Israel-Gaza War: 2008 and Today

plawolf said:

The Israelis won't be flattered by such a comparison, but it is uncanny how many similarities there are. However, I think we are wading into dangerous waters and it's best to stick to facts and the military stuff or else I can see this spiraling out of control into a big bowl of political and nationalistic mess if we continue down this road much further.

Click to expand...

Not making any political statements, just noting the military similarities of the two situations.

Which leads into why Hezbollah did relatively better in the 2006 war with Israel. Even though the theatre was still small, it was significantly larger and more geographically diverse than the Gaza strip therefore offering more flexibility for the defenders. Considering the casualties and physical damage on each side I would say that it was still a clear Israeli military victory.

An infantry only force is a symptom of lacking technology. These days it means the inability or very limited ability to damage the other side to the same extent a combined arms force can or to fend off an attack. Guaranteed military loss.

there is basically limited military related discussion on this topic with this nature other than MOUT and counter terrorist operations, as even Hamas and Hezbollah are not exactly professional armies, and do not operate as such, political discussion is inevitable

and sir asif, many people will disagree with what you said about the Merkava and Lebanon War 2006

anyone think about China developing a similar system like Iron Dome?

paintgun said:

anyone think about China developing a similar system like Iron Dome?

Click to expand...

Probably not, due to the limited market and the level of technology involved - Iron Dome system is designed to intercept the kind of Grad rockets or mortars that the HAMAS love to lob at Israeli cities, and not in the intensity that'd be seen in combat level bombardment - heck, to this day only the Israeli have to deal with such harassment bombardment on such frequency. Next comes the level of US technical assistance in the Iron Dome's R&D.

PanAsian said:

Not making any political statements, just noting the military similarities of the two situations.

Which leads into why Hezbollah did relatively better in the 2006 war with Israel. Even though the theatre was still small, it was significantly larger and more geographically diverse than the Gaza strip therefore offering more flexibility for the defenders. Considering the casualties and physical damage on each side I would say that it was still a clear Israeli military victory.

An infantry only force is a symptom of lacking technology. These days it means the inability or very limited ability to damage the other side to the same extent a combined arms force can or to fend off an attack. Guaranteed military loss.

Click to expand...

anyone can drop a 2,000 lb on a residential area, thats not very hard, victorys are not about who did the most damage, Nazis wiped the Western Soviet Union clean but still lost the war

outcomes of wars are a result of objectives achieved, Hezbollah achieved their objective, and Israel did not

and Iron Dome does not intercept anything coming in, it is specific to only Israel territory, because it contains co-ordinates of all Israeli settlements, and will only engage if the rocket is heading for a built up area, so it first detects the incoming missile, then decides where it is going to land, if it is in a field it wont intercept, only rockets deemed a threat are knock down, reason is that each interception costs lots of money, a good system but easily fooled if you have the right technology which Hamas do not have, for example a 2 stage rocket

paintgun said:

anyone think about China developing a similar system like Iron Dome?

Click to expand...

I don't know if Iron Dome can intercept cruise missiles or other PGMs in addition to small ballistic missiles (which is what rockets are), if not, my guess is that China doesn't have the need for an exact equivalent. China is better served by developing full scale ABM, ASAT, and general purpose SAM systems.

South Korea and Singapore are looking into buying the Iron Dome, as it is maturing into the 5th (6th?) battery system and shows a somewhat operationally capable system (not all life endangering missiles were intercepted, a very high success ratio nevertheless)

It will fit their needs to protect Seoul, and Singapore. Perhaps China can develop a similar system tailored for PGMs to protect civilian, industrial, and commerce heartlands, like Shanghai and the greater Guangzhou area.

But again, it is agreeable that China's potential adversaries will not target these civilian areas.
And you have to wonder how expensive it will be.

paintgun said:

South Korea and Singapore are looking into buying the Iron Dome, as it is maturing into the 5th (6th?) battery system and shows a somewhat operationally capable system (not all life endangering missiles were intercepted, a very high success ratio nevertheless)

It will fit their needs to protect Seoul, and Singapore. Perhaps China can develop a similar system tailored for PGMs to protect civilian, industrial, and commerce heartlands, like Shanghai and the greater Guangzhou area.

But again, it is agreeable that China's potential adversaries will not target these civilian areas.
And you have to wonder how expensive it will be.

Click to expand...

Why does Singapore need this? What threat are they facing? As for South Korea, unless the Iron Dome can intercept artillery shells, I don't see the point...

North Korea Mostly uses Shelling, True but they doe have a Missile Program including Scud-B, Scud-C Rodong-1, Hwasong-6 and Hwasong-5 Variants of the Scud Series.
As For Singapore Well It may seem Useless, until Someone Does start Shelling.

Singapore might "think" about it, but it'd on the subject "who'd do harassment shelling again them?" kinda thing. Iron Dome isn't designed for major level artillery bombardment conducted by standard artillery units with combat intensity...if it's something like AQ have set up shops across the Johor Strait, conducting attacks against Singapore like those kind seen in Iraq and the Malaysian government was powerless to stop it (which in reality they ain't, mind you), then Singapore might need something like that...

But, I believe before Singapore opt for Iron Dome, they'd rather get into some kind of joint taskforce with Malaysia to nail it instead.

So, highly unlikely Singapore would actually consider Iron Dome...unless it's some kind of Star Trek-like force field that vaporize any and all incoming projectile.

solarz said:

Why does Singapore need this? What threat are they facing? As for South Korea, unless the Iron Dome can intercept artillery shells, I don't see the point...

Click to expand...

For mid-course interception, there is little difference between a rocket or shell. Same goes for LBGs, glide bombs etc. Ballistic missiles are different because of the much higher speed and altitude they operate at for the bulk of their flight path.

However, considering the sheer number of artillery pieced NK has aimed at SK, SK can bankrupt themselves buying Iron Dome and still having vast sways of it's cities reduced to rubble before they can take out/push back the NK dug in artillery. But having the system is still far better than being totally exposed, and if needed, SK would deploy what Iron Dome batteries they have to protect the most densely populated and/or high value targets. So things like evacuation shelters/hospitals; key industrial/financial centers; emergency supply depots; key transportation/communication nodes, power and utilities stations etc. The list can be as long as you wan to make it.

But even with Iron Dome, it would be more of a damage limitation measure. I think the only remotely viable defense SK could field that would even have a theoretical chance of stopping a meaningful number/percentage of NK artillery shells in the event of a full-scale war would need to be an energy weapon based system in the short to medium term, with energy barriers/shields as the ultimate goal.

Only directed energy weapons would have the endurance to have any hope to stopping a massed saturation attack and keep the costs down to an acceptable level. Given the distances involved, the higher projective and ration speeds directed energy offers would also be a massive plus.