1973 Yom Kippur War with a (much) later ceasefire

Anchises

Banned
In 1973 the Arab forces achieved stunning initial successes.

However the situation turned against them in later phases of the war.

What would have happened, if a ceasefire would have come into effect significantly later (lets say a week or two)?

scenario:

1) Both Superpowers continue massive material support.

2) The Superpowers refrain from military intervention. If you don't think that is possible, at least no WW3.

3) WMD use by the Arabs or Israelis is fair game, if it is reasonably shown why they do it.

My guess:

Sinai:

I doubt, that Egypt would have been able to break the encirclement of their Third Army.

So at some point, it is likely that the Israelis would have captured the Third Army. This would have given them a large number of POWs, as a bargaining chip in negotiations. And with the degradation of the Egyptian SAM capabilities, and a secure foothold on the "African" side of the canal, Israel would have probably been able to secure both sides of the Canal.

I doubt, especially in light of the high casualties and the political situation, that Israel would advance towards Cairo.

Syria:

Puh, hard to tell. I don't think that Israel had any real reason to advance towards Damascus further. Syria on the other hand planned a counteroffensive. I assume, that the counteroffensive would have probably been a costly failure.

After that, the cards would have probably been reshuffled. Maybe some limited Israeli advances, to shell Damascus even more?
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Israelis would have retreated back across into the Sinai. Egyptians reserves were already coming up from the West. I don't see them capturing Suez, they had tried and failed, and while Suez remained unoccupied, the 3rd Army could fight on.
The only way the IDF would have reached Cairo would have been as POW.
The Syrians would have launched their OTL cancelled offesive. No idea how it would have gone.
 
I don't think the Israelis would advance much further, they better off not being the aggressors.
If the war continued to the end of October then it will only sour relations further, it may delay peace with Egypt by a few years but not much else.
 
I doubt, that Egypt would have been able to break the encirclement of their Third Army.

I'd have to agree. After some hesitation, Kabil in fact tried but he didn't get far. According to Shazli, after the war Kabil warned what might happen if what was left of the 4rth got wrecked trying to reach 3rd army. "...the road to Cairo is open."

So at some point, it is likely that the Israelis would have captured the Third Army. This would have given them a large number of POWs, as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

In the OTL they took over 8,000 prisoners without the capitulation of the two trapped divisions in Sinai.

And with the degradation of the Egyptian SAM capabilities, and a secure foothold on the "African" side of the canal, Israel would have probably been able to secure both sides of the Canal.

Quite possible; after the Third was eliminated they could've headed north toward the area opposite Kantara to trap the second army, if it were still in sinai.

I doubt, especially in light of the high casualties and the political situation, that Israel would advance towards Cairo.

Right but the main issue wasn't casualties. Dayan just didn't want arab cities even if Elazar wanted to reach Damascus and maybe Cairo.

Syria on the other hand planned a counteroffensive. I assume, that the counteroffensive would have probably been a costly failure.

Right that was the Russian view.
 
The Israelis would have retreated back across into the Sinai. Egyptians reserves were already coming up from the West.

What reserves? By the end of the war in the OTL the 4rth was shot. Libyan and Algerian units were arriving but I wouldn't put much faith in them.

I don't see them capturing Suez, they had tried and failed, and while Suez remained unoccupied, the 3rd Army could fight on.

Unfortunately, by the 24th the 7th and 19th infantry divisions, in Sinai, no longer had a land connection to the rest of Egypt. As Dupuy put it, another week of logistical strangulation, and Israeli bombing, would've "overcome Badawy's command." (Following entrapment of the third, the 7th division commander, Badawy,was given command of the two trapped divisions.)


The only way the IDF would have reached Cairo would have been as POW.

In fact the Israelis probably could've attacked Cairo if they wanted.

The Syrians would have launched their OTL cancelled offesive. No idea how it would have gone.

The Russians said it wouldn't succeed.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Yeah, Dayan's *own estimates were about 600 tanks just for the defense of Cairo alone, plus 1000 not committed to the East Bank, and available. Over 500 A/C and 150 SAM batteries. The Egyptian had learned the lessons of 1973, they left significant reserves away from the main zone.

Frankly, all those who say the IDF could have attacked Cairo are like those who say "the Allies could have taken Rome right after Anzio", yeah only if the other guy did nothing. And the IDF logistic situation was pretty bad even at the best of times, so excuse me if I have my doubts,

*His plan was to withdraw back to the East Bank anyway.
 
The Israelis are most definitely not going to get in to city fighting. It will chew up troops even in victory, and there will be significant civilian casualties which will look bad. Certainly going in to Cairo or Damascus would be a military idiocy of the highest degree, to say nothing of the political mess. I can see the Israelis establishing more of a presence on the west bank of the canal as a bargaining chip - offering to pull back across the canal with a DMZ on the west controlled by the UN. With Syria, perhaps getting in artillery range of Damascus - when pulling back keeping a wider "Golan" area under permanent administration and a wider DMZ/UN zone. In both areas maximizing destruction of military forces with POWs, and destroying or capturing as much equipment as possible.

A lot depends on how long the war continues and what sort of pressures are brought to end - I assume the pressure will be on the Israelis since as soon as things go bad the Arabs will want things to end. If the Egyptians and Syrians refuse a cease fire expecting to have counter attacks that push the Israelis back, rather then the Israelis saying "not yet" the fight can be extended. The USA did not want to have to deal with the possibility of lots of Russian forces being introduced to the area, clashes between the Russians and Israelis and the odds that there would be direct US-Soviet exchanges which can go very bad. This is why the USA leaned on the Israelis to stop when they did, even though they would have liked to do some more damage before stopping.

Israel is only going to use WMD (nukes) if the Arab nations are about to overrun Israel, so with an OTL '73 war where they are winning and even early on the Arab armies were a distance away, no nukes from them. If the Arabs start using WMD, like chemicals, it will turn out very badly for them. Using chemicals will make it almost impossible for the Soviets to pressure a cease fire, and as for US pressure - forget it. If the Arabs use chemicals "strategically", dropping some of Tel Aviv etc, Oy Vey.
 

Anchises

Banned
I'd have to agree. After some hesitation, Kabil in fact tried but he didn't get far. According to Shazli, after the war Kabil warned what might happen if what was left of the 4rth got wrecked trying to reach 3rd army. "...the road to Cairo is open."

Egyptians had a loooooooooot of trouble quickly preparing operations, especially at this scale. And with a degrading SAM network, I just don't see it happening.

In the OTL they took over 8,000 prisoners without the capitulation of the two trapped divisions in Sinai.

True. But if the Third fully collapses it will be a BIG disaster.

Quite possible; after the Third was eliminated they could've headed north toward the area opposite Kantara to trap the second army, if it were still in sinai.

Interesting, wouldn't that completely wreck the Egyptian military? What do you assume are the chances that the Second could retreat in team?

What reserves? By the end of the war in the OTL the 4rth was shot. Libyan and Algerian units were arriving but I wouldn't put much faith in them.

Yeah, the Libyan and Algerian Units definitely won't play a decisive role. I doubt that there would be enough coordination between the nations.

Unfortunately, by the 24th the 7th and 19th infantry divisions, in Sinai, no longer had a land connection to the rest of Egypt. As Dupuy put it, another week of logistical strangulation, and Israeli bombing, would've "overcome Badawy's command." (Following entrapment of the third, the 7th division commander, Badawy,was given command of the two trapped divisions.)

A week is an interesting time frame. I assume that water is even more essential than all the other stuff in the conditions of the Sinai. Did the Third have a reasonable stockpile of water and all the other stuff needed?

In fact the Israelis probably could've attacked Cairo if they wanted.

Yeah, but why? Nothing to win.
 
Yeah, Dayan's *own estimates were about 600 tanks just for the defense of Cairo alone, plus 1000 not committed to the East Bank, and available.

When? The Soviets were resupplying Egypt, so maybe in December '73 when the Egyptians had a plan ready, but not in late October. I mean, how could the Israelis get as far as the jebel Shabrawat and Adabiya, if the Egyptians still had 1,000 tanks west of the canal in the last few days of the war? They would've committed those forces, if they existed, to prevent entrapment of 3rd army.
 
Last edited:
True. But if the Third fully collapses it will be a BIG disaster.

Of course. I meant taking more prisoners wasn't essential.

Interesting, wouldn't that completely wreck the Egyptian military?

Pretty much yes.

What do you assume are the chances that the Second could retreat in team?

Retreat in time? If finishing the 3rd took a week, there would've been time to send more units west. The 2nd had one thing in its favor: the terrain west of the canal in its sector was better for defense, as Sharon found out in the OTL. Btw I recall an Israeli general--Tamari--is said to have doubted Israel could take on the second army. Maybe too pessimistic from an IDF point of view.


Yeah, the Libyan and Algerian Units definitely won't play a decisive role. I doubt that there would be enough coordination between the nations.

Even if there was, those guys weren't the epitome of fighting prowess.

A week is an interesting time frame. I assume that water is even more essential than all the other stuff in the conditions of the Sinai. Did the Third have a reasonable stockpile of water and all the other stuff needed?

After the war it was said that the third was getting water from Ayn Musa; it wasn't entirely dependent on water passing through UN lines. Some military supplies also got through via the gulf of suez.

Yeah, but why? Nothing to win.

True I just meant they could do it.
 
There was an interesting documentary on Al Jazeera of all things which had interviews with a lot of Israeli and Egyptian officers and men, it was actually a very interesting and balanced look at the situation.

Sharon was rampaging through the Egyptian rear and Sadat was having Hitlerian meltdowns about not one step back partially as it was politically suicidal but mainly there was a genuine terror that if they moved anything back into Egypt the whole 3rd Army would rout to a man. That is why the Egyptian tried to attack the Israeli forces on the East bank instead of moving the 25th Division South and the 25th Armored Brigade North on the East bank instead of moving West and attacking the limited Israeli forces on the 'Africa@ side which lead to the attackers getting hammered. The better option militarily would have been to move them West and hit the Israelis while they were still trying to establish themselves.

The best option for the Israeli's would be continued ops to destroy military and civilian infrastructure on the West bank, if the Egyptians tried to counterattack then engage them in a battle of manoeuvre to destroy the Egyptian forces especially armour and mech units and to push some of their 175mm Arty to hit the outskirts of Cairo with a artillery raid.
 
Heavy artillery against Cairo (or Damascus) is a brief demonstration and threat. If the Israelis throw a lot of shells in to any parts of those cities, especially other than the outskirts, there are going to be a ton of civilian casualties. Without getting in to a flame war about whether the Israelis would care or not care how many civilians got killed, shelling civilian areas with lots of casualties on the TV would make the Israelis lose whatever international sympathy they might have, and would probably significantly reduce US support. Throwing a few shells, especially if there was an obvious target like a military facility, then stopping gets the point across. Doing more gains nothing and loses much.
 
Sharon was rampaging through the Egyptian rear

Actually it was Adan and Magen that got farthest west of the canal, to Suez city and adabiya respectively.

....but mainly there was a genuine terror that if they moved anything back into Egypt the whole 3rd Army would rout to a man.

This mirrored the experience of '67 but it really wasn't rational; the situations were different. In the OTL the Egyptians did move some units back, albeit too late.

That is why the Egyptian tried to attack the Israeli forces on the East bank instead of moving the 25th Division South

No, the 21st Armored division.


and the 25th Armored Brigade North on the East bank

I remember on some other board an Egyptian guy said "I wish I could go back in time to kick Sadat's butt and see his friggin face after the 25th got slaughtered..."

The better option militarily would have been to move them West and hit the Israelis while they were still trying to establish themselves.

Not attack the Israelis since Egyptian tanks always suffered excessive losses while attacking. Just deploy them in ambush positions.
 

Anchises

Banned
Heavy artillery against Cairo (or Damascus) is a brief demonstration and threat. If the Israelis throw a lot of shells in to any parts of those cities, especially other than the outskirts, there are going to be a ton of civilian casualties. Without getting in to a flame war about whether the Israelis would care or not care how many civilians got killed, shelling civilian areas with lots of casualties on the TV would make the Israelis lose whatever international sympathy they might have, and would probably significantly reduce US support. Throwing a few shells, especially if there was an obvious target like a military facility, then stopping gets the point across. Doing more gains nothing and loses much.

Agreed. But I don't even see the point for that.

Israel wants a peace treaty with Egypt, preventing two front wars is paramount. Even Begin accepted "Land for Peace" with Egypt. Deeply humiliating Egypt seems really counter productive.
 
shelling civilian areas with lots of casualties on the TV would make the Israelis lose whatever international sympathy they might have, and would probably significantly reduce US support.

I tend to doubt the latter. Israeli bombing of Egypt during the war of attrition caused thousands of civilian casualties (Syria suffered many civilian casualties in '73) but US support was just beginning. Still I concur--shelling Cairo would've been a bad idea.
 
Then deliberately target military facilities in the city, any civilian casualties are then just unfortunate.
 
Top