Performance of the Merkava in Lebenon

[fylr71]

I know the Israelis lost a few Merkavas in Lebenon. What I'm wondering is how many they lost and what was the cause of the losses and what was the judgement of the Israeli high command of their performance. The Merkava had been considered one of the best protected tanks in the world. I would assume that the tanks lost were most likely due to well placed IEDs or anti-tank missiles fired at close ranges.

[chaos]

The turning point in the war between Hezbollah and Israel since July 12th has certainly, been Hezbollah’s anti tank missiles. The supposedly, fourth generation of Israeli most advanced tank ‘Merkava’, has since Israel began its ground offensive on July 19th, been significantly, deactivated.


By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.


According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.


This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.


Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.


Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.

[fylr71]

I just read that of 30 Merkavas seriously damaged, only 4 were considered destroyed. However even this might be deceptive because the tanks lost or damaged may have been older generation Merkavas such as the MK.1 and 2.

[Viktor]

The turning point in the war between Hezbollah and Israel since July 12th has certainly, been Hezbollah’s anti tank missiles. The supposedly, fourth generation of Israeli most advanced tank ‘Merkava’, has since Israel began its ground offensive on July 19th, been significantly, deactivated.


By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.


According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.


This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.


Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.


Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.
Where did you get 100destroyed /pierced merkava?
it is little bit unrealistic.
Hezbollah has used along side with Milan and Metis-E -- Kornet (from Iran who has licence production) and Rpg-29.

[isthvan]

Well this has been discussed in numerous forums. IMHO basic problem for tanks is terrain in southern Lebanon. Thanks to terrain Israeli tanks lack mobility, and IDF was using standard routes that are familiar to anybody who knows terrain… Basically Hezbollah had perfect ambush opportunity; they prepared for this for long enough, they had/have modern anti-tank missiles, they know terrain and they are using it to there advantage…

If you know terrain, know enemy routes and know tank weaknesses you can for example target tank in the valleys from higher terrain thus hitting weaker armored top side of tank instead of Merkavas more then well armored front side… IDF reports claim that majority of losses was from ATGM attack to the top of the turret, where the tank commander was usually exposed. Tank commander was usually killed in such attacks and crew was injured…
Also if we look at fact that Hezbollah had/has quite considerable ATGM stockpile and all advantages that terrain offers them I would think that they would score much better against IDF armor…

Few hit tanks, mostly mission kills (if tank is hit and damaged that doesn’t mean that it is destroyed) and we are already hearing story’s about Merkava flews, severe damage to IDF armor etc. I personally don’t see any other modern MBT that would fare better in given conditions…

[Marc Aurel]

The Merkava tanks are pretty special, as they have the engine in the front part of the tank. This way, it gives more protection to the crew but makes the vehicle itself more likely to be stopped by a hit. Makes sense for such a relatively small army, where u don´t have as many trained tank crews tha the US, for example. The Merkava 4 even has space in the rear compartment for some infantry, what makes them unique in the world. As i have read in some sources, the Merkava also trades a lot of speed for additional armor. Maybe this is the reason it was so slow in difficult terrain, that the ATGM-gunners had better chances for hitting and immobilze them. The speed of a tank is an important factor, maybe the israelis underestimated its importance.

The Israelis now think about adding actice kill systems for missile defence on their tanks, which would surely tip the balance back in the their favour. I wonder if there is any system able to penetrate such a system. Maybe hypersonic missiles?!

[Viktor]

Well this has been discussed in numerous forums. IMHO basic problem for tanks is terrain in southern Lebanon. Thanks to terrain Israeli tanks lack mobility, and IDF was using standard routes that are familiar to anybody who knows terrain… Basically Hezbollah had perfect ambush opportunity; they prepared for this for long enough, they had/have modern anti-tank missiles, they know terrain and they are using it to there advantage…

If you know terrain, know enemy routes and know tank weaknesses you can for example target tank in the valleys from higher terrain thus hitting weaker armored top side of tank instead of Merkavas more then well armored front side… IDF reports claim that majority of losses was from ATGM attack to the top of the turret, where the tank commander was usually exposed. Tank commander was usually killed in such attacks and crew was injured…
Also if we look at fact that Hezbollah had/has quite considerable ATGM stockpile and all advantages that terrain offers them I would think that they would score much better against IDF armor…

Few hit tanks, mostly mission kills (if tank is hit and damaged that doesn’t mean that it is destroyed) and we are already hearing story’s about Merkava flews, severe damage to IDF armor etc. I personally don’t see any other modern MBT that would fare better in given conditions…

Im not sure about that. If you se Russian-Afgan war T-55 tanks equiped with Drozd-1 APS had 80 percent success rate against ATGM and rpg like weapons. Raphael produces Throopy APS and im not quite understand why did they instal it on Merkava tanks.
I sean some movies about it and it seems to be effective even aginst multiple ATGM.
Besides I did not see any ground suport planes ( I sow some of the movies during fighting), you can not yust send in tanks and light up a cigare expecting total victory.


Good to see fellow countryman on such forum/ Where are you from?

[isthvan]

AFAIK Trophy APS wasn’t operational in current conflict… IIRC system is still under development. I agree that tank is worthless without proper support (infantry, helicopters, artillery, UAV)…

Ps. Bok! Krapinske Toplice… Ti?

[psyclops]

As usual in such discussions, the answer to "how did X tank do" depends on what you mean. Are you asking about tanks being mission-killed, or totally destroyed? Are you asking about tankers surviving when their tanks did not? Remember that the Merkava was designed with crew protection being paramount. In the early marks, this was at the expense of some mobility, but anyone who saw the marketing video for Merkava 4 running over really rough terrain can see that the latest version has no problems with speed, agility, and overall mobility. Which brings up another salient point: there are large differences between the versions of Merkava. While there are AFAIK no more Mk 1s in service (they were brought up to Mk 2 standard some years ago), there are still quite a few Mk 2s, especially in the reserve units. They didn't fare so well, and I believe (though I have no firm numbers to back this up yet) they made up the bulk of knocked-out tanks. The Mk 3s and Mk 4s did better, but they were penetrated on occasion, too. It's hard to say with certainty how many were lost, because I think the IDF have not made an official number known. Many were immobilized and returned to service; some were not. It may be some time, if ever, before we know for sure the details about tank casualties, but it's a fair assumption that Hezbollah was smart enough to attack from the flanks and rear rather than head-on. Media reports of "tanks destroyed" are obviously suspect at best, since most reporters consider anything with tracks a tank. From what I've heard, the IDF was pretty satisfied with the Merkava's overall performance. It protected its troops pretty well, which is one of the main considerations the IDF has. It's still considered (or at least it should be) one of the best-protected tanks in the world. You can't armor ever inch against everything, and I don't know that any other tank would have fared better in the same situation.

[Waylander]

There are many thinks that did not work in favor of the Merks.

- There was not enough artillery available at the beginning.
- Many IDF tankers critiziced that they had not enough infantry support (I never liked that the IDF have no IFVs).
- The tanks were often send in small numbers (2-4 tanks) for raids. Those small packs are much more vulnerable to ambushes.
- Many ATGMs in service with Hiszbollah.
- Many tunnel systems, fortified positions, hidden bunkers/fire positions, supply depots and modern recon/radio equipment.
- Not enough intelligence and recon support for IDF.
- Many Mrk. II at the beginning of the operation.
- Some regular units with officers who had been in the Lebanon in the past never walked into Lebanon. Instead reservists were used.

With all this I also don't think that other tanks would have proceeded much better.

[brian00]

Israel has always hidden the extent of its losses, there reports of many merkavas being destroyed in 1982

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_279.shtml

Also, waylander you say that the IDF lacks IFVs, however they have many heavily armoured apcs, surely these could have been used to transport infantry?

[psyclops]

They did indeed use their HAPCs. I saw many pictures of Achzarits, and a few Nagmachons (I think--sorry, can't remember for sure which kind). But I don't know the details of how they were tactically employed, I just saw them in road march with and parked with Merkavas.

[fylr71]

Also, waylander you say that the IDF lacks IFVs, however they have many heavily armoured apcs, surely these could have been used to transport infantry?[/QUOTE]


Israel does lack a true modern IFV. They don't have something equivient to the Bradley, Warrior, Dardo, Pizarro, CV-90, or BMP-3. What they do have is the Achzarit which is a converted T-54/55 and the Puma which is a converted Centurion tank. exact specs seem to be hard to come by, but both appear to be slow and lack firepower as well as the sophisitication of western IFVs. However in the near future Israel will be recieving the Stryker.

[TrangleC]

However in the near future Israel will be recieving the Stryker.
You don't hear much good about the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The crews seem rather unsatisfied and i heard people call it a "death trap" and "coffin on wheels" and stuff like that.
I don't know what the specific problem is, (besides that i heard that crews are adding additional armour plates in their free time and there are even private organisations in the USA collecting money to buy extra armour for the Humvee and especially the Stryker), but considering that the Israelis will use it in pretty much the same terrain and under the same conditions as the US Army in Iraq, they might reconsider their order, given the bad publicity and advertisement.

Are the Strykers in use in Afghanistan too and if yes, how are they doing there?

edit:
The bad things i heard about the Stryker came mostly from chatting with soldiers and ex-soldiers and from a few tv reports on Iraq.
I only found one source i could link here now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html?sub=AR

[chaos]

There are many thinks that did not work in favor of the Merks.

- There was not enough artillery available at the beginning.
- Many IDF tankers critiziced that they had not enough infantry support (I never liked that the IDF have no IFVs).
- The tanks were often send in small numbers (2-4 tanks) for raids. Those small packs are much more vulnerable to ambushes.
- Many ATGMs in service with Hiszbollah.
- Many tunnel systems, fortified positions, hidden bunkers/fire positions, supply depots and modern recon/radio equipment.
- Not enough intelligence and recon support for IDF.
- Many Mrk. II at the beginning of the operation.
- Some regular units with officers who had been in the Lebanon in the past never walked into Lebanon. Instead reservists were used.

With all this I also don't think that other tanks would have proceeded much better.
very good analysis

[DoC_FouALieR]

You don't hear much good about the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The crews seem rather unsatisfied and i heard people call it a "death trap" and "coffin on wheels" and stuff like that.
I don't know what the specific problem is, (besides that i heard that crews are adding additional armour plates in their free time and there are even private organisations in the USA collecting money to buy extra armour for the Humvee and especially the Stryker), but considering that the Israelis will use it in pretty much the same terrain and under the same conditions as the US Army in Iraq, they might reconsider their order, given the bad publicity and advertisement.

What is frightening me is that we in France are going to receive a so-called IFV, the VBCI (although armed with a very controversed one man 25mm turret), with a design close to the Stryker, and by reading the article given in your links, it clearly demonstrate that a wheeled vehicle cannot fulfill to a large array of missions that modern urban warfare requires.
Finally it is more costly to operate a wheeled vehicle if you have to change tires "nine times a day" (I quote) !!
It does not happen with a tracked vehicle!

I will not be surprised if during our engagment in Lebanon, we will be forced to replace our brand new VBCI (if deployed) by the older AMX-10 ...

[Waylander]

The APCs and HAPCs of the IDF are not able to substitute a true IFV like the mentioned Bradley, CV-90, Puma, etc.
They lack firepower and mobility. They are not able follow modern tanks so they slow down the whole group. They also lack firepower. With the biggest weapon on them being a 12.7mm MG they are not able to produce the same amount of pure firepower and do not have the same range than 25mm-40mm weapons.
But this is needed the most against well protected ATGM fire positions.
I am also not sure if they have the same recon capabilities like modern IFVs with their stabilized gun optics.
And I would not bet on them being better protected than a Puma for example.
And is the IDF infantry able to fight while being onboard?

All these things make the (H)APCs look not very good for working together with tanks.
They may be good (And cheap enough) for transporting infantry into urbanized areas like in Gaza with its low intense conflicts and than fall back to let the infantry do their job but they are not nearly near to the capabilities a modern IFV gives you for combined arms operations.

[fylr71]

I will not be surprised if during our engagment in Lebanon, we will be forced to replace our brand new VBCI (if deployed) by the older AMX-10 ...[/QUOTE]

My guess is that the VBCI as well as the wheeled Vextra will augment a tracked IFV. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about French politics but perhaps the French could get involved with the German Puma project. As the French consider and are considered to have a first rate military it is likely that they will pursue a tracked IFV considering all other major military powers possess that. Also, a lot of European powers are in the process of or have completed the procurment of new modern tracked IFVs (Spain, Austria, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands)

[meh]

wait how did they even get european made anti-armor missiles anyway.

[meh]

The turning point in the war between Hezbollah and Israel since July 12th has certainly, been Hezbollah’s anti tank missiles. The supposedly, fourth generation of Israeli most advanced tank ‘Merkava’, has since Israel began its ground offensive on July 19th, been significantly, deactivated.


By using Russian-made Metis-M and European-made Milan anti-tank missiles by Hezbollah, according to reports more than 100 Merkava tanks had been destroyed, including killing or injuring their crews. The AP (AP, Saturday August 5), was reported to have circulated that, during two days only, Thursday August 3rd and Wednesday August 2nd , Hezbollah fighters had fired anti-tank missiles at three Merkava tanks. They were immediately pierced and 7 soldiers of its squads had been, killed.


According to the Israeli Army, quoted by the AP (August 5th) The Israeli-made Merkava tanks — mountains of steel that, are vaunted as symbols of Israel's military might. Despite this reputation, Hezbollah’s anti-tank missiles, according to reliable sources destroy routinely, an average of two Merkava tanks, on a daily basis.


This advanced progress by Hezbollah’s fighters, has succeeded, on one hand in restricting Israel within a maximum of 5 miles horizontally, inside the Lebanese borders. While on the other, had hindered Israel to reach south of the Litani River (18 miles from Israeli Lebanese borders). Israel has since July 19th been marketing to its people that, its army has controlled Bint Jbail, a two mile village from the borders.


Today, August 10th, it’s still talking about fierce and ferocious fighting with Hezbollah’s fighters, at Dibil village on the suburb of Bint Jbail. This resistance has made possible because of Hezbollah’s well made use of its anti-tank missiles.


Speculations and rumors began to spread about that, Hezbollah has over the past two years, been modifying the Metis-M and Milan anti-tank missiles. Though, these theories and anecdotes aren’t groundless, knowing Hezbollah’s aspirations to improving its military skills, they have not been officially, confirmed by Hezbollah.
how did they get European anti-armor weapons

[Waylander]

In the past MILAN was sold to the Libanese army.
The rest is imagination... :D

[DoC_FouALieR]

My guess is that the VBCI as well as the wheeled Vextra will augment a tracked IFV. I'm not going to pretend I know anything about French politics but perhaps the French could get involved with the German Puma project. As the French consider and are considered to have a first rate military it is likely that they will pursue a tracked IFV considering all other major military powers possess that. Also, a lot of European powers are in the process of or have completed the procurment of new modern tracked IFVs (Spain, Austria, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, The Netherlands)

As I have already said in another topic, we have very clever (!) politics in France that want to cut down the budget of the army by doing wrong calculus like replacing all of our old tracked IFV by a wheeled one, claiming that it is cheaper to operate. The only tracked vehicles that are going to remain in our land army is the Leclerc MBT, the breaching/general purpose vehicle of the engineering, and some swedish Bv-26 for mountains troops.
France refused the offer by the German to be involved in the Puma IFV project.
The Vextra is only a demonstrator of 8x8 mobility and firepower made by GIAT, it will never enter full production.
However, the VBCI is still superior to the Stryker by having the formidable 8x8 gear of the Vextra, superior protection and weaponry (could even be armed with the famous CTAI 40mm gun). But it is wheeled.

[Waylander]

The Striker is also not a real IFV.
Not armoured enough. Not able to follow high mobile, tracked tank forces.
No bigger weapons than heavy MGs or grenade machine weapons.
There would be a massacre if they would face some real IFVs.
So Stryker is not a real opinion for the IDF as a combined arms IFV.
It is a vehicle for other tasks.

[Izzy1]

wait how did they even get european made anti-armor missiles anyway.

As well as a quantity to the Lebanon, Euromissile GmbH also sold at least 200 MILAN rounds and 20 launchers to Syria back in the late 1980s.

[contedicavour]

As I have already said in another topic, we have very clever (!) politics in France that want to cut down the budget of the army by doing wrong calculus like replacing all of our old tracked IFV by a wheeled one, claiming that it is cheaper to operate. The only tracked vehicles that are going to remain in our land army is the Leclerc MBT, the breaching/general purpose vehicle of the engineering, and some swedish Bv-26 for mountains troops.
France refused the offer by the German to be involved in the Puma IFV project.
The Vextra is only a demonstrator of 8x8 mobility and firepower made by GIAT, it will never enter full production.
However, the VBCI is still superior to the Stryker by having the formidable 8x8 gear of the Vextra, superior protection and weaponry (could even be armed with the famous CTAI 40mm gun). But it is wheeled.

Do you know what equipment the French Army will deploy in Lebanon ? We are in the process of identifying which brigade will lead the effort. Most likely the Ariete (with the Ariete MBTs and Dardo tracked AIFVs), though the Pozzuolo del Friuli could also be used (in this case it's Centauro 8x8 wheeled tank buster with 6x6 Puma AIFVs similar to your country's VABs). Plus of course artillery and helos (don't know yet if we'll use Mangustas - will you be using Tiger ?)

cheers

[DoC_FouALieR]

Since I don't know whom regiments are going to Lebanon, I'm not able to tell what equipment will be deployed...
I only wish they are not about to go there with only a few VABs...
But if you Italians are going to deploy your Ariete, it becomes unlikely that our Leclercs will be send.
As for the Tiger, I actually don't know the number in service, but perhaps, the same for the Caesar artillery system.
But it is probable that the VBCI will be deployed, they are quite impatient to play with their new toy!
If not, and considering that the situation can quickly become complicated, AMX-10P and AMX-10 RC will join the party. (the later being a light tank with a 105 mm gun)

[contedicavour]

Since I don't know whom regiments are going to Lebanon, I'm not able to tell what equipment will be deployed...
I only wish they are not about to go there with only a few VABs...
But if you Italians are going to deploy your Ariete, it becomes unlikely that our Leclercs will be send.
As for the Tiger, I actually don't know the number in service, but perhaps, the same for the Caesar artillery system.
But it is probable that the VBCI will be deployed, they are quite impatient to play with their new toy!
If not, and considering that the situation can quickly become complicated, AMX-10P and AMX-10 RC will join the party. (the later being a light tank with a 105 mm gun)

I wouldn't be surprised if some new equipment were deployed for testing and, to be honest, for some advertisement effort ;) . With the world's TV sets following what will be going on in Lebanon, seeing some good equipment performing well may help exports later on.
Obviously this is a bit shameful since the mission is all about helping civilians, restore peace, deliver food and medicines, but I guess you understand what I mean :rolleyes:
Anyway, if you have news on which regiments and on which ships are going, let me know please.

cheers

[DoC_FouALieR]

Hmm the first 200 man sent are from the 13th engineering regiment, deploying VABs, and a lot of equipment to clear minefields, for water treatment, electric generator, etc etc..

But the official of the army headquarters have not yet tell what are the two regiment that are going to be sent ..

for some advertisement effort . With the world's TV sets following what will be going on in Lebanon, seeing some good equipment performing well may help exports later on.
I exactly see what you mean! Seeing on TV, for example a VBCI at full speed evacuating people from a crisis area, could be a good advertissement for GIAT...

[psyclops]

I'll be interested to see how VBCI does on operations; the French have always used a lot of wheeled vehicles, so they may have reason to be confident in their choice to use a wheeled IFV instead of a tracked one. As for Stryker, it certainly is not an IFV, but an APC. In this role, I think it's fine. The OIF vets I've seen talking about it on forums seem quite satisfied with it, noting its high speed (good for chasing after technicals), good ride, and resistance to IED damage (if a wheel gets blown off, it can still limp home, which tracked vehicles can not do). I'm not of the "light is right" ilk, but I'll be keeping an eye out for any AARs or the like from VBCI units.

[contedicavour]

Hmm the first 200 man sent are from the 13th engineering regiment, deploying VABs, and a lot of equipment to clear minefields, for water treatment, electric generator, etc etc..

But the official of the army headquarters have not yet tell what are the two regiment that are going to be sent ..


I exactly see what you mean! Seeing on TV, for example a VBCI at full speed evacuating people from a crisis area, could be a good advertissement for GIAT...

I've got more news on our deployment. First in will be 1,000 Marines from Lagunari and San Marco regiments. Then as of October the Pozzuolo del Friuli armoured cavalry heavy brigade will take over with 3 of its cavalry regiments (40 Centauro 8x8 120mm and 40 Puma 6x6 for each regiment), plus a couple of Ariete MBT companies (expect 25-30 MBTs) and a lot of Logistics and Engineering people. No information yet on artillery or on attack helos. Total land force : 2,700 people 100% deployed end October.
Strange thing though : after the 1st month, our carrier Garibaldi will go back to Italy, so no air cover. A bit worrying...
I hope your De Gaulle will be around just in case !

cheers

[Waylander]

Couldn't Cyprus be used as an airbase or ist the airbase there too small? As long as I know our Tornados are going to operate from Cyprus.

It looks like there will me much more heavy equipment than I expected.
And we managed to stay out of sending ground troops. On the one hand I think this is good because I do not really see that this operation is going to be short or successfull.
On the other hand it is laughable that our government wants to be a global player but if it comes to do something difficult we send naval, logistic and air units.

[swerve]

Couldn't Cyprus be used as an airbase or ist the airbase there too small? As long as I know our Tornados are going to operate from Cyprus.http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafakrotiri/index.htm

well, there's RAF Akrotiri - http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafakrotiri/index.htm

Although it only hosts a 84 sqn at the moment, it's a pretty big base, with lots of ancillary facilities (e.g. a hospital). It's technically British territory - a Sovereign Base Area.

[Waylander]

Some ground attack capable planes stationed on cyprus should be enough to enshure that air support is available if needed.
Which units of the RAF are normally stationed there?

[fylr71]

Any necessary air support could be based in Turkey. I know the Turks didn't want the US using their bases in the Iraq war. But this is a peace-keeping operation, and by letting Italy and/or other countries use Turkish air-bases would certainly help their bid to join the EU. If the Turks don't allow use of their bases, then the other options for air support (For Italy) are:

Deploy Garibaldi for more then a month.

Create an interim base in southern Lebanon

Recieve air support from the carriers of other countries involved in the effiort

Also, can the San Giorgio LPDs operate Harriers? If so, then that is another option.

[Waylander]

An interim base in south libanon?
Do you know how small this area is?

[TrangleC]

10400 square kilometers

[old faithful]

As well as a quantity to the Lebanon, Euromissile GmbH also sold at least 200 MILAN rounds and 20 launchers to Syria back in the late 1980s.

as well as to the mujahadeen in afghanistan during the 80,s,the russians found that out!

[Waylander]

The Lebanon south of the Litani is not much more tha 80km wide. I would not like to put the airbase of my CAS right into the middle of the crisis region were mortars could hit the airbase every time.
(BTW, is there even an usefull base in th south of Lebanon)

[swerve]

Any necessary air support could be based in Turkey. I know the Turks didn't want the US using their bases in the Iraq war. But this is a peace-keeping operation, and by letting Italy and/or other countries use Turkish air-bases would certainly help their bid to join the EU. If the Turks don't allow use of their bases, then the other options for air support (For Italy) are:

Deploy Garibaldi for more then a month.

Create an interim base in southern Lebanon

Recieve air support from the carriers of other countries involved in the effiort

Also, can the San Giorgio LPDs operate Harriers? If so, then that is another option.

Cyprus is nearer than Turkey. Why not use Akrotiri? It's underused at the moment. No capacity constraints. The RAF put Phantoms & Buccaneers there in the 1980s, & sometimes bases other aircraft there for short periods.

[contedicavour]

Any necessary air support could be based in Turkey. I know the Turks didn't want the US using their bases in the Iraq war. But this is a peace-keeping operation, and by letting Italy and/or other countries use Turkish air-bases would certainly help their bid to join the EU. If the Turks don't allow use of their bases, then the other options for air support (For Italy) are:

Deploy Garibaldi for more then a month.

Create an interim base in southern Lebanon

Recieve air support from the carriers of other countries involved in the effiort

Also, can the San Giorgio LPDs operate Harriers? If so, then that is another option.

The LPDHs can operate Harriers only for emergency air cover missions, with AIM120B and AIM9L and no extra fuel tanks or Paveways. Fuel load would be so limited that the jets can fly 100NM max with no time for loitering above target...
I would definitively opt for Akrotiri in Cyprus, where Tornado IDS can be based.

cheers

[Waylander]

Jup.
Some IDS/RECCE Tornados would be just perfect for air support, recon missions and sea patrol.

[eckherl]

You don't hear much good about the Stryker's performance in Iraq. The crews seem rather unsatisfied and i heard people call it a "death trap" and "coffin on wheels" and stuff like that.
I don't know what the specific problem is, (besides that i heard that crews are adding additional armour plates in their free time and there are even private organisations in the USA collecting money to buy extra armour for the Humvee and especially the Stryker), but considering that the Israelis will use it in pretty much the same terrain and under the same conditions as the US Army in Iraq, they might reconsider their order, given the bad publicity and advertisement.

Are the Strykers in use in Afghanistan too and if yes, how are they doing there?

edit:
The bad things i heard about the Stryker came mostly from chatting with soldiers and ex-soldiers and from a few tv reports on Iraq.
I only found one source i could link here now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14284-2005Mar30.html?sub=AR
Who told you that the troops do not like their Strikers, the reports that I am getting is that they want more of them, as far as adding additional armor, this is being controled at Army depot levels over there. You cannot take armor vehicles into any type of urban setting and expect that you are not going to lose vehicles, I do not care what country you are from, the Russians suffered also in Checnya, and some of the urban vehicles that they are experimenting with are beefed up tank hulls with weapons platforms ie:chain guns or auto cannons. A RPG - 7 round will take out a M1A1 if you hit it in the rear grill area and any other tank for that matter. The U.S Army likes it`s Striker vehicles and they have many different models that will be coming out.

[psyclops]

I would guess that most of the people dissatisfied with the Stryker are those who forget that its mission is to provide mobility for light infantry, and should thus be compared to HMMWVs, not Bradleys or Abrams or VCBIs or any sort of heavily-armored vehicle. That having been said, one soldier who had used both preferred using the Stryker in Iraq over the Bradley in part because the ride was so much better that his and his troops' situational awareness was better when it came time to debus.

On a different note, didn't the Israelis back off from their plan to order Strykers? Budget concerns, I was thinking, but I can't remember where I saw it, so I could be wrong.

[eckherl]

I would guess that most of the people dissatisfied with the Stryker are those who forget that its mission is to provide mobility for light infantry, and should thus be compared to HMMWVs, not Bradleys or Abrams or VCBIs or any sort of heavily-armored vehicle. That having been said, one soldier who had used both preferred using the Stryker in Iraq over the Bradley in part because the ride was so much better that his and his troops' situational awareness was better when it came time to debus.

On a different note, didn't the Israelis back off from their plan to order Strykers? Budget concerns, I was thinking, but I can't remember where I saw it, so I could be wrong.

Right now they are pretty much re evaluating alot of things with the recent events in Lebanon, it`ll be interesting to see what gets shaken up over there.

[oskarm]

OT
40 Centauro 8x8 120mm and 40 Puma 6x6 for each regiment)

I didn't know that you have Centauro with 120mm Guns. I thought you have only 105mm. Are 120mm Centauros replacing Leopards 1? Could you provide us with more specific TO&E of this kind regiments?

[eckherl]

OT


I didn't know that you have Centauro with 120mm Guns. I thought you have only 105mm. Are 120mm Centauros replacing Leopards 1? Could you provide us with more specific TO&E of this kind regiments?

You are correct - it carries a 105mm with 40 rounds of ammunition. Italy considers them as tank destroyers.

[icelord]

Who told you that the troops do not like their Strikers, the reports that I am getting is that they want more of them, as far as adding additional armor, this is being controled at Army depot levels over there. You cannot take armor vehicles into any type of urban setting and expect that you are not going to lose vehicles, I do not care what country you are from, the Russians suffered also in Checnya, and some of the urban vehicles that they are experimenting with are beefed up tank hulls with weapons platforms ie:chain guns or auto cannons. A RPG - 7 round will take out a M1A1 if you hit it in the rear grill area and any other tank for that matter. The U.S Army likes it`s Striker vehicles and they have many different models that will be coming out.

This is on more (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/10/transcript-briggen-ham-on-the-stryker-in-iraq/index.php#more)
It goes through the lessons from Iraq, a good read and the attacehed links give a good idea of the troops opinions, of course some people will hate it, but they would prefer to remain on base too.
Our October 2005 article "M1126 Strykers in Combat: Experiences & Lessons" offered a review of the Stryker armored personnel carrier's performance in Iraq. That performance came as a surprise to a number of individuals - including their commanders in some instances.

What follows is a transcript from the US Army's recent "Warrior's Corner" series (Oct 3/06). The presentation by Brigadier General Carter Ham, available in synchronized audio and Power Point, is titled "Stryker: Meeting the Challenge in Iraq." Brig.-Gen. Ham served with two of the Stryker Brigades, both at Fort Lewis, WA in 2003 and in Iraq during 2004. His views would appear to mesh with the Army's official position, but they are very definitely his own as well.

[eckherl]

This is on
It goes through the lessons from Iraq, a good read and the attacehed links give a good idea of the troops opinions, of course some people will hate it, but they would prefer to remain on base too.
Our October 2005 article "M1126 Strykers in Combat: Experiences & Lessons" offered a review of the Stryker armored personnel carrier's performance in Iraq. That performance came as a surprise to a numbeve r of individuals - including their commanders in some instances.

What follows is a transcript from the US Army's recent "Warrior's Corner" series (Oct 3/06). The presentation by Brigadier General Carter Ham, available in synchronized audio and Power Point, is titled "Stryker: Meeting the Challenge in Iraq." Brig.-Gen. Ham served with two of the Stryker Brigades, both at Fort Lewis, WA in 2003 and in Iraq during 2004. His views would appear to mesh with the Army's official position, but they are very definitely his own as well.

Good reading material, I have a friend that just rotated back to the states and has entered civilian life, he served on a stryker and fell in love with it, he was combat infantry and for the mission over there he stated that it was alot better being on one these versus a Bradley ie: smoother ride, better visibility.