periodic, paid-for, downloaded scenarios. During an artricle in Time or Newsweek on some current conflict, a side bar mentions CC:SF. Newspapers in New York and London weigh in, alternatively condemning and defending the idea of doing such simulations.

Sales boom.

[Peter Cairns]

oren_m

So where does flying F-16's at over mach 1 above civilian areas come in.

It isn't actual violence, or indeed the threat of it, so although it strikes terror in to civilians the people doing it aren't actually terrorists.

Israel are killing Civilians in an attempt to take out military targets so they aren't targetting civilians.

If in a few years time Hezbullah has rockets that can hit things like oil refinaries, airports and power stations but when it does so kills lots of Israeli civilians, will that be all right as even though more civilians will be killed they won't actually be the targets.

I am sure the Germans who died in Hamburg in WW2, because of allied bombing, understood and sympathised with the allies who were aiming at Industrial targets rather than them.

Peter.

[Drusus]

Learning about the history of Guatemala for example, it is interesting to see who was supporting the power tool users. Google for Guatemala death squads.

And yes, I think that from Libanonian POW with their background, religion and so on Israel can be seen (and is seen) as the bad one and Hizbollah as the good one. The term terrorist state is used a lot. And every current opponent of the west is now some sort of terrorist state (from west POW): North Korea, Iran, Iraq ofcourse was and so on.

So my point again: who is terrorists and who not has more to do with the observer than the actions/organization observed.

[SSgt Viljuri]

Drusus wrote:

(snips) My point isn't if Israel is using terror or not. My point is that in my opinion who is labeled as terrorist is more about who is against west and who isn't than who is using terroristic means and who not.

You honestly don't believe that only sovereing states should have the monopoly to resort to compulsion?

Terrorism is terrorism, even if happens in Russia and against the Russian interests.

As long as parts of the western elite and electorate accept terrorism as a politically acceptable way of gaining influence (probably from the old memory, contrary to how things are today), the world is screwed. The most screwed are those hapless third world people, who have no hope for better tomorrow as long as violence continues for the violence's sake.

Terrorism hasn't got much to do with living conditions, even in the ME. More it has to do with those dictatorial regimes in the area (some supported by the US), and their willingness to stay in power. External enemies and instability helps a lot.

These terrorists are not "moral crusaders", just "client thugs" by certain external regimes, who prevent locals to live a normal and peaceful life in the area. 'Cause these normal people just might want elections and democracy next? Not just destruction of Israel...

[Cary]

Originally posted by c3k:

Dear God!

Are some of you SERIOUSLY equating hooded, video-porning thugs who decapitate their drugged and bound captives with sawing knives, swords, and power tools to be on par with the actions of various militaries?

Debate terminology all you want, but let's keep a little focus on what differentiates the actions being talked about.

Ken

Kidnapping and selling children, tossing people out of heliocopters? Torture, rape, murder is not improved by a classy uniform or VTOL capabilities.

It's just that some of these militaries have been a little shy about photography.

[ August 01, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Cary]

ugh, dbl post

[Battlefront.com]

Cary,

Kidnapping and selling children, tossing people out of heliocopters? Torture, rape, murder is not improved by a classy uniform or VTOL capabilities.

In a world of absolutes, you'd be correct. Pretty much every nation on this planet today has some history of terrorism if you want to view it that way. The French attack on Greenpeace, British occupation of Northern Ireland, Switzerland's blind eye to money trails, Canada's problems in Somalia, UN having dictators represented in the Human Rights council, the US's wonderful trackrecord during the last 50 years of supporting pretty much any tyrant that sat on oil or stood in the way of the Soviets or Chinese gaining influence, etc., etc. In such a world view a few bad eggs means the whole hen house is a complete loss.

While there is some justifiable lines of argument for such a black and white world view, it is not one I share. The world should be viewed in shades of gray, not black or white. There is a difference between an organization that exists for no other reason but to cause "terror" and one that sometimes (or even frequently) forgets to live by their own standards.

BTW, I heard an interesting perspective on Hamas that explained a lot in a way I had not heard before. The political wing was just about to make a deal with Fatah and Israel. Hamas' military wing, controlled by Demascus, did not see that in their best interests so they ordered the fighters out into the streets to do battle with the PA's security forces. When that didn't derail things enough they captured the first Israeli soldier. Israel, unfortunately, took the bait. Hezbollah has been trying to get Israel to attack Lebanon for a while now, so seeing how easy it was to get Israel to overreact they did the same. The sad thing about this is that the Paletinians, Lebanese, and Israelis are all paying the price for this idiotic struggle that will never, ever end unless violence is abandoned by all sides.

Steve

[hoolaman]

Originally posted by oren_m:

From Wikipedia:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence targeted against non-combatants to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, and personal demands.[1] The targets of terrorist attacks typically are not the individuals who are killed, injured, or taken hostage, but rather the societies to which these individuals belong. Terrorism is a type of unconventional warfare designed to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation or acquiescence, as opposed to subversion or direct military action. The broader influence of terrorism in the modern world is often attributed to the dramatic focus of mass media in amplifying feelings of intense fear and anger.

So, by this definition Hizballah is a terror organization and it's "militants" are terrorists.

They shoot rockets into civilian centres, kiddnaping people for political gain and use fear as a means to get their goals.

Oren_m </font>

[Cary]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Cary,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Kidnapping and selling children, tossing people out of heliocopters? Torture, rape, murder is not improved by a classy uniform or VTOL capabilities.

In a world of absolutes, you'd be correct. Pretty much every nation on this planet today has some history of terrorism if you want to view it that way. The French attack on Greenpeace, British occupation of Northern Ireland, Switzerland's blind eye to money trails, Canada's problems in Somalia, UN having dictators represented in the Human Rights council, the US's wonderful trackrecord during the last 50 years of supporting pretty much any tyrant that sat on oil or stood in the way of the Soviets or Chinese gaining influence, etc., etc. In such a world view a few bad eggs means the whole hen house is a complete loss.

.... snip....

BTW, I heard an interesting perspective on Hamas that explained a lot in a way I had not heard before. The political wing was just about to make a deal with Fatah and Israel. Hamas' military wing, controlled by Demascus, did not see that in their best interests so they ordered the fighters out into the streets to do battle with the PA's security forces. When that didn't derail things enough they captured the first Israeli soldier. Israel, unfortunately, took the bait. Hezbollah has been trying to get Israel to attack Lebanon for a while now, so seeing how easy it was to get Israel to overreact they did the same. The sad thing about this is that the Paletinians, Lebanese, and Israelis are all paying the price for this idiotic struggle that will never, ever end unless violence is abandoned by all sides.

Steve </font>

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:

some months ago i used to talk about the merits of sufficiently trained light infantry forces regarding the Syria 2007 scenario. i trust BattleFront is evaluating how Hezbollah, basicly a light infantry force, is doing in the current conflict against modern 1st class combined arms force that is artillery-air-armour heavy and a bit casulty shy. or to put it the other way around, how the 1st class force is doing against the light infantry force. how would a shock & awe "god with us" thunder run mech force fare?

The only thing that is saving the hezbollah is the rules of engagement that is tying the hands of the Israelis behind their backs.

If the Israelis were to let military cinsiderations dictate the RoE, the Israeli casualties would be minimal, the hezbollah losses heavy, but also the civilian losses.

For example, instead of going house-to-house in a Lebanese village, the village would be flattened with artillery, and then the IDF armor would enter the town. In that scenario, you would have minimal IDF losses, while Hezbollah and civilian losses would be heavy.

Do not kid yourself about the usefulness of light infantry vs a modern army. The battle only looks equal because the modern army chooses to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

It is always sad to see people arguing that Israel is no better than the terrorists, knowing that Israel could wipe out southern lebanon in a single afternoon if they wanted to. Knowing that the IDF are taking heavy casualties right now simply because they try to minimize the damage to Lebanese civilians.

To watch people argue that Israel is no better than the terrorists is like listening to a bunch of 10-yearold boys from Wisconsin who has never been outside their hometown arguing how to best get laid in Bangkok. Its amazing in a very painful and twisted way.

[ August 02, 2006, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Hortlund ]

[Cary]

Originally posted by Hortlund:

Do not kid yourself about the usefulness of light infantry vs a modern army. The battle only looks equal because the modern army chooses to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

Grozny? Kabul?

I'll grant you, the Israelis may be in that treacherous middle zone: just restrained enough to be ineffective.

But the purest of hearts and the loftiest of goals does not excuse one's guilt for starting an unsuccessful war.

[ August 02, 2006, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Cary ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Cary:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hortlund:

Do not kid yourself about the usefulness of light infantry vs a modern army. The battle only looks equal because the modern army chooses to fight with one hand tied behind its back.

Grozny? Kabul?

I'll grant you, the Israelis may be in that treacherous middle zone: just enough to be ineffective. </font>