« why extradite some schlubs ... why not extradite obama and holder, and the directors of a.t.f. and the f.b.i.? ... | Main | what would i do ... to integrate israeli armor & infantry? ... »

November 23, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

GM Roper

So far the Israeli's have succeeded only because the Arabs are so much more stupid. Let us pray it stays that way.

john jay


no prayer necessary for that.

it seems an ordained condition.


john jay

PacRim Jim

Outflank dug-in positions.
No more dug-in positions.


Is it not possible that Israel's population is too small to sustain combined arms warfare? In which case, its tactics can only be defensive and must focus on defeating the highly mobile armor and aircraft of its enemies, and abandoning any attempt to over run the enemy. Of course, this means the Lebanon invasion was doomed to failure.

john jay


yes, israel is a bit small to sustain combined arms warfare, or to occupy an enemy.

that is a different question, to my mind, however, than the issues discussed in my post.

i do not advocate either prolonged warfare nor occupation. i simply advocate the effective use of infantry and armor, which israel most certainly has, in the most effective tactical and strategic way possible. and, that means, integrated their use, so that infantry supports armor, and armor is available to help the infantry.

it is as simply as that.

it gets down to a gruesome simplicity. if you are gonna loose 3 soldiers, it is better that it be three infantrymen, as opposed to a three man crew along with a main battle tank.

both events are tragedies. it is silly to make it a tragedy accompanied by profligate loss of strategic material and weapons.

john jay

john jay


sorry. i meant "bob" when i wrote the salutation to "israel."


john jay

pac rim jim:

yes, maneuver is to be preferred.

sometimes you cannot do that. sometimes you just have to take the position.

it's best to know how to do it. and, to do it efficiently. war is not a brawl, you know, it is a science.

and, requires proficiency.

john jay


You're not 100% clear on the role the Don River played in Germany's debacle. The Don River did provide a tremendous amount of protection from a flank attack; until winter arrived and it froze solid. Then it offers no protection. That's key to understanding the German fortunes and misfortunes in 1942.

They were able to concentrate forces to assault The Caucasus and Stalingrad because the Don bend protected their northern flank; and so the "Don flank" was manned by substandard divisions from Germany's allies.

Once Germany stalled out on it's offensive goals, they found themselves way overextended, and when the Don froze, this matter turned critical. The Red Army went through the Don defenses like tissue paper and the rest is history. The critical error was Germany inability to conceive that a large river like the Don could freeze solid.

john jay


very interesting.

i'd never heard of this angle before.

john jay

The comments to this entry are closed.