Yum Kippur War

[megaidler]

We can argue forever whose tactical situation was better at the end of the war.
But if Israel was in bad condition, it wouldn't violate the cease fire,
and give their enemy an excuse to fight back.
Israel violated the first cease fire because they assumed they could win,
and succeeded taking thousands of POW.
Egypt was the one who asked the cease fire of the 22/10. Not Israel.
By then, Saadat knew he was loosing and asked the super powers to make the Israelis stop.
He had good reasons:
The failed attempt of the Egyptian 16 division to close the Israeli breakthrough,
the continuing crossing of Israeli tanks to the west,
the destruction of the Egyptian SAM umbrella by Israeli tanks and airplane
(54 batteries were lost out of about 80),
and the fact that the Syrians were already pushed back,
what made it possible for the Israelis to send their entire air force against the Egyptians.
On 22/10, the last thing the Israelis wanted was a cease fire, because they were on the peak of their offensive.
The Israelis even tried to make a filibuster in the UN so they can grab more time.
Israel eventually accepted the UN Security Council resolution that called for a cease fire because if it wouldn't, the consequences will be a U.S. arms and oil embargo on Israel while the Soviets would continue to deliver arms to the Arabs.
After Kissinger gave the Israelis a permit to continue their offensive, they didn't miss the chance.
Egypt's situation became desperate than ever on 24/10 when the 3rd army became trapped.
If Saadat was still in control, why did Brezhnev threat to send Soviet troops to rescue Egypt?
Eventually the Soviets removed their treat, the American lowered the alert of their forces, and the siege on the 3rd army continued.
Brezhnev would never drive his country to WWIII just because Saadat needs help.
Finally Kissinger offered Saadat to make a deal.
Saadat must leave the Soviet sphere of influence,
abandon his alliance with the Arab world and become an ally of the U.S.
In condition, the U.S. will make Israel to stop the war and save the 3rd army.
Saadat had no such popularity as Nasr and if his army would be defeated, as was in 1967,
Saadat would be overthrown.
Neither the Egyptian army, nor the threat of sending the Soviet army made the Israelis to accept the truce.
It was Saadat's betrayal against his friends.

[Marsh]

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?

Hi,

I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that the photo will have been taken by a non-Israeli photographer. Most Israeli photos of the war were in black and white. The reason being that Israeli news photos were almost always taken in black and white at the time. Colour photography was incredibly expensive in Israel and there was little point in using colour film as there were no news publications that coud print it. In Europe and the US there were highly thought of publications that happily used colour film, Time, Life magazine, Sunday Times magazine etc. I have seen similar photos and wonder if they came from the same series. I won't bull****, I can not remember from where. I am UK based but I used to avidly read US and European magazines in the 1970s for their photographs.

Sorry if that is not too helpful. I can not be absolutely sure but think you are mistaken.

cheers
Marsh

[just some guy over there]

Hi,

I don't think it is. I am pretty sure that the photo will have been taken by a non-Israeli photographer. Most Israeli photos of the war were in black and white. The reason being that Israeli news photos were almost always taken in black and white at the time. Colour photography was incredibly expensive in Israel and there was little point in using colour film as there were no news publications that coud print it. In Europe and the US there were highly thought of publications that happily used colour film, Time, Life magazine, Sunday Times magazine etc. I have seen similar photos and wonder if they came from the same series. I won't bull****, I can not remember from where. I am UK based but I used to avidly read US and European magazines in the 1970s for their photographs.

Sorry if that is not too helpful. I can not be absolutely sure but think you are mistaken.

cheers
Marsh

Well, i think that knowing the original source would surely help.
Thanks again

[shelata]

Israel violated the first cease fire because they assumed they could win, and succeeded taking thousands of POW.
Egypt was the one who asked the cease fire of the 22/10. Not Israel.

The cease fire issuance on the 22nd was a result of combined parameters including :-
1- Egyptian army commanders recognition of US full involvment ( Not Directly) in the tactical war daily struggle. This involvment included military field action advices, Superior advanced weapons supply, High calipper military volanteers transfer to Israel & conventional weapons replacement. On the 19th of Oct, Nixon Admin asked the congress approval for 2.2 Billion $ as an emergency aid package for Israel. This was assumed to cover further highly suffisticated weapons purchases.

2-IDF slow progress on the canal west bank. The IDF commanders realized that a breakthrough can`t be achieved with the Egyptian continuous shelling of the crossing yard & IDF bridges. The fact that the Missori range remained as well in the hands of the EG 16th div provided a further artillary effort against the crossing IDF forces. The prompt huge IDF reinforcements canal crossing following the cease fire declaration, confirms the 22nd of OCT ceasefire importance for IDF 23rd & 24th military operations.

3- Europeans states demand of the ceasefire to limit the war effects on its benefits with both of the fighting sides.

the destruction of the Egyptian SAM umbrella by Israeli tanks and airplane (54 batteries were lost out of about 80),

An amazing statement. Sorry, but this is a baseless figure. The Egyptian SAM umbrella protetcing the largest Egyptian army (2nd army) was not touched. The Egyptian army had 155 SAM batteries before the War. IDF destroyed some, but all were replaced before the War end. Yet, it was the missiles withdrawal towards the nile valley that left the East banlk located 3rd army divisions relying on thier local anti-Air defences beside the support of the EG Air force.

Israel eventually accepted the UN Security Council resolution that called for a cease fire because if it wouldn't, the consequences will be a U.S. arms and oil embargo on Israel

Source this statement with its date of issuance & its recording attendants .

Egypt's situation became desperate than ever on 24/10 when the 3rd army became trapped.

Not true. This exact date records IDF adan division defeat against Suez City. In addition it records IDF last failed offensives on
Missori & its suroundings.
The following symbolic Haaretz story may help in ejecting illusions :-
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/905786.html

Finally Kissinger offered Saadat to make a deal.
Saadat must leave the Soviet sphere of influence,
abandon his alliance with the Arab world and become an ally of the U.S.

Again, a source ia badly needed.

[just some guy over there]

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.

Israel asked for cease fore already on 12. Egypt wanted its army to be encyrcled? Thats interesting view.

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.

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.
There was very strong artillery fire on 14th.

West can help only those who help themselves. South Vietnam lost to North despite the enermous DIRECT support.[/QUOTE]

I was not talking about helping any one, i was talking about directing the public opinion; Israel did a good job in that.

Egypt already accomplished what it wanted since the first day in this war, Israel tried to bush the Egyptians back and failed.
Israel tried to take Ismailiya and failed, then the Suez and failed again.

What have i been trying to tell you for the third now, is that the war already came to an end, and that Israel made the cease fire violations knowing that the war was not supposed to be continued, and there for it should not worry about it's troops in the west bank.

And you are not trying to say that the Egyptians were like "Attaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack............oh...no,no do not attack, we forgot they control our supplies", right? The deal was that supplies were to be let through to the 3rd army, in return for Israeli POW's.

The atrillery shelling of the 4th of october was a failure; not very concentrated, or accurate, and did not last long enough. The real "very strong shelling" was what happened on the first day when +2,000 pieces bring thunder to the canal zone.
And about the Sagger vs TOW evaluation u put up there, i talked about their effectiveness with their respective users witnessed in this war, and you say some analysis about the weapons them selves?!
I mean; Israel had better tanks, better and more aircrafts, much better repair effectiveness (mainly because their tanks would be hit and get repaired, unlike the soviet steal cases we were using that get blown up to pieces with the first hit).
If we should talk theoretically, then:
- The Egyptian forces should not have been able to cross the canal in less than two days, at least 24 hours. yet, they did it in 6 hours
- 10,000 to 35,000 egyptian soldiers were supposed to dye in the first assault. yet, only 280 did
- 25% of the first air strike was supposed to be shot down, only 5-4 aircrafts were lost.
- The first air strike should have been in three sorties, yet it was only one sortie achieving most of the goals.
- The Israel armored columns should not have been repelled by small groups of Egyptian commandos, yet they did
- According to Israeli generals, the Egyptians should have been begging for a cease fire in four days, and for four days, the Israelis could not drive the Egyptians back.
- El-Mansoura air battle was supposed to be a second Operation Focus, yet the IAF lost five times as many aircrafts in air-air combat, and El-mansoura air base and neer by air fields were still functioning.
- By 22th oct. the Israelis were supposed to be having Ismailiya, Suez, and encircling the 3rd army, by 22oct. none of that happened.
- By the war end, Israeli forces were supposed to be having two major Egyptian cities, encircling a whole army, and cutting one major supply route going to the other; That also did not happen.
And you know where is the beautiful part? Theoretically, this war was never supposed to take place; no one thought that the Egyptians would dare launching a war without a strong air force, and they did.

Normally, we have different opinions about of whom was the tactical situation in favor, but the important thing is that we agree on what were the results. So, let's not continue this who is the better warrior discussion, because i do not think it is going to take us any where.
From the beginning, my point was that maybe we wont agree on who fought better, or of whom was the tactical situation in favor; But we can agree on what was achieved by this war, and perhaps that's what really matters.

[just some guy over there]

We can argue forever whose tactical situation was better at the end of the war.
But if Israel was in bad condition, it wouldn't violate the cease fire,
and give their enemy an excuse to fight back.
Israel violated the first cease fire because they assumed they could win,
and succeeded taking thousands of POW.
Egypt was the one who asked the cease fire of the 22/10. Not Israel.
By then, Saadat knew he was loosing and asked the super powers to make the Israelis stop.
He had good reasons:
The failed attempt of the Egyptian 16 division to close the Israeli breakthrough,
the continuing crossing of Israeli tanks to the west,
the destruction of the Egyptian SAM umbrella by Israeli tanks and airplane
(54 batteries were lost out of about 80),
and the fact that the Syrians were already pushed back,
what made it possible for the Israelis to send their entire air force against the Egyptians.
On 22/10, the last thing the Israelis wanted was a cease fire, because they were on the peak of their offensive.
The Israelis even tried to make a filibuster in the UN so they can grab more time.
Israel eventually accepted the UN Security Council resolution that called for a cease fire because if it wouldn't, the consequences will be a U.S. arms and oil embargo on Israel while the Soviets would continue to deliver arms to the Arabs.
After Kissinger gave the Israelis a permit to continue their offensive, they didn't miss the chance.
Egypt's situation became desperate than ever on 24/10 when the 3rd army became trapped.
If Saadat was still in control, why did Brezhnev threat to send Soviet troops to rescue Egypt?
Eventually the Soviets removed their treat, the American lowered the alert of their forces, and the siege on the 3rd army continued.
Brezhnev would never drive his country to WWIII just because Saadat needs help.
Finally Kissinger offered Saadat to make a deal.
Saadat must leave the Soviet sphere of influence,
abandon his alliance with the Arab world and become an ally of the U.S.
In condition, the U.S. will make Israel to stop the war and save the 3rd army.
Saadat had no such popularity as Nasr and if his army would be defeated, as was in 1967,
Saadat would be overthrown.
Neither the Egyptian army, nor the threat of sending the Soviet army made the Israelis to accept the truce.
It was Saadat's betrayal against his friends.

The first part of ur post made me think that you are some one who just need to read more.
The last statement, however, made me wonder where you come from
see our Arab "brothers" would say that we betrayed them in a war that he offered to return Arab lost territories as a result of. Of course the Arabs chanted "No peace, u are betrayers", and now they cannot even dream of what Sadat was willing to give them.
I mean who did Sadat betray exactly? He did not say he would destroy Israel. He said, "the year of decision". maybe if you have read a little more before you empress us with this symphony, you would have known that it was Sadat's own plan to get out of the soviet influence and repair the relations with the west. The state of no-peace-no-war was unaffordable by Egypt. Gawrych in the albatross of decisive victory said that Qaddafi can call for war, he is not paying for it.
In the 70's, only Egypt wanted peace, and for it we fought Israel in 73, and Libya in 77.
Only Egypt wanted peace, only Egypt fought for it; Only Egyptians love Sadat, only Egypt Sadat worked for.

[500]

Egypt already accomplished what it wanted since the first day in this war,

Then why it refused the cease fire offer of 12th?

What have i been trying to tell you for the third now, is that the war already came to an end, and that Israel made the cease fire violations knowing that the war was not supposed to be continued, and there for it should not worry about it's troops in the west bank.

I dont really understand what are you trying to say. That Israel could encircle 3rd army before 22th Oct but did not do that because it worried about its trops west to canal??

And you are not trying to say that the Egyptians were like "Attaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack............oh...no,no do not attack, we forgot they control our supplies", right? The deal was that supplies were to be let through to the 3rd army, in return for Israeli POW's.

Israel captured much much more POWs.

The atrillery shelling of the 4th of october was a failure; not very concentrated, or accurate, and did not last long enough.

It was quite heavy shelling.

And about the Sagger vs TOW evaluation u put up there, i talked about their effectiveness with their respective users witnessed in this war, and you say some analysis about the weapons them selves?!

Saggers were effective because they were used in enermous numbers. But 1-1 Sagger is nowhere close to TOW. Its like Abrams vs T-55.

much better repair effectiveness (mainly because their tanks would be hit and get repaired, unlike the soviet steal cases we were using that get blown up to pieces with the first hit).

Actually Soviet tanks had "dry" turret traverse, unlike Pattons which had very flaming hydraulics.

If we should talk theoretically, then:
- The Egyptian forces should not have been able to cross the canal in less than two days, at least 24 hours. yet, they did it in 6 hours
- 10,000 to 35,000 egyptian soldiers were supposed to dye in the first assault. yet, only 280 did

How could 450 Israeli soldiers shelled by 2000 pieces of artillery kill 10,000?

- The Israel armored columns should not have been repelled by small groups of Egyptian commandos, yet they did

U mean small group of 35,000 (over 2 divisions) could repell an armor brigade?

- El-Mansoura air battle was supposed to be a second Operation Focus, yet the IAF lost five times as many aircrafts in air-air combat, and El-mansoura air base and neer by air fields were still functioning.

El Mansoura fiction.

- By 22th oct. the Israelis were supposed to be having Ismailiya, Suez, and encircling the 3rd army, by 22oct. none of that happened.
- By the war end, Israeli forces were supposed to be having two major Egyptian cities, encircling a whole army, and cutting one major supply route going to the other; That also did not happen.

Well lets check facts:

1) Egypt made a surprise attack.
2) Egypt used in war 10 divisions vs 4 Israeli.
3) Nevertheless by the end of the war Israel
a) captured much more POWs.
b) inflicted much more loses.
c) captured more territory.
d) encircled some 30,000 troops.

From the beginning, my point was that maybe we wont agree on who fought better, or of whom was the tactical situation in favor; But we can agree on what was achieved by this war, and perhaps that's what really matters.

I disagree that Egypt had any chance with 5 divisions against 3 Israeli armor divisions in prepared positions.

[megaidler]

Israel eventually accepted the UN Security Council resolution that called for a cease fire because if it wouldn't, the consequences will be a U.S. arms and oil embargo on Israel while the Soviets would continue to deliver arms to the Arabs.

Source this statement with its date of issuance & its recording attendants.

What do you think wiould happen if Israel would publicly refuse to accept a UN Security Council resolution that call all sides to stop fighting while the U.S. supports this resolution.

After all, the U.S. refused to re supply Israel until 12/10, when Israel finally agreed for a truce.

The Soviet did not make such condition to the Arabs.

The cease fire issuance on the 22nd was a result of combined parameters including :-

1- Egyptian army commanders recognition of US full involvment ( Not Directly) in the tactical war daily struggle. This involvment included military field action advices, Superior advanced weapons supply, High calipper military volanteers transfer to Israel & conventional weapons replacement.

While the U.S. agreed to re supply Israel only on 12/10,
The Soviets had already agreed to re supply Syria on 10/10 and Egypt on 11/10.

Both sides were massively supplied by their supporting super powers but only Egypt and Syria asked for a cease fire, not Israel.

And there were no foreign volunteers who fought for Israel in 1973 as I know;
only former Israelis that returned to Israel when they heard that their former country is in danger.

The prompt huge IDF reinforcements canal crossing following the cease fire declaration, confirms the 22nd of OCT ceasefire importance for IDF 23rd & 24th military operations.

As it was noted previously by "500":

On the dawn of 17th crossing actually was only beginning.

Here how it was:

At 4:30 PM 17 Oct: the first (Dovrot) bridge was opened.
Night 17-18 Oct: two brigades of Adan (Natke and Amir) crossed.
Night 18-19 Oct: last brigade of Adan (500th) and artillery division crossed.
19 Oct morning: Glilim bridge opened.
19 Oct: Magen division crossed.
19 Oct: Reshef brigade from Sharons div crosses and joined there Erez brigade that crossed first on 16th. Tuvia remain on East shore to protect the corridor.
So virtually all forces crossed till 19th Oct.
Only Sarig's brigade arrived from Golan on last day of war.

Dovrot means barges in Hebrew and Glilim means rollers

destruction of the Egyptian SAM umbrella by Israeli tanks and airplane

(54 batteries were lost out of about 80)

The Egyptian SAM umbrella protecting the largest Egyptian army (2nd army) was not touched. The Egyptian army had 155 SAM batteries before the War. IDF destroyed some, but all were replaced before the War end.

In the outbreak of the war there were about 80 batteries on the canal area,
including mobile SA-6.
In Port Said sector,
the SAMs were replaced twice but after the Israelis destroyed it in the 3rd time,

it wasn't replaced any more.

Many SAMs covering the 2nd army were destroyed by air strikes.
Some details are available on the English version of the Israeli air force official web site.

Finally Kissinger offered Saadat to make a deal.

Saadat must leave the Soviet sphere of influence,

abandon his alliance with the Arab world and become an ally of the U.S.

Again, a source is badly needed.

Unfortunately the only reliable sources are in Hebrew but this issue is also mentioned in wikipedia.

Egypt's situation became desperate than ever on 24/10 when the 3rd army became trapped.

Not true. This exact date records IDF adan division defeat against Suez City.

Adan's failure in Suez does not change the fact that the 3rd army was still cut off from its supplies and its drinking water was running out.

Shelata

I suggest you to look for the 1973 war on the following site:

cgscsearch.leavenworth.army.mil
"The 1973 Arab-Israeli War: The Albatross of Decisive Victory"
by Dr. George Gawrych
This is a research made by the U.S department of defense,
and it is probably a reliable document.
Please read the entire document.

Israel had better tanks, better and more aircrafts

The Egyptians had no less than 200 T-62,
equipped with night vision measures and gun stabilizers,
Something the Israelis hadn't.

However the Egyptians sent their T-62s into offensive operations during daylight.

Egypt and Syria, that were partially supported by other Arab states,
had together much more tanks than the Israelis.
Mig-21 is much superior than F-4 (phantom II) in dogfights.
The Israelis sent their self made "Nesher" (vulture in Hebrew) airplanes to confront the Migs.
The Nesher is a copy of the French Mirage V.
The French refused to sell those planes to the Israelis so the Mossad stole the blueprints and the Israelis made this aircraft by their own.
Egypt and Syria had together more aircraft than the Israelis.

The Egyptian forces should not have been able to cross the canal in less than two days, at least 24 hours. Yet, they did it in 6 hours

Considering that the U.S. did not allow the Israelis to make a preemptive strike against the Egyptians,
No wonder that they could cross so fast.

The Egyptians made all their preparations for the crossing under the cover of cease fire and when the Israelis were finally allowed to use fire on 14:00,
in response for the Egyptian shelling,

the entire Egyptian army was already on the water line of the canal,
waiting for orders to cross.
On the other hand the Israelis had no such privilege for their own crossing operation.
They had to bring forces from long distance to the canal while all this time the Egyptians try to bomb those troops en route.

10,000 to 35,000 egyptian soldiers were supposed to dye in the first assault.
yet, only 280 did

The Egyptian leaders have never published the number and names of the soldiers who died in the glorious October war.
I don't think they ever tried to count their dead,
and it's probably the same with the crossing phase.

25% of the first air strike was supposed to be shot down, only 5-4 aircrafts were lost.

On the other hand, The Israelis, on their official air force web site (available in English) claim to shoot down 18 Egyptian planes and no less than 10 helicopter on the first day.

The Israel armored columns should not have been repelled by small groups of Egyptian commandos, yet they did

Small forces of commandos were not what repelled the tank brigades.
It was superior numbers, some times 30 infantry men equipped with anti tank weaponry for each advancing tank.

Even in the crossing phase when 250 Israeli tanks had to face 30,000 crossing Egyptians+covering fire from the west bank, many Egyptian soldiers threw their rifles and ran away.

According to Israeli generals, the Egyptians should have been begging for a cease fire in four days, and for four days, the Israelis could not drive the Egyptians back.

For the first four days the entire Israeli air force was dealing with the Syrians.
After two weeks, Saadat did beg loudly for a cease fire.

El-Mansoura air battle was supposed to be a second Operation Focus, yet the IAF lost five times as many aircrafts in air-air combat

The El-Mansoura air battle story is a lie and was fabricated in order to preserve the reputation of the failed general Hosni Mobarak.
Mobarak was promoted only because he was loyal to Saadat.

On 14/10/1973 the Israelis lost one aircraft to enemy fire and another one due to a technical malfunction.

The Egyptians lost 16 aircraft at least that day.

- By 22th oct. the Israelis were supposed to be having Ismailiya, Suez, and encircling the 3rd army, by 22oct. none of that happened.

- By the war end, Israeli forces were supposed to be having two major Egyptian cities, encircling a whole army, and cutting one major supply route going to the other; That also did not happen.

So we didn't succeed to achieve some goals as quick we wished.

Not every thing is possible in this world.

Eventually the 3rd army was encircled and if it wasn't the superpowers,
the 2nd army would suffer the same faith.
Saadat knew it and desperately requested a cease fire.
If some one will ever discover that the Israelis had some plans to conquer Alexandria,
something that eventually didn't happen,
is it means that the Egyptians decisively won?

Before the war Saadat did not agree to make a separate peace with Israel while Syria, Jordan and the Palestinians gain nothing.

During the war, Saadat decided to make his shift from the Soviets to the Americans without asking any of his Arab allies.

I don't think that the Syrians would join the October war if they knew what Saadat was ready to do in desperate scenes.
Saadat's move was nasty, but on the other hand, what any other option did he have?

[just some guy over there]

Sorry if i wont be able to continue the discussion for some thing like a weak or two, i have lot of things to do, so hope me good luck.
Until i return, i am asking you megaidler to show us your sources, please. And BTW, it's Sadat not Saadat. And if you think that Egypt or any other country should first council it's neighbors and take their permission to make it's own decisions; then you really are just like our Arab "friends" who think that Egypt has to fight their wars for them, win for them, and council them for it's own politics.
Let the Arabs you know...do some thing; liberate a single inch of their lands, then come and talk about what should the Egyptians have done when they won.

[Darth Vidar]

"


Hi 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


cheers
Marsh
.

Its been 6 months since someone posted in this thread, so I`ll try to bring it to life by posting some of the pages Marsh referred to in the above post.











I also have a question that is only indirectly linked to the YK war, but I`ll ask it anyway.

In Kenneth M. Pollack`s book "Arabs at war" on page 92 & 93, he writes briefly about "Operation Raviv" in 1969, where the IDF launched a raid onto the Egyptian coast with T-55 and BTR-50`s, destroying SAM sites, camps and AFV`s.

Pollack writes the following :" and even capturing one of five new Soviet T-62 tanks in Egypt for trials and evaluation".

Is this true? Did the Israelis capture a T-62 back in 1969?

[Kobr4]

Is this true? Did the Israelis capture a T-62 back in 1969?

That's impossible. The first T-62's arrived in Egypt post-1970, during Sadat's reign.

BTW, it sounds reasonable that the Saggers would account for 25% or less of all Israeli tanks destroyed. The influence these weapons had on the battlefield were greatly exaggerated by Egyptians and Israelis, with different motives.

However I far from agree with the analysis on the TOWs. These ones, for sure, did account for many tanks destroyed on October 14 and on later battles. The "mis-wired" claim appears to be just another excuse behind the claim that these weapons were not used: they arrived too late, or troops didn't have time to train, or they were just miswired. TOW's arrived before October 14 with US army instructors. Training on a TOW is much easier than a Sagger; you simply fire and keep aiming visually, nothing like directing a missile with a joystick. The technicalities of operating these weapons would not require much experience or training either. At least, they accounted for 15% and upwards of Egyptian tank losses in the war.

[Salaheldin]

wonderful !!!

160 pages and still arguing !

simply , Egypt fought for a particular purpose " restoring Sinai "

and they managed to achieve their goal by war & peace , if Israel was in a better situation , it wouldn't allow the Egyptians to restore Sinai even by war or peace , but Egypt was in a better situation .

so , Egypt won

[IDF_TANKER]

wonderful !!!

160 pages and still arguing !

simply , Egypt fought for a particular purpose " restoring Sinai "

and they managed to achieve their goal by war & peace , if Israel was in a better situation , it wouldn't allow the Egyptians to restore Sinai even by war or peace , but Egypt was in a better situation .

so , Egypt won

No, Israel won.

[gilgoul]

wonderful !!!

160 pages and still arguing !

simply , Egypt fought for a particular purpose " restoring Sinai "

and they managed to achieve their goal by war & peace , if Israel was in a better situation , it wouldn't allow the Egyptians to restore Sinai even by war or peace , but Egypt was in a better situation .

so , Egypt won

And without the Kartoum Arab League triple No, Egypt would have gotten the Sinai back without even having to send one single tank across the Suez canal.
But documented facts shouldn't come in the way of the "Land of the Heros"

[alexz]

wonderful !!!

160 pages and still arguing !

simply , Egypt fought for a particular purpose " restoring Sinai "

and they managed to achieve their goal by war & peace , if Israel was in a better situation , it wouldn't allow the Egyptians to restore Sinai even by war or peace , but Egypt was in a better situation .

so , Egypt won

Iarael and Syria were close to a peace agreement in the 90s. If it would have been signed and Syria would have gotten the Golan or parts of it, would it mean they also won the Yom Kippur war?
Jordan didn't even participate in the Yom Kippur war and it also got some territory back in the peace deal is signed with Israel. I suppose they won the 6 days war too?