Why Middle East armies (except one) perform so poorly, without ethnic or religious...

[Guy4123]

On the other hand, frankly, does Egypt really need 1100 Abrams ?

Because, all things being equal, Egypt probably don't have the budget to train adequately mechanics and crews for 1100 Abrams. They would be better with the third of those tanks, but with well trained crews and mechanics.

Depends if they still consider Israel an existential threat. Considering the peace agreement has held up for 37 years without breaking (their was some concern after 2011 with that revolution but as far as I know Egypt still wants to abide by the treaty) and the fact that wars between the two have been Israel on the defensive I doubt they have any real concern.

Who knows how many of their Abrams are even fit for combat anyway. Half of them may be in disrepair like half of Germanys Leopard 2's and only fit for being spare parts.

To be fair, Israel has over 1100 Merkavas in active service.

Israel can afford it though :P


It seems like Middle Eastern countries like to stock pile military equipment as a show of force instead of actually creating an army that can use said equipment. It's like they fear neighboring countries will try to over-run them if they don't have a big pile of bodies and tanks to point at them even if they're ineffective when put to use.

Egypt could probably make a smaller more professional military if they wanted. Their two largest neighboring countries have pretty poorly equipped militaries both in size and quality. Israel has no interest is starting a war with Egypt and I doubt Saudi Arabia would ever do anything (not that they would be to effective at it anyway going by their actions in Yemen >.>). They have no realistic fear of being attacked so they have the time to make a smaller more professional military if they really wanted to.

[Kellhound]

Depends if they still consider Israel an existential threat. Considering the peace agreement has held up for 37 years without breaking (their was some concern after 2011 with that revolution but as far as I know Egypt still wants to abide by the treaty) and the fact that wars between the two have been Israel on the defensive I doubt they have any real concern.

Who knows how many of their Abrams are even fit for combat anyway. Half of them may be in disrepair like half of Germanys Leopard 2's and only fit for being spare parts.



Israel can afford it though :P


It seems like Middle Eastern countries like to stock pile military equipment as a show of force instead of actually creating an army that can use said equipment. It's like they fear neighboring countries will try to over-run them if they don't have a big pile of bodies and tanks to point at them even if they're ineffective when put to use.

Egypt could probably make a smaller more professional military if they wanted. Their two largest neighboring countries have pretty poorly equipped militaries both in size and quality. Israel has no interest is starting a war with Egypt and I doubt Saudi Arabia would ever do anything (not that they would be to effective at it anyway going by their actions in Yemen >.>). They have no realistic fear of being attacked so they have the time to make a smaller more professional military if they really wanted to.

Tanks also work very well at intimidating the civilian masses.

[sarahtasher]

i suppose thats why they treat their wounded then!

Good thing isis only attacks non jewish states then.

What, you mean an Islamist terrorist organization using the Zionist argument to justify warcrimes ? A first time ever.

(Also, I suppose some people are very angry that Israel treating an handful of non-Isis rebels prevent them to use the card ''ZIONISTS IGNORE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND LET PEOPLE DIE'')

[Mavett]

Entrusting the outcome to a sky daddy.
Soviet doctrine.
Fighting for a paycheck. (basically fleeing when the odds start to shift to the other side aka low morale)

[ringpriest]

I've seen a whole host of reasons mentioned for generally poor Arab performance over the years; in no particular order:

Sectarian (clan/tribe) politics that mess up readiness badly.
Imagine if you take the infighting of US poltics in DC, multiply the factions by a factor of 10, and apply it to everything, from training to logistics to war plans and actual operations.

Lack of quality training for the guys on the line.
Getting people to perform usefully under fire is hard. The officers may be in the same general ballpark as those in NATO, Russia, or China, but if the men they're commanding don't have appropriate training, the officers tactical or strategic abilities don't mean jack.

The wrong sort of training and preparation.
It's been a while, so the precise terminology has left me, but I recall a class that talked about general purpose of armed forces, and one important distinction was whether the military in question was focused on preventing internal or external threats. The US military is ultimately not designed around keeping the government in DC in power - it's designed to (broadly) fight and win wars; it's a military focused on external threats. Arab armed forces tend to be the opposite - designed primarily around the threat of internal revolt of some form; a military that is good for crushing protesters, coups, and separatists has a whole different set of skills and focuses than one designed around fighting other nations.

[Macaquerie]

Even though the Arabs are "the enemy" for the most part, I still do find it kind of sad that they put up such pathetic performances every time they actually went to war. Having a degree of respect and admiration for your opponent can go a long way in smoothing the transition to peace, aside from just the deterrence factor of trying to avoid picking another fight with a strong opponent. If you look at Egypt for example, Israel was basically forced by international pressure to make peace with an enemy that they didn't fear and had little to gain from, and as a result it has turned out to be quite a volatile peace with both sides still hating each other and little in the way of cooperation against mutual enemies, of which there are plenty.

[Hey There Guys its Metro]

Because the army is made up of people who are only doing this because they are gripped by fervor. They aren't trained, and they aren't given proper gear.
Even worse, the people in charge are only in charge because they managed to whip the state into a fervor. There are obviously legitimate military commanders in the Middle East, but they aren't focused on that sort of thing.
Its more of a Horde than an army, honestly.

[Notter]

I would say one of the most important issue is motivation (or moral, as you called it).
For Israel, losing was not an option. and every soldier knew what was on the line.

Other than that, from the stories i heard from my father (he was a combat engineer, and was severely injured from a napalm bomb), they had better tactics against an enemy, who under-estimated it's opponent and just threw soldiers at them, thinking the larger numbers are the way to win.

but in these days, I don't think it's thee same situation.
I don't think the Arab armies are as bad as you think they are.
They have a lot of weapons from dealing with Russia, and much more advanced missiles.

the only thing i would say that they are lacking compared to Israel, are defensive capabilities. which is what Israel is mostly focused on developing.

[Mavett]

I would say one of the most important issue is motivation (or moral, as you called it).
For Israel, losing was not an option. and every soldier knew what was on the line.

Other than that, from the stories i heard from my father (he was a combat engineer, and was severely injured from a napalm bomb), they had better tactics against an enemy, who under-estimated it's opponent and just threw soldiers at them, thinking the larger numbers are the way to win.

but in these days, I don't think it's thee same situation.
I don't think the Arab armies are as bad as you think they are.
They have a lot of weapons from dealing with Russia, and much more advanced missiles.

the only thing i would say that they are lacking compared to Israel, are defensive capabilities. which is what Israel is mostly focused on developing.

Soviet Style.

[Guy4123]

They may have the equipment (some of them) but they don't have the training to use it properly like Israel does. That's why you keep seeing Saudi Abrams getting blown up in Yemen by some 30 year old Soviet designed guided missile. They drive these things out in the open by themselves without other tank or infantry support and catch a missile to the side which any tank in the world will be taken out by. Tanks don't do solo jobs they're a steel box that's blind in most areas.

[Deleted]

You need well fed and reasonably paid soldiers in a well funded army to be successful. Nobody want's to get treated like crap then getting asked to strom a machinegun nest in a suicide mission or asked to take a village knowing there will be no air support.

[Notter]

You need well fed and reasonably paid soldiers in a well funded army to be successful. Nobody want's to get treated like crap then getting asked to strom a machinegun nest in a suicide mission or asked to take a village knowing there will be no air support.

I feel like you've never been in the army or a combat situation...

[Deleted]

Doesn't pretty much every army suck vs guerrilla style combat? I mean the US and buddies didn't do so great in Iraq and Afghanistan, did they sorta win? Sure, but it took more menn and far more time then expected. If they did not have to protect civilians and could eradicate everything with bombs it might be a different story but when you don't know who or where the enemy is you have a hard time even when you are organized.

Isn't that why we are only helping Syria with air support these days?

Besides a group that doesn't fear death as much as you do can be troublesome to fight. With IS members thinking they get like 10 virgins when they die while we think it will just be over.

[Macaquerie]

They may have the equipment (some of them) but they don't have the training to use it properly like Israel does. That's why you keep seeing Saudi Abrams getting blown up in Yemen by some 30 year old Soviet designed guided missile. They drive these things out in the open by themselves without other tank or infantry support and catch a missile to the side which any tank in the world will be taken out by. Tanks don't do solo jobs they're a steel box that's blind in most areas.

It has to be a deeper issue than that though. The obvious solution to having an undertrained army is just to train them better, it's not as if Western armies have some kind of secret training techniques that other countries couldn't copy or implement themselves. Perhaps some of these armies are constrained by resources and are wary of putting wear and tear on expensive new equipment in a training exercise, but I feel like this wouldn't be a problem for the Saudi army.

[Deleted]

I feel like you've never been in the army or a combat situation...

I guess you either need money or a strong motivation to defend your country and its people to go into a almost suicide mission.

[Deleted]

I feel like you've never been in the army or a combat situation...

I served my country and was deployed in Bosnia in 94. How about you?

[Notter]

I served my country and was deployed in Bosnia in 94. How about you?

I was also in the army, and in combat situations.
there was no food. and there was no money.

[caervek]

Iraq and Iran both did really well fighting each other, hell Iraq did very well against a US lead coalition (the first one), I mean obviously they were going to lose but they put up a very good fight, by comparison Georgia (a NATO hopeful) did worse against just Russia.

[sarahtasher]

No. While, by the end of the war, the Iraqi general staff was able to organize set pieces battles, modern tactics were still very rare (example : trying to flank the enemy during a tank battle), and the Iraqis were still very poorly led at the NCO/junior officer level

While the Iraqis did the best they could against the Coalition, this best was not very good.

[caervek]

While the Iraqis did the best they could against the Coalition, this best was not very good.

Taking over a month to lose versus a coalition consisting of Kuwait, USA, Saudi Arabia, UK, France, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bangladesh, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Niger, Sweden, Argentina, Senegal, Spain, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Belgium, Sierra Leone, Poland, Philippines, South Korea, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Turkey, Denmark, New Zealand, Hungary, Norway and Afghanistan.

Is non "not very good".