turkey has the better troops, spirited, braver, better trained, etc but israel will end turkey with one nuke. If no nukes are taken into consideration then turkey will defeat israel.
Since I am so Pro-Israel I hope this scenarios never happens.
We do not need to hear fork tongue muslims bitching about an Israeli genocide against Turks, in addition to repeating Pallywood lies about genocide against fictitious Arab refugees(that are now called Palestinians)...
WASHINGTON: ...Congressman Thomas G Tancredo, Republican from Colorado, was being interviewed by AM 540 WFLA radio host Pat Campbell, who asked him what the response of the United States should be were terrorist attacks on US cities to take place and were attributable to extremist Muslims. The Congressman replied, ... then we could take out their holy sites. Asked if that meant Mecca, Tancredo answered, Yes.
Israel would win. Maybe in 25 yrs things will be different, but right now Israeli is too advanced technologically to lose to the Turks.
Palestinian refugees are no "fiction". I have Armenian friends who's families were kicked out of Palestine after the world's largest traveling band of gypsies (i.e the Jews) took anything and everything of value from them.
The Israelis have a superior air force (more and better F-16's as well as F15's that Turkey has none of). They also have superior missiles (air-to-air, air defence, air-to-ground, anti-tank etc). They have superior attack helicopters.
The Israeli army also has a superior tank force. 1000 + Merkavas.
The Israelis also have superior communications (AWACS, Elint). For fvcks sake the Israelis even have their own satellites and launch capabilities.
Turkey has a better navy, but once they take out your air force they can concentrate on destroying your army and navy.
Technologically the Israelis are far more advanced and are able to mobilize a large army quickly.
To be realistic, given enough time for Turkish mobilisation, they could probably put as many as 500,000 soldiers on the Israeli boarder within at least 3 weeks, with about 1.5 million ready to follow in a few months. Israel could maybe muster 400,000 within 3 weeks with its rapid deployment
If you break it down into calling up reserves and the paramilitary as well, the Turks have about a 5-1 advantage in total possible soldiers deployed over a extended 3+ month period. Looking at the terrain the Turks will be invading from, Northern Israel, which is heavily mountainous and easily defended, it will take two key things to dislodge an Israeli defence...
1. Air Superiority
2. Superior armoured support (artillery, tank, IFV's etc).
The Turks wouldn't be able to win the air war, especially with SAM's being deployed and do not have the armoured support you'd need to grind down defences.
In an extended war, with the Israeli's being able to dig in hard, unless the Turks get a flash win over the Israeli's, the Turks couldn't possible invade successfully.
I put the scenario as Turkey invading Israel because Lebanon/Syria would likely allow Turkish troops (well, more so then letting Israeli's through) through while Israel would have to occupy Lebanon and a good chunk of Syria before being able to do anything.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
This message has been edited by TuAF35LightningII on Oct 11, 2009 8:12 AM This message has been edited by TuAF35LightningII on Oct 10, 2009 6:38 PM This message has been edited by TuAF35LightningII on Oct 10, 2009 6:37 PM This message has been edited by TuAF35LightningII on Oct 10, 2009 6:36 PM
it takes only one nuke to destroy Turkey ... 1 nuke on istambul, it would be the end of turkey. And as you know, israel wouldn't give a shhhhhitt about other countries complaint .. they would just do it .. drop one nuke to Istambul .. if they have to
and soon, turkey land would be part of israel and all turks would be israel slaves ... nice
perhaps israel would need 2 nukes, one in istambul and another one in mecca, kabaa exactly, Coordinates: 21°2521N 39°4934E
"On a further note, it was actually the Turks who sent a fleet of 200 ships under the command of Kemal Reis to Spain in order to save the fleeing Muslims and Jews in 1492. 100,000s of Jews from Spain, Portugal and other Spanish-controlled areas of the Mediterranean (such as southern Italy) were allowed to settle in the Ottoman Empire, particularly in Selanik, Izmir and Istanbul."
this goes to show how tolerant and generous islam was and people dont mix the sharia law up with saudi arabia
//"To be realistic, given enough time for Turkish mobilisation, they could probably put as many as 500,000 soldiers on the Israeli boarder within at least 3 weeks, with about 1.5 million ready to follow in a few months. Israel could maybe muster 400,000 within 3 weeks with its rapid deployment"//
Well, first, Im not sure Turkey has 1.5 million soldiers. Secondly, deploying far from its border is an entirely different matter. Hell, the US succeeded in deploying 250,000 in 2003, so I suspect the Turks would not be able to field more, especially not 500 miles from the Turkish border. Regarding the IDF, in times of emergency, it can deploy 450,000 reservists within 48 hours (coupled with 170,000 regulars), but if the situation is dire, the number can double as most able bodied men till the age of 50 have military training.
no way Turkey would win against Israel .. perhaps the war would aonly last 48 hours . .what it would take for Israel to destroy all turkish air force and navy and army hardwares
LOL No point in arguing about something that wont happen, ffs Israel isnt even fighting the Arabs right now, if they arent fighting their arch rivals what makes you think they would fight Turkey? X-wing kafan götünden çkar ve doru dürüz thread aç yoksa hiç açma mal!
Anyone who is actually talking about a fight between the two is just as stupid as X-wing for opening this thread lol...
Menem Baba (Login Menembaba) The Conquerors (Turkey)
Re: israel vs turkiye
October 17 2009, 8:48 PM
Let's have a look what the numbers tell us ..
When we compare these two armies we get this result
Turkey Army is one of top10 armies in the world. Rank : 10
Israel is 11th.
Well, first, Im not sure Turkey has 1.5 million soldiers.
I'm counting all reserves and standing, as well as paramilitary that can be called up before conscription is needed.
Hell, the US succeeded in deploying 250,000 in 2003, so I suspect the Turks would not be able to field more, especially not 500 miles from the Turkish border.
To be fair, the Americans could field more then 250,000 in the distance between Turkey and Israel which isn't very far. We are comparing a expeditionary force to one based strictly on land mobilisation. I think you don't give much credit to the Turkish army. It may not be as advanced, but it surely could mobilise if given a few months of preparations (if the Egyptians could, the Turks definitely can). We must also assume that Lebanon and Syria is helping the Turkish army prepare, since they would need to open their boarders, hence cutting logistic problems.
Regarding the IDF, in times of emergency, it can deploy 450,000 reservists within 48 hours (coupled with 170,000 regulars), but if the situation is dire, the number can double as most able bodied men till the age of 50 have military training.
Yes, I am aware, but Israel only has a capability to call on a certain amount at a time (I would say no more then 400,000), we all know it as a 'manpower cap'. Turkey wouldn't be able to mobilise an army above 2 million at anyone time (most nations in the world couldn't) unless it goes for a all out war economy, Israel in this respect has a large advantage, since it could at anyone time face an army that is remotely the same size in manpower).
My 5-1 is in terms of a constant flow of manpower (not a army of 3 million suddenly crossing the boarder). Israel can only call on so many men and in a war of attrition it couldn't hope to win (then again such a war would last years).
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
There are a couple factors that haven't been considered. Israel doesn't have much territory to play with compared to Turkey for a start. Secondly, Israel is very vulnerable to being cut off from imports. The Israelis certainly have a nuclear force to which Turkey has no answer, Israel also has air superiority. Israel is vulnerable to being rushed, but not by Turkey as the distance is to great and I doubt the Turks could pull off such a rush operation without the Israelis having time to prepare a defence.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
//"I'm counting all reserves and standing, as well as paramilitary that can be called up before conscription is needed."//
Yes, well, they cannot really deploy all of their homeguard overseas, especially when most paramilitaries are not really trained in modern warfare.
//"To be fair, the Americans could field more then 250,000 in the distance between Turkey and Israel which isn't very far. We are comparing a expeditionary force to one based strictly on land mobilisation. I think you don't give much credit to the Turkish army. It may not be as advanced, but it surely could mobilise if given a few months of preparations (if the Egyptians could, the Turks definitely can)."//
Im not trying to discredit the Turkish army, but numers on paper are hardly what one can deploy. The US has 1.5 million soldiers, but it had to work pretty hard sending a sixth of that number to Iraq. And this wasnt about the distance, but rather the US's other international commitments. Granted, Turkey does not have a quarter of such commitments, but its home-guard is not meant or trained for conventional warfare.
//"We must also assume that Lebanon and Syria is helping the Turkish army prepare, since they would need to open their boarders, hence cutting logistic problems."//
Maybe so, but feeding and maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops abroad is something very few nations are capable of. The US has arguably the best logistics / command and controll network worldwide, but we should not assume all countries are up to par.
//"My 5-1 is in terms of a constant flow of manpower (not a army of 3 million suddenly crossing the boarder). Israel can only call on so many men and in a war of attrition it couldn't hope to win (then again such a war would last years)."//
But would it really be a war of attrition? The question is, does Israel sit back, or does it strike with everything it has?
In my opinion, every country has their own surprises, strategies and secrets, specially if those countries are in the middle of the middle east .. Otherwise its impossible to stand forever.
In the real world Israel can do nothing to Turkey.
Coward Yahdudis cannot fight their own wars unless attacked by camel jockey Arab states, even then they need to cry to USA for backup and support.
Israel cannot crush Hizbollah or Hamas, it stands no chance of attacking and occupying Turkish territory.
Every Turk is trained and armed to the teeth, i would like to see coward yahudis try to occupy us and land inside Turkey.
Israel has Nukes, but Turkey is member of NATO - so Israel cannot do fckall to Turkey without causing international crisis on level of World War 3
A World War would mean the annihilation and end for Israel, if Turkey just began offering logistical and tactical support to groups like Hizbollah or Hamas it would tear Israel's ass apart
I mean c'mon ffs Fcking jackass's HAVE YOU COME TO TEACH US TURKS THE ART OF WAR??? Hahaha WAR IS OUR SPORT motherfckers, We Enjoy WAR like you play football
So Israel or any other fcker out there who wants to TRY US, COME TRY US...but read history first and read what we did to those who stood in our way...or just ask the Armenians and the Greeks
Israel has Nukes, but Turkey is member of NATO - so Israel cannot do fckall to Turkey without causing international crisis on level of World War 3
You do realise that if Israel attacks Turkey the rest of Western Europe and North America aren't going to care, and will just leave Turkey to be attacked by the Israeli forces, don't you? Some Eastern European countries may assist perhaps? But any that do can't really contribute anything useful. Even if the European countries wanted to help its doubtful many could send enough forces in a short enough time to stop the attack on Turkey.
"He lives in a world where concept is reality..."
I once lived in France,
but left for Angleterre,
I dream up flying in planes,
and invent some sources too,
but when it comes to proving it,
it's Tampax down the drain!
Let's get a couple points straight for our Turkish friends:
First, Israelis are not "cowards". Considering what they have gone through just in the last 60 years I'd say they're quite tough, and certainly a resilient bunch. They have successfully fended of any and every attack. Have they had assistance from outside (i.e. the US, France)? Yes, but that's a moot point because their enemies also had assistance (i.e. Soviets) and the Israelis kicked ass every time.
Second, the US will NEVER (NEVER!) support Turkey over Israel. NATO is a sham; a crock of horse shi t. It is an international organization the US uses to legitimize the use of force. Israel is far too close to the US for the Americans to side with Turkey.
Third, Israel is so far advanced technologically it isn't funny. A lot of Turks still think marching 50,000 Seljuks on horseback is what war is about.
Fourth, if Turkey and Israel has an all out war, I think it would be impossible for Greece to sit back.
The biggest mistake Israel made was thinking Turkey could be an "ally". Muslims gravitate to Muslims and support each other, even when wrong. I just wonder when the IDF will do some more training exercises with the HAF.
Yes, well, they cannot really deploy all of their homeguard overseas, especially when most paramilitaries are not really trained in modern warfare.
Turkey doesn't need to go overseas to get to Israel. The paramilitaries are only who would be called upon should the regulars be depleted, I doubt we assume a war would cost over a million lives, this isn't World War 2.
Im not trying to discredit the Turkish army, but numers on paper are hardly what one can deploy. The US has 1.5 million soldiers, but it had to work pretty hard sending a sixth of that number to Iraq. And this wasnt about the distance, but rather the US's other international commitments. Granted, Turkey does not have a quarter of such commitments, but its home-guard is not meant or trained for conventional warfare.
That is true, but to put it simply, the German army of World War 2 was still using horse drawn carriages to achieve logistical support and it still worked. Unless this is over the water where air and navy is far more valuable, logistics becomes less complex (albeit not easy).
Maybe so, but feeding and maintaining hundreds of thousands of troops abroad is something very few nations are capable of. The US has arguably the best logistics / command and controll network worldwide, but we should not assume all countries are up to par.
I think people are quick to forget that it isn't necessarily hard to do, just hard to convince your people its worth it. Rationing food to the army wouldn't be hard for a country like Turkey IMO (net exporter), nor would it be hard to gain water supply or build arms in friendly territory, hell, even gas and oil would pour in.
But would it really be a war of attrition? The question is, does Israel sit back, or does it strike with everything it has?
The assumption for me unless Israel is on the brink of total collapse they would never dare use a nuclear weapon (the likelihood of bringing outside help and discrediting itself as 'sane' world wide to a dire point is too great). I doubt any major nuclear power would unless the aggressor itself has nuclear weapons.
So in my view any war would be about trying to simply break the other side till they give up (such as lets assume, Turkey occupying a part of Israel with no real chance of reclaiming that said land) or there is a stalemate. That is in my view, Turkey doesn't have a chance in occupying Israel simply because nuclear weapons would wipe out Ankara and the fact they cannot literally do it.
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Turkey doesn't need to go overseas to get to Israel. The paramilitaries are only who would be called upon should the regulars be depleted, I doubt we assume a war would cost over a million lives, this isn't World War 2.
Paramilitaries are prepared and trained in a very basic manner, more for domestic activity, civil defence, and defence of the homeland incase of an external attack. They are by no means trained or prepared to take over active fighting in a modern setting.
That is true, but to put it simply, the German army of World War 2 was still using horse drawn carriages to achieve logistical support and it still worked. Unless this is over the water where air and navy is far more valuable, logistics becomes less complex (albeit not easy).
Logistics of WW2 were far less complex than today. Even so, one of the main reason the German army failed was faulty logistics.
I think people are quick to forget that it isn't necessarily hard to do, just hard to convince your people its worth it. Rationing food to the army wouldn't be hard for a country like Turkey IMO (net exporter), nor would it be hard to gain water supply or build arms in friendly territory, hell, even gas and oil would pour in.
Feeding, supplying, replacing, providing medical care, paying, refuelling and directing an army of this size was impossible for far larger armies than Turkey in the past. Even in the height of vietnam, the US had 600,000 troops inside, with conscription. You think Turkey can allmost triple that number today?
The assumption for me unless Israel is on the brink of total collapse they would never dare use a nuclear weapon (the likelihood of bringing outside help and discrediting itself as 'sane' world wide to a dire point is too great). I doubt any major nuclear power would unless the aggressor itself has nuclear weapons.
I didn't say it would, but a 'six day war' scenario is more than possible, if Israel feels severely threatened. At the time, it faced worse odds, thus it did not wait for the rest of the Arab armies (Iraq, Algeria, Saudia) to arrive, but struck quick and fast, with everything it had. Israel's far quicker ability to mobilize would be a crucial factor in striking a hypothetical Turkish army. It wouldnt wait for months untill the Turks bring in everything they have, but rather utilize its numerical and qualitative superiority (at the beginning stages, due to far quicker mobilization) to strike.
ISRAEL HAS THE BEST EQUIPPED ARMED FORCES IN THE WORLD..THE BEST AIR FORCE AND THE BEST FIGHTER PILOTS. THEIR READINESS TO WAGE WAR IS SECOND TO NONE.. OF COURSE, THE TURKS ARE NOT ARABS BUT ISRAEL IS INVINCIBLE.
Paramilitaries are prepared and trained in a very basic manner, more for domestic activity, civil defence, and defence of the homeland incase of an external attack. They are by no means trained or prepared to take over active fighting in a modern setting.
My point is, should they be required, they can go to battle, their effectiveness is not the issue as you can't turn it into a conscripts vs professional army argument. My other point covered the fact they would only be used if they are required, which in most cases is to protect the boarders or to replace soldiers that cannot be fielded.
Logistics of WW2 were far less complex than today. Even so, one of the main reason the German army failed was faulty logistics.
Indeed, but they proved even 'simple' logistics can push a boarder thousands of kilometres. But logistics work under the same principles. We can't compare America's adventures overseas to a cross boarder (basically) war. I think you are pushing for the idea the Turks will have their logistics crushed by the Israeli Air force as your main argument (or they simply can't achieve it).
Feeding, supplying, replacing, providing medical care, paying, refuelling and directing an army of this size was impossible for far larger armies than Turkey in the past. Even in the height of vietnam, the US had 600,000 troops inside, with conscription. You think Turkey can allmost triple that number today?
Again you are using a over seas example. I would use the Soviets in Afghanistan who found logistics hard, but not as hard as Americans in Vietnam (for the most obvious reasons).
I didn't say it would, but a 'six day war' scenario is more than possible, if Israel feels severely threatened. At the time, it faced worse odds, thus it did not wait for the rest of the Arab armies (Iraq, Algeria, Saudia) to arrive, but struck quick and fast, with everything it had. Israel's far quicker ability to mobilize would be a crucial factor in striking a hypothetical Turkish army. It wouldnt wait for months untill the Turks bring in everything they have, but rather utilize its numerical and qualitative superiority (at the beginning stages, due to far quicker mobilization) to strike.
I can see what you mean, but it can still be caught by surprise as it was a few years later. We like to think wars will be different, but once all the 'flash and bits' are used up its back into the trenches (unless you beat the opponent with the said 'flash and bits').
Siege of Tobruk - One German POW said: "I cannot understand you Australians. In Poland, France, and Belgium, once the tanks got through the soldiers took it for granted that they were beaten. But you are like demons. The tanks break through and your infantry still keep fighting." Rommel wrote of seeing "a batch of some fifty or sixty Australian prisoners ... marched off close behind usimmensely big and powerful men, who without question represented an elite formation of the British Empire, a fact that was also evident in battle."
"As a Internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
//"My point is, should they be required, they can go to battle, their effectiveness is not the issue as you can't turn it into a conscripts vs professional army argument. My other point covered the fact they would only be used if they are required, which in most cases is to protect the boarders or to replace soldiers that cannot be fielded."//
Indeed, since the IDF is not a professional army, you cannot term its troops as such. Arguably, though, their training does not fall from the best trained armies on earth. Thus, they would be completely incomaprable to Turkish paramilitaries, who would be wholly unsuited for combat. Secondly, as you said before, if those paramilitaries would be used to replace soldiers left in the field, then naturally even they would not be present when hostilities begin, which would further enable Israel to succesfully attempt a decapitating strike against relatively limited Turksh forces. As you know, the IDF, though not suited for long wars, is especially trained to quickly defeat forces of its size or larger. Fighting such a turkish army, the IDF would be facing more favourable odds than it did in 1973 or even 1967.
//" We can't compare America's adventures overseas to a cross boarder (basically) war. I think you are pushing for the idea the Turks will have their logistics crushed by the Israeli Air force as your main argument (or they simply can't achieve it)."//
Actually, I wasnt saying it, but naturally the IAF would be involved in such a 'venture'. By the way, though logistics of the Turkish army would be easyer than the US in Iraq, it would be offset by a far less capable logistics system, coupled with the need to transfer (from the number you presented), more than twice as many troops and equipment.
//"Again you are using a over seas example. I would use the Soviets in Afghanistan who found logistics hard, but not as hard as Americans in Vietnam (for the most obvious reasons)."//
And how many troops were the soviets able to station in Afghanistan?
//"I can see what you mean, but it can still be caught by surprise as it was a few years later."//
It's kind of hard for the Turkish army to take Israel by surprise if it takes it long weeks, and probably months, to bring to bear the amount of troops needed to achieve even relative numerical parity with the IDF. This isnt the Egyptians/Syrians who had massive armies stationed right on the border for years, since they neighrbored the IDF. Massive troop movements by the turks will enable the IDF to prepare for weeks (and not mere hours it had in 1973).
This message has been edited by Yoadm on Oct 21, 2009 1:40 PM
so israel is happy with what it has got or got rid off
- golan hieghts - radar and early warning stations - it wont give it back.
- jersulam - palestians are slowly being driven out by regular purchase of arab houses by jews, again not giving it back
- west bank - increase settlement and continued iron grip of arab population, they wont leave it.
- gaza strip - a messy place which is why they left..
so given the current status quo i dont see a possibility of a turkish intervention.
UNLESS
some how israel decides one day to attack syria and march towards damascus. Again i dont see turkey risking it;s relationship with NATO or USA for syrians who them selves do not believe in the concept of "ummah"...but rather AAArabism.
the only country that did was pakistan as it did dispatch combat instructors and airdefence crews to egypt, syria and jordan without any reprocity from the arabs.
Pakistan Airforce: The largest distributor of Indian airforce parts in Asia
Pathankot Strike
8 F-86Fs of No 19 Squadron led by Squadron Leader Sajjad Haider struck Pathankot airfield. With carefully positioned dives and selecting each individual aircraft in their protected pens for their strafing attacks, the strike elements completed a textbook operation against Pathankot. Wing Commander M G Tawab, flying one of the two Sabres as tied escorts overhead, counted 14 wrecks burning on the airfield. Among the aircraft destroyed on the ground were nearly all of the IAFs Soviet-supplied Mig-21s till then received, none of which were seen again during the War.
I would put my money on Israel in any scenario. If Turkey invades over land, Israel would cut off their supply lines. If by air the Israeli airforce with AWACS, satelites and ELINT sources would likely win I think. Of course I doubt Israel would have the resources to invade Turkey iether.
![[linked image]](http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc188/tezelturk/tez34.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://3dflags.com/art/comps-20090822/13/3dflags-aze1-14.gif)
![[linked image]](http://3dflags.com/art/comps-20090822/202/3dflags-tur1-14.gif)
![[linked image]](http://i33.tinypic.com/o0qg0h.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.barber.org.uk/coins/coinimgs/hagia-sophia.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j198/rcelej/RedList20Fist_1.png)
![[linked image]](http://img356.rockyou.com/imagehost/6/6354/6354676/6354676_437525631196761858_m.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/6629/trvsisr.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://www.hunturk.net/rsm/galeri/bayrak/Turkish_Power_by_Sadizt.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/1310/modsuckstt1.gif)
![[linked image]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2298/2310425360_f126dd00d4.jpg)
![[linked image]](http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u311/TLCPrado/aw378if.jpg)