Merkava-4 is only SO-SO!.

During wartime conditions, the onus to prevent civilian casualties lie with all the warring factions. It is as much Israel’s responsibility to minimize civilian casualties as it is the Hezbollah’s. The fact that Hezbollah actively uses Lebanese civilians as shields and targets Israeli civilians actively means that they have completely reneged on its responsibilities to minimize civilian casualties. If Hezbollah has so obviously reneged on its responsibilities, what binds Israel to those same responsibilities.

What binds Israel to those same responsibilities would be the fact that they are NOT like that scummy hezbollah, which is a terrorist organisation. Now if Israel thinks it is good company, be my guest, but there won’t be any support comming from me.

Nic

Dear Member,

Try and please understand what we are trying to warn you about. Key Publishing Forums are a great place. One of the best on the internet. But Key Publishing makes it clear that they want as little politics and religion as possible on these forums. Not to long ago there was a great sub-forum called LAND WEAPONS and two groups (one from Europe and one from Asia) got into it big time and you want to know the adminstrations solution: They shut that forum down and deleted all the messages along with a lot of important material. I am not an old timer. But I can understand their view. They don’t want the same thing happening here as happed with LAND WEAPONS.

Jack E. Hammond

Stop being melidramatic. :diablo: This is nowhere like what was happening before. :rolleyes:

Anyways, Suflanker waved his right to lecture others about going off topic when his first and only post in this thread at the time was just as off-topic as anyone he criticised. Besides, it was hardly a call to stop on both sides. He’s sour because his ‘side’ was getting spanked, not because he is strictly against people going off-topic.

Anyways, the discussion seems to be getting somewhere back on track, so lets try not to derail it again shall we?

Wow, that sounds like a WWI “landship”!

Not exactly what I had in mind, but then ‘landships’ were designed to take on hostile infantry, so its not that far off I supose. 😉

When did I say world navies r a waste of space? Is that yr definition?? LOL.. Don need carriers? Then u expect every combat aircraft t have a combat radius of 10,000km? Aircraft carriers r mobile airfield to allow yr combat aircraft to strike yr enemy far away from yr own territories.

I was just expanding on your arguement that, ‘if it ain’t good to fighting insurgents, its obsolete’ line of reasoning and applied to that Naval warships. Fast jets are also not best suited to fight insurgents, so why do you need them? Attack helos are more then what you need to take out some poorly armed insurgents.

Imagine MBT facing a militants who armed with AK-47 and oldies RPG! Who will win?? MBT have relegate to the role of fighting poor equip militants which is a hard fact!

Thats just silly! How much time does the vast majority of modern armies spend fighting? Does that mean you don’t need them? You don’t just have armies to fight the threat of the moment.

As I said before, MBTs are not designed to fight insurgents, they are design to kill other armoured vehicals and lead your armies into battle, and in that role, there is no better candidate to replace it, so it is still a critical part of the armies’ arsenal.

But MBT facing a highly train operator of ATGM will be a different story.Heavy APC Achzarit is using a Merkava body meaning it provide equal armour protection except it don have the bulky turret and offer cheaper operating fees.

And how good is the Achzarit at killing MBTs and other armoured vehicals? You are comparing applies to oranges.

BTW,in modern warfare context,u don need a MBT to kill a MBT. If I don have modern MBT but facing a modern MBT,I will have Attack helo on standby and using ATGM to knock them out.

And your foe will have attack helo and fighters of the own; mobile AAA and short ranged SAMs and MANPADs to take them out. You think a force with attack helos and MBTs would do better or worse at taking on hostile modern armies compared to a force with just attack helos?

Or my amoury too have ATGM on standby in case the helo cant complete the job!

And your opponent have mobalized infantry who would surge forward with the armour to root out your missile teams very quickly if your just stick them out in the middle of nowhere with no armoured support. But faced with a division strength armoured charge, any amroured force without MBTs is just going to get slaughtered.

But most cases ,such scenario is unlikely cos air campaign of using PGM of deep strike into enemies territories shall have already destroy buky of their MBT! Ground troops merely went in to pick up the pieces…

And what is your enemy’s armies going to be doing while your air force fight to gain air superiority? :rolleyes:

If you have a vast superiority on land, then thats where you want to fight your opponent. Every force have its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and only a general stupid beyound belief would choose to fight the enemy’s strongest force with his weakest while holding his own strongest forces without using them.

It will take time to win air superiority, and your foe will be using that time to crush up on land if he is significantly stronger there. What is your super-duper air force going to do if the enemy has all their airfields and planes?

America was only allowed to bomb its enemies at will because it had an overwhelming superiority on land and in the air, so their opponent could only try to dig in and attempt to use the land to have any chance of achieving victories.

Air campaign demoralish the serbs,cutting them off from the rest of the world and result the removal of Molosovic.

What, did the air campaign blow a mote around the former Yugaslavia? :rolleyes: It was the sanctions that cut them off, and the bombing did not come anywhere close to ‘demoralise’ (or are you trying to say demolish?) the serb military. It was the civilians that broke if anyone did. But most commentators suggested that it was the immanent threat of a land war that broke the serb people. Just as well, because NATO would have been majorly mauled if its ground forces did go in.

Serb r too good in using fake tank decoy and decept and wasted many Coalition PGM. This is tatic failure and not usage failure…. Using air force to pound yr enemies too stone age is the correct choice but Serbs r too cuning!

Serb success in avioding NATO air strikes owes as much if not more to the difficult terrain and weather pattern of the region as their fieldcraft skills. The LGP was the backbone of NATO PGMs at the time, and LGBs don’t tend to work that well when fog cuts or refracts the guidence beam.

But that does not explain how Iraqi division sized forces were pretty much at full strength when encountered by US/UK ground forces in GW2.

Blitzkerig is obsolete and patient using of airpower of gaining air supremacy is the 21st modern wafare tatics. Using Air PGM to pound yr enemies of whatever advantages to them is the best solution to reduce casualties of yr side and win the war easily!

Blitzkreig is nowhere near obsolete mate. GW2 is based exactly on the principles of air power covered lighting fast armoured advance of Blitzkreig.

And as said before, without a sufficiently strong ground force to hold your lines, any half compitent foe would be swarming all over your airfields before you had time to slowly grind them to dust with your airpower.

In the chenya war 2,the Russia using artillery and PGM to win the rebel. Whenever they have clear up an area,they will send in fast mechanised armour to pick up the pieces and set up artillery bridgade and start pounding the next area again. They Key is having the patient and proceed slowly inch by inch after each pounding,casualties r low and rebels were rooted out! While for the Israel-Lebanon situation,Israel r desperate and making the same mistake just like Russia of of Chenya war 1.. Sending in amrour unit hastily….

Urban warfare have always been the bain of generals. No-one wants to fight in cities because everyone is going to take massive looses no matter who wins if they are fighting a well equiped and highly motivated foe. Tanks were never designed or intended to fight in cities with the exception of maybe the Merk. They are designed to take on the enemy in the fields and crush them so you don’t have to grind your cities to dust to beat them.

The tank is not obsolete because its role is not to take on insurgents in urban battlefields, but to wipe out enemy armour out in the open. So long as world armies have armoured vehicals, then MBTs have a critical and unique role to play. What is lacking is a dedicated urban anti-infantry combat vehical that can take sustined hits from modern ATGMs. You need to add to your armoured inventory to deal with the new threat, not sacrific one ability to gain another. That’ll be like retiring the fighter to make room for close air support planes because fastjets aren’t that good at taking groundfire, and rationalising that by saying that large scale air combat hardly takes place nowadays, so fighters are obsolete and because SAMs can take out enemy fighters so your own fighters are not strictly needed.

So what is STFU meant to stand for then? What? Did my response hit a little too close to home? :rolleyes:

Anyways, I didn’t see your first post on this thread having any ‘on topic’ material. At least I entered this thread on topic.

Dear Member,

Try and please understand what we are trying to warn you about. Key Publishing Forums are a great place. One of the best on the internet. But Key Publishing makes it clear that they want as little politics and religion as possible on these forums. Not to long ago there was a great sub-forum called LAND WEAPONS and two groups (one from Europe and one from Asia) got into it big time and you want to know the adminstrations solution: They shut that forum down and deleted all the messages along with a lot of important material. I am not an old timer. But I can understand their view. They don’t want the same thing happening here as happed with LAND WEAPONS.

Jack E. Hammond

By that definition, 90 of all the world’s navies are a waste of space. All you need to fight militants are some assault ships. You don’t even need carriers as fast jets are not that effective against insurgents anyways, attack helos are far more effective. But then, Navies don’t exist to fight militants do they?.

When did I say world navies r a waste of space? Is that yr definition?? LOL.. Don need carriers? Then u expect every combat aircraft t have a combat radius of 10,000km? Aircraft carriers r mobile airfield to allow yr combat aircraft to strike yr enemy far away from yr own territories.

By the same vein, MBTs are not designed to fight militants, so its hardly suprising that they are not doing that great a job of it. However, only fools would think that militants are the only threat to the world’s nations. Other nations still pose the greatest threat by far, and you can’t hope to win a land war against another modern army if you don’t have capable MBTs while the other side does.

Imagine MBT facing a militants who armed with AK-47 and oldies RPG! Who will win?? MBT have relegate to the role of fighting poor equip militants which is a hard fact! But MBT facing a highly train operator of ATGM will be a different story.Heavy APC Achzarit is using a Merkava body meaning it provide equal armour protection except it don have the bulky turret and offer cheaper operating fees.BTW,in modern warfare context,u don need a MBT to kill a MBT. If I don have modern MBT but facing a modern MBT,I will have Attack helo on standby and using ATGM to knock them out.Or my amoury too have ATGM on standby in case the helo cant complete the job! But most cases ,such scenario is unlikely cos air campaign of using PGM of deep strike into enemies territories shall have already destroy buky of their MBT! Ground troops merely went in to pick up the pieces…

In Kosovo, the air campgne did far less damage to serb units then anyone in the west thought possible, and it was only the threat of a NATO ground offensive that forced the removel of Molosovic.

Air campaign demoralish the serbs,cutting them off from the rest of the world and result the removal of Molosovic. Serb r too good in using fake tank decoy and decept and wasted many Coalition PGM. This is tatic failure and not usage failure…. Using air force to pound yr enemies too stone age is the correct choice but Serbs r too cuning!

Blitzkerig, as first used by the Germans in WWII is the perfect counter-example to what you just said! They easily defeated far superior enemy armoured units. And thoughout the war, German Panzer divisions ruled in land because of the superior MBTs.

Blitzkerig is obsolete and patient using of airpower of gaining air supremacy is the 21st modern wafare tatics. Using Air PGM to pound yr enemies of whatever advantages to them is the best solution to reduce casualties of yr side and win the war easily!

Considering what a hard time MBTs are having against ATGMs and RPGs, it would be stupid to send in even lighter armoured IFVs to try and do the same role! You’d get hugely increased looses as the armour of almost all IFVs offer zero chances of surviving direct hits by even decade old ATGMs never mind modern weapons.

The Israeli have come up with the best solution to what the best anti-insurgent fighting armoured unit should be – a massively armoured MBT designed to take hits from ATGMs and survive. Maybe a better design might be a IFV armoured like modern MBTs but with anything up to half a dozen romote operable turrets instead of a main gun for the troops in the back to operate. This should provide far better all round anti-personel coverage then any MBT or IFV and would offer the crew the protect of the Merhava4 if not better, to take the inevatable ATGM hits and survive.

In the chenya war 2,the Russia using artillery and PGM to win the rebel. Whenever they have clear up an area,they will send in fast mechanised armour to pick up the pieces and set up artillery bridgade and start pounding the next area again. They Key is having the patient and proceed slowly inch by inch after each pounding,casualties r low and rebels were rooted out! While for the Israel-Lebanon situation,Israel r desperate and making the same mistake just like Russia of of Chenya war 1.. Sending in amrour unit hastily….

Maybe a better design might be a IFV armoured like modern MBTs but with anything up to half a dozen romote operable turrets instead of a main gun for the troops in the back to operate. This should provide far better all round anti-personel coverage then any MBT or IFV and would offer the crew the protect of the Merhava4 if not better, to take the inevatable ATGM hits and survive.

Wow, that sounds like a WWI “landship”!

MBT is obsolete and need no replacement just like battleship of WWII. Tatics change and modern warfare of the 21st century need no MBT. Why MBT still exists today,cos of the fact nowdays costant warfare is more of fighting militants,a group of loosely equip soldiers who totally lacked modern light weight weaponery to fight those armoury! While in these case,Hezboallah r hardly a militants but in fact a highly organise and modern military organisation with well-fund and modern weaponery once again prove MBT r obsolete in Modern warfare.

By that definition, 90 of all the world’s navies are a waste of space. All you need to fight militants are some assault ships. You don’t even need carriers as fast jets are not that effective against insurgents anyways, attack helos are far more effective. But then, Navies don’t exist to fight militants do they?

By the same vein, MBTs are not designed to fight militants, so its hardly suprising that they are not doing that great a job of it. However, only fools would think that militants are the only threat to the world’s nations. Other nations still pose the greatest threat by far, and you can’t hope to win a land war against another modern army if you don’t have capable MBTs while the other side does.

In fact ,it is the US who set the standard of modern warfare of the 21st century by using raw airpower to subdue the enemeies. In Gulf war 1,the coalition airpower basically use airpower to overwhelm the Iraqi by blinding it network using PGM on its radar,CAC HQ,communication,network then going into its hardware of weaponery of armour,aircraft,air defense,warship,weaponery storage and facilites. Simply bombed its enemies into stone age soldiers. Making them a loosely organise militants with no modern weaponery and support! Armour support by attack chopper moved in basically just to occupied the territories with search and destroy mission.

You have far too rosy a picture of what happened in GW1 mate. The air war failed to crush the Iraqi army, and it was only after the demonstration of the overwhelming superiority of western MBTs and tactics that won the war so convincingly. Please read up on your history, because when the coalition ground faces went in, they encountered well organised (as much as that applied to Iraqi forces anyways) and huge Iraqi Republican Guard Tank divisions. Attack helos would have been chewed to bits by the mobile SAMs and AAAs. Even if they weren’t, they would not have nearly enough missiles to hope to stop such huge numbers of enemy tanks, and any armoured force without MBTs would have been rape onces the Iraqi T72s got within range.

Subsequent conflicts have shown again and again the importance of ground forces, and MBTs in particular.

In Kosovo, the air campgne did far less damage to serb units then anyone in the west thought possible, and it was only the threat of a NATO ground offensive that forced the removel of Molosovic.

In GW2, air power again did less then hoped, and large Iraqi armoured formations were discovered to be almost full strength when American (and maybe also British units, but I can’t remember exactly) amroured units encountered them. Again, it was the superiority of American and British MBTs that won the day.

Sum up in modern warfare. Both countries bascially just have a airfight first to exhaust each other and awaits the winner of the aerial combat before taking the next step.

Without a solid army (and no army without MBTs can be called ‘solid’), you don’t have another step short of the nuclear option.

Remember the old joke about Soviet Generals camiserating each other about the defeat in the air during a victory parade in Paris? That same principle still applies today.

Blitzkerig of aerial and armour moves in together is only successful when fighting a very inferior adversaries like the Iraqi arm forces of 2003,an armed forces who suffer 10yrs of arm sanction and decaying equipment. In fact,i will see old Iraqi armed forces of 2003 more of a militants than a convention armed forces! Why need a MBT when airpower will do all the main assault job?

Blitzkerig, as first used by the Germans in WWII is the perfect counter-example to what you just said! They easily defeated far superior enemy armoured units. And thoughout the war, German Panzer divisions ruled in land because of the superior MBTs.

I have also pointed out before how your Iraqi example is not based on what really happened on the ground.

I personally reccomend a heavy APC maybe seen as a solution for ground assault. The ground forces just need to send in troops to root out the remaining stubborn enemies. Heavy APC like Achzarit which is much lighter than MBT,cheaper to maintain and operate will provide the solution. Modern armour merely relegate to the role of taxi of ground battlefield. Achzarit form the first line with attack chopper closely nearby the act as immediate reaction team of destroy adversaries follow by normal APC like M113 or Pirahna AWPC will form the neccesary armour combo of the future.. Who needs heavyfirepower from the ground unit when the airpower is doing all the job? No sense countries will send in armour to do the main assault job!

Considering what a hard time MBTs are having against ATGMs and RPGs, it would be stupid to send in even lighter armoured IFVs to try and do the same role! You’d get hugely increased looses as the armour of almost all IFVs offer zero chances of surviving direct hits by even decade old ATGMs never mind modern weapons.

The Israeli have come up with the best solution to what the best anti-insurgent fighting armoured unit should be – a massively armoured MBT designed to take hits from ATGMs and survive. Maybe a better design might be a IFV armoured like modern MBTs but with anything up to half a dozen romote operable turrets instead of a main gun for the troops in the back to operate. This should provide far better all round anti-personel coverage then any MBT or IFV and would offer the crew the protect of the Merhava4 if not better, to take the inevatable ATGM hits and survive.

Sum up in modern warfare. Both countries bascially just have a airfight first to exhaust each other and awaits the winner of the aerial combat before taking the next step.

The whole time the airfight is going on, the ground war will also be in progress, in which MBTs would be very useful.

I agree that airpower is more important today than ever, and you can’t win without air superiority. However, no matter how much you bomb the enemy, there is still fighting to be done on the ground. And in any such fighting, the MBT provides the most powerful of punches.

HEY PLAWOLF AND GREENDAY1 STFU!!!!!! WHAT DOES YOUR POINTLESS BS GOT TO DO WITH THE MERKAVA??!!! STOP THREADJACKING AND GET BACK TO THE TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!

Where’s the mods? Another thread was locked because of this pointless BS and that thread was about the whole Israel Lebanon conflict. Most of this thread has NOTHING to do about the Merkava! Geez!

So what is STFU meant to stand for then? What? Did my response hit a little too close to home? :rolleyes:

Anyways, I didn’t see your first post on this thread having any ‘on topic’ material. At least I entered this thread on topic.

Regarding those who claim the end of the tank… what exactly do they propose will replace it? It has evolved from a protected mobile MG position that can support troops to very large, very well protected, heavy gun weapon system. A mobile vehicle able to deliver heavy HE charges on targets at relatively close range will always been a requirement. Using missiles or rockets is just too expensive and takes up too much space for combat persistance.

MBT is obsolete and need no replacement just like battleship of WWII. Tatics change and modern warfare of the 21st century need no MBT. Why MBT still exists today,cos of the fact nowdays costant warfare is more of fighting militants,a group of loosely equip soldiers who totally lacked modern light weight weaponery to fight those armoury! While in these case,Hezboallah r hardly a militants but in fact a highly organise and modern military organisation with well-fund and modern weaponery once again prove MBT r obsolete in Modern warfare.

In fact ,it is the US who set the standard of modern warfare of the 21st century by using raw airpower to subdue the enemeies. In Gulf war 1,the coalition airpower basically use airpower to overwhelm the Iraqi by blinding it network using PGM on its radar,CAC HQ,communication,network then going into its hardware of weaponery of armour,aircraft,air defense,warship,weaponery storage and facilites. Simply bombed its enemies into stone age soldiers. Making them a loosely organise militants with no modern weaponery and support! Armour support by attack chopper moved in basically just to occupied the territories with search and destroy mission.

Sum up in modern warfare. Both countries bascially just have a airfight first to exhaust each other and awaits the winner of the aerial combat before taking the next step.

Blitzkerig of aerial and armour moves in together is only successful when fighting a very inferior adversaries like the Iraqi arm forces of 2003,an armed forces who suffer 10yrs of arm sanction and decaying equipment. In fact,i will see old Iraqi armed forces of 2003 more of a militants than a convention armed forces! Why need a MBT when airpower will do all the main assault job?

I personally reccomend a heavy APC maybe seen as a solution for ground assault. The ground forces just need to send in troops to root out the remaining stubborn enemies. Heavy APC like Achzarit which is much lighter than MBT,cheaper to maintain and operate will provide the solution. Modern armour merely relegate to the role of taxi of ground battlefield. Achzarit form the first line with attack chopper closely nearby the act as immediate reaction team of destroy adversaries follow by normal APC like M113 or Pirahna AWPC will form the neccesary armour combo of the future.. Who needs heavyfirepower from the ground unit when the airpower is doing all the job? No sense countries will send in armour to do the main assault job!

HEY PLAWOLF AND GREENDAY1 STFU!!!!!! WHAT DOES YOUR POINTLESS BS GOT TO DO WITH THE MERKAVA??!!! STOP THREADJACKING AND GET BACK TO THE TOPIC!!!!!!!!!!

Where’s the mods? Another thread was locked because of this pointless BS and that thread was about the whole Israel Lebanon conflict. Most of this thread has NOTHING to do about the Merkava! Geez!

So they talk to each other via their own ambassadors?!
Till now it is indirect via an European mediator.
Lebanese can travel to Tel Aviv or visit an Israel website at least?!
Stay serious, there were not even peace negotiations official allowed.
You have a ridiculous understanding of “RECOGNISE”.
But I agree with you, that most Lebanese people have accepted that there is a state of Israel.

Yes, most Lebanese have accepted Isreal, and look at how their “neighbour” has responded! Bombing Beruit back to the stoneage! Is it anywonder why other Arab countries dont want to have relations with such a state!?

Imagine if RAF Tornados did the same to Belfast to target the IRA!? A civilised nation would not stand for it!

I have no love for Hezboallah, but what Isreal is doing is wrong, that should be clear to any sane person!

All the Lebanese who had accepedt Isreal in the past will have very different feelings now. Isreals actions are creating more problems for itself years down the line.

If I were Lebanese right now, I would joing Hezboallah. What choice would I have if bombs kept raining down on my family and freinds? 🙁

Read your own words and try to think hard about that.
Broke an armistice is start a war again. That is what Hezbollah did exactly.
Congratulations, you got it at least!

God! How hard is it to get? :rolleyes:

What does ‘act of war’ mean? How is it used? Do I really have to give you a reading lesson? :rolleyes:

You also need to work real hard at your sarcasm.

Anyways, all this nit picking is getting out of hand. Lets at least try to keep this discussion from getting even more sidetracked.

A broken armistice is a broken armistice, declaring war is declearing war. You can’t declare war again if you are still technically at war.

Yet more pointless monologs.

Read your own words and try to think hard about that.
Broke an armistice is start a war again. That is what Hezbollah did exactly.
Congratulations, you got it at least!

When the armistice is broken!

A broken armistice is a broken armistice, declaring war is declearing war. You can’t declare war again if you are still technically at war.

The armistice was/is observed by UNFIL.
We all know except you, that the UN is just busy to end war again and restore the former armistice at first.
Please fewer ‘rolleyes’ and hard thinking at first.

In the moment the IDF may start to use its tanks more properly and the “go-in and go-out” may end. Till today the IDF showed no sound concept to wage that war, what allowed Hezbollah its fluid warfare and caused attrition without sizeable gains for the IDF so far. If all worked well in that kind of warfare for Hezbollah is questionable too. I am shure, that they did not exspected such long-time fierce fighting either. For the number of anti-tank weapons used so far, the achivements are still limited and disappointing for Hezbollah too.

Yet more pointless monologs.

To keep things simple for. When you start a “fire”, like Hezbollah did and none questioned that so far, you can not blame the heat for your hardship.

Its simplistic to blame Hezbollah for this. There have been so much tit-for-tat that no-one can draw a line under things. Israel says this offensive is in response for that attack, while Hezbollah says that attcka is for another offensive…

Also, even if you forget the pointless question of ‘who started it’, you can’t blame the excessive suffering of the Lebanese people on Hezbollah when it is the Israeli policy of ‘lets make them pay for liking Hezbollah’ that is causing so much unnecessary suffering and death.

When things become to hot for you, none prevents the Lebanese (Hezbollah are Lebanese too, just to remember you) to do all to stop that as fast as possible.

What kind of BS reasoning is that? :rolleyes: One can just as easily use such ‘reasoning’ to say that the Israelis should just give in to Hezbollah’s demands and release some prisoners to stop all the violence.

Also, what people have a problem with is the Israeli policy of deliberately creating civilian suffering to ‘max the heat’, to try and increase the chances of the people turning on Hezbollah.

Do not exspect, that Israel will be gratefull about the killings and kidnappings of their soldiers alongside the ‘Blue-Line’, voted by the UN and its Arabic-members, when Lebanon did nothing to prevent that!

Again, more irrelevent outbrists out of the blue. If you like arguing with yourself so much, please go do it with a mirror in the privicy of your own home and spare the rest of us your monologs.

…and the related hardship you forget to add.

You really need a reality check if you think the Lebanese people like what the Israelis are doing to them. :rolleyes:

A hardship Israel is chiefly responsible for causing. And please spare us the ‘natural consequences of war’ act, Israel could have conducted its military offensive in a way that would have caused far less suffering to oridnary Lebanese civilians.

Its an open secret that one of Israel’s military objects is to maximise civilian hardship to try and turn the people against Hezbollah.

What are you trying to say?

To keep things simple for. When you start a “fire”, like Hezbollah did and none questioned that so far, you can not blame the heat for your hardship.
When things become to hot for you, none prevents the Lebanese (Hezbollah are Lebanese too, just to remember you) to do all to stop that as fast as possible.
Do not exspect, that Israel will be gratefull about the killings and kidnappings of their soldiers alongside the ‘Blue-Line’, voted by the UN and its Arabic-members, when Lebanon did nothing to prevent that!

And they seem to love Hezbollah.

…and the related hardship you forget to add.