naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
12686 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #3
This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
It seems like common sense but we’ve now both in the Ukraine War, Armenian-Azerbaijan War and now in Israel, militaries seem to be convinced that tanks are fine by themselves and as a result are sitting ducks for infantry with anti-tanks weapons.
What’s going on? Why do militaries make such a dumb mistake again and again? Is there something I’m missing?
Israeli tanks have APS like Trophy that in theory mitigates a lot of the risk from RPGs.
Their vehicles are also designed to ensure crew safety above all else, even after a disabling hit.
Combining this with their low appetite for loss of human life, it might make sense to minimize the inevitable infantry casualties from dismounts accompanying vehicles by sending them in solo. Might, I have no specific insight into the outcomes of their doctrine, but for all the footage Hamas releases of close quarters RPG hits on such vehicles, footage of the burning wreckage in the aftermath seems lacking.
At the end of the day, there's no good way of clearing an urban hellhole, short of nuking it.
Because infantry can't run this fast and mechanized infantry is vulnerable to the same anti-tank weapons. Combined arms are hard. Even the US will struggle if you take away its CAS and artillery support.
You need to send your infantry forward so they can take out anti-tank weapons, but your tanks must be close enough behind that they can take out anti-infantry weapons that your infantry will encounter. Or your infantry has to have artillery support on call, which is vulnerable to counter-battery fire.
I'm talking about regular land warfare, sending tanks into cities that haven't been completely levelled is just wasting them.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why don’t militaries support tanks with infantry?
It seems like common sense but we’ve now both in the Ukraine War, Armenian-Azerbaijan War and now in Israel, militaries seem to be convinced that tanks are fine by themselves and as a result are sitting ducks for infantry with anti-tanks weapons.
What’s going on? Why do militaries make such a dumb mistake again and again? Is there something I’m missing?
Israeli tanks have APS like Trophy that in theory mitigates a lot of the risk from RPGs.
Their vehicles are also designed to ensure crew safety above all else, even after a disabling hit.
Combining this with their low appetite for loss of human life, it might make sense to minimize the inevitable infantry casualties from dismounts accompanying vehicles by sending them in solo. Might, I have no specific insight into the outcomes of their doctrine, but for all the footage Hamas releases of close quarters RPG hits on such vehicles, footage of the burning wreckage in the aftermath seems lacking.
At the end of the day, there's no good way of clearing an urban hellhole, short of nuking it.
More options
Context Copy link
Because infantry can't run this fast and mechanized infantry is vulnerable to the same anti-tank weapons. Combined arms are hard. Even the US will struggle if you take away its CAS and artillery support.
You need to send your infantry forward so they can take out anti-tank weapons, but your tanks must be close enough behind that they can take out anti-infantry weapons that your infantry will encounter. Or your infantry has to have artillery support on call, which is vulnerable to counter-battery fire.
I'm talking about regular land warfare, sending tanks into cities that haven't been completely levelled is just wasting them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link