Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 13th, 2012, 10:41 PM   #61
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Well, success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. The loosers tend to invent many excuses.
That is about right
Edward is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:28 PM   #62

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
The Soviet military instructors who had served with the Egyptian army observed some quite odd religious superstitions like it had been OK for Arabs to completely abandon radar facility for a prayer or not being able to fly on the fighter jets higher then few km cause "it's forbidden to go to the God's place". Not sure how sincere they are. Might be just a try to escape responsibility. They taught Arabs outdated WWII doctrines after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lors View Post
Well, success has many fathers, failure is an orphan. The loosers tend to invent many excuses.
Those outdated tactics were really fatal, and indeed, losers have a lot of excuses.
dagul is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:28 PM   #63

Essa's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Bahrain
Posts: 1,616

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
I said the Arab states are among the richest in the world. I didn't say they were all the richest in the world.

Egyptians are not Arabs.

I stand by my position that the primary reasons for Arab military failure are cultural, not economic.
This is really amusing !!....

I assume following this logic, then there shouldn't any thing called "Americans" or Australians (for example)....

If you choose to consider ONLY the genetical source of some people then you're definitely talking about other species than humans.....Humans has history, connections, and cultures that constantly evolve to give different sense of belongings....

Egypt has long witnessed significant cultural changes that eventually brought it in close proximity to ethnic Arabs more than any other race. Prophet Mohammed himself requested that Muslims give high consideration to Egyptians....specifically highlighting their kinship to Arabs through "Hajer" (mother of Prophet Ismail)...

Never since Islam came to Egypt, it became a Muslim and Arab citadel...standing against Mongols, Franks, Crusaders....Egypt were a leading country in Arab Nationalism and Arab cause...
Essa is offline  
Old November 13th, 2012, 11:33 PM   #64

dagul's Avatar
Rabbit of Wormhole
 
Joined: Mar 2012
From: In the bag of ecstatic squirt
Posts: 9,272

^I totally agree with you, Essa.
dagul is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 12:55 AM   #65

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Posts: 4,386

There's nothing wrong with native troops when they are trained, disciplined and led by British officers. Look at the brilliant performance of Gurkhas and Sikhs over 200 years and the magnificent drum roll of military prowess of the Kings's African Rifles, the Cape Coloured Corps, the Arab Legion, the Omani Scouts, the Aden Levies, the Calcutta Light Horse.
The Corps of Colonial Marines made up mainly of runaway American slaves were soon knocked into shape in 1814 and were chasing American planters all over the Chesapeake and the seemingly uncontrollable Pathans of the North West Territory performed with discipline and skill under British officers. Even the Chinese "Ever Victorious Army" was only ever victorious under Gordon and his Sandhurst bunch.
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:05 AM   #66
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,134

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
The richest Arab nations can buy whatever they want, and they do. They get the best military hardware available, usually straight from the West.

Some of their hardware is even better than the USA's own military is using right now.

.
Care to give some examples to support this .... You really believe that any country is going to supply its best weaponry to anything less than a totally reliable ally ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
The less affluent Arab nations overspend on military hardware at the expense of infrastructure and socio-economic development, which is why they're such grubby little hell-holes. It's about how they choose to spend their money, not how much they have. A nation can build up an impressive arsenal if it doesn't mind cutting corners in other areas. States like Syria have good relations with Russia and China, and have no trouble sourcing good quality hardware.

The poorest Arab nations don't wage war, so they're irrelevant.


.
You dont know much about economy do you ? The poorer arab countries are poorer because of lack of resources (including such a basic resource as water), not because they overspend on military.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post


The purchase of military hardware at this level usually involves a maintenance agreement with the manufacturer and/or supplier. It's not a problem.
How much do you know about how a military really functions ? you really believe you can build a strong military relying solely on foreign nations to provide
a - weapons
b - maintenance
c - training

Can you please provide historical examples of this ? Which of the world's powerful military historically functionned like this ?

Macedon ? Rome ? The mongols under Gengis ? The french under Napoleon ? Germany ? Japan ? the USSR ? The USA ? Britain ? who ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post


Egyptians are not Arabs.

.
I guess that is why the country calls itself officially

The ARAB republic of Egypt

But please do define which countries you consider Arab... Because if its only the gulf countries then really there is nothing to discuss. See, they have not been at war with other countries for about a century and thus have not had the opportunity to lose any wars. And most of those btw have such a small population that they are no more relevant than Luxembourg in a military sense. That really only leaves Saudi Arabia on your map.
tomar is online now  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:14 AM   #67
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankari View Post
I said the Arab states are among the richest in the world. I didn't say they were all the richest in the world.

The richest Arab nations can buy whatever they want, and they do. They get the best military hardware available, usually straight from the West.

The less affluent Arab nations overspend on military hardware at the expense of infrastructure and socio-economic development, which is why they're such grubby little hell-holes. It's about how they choose to spend their money, not how much they have. A nation can build up an impressive arsenal if it doesn't mind cutting corners in other areas. States like Syria have good relations with Russia and China, and have no trouble sourcing good quality hardware.

The poorest Arab nations don't wage war, so they're irrelevant.



Also irrelevant. They can buy whatever they need. Most Western states also import more than they produce these days. It's a global trend in developed nations.



That's not true, I've already shown they are buying the best. Some of their hardware is even better than the USA's own military is using right now.



The purchase of military hardware at this level usually involves a maintenance agreement with the manufacturer and/or supplier. It's not a problem.



I've addressed this. See above.



Egyptians are not Arabs.



All of which are known to purchase high grade military hardware from other nations.



Wrong. Please learn the definition of 'industrialised.'

I stand by my position that the primary reasons for Arab military failure are cultural, not economic.
So you do categorically state that the Egyptians are "not Arabs"????

Then you could hardly be qualified to determine any "cultural reasons" on any trait of the group you are so utterly unable to identify.

Admittedly not any more than good ol' Col. De Atkine, for that matter.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 06:16 AM   #68
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Please delete; wrong post.
sylla1 is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 09:26 AM   #69

sturm's Avatar
миротворец
 
Joined: Jul 2009
From: Bulgaria
Posts: 8,879
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by funakison View Post
Why do arabs lose wars, they dont have the most up to date American equipment
Do we count Saudi Arabia in that? This country is spending vast amount of money and is buying some very effective and modern equipment, yet we haven't seen saudi army in action.
sturm is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 10:18 AM   #70

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 12,317

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
Do we count Saudi Arabia in that? This country is spending vast amount of money and is buying some very effective and modern equipment, yet we haven't seen saudi army in action.
We did when they gloriously brought democracy in to Bahrain last year.
arras is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
arabs, lose, wars


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who are the Arabs? Rosi Middle Eastern and African History 52 October 30th, 2013 01:22 PM
The Byzantines defeat the arabs and turks( arabs and later turks) Feeeen Speculative History 14 June 13th, 2013 02:12 AM
Would Japan Lose? mingming Speculative History 1 May 6th, 2011 09:19 PM
Why did Germany lose two world wars? Belisarius War and Military History 50 July 19th, 2008 04:59 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.