The suez crisis was major political victory for the Egyptians but military wise they got destroyed, instead of a political victory of the french and british pulling out and sinai being occupied by isreal could egypt military defeated these actions. How could Egypt defeat the isreali invasion? Could Egypt have stopped the french and anglo invasion?

If they cant whats the best the Egyptian military could have done in the conflict such as stalemate?
what would you do to make the Egyptian do militarly better during the conflict?
 

Lusitania

Donor
Have Soviet Union launch an attack on the western world. Other than that the Egyptians had political generals along with conscripts who lacked good training and morale. The British and french forces were backed by they superior air force and troops as well as better weapons. It would of required a POD much earlier for the Egyptians to have won the war military
 
You could have Nasser launch major military reform inspired by Egypt's defeat in 1948 along with taking a defensive position just east of the Suez backed up by Soviet Artillery and Sams similar to what happened in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. along with doing the same in Port Said and mining the port as well. I'm not sure if that could result in a victory or just bloodier war.
 

Windows95

Banned
You could have Nasser launch major military reform inspired by Egypt's defeat in 1948 along with taking a defensive position just east of the Suez backed up by Soviet Artillery and Sams similar to what happened in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. along with doing the same in Port Said and mining the port as well. I'm not sure if that could result in a victory or just bloodier war.
What kind of military reforms?
 
The suez crisis was major political victory for the Egyptians but military wise they got destroyed, instead of a political victory of the french and british pulling out and sinai being occupied by isreal could egypt military defeated these actions. How could Egypt defeat the isreali invasion? Could Egypt have stopped the french and anglo invasion?

If they cant whats the best the Egyptian military could have done in the conflict such as stalemate?
what would you do to make the Egyptian do militarly better during the conflict?

You might want to check out the military forces used by the British and French in Operation Musketeer.

Egypt would need to become a super power to challenge them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Musketeer_(1956)
 

Lusitania

Donor
As I stated we talking about 1957 inwhich Nasser had not completely gone over to the Soviet side. He was still trying to figure out which superpower was going to provide him with best terms. His military is not even close to British or French forces. They had for most part WW2 surplus weapons.

The invasion stopped because America threatened Britain financially by threatening to sell all it British currency. Britain was forced to back down and stopped fighting without even telling the french. Israel was able to capture the whole Sinai before the British and french landed. So answer to your question there was nothing the Egyptians could of done other than bring in Soviet troops before hand but then we would of had America invading Egypt to stop the Russian deployment. So different suez crises.

It was only after the war that Egypt moved towards the Soviet camp. That was because US not provide financial support and US wanted Egypt assurances weapons not used against Israel.
 
I think it's entirely possible. Egypt would have to orient it's forces for defense instead of harboring dreams of offensive against Israel. Well-defended coastal cities could effect politically unsustainable level of casualties on Anglo-French alliance. In essence, buy tanks only after mastering basic infantry defense. You could get a ton of A-T, AA and field artillery pieces for a price of a tank your conscripts are (not yet) capable of operating effectively.

Invest in infantry firepower. Semi-auto rifles, SMG's, water-cooled machine guns and above all, RPG's, of all models, a lot of them. Invest in fortifications. They can be made with domestic resources.

Of course unconventional warfare capabilities would be a good investment.

In the air the one and only goal could be air defence in co-operation with anti-aircraft defense. Distribute all planes, MiG-15 was capable of operating from austere strips, use this ability. If your pilots are fanatic enough, use ramming tactics. The bombers could be used in one, concentrated heroic raid.

At sea, focus on coastal artillery, traditional and influence mines, commando frogmen. After that, torpedo boats, after that, submarines. Most effective use of submarines could be in deploying special forces.

So, basically a military reform which should be focused on gradual build-up of basic skills instead of trying to build First World capabilites from a Third World base.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
I think it's entirely possible. Egypt would have to orient it's forces for defense instead of harboring dreams of offensive against Israel. Well-defended coastal cities could effect politically unsustainable level of casualties on Anglo-French alliance. In essence, buy tanks only after mastering basic infantry defense. You could get a ton of A-T, AA and field artillery pieces for a price of a tank your conscripts are (not yet) capable of operating effectively.

Invest in infantry firepower. Semi-auto rifles, SMG's, water-cooled machine guns and above all, RPG's, of all models, a lot of them. Invest in fortifications. They can be made with domestic resources.

Of course unconventional warfare capabilities would be a good investment.

In the air the one and only goal could be air defence in co-operation with anti-aircraft defense. Distribute all planes, MiG-15 was capable of operating from austere strips, use this ability. If your pilots are fanatic enough, use ramming tactics. The bombers could be used in one, concentrated heroic raid.

At sea, focus on coastal artillery, traditional and influence mines, commando frogmen. After that, torpedo boats, after that, submarines. Most effective use of submarines could be in deploying special forces.

So, basically a military reform which should be focused on gradual build-up of basic skills instead of trying to build First World capabilites from a Third World base.

But the Egyptians first did not have the $ or whereabouts to even imagine this was going to happen.

You have to also understand Nasser could not simply be a defensive figure. No he needed to be the offensive guy who would lead his country to unite all Arabs. You cannot do that sitting in a foxhole defending no you have to be leading the charge.

You are thinking militarily about a war that you know will come to you. You are willing to give up the Sinai to achieve the important strategic military victory. If you recommended this strategy to Nasser he would of rewarded you with a firing squad for cowardice.

You do not understand Nasser and his ambition to unite the Arabs. Defeat Israel and the colonial empires.

Nasser overthrew the Egyptian monarchy because he viewed it weak. No he needs to be on the offensive.

Lastly is that while the Soviets and their allies could sell the Egyptians weapons the real problem was quality of Egyptian servicemen. For example Egypt had four squadrons of Mig15 and Mig17 but very few skilled pilots. So what if they had 10 squadrons they still be crappy pilots.
 
But the Egyptians first did not have the $ or whereabouts to even imagine this was going to happen.

Egypt bought a massive amount of weapons in early 50's, not only from Soviet Union and the Czechs but from Sweden and UK. That money could have been used a lot more succesfully in less technological ambitious purchases.

You have to also understand Nasser could not simply be a defensive figure. No he needed to be the offensive guy who would lead his country to unite all Arabs. You cannot do that sitting in a foxhole defending no you have to be leading the charge.

That's why you can have one tank brigade for parades and special forces troops doing gymnastics for newsreels.

You are thinking militarily about a war that you know will come to you. You are willing to give up the Sinai to achieve the important strategic military victory. If you recommended this strategy to Nasser he would of rewarded you with a firing squad for cowardice.

You do not understand Nasser and his ambition to unite the Arabs. Defeat Israel and the colonial empires.

Nasser overthrew the Egyptian monarchy because he viewed it weak. No he needs to be on the offensive.

Israel and Western countries lack the staying power if their offensive movements are delayed. Offensive actions can be performed by special forces / terrorists while building up military capability for conventional war against Israel, which will take a long time. Essentially what Iran has been doing rather succesfully for last 30 years. Hezbollah doesn't waste money on tanks.

Lastly is that while the Soviets and their allies could sell the Egyptians weapons the real problem was quality of Egyptian servicemen. For example Egypt had four squadrons of Mig15 and Mig17 but very few skilled pilots. So what if they had 10 squadrons they still be crappy pilots.

Yes, that's why you need to crawl before you can run. Infantry defense instead of dreams of tank offensives. AA instead of fighters and bombers. Coastal artillery, mines and PT-boats instead of destroyers.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Everything you write is spot on. But you do not need to convince me. No you need to convince Nasser and that not going happen. No his goal was to capture Jerusalem, defeat Israel snd unite the Arabs. You not going to do that bidding.

Also in regards to stating power of France and Britain. It took the blackmailing by USA to get the British to stop fighting.

The two western nations not enter the Egyptian cities. That was not their purpose. No they want to take control over the suez from Egypt.
 
Everything you write is spot on. But you do not need to convince me. No you need to convince Nasser and that not going happen. No his goal was to capture Jerusalem, defeat Israel snd unite the Arabs. You not going to do that bidding.

Yes, capture of Jerusalem after constructing a sufficient military force. With special forces you can keep Israel at constantly mobilized status which will destroy it's economy. With special forces / terrorists you can keep up the PR needed to unify the Arabs. That's essentially what Nasser did in OTL by sponsoring various insurgencies...

After building up a sufficient defense, say by 1960, it's time to build offensive forces.

Also in regards to stating power of France and Britain. It took the blackmailing by USA to get the British to stop fighting.

The two western nations not enter the Egyptian cities. That was not their purpose. No they want to take control over the suez from Egypt.

Conveniently there were urban settlements along Suez Canal... As for the French and the British, how many months or years would you give them if Egypt was resisting actively against occupation? How many French and British conscripts would Suez Canal be worth? During next elections?
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
But again I think you keep missing the point. For the Egyptians to have the army you indicated and required to defeat the invaders you need a different leader.

With a different leader you won’t have a the situation that led to the crises. The British were prepared to leave egypt and turn over the canal they just wanted it to be a dignafied withdrawal.

So pick which one you choose. Nasser and offensive weapons or a defensive army led by someone else who more than likely won’t create the situation causing the crises.

You cannot have both.
 
But again I think you keep missing the point. For the Egyptians to have the army you indicated and required to defeat the invaders you need a different leader.

With a different leader you won’t have a the situation that led to the crises. The British were prepared to leave egypt and turn over the canal they just wanted it to be a dignafied withdrawal.

So pick which one you choose. Nasser and offensive weapons or a defensive army led by someone else who more than likely won’t create the situation causing the crises.

You cannot have both.

I would disagree. Nasser could still have the same strategic goals and bombastic speeches, just different operational methods in trying to reach them. In effect, a long term plan instead of short term plan. After all, in 1956 the truly offensive parts of the Egyptian armed forces were the Fedayeen striking at Israel and military help to FLN in Algeria, not tanks and jets.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I would disagree. Nasser could still have the same strategic goals and bombastic speeches, just different operational methods in trying to reach them. In effect, a long term plan instead of short term plan. After all, in 1956 the truly offensive parts of the Egyptian armed forces were the Fedayeen striking at Israel and military help to FLN in Algeria, not tanks and jets.
But a Nasser in charge would not support withdrawing his forces like a coward from Sinai when Israel invaded. Plus to withdraw from Egypt’s greatest foreign curency the canal. I think not

If he were not aggressive he would not of closed the strait to Israel ships all no the Red Sea as well as them using the canal. No he did those as way of showing the Arab world he was their savior. He not withdraw and risk being seen as coward.
 
But a Nasser in charge would not support withdrawing his forces like a coward from Sinai when Israel invaded. Plus to withdraw from Egypt’s greatest foreign curency the canal. I think not

If he were not aggressive he would not of closed the strait to Israel ships all no the Red Sea as well as them using the canal. No he did those as way of showing the Arab world he was their savior. He not withdraw and risk being seen as coward.

Nasser would not have to withdraw in this scenario, but instead provoke Israelis to attack against well-built defenses which Israeli Army of 1956 would not be well equipped to defeat. There could be defensive positions in Sinai, after all. Also, the Anglo-French attack might still happen but would require longer preparations and would involve far larger Anglo-French casualties.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Nasser would not have to withdraw in this scenario, but instead provoke Israelis to attack against well-built defenses which Israeli Army of 1956 would not be well equipped to defeat. There could be defensive positions in Sinai, after all. Also, the Anglo-French attack might still happen but would require longer preparations and would involve far larger Anglo-French casualties.
What I think is that a little reading on Nasser be quite useful. In reading about him and his thinking and his aspirations i do not see what you are recommending something that would happen.

While I find that your ideas on military preparation quite good they did not fit the Egyptian armed forces he foresaw. He wanted things done yesterday and was in great rush to accomplish his goals. So I leave it at that.
 
How could Egypt defeat the isreali invasion?

I don't think that would've been possible, unless the bulk of the Egyptian army was deployed along the line of the major defiles in western Sinai.

Could Egypt have stopped the french and anglo invasion?

Without hardened aircraft shelters, loss of the EAF was probably unavoidable. They could've tried deploying troops in Port Said and other coastal/canal cities, to try to bog down the invaders in urban warfare.

If they cant whats the best the Egyptian military could have done in the conflict such as stalemate?

Probably.
 
Last edited:
You could have Nasser launch major military reform inspired by Egypt's defeat in 1948 along with taking a defensive position just east of the Suez backed up by Soviet Artillery and Sams similar to what happened in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.

I don't think they'd need SAMs since the IAF wasn't so strong in '56. That's why Israel wanted the British and French to knock off the EAF before they attacked.
 
Removal of incompetent officers, improved training for troops, etc

Regarding the former, Nasser's regime, like others in the region, felt it needed political hacks to reduce the risk of a coup. Training of troops is fine but Cairo did not, I believe, have sufficient time to absorb its new Soviet weapons when war came in '56.
 
Top