View Single Post
Old 08-16-2006, 02:14 AM   #4
ReM
Commodore
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Brewsky, Galore
Posts: 618
Downloads: 12
Uploads: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahoshua
Perhaps what is needed, is not a revolution of technology but a change in tactics.

What is done now by Israel is to send in the tanks either with a handful of troops or air support.

What needs to be done is the "Russian Rush." In where artillery shells a position while tanks and infantry advance under the cover of artillery bombardment. With tanks on the vanguard they take the most hits, infantry is just as vulnerable. This way, the enemy is suppressed until the ground forces are ontop of the enemy position, thereby destroying the AT units first and then proceeding on with shock troops/armor and pin-point airstrikes as needed.

So the question becomes of who to sacrifice? The tank or the footsoldier?

Although this is a pointless question for Israel (the tank goes first, and I kid you not when I say this) I'd rather sacrifice a couple soldiers and take out an AT obstacle than let the tank get hit and have no real firepower or moving cover for the footsoldiers.
These are nice tactics when engaging a regular army, but Hezbollah is not a regular army; it operates more guerilla-style......you unleash hell over their suspected positions and then rush with all your armour and infantry, only to find that there is nobody left to fight with....!

History has enough examples how difficult it is for regular armies to defeat an opponent that uses guerilla tactics (Vietnam, Afghanistan - Russian and US occupation- , present day Iraq). You can add the latest Israeli incursion into Lebanon to this list.....it was not the quick fix the Israelis expected, nor the victory that Hezbollah claims....

There is definately a role for the MBT on the battle field; in this case the MBT was just not well-used....
__________________
Daddy cool
ReM is offline   Reply With Quote