Stuart Galbraith Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Proxy war. I would have to check but I suspect Nasser probably had some involvement early on, as he did in Aden. If you want your mind blown, search 'Mirbat'. How that never became movie I will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawes Posted November 25, 2020 Author Share Posted November 25, 2020 Does Oman still use a number of contracted UK personnel in it's armed forces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 I dont know whether they are IN their armed forces, but we do apparently still have British Army training teams present there. There was a genuinely interesting story in Huffington which suggests quite how much we have there, far more than I was suspecting. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mark-curtis/britain-oman_b_11426144.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHbsfVWc5mD3f1tb6057RTesXLJXs_Co7zqi6K7jBdr7ZW-t6awIkdpD1cl5XnM5_iIUpsyzfZh7np5OOzjNM0cwbqdlxWM-WGv-IM0nQ9eSfrZdPGlce2V2HTdfcTCjdKOXgL9iE0ggs67M1Yjw6uN1ALWkr1i9QuORFH8CeR1f Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 12 hours ago, Ssnake said: Interesting. Goes to show that no matter how much you think you know, there's always more to learn. Then again, it was a civil war, not one with their neighbors. Yes and no, like much of the area it spilled over the border with neighbouring areas and the neighbours had a hand in it, from the wiki: "In 1962 a dissatisfied tribal leader, Musallam bin Nufl (Mussalim bin Nafl), formed the Dhofar Liberation Front (DLF) and obtained arms and vehicles from Saudi Arabia.[10][11] Saudi Arabia and Oman had earlier clashed over ownership of the Buraimi Oasis, and the Saudis had already supported two failed insurrections in the Jebel Akhdar in the interior of Oman in 1957–59. The DLF also received support from Imam Ghalib Bin Ali, the exiled Imam of Oman, who had led these earlier revolts." "From the early days of the rebellion, Nasserite and other left wing movements in the neighbouring Aden Protectorate, later the Protectorate of South Arabia, were also involved. In 1967, two events combined to give the Rebellion a more revolutionary complexion. One was the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War which radicalised opinion throughout the Arab world. The other was the British withdrawal from Aden and the establishment of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY, aka South Yemen). From this point, the rebels had a source of arms, supplies and training facilities adjacent to Dhofar, and fresh recruits from groups in the PDRY. Training camps, logistical bases and other facilities were set up in the coastal town of Hawf, only a few miles from the border with Oman." Further, the remaining border with the UAE was also disputed: "However by the time of independence of the Trucial States (as the United Arab Emirates) in 1971, much of the border remained undemarcated, resulting in several disputes. The Ras Al Khaimah section of the boundary was settled in 1979 after a dispute arose in 1977-78 following the discovery of oil in the area.[7][8] Relations between the two states warmed in the 1980s-90s, resulting in a border agreement for the southern section of the frontier in 1999, followed by a complete border delimitation ratified in Abu Dhabi on 22 June 2002" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRW Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 On 11/19/2020 at 5:07 PM, rohala said: "emiratis" of course this doesn't matter, they can hire all the pakistanis they need to man their tanks Am not so sure about the Pakistanis - at least not in the fighting component - support probably yes The UAE is trying to develop a strong technologically advanced military. There is an emphasis on automation and uav ugv etc. the Australians may have an in. the head of SF being ex ADF. Read somewhere about south Americans also but may be mixing up somewhere else in the region Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 1 hour ago, WRW said: . Read somewhere about south Americans also but may be mixing up somewhere else in the region Used in the Yemen intervention Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRW Posted November 28, 2020 Share Posted November 28, 2020 53 minutes ago, RETAC21 said: Used in the Yemen intervention Also maybe some Israelis there. Contracted via company in Switzerland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 On 11/28/2020 at 7:37 PM, WRW said: Also maybe some Israelis there. Contracted via company in Switzerland. What was it called, Evil Joos (tm) R Us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRW Posted December 1, 2020 Share Posted December 1, 2020 Lol. Was doing some research a few months ago. I normally clear research material fast so not clog my HD. If I find again I will post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRW Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 Jordan has a lot of Challenger1 in reserve, any thoughts on what they might be useful for - maybe Heavy APC as the IDF Centurion one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETAC21 Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 15 minutes ago, WRW said: Jordan has a lot of Challenger1 in reserve, any thoughts on what they might be useful for - maybe Heavy APC as the IDF Centurion one? They had this cool idea, which was terminated: http://fighting-vehicles.com/falcon-turret/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 They could use them as HAPC, but that would mean they need a doctrine for heavy mechanized forces, while their entire army is built to be very light, nimble, and specialized (various SoF units) to meet internal security threats and emerging small scale external threats, but nothing its neighbors who build armies for multi-state conflicts. If and when Jordan needs to restructure its military to meet a conventional threat, i.e with a solid quantity of tanks, IFVs, and mobile artillery and whatnot, it will need the resources to build it first, and what better resource than withdrawn, long term stored tanks? Of course, most don't invest at all in maintaining even to some degree withdrawn AFVs like tanks, even countries operating vast fleets of combat vehicles. But Ukraine is a good example of a country that can take tanks from a literal AFV graveyard and refurbish them to not only working condition, but even clean and repaint them, which is a nice professional touch that is all too rare nowadays. And that's pretty much a third of the list of good stuff I can say about Ukraine. I don't know if Jordan has a proper facility for maintenance, refurbishment, and even reassembly of tanks, but for now one problem at a time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRW Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 What about urban coin work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, WRW said: What about urban coin work. That's a nope. In the open space, an old tank can still be useful. In an urban setting, a tank really shows its age. That's why the new generation of tanks is planned with a whole bunch of different technologies primarily aimed at urban combat. When the tanks become too old, and your enemy can afford a little more than just RPGs with the wrong warheads, an obsolete tank becomes a liability, not an asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WRW Posted December 14, 2020 Share Posted December 14, 2020 Much appreciated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 What is the point for the Jordanians? They have no desire to attack a neighbour, if one of the heavily armed neighbours attacks them they still do not have the ability to contest the airspace and with the enemy in full control of the skies heavy units become targets. Neither would they have the manpower nor the money to stand up formations big enough to make a difference. Their light forces are perfect for security work in country and given decent weapons still enough to hurt an attacking enemy and make any advance costly. Sure they can not stand and fight, but they can fight a constant fighting withdrawal and would probably do okay in urban fights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 Here is the flaw with that logic. The narrative has been that America is going home, leave the middle east to itself, dont get involved. And the counter narrative to Jordan is, dont bother to defend yourself, its futile, you are poor, so why bother? They bother because the narrative is that nations should defend themselves, however imperfectly. Because if they wont defend themselves (and even Kuwait to be fair did have a valiant try) then why should they think anyone thinks they are worth liberating? Jordan is surrounded by people whom have mostly been enemies in their time. I cant fault them for sticking with trust but verify. What would I do? They have C1 hulls. If we go with the C2 upgrade, Id buy some new turrets and put them on the C1 hulls. Maybe some new engines and gearboxes. If the Saffies can upgrade Centurion forever, they can upgrade Challenger forever. If they choose to of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 I agree with Stuart here, and I also like saying the last word cause that's who I am (sassy accent). Even poor countries invest in their defense both due to internal and external policy. Specifically Jordan, and I disagree on this very specific point with Stuart, is not surrounded by enemy states. To its west, Israel and Egypt pledged, in different ways, to shield it from certain external threats. To its south, a sea between multiple allied nations. To its east, an ally Saudi Arabia. To its north, Syria. Now, only Syria is really a problem because it's a source of instability which led to insurgents to attack Jordan, after Jordan committed to its own attacks on ISIS to score international cookie points. To the far east, Iran is also a threat to Jordan, but this threat is mostly ballistic, which Jordan should currently be able to deal with even without assistance from Saudi Arabia. What IS a real security threat to Jordan, is insurgency at home. Its population is mostly Palestinian, and they have attempted to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty to form their own state. That threat was curbed, but it still exists. Conventional capabilities like tanks are still needed, because if Jordan again descends into a civil war, it could be a mini Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 Zuk, please dont misunderstand me, I should have made that clearer. They are surrounded by people that historically have been hostile. Leaving aside Israel, they have as we know been in several standoffs with Syria. And whilst im not aware they ever were formally threatened by iraq, its notable during the Iran/Iraq war, and even during the Kuwait war, that they leaned towards Saddam because they (quite understandably) were aware of the mischief he could cause if they did not. Perhaps not an enemy, but even further from being a friend I would say. Egypt, separated by sea, and we saw in 1973, Israel is fully capable of cutting those ties. As for the Saudi's, they dont have friends, they have alliances. As even the Americans found, that can only ever take you so far. So really, there is not another Arab state they can count upon. They best they can do is have enough combat force to stop light incursions of their territory, then hope Britain America or France might send more if it came to it. Agree entirely on the rest, at present they have no realistic threats. But as the tank was invented primarily as an infantry bully, its still incredibly useful in cracking heads, even in an insurgency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 Wrong imho. The biggest threat is internal and that is coming from within the Palestinians. If you allow this threat to become so big that it needs tanks to be crushed, you have already lost. The money is much better spent on superbly trained light and special forces that are loyal to the government. The rest is much better spent on improving the overall living conditions. The actual strategic position means that they always have a real chance to get foreign support if somebody attacks them. If Syria would attack them (which they can not really achieve) the Israelis would have a very healthy interest in stopping this from becoming a success and Jordan becoming a part of Syria. So in that case delaying the attacker would be just enough. Same thing the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Galbraith Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 You might think that, but it kind of ignores what happened in 1970 doesnt it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September More recently, Iraq and Syria have both used tanks to successfully prosecute an insurgency. The British Army found its Challenger 2's incredibly useful keeping the insurgency under control in Basra and Al Amarah. So they are entirely justified in keeping tanks. I would entirely they need light infantry and special forces, but they clearly have that also. In fact, its somewhat embarrassing, the current Jordanian Army is significantly bigger than the current British Army, and a good many current European Armies for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahawk Posted December 15, 2020 Share Posted December 15, 2020 They have about 300 MBTs in service. I think that is a suitable number. To be honest I think they have a quite well balanced and capable force. I simply see no reason for them to go more heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On the way Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 On 11/19/2020 at 4:26 AM, RETAC21 said: No, they had loads and loads of Leclercs (388 gun +46 recovery vehicles) which were more than the UAE could reasonably man (just 9.6 million emiratis around, 1.5 million men of military age for the 64.000 men armed forces). If I recall, the Leclercs are 3 man crews, which would address some of the manpower issues u mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted December 22, 2020 Share Posted December 22, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, On the way said: If I recall, the Leclercs are 3 man crews, which would address some of the manpower issues u mentioned. Not quite. His numbers are spot on. We have the same issue in Israel. Our population is 8.9 million, of which at least 1.9 million are automatically exempt, so 7 million really. We have around 1,000 MBTs in service (Mark 3 and 4). But it's offset by the fact they're manned by 4 men, not 3. So it works out. Edited December 22, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now