You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
A critique of the IDF
2006-09-06
from the "Powerline" blog
On Thusday we noted that Jim Brown posted the link to an incredible 27-minute piece by an Israeli video journalist depicting Israel's war against Hezbollah: "To hell and back." . . .

UPDATE: James Sitlington III writes to comment:

I watched the video after your first reference to it and was struck by its candor and how it gives us an ability to take an unvarnished look into an IDF "Regular Army" Regiment.

A little background. I'm a West Point grad, and while on active duty in the 80's, had the luxury of working for exceptional leaders: Carl Vuono, Denny Reimer and Gary Luck. Vuono and Reimer became Chief of Staff of the Army, and Luck is still doing special ops stuff, though retired as a 4 star. They taught me lessons in leadership and training that are invaluable and serve me to this day.

I am a student of "leadership," particularly in the military sense, which brings me to my criticisms of the IDF as shown by this video, which I believe to be representative. This will sound harsh, but is given with the hope of being seen as constructive.

1) A Regiment was repulsed and therefore failed to complete its mission (the occupation of the village) by three terrorists.

2) Although unquestionably brave, the leaders, at all levels, in leading from the front, became consumed by one firefight, rather than focused on completing their mission.

3) After only four casualties, none of which were fatal, the commander withdrew, due solely to his participation in that firefight. (What about the flanking enemy that he was concerned about?)

4) There was a complete lack of coordination with other units, fire support, etc. after the initial pro-forma, 1800's style artillery barrage.

I could go on, but the sense I get is that the IDF is not ready for prime time. I have chatted with Yoni about my concerns as to why it took 24 hours to recover the dead following the first 531 firefight and wondered how many of those "bled out" waiting for help that never came.

In Europe, in the 80's the Soviet Army only gave radios to their leaders. Hence, you knew which tank was a leader by its having an antenna. Two antennas meant Company Commander, etc. So, kill the tank with antennas, and the rest of the tanks are leaderless. I fear the same is true with the IDF...Kill the first and second guy in, and you take out the leadership. There is no doubt the terrorists understand this.

I expect/hope that we will have some SF guys giving some urgent training on Company and Battalion level tactics and support to the IDF. I look for more OH-58 type helicopters to be purchased by the IDF, and I expect to hear of orders that Battalion Commanders will no longer "lead from the front." It is hard enough to command a battalion in combat, without adding the stress and exertion brought on by reverting to a Platoon Leader whenever the bullets begin to fly.

All the best, and God Bless Israel!

Jim Sitlington
I know there's a lot of active duty and former military people here in the 'Burg, and I'm very interested in your analysis. What do you guys think of this critique? (It seems correct to me, but everything I know about military science I learned from SPI and Avalon Hill, so I'm nowhere close to an expert.) Discuss.
Posted by:Mike

#14  My Old Man flew F-4s off the Coral Sea during Vietnam.

He said his squadron once had a visit from an IAF officer, who showed off some of their gun footage from the recent (Yom?) war with the Arabs.

In some of the footage, the Israeli pilot streaked past an Egyptian plane taking off from the runway, circled back, and shot him down once he was airborne.

You see, if wouldn't have counted as a kill if he were still on the runway ...

They were badasses then. But 50% of the budget?? -- "An Air Force can neither take nor hold ground .."
Posted by: Mizzou Mafia   2006-09-06 17:38  

#13  A millitary expert who gets his info by watching TV.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-09-06 11:40  

#12  Oops, you meant US survey miles -- 5632 km. Sorry for confusing units.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-06 09:40  

#11  On the GS F-15I Specs page, which in my hurry to provide a link I didn't check before posting #9, it indicates a range of 4450 km... Sheesh - so they meant round-trip, but neglected to say so - or one of the pages is in error.

ed - Your posted info would give them quite a bit of wiggle room for the limiting factors. 3500 US Nautical Miles = 6482 km. Looking at the GS Map...
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-06 09:39  

#10  F-15s have a 3500 mile (5600 km) ferry range with conformal tanks and 3 external tanks. Reaching Tehran (1600 km) with 2 LGBs isn't the problem. Getting through Syrian/Jordanian/Iraqi/Saudi/Turkish/Iranian airspace and back is.
Posted by: ed   2006-09-06 09:22  

#9  Okay, found the GS F-15 Ra'am link Key bit:

"In August 2003 the Israeli Air Force demonstrated the strategic capability to strike far-off targets such as Iran [which is 1,300 kilometers away], by flying three F-15 jets to Poland 1,600 nautical miles away."

That indicates a one-way trip - for both craft?
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-06 09:10  

#8  Link to Sharon ordering up the plan - sorry for omitting it.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-06 09:01  

#7  I've located the GS article on the F-16 Sufa - a Block 60 with a 2100 km range (Note that's a PDF). That suffices under expected conditions.

The F-15I Ra'am model is the one I referenced, though I have to admit I'm having real trouble re-locating the link, damnit. My apologies. The F-16 link indicates the range is on par with the F-16, but it's not listed in that PDF, which is considered a definitive source for the data it contains, or so I'm told.

If 2100 km, subtracting payload and routes and altitude and maneuvers will do the trick, then they have the capability. This is not 1981 and Israel has not been sitting on its hands for these 25 years... In this Dec, 2005 article (? 12.11.05) Sharon ordered the IAF to plan the mission. Must've had a reasonable presumption it could be done. Additionally, I doubt you'd have trouble finding Israeli pilots who would execute it as a one-way trip, if needed - bailing out somewhere that they could be picked up - say with one of those subs we've heard about.

Just FYI. I happen to believe they'll get to watch Iran's takedown, not execute it, but that's just me.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-06 08:59  

#6  I was basing on the range of the F16s who bombed Osirak. Despite being stripped of every "unneeded" weight (like ECM) they were so heavy (weeeeeell beyond the authorized limit) they could barely take off and on return they were on their last gallons when they landed.

I don't know if F15s could reach Teheran but there are a lot of places in Iran who are out of range for F15s, at least if the F15s have to fly at very low altitude like they did in the strike against Osirak. Now if Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Irak look the other way the F15s would be able to fly high and that increases range. I still doubt that even in optimal conditions they would be able to reach Eastern Iran and that is teh place where, if the mullahs are not complete idiots where the nuke facilities should be located.
Posted by: JFM   2006-09-06 08:16  

#5  JFM - Your comment regards the range of Israeli F-15s is incorrect according to a GlobalSecurity page I've seen posted here. I don't have the link handy, sorry. They would be required overfly some hostile territory, of course, but it indicated clearly they could make the round trip without refueling. Loiter time would be minimal, of course. Just FYI.
Posted by: flyover   2006-09-06 06:40  

#4  I think Du Plessi is off the mark. The problem is teh IDF ground army who in later years has been starved of money for training as the Air Force got over half the military budget. The Air Force has got plenty of training. In fact its pilots beat the American ones in maneuveers. Unfortunately with current resstrictive rules of engagement the IAF cannot be effective against terrorists who hide between civilians (BTW, this is a war crime)

Anyway this is a moot point because strikes against Iran would not be carried neither by the ground army nor by the IAF (Baghdad is the limit it can reach unless America refuels its planes or allow them landing in Irak) but by missile-launching subs operating in the Persian Gulf.
Posted by: JFM   2006-09-06 06:18  

#3  Laurent Arthur Du Plessis, journalist, writer and contributor to the "4 vérités" mag had said in several conservative radio talk shows that the USA would probably have to carry out the needed strikes against iran by themselves (which for him will trigger the "hot" WWIII he sees as inevitable due to muslim imperialism), since his assessment of the IDF was that it had been somewhat turned into a (really effective) "police force" by the two successive intifada, and that its purely "military" aspect (western style) had been degraded by this emphasis on internal counter-insurgency.

IE, the IDF has spent two decades fighting the paleos, and has lost some of its edge regarding "full scale" military ops in the process.

Don't know if that holds water, I'll let more savvy types comment.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-09-06 05:53  

#2  it surely was a poorly trained reserve unit.

All the israeli Army system is based on reserves (in order to compensate for the lack of manpower) so their reserves are supposed to get frequent recalls for retraining and be as good as the regular army, perhaps even better due to their greater experience and maturity (a bit like the pilots of the National Gurd who lick the guys of the USAF despite flying inferior planes and whose ground personel is able to refuel and repair the planes faster than the USAF peronel).

Something is rotten in the IDF ground army if they have let their reserves fall this low.
Posted by: JFM   2006-09-06 04:30  

#1  Having viewed the recording, I too was struck by how the mission evaporated. My only thought in watching it was that this couldn't have been the regulars, it surely was a poorly trained reserve unit.

Let's hope the recording was not viewed by any intelligent enemy.
Posted by: Captain America   2006-09-06 02:39  

00:00