Israel plans using mini nukes to blow up Iran nuclea facilities

[David Floyd]

My point to drake, 3 pages ago, was simply that Canada has a small, very capable, professional force with greater power projection capailities than the Israelis,

Well, I'm not sure that's the case. Israel has the ability to strike at a greater distance than Canada does, or at least an equal distance. As for projecting power across oceans, neither nation has that capability. Canada has a much larger navy, but it's not a strategic navy capable of transporting armies or landing assault troops, much less providing air support and replenishment for those troops.

[KrazyHorse]

KH IDF is arguably the most experienced army in the world

Experience is not all equal. Experience in combating guerilla-style forces does not translate well into experience fighting a high-intensity war. And vice versa.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Saras


Paras and RM Commandos are an aggressive bunch, so high casualties could be the result of over-eagerness to advance on objective, fuk-all.

and you dont think it would have been easier for the Israeli conscripts in 1967 if they had a month to take objectives, instead of a few days?

and it mentions them taking casualties from snipers in built up areas. IIUC exactly what happened to the IDF when they moved into El Arish in '67.

Look, if your standard pro Canadian or Brit unit could go through an Israeli unit like a hot knife through butter, and if an Israeli unit could easily outperform an Egyptian unit, and if the Paras and Commandos are the best of the western pros, then youd expect the Egyptians could hardly do anything to the Paras and Commandos, right?

Paras/Commandos>Std Avg Western Pros>IDF conscripts>Egyptians

Allegedly.

Now this isnt the ideal way of doing the comparison, ideally wed have identical tactical situations. But history doesnt often give us such simple data.

[Saras]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

KH IDF is arguably the most experienced army in the world

Experience is not all equal. Experience in combating guerilla-style forces does not translate well into experience fighting a high-intensity war. And vice versa.

Granted, but it does magic to unit cohesion, discipline & mobility under fire and tactical skills.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Well, I'm not sure that's the case. Israel has the ability to strike at a greater distance than Canada does, or at least an equal distance

No, they don't. Our pathetic navy actually beats their slightly more pathetic navy.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Saras


Granted, but it does magic to unit cohesion, discipline & mobility under fire and tactical skills.

Waggles hand.

It often does the opposite.

[Saras]

I how this thread developed.

[David Floyd]

I meant strike with air power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
. My point to drake, 3 pages ago, was simply that Canada has a small, very capable, professional force with greater power projection capailities than the Israelis, who I first brought into it in order to provide an example of a similarly-budgeted force which was able to build a nuclear deterrent.

A large number of nukes are not at all a strain for any first world nation. When you have dozens of reactors running you can build them with your eyes closed.

So this is about nukes. Which means the canada israel point is about BUDGET, ergo RESOURCES, not capabilities. Ergo MY point about conscripts was relevant, and YOUR response about quality was a distraction. You threadjacked your own point. Self-pwned.

[KrazyHorse]

I meant strike with air power.

Then they have equal range, AFAIK. One full tank of gas.

We have some air defence on our naval vessels, and a slightly larger AF, with similar planes (heavy land-based version of F-18 versus mainly F-16s and a few F-15s)

[Last Conformist]

So ... how about we send in the fantastical Canukhi airforce and flatten Bushehr et al.? The Iranians would be too busy taking remedial geography to mount an effective response

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Saras
I how this thread developed.

Indeed. I've been in a bit of a mood for this lately. It started in another thread with an 1812 discussion...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So ... how about we send in the fantastical Canukhi airforce and flatten Bushehr et al.? The Iranians would be too busy taking remedial geography to mount an effective response

That would be a hell of a surprise.

[David Floyd]

Then they have equal range, AFAIK. One full tank of gas.

Except the IAF has limited experience conducting complex, long range strikes. For example, Osirak in 1981. I also understand the IAF has been conducting training missions to and from Gibraltor.

Also, the IAF's major advantage in terms of air power is turnaround time. They train non-stop on getting planes and pilots back in the air almost immediately after they land from the first sortie.

[KrazyHorse]

And our pilots flew more sorties per plane than anybody else in Kosovo...