Why Arabs lost all its wars to Israel despite outnumbering Israel in weapons and manpower?

[19887]

Israel returned the Sinai to Egypt because the Egyptians agreed to recognize Israel and maintain peace with Israel
Israel offered the Gaza Strip to Egypt, but the Egyptians refused.
Even with Jordan, Israel offered the West Bank to Jordan,
In return for recognition and peace, the Jordanians refused to take the West Bank.
Israel proposed to Syria the Golan in exchange for peace and recognition.
Arabs think that in war they'll get it, not realizing that if they want to return the territories that Israel occupied, they should make peace not war.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Finally a guy know what he talks about , let me tell one thing guys if israel had a full control on Sinai and "won" the war in 1973 no international pressure would have gave us sinai back , Just like the Golan Heights

what was the Objective behind 1973 war = Sinai , and we Got it = Victory
Simple

Or - when Egypt found out they could not beat Israel, they decided to negotiate, instead of engaging in a new war.
The only thing the war changed, was the perception Egyptians had of themselves.

 

[Hellfire]

Wrong egyptains didn't aim to recapture sinai as it would be impossible without an airforce something that soviets didn't supply egypt with both commanders of egypt and Israel understood this The aim was to show the israelis who refused to negotiate as they felt that having the suez canal, barlave line and sinai between egypt and Israel is much safer thus the egyptian attack to prove them wrong and start negotiations.

As per a history book you wrote?

The primary objective was always to regain the Sinai, Gaza in conjunction with Golan for Syrians. You got your backsides handed to you in spite of a brilliant canal crossing operation!!!!
So this theory now?

 

[Frogman]

Or - when Egypt found out they could not beat Israel, they decided to negotiate, instead of engaging in a new war.
The only thing the war changed, was the perception Egyptians had of themselves.

The goal was never to defeat the Israelis in a total war. The Egyptian Armed Forces even with the support of other Arab nations didn't have the capability to do that.

The entire point was to advance (20km) into the Sinai and in doing so causing the Israeli occupation to falter. That was achieved. The surge later on in the war was Sadat's decision (overruling Shazli who knew it was a terrible idea) and eventually lead to the thaghra which was only exploited due to US recce flights. However this doesn't really change anything.

A good example I can give is the Battle of Jutland in WWI. Pound for pound the German fleet sank more British ships and secured a tactical victory but they ultimately failed to break the British naval siege in order to disrupt supply lines in the North Sea and in doing so they lost the strategic battle, and the war. The World Wars are littered with battles in which the Germans did very well tactically (often against a superior opponent) but ultimately failed in securing their strategic goals.

The Israelis may have secured a tactical victory but I think I'm far more satisfied with achieving our strategic goal of recapturing the Sinai through war and negotiation.

1. The 67 war was Israeli deception on stating that Arabs were going to take it out. Essentially they were the aggressors and knew certain victory because despite being outnumbered; they possessed both a qualitatively superior and much more trained force with years of combat experience.

Ultimately Egypt gave the Israelis the excuse they wanted to attack by making rather stupid hawkish statements (Gamal Abdel Nasser) and blocking Israels naval passageways. In essence we gave them Casus Belli.

The Egyptian military was not in fighting shape in 1967 having just come off the disastrous Yemen campaign. Several vital areas were not funded (early warning installations for instance) due to funds being diverted to useless programs among other things. There's a whole list of reasons why what happened happened but it's a bit OT. Suffice to say the Israeli line of taking on the entire might of the Arab world and beating it in six days is trumpet blowing bullshit.

The Israelis have always bleated on about being outnumbered but they always tend to inflate numbers by adding reserves from other nations or partners that were never used in combat either due to them arriving late or being in poor technical shape. In some areas not only were they qualitatively superior but numerically as well.

2. The 73 war had the Americans jumping in to save Israel, without US intervention; Israel was going to resort to nuclear weapons.

Without Soviet intervention Egypt and the Arabs could not have reformed entire battalions of armour and mechanised infantry either. Although the Soviets weren't as forthcoming as the Americans in terms of ISR for Egypt.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The goal was never to defeat the Israelis in a total war. The Egyptian Armed Forces even with the support of other Arab nations didn't have the capability to do that.

The entire point was to advance (20km) into the Sinai and in doing so causing the Israeli occupation to falter. That was achieved. The surge later on in the war was Sadat's decision (overruling Shazli who knew it was a terrible idea) and eventually lead to the thaghra which was only exploited due to US recce flights. However this doesn't really change anything.

A good example I can give is the Battle of Jutland in WWI. Pound for pound the German fleet sank more British ships and secured a tactical victory but they ultimately failed to break the British naval siege in order to disrupt supply lines in the North Sea and in doing so they lost the strategic battle, and the war. The World Wars are littered with battles in which the Germans did very well tactically (often against a superior opponent) but ultimately failed in securing their strategic goals.

The Israelis may have secured a tactical victory but I think I'm far more satisfied with achieving our strategic goal of recapturing the Sinai through war and negotiation.



Ultimately Egypt gave the Israelis the excuse they wanted to attack by making rather stupid hawkish statements (Gamal Abdel Nasser) and blocking Israels naval passageways. In essence we gave them Casus Belli.

The Egyptian military was not in fighting shape in 1967 having just come off the disastrous Yemen campaign. Several vital areas were not funded (early warning installations for instance) due to funds being diverted to useless programs. There's a whole list of reasons why what happened happened but it's a bit OT. Suffice to say the Israeli line of taking on the entire might of the Arab world and beating it in six days is trumpet blowing bullshit.

The Israelis have always bleated on about being outnumbered but they always tend to inflate numbers by adding reserves from other nations or partners that were never used in combat either due to them arriving late or being in poor technical shape. In some areas not only were they qualitatively superior but numerically as well.



Without Soviet intervention Egypt and the Arabs could not have reformed entire battalions of armour and mechanised infantry either. Although the Soviets weren't as forthcoming as the Americans in terms of ISR for Egypt.

I think this is a fairly good summary.
Peace between Egypt and Israel creates a win-win situation.

 

[Hell NO]

As per a history book you wrote?

The primary objective was always to regain the Sinai, Gaza in conjunction with Golan for Syrians. You got your backsides handed to you in spite of a brilliant canal crossing operation!!!!
So this theory now?

You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.
Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.

why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions?????
Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.

again not my opinion but facts.

 

[Hellfire]

You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.
Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.

why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions?????
Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.

again not my opinion but facts.

Firstly, the bold part!

What is worse is not a person who knows little but speaks as if he gets it all (to quote you) but who knows nothing and claims to be speaking to intelligence community all across and then trying to define the political objectives from everyone other than the guy who defined the political objectives as the President of the belligerent nation! That is what is worse.

Secondly, you butted in to quote me, when I specifically said Israel didn't loose the war (militarily it not only checked the Egyptian attack but also regained the Suez banks and crossed it to move towards Cairo in the process encircling the Egyptian Third Army) to a poster who was declaring 1973 as a victory.

Please do not presume to obfuscate facts ----- A war is always an extension of a foreign policy and the objectives are politically defined. War is, as per Clausewitz, an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.

When Sadat's objectives were as earlier mentioned by me that is to regain the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza, you reallllyyyyyy think that the above mentioned personalities are the ones dictating the agenda then?

Post war analysis will give you hundreds, nay thousands of objectives, each with its own logical importance


Let me sum it up, how it probably would have gone in as a flow chart in the mind -----

Primary Aim:

To win back all territories lost to Israel in 1967.

(what is not written as a political directive - there were two ways - achieve a military breakthrough and force the negotiations of conclusion of war from a position, or achieve enough military momentum with concomitant diplomatic push and offence that the same can be achieved in case the military is not able to achieve the objectives required. This is because after 1967, Israel is in no mood to negotiate as it knows militarily it is strong; so perhaps it is required to force them to negotiations.)

We also achieve the additional aim of opening up Suez (an attractive option for West to give us diplomatic support)

so this is secondary objective

Just what could possibly have been in his (Sadat's) head ...


Coming back to what you say, that the aim was to force Israelis to negotiations ......

Were the aims achieved by Sadat?

No.

Why? Firstly, the Egyptian army failed to exploit its initial gains in crossing the canal by failing to capture its objectives at Sharm al Shaikh, towards Mitla and Giddi Pass

Its is a waste of time to go into why, possibly their slow progression and temporary pause to allow for reorganisation on other side of suez and for mopping up of the Bar Lev defences .. or whatever ....

Secondly the israelis were able to not only soon counter attack with enough concentration of troops, they were able to cross the west bank of Suez and head in general direction of Cairo itself and in the process they also managed to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.

This effectively left Cairo open to Israeli advance ... and presented the US with an unique opportunity to intervene and force Egyptians to concede.

Imminent disaster forced Sadat to agree to a truce and Israelis were under pressure from US and had no choice as US remained its sole supporter.

And the rest is history ....

But after the Camp David accord, when for a quid pro quo of recognition of Israel for vacation of Sinai, peace was achieved, one can say that Sadat won .......!!!!

So for heaven's sakes do not presume to tell me that these wonderful people were the ones defining the political objectives of the war which even Sadat did not know .......

 

[Frogman]

is to regain the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza

Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.

Why? Firstly, the Egyptian army failed to exploit its initial gains in crossing the canal by failing to capture its objectives at Sharm al Shaikh, towards Mitla and Giddi Pass

Its is a waste of time to go into why, possibly their slow progression and temporary pause to allow for reorganisation on other side of suez and for mopping up of the Bar Lev defences .. or whatever ....

Sharm Al Shaikh and both passes were never part of the plan.

The crossing occurred across the entirety of the Canal and there were no such plans for crossing the Gulf or deploying troops from the Canal crossing to Southern Sinai (to capture Sharm) deep into Israeli territory.

Mitla and Gadi were beyond the 20km zone which was to be occupied and out of Egyptian SAM range. When Egyptian forces did eventually surge into those areas to face Israeli armour basically the entirety of the 21st Armoured was lost. Although a Battalion did venture to claim the passes several days into the war also against Shazlis wishes, that as well didn't end well.

Secondly the israelis were able to not only soon counter attack with enough concentration of troops, they were able to cross the west bank of Suez and head in general direction of Cairo itself and in the process they also managed to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.

This effectively left Cairo open to Israeli advance ... and presented the US with an unique opportunity to intervene and force Egyptians to concede.

From the 6th of October to the 13th Egypt was in a militarily strong position across the Eastern bank. Initial Israeli counter attacks were repelled causing large losses to Israeli armour (3 battalions) and fast air.

However, the Syrians were struggling and to lessen the pressure Ismail and Sadat ordered the 4th Armoured to secure Mitla and Gadi against Shazlis wishes (who was exiled from the war cabinet for that).

Israeli forces were only able to start crossing onto Egypt's Western bank from the 14th of October (small in scale and number) with Sharon's forces eventually crossing onto the bank on the 16th. This was thanks due to US recce flights.

The Israelis were not having a cushty time on Egypt's Western Bank either! They were unable to capture Suez or Ismalia and were pretty much bogged down in the Deresiviour and the area they occupied while also being spread quite thinly with their limited supply lines constantly being harassed and cut by SF. They lost their most valuable asset, momentum.

Any talk of them advancing towards Cairo is utterly preposterous! In between them and Cairo was the Egyptian and Arab reserve which included the 4th Armoured Division supported by an Algerian Armoured Battalion and a Republican Guard Battalion. Quite a sizable force to go through one would imagine!

Imminent disaster forced Sadat to agree to a truce and Israelis were under pressure from US and had no choice as US remained its sole supporter.

At this point I would like to mention that the Israeli forces on Egypt's Western bank were in some trouble themselves had UN ceasefire negotiations not held up. I would like to refrence the state of the Israeli forces on the Western Bank here again as it's important.

The Egyptian 3rd Army had been encircled that's true but it did not surrender. Some elements of it were even still fighting. But that isn't my point. The Egyptian contingency for a war of attrition is though.

From the 25th of October onwards some steps were taken that are of import:

1) The reformation of the 21st Armoured Division on the Western bank with Soviet resupplies
2) The reformation of the 6th and 26th Mechanised Infantry battalion with Soviet resupplies
3) Re-designating the 4th Armoured Division (which was in the Reserve) to the 3rd Army (which was encircled) orbat
4) Creating a Infantry Division comprised of Arab nations (Morroco, Sudan, Emirates, Palestine, Kuwait) and adding it to the 3rd Army orbat
5) Placing the Algerian contingent on the Suez Road (even though the Israelis did not attempt to take it after their first try)
6) Resupply for battalions in the 2nd Army that took heavy casualties during the war.

All this was ready in November.

This was known as the Comprehensive Plan. The reformation and creation of forces from the reserves and arriving Arab contingents to break the encirclement of the 3rd Army by Israeli forces who were in a perilous position and were going to be severely outnumbered and could potentially be surrounded.

Arrow 1 2nd Army: Planned movement of the 16th Mechanised Battalion
Arrow 2 2nd Army: Planned movement of the 18th 116th Mech Bt and 182nd Para
Arrow 3 3rd Army: Planned movement of the 3rd Mech Division
Arrow 4 3rd Army: 4th Arm Div and 6th Mech Div
*Algerian Armoured Battalion and Egyptian Sixth Mech Bat and 339 Mech Coy to hold Suez road
* Arab Inf division in reserve

And the rest is history ....

Except you've been pretty much wrong on...everything.

So for heaven's sakes do not presume to tell me that these wonderful people were the ones defining the political objectives of the war which even Sadat did not know .......

A letter from the Presidency and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces signed Anwar Alsadat to COS Ismail a day before the war on the strategic imperatives of the campaign.

1) Reigniting military action
2) Breaking the ceasefire
3) inflicting substantive losses to the enemy
4) Liberating Sinai stage by stage within the means of the Armed Forces

The objective was never all out war nor was it ever liberating the entirety of Sinai in a week!

Edit: Battalions in Arab Armies circa 1960-80 are usually what we would call modern day Brigades.

 

[Manidabest]

they lost because of lack of unity in their ranks and lack of knowledge about modern warfare...

 

[Solomon2]

I am going to stick with the CIA's own assessment of the war -

Then why didn't you link to it?

 

[Hellfire]

Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.

My dear sir please read up the history of Gaza strip before posting a crap like this. You and your fellow countryman are spreading non-sense due to your ignorance and trying to pass off as an expert, one by claiming to be speaking to the intelligence chiefs and the other by totally re-writing the history of Gaza strip.

Please read the reference below before you make this statement again. You lost the control of Gaza in 1967!!! You were the de-facto rulers of Gaza from 1959-67, when Nasser did away with all pretensions in name of Pan-Arabism!!! What nonsense are you talking about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip

http://www.britannica.com/place/Gaza-Strip

Except you've been pretty much wrong on...everything.

I have been wrong on what? You have no idea of the topic you have just posted on!!!!! You are not aware of the fact of the governance of Gaza by Egypt till 1967 yet have the sense of humour to call out the other as being incorrect!! You both that is @Hell NO and you, have both been factually wrong ... so your bravado of trying to denounce me as being wrong is laughable at best and pathetic in the true sense.

I suggest stop deluding yourself by continuously re-reading your own interpretation of history and first get your facts in line by reading across cross sections of writings on the war, the politics and economics of Egypt as also the prevailing social conditions there and the reasons for formulation of the war as an option.

Please do not do what majority of Pakistani members and Indians also do when faced with uncomfortable truths .. re-write their own versions and continue to tom tom them hoping it becomes majority version and is accepted as being truth!!!

A letter from the Presidency and Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces signed Anwar Alsadat to COS Ismail a day before the war on the strategic imperatives of the campaign.

1) Reigniting military action
2) Breaking the ceasefire
3) inflicting substantive losses to the enemy
4) Liberating Sinai stage by stage within the means of the Armed Forces

The objective was never all out war nor was it ever liberating the entirety of Sinai in a week!

Edit: Battalions in Arab Armies circa 1960-80 are usually what we would call modern day Brigades.

I have simply skipped over the military aspects because it is indeed a very long topic. I have conceded that the initial crossing of Egyptian forces was brilliantly executed and why they could not achieve their subsequent objectives as they halted and took time to eradicate the Bar Lev defences and maybe reorganise their forces, is open to discussion and has various reasons.

However, quoting you specifically:

for point 4 .. I have said Sinai was an aim and your fellow countryman with access to intelligence chief and army chief and even embassies said no ... a lie!

And when you bold the 4th point to emphasise the stage by stage you are acting like a typical novice in trying to tell me how military operations are run!!! Please first go through all my posts in the thread quoting the people where I have and read their posts ... then quote me

Last red bold line of yours ... only a baseless protagonist can put forth such a point to try and emphasise the validity of his/her arguments

Please do show me where the time frame has EVER been quoted by me (Hint: Nowhere)


What you have posted is called trying to obfuscate your facts in order to somehow prove the other poster as less knowledgeable and try and exhibit to others that you know more

I have not even gone into military operations and yet you have touched on them. Instead I gave a crux of the whole plethora of operations ...... the only problem with members like you is they jump in middle of communication and try to strike themselves as being knowledgeable ... a pathetic exercise as can be seen from the fact that you did not even know Gaza was under administrative control of Egypt till 1967!!

A good day to you sir, you have been factually wrong on your base itself!

Thanks

PS: Your work on the military aspects is indeed commendable and informative hence the thanks for sharing it. But I continue to differ with your statements on overall political objectives and your claims about Gaza as also your attempt at trying to bail your countryman!

 

[Hell NO]

Firstly, the bold part!

What is worse is not a person who knows little but speaks as if he gets it all (to quote you) but who knows nothing and claims to be speaking to intelligence community all across and then trying to define the political objectives from everyone other than the guy who defined the political objectives as the President of the belligerent nation! That is what is worse.

Secondly, you butted in to quote me, when I specifically said Israel didn't loose the war (militarily it not only checked the Egyptian attack but also regained the Suez banks and crossed it to move towards Cairo in the process encircling the Egyptian Third Army) to a poster who was declaring 1973 as a victory.

Please do not presume to obfuscate facts ----- A war is always an extension of a foreign policy and the objectives are politically defined. War is, as per Clausewitz, an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.

When Sadat's objectives were as earlier mentioned by me that is to regain the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza, you reallllyyyyyy think that the above mentioned personalities are the ones dictating the agenda then?

Post war analysis will give you hundreds, nay thousands of objectives, each with its own logical importance


Let me sum it up, how it probably would have gone in as a flow chart in the mind -----

Primary Aim:

To win back all territories lost to Israel in 1967.

(what is not written as a political directive - there were two ways - achieve a military breakthrough and force the negotiations of conclusion of war from a position, or achieve enough military momentum with concomitant diplomatic push and offence that the same can be achieved in case the military is not able to achieve the objectives required. This is because after 1967, Israel is in no mood to negotiate as it knows militarily it is strong; so perhaps it is required to force them to negotiations.)

We also achieve the additional aim of opening up Suez (an attractive option for West to give us diplomatic support)

so this is secondary objective

Just what could possibly have been in his (Sadat's) head ...


Coming back to what you say, that the aim was to force Israelis to negotiations ......

Were the aims achieved by Sadat?

No.

Why? Firstly, the Egyptian army failed to exploit its initial gains in crossing the canal by failing to capture its objectives at Sharm al Shaikh, towards Mitla and Giddi Pass

Its is a waste of time to go into why, possibly their slow progression and temporary pause to allow for reorganisation on other side of suez and for mopping up of the Bar Lev defences .. or whatever ....

Secondly the israelis were able to not only soon counter attack with enough concentration of troops, they were able to cross the west bank of Suez and head in general direction of Cairo itself and in the process they also managed to encircle the Egyptian 3rd Army.

This effectively left Cairo open to Israeli advance ... and presented the US with an unique opportunity to intervene and force Egyptians to concede.

Imminent disaster forced Sadat to agree to a truce and Israelis were under pressure from US and had no choice as US remained its sole supporter.

And the rest is history ....

But after the Camp David accord, when for a quid pro quo of recognition of Israel for vacation of Sinai, peace was achieved, one can say that Sadat won .......!!!!

So for heaven's sakes do not presume to tell me that these wonderful people were the ones defining the political objectives of the war which even Sadat did not know .......

A misunderstanding you see nowhere did I mention personally speaking to any of those people and I thought that it would be a common sense thing to assume that iam quoting their book/interview. (Just to make sure you understand that iam talking about people who held these positions around the time of the war right???????)
the reason I didn't quote Sadat because my post was about the plan of attack something the prisident would not explain in a book/interview as it wasn't his job to plan the attack and thus my quote of the chief of staff.
your post about how the israeli counter attacked and managed to get to the canal shows how little you know about the war sneaked is the term you should use in this case as the israelis advanced throw a gab between the two armies facing the great bitter lakes considered too wide for a crossing by the egyptians (a narrow gab)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm
also mentioning an open road to Cairo which is laughable giving that this is what happened when they tried advancing on a small city
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia

I can go on and on explaining the whole situation but I know I would be met with the same baseless answer that iam Tring to re write history and........etc +have exams in a couple of days so
You sir believe whatever you see believable.

 

[Frogman]

My dear sir please read up the history of Gaza strip before posting a crap like this. You and your fellow countryman are spreading non-sense due to your ignorance and trying to pass off as an expert, one by claiming to be speaking to the intelligence chiefs and the other by totally re-writing the history of Gaza strip.

Was not denying that Gaza was under Egyptian administration pre 1967. No one would deny that. However, it was never part of the plan to retake it militarily or through negotiations.

Areas that were disputed such as Taba though were fought for tooth and nail in the negotiations and through courts using Egypt's rich historical archive maps. Gaza was not fought for because even though it was under Egyptian admin it was and will remain part of Palestine.

Calm down, deer.

 

[Hellfire]

@Hell NO

Putting your quotes in one post

Wrong egyptains didn't aim to recapture sinai as it would be impossible without an airforce something that soviets didn't supply egypt with both commanders of egypt and Israel understood this The aim was to show the israelis who refused to negotiate as they felt that having the suez canal, barlave line and sinai between egypt and Israel is much safer thus the egyptian attack to prove them wrong and start negotiations.

The bold part, that is where you are wrong from the beginning. The aim of any military action is to undertake the process of achieving your foreign policy objectives. The commencement of hostilities begin with the government of the day defining the political objectives of the whole war.

The armed forces of ANY nation, are given directives based on the overall objective. The armed forces define their objectives based on overall narrative given to them.

The objective of Sadat was to reclaim the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza! Period! And if once again someone says Gaza is not Egyptian territory ... I will seriously call that person a demented retard who is simply trolling at the least ....!!!! The Gaza strip was under de-facto governance of Egypt till 1967. The aims of Egypt I will clearly spell out so that YOU can understand what was to be done:

1. To recapture all territories lost in 1967 (Egypt lost Sinai and Gaza)
2. To be able to commence commercial activities on Suez to correct the economy.
3. To restore the Egyptian pride and pre-eminence in the Arab world, which had been dented post-defeat in 1967.

The italics:

You had the best Air Defence for the theatre. It was a ploy of Sadat to kick out the Russians, a great ruse which unfortunately Nasser's son in law ensured did not achieve the full surprise it was intended to. You had Scuds ..... !

You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.
Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,Egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.

why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions?????
Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.

again not my opinion but facts.

The bold part - What one can infer from your statement as highlighted by the bold portion above, is your information is from the quoted people. So either you were out trying to impress by bluffing or simply put, your English is limited. If it is the latter case, then my apologies but your English sucks mate, and you are responsible for the misunderstanding of your quote. However, since neither of us are native English speakers, it can happen!

Come to italics, they didn't counter attack as after canal crossing and mopping up of the Israeli defences on the East Bank of Suez (which took longer than anticipated) the only attempt by Egyptian 1st Mechanised Brigade to push East was badly mauled by Israelis. The Egyptians realised the import of ensuring their SAM cover and hence the 2nd and 3rd armies did not push Eastwards till the reorganisation of forces and establishment of air protection for the armoured and mechanised forces was adequately achieved.

For your reference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

The red portion: you are again referring to him as if he spoke to you ... so a deliberate attempt at trying to impress by conveying that the gentlemen spoke to you!! LOL!!!!

The green part - I really do not have any words left ... simply am at a loss for words to describe that!!!

A misunderstanding you see nowhere did I mention personally speaking to any of those people and I thought that it would be a common sense thing to assume that iam quoting their book/interview. (Just to make sure you understand that iam talking about people who held these positions around the time of the war right???????)

Nope. The phrases you have used were deliberately penned to portray first hand account. If you were indeed quoting the references, you would have provided the links .... did you?

the reason I didn't quote Sadat because my post was about the plan of attack something the prisident would not explain in a book/interview as it wasn't his job to plan the attack and thus my quote of the chief of staff.

Now this is called covering your *** after it has been handed over to you on your posts so far bereft of facts and merely based on your rhetorics. I said the objective of the war was to capture Sinai and Gaza and you simply said that the objective was not that. Instead, you have chosen to now change tack and are claiming you were discussing military objectives. Now if a 15R dune is to be captured next to a burnt out village, how the fcuk am I concerned that Egyptian army could capture 15R and with it overlook the nearby oasis which could be water point for enemy thereby denying the enemy source of water? Now you are being an *** and wasting my time.

My dear sir, first of all get it into your head that there is nothing called a limited war. There is always a total war or no war. The only time one says a war is limited war, is when the objectives are limited, time and resources allocated are limited, and the ability and means of the initiating nation is such that it can dictate the timing of initiation and cessation of hostilities. There is, today, only one nation which can do that to a certain degree and that too only against minor banana republics, that is US. No other nation can ever be in a limited war ...something I think you have tried to portray ( I may have misunderstood this I admit). The war is always total as you have to mobilize all your resources, industrial capacity, output your monetary resources, diplomatic resources, your reserves ... the whole nation is involved in every facet of war ... hence the war is always total.

your post about how the israeli counter attacked and managed to get to the canal shows how little you know about the war sneaked is the term you should use in this case as the israelis advanced throw a gab between the two armies facing the great bitter lakes considered too wide for a crossing by the egyptians (a narrow gab)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm
also mentioning an open road to Cairo which is laughable giving that this is what happened when they tried advancing on a small city
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia

I gave you a crux of the overall war and not simply isolated battles. The US was the sole supplier of weapons to Israel, it forced Israel to a ceasefire and Egypt also had no option as its 3rd army was surrounded. Israelis were within 65 miles of cairo .... just how long do you think you would have lasted if US had not applied pressure on Israel to stop? Don't answer, its a rhetorical question!!!!!

You are quoting isolated battles. Every war has reverses. heck Indian infantry division got bogged down thinking of superior Pakistani forces in 1971 .... and sat throughout on its nether regions doing nothing ....!! Does it mean India lost 1971? Don't be a funny toon!

I can go on and on explaining the whole situation but I know I would be met with the same baseless answer that iam Tring to re write history and........etc +have exams in a couple of days so
You sir believe whatever you see believable.

Oh my! And I thought I was talking to a military history buff or a veteran!! My apologies ... you are authorised to think whatever you want!!!

Go study mate ..... you are talking to a guy who had done this for a living and has been an avid student of military history for almost 25 years now ...... don't waste your time here. All the best for your exams.


@Frogman

Was not denying that Gaza was under Egyptian administration pre 1967. No one would deny that. However, it was never part of the plan to retake it militarily or through negotiations.

The quote below is from your intervention in my discussion with @Hell NO (and it turns out I was arguing with a kid!!!)

Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.

When it was under your de-facto control, it was technically your territory ... so please can it. We are not in International Court of Justice or whatever arguing like effing attorneys!!!

Please go through the objectives stated earlier in my post. Gaza was always an extended objective as the aim was to restore the perceived lost pride of Egypt as pre-eminent power in the Arab world (remember even Syria consider Camp David accord a betrayal and voted against you in 1979??) and to rally the Arab world for support by unifying the Arabs on Palestinian cause.

Sharm Al Shaikh and both passes were never part of the plan.

The crossing occurred across the entirety of the Canal and there were no such plans for crossing the Gulf or deploying troops from the Canal crossing to Southern Sinai (to capture Sharm) deep into Israeli territory.

Mitla and Gadi were beyond the 20km zone which was to be occupied and out of Egyptian SAM range. When Egyptian forces did eventually surge into those areas to face Israeli armour basically the entirety of the 21st Armoured was lost. Although a Battalion did venture to claim the passes several days into the war also against Shazlis wishes, that as well didn't end well.

Thank you for the bold part. I did not know that I had to put up a flow chart of when the weapon was cocked and how the round was chambered and how the aim was taken ... man, seriously ..?

I TOLD THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE WAR!!!!! Ever heard of summation of a really long war? Next you will discuss World War 2 .. and you will spend 20 years just writing about the annexation of Czechoslovakia if you write this way ...

Answer me - did or did not Egypt have Mitla Pass and Gidi Pass as an objective along with a possible heliborne assault on Refidim in consonance with advance on ground on directives of the Legal president of the time Anwar el Sadat? (I don't care a fig for General Shazly and his resisting the Minister of War General Ahmed Ismail Ali; in the end the effing political directive superseded and always does; this despite the loss of 1st Mechanised Brigade)

Didn't the attack take place with Egyptian 3rd and 2nd armies advancing eastwards with disastrous consequences?

If the answer to all these queries is yes ... then if I summed up that these were objectives instead of wasting bandwidth and my time, am I wrong?

Now a military objective can be changed as narrative of war changes, is it not? Is there something called fluidity in war? If yes, then military objectives are variable at best. What is always constant is the political objective(s)/directive(s)!!!

So what is the problem with you guys? Is a summation so difficult to digest?

Do I have to write that when I sum, your eyes should be able to read and the neuronal electrical impulses travel via optic nerves which receive inputs from the image formed on retina and then the same causes an electrochemical impulse to generate in rods and cones, the sensory pigments in the retina who have electrical variance which is conducted as electrical impulse along nerve fibres which have saltatory conduction on account of their axons being myelinated by oligodendrocytes instead of schwann cells which normally myelinated cranial nerves, but in this case the optic nerve is the only nerve that is a cranial nerve but acts as a nerve of Central Nervous System instead of the Peripheral Nervous System to which all Cranial Nerves belong .... blah blah and then the information is processed by your visual cortex and the same has a complex mechanism involving the limbic system, instead of just saying read and understand it?

If I go this way .. you will surely fly from wherever you are and kill me out of sheer frustration!!!


Accept it ... militarily you lost the war - politically you lost the war!!!

You got Sinai back only AFTER you recognised Israel. So you didn't win as you had sworn to destroy Israel ...!

So you lost EVERYTIME!!!

Don't care if Moroccans or Iraqis or Jordanians or for that matter even the Martians were coming to intervene on your side!!

Even the Nazis were on threshold of making a nuke and god knows they did have the first fighter jet operational in the final stages of war ....

What didn't happen ..... does NOT matter!

 

[Ceylal]

1. To recapture all territories lost in 1967 (Egypt lost Sinai and Gaza)

That was the war plan presented by Sadat ( tru Shazli)to the countries that participated on the side of Egypt . Assad lied of course and sacked Shazli, to implement his real goal.

2. To be able to commence commercial activities on Suez to correct the economy.

Sadat cared less , he had a problem of self esteem, his skin color (at least in his mind) was an impediment to his stature, and his goal was to get close to the US and her allies....

3. To restore the Egyptian pride and pre-eminence in the Arab world, which had been dented post-defeat in 1967.

Since Nasser, none of the Egyptiens Presidents that followed cared about the Egyptian pride, they cared most about how they are viewed by the west. For the second part they claimed it like a god given right, Their record was shemlessly repeated from president to president, the ones who truly wanted to restablish the emminence of the Arab world weren't ARABS, but berbers, and both were assassinated by the Arabs or with their help.