Reply With QuoteThe reporter in the Youtube clips I posted was killed Oct 13th 1973 along with Major Gerneral Albert Mendler in their commnad APV, by an Egyptian Saggers.Originally Posted by Korath
Thanks for posting. Reports of fron-line correspondents are surreal. They were in the middle to things. The last piece is just unbelievable. You can here outgoing and incoming fire. The guy says "they just fired at me but I'm all right..." etc.
The reporter in the Youtube clips I posted was killed Oct 13th 1973 along with Major Gerneral Albert Mendler in their commnad APV, by an Egyptian Saggers.
Suez City after the battle
Magach (M48) crew at rest in the suburbs of Suez city after the battles to completely cut off and bottle up the Eyptian 3rd army, towards the end of the war.
In the background a halftrack and some commandeered civvie pickup, maybe a VW.
The crew are listening to something, and having snacks.
Contrary to the propaganda pictures shot after the war, this photo shows clearly the devastation to the buildings from which the Egyptian soldiers fought.
It also shows who was left in control of the battlefield, claims notwithstanding.
Doesn't seem like most of the reports are actually related to the events in the clips; the clips are background. Amazing footage though.
Nice picture. As to the description though:Magach (M48) crew at rest in the suburbs of Suez city after the battles to completely cut off and bottle up the Eyptian 3rd army, towards the end of the war.
In the background a halftrack and some commandeered civvie pickup, maybe a VW.
The crew are listening to something, and having snacks.
Contrary to the propaganda pictures shot after the war, this photo shows clearly the devastation to the buildings from which the Egyptian soldiers fought.
It also shows who was left in control of the battlefield, claims notwithstanding.
1) This supposedly immense "devastation" may have been pre-war (or at least pre-battle), as the canal cities were all subject to heavy firepower before and during the war.
2) All sources clearly state that, within Suez City at least, Israeli forces had been surely beaten by Egyptian militia/army forces.
If there's an unfortunate case of rampant propaganda among Egyptians (and not among all btw) then don't counter with your own. Plus, take notice that the 3rd Army was not cut off... 2 of its infantry divisions were encircled on the east bank.
A brand new high res gallery just released.
Thanks to oxcart from Fresh forum.
http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliv...=olvwork408591
Suez City after the battle
Hmmm. Who added "immense"? Not best form, to misquote and then criticize the distorted quote.
1) it could be if all the damage was on a single side of buldings, as over-the-canal artillery would cause, and 2) it would only apply to shell impacts.may have been pre-war (or at least pre-battle), as the canal cities were all subject to heavy firepower before and during the war.
It cannot apply to small-arms damage, like in this other photo:
Here the damage visible behind those Nun-Nun trucks is clearly the result of street combat with individual weapons.
That's what a place looks like after a fight. Not the intact buildings like on the staged Topas image.
Zikaron
It is exactly 37 years ago today, that the Arab onslaught started.
On the Golan, the desperate resistance cost a horrible price.
A thought for the memory of all the friends who did not come back
According to the Hebrew calendar.
Not necessarily over the canal. After all Suez had been surrounded pre-battle, wasn't it? And it could've been targeted from all sides, nearly. But this may be post-battle, or during it.Hmmm. Who added "immense"? Not best form, to misquote and then criticize the distorted quote.
1) it could be if all the damage was on a single side of buldings, as over-the-canal artillery would cause, and 2) it would only apply to shell impacts.
It cannot apply to small-arms damage, like in this other photo:
Here the damage visible behind those Nun-Nun trucks is clearly the result of street combat with individual weapons.
That's what a place looks like after a fight. Not the intact buildings like on the staged Topas image.
The Topas image doesn't seem to be staged, have a look at this.
The same Topas is clearly visible behind the knocked out Centurion. A logical explanation would be that the buildings seen in the background were unoccupied and thus were not harmed, while those buildings behind the photographer (but not captured) were occupied and bore the brunt of the fighting.
Plus, that Topas is Israeli, captured during the war and quickly pressed into service with the same camo, possibly for deception purposes. I'm sure there are sources that mention their use, with default Egyptian camo and fit-out, during the battle. The caption says the vehicle got stuck over an obstacle while trying to retreat, doing so in the direction of those buildings as you can see, which supports the reasoning that they were unoccupied.
Just an idea...
Another photo in the same place...
Source: Dar Al Helal magazine
Author: Shawki Mustapha
Date: 1 Nov 1973
"On the twenty-fifth the Israelis made their third attack on Suez at about 0800 hours. This time they used one of their Soviet squadrons of some fifteen Tiran tanks supported by infantry in civilian-impressed trucks. Although the fighting continued until about 1550 hours, the Israelis could not break through into the centre of the city and had to withdraw with the loss of ten tanks."
Oballance, p.280
I don't think there is any question about the fact that IDF forces failed to secure the center of Suez city and were forced to withdraw, however as the pictures quickly point out, the IDF forces did secure the suburbs of the city. i've posted pictures earlier in this thread which showed IDF troops in the streets, after the cease fire, with UN peacekeepers separating the two sides.
That's right. I also don't deny that both sides used some kinds of propaganda during and after the war.
Posting Permissions
