Posted on 08/30/2006 3:51:22 AM PDT by Flavius
Why did the safest tank in the world not withstand the second Lebanon war? Too many times during the recent war, the man in the tank was defeated. The Armored Corps is examining itself, and revealing that the failure derives from budgets cuts, but also from improper use of the tanks in enemy territory, as a result of inexperience of soldiers in the field.
Fifty Israel Defense Forces tanks were damaged during the 34 day war in Lebanon , 30 soldiers and officers from the corps were killed and more than 100 were injured, including two battalion commanders. These are the statistics from the recent conflict.
Despite Merkava tank's rank of safest tank in the world, massive damage caused by antitank missiles. Armored Corps claims soldiers were not trained enough, basic tank gear missing
A senior defense establishment official told Ynet: "Some 350 to 400 tanks took part in the battles in Lebanon, and we can already posit that they stood against a few thousand antitank missiles, most of them with excellent penetration capacities."
According to the official, "it is possible to see from this that Hizbullah operatives were familiar with the tanks, their characteristics, they knew when and where to shoot in order to inflict the most damage."
Conditions in the armored corps prior to the war were not the best: many soldiers dealt with day-to-day security issues outside of the tanks, instead of undergoing significant field training in the tanks, similar to what they underwent in Lebanon.
Additionally, the corps did not receive top priority among senior defense establishment officials. Budget cuts took a heavy toll on armored units. According to the official, the armored vehicles were not used properly.
"In the battles in Lebanon, the tanks did not move and shoot. They remained 'static'. Instead of taking advantages of the tank's many capabilities, they underscored the tank's weakness, leading to heavy damages," said another senior official, who stated that the capabilities of the IDF's newest tank – the Merkava-4 – were barely utilized in the war.
"Our tanks are the most armored in the world, but there's no such thing as 100 percent protected. Only if you take advantage of their capabilities, can you ensure minimal damages," he explained.
The conditions for the armored corps were so harsh that the official referred to the tanks as "a person with one hand tied behind his back that turns his cheek to be slapped. Then people ask why he was hurt."
No budget, no smoke shield
Another depressing statistic: Twenty-two tanks sustained hits that penetrated their steal armor (in ten of the tanks, there were 23 fatalities; in the rest, severe damage was caused to the vehicle). Forty-four percents of the tanks hit by missiles had their armor penetrated. During the first Lebanon War , this happened to 47 percent of the tanks and in the Yom Kippur war, 60 percent.
In the last two days of the war, in the battles in Wadi Sluki and Marjayoun, 14 tanks were hit. The IDF decided that five of the tanks could not restore five of these tanks, two of which had been damaged by underbelly explosives (one of them a Merkava-4) and three of which had been demolished by antitank missiles.
In addition to cuts in the Armored Corps' procurement budget (down from NIS 1 billion to some NIS 750 million – about USD 170 million), many of the tank systems 'disappeared.' For example, the mortar shells field. The launching barrel remained, but no shells were purchased.
In addition, reserve soldiers called up to the war were astonished to discover that they are meant to enter Lebanon without a smoke shield in the tank. Shielding the area where the tank is stationed makes it possible to disguise it and prevent the enemy from firing on it. Due to the budgetary cuts, this option was prevented from the soldiers in the field.
Well, they always look pretty lined up in the motor pool. The enemy adapts and gets a vote.
Sad, sad!
For the same reason the ground war did not go as fast as all expected. The Chief of Staff is an Air Force General and as I understand it from listening and reading he convinced the PM to go with an air campaign (which is worthless against terrorist who could care less about building, bridges, or other people). The ground forces were sent in piece meal so they were subject to more intense fire than if they had made a major assault with all combined forces doing their jobs. Anytime you piece meal your ground forces you risk greater losses. Overwhelming force and fast strikes with a defined goal (the river) and then a sweep back would have destroyed the Hezdevils to a much greater extent than was done with air strikes and a piece meal ground assault.
The title is a bit misleading. The tanks did well in comparison to previous wars, and they did well in spite of the problems listed. No armor is perfect. Sherman tank units had to learn in WWII how to exploit their advantages. A lot of men died and many tanks destroyed before they figured things out.
Also, unlike say the wide open Sinai Desert of the Yom Kippur or Six Day War, or the Deserts of the Gulf War ,or North AFrica of WW2 or the plains of Kharkov/Kursk in WW2, the hillly/rocky/foliage laden terrain of southern Lebanon is not exactly ideal terrain.
That said, 90%+ of the tanks used were unhit, the vast majority of those that were hit were quickly repaored and returned to service within 24 hours or less, and the casualties, while sad, were historically low in comparison to previous wars. The vast majority of the ATGMs fired by Hezbollah were ineffective.
The bottom line is that I don't care how good you are, when you take on an enemy in his terrain and when he's had 6+ yeras to set up defensive positions and plan for your attack, and he has an arsenal of thousands of the most advanced and latest technology ATGMs and hundreds if not thousands of troops trained to use them, you're gonna get hit.
The IDF will learn from this and will do even better next time.
IDF already knew. It wasn't a case of learning. It was political, military leadership. I wonder what this does to moral when soldiers show up at warehouses and find out their equipment is gone like in some third world country.
The Israeli media is worse than ours when it comes to doom and gloom. According to an IDF officer 29 tanks were hit, 25 of them were back to action within 24 hours, and this is out of 400 tanks that operated in Lebanon! I think that is not a bad success at all.
The impossible expectations of a “PERFECT WAR” that the media and many analysts want from the IDF and US military is driving me crazy and is badly damaging us in the PR war. This is absolutely insane.
Out of 400 tanks that operated in Lebanon how many tanks did you expect to be hit? 1, 2, none, give us a number. Get real guys, just het real.
What bothers me the most, not only about this, but also what's goin on in Iraq, is the attitude of the media and of the liberal elites. They are generating a sense that we can't fight a war because the other side might shoot at us. It's a war. You have to expect the enemy to fight back and to take losses. That doesn't mean you shy from a necessary fight because you might get hurt. Why do they want our brave men to be cowards?
>Why do they want our brave men to be cowards?
Because misery likes company.
Oh, and because they want us to lose.
This is why you fight a war to completion. If you don't the enemy learns your tactics and your weaknesses as well as their own. They adapt and in the second round you get bloodied. In the first Iraq war we kicked their butts, then we gave them 10 years to figure out a better strategy.
In my opinion, Israel, with the 4th biggest airforce in the world, was too kind and careful with their air campaign. They are less PC than we are about who not to bomb but they should have softened up the area a lot more before sending tanks in. The tanks should have been there to make roads out of dead terrorist bodies.
I think you have the right strategy.
Two problems here.
1) political leadership.
2) sloppy training.
I agree with everything you just said. As for the quality of the ATGM's, I suspect that they were a mix of older, less capable systems and newer systems. Those Hezbollah bunkers must have had missiles sitting in them that were put there years ago.
I'm sure that the IDF will do an analysis of the battle damage to their tanks. It will be highly classified, and it will try to get a handle on the perfomance of the various enemy ATGM's from the battle damage to the Merks.
Not only air, but artillery.
If a town had been identified as an ATGM strongpoint in the Israeli counterattacks in the Yom Kippur War, they'd have leveled the town, with air, artillery, whatever was available.
War cannot be fought on a PC basis by one side, while the other fights down and dirty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.