Israel plans using mini nukes to blow up Iran nuclea facilities

[KrazyHorse]

I dont think you understand the structure of the IDF. Maybe its changed the last few years, and Siro can correct me if hes still reading this, but there are NO distinct all volunteer maneuver units. Dont exist. Everyone who enters the army does so as a conscript. Women for 1 year (or is it 18 months? I forget) and men for 3 years. Men who want to stay after 3 years normally do so as non-coms. Or if they qualify get training as officers. I dont think they have any non-conscript privates. Certainly no units of them (im not sure about the special forces)

Oh, lord. It would be even easier than I thought.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And the people they fought against were the standard 3rd world **** armies, bloated with inefficiency, poor training, poor leadership, poor morale.

Not a professional first world army. Such a force would have carved through the Israeli conscripts like a hot knife through butter.

Come on, LOTM. You know better than to try to make that comparison.

You should read Michael Oren "The Six Day War". Some Egyptian units fought tenaciously and competently. And the Israelis also beat Jordan's Arab legion, which had been formed by the British and was excellently trained. The arabs got a bum rap. They didnt all cut and run all the time. Sure, man for man, they were weaker, but the Israeli forces often attacked well established fixed positions, and had (for political reasons) an urgent schedule. Not just beat these people, but beat them fast, cause you have to achieve your objectives before the UNSC calls a ceasefire.


You still havent explained the basis for your assertion. Conscripts are considered poor quality because of lack of motivation and training. Israels conscripts are historically highly motivated, and the 3 year stint allows time for training (whats the minimum term of enlistment for a Canadian volunteer?)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,898535,00.html

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


The difference is between conscript and professional, not conscript and volunteer. Volunteer and conscript forces have much more in common than volunteer and professional forces do.

define professional.

[KrazyHorse]

Conscripts are considered poor quality because of lack of motivation and training.

Not only. The worst conscript armies have poor morale and poor training. They're given a rifle and a helmet and told to make momma proud.

Better conscript armies (like the Israeli's) have poor unit cohesiveness, a lack of talented lower-level noncoms, are overheavy with officers, have poorer morale and training than professional forces, draw from a diluted talent pool and so forth

Professionals eat them alive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


define professional.

Average length of service for pay grades E1-E5

[David Floyd]

You should read Michael Oren "The Six Day War". Some Egyptian units fought tenaciously and competently. And the Israelis also beat Jordan's Arab legion, which had been formed by the British and was excellently trained. The arabs got a bum rap. They didnt all cut and run all the time. Sure, man for man, they were weaker, but the Israeli forces often attacked well established fixed positions, and had (for political reasons) an urgent schedule. Not just beat these people, but beat them fast, cause you have to achieve your objectives before the UNSC calls a ceasefire.

Also, Michael Oren's book basically says that part of the reason for the quick Israeli victory was the fact that an Israeli first striked wiped out most of Egypt's air force prior to the ground war.

Contrast that to 1973, the Yom Kippur War, where Golda Meir refused to allow a first strike against Arab forces. Much, much more dangerous situation, even against "standard 3rd world **** armies, bloated with inefficiency, poor training, poor leadership, poor morale".

[KrazyHorse]

Having found out what I have about the Israeli forces, it's starting to sound like it wouldn't even be fun.

[David Floyd]

Not a professional first world army. Such a force would have carved through the Israeli conscripts like a hot knife through butter.

Provide examples of such 1967 armies. Sure, the US, but that wasn't going to happen. The Soviet Union would have won a ground war, but not because of professionalism. In fact, most armies you can bring up that would have defeated Israel in the open field would have won because of mass, not superior leadership/professionalism. And come to think of it, Israeli leadership was pretty solid - Sharon, Tal, Yoffe, Rabin, Dayan, etc.

Also, factor in air power. The IAF is/was a very professional organization.

[Last Conformist]

Didn't most of the first world still have conscript armies back in '67?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Conscripts are considered poor quality because of lack of motivation and training.

Not only. The worst conscript armies have poor morale and poor training. They're given a rifle and a helmet and told to make momma proud.

Better conscript armies (like the Israeli's) have poor unit cohesiveness, a lack of talented lower-level noncoms, are overheavy with officers, have poorer morale and training than professional forces, draw from a diluted talent pool and so forth

Professionals eat them alive.

AFAIK the unit cohesiveness in the IDF is outstanding - or at least certainly was in 1967. I see no evidence on problems with their non-coms, or numbers of officers. Poor morale and training weve already addressed. Talent pool is an inevitable issue when you have a large portion of your pop mobilized. OTOH while you have to take the dregs who wouldnt make it into a professional force, you also get the high intell people who would be drawn off by civilian opportunities and not consider a professional force.

BTW, I cant think of many instances in the last 50 years of a "pro" 1st world army facing a conscript first world army, so i dont know your historical basis for "pros eat them alive" The closest I can think of is the long service volunteers in the war opening BEF (before expansion) during the two world wars. The BEF troops were, IIUC man for man superior, but not by an order of magnitude. Two Corps of French conscripts in 1914 were still better to have than one Corp of "pro" Tommies. Similarly "pro" US Marines vs US Army conscripts - the pros did better, not by an order of magnitude.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Average length of service for pay grades E1-E5

Which is? I dont know, and im not researching it for you. Youve made the assertions. How long a term of enlistment makes a "pro"?

[David Floyd]

Another example would be the Canadians in WW1. They very often chewed up the Germans in even contests, IIRC.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Having found out what I have about the Israeli forces, it's starting to sound like it wouldn't even be fun.

Blah, blah, blah.


You still have failed to provide a single citation for "laughingstock" Generally when X is the laughingstock of Y, you can find a lot of discussion among Y about X being laughable. Thats what laughingstock means in English, which I take it you haven't forgotten during your time in Baltimore.

[KrazyHorse]

Provide examples of such 1967 armies.

UK, France, Canada, Australia etc

Most "Western" countries had either a professional army or armies with large professional units at the time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Didn't most of the first world still have conscript armies back in '67?

They did, but many or most had professional subunits.