New major military powers

[gf0012-aust]

Shavit7, could be tweaked/used/classified as one, right?

Israel has clear latent ability. Here and now, she has an IRBM. However, delivering a warhead from Asian minor to the US is by default, the province of an ICBM.

I'm being picky, but there is a need to be in these threads sometimes as they'll get out of control real quickly.

How do things like sims work in terms of nations like AUS, IL, JP, training in them for a "what if scenario." Or is sim training (modified) off the table as well?

I agree, Israel won't get it until or unless Australia (#1 option IMO) opens the door for its export.

Australia (and other allies tapped as such) by the US already has access to software sims of some platforms (eg the Mig 35 TVC) so that we can run comparisons against JSF etc...

So sim access is not "that big a deal" in a sense.

 

[metro]

Israel has clear latent ability. Here and now, she has an IRBM. However, delivering a warhead from Asian minor to the US is by default, the province of an ICBM.

I'm being picky, but there is a need to be in these threads sometimes as they'll get out of control real quickly.

I appreciate it. 10 websites have 10 different conclusions based upon "yesterday's info," or "Our expert info... 1992." I much rather hear today's realtime info opposed to something like, the "stock broker who's trading based upon watching a DVR recording from last week"! With that analogy, I think it's way past my bedtime

Australia (and other allies tapped as such) by the US already has access to software sims of some platforms (eg the Mig 35 TVC) so that we can run comparisons against JSF etc...

So sim access is not "that big a deal" in a sense.

I "hear" you, that's interesting.

Thanks again, and don't get driven too crazy by the likes of me, unless you have nothing else to give you a headache

 

[f-22fan12]

i know this will sound like im bisad couse im Israeli but why isnt Israel being considerd as a possible major power?

i mean, you people mention economy, the Israeli economy is one of the most stable in the world, Israel is only getting richer.

Israel is one of the only 8 nuclear powers, with estimations that put her in between the 5th and the 3rd place as far as nuclear stockpiles. and it has missiles that cover Asia, Africa and Europe, and can hit targets in the east cost of the U.S.

the Israeli air force is one of the best in the world, some Israeli pilots train U.S pilots. and right now there is a deal between the U.S and some arab nations, 20bill worth of arms are to be sold to them, and Israel is using this to get some for her, one of the weapons that will be sold to Israel is the F-22, makeing Israel the second stealth power.

so why isnt Israel even an option?:unknown

Israel is not to be considered a major power. Here is why.
1. The U.S. provides Israel with a huge amount of free weapons through "aid" packages.
2. Israel has only 6 million population. That's to small to make a economy that is world class and that is also to small to become a major military power.
3. Israel wouldn't even be nearly this powerful if it weren't for the U.S. and other major powers. The U.S. saved Israel MANY times. Ex. In the 1973 war it was the U.S. who gave Israel that CRUCIAL aid package that saved them. And all those free weapons.
4. I don't think a country that relies on foriegn tech. for most of its mililtary needs can be considered a major power.
5. How can Israel hit targets on the East coast of the U.S.??? Which missile is that???
6. And Israel is certainly NOT getting the F-22. Their track record in tech. worsens everyday. They have decided to share others tech. with China. And the U.S. has decided that Israel won't be getting F-22s.
It's not even certain they are getting the F-35.

7. Israeli pilots train our pilots??? NO. Where did you here that. If it weren't for our "aid" you wouldn't even have the 100 F-16Is. All of those planes are paid for by the U.S. You wouldn't have the countless other planes you guys get for free.

In conclusion, If it weren't for CONSTANT military aid and help, Israel wouldn't ever be this powerful.

BTW I'm not against Israel or anything, great country. Feel bad they are always a target of a fight. Just that they are simply to small (only 6 million pop.) and too reliant on foreigners to become a "major military power"
Again no hard feelings.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Israel is not to be considered a major power. Here is why.
1. The U.S. provides Israel with a huge amount of free weapons through "aid" packages.
2. Israel has only 6 million population. That's to small to make a economy that is world class and that is also to small to become a major military power.
3. Israel wouldn't even be nearly this powerful if it weren't for the U.S. and other major powers. The U.S. saved Israel MANY times. Ex. In the 1973 war it was the U.S. who gave Israel that CRUCIAL aid package that saved them. And all those free weapons.
4. I don't think a country that relies on foriegn tech. for most of its mililtary needs can be considered a major power.

Apart from a raft of serious factual innacuracies in your post, you need to check up on the Israeli miltech industry. It is substantial - and involves more than legacy products from bilateral relationships.

You may need to visit the Forum Guidelines before responding.

 

[f-22fan12]

Apart from a raft of serious factual innacuracies in your post, you need to check up on the Israeli miltech industry. It is substantial - and involves more than legacy products from bilateral relationships.

You may need to visit the Forum Guidelines before responding.

My point is that without the billions in aid, they wouldn't have the money to develop alll the tech. And besides, what great tech. do they have? The Merkava, okay, one thing. But as for there navy, it mostly American built. (Saar 5) Their air force is Completely American built. Their army has American helicopeters ( AH-60, Blackhawk) American tanks. (M-60) it has american APCs. AND again, what would happen to Israel if the U.S. cut off its 2 billion dollar annual aid?

And what are the "serious factual inaccuracies" in my post.

 

[gf0012-aust]

My point is that without the billions in aid, they wouldn't have the money to develop alll the tech. And besides, what great tech. do they have? The Merkava, okay, one thing. But as for there navy, it mostly American built.

Sensor Systems, Array systems for GTMI, UAV's Laser technology, IED detection technology, ISR assets, software for systems management, harbour protection device, sea denial weapons for subs etc etc.... You need to do some research. and there are substantial quantums of tech that have no US input which they have onsold.

(Saar 5) Their air force is Completely American built. Their army has American helicopeters ( AH-60, Blackhawk)

20 years ago it was French - its a cycle.

American tanks. (M-60) it has american APCs.

It also modifies all the weapons it has captured - which to be frank are far more robust and far more stable than the M113. The Israelis were the first to actually define and kickstart the international refurb market - thats where they make considerable money (incl modifying Migs and Sukhois for ex warpac customers)

AND again, what would happen to Israel if the U.S. cut off its 2 billion dollar annual aid?

and the US is willing to do that for various reasons - I find your tone insulting as it ignores realpolitik by a wide margin

And what are the "serious factual inaccuracies" in my post.

numerous - and without trying i'll show some reason as to why your arguments are shallow and can be seen as either insulting or ill informed

Israel is not to be considered a major power. Here is why.
1. The U.S. provides Israel with a huge amount of free weapons through "aid" packages.

and? the US provides substantial FMS concessions to a number of countries - The Israelis get a greater portion ebcause its in the geo-political interests of the US to do so. Assistance is collateral in the way that it encourages development and relationships at more than just a political level.

2. Israel has only 6 million population. That's to small to make a economy that is world class and that is also to small to become a major military power.

So what? Singapore has less people and is also a major regional power - she's regarded as an influence purchaser. Size has little to do with anything, Its the capacity of that nation to deal with her primary threat in an appropriate manner. Israel has fought 5 nation state conflicts - and has lost none of them. The argument about getting US aide is selective sophistry, the Soviets poured money and arms into 12 surrounding and overtly/latent hostile states and it didn't create a military tripping point when it counted.

3. Israel wouldn't even be nearly this powerful if it weren't for the U.S. and other major powers. The U.S. saved Israel MANY times. Ex. In the 1973 war it was the U.S. who gave Israel that CRUCIAL aid package that saved them. And all those free weapons.

see above. relationships exist for a reason. The soviets poured weaponry into egypt, syria, iraq, libya and smaller arab states. in fact, the amount of aid poured in by the US was nowhere matched on ratio by the soviets. Getting the gear does not a competent military make. Israeli blood, not american blood was the final spill.

4. I don't think a country that relies on foriegn tech. for most of its mililtary needs can be considered a major power.

The top 25 military tech companies are owned by US. UK, French, Russian, German, Italian and Israeli actors - are you suggesting that this cohort represent the definitive military powers of the world? China copies or buys substantial disparate platforms, Hecate AP rifle (france), armoured cars (german), tanks (russian), 2208 patrol boat (australia), Mig/Sukhoi/Ilyushin/Tupolev (russian), Kilo subs, Song/Kilo hybrids, Transducers for harbour protection (Scottish) etc etc......

5. How can Israel hit targets on the East coast of the U.S.??? Which missile is that???

They are a latent power. If you can launch a satellite, then you can launch an ICBM - why do you think the US reacted so quickly when the Sovs shoved sputnik up in the air?

6. And Israel is certainly NOT getting the F-22. Their track record in tech. worsens everyday. They have decided to share others tech. with China. And the U.S. has decided that Israel won't be getting F-22s.
It's not even certain they are getting the F-35.

The US has decided that no one is getting the F-22

7. Israeli pilots train our pilots??? NO. Where did you here that. If it weren't for our "aid" you wouldn't even have the 100 F-16Is. All of those planes are paid for by the U.S. You wouldn't have the countless other planes you guys get for free.

So what? The US gives free planes to other countries in Sth America. Germany gave Poland Mig 29's for the princely transfer fee of 1 Euro. (to make it legal)

In conclusion, If it weren't for CONSTANT military aid and help, Israel wouldn't ever be this powerful.

have a look at Israels sensor and electronics capability - which are also used by the US (and numerous other countries) Have a look at UAV's (also used by the US and numerous other countries incl UK and Australia).Laser weapons development was an israeli initiative. (THEL)

BTW I'm not against Israel or anything, great country. Feel bad they are always a target of a fight. Just that they are simply to small (only 6 million pop.) and too reliant on foreigners to become a "major military power"

Size is irrelevant to capability - there's 5000 years of history to destroy that myth.

 

[nyrhex]

i would just like to mention that:

Israel has a population of 7.1 million, not 6.

and that the U.S aid only started after 66', when Israel gave the U.S its MIG-21 that the Mossad got from Iraq, so in 1948, in the most importent time, Israel had no aid and managed to win with no help, so did in 1967.

and in 1973 the U.S aid arrived a few days AFTER the war was over.

 

[Brandon]

Actually, Israel is now for certain getting the F-35.
http://middeast.com/middle-east-news/israeli-pm-announces-30-billion-dollar-us-defence-aid-afp

But this video kind of worries me:
http://www.infolive.tv/en/infolive.tv-9784-israelnews-israel-eyes-f-22-raptor

I think most of us here are okay with Israel getting (yes, getting, not buying) the F-35 as it is meant to be exported and many other countries are buying it. But, that second video about them wanting the F-22 really almost pisses me off. We give them all this aid and all they do is ask for more and more. I just want to go up to their politicians and honestly say shut up. We give them so much military support. Imagine them without our damn aid. No F-15's or anything. I swear, if our government decides to let them have the Raptor, I am going to literally send a long email to every branch stating how disappointed I am. [ Admin: Text deleted. Please refer to forum guidelines about the issue of lobbying ]

 

[Waylander]

The CIA World Factbook says that Israel has a population of 6.426.679 with a growth rate of 1,154%.

So we meet in the middle.

In the end those additional 1/2 million people don't change the situation.

Israels population and economy is big enough to be a major regional power.
But it is not enough if Israel wants to get a global player (For which they have no desire anyways).

As I stated before a military budget of more than 7% of GDP, long conscript time for both men and women as well as additional military aid from the US and others shows how much is needed to remain the regional player and maintain an edge over the neighbours.

Israel doesn't has the manpower or economic strength for global power projection capabilities.
And I also don't see why they should want this. Being superior to its neighbours and being able to project power in the middle east is everything they want and everything they need.

 

[eaf-f16]

i would just like to mention that:

Israel has a population of 7.1 million, not 6.

and that the U.S aid only started after 66', when Israel gave the U.S its MIG-21 that the Mossad got from Iraq, so in 1948, in the most importent time, Israel had no aid and managed to win with no help, so did in 1967.

and in 1973 the U.S aid arrived a few days AFTER the war was over.

In 1973 a USN E-2 Hawkeye gave the Israelis information about four EAF Mirages approaching that were flying only 5 meters above sea level making it impossible for the Israelis to see them without AWACS and they were intercepted; one got shot down, one crashed in to the sea and the other two managed to escape. Five minutes before that happened the Egyptians did the exact same thing with another 4 Mirages and they bombed their targets "unopposed". Israel had considerable help in almost all of its conflicts.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In 1973 a USN E-2 Hawkeye gave the Israelis information about four EAF Mirages approaching that were flying only 5 meters above sea level making it impossible for the Israelis to see them without AWACS and they were intercepted; one got shot down, one crashed in to the sea and the other two managed to escape. Five minutes before that happened the Egyptians did the exact same thing with another 4 Mirages and they bombed their targets "unopposed". Israel had considerable help in almost all of its conflicts.

The issue of "considerable help" is a universal attribute with every country in that conflict. As you'd be aware, the Soviets were pouring both hardware and intel into their client states - one of the oft claimed "pleas" from the major israeli opponents was that the israeli sortie rates were impossible to achieve and that they must have had assistance from reflagged USN aircraft. The Russians publicly denied it happened as they were watching and trailing the Med fleet throughout the course of the 73 conflict.

I recall a recent discussion by the ex Soviet Ambassador to Egypt that the Sovs were pouring satellite and real time humint into Syria, and Egypt but that it made little difference. The Egyptians were begging the Soviets to step in and provide more than material assistance under the pretext that Americans were actively involved in the fighting. The Soviets made it clear that they knew that there was no direct american input.

 

[eaf-f16]

The issue of "considerable help" is a universal attribute with every country in that conflict. As you'd be aware, the Soviets were pouring both hardware and intel into their client states - one of the oft claimed "pleas" from the major israeli opponents was that the israeli sortie rates were impossible to achieve and that they must have had assistance from reflagged USN aircraft. The Russians publicly denied it happened as they were watching and trailing the Med fleet throughout the course of the 73 conflict.

I recall a recent discussion by the ex Soviet Ambassador to Egypt that the Sovs were pouring satellite and real time humint into Syria, and Egypt but that it made little difference. The Egyptians were begging the Soviets to step in and provide more than material assistance under the pretext that Americans were actively involved in the fighting. The Soviets made it clear that they knew that there was no direct american input.

Of course any country that dose not have a self-dependent arms industry will require considerable help from the supplier country. But denying that the US didn't help the Israelis in almost all there conflicts whether it be AWACS support or technical support is just a lie. I'm sure that US and Soviet "advisers" were involved in the conflict but the Egyptians didn't have any where near as much support from the Soviets as the Israelis had from the US. Anyway Egypt tapped out and lost but at least regained it's land. There was direct USN help for the Israelis unless the Israelis had AWACS back then or some super radar which I doubt.

p.s can you post the link about Soviet Ambassador I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Of course any country that dose not have a self-dependent arms industry will require considerable help from the supplier country. But denying that the US didn't help the Israelis in almost all there conflicts whether it be AWACS support or technical support is just a lie. I'm sure that US and Soviet "advisers" were involved in the conflict but the Egyptians didn't have any where near as much support from the Soviets as the Israelis had from the US. Anyway Egypt tapped out and lost but at least regained it's land. There was direct USN help for the Israelis unless the Israelis had AWACS back then or some super radar which I doubt.

p.s can you post the link about Soviet Ambassador I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

Nobody has said that the Israelis didn't get support - but in material terms, the Soviets were supplying the AL with hardware that numerically across a number of fronts was between 5-8 times more than what Israel had. It was certainly far greater than the usual invasion ratio for supremacy that prefers 3:1 minimum.

I'll see if I can find the reference. IIRC it was a video on the Arab-Israeli wars. What I found interesting was that the Egyptian commanders made it very clear that they were outclassed on the ground and air, made bad tactical errors - and were obvioulsy disrespectful of their Syrian counterparts. The comment about Soviet resupply was made by Egyptian and Syrian commanders. The Syrians made it clear that the Egyptians failed to heed their warnings. In the end, it was a classic example of why the AL at a nation state conflict have always failed to deliver a final favourable outcome. Fractured leadership, over confidence and clearly being caught overstating non existent victories to the general public resulted in a clear undermining in the end of their competency and credibility.

Its a bit disingenuous to argue that the US turned the day for Yom Kippur, at a tactical level the IDF was clearly far better, reacted appropriately and had a far superior on ground command structure. There were a series of temporal events under superior local command by the IDF, and they can always outweigh a numerical weapons delivery advantage.

This has happened 5 times at a State conflict and engagement level, so in traditional state on state warfare, its beyond doubt that the IDF have had superior institutional derived capability.

 

[eaf-f16]

Nobody has said that the Israelis didn't get support - but in material terms, the Soviets were supplying the AL with hardware that numerically across a number of fronts was between 5-8 times more than what Israel had. It was certainly far greater than the usual invasion ratio for supremacy that prefers 3:1 minimum.

I'll see if I can find the reference. IIRC it was a video on the Arab-Israeli wars. What I found interesting was that the Egyptian commanders made it very clear that they were outclassed on the ground and air, made bad tactical errors - and were obvioulsy disrespectful of their Syrian counterparts. The comment about Soviet resupply was made by Egyptian and Syrian commanders. The Syrians made it clear that the Egyptians failed to heed their warnings. In the end, it was a classic example of why the AL at a nation state conflict have always failed to deliver a final favourable outcome. Fractured leadership, over confidence and clearly being caught overstating non existent victories to the general public resulted in a clear undermining in the end of their competency and credibility.

Its a bit disingenuous to argue that the US turned the day for Yom Kippur, at a tactical level the IDF was clearly far better, reacted appropriately and had a far superior on ground command structure. There were a series of temporal events under superior local command by the IDF, and they can always outweigh a numerical weapons delivery advantage.

This has happened 5 times at a State conflict and engagement level, so in traditional state on state warfare, its beyond doubt that the IDF have had superior institutional derived capability.

I never doubted for a second that the Israeli leadership and overall military infrastructure and training were by a large margin superior to the Egyptian. Nor did I say otherwise in my post leading me to believe that you're trying to put words in my mouth. Anyways we were talking about US direct involvement in the conflict which I think was there. The magical detection of fighter-jets flying way below radar makes me think that at least AWACS supported was provided to the Israelis by the USN which would count as direct US involvement. But since this is the only instance I know of I cannot claim anything beyond this.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I never doubted for a second that the Israeli leadership and overall military infrastructure and training were by a large margin superior to the Egyptian. Nor did I say otherwise in my post leading me to believe that you're trying to put words in my mouth. Anyways we were talking about US direct involvement in the conflict which I think was there. The magical detection of fighter-jets flying way below radar makes me think that at least AWACS supported was provided to the Israelis by the USN which would count as direct US involvement. But since this is the only instance I know of I cannot claim anything beyond this.

I'm not seeking to have an argument over this.

My point is that Israel has regularly - and often without allied assistance demonstrated an ability to comporehensively turn the tide in state on state conflict.

The other measure of capability is innovation, Israel redefined manouvre warfare, developed UAV's, developed localised ISR, changed the floor model for green water navies, was the principal architect for the now currently accepted refurb market, and developed a local arms industry (and well before French, then US assistance)

The Egyptians demonstrated clear innovation and engineering capability at Bar Lev, but then threw out the rule book about protected advance when the heat turned up. The Syrians had the technology and mass at Golan, but were out manouvred comprehensively by skeletal forces who suffered from no resupply, astounding attrition losses, and geographical disadvantage that was countered by superior local command manouvre.

This was all without any external assistance. The lie to the argument about US involvement was the Admiral in charge of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet who made it clear that the US was unable to provide material advfantage - and this was at the same time that they also were relaying israeli aircraft movements through a Bear Squadron running emissions CAP over the Mediterannean.

Quite frankly, IMO, a high proportion of opposing force claims that the Israelis won due to US assistance just doesn't stack up when you analyse different contacts across the theatre of engagement. Remember that the Israelis had their own harvesting capability - and they were able to give that data to the americans for countering WARPAC assets in Europe.

 

[ainanup23]

AID are useles unless the spirit among the soilders are not high to Do or Die . In war adversities also brings high spirit . Unless there is hish spirit and motivation war will not have the desired results.


That is why the soviets lost in Afganisthan, the US lost in the Vietnam . Indian peacekeeping force lost in Sri Lanka. Political leaders send troops to prove their point and ideology, but its only the soilder on duty who faces the brunt.Arms and technology are essentials of war but the men behind them are key to winning wars.

 

[eaf-f16]

I'm not seeking to have an argument over this.

My point is that Israel has regularly - and often without allied assistance demonstrated an ability to comporehensively turn the tide in state on state conflict.

The other measure of capability is innovation, Israel redefined manouvre warfare, developed UAV's, developed localised ISR, changed the floor model for green water navies, was the principal architect for the now currently accepted refurb market, and developed a local arms industry (and well before French, then US assistance)

The Egyptians demonstrated clear innovation and engineering capability at Bar Lev, but then threw out the rule book about protected advance when the heat turned up. The Syrians had the technology and mass at Golan, but were out manouvred comprehensively by skeletal forces who suffered from no resupply, astounding attrition losses, and geographical disadvantage that was countered by superior local command manouvre.

This was all without any external assistance. The lie to the argument about US involvement was the Admiral in charge of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet who made it clear that the US was unable to provide material advfantage - and this was at the same time that they also were relaying israeli aircraft movements through a Bear Squadron running emissions CAP over the Mediterannean.

Quite frankly, IMO, a high proportion of opposing force claims that the Israelis won due to US assistance just doesn't stack up when you analyse different contacts across the theatre of engagement. Remember that the Israelis had their own harvesting capability - and they were able to give that data to the americans for countering WARPAC assets in Europe.

Did it ever occur to you the Soviets might have been lying so that they didn't have to commit forces to the Egyptians? Maybe I'm wrong that Israel didn't have any direct assistance from the US, but you still haven't explained the instance were 4 Mirages were detected even though they were 5 meters above sea level. As I said before regardless the Israelis repelled the Egyptians. I also think the fact that the Egyptian army was and still is highly centralized is a major factor (other than leadership and training) to their defeat. But I guess they weren't able to have a mobile force like Israel's that's able to conduct independent operations because of leadership.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Did it ever occur to you the Soviets might have been lying so that they didn't have to commit forces to the Egyptians? Maybe I'm wrong that Israel didn't have any direct assistance from the US, but you still haven't explained the instance were 4 Mirages were detected even though they were 5 meters above sea level.

likewise the humiliation of defeat by the AL also sees a raft of excuses as to why they lost. they'd rather blame the americans than accept the fact that they were unable to prosecute nation state warfare when they had clear advantages across all contact spectrum.

to lose compression warfare is pretty damn embarassing for a superior force.

the israelis did have extensive ISR in place, its always possible that they had US assistance, but the fact that they were passing on soviet emissions in all of the post 1967 battles indicates that they were harvesters in their own right. the israelis never made a big deal over the fact that the egyptians had soviet GCI operators (and during the recovery of bar lev, they found a small team of "white" advisers killed under the artillery barrage). the egyptians and syrians unfortunately (and its not by the military commanders of the time) gleefully trot out an american conspiracy model.

quite frankly, the whole management of the 67, 73 and 82 wars leaves no doubt as to who was superior on ground.

the soviet black sea fleet commander for 73 made it pretty clear that the egyptians and syrians made a hash of things. he also makes it pretty clear that in the soviets view, US provided as much ewarfare support as they did - and it was getting congested.

either way, state based militaries with the critical mass to numerically strangle the israelis at all force levels were unable to do so.

 

[gf0012-aust]

As I said before regardless the Israelis repelled the Egyptians. I also think the fact that the Egyptian army was and still is highly centralized is a major factor (other than leadership and training) to their defeat. But I guess they weren't able to have a mobile force like Israel's that's able to conduct independent operations because of leadership.

absolutely. the issue is about effective flexible command that is translated and acted upon at force delivery level.

 

[Incognito129]

likewise the humiliation of defeat by the AL also sees a raft of excuses as to why they lost. they'd rather blame the americans than accept the fact that they were unable to prosecute nation state warfare when they had clear advantages across all contact spectrum.

to lose compression warfare is pretty damn embarassing for a superior force.

the israelis did have extensive ISR in place, its always possible that they had US assistance, but the fact that they were passing on soviet emissions in all of the post 1967 battles indicates that they were harvesters in their own right. the israelis never made a big deal over the fact that the egyptians had soviet GCI operators (and during the recovery of bar lev, they found a small team of "white" advisers killed under the artillery barrage). the egyptians and syrians unfortunately (and its not by the military commanders of the time) gleefully trot out an american conspiracy model.

quite frankly, the whole management of the 67, 73 and 82 wars leaves no doubt as to who was superior on ground.

the soviet black sea fleet commander for 73 made it pretty clear that the egyptians and syrians made a hash of things. he also makes it pretty clear that in the soviets view, US provided as much ewarfare support as they did - and it was getting congested.

either way, state based militaries with the critical mass to numerically strangle the israelis at all force levels were unable to do so.

I thought the British gave the Israeli's massive logistical support.

I'd take the Centurion Mk5 over the t-54, t-55's the Arabs were using. Before the fact that is.