Israel's most dangerous enemy.
- Status
Marksman
Active member
well,see Egyptians attacked you back in 1948 with several peaces until '67
and they are just you know tourist nation they cant have a war it would ruin them.On the other hand syrians(my vote)you messed up with them too,as they cooperated with egypt back in late 60',they look as an potencial enemy to me.
and they are just you know tourist nation they cant have a war it would ruin them.On the other hand syrians(my vote)you messed up with them too,as they cooperated with egypt back in late 60',they look as an potencial enemy to me.
Mark Conley
Active member
My personal opinion is that the Syrians are the more potential threat.
In respect to the other countries, the Syrians have the shortest route into the land. Even Egypt and Jordan have quite a lot of arid empty desert in most cases that provide a buffer space, if you want to call it that, to act as a time of assembly for the Israel forces. But Syria is only separated by the Golan: even though its just mountain, still it provides the quickest way into Israel. If they especially feel froggy, they can come in through Lebanon.
That and the status of their forces still remain strong. Throw on top of that a still smoldering resentment of the last couple of times they had their hats handed to them, and you do have the makings for a motivated enemy
Kind of serious...Id be a little worried too. :shock:
In respect to the other countries, the Syrians have the shortest route into the land. Even Egypt and Jordan have quite a lot of arid empty desert in most cases that provide a buffer space, if you want to call it that, to act as a time of assembly for the Israel forces. But Syria is only separated by the Golan: even though its just mountain, still it provides the quickest way into Israel. If they especially feel froggy, they can come in through Lebanon.
That and the status of their forces still remain strong. Throw on top of that a still smoldering resentment of the last couple of times they had their hats handed to them, and you do have the makings for a motivated enemy
Kind of serious...Id be a little worried too. :shock:
FutureRANGER
Active member
Hey Sherman, I got a question. (Hope I don't sound like an idiot) Don't they all usually band together and attack you at the same time anyway?
:?:
:?:
Italian Guy
Milforum Hitman
I would say the Syrians. Same reasons as Conley's plus the fact that they never chilled own.
DTop
Active member
Let's take a look at the conflicts involving these nations one at a time.
1. Israel's War of Independence (1948-9) = Israel was invaded by 6 Arab armies; Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As well as local Arab forces.
2. The Sanai War (1956 = The conquest of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula by Israel.
3. The Six-Day War (1967) = Israel crushed Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
4. The Yom Kippur (Ramadan) War (1973) = Egypt and Syria attacked Israel and failed.
5. The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (1982-1984) = Israel defeated a large Syrian army in Lebanon rather handily.
Source: http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html
Arab Losses:
1. Egypt – 2,000; Syria – 1,000; Trans(Jordan) – 1,000
2. Egypt – 3,000
3. Egypt – 10,000; Syria – 1,000; Jordan – 5,000
4. Egypt – 5,000; Syria – 8,000; Jordan – 1,000
Source: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/casualties.html
Sherman, I don’t really see any real clear choice there!
1. Israel's War of Independence (1948-9) = Israel was invaded by 6 Arab armies; Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. As well as local Arab forces.
2. The Sanai War (1956 = The conquest of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula by Israel.
3. The Six-Day War (1967) = Israel crushed Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
4. The Yom Kippur (Ramadan) War (1973) = Egypt and Syria attacked Israel and failed.
5. The Israeli Invasion of Lebanon (1982-1984) = Israel defeated a large Syrian army in Lebanon rather handily.
Source: http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html
Arab Losses:
1. Egypt – 2,000; Syria – 1,000; Trans(Jordan) – 1,000
2. Egypt – 3,000
3. Egypt – 10,000; Syria – 1,000; Jordan – 5,000
4. Egypt – 5,000; Syria – 8,000; Jordan – 1,000
Source: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/casualties.html
Sherman, I don’t really see any real clear choice there!
lol
Well, Dtop, you need to look at it in terms of achivments, not losses(which the arabs take little notice of).
1948- Jordan is only arab nation to keep a part of the mandat(west bank).
1956-Egypt got kicked around.
1967- All of them get kicked around...
1973- Egypt crosses the canal, forcing its way into sinay, almost braking the IDFs southern command. Syria reaches the edge of the Golan, almost pooring down into Israel itself. Then we turn the tide, and kick them around. However, Egypt achives its goal when the peace treaty with Israel is sighned a few years later, giving
egypt Sinay.
1982-Well, we kicked the Syrians around. Should never have staid in lebannon, stupid move.
Well, Dtop, you need to look at it in terms of achivments, not losses(which the arabs take little notice of).
1948- Jordan is only arab nation to keep a part of the mandat(west bank).
1956-Egypt got kicked around.
1967- All of them get kicked around...
1973- Egypt crosses the canal, forcing its way into sinay, almost braking the IDFs southern command. Syria reaches the edge of the Golan, almost pooring down into Israel itself. Then we turn the tide, and kick them around. However, Egypt achives its goal when the peace treaty with Israel is sighned a few years later, giving
egypt Sinay.
1982-Well, we kicked the Syrians around. Should never have staid in lebannon, stupid move.
Animal Mother
Active member
Well, the Jordanians have traditionaly had the best trained forces of those three?
The Arab Legion in 1948 and the only ones on the oposition to use mobile warfare on a large scale in 1967, the Egyptians and Syrians mostly buried their tanks as bunkers.
The Jordanian army today is pretty well equipped too IIRC.
The Arab Legion in 1948 and the only ones on the oposition to use mobile warfare on a large scale in 1967, the Egyptians and Syrians mostly buried their tanks as bunkers.
The Jordanian army today is pretty well equipped too IIRC.
Well, thats true in a way, I guss. The Jordanians are the best trained, largely due to their relations with the British Army. But relly, since 1967 the Jordanians are scared to death of Israel....You have to understand how small the Jordanian army is in comparison with the IDF....Plus the Jordanians see the Syrians as hostile(Israel acctually prevented the Syrian from invading Jordan in 1970). In 1967 the Jordanians tryed to use their tanks on offensive, but they did not stand a chance, because of IAFs air-supiriority.
I think overall, the Egyptians are the most succsesfull, mainly because of 1973.
I think overall, the Egyptians are the most succsesfull, mainly because of 1973.
Slight deviation off the main topic...
correct me if i'm wrong but the pakis claim that they loaned fighter aircraft and pilots to the arabs during the wars that these guys creamed the IsAF's butt!! :shoothea:
now look i know it sounds mighty exaggerated but even so..whats your take on this piece of "info"?
correct me if i'm wrong but the pakis claim that they loaned fighter aircraft and pilots to the arabs during the wars that these guys creamed the IsAF's butt!! :shoothea:
now look i know it sounds mighty exaggerated but even so..whats your take on this piece of "info"?
furioustote
New Member
Jordan, hands down.
First they were British trained, not Soviet as with the Syrians and Egyptians.
Second they were Western equiped. Centurion MBTs and other Western equipment, not Soviet junk.
Third they were the least aggressive and ambitious. They're desire to push the Jews into the sea seems to have been significantly less than that of the Egyptians and Syrians. Why, I couldn't say.
Fourth when beaten they retreated in good order and were not routed pell mell the way the Syrians and Egyptians were.
But that's just my opinion.
furioustote
First they were British trained, not Soviet as with the Syrians and Egyptians.
Second they were Western equiped. Centurion MBTs and other Western equipment, not Soviet junk.
Third they were the least aggressive and ambitious. They're desire to push the Jews into the sea seems to have been significantly less than that of the Egyptians and Syrians. Why, I couldn't say.
Fourth when beaten they retreated in good order and were not routed pell mell the way the Syrians and Egyptians were.
But that's just my opinion.
furioustote
- Status