Reply With QuoteA set of drawings and paintings by Jacob Lapid. He fought in Sinai during the war, and participated in the battle of the Chinese farm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacob_l...7594306183267/
Should not we also recommend scanning from Gawrych's book "The Albatross of decisive victory", and El-Shazly's "The Crossing of the Suez" regarding this battle as not being expected to achieve any gains, and that it was rather a mere political move Sadat saw as necessary in response to Arab and Soviet pressure?Originally Posted by Marsh
A set of drawings and paintings by Jacob Lapid. He fought in Sinai during the war, and participated in the battle of the Chinese farm.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacob_l...7594306183267/
Lacking enough MiG-21 pilots, and having no time to train new pilots; The EAF retrained veteran MiG-17 pilots to fly the MiG-21.
This photo shows a pilot wearing the Gomer head gear used by MiG-17 pilots in aircraft #8212, a Tiger striped MiG-21MF:
BTW, how can i make the uploaded image appear in it's original size, not as a thumbnail?
Last edited by just some guy over there; 12-04-2009 at 08:49 AM.
I bet you are super cool and happy Egypt lost the match just like our Arab "brothers" are not u?
These guys look depressed.
Probably cause they lost the football game to Algeria.
Any way;
This pic has always confused me
You see, unlike other images of POW's, they are in full uniform (for some reason Israelis just love to make POW's take off their uniforms, and/or at least their boots). They do not seem to be u know, beaten or having their cloths torn apart (even Egyptian images of Israeli POW's show these symptoms). They are not tied, eye bandaged, or hand cuffed. There are no guards, and the image quality show that it is not from early 70's; i mean even if cameras that take photographs with this quality were present at early 70's, we have not seen any similar photograph from either side.
I guess that if the original source of this picture is known, it would be better.
You're kidding, right?
According to 18th january agreement Egypt could possess only 30 tanks on east shore. This could not be achieved without crossing. In addition Egypt could not lead a serious war on attrition because Israel could destroy 3rd army anytime. As result they only sniped.
Beside political gains there was reputation and morale gain. In eyes of all the Western world IDF won that war.
Hehe. During the war the route was protected by one brigade and 2nd army could not do anything. After the truce the whole Moshe Peled division arrived from Golan to protect it.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,
3 armor divisions is not a small force. They were reinforced by Ran Sarig armor and Givaty infantry brigade + infamous TOW missilesand push the relatively small force of 20,000 troops Israel had on the west bank to the canal until termination.
Sadat could destroy these forces only in his dream.When Sadat implicated that he can destroy the Israeli forces that crossed,
Agree.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.
These were the gains Israel achieved, because the military phase was not supposed to be continued, and Israel knew that.
The 2nd army did not destroy that link, because it was not given the order to do so; it's not like it tried and failed; And i really do not think that three armoured birgades and 20,000 troops could stand for the rest of the Egyptian army numbering by that time 800,000 active troops, and having 2,200 tanks (1,700 tanks were committed for the war, leaving 500 tanks that did not even participate in the war yet. add to that 200 Algerian tanks, and the total number is 700. For the TOW's, Egypt had Saggers).
Let's also not forget the SSM's Egypt had.
But all of that is just theoretical, because neither side wanted the war to continue, and i think that you agree with me on that.
At the end, i am happy we agree on what resulted from this war.
Can you do your self a favor, and at least read the whole statement, if you cannot read the full post!
Okeedoke. Fisking forthcoming:
I'm American. I'm unhappy the GMen got manhandled by the Broncos.I bet you are super cool and happy Egypt lost the match just like our Arab "brothers" are not u?
So they instantly take off uniforms on every occasion?
Any way;
This pic has always confused me
You see, unlike other images of POW's, they are in full uniform (for some reason Israelis just love to make POW's take off their uniforms, and/or at least their boots).
As you know, POWs are captured in a variety of different circumstances. If a relatively large command is surrendered due to an impossible situation rather than a brutal battle, they won't be much worse for the wear.They do not seem to be u know, beaten or having their cloths torn apart (even Egyptian images of Israeli POW's show these symptoms). They are not tied, eye bandaged, or hand cuffed. There are no guards,
And yes, once everyone is disarmed, a few men with machine guns off camera are all that's needed. Particularly if the goal is to get a group photo -- you keep them nice and clean, you pose them, and you show off not only how many prisoners you've captured but how pleasantly you treated them.
The image quality is about right for top of the line equipment and film from the 1930s. Though many photojournalists in the Yom Kippur War obviously didn't have the best of cameras, it wouldn't be surprising that a few of them were carrying around a decent camera with some good color film -- which was plentiful at the time.and the image quality show that it is not from early 70's;
Just because most of the pictures you see are poor reproductions from newspapers and mediocre reproductions from books doesn't mean that the actual photographs weren't actually of higher quality. Never mind the vast number of terrible video stills.
i mean even if cameras that take photographs with this quality were present at early 70's, we have not seen any similar photograph from either side.
Sure it would. Details are always nice.I guess that if the original source of this picture is known, it would be better.
Well, i am not an American and i am not sure i know what u mean here.
You did not get the point. i was talking about that of all the images we have seen about this war, none was like this one.The image quality is about right for top of the line equipment and film from the 1930s. Though many photojournalists in the Yom Kippur War obviously didn't have the best of cameras, it wouldn't be surprising that a few of them were carrying around a decent camera with some good color film -- which was plentiful at the time.
Just because most of the pictures you see are poor reproductions from newspapers and mediocre reproductions from books doesn't mean that the actual photographs weren't actually of higher quality. Never mind the vast number of terrible video stills.
Was there cameras that take full-color photographs with this quality in 73? I am not an expert in that, but maybe you can give a more comprehensive explanation of your point.
Which would leave us with another question; then why was this the only image taken with this sort of cameras?
Hi,
You do realise that until very recently the quality of colour photography available from film cameras exceeded the quality available to digital? Many older photographers would argue analogue quality is still superior to digital. As someone who is in his mid 50s and has had several hundred colour photographs published in military journals and books, I can assure you that the quality of slide film dating back to the 1970s was excellent.
cheers
Marsh
These gains were achieved because they were achieved. Egypt also did not respect cease fire and led little war on attrition till 18th January.These were the gains Israel achieved, because the military phase was not supposed to be continued, and Israel knew that.
You are trying to say that Egyptian army did not want to destroy the link? 2nd army was exhausted in Chinese farm battles, thats why brigade from 3rd army was sent to suicide mission. And I forgot actually. Its not a brigade but only two battalions of 600th were protecting it.The 2nd army did not destroy that link, because it was not given the order to do so; it's not like it tried and failed;
Lets see, what Egypt actualy could send against 3 Israeli divisions?And i really do not think that three armoured birgades and 20,000 troops could stand for the rest of the Egyptian army numbering by that time 800,000 active troops, and having 2,200 tanks (1,700 tanks were committed for the war, leaving 500 tanks that did not even participate in the war yet. add to that 200 Algerian tanks, and the total number is 700.
4th armored division
21st armored division
3rd mechanised division
6th mechanised division
23rd mechanized division
Less than 900 tanks against some 700 Israeli. But u need 3 times advanatage at least for succesful attack.
ATGMs are best in defence and Sagger is nowhere close to TOW.For the TOW's, Egypt had Saggers).
Thanks for the explanation. I knew expert photographer still prefer film cameras, there have been a nice documentary on National Geographic about photography. However, i was not sure that cameras taking color images with this quality were in use back then.
Still confusing, is that -speaking for the images i have seen, and i have seen a lot of them- This picture seem to be a one-of-a-kind; Why?
An attack by three armored brigades is a violation of a cease fire decision; minor skirmishes are just minor skirmishes. It does not matter who started fighting in which occasion after the second cease fire, pretty much nothing changed.
The 2nd army?!!You are trying to say that Egyptian army did not want to destroy the link? 2nd army was exhausted in Chinese farm battles, thats why brigade from 3rd army was sent to suicide mission. And I forgot actually. Its not a brigade but only two battalions of 600th were protecting it.
Egyptian forces at the Chinese Farm Battle were one understrength mechanized infantry division; what the 2nd army had on the east bank alone was 40,000 troops. And the units from the 3rd army that arrived were not exactly what El-Shazly wanted.
And yes, Egypt did not want to destroy that link, because it wanted the war to stop; it was time for politics, and as i said before, Sadat did not start this war to destroy Israel.
So what u mean is that there were some 700 israeli tanks against less than 900 tank for the engaged units, fine. What i mean is that for the 500 tanks Israel had on the west bank, without counting what's left from Egypt's 1,700 tanks it entered the war with (which was well above 900), there have been 700 tanks Egypt had still waiting to engage.Lets see, what Egypt actualy could send against 3 Israeli divisions?
4th armored division
21st armored division
3rd mechanised division
6th mechanised division
23rd mechanized division
Less than 900 tanks against some 700 Israeli. But u need 3 times advanatage at least for succesful attack.
The Sagger's maximum range was 3,000meters, and the only tank that could stand for it Israel had was the M-60, which some members here said there were only 150 of them. The TOW had a maximum range of about 3,700 meters, and could penetrate any tank Egypt had at the time.ATGMs are best in defensce and Sagger is nowhere close to TOW.
Members here have shown that the TOW was very new in service, and that the troops had not had adequate training, and that only 20 missiles have been launched out of the 2,000 launchers Israel received. As far as i know, all sources on earth agree on how effective were the Saggers used in this war, and that one of each three Egyptian soldiers had an anti-tank weapon. Let's also not forget the Egyptian artillery; With them, Egyptian forces would have to do no thing but staying in defensive positions, until the artillery weaken the Israeli forces enough.
The whole point was that nothing was going to happen. All of that was not supposed to happen. We are also talking as if the two super powers were going to do nothing and watch it, while they were just about to interfere directly if the war did not stop.
What i am trying to say is that the war have already stopped, and the entrapment of the third army is as you said, was to serve the image of the IDF. apart from American weapons, Israel was using French aircrafts, British tanks, and German or Belgian fire arms right? Do you think that the West was going to let it look like a country using it's weapons was defeated by another using Soviet weapons, specially after how French, American, and Australian forces using British tanks preformed in Vietnam?(not that they preformed badly, they just did not achieve their objectives) I do not think so.
Knowing what the Americans were going to do, Israel was in a grab-what-you-can attitude before the first cease fire, and had to violate it to complete their task. They knew Egypt wanted the war to end, and was not going to attack their force
This cease fire was imposed on Israel. We managed to gain two additional days and accomplished our task.
These were deliberate attacks by Egyptian command in violation of cease fire. The only reason they were minor is that Israel was controllong supplies to 3rd army. On Syrian front the attrition war was more harsh.minor skirmishes are just minor skirmishes. It does not matter who started fighting in which occasion after the second cease fire, pretty much nothing changed.
Israel asked for cease fore already on 12. Egypt wanted its army to be encyrcled? Thats interesting view.And yes, Egypt did not want to destroy that link, because it wanted the war to stop; it was time for politics, and as i said before, Sadat did not start this war to destroy Israel.
What I mean is that against 700 tanks Israel had on West bank, Egypt could send less than 900 tanks. The only result of this suicidical operation would be a slaughter worse than 14th, and road to Cairo open.So what u mean is that there were some 700 israeli tanks against less than 900 tank for the engaged units, fine. What i mean is that for the 500 tanks Israel had on the west bank, without counting what's left from Egypt's 1,700 tanks it entered the war with (which was well above 900), there have been 700 tanks Egypt had still waiting to engage.
Sagger is 1st generation missile, when you have to track both the missile and the target. TOW is second generation, you need only keep the cross on target. It has about 10 times higher pobability to hit the target.The Sagger's maximum range was 3,000meters, and the only tank that could stand for it Israel had was the M-60, which some members here said there were only 150 of them. The TOW had a maximum range of about 3,700 meters, and could penetrate any tank Egypt had at the time.
There was very strong artillery fire on 14th.Let's also not forget the Egyptian artillery; With them, Egyptian forces would have to do no thing but staying in defensive positions, until the artillery weaken the Israeli forces enough
West can help only those who help themselves. South Vietnam lost to North despite the enermous DIRECT support.Do you think that the West was going to let it look like a country using it's weapons was defeated by another using Soviet weapons, specially after how French, American, and Australian forces using British tanks preformed in Vietnam?(not that they preformed badly, they just did not achieve their objectives) I do not think so.
Posting Permissions
