The Yom Kippur War, also named like that, The Arab-Israeli War is the final Arab-Israeli War and a different mark on the history.

The Israelis were caught on surprise in their holy day, Yom Kippur feast, and even though the war ending with neither sides victory, this war showed that Arabs still were able to fight against Israel all by themselves.

This boosted up the morale in Arab world after the Six-Day War in 1967, and later had an important impact on the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and Israel leaving Sinai back to Egypt

Some interesting facts I derived:

-Ariel Sharon pretended like he was wounded from his head, by twisting a bandage around his head. Some say he wasn't wounded at all, and did that as a part of his showbiz

- As I read in Anwar Sadat's autobiography, he was telling that as soon as Israelis lost tanks, Americans were instantly replacing them with new ones.Anwar Sadat says if the intensive American aid wasn't there, they could have won the Yom Kippur War.

-Polish war journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski has an interesting determination about the attitudes in both sides...He states that at the time of war, while all the Israelis rushed to the front to defend their state, and folk concentrating on war, many Syrians were still smoking their water pipes just 20 km far from the frontline

Not as quickly. IIRC, Egypt expelled the Soviet advisers before the attack. This was because they didn't trust anyone with the attack plan.

its 100% true that the americans were replacing every peice of equipment the israeli's lost, and in one case, bombarding arab troops and armor with a super sonic jet.

but i never heard of the soviets helping the arabs.

Sure- some, but not all of the over 20-000 soviet military advisers were expelled but Egypt was still mostly a Soviet client state.  Soviet advisers planned the 'crossing' itself and Soviet resupply was measured as equal to the US resupply of Israel.

In fact- peace was never an Israeli->Egyptian affair- it was a US-Soviet-Israeli-Egyptian affair.

Sadat wanted to end the idea that an Arab-Israeli peace had to be between winners and losers.  he wanted to prove that they could fight on an equal footing and thus gain a 'fair' peace.  Egypt could not possibly do that on its own against a US supplied Israel

I think, that arugument is very close to american point of view only.

The Yom Kippur war was the closest the Arab forces came to defeating Israel. In the Golan Heights, the Syrians were only about a half hour away from breaking through Israeli lines when IDF reinforcements finally arrived and stopped the advance.

In the Sinai, the Egyptians overran most of the Israeli forces on the East bank of the Suez canal and were advancing quickly towards Israel.

Modern weapons supplied by the Soviets as well as training made life very hard for the IDF both on the ground and in the air. Weapons like the SA-6 were responsible for the destruction of 1/4 of the IAF in the air.

On the ground Arab soldiers armed with AT-3 Sagger guided missiles destroyed a large number of Israeli tanks.

The Soviets provided reconnaissance to the Arab forces from satellite photography and the U.S. countered by deploying the SR-71 Blackbird to provide reconnaissance to the Israelis. The Israelis were also supplied by both America and France with replacement aircraft and tanks. 

The IDF was able to mobilize in 48 hours and stopped Arab advances both in the north and south.

In fact, Egypt had to be a Soviet client state. American policy was to defend and support Israel at all costs, so Egypt also needed a superpower to support herself.

But I totally agree on the remarks that you made on 2nd and 3rd parts...Sadat wanted to show they could fight with Israelis without being defeated, and restored the honor of Arabs, in his point of view.

It had become a US-Soviet affair,and then they set a final curtain on it, rather then making a world war out of it

It's close to an American point of view but certainly not 'only'.  I'm ready to hear other points of view.

As you well know during the cold war it was basically a must to take sides, not out of ideological conviction but out of neccessýty. Not even a 'non allied'like Nasser could effectively do without support from one or the other.  

In fact Sadat wanted to 'change sides' but had to find the right excuse. The Yom Kippur War provided the excuse.  Not long after the war Egypt turned into a US client state.  Or is that a radical Islamist only point of view?

1973 Yom Kippur War was definitely not a victory for Israel.If Israel is still there, it is not because of such an imaginative victory in 1973, it is because of Western states' support, plus the wars of 1947-48 and 1967 Six-Day War.

The objective of Egypt in 1973 was not to destroy Israel.  It was Sadats explicit purpose to create a negotiated solution (he wanted a solution for all Arabs but was outmaneuvered during negotiationsd and got a solution only acceptable to Egypt)- eliminate Egypts dependence on the Russians and get Egypt to get on with its life. 

On the other hand-yes Israel survives.

Well, the war ended with the Israelis being 101 km from Cairo and, according to Sadat, with only 2 batallions of the Egyptian troops  remaining to defend the city. ...The Egyptian armies were surrounded in Sinai, and had no supplies (the first concern after the armistice was to supply them with water).

 The Syrians had their invading forces destroyed and the Israelis were withing an artillery range to Damascus.

Rather strange definitions of  Arab "victory" you have, guys....

 As to the Americans bombing the Arab forces, this is yet another repetition of the "Big Lie" of the 1967 war, when the Arabs announced the same. BTW, the man who "detected" the American airforce then was none other than the current President Mubarak, a former pilot. The Americans and the Israelis even taped the phone conversation between Nasser and King Hussein, in which Mr. Gamal lied to his ally (Hussein) once again about Israeli losses and at the same time both agreed that they would go public with an announcement of the active American participation. It made President Johnson so angry that he refused to talk with Nasser afterwards!

 In 1973, the Arabs did prove they could catch the Israelis with the pants down and to inflict losses.  But no matter what, the Arabs lost the war.

 As to Sharon pretending being wounded... It is sheer nonsense: the man fought enough wars and was wounded so many times that one more did not count. Having invaded Africa and having destroyed the Egyptian  army to smithereens, he surely had no need for theatrics.

I didn't see anyone calling any Arab victory in the thread...

What you say about Six-Day War is true, definitely a disaster for all Arab world.

Actually, USA didn't need to bomb by using his planes, and she didn't, Israel already had the upper hand in 67 War and destroyed the Arab airforce too early..USA just replaced the tanks of Israel instead, in 73.

The phone call between Nasser and King Hussein is another interesting event. With that call, Nasser had persuaded the king to join the war in his side.

The Yom Kippur War of 73, was definitely not a loss for Arabs, it is better to call it a "draw".

Hosny Mubarak was the commander of Egyptian airforce, not just a pilot

But these wars, really show how important determination is...Check the part from Polish journalist R.Kapuscinski I gave when opening the thread.

israel's vulnerable became very apparent during the last war.

because of israel's small size and population, no matter how strong its military was, it wouold most like still get degeated with the US help.

this is why israel insists that it needs nukes. everyone agrees that israel, with the nukes or US help would have lost.

Israel's small size is a disadvantage, but they have never come close to losing any war.  The topic of Israel recieving American help keeps coming up.  Its true that they have American assistance.  However, the arab nations recieved assistance from the now defunct Soviet Union during the wars mentioned.  Israel has never lost a war against the arabs and I doubt they ever will.

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon I am in favor of Israel. I think it will outlast more than you think

I agree.

And what else? Begin a nuclear war in the world between two poles of that time...Both USA and Soviet Union passed nuclear alarm situation at 1973,before the war reached an end. Israeli parliament also considered to use nukes but it was discarded considering its terrible consequences..

Sorry, but totally illogical analysis, nobody would be that stupid to start a new world war, or at least make a move that would affect the whole region for hundreds of years(you know the effects of nukes), and be condemned by the world for that.

I think there are instances where the US would have stood by if the Soviets used nuclear weapons, a possible Russo-Chinese war for instance.

You're also saying this example is totally improbable and compare it to the examples of soviet use of nuclear weapons against US allies in an attempt to achieve world domination.  This would not have been so, this would have been the desperate use of Israeli nuclear weapons against the Arab nations.  In the actual war, both the USA and the USSR collaborated to stop the conflict, no side had an interest in widening it, and it is very unlikely either side would have unilaterally done so.  The Israelis would also have recent history to indicate to them that the USSR was not that firm in it's support of the Arab states.  They refused to help them in 1956 despite making a lot of noise about it, and also did not punish Israel for routing the Arabs in 1967.  If the Israelis had used nuclear weapons in the first 24 hours of the invasion, I think both the USA and USSR would be equally stunned but.  The Arabs were not to the Soviets what Japan or Korea were to the USA, the USA lost 33,000 men defending South Korea against North Korea, the Soviets never did such a thing for the Arab states.  After political posturing by the superpowers began to take place, then you are right in that Israeli use of nuclear weapons would have elicited a greater Soviet obligation in light of previous support given.

Israel obviously didn't use nuclear weapons, I would think not from a consensus that it would have immediately elicited a Soviet response, but from a general uncertainty over what it would elicit and from whom.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be costs, just that it's possible the Israelis could have considered the costs worth it.

I'm not saying there wouldn't be costs, just that it's possible the Israelis could have considered the costs worth it

Israel can not accept too much cost. They have very limited resource.

I alsobelieve israel will not resist that lands much, west cannot support israel forever.

This analysis shows a fundamental failure to understand Cold War dynamics. So I'll give you an analogy.

You have very bad relations with your neighbour. Both of you have guns and sons who have guns. It is clear that if things go bad, blood will spill. Other neighbours are watching both of you, and tracking your behaviour. You both don't want to lose face, but more importantly, don't want to get killed, which is certain if there is a serious fight. So you try to avoid escalation, where you can.

Now, you have a dog, which keeps chasing your neighbour's dog who teases it. This causes some problems, but not much, as long as the dogs don't kill/maim each other.

But if your dog killed your neighbour's dog, you'd be in deep sh*t. Because your neighbour would in all likelyhood shoot the brains out of your dog. Then you'd have a tough choice, either do nothing and lose face, or escalate the affair, and risk getting shot yourself.

The best solution is to keep your dog leashed. I.e. no nukes.

Look at the situation today, Israel can't even annex West Bank, even without the USSR, because of America threatening to cut aid. It is ridiculous to think that they could have nuked anyone.

The Us didn't replaced any Israeli Thanks during the war because of two reasons:

1. Israel gain ground and dodn't lost one. So, every damaged thank was repaired quickly and most of them were back on field overnight. I know because I was there.

2. A ship with thanks from the USA can not make the voiage with less the three weeks. Add to it some days of preparations, you get at least a 6 week delay. The actual fighting took place for about two weeks only. So, make the mat by your selve.

3. The American replaced the Aircraft in the bassis of same type for lost one.

4. The Syriens left on the Golan Hights about 1000 Thanks (yes thousend) and most of them were not damaged. The crew just took of. I know that too, because I was among the Israeli soldiers that pick them. We use to come to a deserted T-54, 55 or T-62, pour disel oil into the thank start and go to the evacuation center. After the 73 war the Israeli army formed a full Division armed with Soviet made armour track and Thanks. But, the spoiled Israeli Thank crew did like thouse thanks because they were, as the soldiers said: "made for a Muzik". Very hard to operate and unfriendly. In order to shift a gear you had to have an arm like Scharzneger. As soon as the Israeli army got the local made "Merkava" the sold over 1000 russien ex Syrien and Egyptiens to some other countries in Africa and Eeastern Europe. 

I think Israel won the war ........ the arabs ganged up on them and they still lost. I wonder why u lose wars so often?

They should have bombed that Aswan dam.