![2000px-Six_Day_War_Territories.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/HyFbPkr.png "2000px-Six_Day_War_Territories.svg[1].png")
How come half of the Sunni Arab world was unable to stop an army a fraction of its size hailing from a strip of land not much larger than New Jersey? Was this loss as completely humiliating as it seems, or was there a silver lining?
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
>>1421311
US dollaroos
>>1421311
I dunno, why was all of gaul unable to stop a few legions?
arabs can't into combined arms
>>1421318
We need a robot that auto-posts this in every thread.
Arabs are fucking morons when it comes to military, that's all there is to it.
t. friend was an Eastern Bloc military instructor in Arab countries during the Cold War
>>1421719
>>1421727
>shit from 7th century
Top lel. Romans also used to be great warriors in the antiquity but modern Italy is an absolute joke when it comes to military.
>>1421727
Yeah, let's ignore the centuries in between where the Caliphate of Arabs slacked off and fobbed fighting to other races, only to find themselves TURKICED by the end of the 1100s.
>>1421744
everyone gets turked in the end
>>1421749
we even turked ourselves no escaping it
![M51[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/8SnMlIs.jpg "M51[1].jpg")
American engineering
>>1421740
>Ancient Romans = Modern Italians
>>1421311
>Was this loss as completely humiliating as it seems, or was there a silver lining?
yeah,
>>1421311
Why is "Muh Size" even relevant here?
Heck at this point of history we have shown about a dozen examples of Smallers Countries/Empires/City States beating a Much Bigger force
>>1421318
/thread
>>1421318
>Article written in 1999
>theories confirmed years later by Iraqi army losing Desert Storm 2 but the civilian insurgents beating the US army.
Bravo.
>>1424272
Because manpower plays a huge role in longer conflicts (which arab/israeli wars were not)
>>1421875
Gotta love this thing, a Sherman that can destroy T-55s will always have a special place in my heart.
>>1424650
>Civilian insurgents beating the US army
Yeah, that is exactly what happened.
>>1421318
Bullshit, it's a lack of NCO's and organic firepower, the same reason why any army ever loses.
>>1424218
Genetically, yes.
>>1424218
>Ability to wage war is related to ethnicity
>every single roman was raped out of existence
>>1424831
Do you ever wonder why they lack NCO's?
>>1421674
Not in the 6 Days War. Israel did receive U.S. miliary aid in the Yom Kippur War however. The U.S. actually wasn't very supportive of Israel until after the Six Days War. The U.S. in the 50s vied with the Soviets for support from Egypt against Israel since they thought Israel would be in the Soviets' hands. even in the Yom Kippur War Israel only gained aid by promising not to preemptively attack, which is one of the main reasons they did so bad initially especially in comparison to the Six Days War
>>1424862
Because they were recently formed, and there were no arab combat veterans of WW2, while the Isrealis could call upon and recruit a ton of former veterans, which is what NCO's are.
>>1424915
Why do they still not have a decent NCO culture despite the countless wars against the Israelis/each other since the 50's though?
>>1421727
Truly the drawn sword of God, alhamdulillah.
>>1424272
why are you even asking this question?
Heck, at this point of history, we have shown about a dozen examples of people fapping to the underdog scenario.
also,
>mfw google for david and mostly get images of israeli missiles
>>1421311
Because we're not telling the whole story, there were basically 3 major wars between Arabs and Israelis, and ignoring all outside support, here's how it went down.
1948: Pan-Arabism had just started, several newly independent Arab countries sent small battalions as proof of commitment to the newly formed alliance, not knowing what they were up against, the troops were sent in with no plans, no training and no coordination, against thousands of battle-hardened jews, fresh from WWII.
1967: Israel primitively struck several Arab forces on the ground without declaring war, and in a matter of 6 days they were able to annex a large swath of (largely uninhabited) lands, before the Arabs even got a chance to regain their composer, this lead to the, often forgotten, "War of Attrition" (1968), in which both Arabs and Israelis were evenly matched in the battlefield, but the results were inconclusive, leading to both Israel and Egypt claiming victory.
1973: This time the Arabs primitively struck Israel, and it was pretty much the 1967 war in reverse, at least on the Egyptian side, but again, the results were inconclusive, with a slight Egyptian edge. This one shook up Israelis to the core, and lead to the purge of all its military commanders and political posts, including its PM. So, you can't really say that Israel won this one.
>>1421318
nice meme, pic related
>>1425036
>7th century
>dat eastern european christendom
delet this
>>1425036
Shitskin detected, go back to the sand dunes Mohammed
>>1424272
Manpower. The obvious truth is that if all Arab countries actually performed as planned, they would overrun the country with ease, but instead they waited for the other guys to do the dirty job which allowed IDF to consolidate and wreck them one by one.
Basically Arabs are backstabbers with no fucking balls, once you realise it you'll understand why they're so easily defeated.
>>1425036
Thank god they regained their composers though. So many symphonies could have been lost
>>1425036
>1973: This time the Arabs primitively struck Israel, and it was pretty much the 1967 war in reverse, at least on the Egyptian side, but again, the results were inconclusive, with a slight Egyptian edge. This one shook up Israelis to the core, and lead to the purge of all its military commanders and political posts, including its PM. So, you can't really say that Israel won this one.
And it's time for reality:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
Egypt alone had ~twice as many armies, total it was around 2,5 times more people. In equipment it's similar - Arabs had twice as many tanks(all tanks were more or less as modern as others you've had Shermans fighting IS-3's with Centurions fighting T-55's in the other places), 1,25 times more APC's, twice as many artillery pieces, around the same number of airplanes
Casualties - up to 11k men for Israel(up to 3k dead), 1000 tanks, 400 APC's, 100-300 airplanes. Outside of planes the differences between upper and lower figure are very slight
Now we're going to Arabs - Casualties in men over 50k, up to 8-18k dead, 2300 tanks lost, 300-500 airplanes(again). Apart from tanks differences between upper and lower figures are obscene. It kinda shows you how well organised they were
So to sum it up, they've lost 5 times as many men, 2,3 times as many tanks 1,6 times as many airplanes. All of this for:
The Egyptian army occupied the eastern coast of the Suez Canal with the exception of the Israeli crossing point near Deversoir
The Israeli army occupied sixteen hundred square kilometers of territory on the southwestern coast of the Suez Canal, within 100 km from Cairo, and encircled an Egyptian enclave in the east bank
The Israeli army occupied five hundred square kilometers of the Syrian Bashan, on top of the Golan Heights, which brought it within 20 miles of Damascus
So - small concessions for Egyptians, territorial gains for Israel. If that's inconclusive then German invasion on Poland in 1939 was inconclusive
>>1425289
>wikipedia
ok.
>Egypt alone had ~twice as many armies, total it was around 2,5 times more people
Egypt is a big country, and numbers are not really a big advantage in modern warfare. Just ask Russia.
>In equipment it's similar
No, it wasn't. Arabs only had the USSR as a military supplier, and they had been refused several armament requests after the 1967 disaster, in which the USSR saw a lot of its state of the art equipments being collected by Western-allied Israel. While Israel was supplied by the US, France, UK and (apartheid) South Africa, with no restrictions (up to nuclear weaponry).
>they've lost 5 times as many men, 2,3 times as many tanks 1,6 times as many airplanes.
>number of causalities determine war results
>The Israeli army occupied sixteen hundred square kilometers of territory on the southwestern coast of the Suez Canal, within 100 km from Cairo, and encircled an Egyptian enclave in the east bank
You'll need to define "occupied" here, because that is not what sneaking undetected for several miles in the desert means, as they couldn't even occupy the non-militarized city of Ismailia (the first inhabited area west of the canal).
Now, let's talk about the real results.
1. All Israeli top military posts sacked
2. All Israeli government figures resigned
3. Egypt regained all its lost territories back in negotiations
Sure that sounds like a winning side, doesn't it?
>>1425487
>Numbers are not really a big advantage in modern warfare
Nice to know that everyone should just ignore you now.
>>1424831
That's literally what the article says though.
>>1425533
so, you're saying China would win against the US?
>>1425580
Manpower is quite important in all wars. What you're talking about is the lack of equipment.
>>1425580
So you're admitting that Arabs are incompetent at warfare.
>>1425580
>winter war
overrated
picrelated
>>1425602
Compared to Israelis
Then again even the Soviets failed big time when they went against Israel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20
>>1421727
Two centuries later and they were scared shitless of the romans.
The initial wave of arab attacks came on the heels of an apocalyptic 30 year war that saw the empire overrun, the border regions devastated, its armies smashed, and Constantinople under siege.
It was utterly incapable of mounting a serious defense.
Also, the battle of hazir is bullshit. It's very unlikely they had any capacity to muster that many men in a single place.
>>1425667
>No, I'm saying Israel had superior weaponry, and they still managed to get beat in 1973
Well, the Soviets had been throwing tanks and surface to air missiles at the Arabs. I'm glad you agree that Russian equipment is trash.
But I wouldn't call fending off a surprise attack on two fronts "getting beat"
More of a total victory, frankly.
>>1425487
>Egypt is a big country, and numbers are not really a big advantage in modern warfare.
You are a fucking moron.
>>1425580
In a straight land engament?
That's an open question.
If you cut the US military in half, because >Numbers are not really a big advantage in modern warfare
We're living under The Party in six months.
>>1425689
>Well, the Soviets had been throwing tanks and surface to air missiles at the Arabs
nothing at the scale or technological level as what the US, UK, France and SA had been throwing at Israel.
>I'm glad you agree that Russian equipment is trash.
I don't think I ever heard anyone arguing for the contrary, at least not when comparing it to Western equipments
>But I wouldn't call fending off a surprise attack on two fronts "getting beat"
That's the thing, they failed at that, unless you didn't consider occupied Sinai an Israeli front?
>>1425745
>You are a fucking moron.
great argument, not sure how to respond to that, "no you"?
>If you cut the US military in half
I didn't say numbers don't matter, nor even that it isn't an advantage, just that it's no longer "a big advantage" when everything else is considered (equipments, intelligence, air power, strike range, economy, terrain, etc)
>>1421318
Interesting read, thanks.
