Egyptian resistance in the Suez Operation...

MacCaulay

Banned
So I just picked up Osprey's Vangaurd series book M47 & M48 Patton Tanks. And there's a plate in the book of a French M47 with an "H" painted on the top as a visual marker from the air that was used in the joint British/French Suez Operation.
They mentioned that originally, the French and British were planning for heavier Egyptian resistance during the operation, including armoured attacks.

Seeing as I'm not really that up on the whole Suez Operation, I was wondering what any folks here who know about that think about this.

If the Egyptians had decided to counter the Allied Force at the Canal with an armoured attack, what units could they have sent? And what would they have been armed with?
 
If the Egyptians had decided to counter the Allied Force at the Canal with an armoured attack, what units could they have sent? And what would they have been armed with?

The Egyptians had some (at least 30) Centurion tanks which they had bought from the British after the first Arab-Israeli War.

In '55 Egypt and Czechoslovakia concluded an arms deal which gave Egypt 200 "older tanks" (no specific model is named, T-34s maybe?). So they did have that, however, I found what seems to be a pretty interesting source which says that this "did not improve the Egyptian armored corps since the Egyptians were still struggling to create a single, functioning armored brigade." basically because there were not enough trained officers and technical personnel.

here is the source if you're interested.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_middle_east_journal/v063/63.1.laron.html
 

MacCaulay

Banned
The Egyptians had some (at least 30) Centurion tanks which they had bought from the British after the first Arab-Israeli War.

In '55 Egypt and Czechoslovakia concluded an arms deal which gave Egypt 200 "older tanks" (no specific model is named, T-34s maybe?). So they did have that, however, I found what seems to be a pretty interesting source which says that this "did not improve the Egyptian armored corps since the Egyptians were still struggling to create a single, functioning armored brigade." basically because there were not enough trained officers and technical personnel.

here is the source if you're interested.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/the_middle_east_journal/v063/63.1.laron.html


Danke schein for that source! If there's one thing MacCaulay likes, it's sources. He likes them so much, apparently, he talks in the third person.

I believe the Czech deal was for T-54s and T-55s, probably new builds from the vibe I'm getting from the article.

You are correct, though. The Egyptians were having a lot of trouble with them.

I suppose the best way to word the question, then, would be:

What if the Egyptian Army had been able to counter the Franco-British force with what the Allies were fearing they could muster?

It seems that if the Egyptians had, somehow, ASBed away their seemingly large supply problems, they could've hit them with perhaps three to five armoured battalions.

It seems that the Egyptians were aiming a bit higher than they should have. They wanted to modernize the whole damn armoured force, and were trying to throw their Western and East Bloc stuff in the same units and hoping to God it all worked out.
Akin to throwing a cat and a dog in a sack and hoping they breed. Had they just concentrated on smaller units; making independent tank battalions instead of the larger formations they were trying to form, then they might well have had some ready to go when the Allies landed.

We're not talking massive stuff, but I'm willing to be we could've seen Egyptian Centurions and T-54s trying to take some shots at the French and British.

(I'm just judging this off of this article, and 2 books off my shelf, so be kind if you're more into Suez.)
 
Wouldn't any Egyptian armour be fully occupied with the Isreali thrust in the Sinai, since it came first?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Wouldn't any Egyptian armour be fully occupied with the Isreali thrust in the Sinai, since it came first?

Well, you'd have to think about basing and location. Armour that's based in...say...Cairo and can actually present a credible threat is probably more important to get to the Franco/British front since it's closer as opposed to going god knows how long and trying to get to the Sinai.

At least that's what I'm thinking.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Well, you'd have to think about basing and location. Armour that's based in...say...Cairo and can actually present a credible threat is probably more important to get to the Franco/British front since it's closer as opposed to going god knows how long and trying to get to the Sinai.

At least that's what I'm thinking.


Naturally but wouldn't those forces be send to the Sinai?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Naturally but wouldn't those forces be send to the Sinai?

I guess it all depends on if they're closer to Suez or closer to Sinai. If they have to drive by the Franco/British forces to get to the Israelis, and they have say...six independent tank battalions, they might be willing to make an attack because there's no other option than to attack the closest one.

It's either attack them or attack no one.
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
I guess it all depends on if they're closer to Suez or closer to Sinai. If they have to drive by the Franco/British forces to get to the Israelis, and they have say...six independent tank battalions, they might be willing to make an attack because there's no other option than to attack the closest one.

It's either attack them or attack no one.


I think Riain is trying to say that because the Israelis attacked BEFORE the Anglo-French force came in wouldn't those tankforces have been well beyond the Canal by then?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I think Riain is trying to say that because the Israelis attacked BEFORE the Anglo-French force came in wouldn't those tankforces have been well beyond the Canal by then?

Ah...gotcha.

Well, I'm not really up on the '56 war. If you guys say that's the timetable, then I'll take your word for it.

To be honest, that's the one Arab-Israeli War I know practically nothing about.
 
I suppose the best way to word the question, then, would be:

What if the Egyptian Army had been able to counter the Franco-British force with what the Allies were fearing they could muster?

It seems that if the Egyptians had, somehow, ASBed away their seemingly large supply problems, they could've hit them with perhaps three to five armoured battalions.

It seems that the Egyptians were aiming a bit higher than they should have. They wanted to modernize the whole damn armoured force, and were trying to throw their Western and East Bloc stuff in the same units and hoping to God it all worked out.
Akin to throwing a cat and a dog in a sack and hoping they breed. Had they just concentrated on smaller units; making independent tank battalions instead of the larger formations they were trying to form, then they might well have had some ready to go when the Allies landed.

We're not talking massive stuff, but I'm willing to be we could've seen Egyptian Centurions and T-54s trying to take some shots at the French and British.

(I'm just judging this off of this article, and 2 books off my shelf, so be kind if you're more into Suez.)

If they form smaller cohesive units first, they probably won't be able to coordinate them properly;

you'd have at best a handfull of battalions attacking seperately, while the defender can concentrate on each of them completely.

How good was the actual British/French intelligence;
because the Egyptians were such a startling force, wouldn't for example their radio discipline be bad, making it easy for the B-F to predict attacks?
 

MacCaulay

Banned
How good was the actual British/French intelligence;
because the Egyptians were such a startling force, wouldn't for example their radio discipline be bad, making it easy for the B-F to predict attacks?

Well, T-54s and -55s didn't have radios in them except for command tracks. It's along the lines of just aiming them at the Brits and French and letting 'em rip.
 
Also the Egyptian Centurions were Mk 4s I think whilst the British tank regiments were in Mk 8 or 10s by then.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Also the Egyptian Centurions were Mk 4s I think whilst the British tank regiments were in Mk 8 or 10s by then.

A quick check of Osprey's Centurion Universal Tank 1943-2003 says...the Brits had Mk. 5s. There's a picture of two of them patrolling a street in Port Said.

A pair of Centurion Mark 5s of B Squadron, 6 RTR, patrols the streets of Port Said after the ceasefire following the Anglo-French invasion to restore control of the Suez Canal in November 1956. B Squadron was involved in fierce fighting in support of Nos 42 and 45 Royal Marine Commandos during the initial assault. The black stripe around the the turret was a mutual recognition device for British and French tanks while the large white 'H' on the turret roof was visible to allie aircraft- the 'H' stood for 'Hamilcar' the original codename for the invasion, which was actually called Operation Musketeer.
 
Top