"The response of "500" & "megaidler" regarding the TOW missiles represent the exact attitude which should be avoided in a positive discussion. While I provided two Pro-Israel refrences confirming the existence of TWO missiles with IDF starting from the 14th battles till the war end, Both denied this without bothering the provision of thier supporting sources.
Again, I am pasting a third refernce confirming the Rockets use during the 14th battles :-"
quoted from Shelata
I don't really think you understand the argument that I and others are making about the use of TOW. I have already stated that the IDF received TOW during the October War. I know, one of my closest friends was involved in hasty training on the system. However, the number of TOWs received and introduced into service during the war itself was insignificant.
If you wish to understand why the Egyptian army received such a serious set back during the battle of October 14th, have a look at Kenneth Pollack's Arabs at War pages 116-118. Perhaps you would like to scan and post the information there? I am afraid I do not have a scanner or would do so myself. Perhaps you would like to also scan Dupuy's account of the 14th October battle? You know, the one to be found on pages 485-491 in his book Elusive Victory. I suspect you won't as Dupuy, along with other serious authors, talks of the drubbing Egyptian armour received at the hands of quick moving and thinking IDF armour formations and guess what? not a TOW unit in sight.
Alternatively, you could scan page 65 of Cordesman's Lessons of Modern Warfare volume 1. There there is a detailed breakdown on IDF usage of TOWs during the war. To summerise; the IDF fired 20 TOWs during the war scoring 13 hits. The IDF suffered problems with miswiring and gudance thanks to the hasty nature of the weapons introduction and truncated training
Here are some info that I`ve gathered on the supply of weapons to Israel by air during operation Nickel Grass, after studying declassified US documents.
I have used my own words to sum up parts of the pdf linked to below , while other parts are directly rewritten from the pdf.
To: the secretary (Kissinger?)
From: PM Seymour Weiss.
-Due to shortages in supplies in the US, run short due to draw-downs for Vietnam, some stocks from the European theatre, primarily the FRG (W-Germany) are being moved to Israel.
-25 thousand tons are being prepared for shipment, and that will require about 28 days.
-DOD has scheduled four C-5 and twelve C-141 flights per day.
-There is a “fear” that Israel will not be able to absorb the equipment efficiently.
-Refuelling is a concern as the inbound cargo planes will need to be refilled with fuel in Israel. (deplete Israeli fuel stocks).
First priority on Israeli wishlist: combat aircrafts:
“To date” 16 F-4 Phantoms have been approved for transfer to Israel, several straight from the McDonnel Douglas productions, but the majority were withdrawn from USAF operational units. 12 have been delivered, with 4 more are on their way. 12 more are being prepared for delivery, but final transfer autority has not yet been received.
30 A-4 Skyhawks are being prepared for transfer from the US. There are problems with finding qualified US pilots for the ferry missions and refuelling is also a concern. Problem is given high priority.
Second priority on Israeli wishlist: Air to air Missiles.
The Israelies viewed the delivery of AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles as their second highest priority, 200 of these heat-seeking missiles were approved for transfer and all have been delivered to Israel.
Third priority on Israeli wishlist: Anti-Tank weapons.
A number of TOW missiles and launchers have already been delivered. The Israelis also have had 16.000 LAWs now in the airlift system enroute to Israel. This weapon, less sophisticated than the TOW was afforded the Israelies`third highest priority.
Fourth priority on Israeli wishlist: SHRIKE AGM
-The SHRIKE air-to-surface missile was also approved for transfer as Israelis fourth highest priority item. Presently there are 46 of these anti-SAM radar missiles enroute via airlift.
A request for 175mm and 105mm.
504 of the 175mm projectiles are currently underway via airlift. Problems because the projectile consists of several components. Defence trying to ensure that enough of the various components arrive within a reasonable span of time.
Several aircraft sub-components “auxiliary” equipment items have been given a high priority by the Israelis. For example, of a list of over 100 priority items, they have designed the 370-gallon external F-4 wing tank as priority number six. At this time, 80 tanks are en route via airlift. Moreover externally-mounted racks for the F-4 and A-4 are needed, 100 racks for the A-4 have already been delivered.
Defence reports that the Israelis have constantly shifted their priorities as their requirements are refined or when battle losses dictates. Although this does not present a seriouse problem for Defence, it could lead to some misunderstandings with Israeli officials. DOD logistics personell are working around the clock, seven days a week , to cope with the situation.
Meanwhile , tons of military equipment are being flown into U.S. departure airfields where it is awaiting assignment to USAF transport flights. Everything appears to be progressing reasonably well….
I was a bit surprised by the fact that Israel had such a high priority on the LAW (M-72).
Supplies were moved from Europe to Israel, but we do not know on what scale.
This document also proves that the TOW reached Israel on a earlier date then many first expected, and backs up Marsh`s statement....
I`ve also got more information from other declassified documents that I`ve found, that I will post later on.
When Israel agreed to agreement US signed with Israel strategic agreement that included large aid and supply of new aircrafts such as F-16:
Its not surprising, because LAW is simple, easy to use weapon, that unlike TOW does not require much training.Originally Posted by Darth Vidar
Those men are actually praying, I'm not kidding.
That's how Muslims pray.
I don't think they are surrendering.
Is this guy tries to reach the moon on an SA-2 rocket ?
Can any one tell me what is the man on left is holding.
It looks like a night vision device to be set on RPG-7.
Can any one confirm that?
Actually, it is an SA-2 Guideline (or in its true name S-75 Dvina) missile.
SA-6 missiles are much smaller
These guys look depressed.
Probably cause they lost the football game to Algeria.
Last edited by megaidler; 11-20-2009 at 03:53 PM.
why ? they gonna clean the dust of the ground !!!...
don't talk about things u don't know about it ... thats a good attitude to not be ignorant
stay away of religions its amilitary topic any way it would be better mr headbanging
hey mr zekas nice shoe i asume its an italian made
They're not praying, they're surrendering.
Aright. A lot have been said, so i wanted to give an overview of what i think.
As what have been made clear -not by me, by the way- in this thread, many if not most of the images about Egyptian POW's or destroyed or captured equipment is from the 67 war. not this one.
It is not hard to imagine....a gray-scale (black-and-white) image wont tell you very much about whether it was shot in the late 60's or early 70's.
Worth noting. is that the images from both sides come in a some what specific sequence; for an example, the Israeli photage for the Battle of Suez, where Egyptian and Israeli ground forces fought the last battle in this war. The battle was for the city of Suez, and note that "the last battle" here refers to it as being the last skirmish of such size. Minor skirmishes between small units continued even after the second cease fire.
When you look at the Israeli side, you would find for example Israeli tanks entering the city, just before the fighting break out. The Egyptian version would be destroyed Israeli tanks after the fighting stopped.
I mean correct me if i am mistaken, but as far as i remember, the after-fighting images of the Israeli side were pretty much just those for SAM sites their ground forces destroyed after their swift crossing.
And if we assumed that the photographs taken by the Israeli side are all by soldiers, that Israel sent absolutely no military photographers, or that their photographs were all corrupted, and are not available; then why did not the soldiers take photographs of the battle field after the fighting stopped? the answer is that simply they were not there.
A suggestion that i see as a very non reasonable one is, that whatever comes from Egyptian sources is pure propaganda. Perhaps the non sense here is believing in that, while taking Israeli sources as facts. The point is not that Israeli and Pro-Israeli sources are mere propaganda, or that only Egyptian sources tell the truth; The point is that taking only one of the combatant sides as the side that have the truth, the full truth and no thing but the truth is what can be described as ultimate bias.
To my amazement, when an Egyptian sources is used, it is mere propaganda, when a western historian who might even be a jew disagrees with Pro-Israeli sources, he is not credible, and when a US president does, he is non patriotic !
If those who believe in these assumptions take a good view at western history books, they would find out that many of what they thought to be facts, are actually the real propaganda, or at least Pro-Israeli bias.
I tend to believe that the Egyptian side was not lying like in 67, first because we learned the lesson the hard way in 67, second because we had nothing to hide in 73. Take a look at the Egyptian, Israeli, and western estimates (assuming the later being the neutral side), and you would find that the Egyptian estimates are much closer to western estimates than Israeli ones.
Note that the Egyptian battle reports of this war are not classified, and many if not all of the Congress files have been lately declassified.
Why so special?
Whole chapters in books by Egyptian Generals talked about just why going to war, and what are the objectives to be accomplished. HOLLIS made a very good statement here. i think it was some thing around "were the soviets supporting Egypt, or their own agenda in the ME? Sadat figured out the answer". The soviets did not want war. Sadat explains that they were delaying arms deliveries so that they make sure that Egypt was not capable of launching an all out war. To restore the Sinai, Egypt has tried peace negotiations before the war. In fact Egypt offered Israel the same "deal" they later made after the war before she starts it. By then, the Israeli command was convinced that they can impose the state of no-war-no-peace on Egypt. What Sadat needed was just moving things a little bit in Egypt's favor. He expressed that stating that all of what he needed was just a foothold on the east bank, even 10cm!
Most Pro-Israeli sources would talk about the war ending as "by the end of the war, the IDF cut the seam between two Egyptian armies, crossing to the west bank, and was 101 kilometers from Cairo" or derivatives of that. By the end of the war, Israeli forces were circling the Egyptian 3rd Army, and encircled between the same army at the east, the rest of the Egyptian forces at the west, the Egyptian 2nd Army at north, and the sea at south.
The Israeli crossing, was with coordination with the United states which provided valuable reconnaissance information to the by then it's only ally in this war.
A French expert described it as a television battle. No strategic or tactical gains were to be accomplished by it from a military point of view. While America was not willing to make another Nickle Grass, The 200 tanks from Algeria, and the 2,000 Sudanese troops were still not used. Egypt lost 200-250 tanks in the Oct. 14th attack, and for the manpower, the Egyptian army at the time was 300,000 men strong, a number that rises to over a million when calling the reserves (total active 800,000 with around 310,000 committed to this war). The narrow supply route from the Israeli southern command to it's troops at the west bank was not that hard to be cut off using units from the 2nd Army. Plan Shamell was based on using units from the 2nd Army to cut off the link with the Israeli command, and push the relatively small force of 20,000 troops Israel had on the west bank to the canal until termination. However, it was a just-in-case plan. Sadat did not start the war to destroy Israel, he needed some change, and he had already got what he fought for.
It was a grab-what-you-can action by Israel before the war ends, because it knew every step the American were going to do before they did it -not a big deal, they told them-. Even though, they still did not accomplish what they wanted, they needed another chance, so they violated the Oct. 22th cease fire decision, and Mama Amreeka was there once again to save her child. When Sadat implicated that he can destroy the Israeli forces that crossed, Kissinger told him that he should think of the consequences of a confrontation between the two super power on his soil.
Clear enough, the war was not supposed to be continued, and i think that all sides did not plan to continue it. The Israelis knew that they were not able to drive back the Egyptians, The Egyptians knew that they were not able to advance further, and both sides wanted to end the war, so did the two superpowers.
It was necessary to convince Israel that holding the Sinai mean paying a cost it cannot afford. I think i have read in "Israel's Wars" by Aharon Bregman, that Dyan was supporting an idea of withdrawing Israeli forces to somewhere near the passes, giving Egypt control over the Canal, and possible gaining settlement. Sharon also saw building the first line of defense directly on the canal as not being effective enough, and that the Sinai can be defended better if Egypt would have to attack while it has the canal, because then she would have to stop the commercial ships going in the canal before it launches it's attack. Golda Meir was not convinced, and years after the war, a Likud government would make lasting peace with Egypt.
At the end, the result of the war was that Egyptian forces gained a foot hold in Sinai, and regained control over the canal. Sadat now having the support he needed, being seen as a national hero who restored Pride, and land. would be able to launch his bold initiatives changing Egypt's policies to the present day. He made peace with Israel, he got out from the soviet influence, repaired relations with the west, and made Egypt one of Americas most important allies in the ME, and the second receptor of it's military aid in the world. All of that because of the "limited territorial gains" Egypt achieved during that war.
Years later Arab nations would make peace with Israel, and i for one believe that maybe if Sadat was not assassinated, a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would have been reached.
I think that most people would agree with this last paragraph. It is not about hate. this war was not the last or the first war Egypt fought since the declaration of the republic, but it was (for Egyptians) the most important one, and it was the one that changed Egypt the most. I am a huge supporter of peace with Israel, i even support having normal relations, but perhaps with a......more moderate Israel. It took what was described as the last war of it's kind, the one where new military theories and weapons have been used for the first time, and old one for the last time, a war that shattered the myth of the invincible army, and one that almost evolved to the Third world war, to make peace. What would it take to have normal relations?
Last edited by just some guy over there; 12-02-2009 at 08:56 AM. Reason: typos
Jeeps an' beebs
Des armes et mines capturées
El tasmeem el da5ly la mo2a5za
El banaker (howwa wa7ed any way)
Even if the IAF did not weaken the advancing Egyptian forces enough, The outnumbering Israeli tanks in hull-down position, with superior effective fire range, and armor-piercing capabilities were more than enough to repel the attack. (Nte that we are talking about time, when tanks did not use additional gun stabilizers, and could not fire on the move)