Hezbollah landforces
- Thread starter marcvs75
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
Hello, there are a few books, though AFAIK they have only been published in Italian - I'll check and come back to you. Actually in Libya we had a few elite divisions (Folgore parachutists, Ariete mechanized, Legionari/CCNN) and more than a few poorly equipped infantry divisions. During the war the poorly equipped infantry divisions were eaten up by the British, mostly ending up prisoners of war. Insufficient mobility vs a modern battleground with few natural obstacles. However the stronger divisions put up quite a fight..pt said:Contedicavour,
Sorry for the offtopic.
Interesting History that you tell. My knowledge on those campaigns in Lybia and egypt, is based in German or British books, and in general they either are omiss or not very kind to the Italian forces, a general misconception, i believe.
So they did fare well against the british altough being very poorly equiped, using infantry with rudimentary antitank weapons and artillery? didn´t know that.
Is there any good book on that subject?
thanks.
.pt
During El Alamein key battle, the Ariete division got massacred against the heavy British tanks but kept its lines intact for months. Once all our hapless light tanks had been wrecked, the troops fought back British MBTs with anything from artillery to molotov cocktails to mines set under the MBTs by infantrymen hiding in the sand dunes. Only when the British forces achieved 5:1 advantages in manpower, MBTs, planes, artillery, did the Folgore and Ariete retreat. Several sections of the battle line were manned exclusively by Italian troops, though obviously Rommel's German Afrika Korps helped a lot in the more offensive parts of the campaign (especially the counter-attacks needing massive mobility of mechanized units).
Just as in Russia, several of our troops fought gallantly but we lacked decent MBTs, only a small part of our artillery was effective against enemy MBTs, and most of our air force was still flying on obsolete Fiat CR32s or Macchi200s. By the time heavy MBTs and Macchi-202/205s (Re-2005, G-50...) were available in decent numbers, we'd lost the war.
Not to mention of course political interference, overcautious generals in HQ vs those leading the best divisions, overstretching of forces on too many battlegrounds (Russia, Africa, Balkans...) etc
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
Your theory makes a lot of sense.merocaine said:Yeah I was wondering about that myself, I've been working on a theory...feel free to shoot it full of holes.
I noticed on some of the streamed CNN and other news stations that the Isreali MBT's were advancing in penny packets (2 to 3 tanks at a time.) I believe that this is how they operate in the occupied terriories. One tank advances with the others covering. Due to the Pals poverty in anti tank weapons this works. The lead tank takes a hit on the turret from, at most a RPG-7, no bother to the Israeli MBT, seconds later the Pal gets zapped by the covering fire.
It seems the same tactic was employed in the Lebanon, except the Hezzbullah had modern anti tank weapons, and what was probobly crusial, effective fire control. A tank gets hit maybe disabling it, unable to retreat it signals for help, another tank or bulldozer try's to tow it, and it in turn is hit from a comoflaged position.
I think the Israeli's got used to using there tanks to draw fire, and decieded to treat the Lebanon like they would a refugee camp in Gaza. I'm sure the Hezzbullah anti Tank gunners took heavy losses in those exchanges, but not heavy enough for the Isreali's to roll them up.
I've said before that I thought the Isrealies should have punched through with a heavy armoured force and tried to cut the Hezzbullah supply lines early on in the fight, sure the would have lost tanks, but they lost tanks anyway with the slow advances, and they lost the engagement(its asemetrical warfare so dont jump on me with body count figures, politics are what matters at the end of the war, and however you dice it Hezzbullah have been strenghtened.)
Hezzbullah did'ent retreat, they held ground, and I believe would have been vunreble to a rapid encircling manover. Wheater the Israeli's could have pulled that off is another question. I do believe that Israeli fear of causties went a good way to losing them this fight.
I would only add to it that if the IDF Merkavas had had enough infantry around them, the Hezbollahs anti-tank units would have had to retreat faster. Infantry is still needed against infantry, especially in a battleground scenario full of natural obstacles and hiding places.
cheers
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about IDF's attack helicopters?
I've not heard yet that they were employing them against fortified position of the Hezbollah.. and since the Hez has a very few of air defence weapons, it would allow the IDF to better detect anti tank position and destroy them with artillery fire.
I've not heard yet that they were employing them against fortified position of the Hezbollah.. and since the Hez has a very few of air defence weapons, it would allow the IDF to better detect anti tank position and destroy them with artillery fire.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what about IDF's attack helicopters?
I've not heard yet that they were employing them against fortified position of the Hezbollah.. and since the Hez has a very few of air defence weapons, it would allow the IDF to better detect anti tank position and destroy them with artillery fire.
As far as i know the IDF considered helicopters too vunrable to ground fire and prefered to use drones as spotters. Helicopters were mainly used at night for rapid raids, as in tyre and the Bekka valley where they were quite successful by all accounts.
from what I gleaned from interviews with IDF tankers they were of the same opinion, they considered them selfs sitting ducks and wanted infantry and arti to do the job.I would only add to it that if the IDF Merkavas had had enough infantry around them, the Hezbollahs anti-tank units would have had to retreat faster. Infantry is still needed against infantry, especially in a battleground scenario full of natural obstacles and hiding places.
contedicavour
New Member
Considering that Hezbollahs had Russia's best anti-tank missiles... I wouldn't be surprised if they had the best shoulder-based SAMs as well. Besides, a Blackhawk shot out of the sky does more victims and more bad PR than a blown up Merkava...merocaine said:As far as i know the IDF considered helicopters too vunrable to ground fire and prefered to use drones as spotters. Helicopters were mainly used at night for rapid raids, as in tyre and the Bekka valley where they were quite successful by all accounts.
An Apache is wonderful when it comes to blowing apart an enemy tank column, but against well hidden and mobile Hezbollah infantry, I'm not sure it would have been very effective.
cheers
DoC_FouALieR
New Member
An Apache has thermal and LLLTV sights like a Merkava, but it watch the situation from above and is free to choose any observation point it wants to, lurking around suspected position, attacking by surprise with its 30mm canon or 2"75 rockets.An Apache is wonderful when it comes to blowing apart an enemy tank column, but against well hidden and mobile Hezbollah infantry, I'm not sure it would have been very effective.
As far as I know, the use of Gazelle with thermal sight in Ivory coast by our forces prove to be a very effective mean to survey the activities of small group of rebel who were thoughting they were concealed...
As long as I know the IDF used their Apaches most of the time a night or for destruction missions behind enemy lines due to their fear of modern MANPADs and heavy small arms fire. Instead they used many UAVs for recon missions.
Think of Iraq. Many Apaches were damaged or destroyed by small arms fire and RPGs. And many rebells in Iraq looked not that well equipped and trained like the Hizbollah.
Think of Iraq. Many Apaches were damaged or destroyed by small arms fire and RPGs. And many rebells in Iraq looked not that well equipped and trained like the Hizbollah.
One of the problems for the Israeli was the villages they were attacking looked to be on high ground and the land around them was baron,not only are the tanks noisy but there was also no cover for them to be able to approach without being seen,so the Hezbollah could organise there defensive positions placing there anti tank weapons where they needed to be and being in a position where they could se the enemy but the enemy couldn,t see them they were able to ambush inflicting plenty of loss on the Israeli.
Even bigger problem was having to drop leaflets warning the civilans to get out because if the civilians were reading them so was hezbollah.
Also the Israeli infantry didn,t perform well from what you hear from Israeli soldiers there was no organistion and lack of equipment no one knew where to go but the Israeli soldiers didn,t help there cause from what i hear there has been pressure over the years to cut back the amount of time reservists have to spend training.
You also have to take into account that there has never been a tank made that couldn,t be destroyed,no matter how much money is spent on these tanks they will always be vunerable to modern weapons.
Even bigger problem was having to drop leaflets warning the civilans to get out because if the civilians were reading them so was hezbollah.
Also the Israeli infantry didn,t perform well from what you hear from Israeli soldiers there was no organistion and lack of equipment no one knew where to go but the Israeli soldiers didn,t help there cause from what i hear there has been pressure over the years to cut back the amount of time reservists have to spend training.
You also have to take into account that there has never been a tank made that couldn,t be destroyed,no matter how much money is spent on these tanks they will always be vunerable to modern weapons.
The reservists are something I find really disturbing.
The IDF should have been able to send more full time soldiers into Lebanon and let the resverists guard the other borders.
Especially as many units, which higher officers have been in Libanon in the past, stayed out of the fighting.
The IDF should have been able to send more full time soldiers into Lebanon and let the resverists guard the other borders.
Especially as many units, which higher officers have been in Libanon in the past, stayed out of the fighting.
Perhaps their wrong perception of Hizbollah capabilities, made them think that a few reservists, equiped with somewhat old merkavas, could handle the job?
Or, in my view, the only other logical explanation for that blunder, altough unlikely,is that they didn´t want to use regular army units with more experience and capabilities, in order to not let other borders/fronts unguarded, and at the same time sending a signal that they wouldn´t take lightly on direct intervention on Lebanon, by one of its other neighbours.
Either that, or it was a deliberate waste of lives and equipment of second rate units, but for what purpose?
Anyway, its all speculation, we will know only in a few years from now, but i would bet on the first explanation, from all the information and reflections posted here.
.pt
Or, in my view, the only other logical explanation for that blunder, altough unlikely,is that they didn´t want to use regular army units with more experience and capabilities, in order to not let other borders/fronts unguarded, and at the same time sending a signal that they wouldn´t take lightly on direct intervention on Lebanon, by one of its other neighbours.
Either that, or it was a deliberate waste of lives and equipment of second rate units, but for what purpose?
Anyway, its all speculation, we will know only in a few years from now, but i would bet on the first explanation, from all the information and reflections posted here.
.pt
Isreal & Hezbollah
I was shocked that Isreal has come out of the war with a bloodied nose. Isreal has the most sophisicated surveylance equipment drone flying and yet they cannot stop the rockets from launching into north Isreal. Going into Lebanon like hero in thier invincible Chariot which is nowadays useless in the faceless war where ambush can come from anywhere. The invincible chariot which is accordingly the best in the world is a sitting duck. Where is the pinpoint accuracy of the Isreal technology or are they slowing down after all the victories they think that they are invincible? I am not a supporter of anyone. However Isreal must show this to Hezbollah if you want war come out and fight not hide.
I was shocked that Isreal has come out of the war with a bloodied nose. Isreal has the most sophisicated surveylance equipment drone flying and yet they cannot stop the rockets from launching into north Isreal. Going into Lebanon like hero in thier invincible Chariot which is nowadays useless in the faceless war where ambush can come from anywhere. The invincible chariot which is accordingly the best in the world is a sitting duck. Where is the pinpoint accuracy of the Isreal technology or are they slowing down after all the victories they think that they are invincible? I am not a supporter of anyone. However Isreal must show this to Hezbollah if you want war come out and fight not hide.
ThunderBolt
New Member
Not A Supporter
Fact: Isareal "only" killed 800+ civis, but Hezzis murdered an astounising amount, just above 100.
And you are not a supporter of ANYONE, i am surprised at what you said. But to tell you the truth I am not a supporter of anyone, guerilla fight is guerilla, and when someone doesn't have the best weaponary in the world then they gotta hide and fight.Blyekh said:I was shocked that Isreal has come out of the war with a bloodied nose. Isreal has the most sophisicated surveylance equipment drone flying and yet they cannot stop the rockets from launching into north Isreal. Going into Lebanon like hero in thier invincible Chariot which is nowadays useless in the faceless war where ambush can come from anywhere. The invincible chariot which is accordingly the best in the world is a sitting duck. Where is the pinpoint accuracy of the Isreal technology or are they slowing down after all the victories they think that they are invincible? I am not a supporter of anyone. However Isreal must show this to Hezbollah if you want war come out and fight not hide.
Fact: Isareal "only" killed 800+ civis, but Hezzis murdered an astounising amount, just above 100.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
That is fair enough. But do remember, most guerrillas primarily target civilians.ThunderBolt said:And you are not a supporter of ANYONE, i am surprised at what you said. But to tell you the truth I am not a supporter of anyone, guerilla fight is guerilla, and when someone doesn't have the best weaponary in the world then they gotta hide and fight.
That is what ability to reach out and touch your enemy does to a casualty figure. Swap the arsenals between Hezbollah and IDF and see what happens.ThunderBolt said:Fact: Isareal "only" killed 800+ civis, but Hezzis murdered an astounising amount, just above 100.
ThunderBolt
New Member
You are right, most guerrillas do target civis, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not all, like in Srilanka or Vietnam, or in Hezz in this case. Dude the Kyushki rockets that they used are not guidded at all, but if they were i am quite sure there would be alot more causulties among the soldiers of the IDF.That is fair enough. But do remember, most guerrillas primarily target civilians.
Well if you were to do that, i can assure you and there would have been thousands of deaths among the soldiers, or atleast 70%, because IDF is a professional army and they have proper bases which means it would be easier to target them. IDF killed alot more civis becasue Hezz lived among the civis and dropping bombs in the middle of downtown Berut would surly cause lots of inocent deaths. That was probably the dumest thing the IDF ever did, attacking like wild dogs for just a couple of soldiers..., man what were they thinking. I think it was cool that they did a couple of airstrikes to show to the hezz that their soldiers should be returned or else... but after that they lost their cool.That is what ability to reach out and touch your enemy does to a casualty figure. Swap the arsenals between Hezbollah and IDF and see what happens.
But even if you look at IDF, with all that they have got and I agree that they have the best "weapons" in the middle east, they still managed to attack on a UN outpost and destroy a house in Qana killing more than 15 children, that attack killed only civis and thats not the only one. IDF may have all the weapons they need, but not the boys who can use them properly. Israel hates taking causulties, but Hezz doesn't and that makes a big difference, although Hezz wear all the body armour and use the best tactics to avoid deaths, still they are ready to fight to death.
This just reminded me of another tiny Vietnam, where dropping thousands of bombs and destroy trees, houses in this case did no good at all.
IDF needs to change their tactics!
It's a bit to generalized to say that Guerilla's primarily attack civilian targets. Guerillas prioritize easy targets. That's what being assymetric is about isn't it? Guerillas target civillians if it suits them. The civillians could be allied with their enemies (or guerilla rivals for example). They could target civillians to keep them under control, or to collect "revolutionary taxes" from. Hezbollah's guerillas by the way seem remarkably disciplined. Lots of so called "freedom fighters" are little more than bandits and extortionists with assault rifles.