In 1973 the result was rather different, but aside from the battlefield it was the failuer of Israeli intelligence that led to disaster for them.

 

Here is a film which explores the reasons behind the Israelisintelligence muck-up.

 

What surprised me the most was how easily the Israelis were lured into believing their own propaganda. Intel agencies the world over are supposed to be amoral and suspicous. Why was Israel caught out? My own take on this is that they were lured into a flaseence of security after 1967, not reaslising that the victory was over three reserve infantry divisions, and that most of Egypt's army was in yemen.

 

Its in two parts

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmorpISTCik - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmorpISTCik

 

Part2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKPgwjIBqk0&mode=related&search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKPgwjIBqk0&mode=related&search =

In my humble opinion the 1973 war was more of a disgrace than a victory. Syria especially had the power and the capability to destroy Israeli presence in the Golan and initiate an attack against Israeli soil if they gathered enough troops. They won the surprise factor and the initial battle especially the brilliant capture by Syria's SF’s of mount Hermon and keeping the mountain only to lose it when the soldiers were "ordered" to abandon position rather than continue the successful stance.

After taking more than 70% of the heights including all the high positions Syria kept the number of its soldiers at 60 000 men and did not mobilize the rest of the army nor move more troops to the front while the Israeli managed to gather 120 000 men at the Golan front in less than 1 day after the hostilities began. The Syrian command under Tlass (who was a failed officer and was only a Lt. colonel before the revolution that brought him). The reason was simple like all other arab wars, leaders were far more afraid from revolt with inside than any other foreign intervention. Syria deployed 100 000 men when Hama had a trivial civil disturbance resulting in the infamous massacre but only deployed 60 000 men and half its air force during the 1973 war and gave command to failures and men of no quality whatsoever. In the Egyptian front on the other hand what Egyptian commanders did was a disgrace to the name of military. Despite the legendary maneuver that destroyed the “indestructible” Bar-lev line they did mistakes a lieutenant in the Israeli army wont do. First, they did not deploy enough troops through the gap, from the three armies only one passed through.

 

Second, despite that the israelis had first priority in the Golan heights the egyptians after breaking through waited for the enemy to initiate the attack rather than taking the offensive.

 

Third and most deadly, the gap that the egyptian army left back at the western shore of the canal was not closed for 3 whole days! Now tell me how on earth can this happen especially that you can see your enemy across the canal. What was even worse when the Israelis crossed they were sandwiched by two egyptian backup armies that did absolutely nothing. They had the power to annihilate the intruders and then cross into the other side but they did not.

 

Thank You

 

Al-Jassas  

 

 

 

Well I wouldn't characterize it as a psychological problem more than a political one. Arabs Do have the stomach to fight and if you really was wondering look what has happened and is happening in Palestine and Iraq for the last 30 years, Iraq lost half a million in a war with Iran, then with considerable popular support (contrary to what is portrayed in the media) went to war in Kuwaite which turned out in a manner unexpected to the Iraqis (they thought the world will just forget) and finally the curent bloodbath which is getting worse by the minute. Same goes to the Palestinians and the Lebanese who are as I speak prepared to go to war and non of the parties even colledge educated urban elite have any remorse in doing so. The Problem in the Arab Israeli wars is that Arab regimes (which are nothing but personal fiefdoms to their rulers) are more interested in keeping their seats than ending Israel (as they claim they want to do). Whenever their egos decide that a matter is at the atmose importance to "national security" they will vigorously do anything to finish that matter (which is normally a possible threat to the regime) no matter what the cost. Israel never had the intention (at least initially) to threaten the stability of neighboring regimes or change them with force and Arab leaders knew that so they never tried to takeout Israel because in doing so, their legitimacy will be lost and people will strart to demand for their rights and the regimes will fall naturally, but keeping Israel as the boogyman gave them the legitmacy to do anything because "the strugle" needs it. That is why we see Abdul-Nasser sending his best troops into a losing war in yemen and continuing that course vigorously for 5 years at the cost of 1000's the Egyptian soldiers and when Israel was preparing day and night for the 67 war he refused to do anything because admitting defeat in Yemen will simply shatter his ego.

 

Al-Jassas

the Iraqi army arrived by miracle to save Damsacus from the advancing Israeli army sharon said it was a big suprise for us the Iraqi reach the front in short time.

 but all the Iraqi division destroyed to save the city from fall.

 

 

The Iraqi Army, at least before the Iran war, was always a professional army that was largely free from politicization in the egyptian way (promotions contiued to be under a merit based system and training was a priority). In Egypt, your politics were the determining factor in you staying or leaving the army, if you were a Nasser poodle everything is opened to you and if you were from his village things will easy. In Syria, the air force and much of the army became fiefdoms for communal tribes, Hafiz Al-Assad turned the air force an army reserved for his own sect kicking most of the excellent officers of other sects, Sunni, Ismaili and Christian officers, on the basis of Bathism. The army was not better, entering the army became a social previlage rather than a professional duty and training was simply non existant with the constant fear of yet another military coup by another politicised group of officers always looming.

 

Al-Jassas 

what you said is pretty much true,Iraqi army was a prof army till Saddam took the control.

Arab Tyrants or dictators  are the worst,by their policies they vanquished any chance to form a democratic state or build a free countries.

1) Egypts objectives were v limited in 1973, they were to simply move 12-15 Km inside the Sanai and nthen stay there. Syria's were to regian the Golan Heights. In '73 the aim was never to destroy Israel.

 

2) The Egyptians achieved there aim, the Syrians failed.

 

I beg to differ Sparten, If the goal of Egypt which could have one the war or at least made far greater advancement than what they did than they shouldn't have gone to war in the first place. It was simply stupid. As for Syrians no, they did make great advancements in the Golan region retaking most of the hilly region and almost all the strategic points including Mount Hermon in one of the most spectacular SF operations and all that was with a third of their total army and half the airforce, however, the sheer stupidity of the Syrian command refused to mobilize the rest of the army and ordered a halt to the advancement after facing a slight resistance in an isolated place that the could have been easily bypassed and continued to do their job without much harm done. The halt though it was for a brief moment (about 12 hours) was the coup de grace for the Syrians, The 3 to 1 ratio in favor of Syria was turned into a 2 to 1 ratio in Israel's favor with no additions to the existing Syrian force, actually, one veteran told me that his unit was withdrawn from the front because an attack that did not happen was underway against Nawa farther in the Syrian lands.

 

Al-Jassas

Ok fine the Goals were not to destroy Israel,but the Egyptions achieved their advance inside Sinai cause Israel gave Syrian front the priority it is closer to Israel after initial success the Syrian held back and Israeli counter attack begun to reach the capital,thank to the Iraqi tank division which reached in the injury time and save a day but with heavy losses.

then Israel turned back to egyption army Sharon besieged the 3rd egyption army and cross the Canal behind egyption back lines it was a disaster,Egypt must thank The Security Council for it's work to made the ceasefire.

now Egypt hold a small line in other side of the canal but the Israeli crossed it already.

Egypt accomplished it's goal on the table of negotiations not on the field they promised Israel in forever peace,and the last Israeli soldier withdraw from Taba(the last Island occupied by Israel)in 1982.

the one good thing in this war from Arab was they handle the fight with Israeli air force very good better than the ex-war.

and Sadat was the first one who accept the truce,cause knew the crisis of his army.

 

1.Israel managed to hold off the Arab Armies effectively despite the Arab element of surprise.

 

2. The Egyptians manged to gain back some of their lost territory and possibly could have done more damage to the Israelis had they moved beyond their SAM cover which would have been a very big risk and most likely have resulted in heavy losses for them.

 

3. The Israelis managed to gain some territory near the Golan Heights and actually threaten to push on Damascus.

 

4. The Arab forces managed to inflict heavy casualties on the Israelis which was something they could ill afford.

 

5. From a political point of view the war and it's circumstances allowed the Arabs to deal with the Israelis on a more equal footing.

 

 

 

Al-Jassas

 

al-Jassas 

 

The Syrians lacked any planning and as a result the Isralis sooned marched on Damascus. Iraq and other Arab countries used their primitive planes until the most advanced planes, which the Israelis used from America, to destroy them. The Syrians were under a lot of pressure and as a result the Israelis could easily diver their troops to fight in Sinai without any trouble. Really the only army that was able to compete with Israel in a prolonged war was Egypt, Jordan wasn't ready their technology was lacking, Iraq lacked planning, and so did Syria.

 

The Egyptian were effective in crossing the border and canal. They kept relaying daily tactics on the Egyptian-Israeli border so the Israeli general thought nothing of it. When the Israelis realized it was a planned attack on Israeli positions, it was to late no matter what they did Egypt was going to push them back.

 

Egypt realized that if they could quickly mobilize their anti-tank and machine gun positions the superior Isreali planes would have no effect. The Israelis tried to bomb Egypt's hold with planes but were repeatedly shot down. Egypt made quick speed and had not Syria finished its plans and had not Isreal received help from America Egypt would've been in Tel Aviv within 3 days!!!

 

Thus the Israeli army snuck into Africa and had the Egyptian 3rd army in a bind. Great tactical move but the Egyptians reserves could have easily dissolved the Isreali army in Africa. Israel did something VERY smart in that they gave support to the 3rd army giving them water, food, and resouces making it very hard for the Egyptians to attack without making them look very bad on the world stage.

 

Many blunders in this war:

-Israel's failure to recognize Egypt's 'routine' was actually a preperation for an attack.

-Syria's lack of planning and using their tanks very recklessly.

-Egypt's army not securing the African front.

-The Arab countries, except Egypt, failure to recongnize Israel's superior planes.

 

Now many don't know but later Egypt took Sharm El Sheik back in a brilliant attack ending Israel's control of the Sinai all together.

 

BTW, I have family who fought for Egypt and I am Christian. :)

 

Rather than technology, Jordan is a small country with a little population and had very few resources and a small army to wage any long-term war.

 

Originally posted by andrew Iraq lacked planning

 

As a distant country,all the help Iraq can give was consisting of several planes and materials, nothing else

 

Originally posted by andrew Egypt made quick speed and had not Syria finished its plans and had not Isreal received help from America Egypt would've been in Tel Aviv within 3 days!!!

 

True that Israel was repeatedly getting huge amount of help from USA and getting their tanks and planes replaced but I believe this is surely an overstatement.

 

 

Originally posted by andrew Now many don't know but later Egypt took Sharm El Sheik back in a brilliant attack ending Israel's control of the Sinai all together.

-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli

Egypt had 800,000,2400 tanks,2400 APC,1000 artillery units,690 airplanes,161 helicopters.

for Israel 415,000 troops,1,500 tanks,3,000 APC945 artillery units,561 airplanes,84 helicopters.

the Americans weapons are dominated in Israeli army,the soviet in the other camp.

T-34,54,55,62 were the major tanks in the Arabians armies,while sherman and Patton tanks in the other camp.

and the same case for the other types of weapons,the MIG 17,19,21 TU-16 and Su-7 were the major planes in the Arabs army,for Israeli there were A-4 skyhawk,F-4 phantom,and the french Mirrage.

 

I don't know, but I bet the Assyrians would take the rest of their tank regiment into impending doom anyhow.

 

In all wars, the Arab armies had either equal equipment or much superior equipment and the advantage of superior numbers

 

Dear Peteratwar, one question, have you ever read anything about the

Arab israeli wars.

 

Yeah, that's why the Middle East was supplied with the lates aircraft, tanks, and armour from the Unites States right?Read my comment, if Israel had not received support from America Egypt would've been in Tel Aviv within 3 days. The fact that they controlled the skies and had far superior equipment, with the exclusion of maybe Egypt, is the only reason Israel still exists.

 

The only thing the Arab armies had was numbers. Take into account that both the Iraqi armies and Jordanian armies were practically not able to fight with Isreal in the world stage, Jordan's army was comparable to the Union army during the Civil War in America, you basically had Eygpt and Syria.

 

So this statement is quite funny for us with superior equipment!

 

Yes and have several books on the subject. Also was alive when they all occurred

 

Then take it from someone who's family lived there during the war and had a family member who fought there, we were not as well equipped as the Israelis.

 

Had we even had proper aircraft to fight the Israelis, we would'nt have had to take refuge behind our anti-aircraft weapons and would've diverted our troops straight through Israel. LOL, you should know that Israel's advanced weaponry, brough courtesy of the United States, is the reason why they won.

 

Which wars are we exactly talking about.?

1948 the Arabs certainly had better equipment

 

1967 ditto, the Israelis mainly had French and British castoffs (apart from in the air where they were about equal to the Russian equipped air forces of the Arab nations (save Jordan))

 

1973 near equality in equipment Arabs had far superior numbers

 

An uncharacteristically non-eurocentric perspective, on your part, Peter. The Israeli military employed those brilliant Centurion tanks in the 6 days war, which were supplied by Britain, and rolled over the Soviet T-35 tanks the Jordanians were in about two days. Their airforce was always superior to the Syrian airforce, in one air battle in the Yom Kippur war they destroyed around 100 hundred Syrian aircraft for one Israeli aircraft, once again due to the advantage of American and British technology against less developed Soviet technology.

 

I said before, and I'll say again, aside from the Western support and consequent superior technology, the greatest advantage the Israeli's had over the Arabs were their intelligence agencies and their psychological edge.

 

Whoa there Pete you really need to check your sources again.

In the 48 war the total Arab armies amounted to no more than 50 000 men at the en of the war while the israelis had by the end of the war over 110 000 men. Also you forgot to mention that the overwhelming number of Israeli soldiers were  jewish veterans of WWII and they had bombers and about 100 air planes while the Arabs had tanks that brokedown before reaching the front (they bulk of their tanks were Mark Is) in a very famous scandal know as the "bad weapons scandal" when the british gave their obselet spitfires and tanks to the egyptians with inflated prices. No arab army had any experience in WWII or any other war for that matter while the Jewish legion was heavily involved in some of the most intense campaigns (crete for example). Also Arab armies were not united in that war each army had its own command and done operations independantly.

In the 67 war indeed Arab armies were far more superior than those of Israel in terms of numbers and equipment. But so were the combined French-British armies just before the Blitzkrieg in 1940. I said earlier that Arab regimeswere far more afraid of their own people than from an external army. The 67 war is a fine example of arab disunity even infront of common enemies. Israel was preparing for war against Egypt for months before the actual wars started. Nasser who was far more interested in his prestige than his country's interests continued a pointless useless war in yemen with the best of his troops dying by the hundreds every month and all his resources depleted in toppling arab monarchies including that of Jordan which had the best army and which also had 50 000 men just 30 Km from Tel Aviv. He asked for war by his actions depite knowing the terrible corruption of his army, which was more interested in Tahiyah Karioka's dances than military training, which despite having 4 times more air craft than Israel he only had 150 pilots and most of those plains were in storage. He sent 40 000 men to Sainai in the beginning of May and when the war started they did not even setup a radar network period. To make matters even worse the official patrol time starts at 7:00 when all the airplanes, those who started the shift and those who ended it, should have been in the air. In reality, which was known to every one including Nasser himself, Planes landed at 6:30 and Started the next shift from 7:30 to 8:30 depending on the season, since it was summer it was about 8:00 all in the morning. Intially the war was directed at Egypt which only deployed 80 000 men by the hight of the war while other Arab countries from solidarity only fired a couple of dozen vollys of artillary, interestingly Israel deployed little number of troops against Jordan and almost non against Syria out of confidence of no action, it was later when the war ended in Egypt that they swiftly attacked Jordan and Syria both having about a thir of their armies deployed to the front and ven if both deployed all their armies the total number woul still be far more inferior than that of Israel.

 

Thank You

 

Al-Jassas ibn Murrah

 

Their army was ill-equipped and not at all suited to fight for their time.

you need to watch the final situation of the war and not only the succesful battles at the begining.

 

only the ceasefire which was imposed by the US and the world stopped Israel from occupaying Qairo  and Damasscus.

 

look at the final Casualties and losses:

Israel-----------------------------------Egypt+Syria

2,656 killed                           8,528*– 15,000  killed
7,250 wounded                   19,540* – 35,000 wounded

400 tanks destroyed           2,250 tanks destroyed

102 planes shot down         432 planes destroyed

 

Yeah, Sharon with his 20 000 men surrounded by two egyptian field armies 100 000 men each is going to occupy 2000 sq Km 5 mllion populated Cairo, 100 Km from where he was when the cease fire was declared was going to occupy Cairo. No wonder they kicked him out after the war even though his move was brilliant not enough men crossed the channel. The Egyptians told the Israelis if they wanted those poor devils to go home safely they had to agree for peace which they did. On the Syrian front however I agree with you, 200 000-250 000 soldiers on the Israeli side vs 120 000 Syrians, the fight was already over.

 

Al-Jassas

 

On the Syrian front, it should be remembered that the Syrians had a whole armoured corps yet uncommitted to action and they were planning an assault for the day after the ceasefire.

 

One must see the entire course of the war so that he can analyse it perfectly. If the Arabs did not start the war Israelis would have started it anyway using the same reasoning of the 67 war. Arabs had the chance and power to crush Israel but as I had said, they launched the war to get political gains not military ones and that is why Israel deployed more troops on both fronts than what the Arabs deployed. While Israel achieved a perfect victory on the Golan front victory was far from achieved on the Sinai front. Egyptians still had 80 000 men in Sinai, 3rd army, who achieved several victoried before they were stopped during the tank battle when they lost most of their tanks thanks to air assault, we still in control of 20-25% of the Penunsila. Sharon made an excellent move, thanks to direct stallite feeds from the US which Egyptians did not have, but the Egyptians soon found out and surrounded the Israelis whith the 1st Army from the south and the second army with some units of the third from the north. Egyptian supply lines were not cut as xristar says, all the main Egyptian army bases and airports were on the eastern bank of the Nile just kilometers away from the front. Plus Egyptians had 1000 SAM batteries scattered along the western side of Canal and almost half their airforce and the best of their planes were safely tucked in the south away from any Israeli harm. I think in one day after Sharon landed Israel lost 25 jets and because of that air support was stopped from reaching Sharon which meant he and the Israelis were sitting ducks. If Israel continued it would lose most of its effective airforce and Egypt will have a free reign on the Israelis both west and east of the Canal. Also Sharon was repulsed in the final day of the attack by a smaller Egyptian force which meant that any progress was just impossible. Same happened in Syria before the battle reached a stalemate by the October 25th when the Iraqi expeditionary force defeated and Israeli attack force in the south of Syria near Nawa if I am not mistaken and Syria gathered its entire aiforce and called on the reserve for a counter attack but the initial results were not encouraging and they were forced to stop.

 

Al-Jassas

 

However, they had done enough to teach the Israelis to respect them. The first fruits of this was in the Egyptian attitude which allowed Sinaii to be restored to Egypt and peace to be set up between them and Israel. 

 

Their aims were to get back Sinai as a minimum. If you wish to call a defeat an achivement then fine.

 

Israel's aims were to have peace with their neighbours. This with regard to Egypt they have achieved by and large 

 

Stand there forever ?

 

Advance into Israel ?

 

Try and defend against a counter-attack ?

 

If any or all of these, they failed

 

First, totally false premise regarding the 1967 war.  Egypt did not have just 3 reserve divisions in the Sinai.  Israel quickly defeated not just the Egyptians, but the Syrians and Jordanians as well.  In 1967 the 'Arab' forces did not have an effective answer to Israel's armour and airpower.  In 1973 the story was very different, largely due to the improvement in the training, discipline and equipment of the Egyptians and Syrians.  There was also the overconfidence of the IDF and the fact that the Egyptians and Syrians had successfully achieved surprize (keep in mind that they did attack during a Jewish religous holiday).  Still, that's not to excuse the IDF, just to say that it was a successful operation by their opponents.  In particular, the Egyptians displayed a high level of technical expertise in successfully crossing the Suez and destroying the 'fortifications' on the other side.  The IDF airpower could not penetrate the Egyptian air defenses and the IDF armour 'cavalry charge' was stopped by the Egyptian guided anti-tank missiles.  The 'Arabs' got into trouble when the IDF concentrated on the Syrians before finishing off the Egyptians.  The Egyptians had planned on establishing themselves in the Sinai, and then 'attritioning' the IDF by forming a strong defensive position and holding in the face of the expected IDF counterattacks.  This worked initially, however, this strategy was frustrated when the IDF switched to concentrating on the Syrian front.  Once the Syrians got into trouble the Egyptians were 'pressured' into taking the offensive, which cost them heavily.  Once Syria was finished off the Egyptian front was broken.  I strongly disagree that the ceasefire favoured Israel.  Also not that this conflict was something of a 'proxy war' between the Soviets and the Americans.  Yes, the US was rushing in supplies for Israel.  However, the Soviets were also supplying Egypt and Syria.  The Arabs did not 'win' the war in a military sense.  However, they had fought well and inflicted significant losses on the IDF.  It did change the dynamic to the advantage of Egypt in particular, as Israel was forced to realize that they no longer held the huge military advantage that had existed previously, and they could not afford to fight against these Arab armies repeatedly.  So Israel was thereafter willing to return the Sinai to Egypt to gain 'peace' with Egypt.  The 1973 War forced Israel to accept that Egypt was a legitimate threat and that simply holding the Sinai and remaining in a state of 'conflict' with Egypt was not viable in the long term.

 

Actually new testimonies confirmed what was always been already known, Sadat interferred in the conduct of the war and effectively tied the hands of the commanders behind their backs.

 

Remember, once the Egyptians crossed the canal and moved the entire 3rd army into Sinai with all its equipment (some 100k men and 2000+ tanks) which happened in about 48 hours, sadat denied both the 3rd army's advance into the middle of Sinai and the 2 (or first army I forgot) to do covering action and guard the Canal and even send reinforcements to occupy the south western coast of Sinai (Where Israeli forces were intact and it was where Sharron started his offensive) The Egyptians simply dug themselves in (defying every ounce of military logic) on the wrong side of the peninsula (facing the high ground which was at that time virtually unprotected by the Israeli side). Once The Israelis secured their positions on the Syrian front they turned their faces towards the Egyptians and managed to organize an effective offense against troops dug in and the result was obvious. There were severe recriminations after the war and the only thing that saved Sadat from a coup by the officers who advocated a more aggressive action was the fact that Israel agreed to peace and the movement was quickly isolated (some of its leaders were even assasinated).

 

Al-Jassas

You are correct, there was a huge degree of Israeli over confidence. 

 

The fact that they crossed the Sinai showed that Arabs were increasingly capable of military operations. The Arabs, however, were still not equal to the Israelis at the Batalion and Brigade levels (as alter events showed). Unfortunalty, the Sinai war was a mobile war and dynamic Batalion / Brigade commanders are critical. Had the war been a Somme or Verdun type conflict, the Egyptians could ahve compensated for this short coming. 

 

In short.... the 1944 Wermacht had the skills to salvage the situation. The 1973 Egyptians could compete, but only for a limited time. They were breaking down fast and hoping the Soviets forced a cease fire or even better, started airlifting airborne divisions into Alexandria or Cairo.

Originally posted by Sparten At the time of the ceasfire something like half of Egypts military had not been committed to action, while every battalion in the Israeli Army was committed.

Israelis still had reserves on the Jordanian border and garisoning the West Bank. Some of the West bank units were shooting local Arabs on flimsy pretenses. Even still, they could be deployed of needed.  The Egyptian reserves were probably third string paramilitary security units. All units truly capable of offensive action against the Israelis had been committed.

Originally posted by Al Jassas The Egyptians simply dug themselves in (defying every ounce of military logic) on the wrong side of the peninsula

That is because they tried to move into the open desert and fight the Israelis tank on tank but they were badly defeated in a mobile battle. Despite big Egyptian improvements, Israeli tank crews and junior officer still out performed them. The Egyptians then did plan "b" (dig in under the protection of the initially very lethal SAMs, ATGMs and RPGs and hope the war turns into a hi tech version of Verdun.) But... the war stayed mobile and Israelis quickly found some fairly good countermeasure to the ATGMS and SAMS. 

^

So....  Israelis on the West Bank, Israelis in the Golan heights and Israelis approaching  Damascus were all part of some secret Arab master plan to win while appearing to lose? . You accuse me of superficial knowledge, but you are confusing Arab propaganda with actual reality.

 

The Israelis were only defeated when attempting to "tank rush" troops protected by pre coordinated atgms. They quickly stopped attacking these units and went mobile (found the gap).    

 

The Israelis never retreated to their original bridge heads (except for possibily as a part of the cease fire). They did, however, start encountering problems when Egyptian militia and army stragglers sucessfully defended a town in house to house fighting from an Israeli Batalion task force. This success never stopped the overall Israeli advance, but did cause heavy casualties. The Israelis then realized that tough fighting still remained in built up towns between them and Cairo.  As a result, they were more willing to accept a cease fire knowing that they had still won the war. 

 

 

 

 

As for the march on Damascus, well what did you expect with a 3 to 1 superiority on the Israeli side and total air supremacy. Actually the Syrians managed to launch a counter offensive on the last day of the war and liberate at least one Syrian town that was occupied during the counter offensive and advanced 5km in one day. Another massive counter offensive was schedueled on two fronts with the Iraqis leading from the south and Syrians from the North but Israel accepted the cease fire.

 

About Jordan, Jordan actually lent passive assistance to Israel, King Hussain, according to Israeli, US and UK documents released earlier this year was in Tel-Aviv on the eve of the war and not only gave them the blueprints of the war plan, part of his land was occupied and he was supposed to join in during the 3rd or 4th day depending on the situation, but he assured them he won't fight. Israel had only semi trained reservists in the west bank. 410k men were on both fronts while the largest estimate of actual Arab forces was 350k men.

 

As for Sharon and the Advance on Cairo, I already explained it, the gap which he infiltrated from was already closed (contained to be more precise), he was virtually isolated and sandwitched between two huge Egyptian armies, his division was being bombarded day and night and worst still, he had to face other Egyptian forces in front of him which stopped his march and forced to start going back. The guy was kicked out of the army and as far as I know no military commander has ever said that his adventure was a stroke of genius (his cross was but his attack on Cairo was stupid).

 

Al-Jassas

Syrian special forces units were clearly competitive with equivelant Israeli units.  Unfortunatly, Syrian line units were not equal to Israeli line units. This is demonstrated by the Syrian failure to breakthrough on the Golan heights despite a huge numerical advantage, strategic surprise and facing Israeli reserve units.

 

Had the war been a special forces based war such as Burma, 1944-45 or the British in Malaysia during the 1950s, the Syrians may have won.  But, mass manuver warfare is not based solely on special forces and line Syrian units had to be able to compete with line Israeli units.

 

 

Nuclear option was discarded by Israel because of the very serious consequences it would have the world driven into.

 

1)Cryptic, Damascus is within range of Israeli arty even from the Golan Heights, the Israelis were no where near the city or had any reasonable hopes of taking it.

 

2) The Syrian tank units, were fighting uphill in a narrow gap, they were funneled through passes, they Israelis could pick them off one by one, and they did, even then they came damn near close to breaking the Israeli line. Terrain is far far far more important than numbers.

 

3)On the Sinai Cryptic is mixing up two seperate events, the initial cavalry charge by Ghosens Brigade which was mauled, and a later tank battle involving three of the four divisions in action, both of which were lost by the Israelis. Indeed they had little success until the Egyptian moved forward away from their air umbrella.

 

4) As for the counter-crossing the israelis had crossed in the gao between the armies. However Adens assualt on a town (more accuratly a crossroads near the town) was repulsed by Egyptian reserves who also engaed Sharon and pushed him back, while simultaneously Third Army began to attack Sharon on his rear, they did AFAIK destroy a few bridges, Israeli Airforce attempts to support the troops in the Sinai were met with heavy losses, the heaviest of th war IIRC.

Damascus is forty miles from the heights and the Israelis advanced roughly 20 miles beyond the 1967 cease fire line. They were halfway to Damascus. I agree, they could not take the city house to house. My guess is that they would have forced arab units into the city, then cut the northeren roads between Damscus and the Syrian ports receiving Soviet re-supply.

   

Originally posted by Sparten , Israeli Airforce attempts to support the troops in the Sinai were met with heavy losses, the heaviest of th war IIRC.

Israeli aircraft losses per sortie were declining each day. The heaviest losses were on the first few days when IAF was not prepared for SAMS. US technical assistance, new flight tactics and the steady disruption of the SAM network allowed IAF to acheive air supereority.

Originally posted by Sparten Third Army began to attack Sharon on his rear, they did AFAIK destroy a few bridges,

By the cease fire date, the Israelis had severed the last functioning crossing point supporting third army. They were isolated on the East bank with no stockpiles of supplies.

 

About the Syrian front, Syria did break through Israeli lines, liberate Mount Hermon and from the souther end even reach the sea of Gallile. It was in the center where most of Syria's forces were concentrated and where Israelis checked them but Syria did gain land and held it to the end of the war. The problem with Syria was that it didn't expect neither the gains it made nor the fast Israeli mobalisation that happened. Only 60k were ever deployed (increased to some 85-90k by the end of the war) out of nearly 150k total. Syrian airforce was only committed for the first three days  (its pilots shot a total of 10-15 planes alone) then withdrawn into the interior. The goal in Syria was as in Egypt to gain a limited amount of land and force Israel to negotiate. They expected this to happen after Qunaitirah was liberated but it didn't. They lost valuble time waiting for the Israeli to negotiate and when orders for an all out attack came they found themselves fighting forces in much larger number. Israel was already 30 miles away from the Syria capital when the war started. They advances to about 19 miles away and then repulsed to the 25 miles line (which is the current de facto border) before the war ended (thank to the Iraqis). Syrian losses were about the same in number as the Israeli losses (about 1000 dead) which shows how good the syrian military was. After the war, the regime became more and more sectarian and the entire air force, special forces and most of the officer core were purged because they were not of the right ethinicity (many were Kurd) or religion (all of the purged officers were sunni).

 

AL-Jassas

Yes, that is true.  It was retaliation for an attack (also illegal) by the Egyptian Third Army after the cease fire.

 

As for Third Army cut off, Third Army did have functioning bridgeheads and the Israelis cocluded after the war thatif it had gone on they would have broken out.