Yes, yes, we all know that. But I do not think that any military historian would say that the reason Finland (mostly) held off Soviet Union, or that Soviet Union held off Third Reich (eventually), or that Britain did, or that France didn’t, or that this or that – was solely (even if they had American equipment!) because of they fought harder.
In fact, that would lead to some very strange conclusions. To stick with WWII because it is a fairly known war, does that mean that the Poland lost due to lack of motivation? Give me a cite on that.
If American equipment and the motivation of soldiers equals astonishing success, it would be very, very simple to win wars. I have a hard time accepting that as the answer to the OP. But it is possible to convince me because I don’t know the answer myself.
British equipment probably played as important a role as US equipment. Their armored force was mostly british based, in particular the Sho’t based on the Centurion. Less than a hundred of these stopped the syrian advance in the Valley of Tears during the Yom Kippur war.
Superior technology, intelligence, and strategy. The Israeli’s saw the Six Day War coming, they knew exactly how to cripple Egypts air force which was all that side had. The Yom Kippur War was ill-advised in military terms though politically successful. Israel was fighting for survival both times, the Arab/Egyptian side was not. As usual, international involvement ended both wars, and all the other Israeli military incursions. Without that Israel would control a huge triangle from Cairo to Amman to Beirut.
Morale and motivation are just parts of the whole thing. They can be very important parts and not to be minimized but they are still just a part of the overall puzzle. The folks at the Alamo did remarkably well considering how out numbered they were. Right to the point where they all died.
I would add in the battlefields were not so big so and spread out. Unlike WW1 and WW2 where it took a whole continent. Your talking Israel which is smaller than most states.
Of course the answer is not as simple as suggesting the Israelis were simply better motivated or that their arms were so much better (were the forces not relatively evenly matched technologically?) A real analysis should consider things like the more flexible command and control at all levels on the Israeli side.
ETA and yes the Israeli leaders were superb, combat-tested veterans. Note this does not mean all opposing generals were incompetent.
I didn’t include this in my OP because I didn’t want the thread to be steered exclusively in that direction but I am wondering about how it was even possible for so much to happen in 6 days. Less than a week is what Gulf War 1 took and the conventional operations of Gulf War 2 lasted about 3 weeks like the Yom Kippur war. Something seems to have happened in the decades after WWII which made such drastic actions possible.
I have my own hypotheses about that but I’d like to hear others’ first.
I think that the combination of tech and people trained to use it can wipe a military that doesn’t have that capability off the map in short order.
All those toys in the hands of a military force not able to take full advantage of it though is just a typical, 1940s era military. Or worse, a WWI-era military. Some militaries, like Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, had no concept of how to use air power or tanks effectively.
If one was to decide that adaher should lead the US army, I’d have them functioning like US Grant’s army. Maybe not even that well organized. And some of those third world military leaders are as qualified as I am to lead. They were chosen for loyalty, not skill.
Most of the israeli Air force planes in the 6 day war were french built. So it’s not just US tech. I think by 1973 Israel had switched to F-4 phantoms.
Once you’re actually fighting a war, every soldier will be fighting for their life. The difference is in what comes before then. Israel knew that a war was very likely to come, and that their survival depended on winning it, so they put a lot of effort into preparing for it, in getting the best equipment, and training their troops well, and so on. It was expensive, but they counted the cost worth it.
An Israeli gave me two explanations, one quite serious. The Russian advisors told the Egyptians to adopt their favorite strategy: retreat 1000 miles and wait for winter. More seriously, he explained to me that the Russian tanks had no air conditioning. A sealed tank in full sun in a middle eastern June will get incredibly hot. The Egyptians simply had to open the hatches and a grenade tossed into a tank will be remarkably devastating.
Of course, the first thing Israel was destroy the Egyptian air force. I think that was what did it.
Ok, so if Switzerland year 2020 is defeated by Russia, for the sake of discussion of course, would that mean that they did not put a lot of effort into preparing for war, did not invest in the best equipment and training, and of course, did not have enough American equipment and motivation?
Or could there perhaps be other factors at play here?
If not, great, then if only South Korea were aware of the fact that their survival was depended on winning the war on North Korea, and they put a lot of effort into preparing for the war, and getting the best (American) equipment, and training their troops well, and so on, although being expensive, but if them stupid Asians understood it was worth it – then they would be home free.
That’s great, and surely how it works, right? Also, American equipment. :rolleyes:
You need to research the bolded part. The Inchon landings were early in the conflict, 1950, well before the Chinese became involved. The landings relieved pressure on Pusan in the far south of Korea. They threatened to cut off the North Korean and surround them. Here is the wiki article: Battle of Inchon - Wikipedia
If Switzerland did like the Israelis did in 1967 and then was defeated by Russia, then indeed it would not have prepared properly. In 1967 Israel struck first. They knew that Egypt “et al.” were getting ready for war, so Israel prepared thoroughly to strike first. They began with a surprise attack that annihilated the better parts of their enemies’ militaries: the air forces. After that, with air superiority all over, Israel was able to basically mop up a thoroughly demoralized and badly shaken enemy.
In the war of Yom Kippur, it was the turn of Egypt and Syria to thoroughly surprise Israel. In 1973 Israel was the country that was not prepared for the war, to be frank. The fact that Israel was nonetheless able to avoid the fate of Egypt in 1967 and turn the situation around possibly has to do to the higher quality of the Israeli military (both in quality of training, and quality of leadership) and of their material (US, UK and French-based material that, on top of it, was also possibly better maintained in general), as well as US assistance and also that Israel was fighting with the knowledge that, if they lost, it was the end of Israel.
So, in these particular cases I would say that, indeed, these seem to be the reasons for Israel to win against a numerically superior opponent.
This is as I understood it your answer to the question why Israel was to successful in the six days war. “Every soldier fights for their life”, you say, and it is not upwards since then. This seems to me to one of the dumbest, most uninformed threads I ever participated in, in GQ (disclaimer: haven’t read all the replies yet); and I’m here because I got really interested in the factual answer of it. I pretty much don’t anything about this war (which is why I’m here), but “brave soldiers” and “American equiment” doesn’t really do it for me when I’m diving into a thread of why the Israeli Army was so succesful. Consequently, I’m annoyed. Sorry if that shows in my posts.
