Lessons from Lebanon?

Question

After the divine victory, a whole review is going about the military tanks designs.



I recently attended a conference at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism near Tel Aviv where senior military officers analysed the operational lessons of Israel's campaign in Lebanon. One of the most salient developments from the fighting was the prolific use of sophisticated anti-tank weaponry by Hezbollah.

During the 34-day conflict, the militia's fighters fired hundreds of anti-tank guided missiles that inflicted more than half of all Israeli combat fatalities. These weapons were used not only against conventional targets such as armoured vehicles but against dispersed infantry formations as well.

Major General Giora Eiland (retired), Israel's former national security adviser, described this deluge of missiles as one of the great tactical surprises of the war. And to their chagrin, the Israelis discovered that their top-of-the-line main battle tank, the Merkava Mark IV, was vulnerable to modern missiles with tandem warheads.

Just as Israel is engaged in self-evaluation, there is no doubt that a similar process of assessment is under way on the other side of the firing line.

Hezbollah commanders and their Iranian sponsors are doubtless closely studying what worked and what didn't. Islamic holy warriors from other fronts in the global jihad are also surely looking to Lebanon for tactical tips in their fight against the infidel. The roadside explosives and suicide vehicles that plague Western forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were first perfected by Hezbollah during the 1990s.

The effectiveness of the Lebanese Shi'ite militia's anti-tank tactics against Israel makes that stratagem a highly attractive model for imitation. Thus the coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan must prepare to encounter late-model anti-tank missiles in future engagements with jihadi insurgents. These sophisticated weapons are coming soon to a theatre of operations near you.

Yet as things now stand, the Australian army is woefully ill-prepared to meet this threat. The Russian Spandrel and Kornet missiles of Hezbollah were able to penetrate the sophisticated composite armour of Israel's 65-tonne Merkava. There is little doubt such weapons would prove to be effective against the flanks and rear of Australia's similarly protected Abrams tanks. Even worse would be the destruc`tion that modern anti-tank missiles would inflict upon the more lightly armoured elements of our mechanised forces. The Kornet's tandem warhead would punch through Australian ASLAVs, Bushmasters and M-113s with a terrible ease.

I went to war in 1982 on the back of an Israeli M-113. And I bear all the nostalgic affection for that Vietnam-era vehicle that a WWII tank general might have held for the horse-mounted cavalry of his youth.

Answer 1

To lessen self pride and self righteousness and to accept imperfections.

Answer 2

I agree completely

The lessons are that we need a more mobile, harder hitting, and more protected individual on the ground. To mass up is to provide our enemy with the ability to kill us all in one stroke. To disperse is to give him maximum ability to expose himself so we can close with and exterminate him.

The 'Age of the Tank" is not over yet, but it is no longer the indestructible behemoth it used to be. Missiles are fine, but require two things... a willing operator to guide it or at least select a target, and a willing target..... nobody wants to waste a $35,000 missile on a few soldiers with rifles......

Answer 3

1st plse dont claim it was ur victory. ur own papers are telling it was a shameful defeat. see www.hartz.com
2nd what is ur question?

Answer 4

so what are you another extremist, militant