Yom Kippur War 1973: The Egyptian Revenge

[lionheartsalahudin]

 

[pak-yes]

what revenge?after initial success they were ultimately beaten to hell.

 

[lionheartsalahudin]

stupid politicaly motivated decisions by sadat were the cause as was musharaf,yahya,bhutto,in our case,and there were rats who sold out freinds ,and i am sure our country has a lot of them too

 

[Gazzi]

This must be the first time in warfare history that troops were ordered to halt to allow a chance for ceasefire talks. The US deliberately pressured the Egyptians to halt their troops from advancing after the Egyptians has pushed through Israel's Primary and Secondary positions and were marching ahead. The US fooled/lied the Egyptians into thinking they were going to play neutral, allowing the Israelis to re-arm, regroup, and supplied further weapons and launched a ferocious attack on soldiers who were sitting ducks in the open Seuz, with no defence as the Israelis now had the element of surprise.

I have never heard of a halt in military advance to allow for these sort of ceasefire talks. They are normally always done under fire and military objectives are still there to be achieved.

Another reason why they Arabs should never trust the US when it comes to anything to do with Israel.

 

[AVIAN]

This must be the first time in warfare history that troops were ordered to halt to allow a chance for ceasefire talks. The US deliberately pressured the Egyptians to halt their troops from advancing after the Egyptians has pushed through Israel's Primary and Secondary positions and were marching ahead. The US fooled/lied the Egyptians into thinking they were going to play neutral, allowing the Israelis to re-arm, regroup, and supplied further weapons and launched a ferocious attack on soldiers who were sitting ducks in the open Seuz, with no defence as the Israelis now had the element of surprise.

I have never heard of a halt in military advance to allow for these sort of ceasefire talks. They are normally always done under fire and military objectives are still there to be achieved.

Another reason why they Arabs should never trust the US when it comes to anything to do with Israel.

Surprized, surprized and Surprized, it is the only reaction from me after reading your post. Based on your comment, why didn't you first accused Egypt for its foolhardy attempt to let their soldiers vulnerable to Isreali attack? Ceasefire or no Ceasefire, Soldiers in the war always need to remain on standby to deal with anyother contengencies.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

This must be the first time in warfare history that troops were ordered to halt to allow a chance for ceasefire talks. The US deliberately pressured the Egyptians to halt their troops from advancing after the Egyptians has pushed through Israel's Primary and Secondary positions and were marching ahead. The US fooled/lied the Egyptians into thinking they were going to play neutral, allowing the Israelis to re-arm, regroup, and supplied further weapons and launched a ferocious attack on soldiers who were sitting ducks in the open Seuz, with no defence as the Israelis now had the element of surprise.

I have never heard of a halt in military advance to allow for these sort of ceasefire talks. They are normally always done under fire and military objectives are still there to be achieved.

Another reason why they Arabs should never trust the US when it comes to anything to do with Israel.

On the contrary, the decision of the Egyptian Army to halt was part of the initial strategic plan as envisaged by its chief designer Gen Saad El Shazly.

The idea was to stay under the SAM missile cover at all times.

Shazly strongly opposed any Egyptian army movement outside this limited area to the East of the Suez Canal.

However, after the stunning initial gains, Sadat overruled him and insisted that the Egyptians push forward. Thus deprived of the SAM missile umbrella, the Egyptian Army suffered huge reverses.

 

[BATMAN]

On the contrary, the decision of the Egyptian Army to halt was part of the initial strategic plan as envisaged by its chief designer Gen Saad El Shazly.

The idea was to stay under the SAM missile cover at all times.

Shazly strongly opposed any Egyptian army movement outside this limited area to the East of the Suez Canal.

However, after the stunning initial gains, Sadat overruled him and insisted that the Egyptians push forward. Thus deprived of the SAM missile umbrella, the Egyptian Army suffered huge reverses.

This is quite true as we know but Sadat was pressurized by Syrians, because after halt of Egyptians, Israel retaliated Syria and Israel had very good intelligence of Syrians defensive positions. Whereas egytian tanks proved inferior to israeli tanks.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

This is quite true as we know but Sadat was pressurized by Syrians, because after halt of Egyptians, Israel retaliated Syria and Israel had very good intelligence of Syrians defensive positions. Whereas egytian tanks proved inferior to israeli tanks.

Ah, a fellow enthusiast of the 1973 war?

You are right. Sadat was pressurized by the Syrians. My reading suggests that by then the Syrian thrust in the Golan had petered out and the Israelis were responding after being in the defensive for days. Syria was under a lot of pressure.

The reason that Egypt's later attacks petered out was that their tanks were charging into prepared Israeli positions without air or SAM cover which made them sitting ducks. In short, they had abandoned the strategy that was winning them the war. Instead of waiting for the Israelis to come to them, they attacked and paid the price.

Regardless of the immediate result, 1973 is regarded by many military strategists as a war that both Israelis and Egypt won. But that's another story.

 

[BATMAN]

I'm not an enthusist but i spoke with egyptians.
In addition, there was too much american participation in that war.
US brain and hardware behind Israel. There were US soldiers on ground in Israel, US pilots flew from Israel side. It was never one to one war.

 

[jamal18]

Sadat's decision to accept a ceasefire was his, and his alone. Even Egyptian GHQ did not know, and wasn't consulted.

The reason he gave was that the Egyptians had totally underestimated America's commitment to Israel. The scale of the U.S resupply to Israel had astounded them. In his estimation, for the last ten days of the war, Egypt had been fighting the U.S. In his view, to continue the war would have bought Egypt into direct conflict with the U.S., and this would have been a disaster for them.

 

[pak-yes]

^^I don't think so.In those days USSR was around and America couldn't just attack anyone like these days.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

I'm not an enthusist but i spoke with egyptians.
In addition, there was too much american participation in that war.
US brain and hardware behind Israel. There were US soldiers on ground in Israel, US pilots flew from Israel side. It was never one to one war.

There I disagree. Saying that it was never a one to one war is propaganda.

First, Israel was attacked on two fronts simultaneously by overwhelming forces. The advantage lay with Egypt and Syria.

If there was US hardware behind Israel, Egpyt and Syria were loaded to the brim with the latest Soviet hardware.

The claim of US pilots on the Israeli side has never been proven, is propaganda and is likely false IMO.

On the other hand we do know that Egypt and Syria were supported by a formidable number of Muslim countries with men and materials, including Pakistan.

The fact is that Israel pulled off a major battlefield achievement. If it was not a one to one war it was only because Israel's enemies had overwhelming support.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Sadat's decision to accept a ceasefire was his, and his alone. Even Egyptian GHQ did not know, and wasn't consulted.

The reason he gave was that the Egyptians had totally underestimated America's commitment to Israel. The scale of the U.S resupply to Israel had astounded them. In his estimation, for the last ten days of the war, Egypt had been fighting the U.S. In his view, to continue the war would have bought Egypt into direct conflict with the U.S., and this would have been a disaster for them.

But we should not forget that tremendous Soviet supply to Egypt and Syria either.

 

[Gazzi]

If it was not a one to one war it was only because Israel's enemies had overwhelming support.

Please choose your argument and stick with it. Instead of sitting on both sides of the fence. Either they were supplied or they weren't, you can;t have it both ways, either they were fighting "one to one" or they weren't.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

Please choose your argument and stick with it. Instead of sitting on both sides of the fence. Either they were supplied or they weren't, you can;t have it both ways, either they were fighting "one to one" or they weren't.

You have misunderstood what I wrote.

In any case I will elucidate- It is claimed that 1973 was not a one to one battle because the Israelis outgunned the Egyptians through overwhelming support.

I am against that position, for the reasons I described- because the Egyptians and Syrians were fighting one enemy. Because they also had other nations behind them. Because they were also supported by Soviet arms. Because they attacked first.

So to the extent it was ' not a one to one battle' it was the Israelis who were with the disadvantage of fighting larger numbers rather than the other way round.