Why the Royal Australian Air Force went for Israeli Python-4 AAM's over US AIM-9L's

(phil hunt) wrote in message ...
On 15 Jul 2003 11:12:59 -0700, JGB wrote:
[...]
Gee, it seems you have been parroting exactly the opposite; any
atrocity committed against Palestinians by Israelis is OK, but golly,
heaven forbid the Palestinians do likewise...

Again! Arabs, starting with Muhammad, drew first BLOOD! Capice? THey killed
Jews first! Unless you can prove to me from ANY source that JEws killed
an Arab first! Even from Islamic literature! He who kills first should not
complain when he gets his desserts last.

Just out of interest, JGB, have you ever read Orwell's _Notes On
Nationalism_?

No. But I would assume that just like 1984, it is most likely dated
and irrevelevant by now. I have always much preferred Aldous Huxley's
"Brave New World" which to me seemed far more prophetic and relevant.
At any rate, is there anything useful from "Notes on Nationalism" that I
ought to know?

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:54:26,
(Arie Kazachin) wrote:

In fact, US made every effort not to make public ANY help from Israel
in fighting against muslims. We wouldn't know that US B-52s were protected
(among other things) by Israeli made air-launched decoys if there wasn't
a small parachute found in Baghdad with "TAAS Jerusalem" printed on it.
Needless to say, this was only briefly mentioned in the news and never
repeated again.

The procurement of TALD by the US is something that has been admitted
openly for some years (IIRC it was acknowledged as far back as Desert
Storm in 1991) so any claims the US was trying to conceal such a thing
is misguided. As for it's brief mention, why would it merit more?

In message - "David Pugh"
-cay writes:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
news
The missions had to be flown. They weren't flown from Israel. Part of
being a reliable ally is providing bases and flight rights. Israel
wasn't useful.

As I recall, the primary reason they were not flown from Israel was that the
US didn't want to fly them from Israel (launching attacks from Israel
against a Muslim country -- even if flown by the US -- could have
destabilized the coalition).



In fact, US made every effort not to make public ANY help from Israel
in fighting against muslims. We wouldn't know that US B-52s were protected
(among other things) by Israeli made air-launched decoys if there wasn't
a small parachute found in Baghdad with "TAAS Jerusalem" printed on it.
Needless to say, this was only briefly mentioned in the news and never
repeated again.


************************************************** ****************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: *
************************************************** ****************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my domain-name. Sorry, SPAM trap.
___
.__/ |
| O /
_/ /
| | I HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO GO !!!
| |
| | |
| | /O\
| _ \_______[|(.)|]_______/
| * / \ o ++ O ++ o
| | |
| |
\ \_)
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\ |
\_|

In article ,
(JGB) writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , JGB
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.

In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like

....
ISrael generally
has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.

By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.

I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.

The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(JGB) writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , JGB
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.

In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like

....
ISrael generally
has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.

By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.

I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.

The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.

But didn't the Syrians use the old German Panther as late as 56 (if not 67)?

Brooks

In message , JGB
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.

I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

Precisely. There's a good argument that the best MBT in the world in
1967, would have been a Chieftain with a reliable engine (Something
the Israelis have always shown talent for). Particularly since the
Chieftain replaced the Centurion... Looking at the design choices the
Israelis made with the Merkava (needs excellent protection, lots of
ammunition, top speed doesn't matter too much but does need to be able
to cross bad ground) the Chief would have been a much better bet than
the Centurion.

Certainly supplementing them with US M60s gets you very little: it's not
a _bad_ tank but it's far from "the best in the world". Israel didn't
choose the best, it accepted what it could get and then trained the
crews well.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

In article ,
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(JGB) writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , JGB
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.

In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like

....
ISrael generally
has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.

By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.

I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.

The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.

But didn't the Syrians use the old German Panther as late as 56 (if not 67)?

Not Panthers, but Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzer IVs. Reportedly, some
were still in service in 1967. I don't recall Syria having any part
of the 1956 war, other than providing a haven for the Egyptian Air
Force. Until the attempted forming of the United Arab Republic with
Egypt, Syria was pretty much too poor to buy weapons, and not as
attractive a Soviet client as the Egyptians.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(JGB) writes:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...
In message , JGB
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
No nation is immune to the "home field advantage" argument.

In most cases, I agree, but with Israel NOT when it comes to such
decisive weapons as air to air missiles, radars, and the like

....
ISrael generally
has to fight alone and MUST win its major wars or lose the country.
ISraeli pilot MUST have equipment second to none on the planet, or possibly
lose the country, no matter who manufactures it.

By that argument, Israel would never have accepted the M60 tank for
frontline use, let alone kept it this long (to say nothing of the
upgunned Shermans...) Again, the history flatly contradicts your claims.

I thought that in '67 Israel's frontline MBT was the British Centurion.

It was a mix. Centurions, many of them upgunned to 105mm L68 guns,
ex-FRG M-48s, and uprated Shermans, for the MBTs. AMX-13s for light
tanks. Some AMX 105mm SP howitzers, a bunch of M7 105mm SP Hows,
picked up from junkyards around the world, and M3 (WHite Halftrack)
APCs, for the Mech forces. The Infantry folks rode in whatever they
could get, ranging from taxicaps to semitrailers to buses, and had
various flavors of 105mm and 155m towed artillery.

The ex-German tanks wer kinda purchesed in a backdoor manner, too.

But didn't the Syrians use the old German Panther as late as 56 (if not 67)?

Not Panthers, but Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzer IVs. Reportedly, some
were still in service in 1967. I don't recall Syria having any part
of the 1956 war, other than providing a haven for the Egyptian Air
Force. Until the attempted forming of the United Arab Republic with
Egypt, Syria was pretty much too poor to buy weapons, and not as
attractive a Soviet client as the Egyptians.

Thanks. So the Israelis were not the only military paupers in the
region, at least until sometime after 56. One has to wonder if the
Syrian PzKw IV's ever engaged Israeli Super Shermans in 67 or during
the years immediately prior.

Brooks

Kevin Brooks wrote:
SNIP
Thanks. So the Israelis were not the only military paupers in the
region, at least until sometime after 56. One has to wonder if the
Syrian PzKw IV's ever engaged Israeli Super Shermans in 67 or during
the years immediately prior.

Brooks

"The Tanks of Tammuz" Shabtai Teveth talks about the Centurions firing
on Syrian Panzer tanks in Nov 1964 (p.53 & 75).
The second Nukheila incident... platoon of Centurions was supposed to
support a platoon of Shermans. The Shermans were to engage the Syrian
"old German panzers" at about 800m... A quick read indicates the
Shermans didn't take out the panzers (one failed to make the firing
line) and the Centurions pounced (on the chance to redeem themselves
after the poor showing on the first Nukheila incident) quickly
destroying both panzers (which IIRC were dug in on the Golan heights,
the Israelis shooting up hill...)

In article ,
(Kevin Brooks) writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...
Not Panthers, but Panzer IVs, and Jagdpanzer IVs. Reportedly, some
were still in service in 1967. I don't recall Syria having any part
of the 1956 war, other than providing a haven for the Egyptian Air
Force. Until the attempted forming of the United Arab Republic with
Egypt, Syria was pretty much too poor to buy weapons, and not as
attractive a Soviet client as the Egyptians.

Thanks. So the Israelis were not the only military paupers in the
region, at least until sometime after 56. One has to wonder if the
Syrian PzKw IV's ever engaged Israeli Super Shermans in 67 or during
the years immediately prior.

It wasn't until the 1960s, and the widespread Nationalization of the
Oil Industry, that the various National Governments in the region
could afford much in the way of weapons. The '56 war, adn the
intervening time between then & '67 saw teh most amazing collection of
castoff & one-offs. (Egyptian Shermans with the FL-10 turret off of an
AMX-13, anyone?) Of course, Israel wasn;t the only place in the
region where things were happening. There was, of course, the very
nasty war that the French were fighting in Algeria, and the
neighboring Arab countries were involved to some extent. The Iraqis
made a couple of attempts to take Kuwait, one of which was staved off
by the rapid introsuction of a British force of Paratroopers, the
Royal Tanks, and the RAF Transport Command's Mibile Strike Force of
Hunters. We ended up deploying an Airborne Task Force, and a Marine
Regiment to Lebanon, (Some nice film of the Marine Landing Craft
storming ashore, with the Marines being met by women in bikinis and
Ice Cream vendors came out of this. All invasions should work out
that way. Oh, yeah, and how Lebanon has changed) The Jordanians,
with King Hussein's remarkable diplomacy, managed to stay aloof, more
or less, and build up a small but very professional Army and Air
Force.
Figuring out Orbats & TO&E data must have driven the S-2 folks nuts.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster