For those of you following the earlier post’s comments, NPR says IDF reports 40 Hizballah killed.
That’s 22 wounded and 9 killed IDF, an unknown number HA wounded and 40 killed.
That’s 4 to 1, when the 4 are already in ambush positions, and one can assume at least 20 shooters in the initial ambush.
Strategically, HA can absorb losses at that level. It has manpower to burn at this point.
Tactically, 4 to 1 with a three-side city ambush? That’s bad. In fact, that’s embarrassing. What this tells me, combined with the relatively high numbers of wounded-but-not-killed, is that Hizballah is falling back on the perennial Military-Arab notion of “front sight? What’s that?” Better quality of shooting would have resulted in a much higher IDF fatality rate even with the new medical equipment (don’t know if they have it, but it’s a reasonably safe bet), b/c it’s “known” that there was no meaningful medivac in this furball for a ridiculously long time.
In other words, Hizballah may still be the best Arab army on the block, and have a great combination of equipment and morale… but it’s still an Arab army, and still apparently running on the age-old “we have troops to burn” theory where only the officers count for squat.
Interesting counterpoint: when the guys in Iraq got together to celebrate being in charge of their own province, all the traditional guys came up from the Tribes to celebrate… and the documentary pictures in the NYT showed not ONE AK47 or variant. Each and every single one of these guys had a Mosin-Nagant or similar type long-barreled bolt-action rifle. Mentally and culturally, there is a huge difference between the man who carries the former weapon, and the man who carries the latter.