Yum Kippur War

[GiladS]

I do know that we lost more personal than IDF. But, you lost the canal shores & the War.

The Sinai was above all abuffer zone... so that strip of land taken on the east bank by Egypt was expendable, especially when taking into consideration our advance into mainland Africa.

[IDF_TANKER]

The subject was raised to display the chalenges that faced the Egyptian Miltary planners through the preparation of 1973 offensive & War. The main chalenges were the following:-
1- IDF superiority with Airforce.
2- IDF superiority with Armoured divisions.( do not compare with T62. these were between 100 to 200 no out of 1700no tanks in the egyptian army that time. Compare with T55. How could you ignore 800 yards gun range difference!!! refer to 1296)
3- Canal water natural obstruction.
4- The expected USA military support to IDF.
The egyptian planners employed the following counterweapons & plots:-
1- Air Missiles to neutralize IAF within 15km to Canal east.
2- Infantry with anti tank weapons & RPG to face the tank superiority.
3- Canal was conquered with the employment of high engineering techniques & adequate stock of crossing bridges.
4- USA support was underestimated. The huge replacements including state of the art weapons & rockets was not counted for.
The fail of esimation of USA support range was one of the mistakes in 1973 War.



That is very interesting. Yet, it does not explain how your democratic western educated crews were torn apart by the Egyptian peasant Soldiers starting from the 6th till the war end.
I do not underestimate the capabilities of IDF tank crews. But these with T55 tanks againest Egyptian crews on M60 tanks shall result in a disaster for the democratic IDF tank crews.

I disagree. Numbers show a different story.

[DemolitionMan]

4- USA support was underestimated. The huge replacements including state of the art weapons & rockets was not counted for.
The fail of esimation of USA support range was one of the mistakes in 1973 War.

You talk like Syria and Egypt had to live from the hand in the mouth during the war. Soviet resupply anyone? By the end of the war Syria alone had more T-62s than they had at the beginning! Don´t overplay American resupply while not losing a word about the Soviet efforts to keep their allies in the game.

[Sayed Zakerya]

I disagree. Numbers show a different story.

The numbers clearly show that IDF tank crews suffered severe losses due to Sagger missiles & RPG. These proved to be highly effective againest IDF Tanks.

[IDF_TANKER]

The numbers clearly show that IDF tank crews suffered severe losses due to Sagger missiles & RPG. These proved to be highly effective againest IDF Tanks.

Which exactly proves my point. Thank you.

[500]

2- IDF superiority with Armoured divisions.( do not compare with T62. these were between 100 to 200 no out of 1700no tanks in the egyptian army that time. Compare with T55. How could you ignore 800 yards gun range difference!!! refer to 1296)

I am tired of that nonsense.

1) Average distance of tank battles was 800-1200 m, so gun range did not make a big difference. There were not thermals in 1973 as u know.
2) T-55 had superrior armor (200 mm vs 150 mm of M48 and Ceturion).
3) T-55 had much lower profile.
4) T-55 had "dry" turret traverse while Pattons were burning like ronsons.

So these are pretty equal tanks. And dont forget that Arabs had two times superriority in number of tanks.

[Sayed Zakerya]

I am tired of that nonsense.

1) Average distance of tank battles was 800-1200 m, so gun range did not make a big difference. There were not thermals in 1973 as u know.
2) T-55 had superrior armor (200 mm vs 150 mm of M48 and Ceturion).
3) T-55 had much lower profile.
4) T-55 had "dry" turret traverse while Pattons were burning like ronsons.

So these are pretty equal tanks. And dont forget that Arabs had two times superriority in number of tanks.

I paste here a refrence stating that the range makes a difference, in contrary to your statement!!
Read this thoroughly, & react with sources not with your valuable personal opinion.

[500]

I paste here a refrence stating that the range makes a difference, in contrary to your statement!!
Read this thoroughly, & react with sources not with your valuable personal opinion.

I did not say that range does not matter, but there are other not less important issues.

By the way Israeli Centurions had not ranging machine guns and any other rangefinders, but they performed better than US tanks. So use more accurate sources.

[TheArmenian]

I would like to ask these questions to the Israeli members on this forum, particularly to IDF TANKER.

1) Would the outcome of the tank battles be any different if the Israelis had mainly T-55s and some T-62s (while the Egyptians and Syrians were using entirely M-47/48/60 and Centurions)?

2) I believe the Israelis had some amphibious PT-76 tanks (captured during 1967). Did Sharon use them to cross the Channel?

3) I believe most Israeli tanks lost on the Egyptian front were due to Saggers and RPGs. On the other hand I believe most Israeli losses on the Syrian front were due to tank fire (as the Syrians were attacking and could not exploit defensive Saggers and RPGs effectively). Please correct me if I am wrong.

[IDF_TANKER]

I would like to ask these questions to the Israeli members on this forum, particularly to IDF TANKER.

I'll do my best, but I hardly consider myself expert on military history, in particular on Yom Kippur war. I would address this question to Lokos, Coop or Marsh - all of them seem to have very extensive professional expertise on the matters.

1) Would the outcome of the tank battles be any different if the Israelis had mainly T-55s and some T-62s (while the Egyptians and Syrians were using entirely M-47/48/60 and Centurions)?

Ironically enough we did have T-tanks(Tirans) as substential part of our armored force at the time. As 500 and myself already mentioned both tanks (T-s and M-s) had adventages and disadvantages. IMHO, they were adequate to each other at the time, so I don't believe the result would be much different. Don't forget also the Egyptian numerical superiority - also an important factor. But at the end of the day, this is the man in the tank who wins the battle, not the tank.

2) I believe the Israelis had some amphibious PT-76 tanks (captured during 1967). Did Sharon use them to cross the Channel?

I don't know.

3) I believe most Israeli tanks lost on the Egyptian front were due to Saggers and RPGs. On the other hand I believe most Israeli losses on the Syrian front were due to tank fire (as the Syrians were attacking and could not exploit defensive Saggers and RPGs effectively). Please correct me if I am wrong.

And this is the main reason, why the alternative you suggested wouldn't make much difference. Even assuming vast Israeli armor superiority(simply not true), ATGMs and RPGs rendered it inadequate during the war (at least in the beginning).

[TheArmenian]

Thank you IDF TANKER.
I look forward for the comments of other members of this forum on my questions. Thanks in advance to all.

[DemolitionMan]

Many tank losses on the Golan can be attributed to artillery fire as well. Killing the exposed commander, crew freaks out or causing minor damage which needs temporary repairs.

[Kaplanr]

To elaborate a little on what IDF-Tanker said about the man v. the machine. As OC Armoured Corps. just before the 6 Day War, Israel Tal instituted a regiman of training that emphasized marksmanship at the extreme range of the given tank's capabilities and greater cross-training of the crew. THe program was unuiversal but prompted by the then under-utilized capabilities of the Centurions Israel had acquired.

By the time of the 6 Day War, IDF gunnery was at a level for accuracy at range, and speed of firing that was virtually unattained even in the West. This isn't a super-Jews issue, it's the result of Tal's insistence on the professionalization of the IDF Armoured Corps; a case of the right man in the right place at the right time.

All things being equal, who's to say he wouldn't have gotten the same results with Soviet equipment. The ability to spot, identify, load and fire faster then the other guy was proven on the Golan in 1973 at the Valley of Tears. Yes the Israelis had superior positions, but by dint of stubborness and numbers the Syrioans were able to get in among Kahalani's force and mix-it up close and personal.

Any analysis of either front (Golan or Sinai) indicate that Israeli losses in armor v. armor actions were on the order of 1:6 or 8 (Israeli to Arab), and that the IDF losses were to the Sagger and RPG teams; something reduced when Israeli infantry was present. Keep in mind a ratio of 1:6 or even 1:10 doesn't mean much when the opponent (the Syrians here) has some 1400 tanks to your 170 or so.

[500]

I would like to ask these questions to the Israeli members on this forum, particularly to IDF TANKER.

1) Would the outcome of the tank battles be any different if the Israelis had mainly T-55s and some T-62s (while the Egyptians and Syrians were using entirely M-47/48/60 and Centurions)?

Any different yes, but it would not change the main course of war. Both tanks had advantages and disadvantages. For example hydraulic turret traverse of M48 allower to turn turret much faster, on the other hand it was also much more flammable and tanks were burning like ronsons after every hit. As result of Yom Kippur war hydraulic oil was replaced by less flammable.

2) I believe the Israelis had some amphibious PT-76 tanks (captured during 1967). Did Sharon use them to cross the Channel?

No, never heared that from Israeli sources.

3) I believe most Israeli tanks lost on the Egyptian front were due to Saggers and RPGs. On the other hand I believe most Israeli losses on the Syrian front were due to tank fire (as the Syrians were attacking and could not exploit defensive Saggers and RPGs effectively). Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are right.

[egyptian73]

Any analysis of either front (Golan or Sinai) indicate that Israeli losses in armor v. armor actions were on the order of 1:6 or 8 (Israeli to Arab), and that the IDF losses were to the Sagger and RPG teams; something reduced when Israeli infantry was present. Keep in mind a ratio of 1:6 or even 1:10 doesn't mean much when the opponent (the Syrians here) has some 1400 tanks to your 170 or so.

i didnt understand what you mean in losses of 1:6 or 1:8 , do you mean to every one israeli tank loss there were 6 or 8 arab tanks lost ? or do you mean the ratio of the tanks was 6 to 1 in favor of the arabs ?