Why were Arab armed forces so ineffective?

They integrated into Arab culture yes, their training was steppe based fast moving cavalry which was alien to Arab military culture. It was the primary reasons the Mongols were beaten in open battle, something which was considered impossible by many.
They were trained by elder Mamluks for generations.
Well.. Khalid Ibn Walid will disagree with that statement..
 
You just want war..you must have a violent personalty then..
I guess arbas think cutting ties with Israel is war or stop selling them water and take us war, then that's what I want
Or they should stop using word Arab Arab

Say eygptians Saudis extra then I am fine since then plaestinians are for them selves ..

If Arabs want peace then simply accept Israel demands give them Gaza ..oh wait...peace will come soon it's matter few more months another 20 k dead Palestinians and rafah camp since rest of Palestine is gone

My prediction

Arabs will get peace they want on graves if Arabs of Palestine in next few months

Once operation cools down Palestine touts or fake representative will accept one country solution..the jordian king will relinquish his claim on al qudus and we all will be happy

Warmongers like me will burn in our hatred

We are afterall against anti semitism
 
well there is also the Asian world and the world as well... so what?
I guess you don't read your posts..
I can ridicule the Iranian army if you want.. stop trolling..
 
This where both of us disagree
Eastern and Western block both claim victory but fact is eygptians never gained any significant territory lost more soldiers and equipment and went back on all of its commitments on negotiation table as per Arab League, OIC and PLF them selves "stabbed us in the back" giving up Palestine and golan heights for ever for Sinai which was never Israel actual objective anyway

If this is busting the trend then God help us

Per capita the Israeli losses were more severe in both men and equipment against the Egyptians.....They held 1,200 sq KM of the Sinai and the Israeli situation on their side of the canal was weak. Yes they did cross over and establish their presence on the Egyptian side but my post is aimed your above assertions.
The rest regarding the negotiations and giving in too easily is right.
 
what you think is a victory is irrelevant, these are undoubtedly tactical military victories. please learn what that means before you criticise it
Tactical victories don't matter..end result matter. Isrealis have no interest in occupying Lebanon so wrecking it or capturing it both works
Objectives change self delusions is for self just like how Pakistanis think 1971 was some sort of tactical victory


End result:
Israel destroyed Lebanon and forever made hezboullah think twice..hence 50,000 dead and hezboullah quiet
 
As stated before, Arabs don't have many military victories against non-Arabs in modern history. But they have tactical military victories.

Arabs didn't fight Turkey so that leaves Iran, Israel and the USA.

Arabs vs Iran: only example is Iran-Iraq, which was a stalemate (Iran defeated the invasion by 1982, but then huge outside help and chemical weapons enabled Iraq to hold off Iran's counterattack into Iraq from 1982-1988). Saddam interfered with the tactics too much and this led to very bad results for Iraq.

Arabs vs Israel: Mostly lost badly due to massive US support. Best performance was 1973 by Arab coalition (until US intervened due to threat of Israeli nukes), liberation of South Lebanon by Hezbollah in 2000, and Lebanon War in 2006. Worst performance was 1967 6 day war where 5 Arab nations were defeated by Israel in only 6 days...

Arabs vs USA: Total domination by USA (as expected), with some small tactical military operation victories by the Iraqi Resistance in Iraq.
 
Where is the Arab world

I do see Saudis eygptians and emiratis but no Arabs
ask @The SC

I guess you don't read your posts..
I can ridicule the Iranian army if you want.. stop trolling..
I read every post, you are confused and not making any points.

you can ridicule Iran if you want but I doubt it will be relevant in this thread about Arabs
 
Per capita the Israeli losses were more severe in both men and equipment against the Egyptians.....They held 1,200 sq KM of the Sinai and the Israeli situation on their side of the canal was weak. Yes they did cross over and establish their presence on the Egyptian side but my post is aimed your above assertions.
The rest regarding the negotiations and giving in too easily is right.
Now that is very very odd way of looking at things ..I would have thought stating Israel did better being the smaller force and ahould have actually more mortality and losses

Are you going to say Pakistani losses were 10x more then India if they were equal since per capita


Okay so we lost more airplanes then India in 1965 adjusting for per capita and wait the 30,000 troops being captured are 180,000 per capita


Sir what the ???
 
Tactical victories don't matter..end result matter.
the issue is you are not defining 'end result' in military terms.

Isrealis have no interest in occupying Lebanon so wrecking it or capturing it both works
you are wrong. they occupied south Lebanon for 18 years from 1982 and are still occupying some parts of Lebanon (and the Syrian Golan Heights)

Objectives change self delusions is for self just like how Pakistanis think 1971 was some sort of tactical victory
ask why the objective changed

End result:
Israel destroyed Lebanon and forever made hezboullah think twice..hence 50,000 dead and hezboullah quiet
end result: occupation ended (2000), invasion failed (2006)

2 IDF terrorists killed and many injured by Hezbollah in last 24 hours. 5 Hezbollah troops martyred in same time period. Hezbollah has fired 800+ ATGMs and 2000+ rockets into Israel since October 8th. Hezbollah is the one group that is not "quiet" in the face of Israel's genocide in Gaza (along with Yemen and Iraqi Resistance).
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLK
I meant their origins as well as their trainers..

Their origin and trainers were Turkic . At the start, hundreds of years ago yes they were Arab, but they allowed them considerable autonomy and realised their style of warfare was of great value. The autonomy allowed them to eventually gain power.
 
the issue is you are not defining 'end result' in military terms.


you are wrong. they occupied south Lebanon for 18 years from 1982 and are still occupying some parts of Lebanon (and the Syrian Golan Heights)


ask why the objective changed


end result: occupation ended (2000), invasion failed (2006)

2 IDF terrorists killed and many injured by Hezbollah in last 24 hours. 5 Hezbollah martyred in same time period. Hezbollah has fired 800+ ATGMs and 2000+ rockets into Israel since October 8th. Hezbollah is the one group that is not "quiet" in the face of Israel's genocide in Gaza (along with Yemen and Iraqi Resistance).
Golam heights are strategic..
Israel will only occupy areas strategic for them

They don't have any resources to occupy any land

Israel population is just 9.5 million

For context Arab have population of 500 million (50:1)

Just one City cario is larger then whole Israel

This like Nepal vs China
It's seems Impossible even for Pakistan to hold any Indian territory (1:10)

It's physical impossible for them to hold Sinai or Lebanon for long as they don't have the man power to do so
 
I've got the best answer, but I really don't want to get banned! 🤣
 
Golam heights are strategic..
Israel will only occupy areas strategic for them
nonsense, they were willing to return Golan Heights to Syria just as they were willing to return Sinai to Egypt

Golan Heights is not more strategic than the Sinai, or South Lebanon.
They don't have any resources to occupy any land
they occupied Golan Heights and all of Palestine for 50+ years already
Israel population is just 9.5 million

For context Arab have population of 500 million (50:1)
Total Arab population is irrelevant in age of nation states ... Israel occupies land of neighbours not of Arabs 1000s of km away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MLK

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top