Going for Broke- Suez '73

Again, do you think the Syrian high command was gripped with insanity, completely ignorant of the situation, or did they actually know what they were doing?


Joseph,

Insane? No.

Incompetent? Definitely.

As has already been explained, replacing new tanks is no the same as replacing crews. Most of the Syrians with the most experience operating Soviet tanks are dead on the Golan.

Syria is going to be attacking with fewer forces overall, attacking with greener forces overall, attacking with "allies" who've they've never trained with, and attacking without the benefit of surprise. It would have been a massacre.

Syria's performance in 1973 was so horrific that they lost the war for Egypt. Amazingly, Egypt had actually managed to plan, practice, and carry out a successful operation along the banks of the canal. They'd won their part of the war and were dug in under SAM coverage presenting Israel with the prospect of a rather daunting attack.

Then Syria got its ass kicked.

Egypt had to leave that SAM umbrella, those fortifications, and those pre-war plans to move out into the Sinai to try and relieve the pressure on Syria. The Israeli commanders most have danced with joy when the Egyptians left their defenses and put themselves in a position where they could be smashed.

New tanks shipped fresh from the USSR isn't going to replace the dead crews trained to operate them and isn't going to provide the skills needed to lead them in battle.


Bill
 
WI Nixon supplied Israel with Cobra attack helos and Wild Weasel equipment for the Rhinos? The SAM belt is thereby useless.
 
Joseph,

Insane? No.

Incompetent? Definitely.

As has already been explained, replacing new tanks is no the same as replacing crews. Most of the Syrians with the most experience operating Soviet tanks are dead on the Golan.

Syria is going to be attacking with fewer forces overall, attacking with greener forces overall, attacking with "allies" who've they've never trained with, and attacking without the benefit of surprise. It would have been a massacre.

Syria's performance in 1973 was so horrific that they lost the war for Egypt. Amazingly, Egypt had actually managed to plan, practice, and carry out a successful operation along the banks of the canal. They'd won their part of the war and were dug in under SAM coverage presenting Israel with the prospect of a rather daunting attack.

Then Syria got its ass kicked.

Egypt had to leave that SAM umbrella, those fortifications, and those pre-war plans to move out into the Sinai to try and relieve the pressure on Syria. The Israeli commanders most have danced with joy when the Egyptians left their defenses and put themselves in a position where they could be smashed.

New tanks shipped fresh from the USSR isn't going to replace the dead crews trained to operate them and isn't going to provide the skills needed to lead them in battle.


Bill

Which of that information was unknown to the Syrian High command?

If they know all that, and their assesment was that it might be worth it without Egypt, then what reason do we have to believe that it is going to be even worse than the first?

And as I said in the previous post, Israel did not have the same amount of reserves at this stage it could throw into the defense, and the foreward units are in hostile territory. Those are some reasons why an attack with slightly weaker forces can succeed.
 
Joseph, other than why an army which bungled a surprise attack on vastly weaker forces with an even more powerful ally distracting the foe are unlikely to succeed in an attack without the slightest chance of surprise against a vastly stronger foe after the powerful ally has left the war?

With Egypt out of the war Israel has vastly more reserves available and since two brigades, one skeletal, wrecked a stronger Syrian offensive there is no possible way a weaker Syrian offensive without the surprise advantage is going to defeat the equivalent of two to three Israeli divisions at full strength.

As Bill Cameron notes, the competence of the Syrian generals is best summed up by the fact that they not only lost Syria's war with Israel but managed to prevent Egypt's victory when Sadat refused to throw Syria over the side.
 
Don't forget a Masada mentality on the part of the Israelis. While the USSR could turn all of Israel in to green glowing glass in a short time, its unclear how the intervention of Sov airborne units could have done much more than stabilize the fronts, deep in Arab territory. If they were being airlifted, especially to Egypt, they would have to fly a circuitous route to avoid being shot down by Israeli fighters as they got close to Egypt, and maybe Syria. In 1973 Iran would not have granted overflight rights, and it is very questionable if Turkey would have, perhaps Greece, for transports bring troops as opposed to arms. Likewise if the Sovs were shipping ground forces via sea, they would have to use much of the Mediterranean Fleet to escort the transports to protect against air/surface/sub attacks - they could protect pretty well but would take losses until the Israelis were attritted.

Lastly, if the Israelis felt existentially threatened by the Sovs, as in their country was going to be over-run or it looked like the Sovs might use nukes, they had one trump card. Israeli F-4's, tanked over the Med by Isaraeli tankers (they had), could deliver nukes to many targets in the Crimea and Southern Russia on 1-way missions. PVO would get some, but F-4's flying low level will get through in many cases and trading Sevastopol, Odessa, Minsk & other spots for trashing Israel is not a trade the Sovs want to make. Aside from the actual damage, the damage to the Sov international image that a teeny country like Israel could do that...

BTW don't forget that at the same time, places like Damascus, Amman, Mecca vanish in the E=MC(2) reaction. Egypt perishes in the flood when the Aswan High Dam goes boom & gravity and trillions of gallons of water scour everything for miles on either side of the Nile down to Alexandria.

ALCON have to remember that Israel will not go gently in to that good night, and will inflict terrible damage on the way down. IMHO if they feel betrayed by the USA/west they may decide to hit some Saudi oil field too - as a payback to their economies.
 
I really don't think the Soviets will turn a blind eye...
If Israel goes for broke & US sees the other way than Kremlin will probably move.

Not into NATO countries no.
But probably they'd start bombing Israel with missiles or planes.

and THEN US will not see the other way again.
Think of Cuban Crisis in '62...
Only now the Soviets have roughly as many nukes (and the means to deliver then) as the US.

done! and lookey -> no Israel bashing :D
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
Lastly, if the Israelis felt existentially threatened by the Sovs, as in their country was going to be over-run or it looked like the Sovs might use nukes, they had one trump card. Israeli F-4's, tanked over the Med by Isaraeli tankers (they had), could deliver nukes to many targets in the Crimea and Southern Russia on 1-way missions. PVO would get some, but F-4's flying low level will get through in many cases and trading Sevastopol, Odessa, Minsk & other spots for trashing Israel is not a trade the Sovs want to make. Aside from the actual damage, the damage to the Sov international image that a teeny country like Israel could do that...

BTW don't forget that at the same time, places like Damascus, Amman, Mecca vanish in the E=MC(2) reaction. Egypt perishes in the flood when the Aswan High Dam goes boom & gravity and trillions of gallons of water scour everything for miles on either side of the Nile down to Alexandria.

At this time, how many nuclear weapons had the Israelis got? Can they strike all these targets, assuming that their bombers get through, or do they have to choose priority targets?
 
Which of that information was unknown to the Syrian High command?


Joseph,

Knowing something and acting correctly on it are tow very different things.

You're assuming a Western liberal democratic mindset here when we're dealing with what can be called an absolute monarchy. A Syrian general who admitted that incompetence beginning with Assad and running all the way down was the reason the reason Syria had lost the first round on the Golan and is the reason Syria would lose again would be taken out and shot. An honest assessment of Syria's actual chances would not be voiced.

If they know all that, and their assesment was that it might be worth it without Egypt...

As I've tried to explain, their idea of an "assessment" isn't what you or I would call an assessment. You also need to remember that the same uniformed political assclowns who assessed that Syria would be win the first Golan battle are now saying they can win the second round.

... then what reason do we have to believe that it is going to be even worse than the first?

Green troops in new equipment with allies they've never trained with attacking more numerous Israeli forces than during the first round and with the Israelis holding the high ground? Yeah, there's no reasons at all to suppose that it shouldn't be a smashing success, isn't there?

And as I said in the previous post, Israel did not have the same amount of reserves at this stage it could throw into the defense...

So what? Israel essentially beat the first Syrian attack without using reserves.

... and the foreward units are in hostile territory.

Forward units who are in shelling distance of Damascus and who can withdraw into the better defensive terrain of the Golan.

Those are some reasons why an attack with slightly weaker forces can succeed.

Fewer, greener forces attacking a larger enemy and succeeding when more, trained forces with the element of surprise failed to succeed against a smaller enemy? Sure, whatever. :rolleyes:


Bill
 
D

Lastly, if the Israelis felt existentially threatened by the Sovs, as in their country was going to be over-run or it looked like the Sovs might use nukes, they had one trump card. Israeli F-4's, tanked over the Med by Isaraeli tankers (they had), could deliver nukes to many targets in the Crimea and Southern Russia on 1-way missions. PVO would get some, but F-4's flying low level will get through in many cases and trading Sevastopol, Odessa, Minsk & other spots for trashing Israel is not a trade the Sovs want to make. Aside from the actual damage, the damage to the Sov international image that a teeny country like Israel could do that...

.

This is improbable :eek:

Yes, Israel might do that (although I highly doubt they have more than half dozen warheads back in '73) if Golda Meir is totally insane...

I mean, this is SOVIET UNION for Chrissake! You don't go for broke against them. I mean, look what happened to the Nazis. Besides, something's telling me that the Soviets actually have a good air-defense. Especially near large concentrations of their military assets.

Israel will be wiped off the map, Jerusalem or no. Not that the Soviets care that much about religion. After which the Levant will probably be a radioactive desert :(

the result of '73 war:

Jerusalem, Mecca & Medina -> radioactive wasteland
Damascus & Cairo -> radioactivated
Israel -> wiped off the map
Soviet Union -> what doesn't kill them hurts like hell (but they will have good propaganda to rally the people behind them -> the zionists nuked us.)

Arab oilfields -> gone, so is the world's economy.

Jews around the world -> persecuted again, for destroying world economy. After all, Israel did nuke the oilfields.
 

Neroon

Banned
This is improbable :eek:

Yes, Israel might do that (although I highly doubt they have more than half dozen warheads back in '73) if Golda Meir is totally insane...

I mean, this is SOVIET UNION for Chrissake! You don't go for broke against them. I mean, look what happened to the Nazis. Besides, something's telling me that the Soviets actually have a good air-defense. Especially near large concentrations of their military assets.

Israel will be wiped off the map, Jerusalem or no. Not that the Soviets care that much about religion. After which the Levant will probably be a radioactive desert :(

the result of '73 war:

Jerusalem, Mecca & Medina -> radioactive wasteland
Damascus & Cairo -> radioactivated
Israel -> wiped off the map
Soviet Union -> what doesn't kill them hurts like hell (but they will have good propaganda to rally the people behind them -> the zionists nuked us.)

Arab oilfields -> gone, so is the world's economy.

Jews around the world -> persecuted again, for destroying world economy. After all, Israel did nuke the oilfields.

Did you actually read his post? He wrote:
as in their country was going to be over-run or it looked like the Sovs might use nukes
2 options for Isreal:
1. Face total annihilation
2. Face total annihilation, but take maximum possible amount of their executioners with them.
You dont have to be insane to pick nr 2.


As for my take on the original question: I think the Soviets knowing how escalation might spin out of control wouldn't have airlifted any troops. Making that threat was a good bargaining chip, but risking escaltion to Nuclear War to bail out a bunch of insert derogatory term for Arabs and Muslims in Russian?
 
If it lead to the point of Soviet and American intervention, what happens to the US 6th Fleet? It was being shadowed at the time by the SOVMEDRON. Which was loaded with SSMs IIRC. How would a battle between the two play out with conventional warheads and bombs?
 
LOL! According to who?

The Syrian Generals may have had fantasy as did some Egyptian generals. But there is little they could do without competantly trained troops plus spirited leadership & morale...neither of which the Syrians had at that time nor were known for, in the past.

Had the Syrians been competantly lead in the first place, their intitial surprise invasion should have been spear headed by several airmobile battalions landing ontop of those strategic bridges over the Jordan River. Holding them would have prevented the Israeli reserves from being rushed over the river and up the Golan, long enough for the Syrian mechanized spear heads to reach the heights overlooking the same river. That could have won them their part in this war?
 
If it lead to the point of Soviet and American intervention, what happens to the US 6th Fleet? It was being shadowed at the time by the SOVMEDRON. Which was loaded with SSMs IIRC. How would a battle between the two play out with conventional warheads and bombs?
Victory for the 6th Fleet (with terrible casualties), total annihilation for the Soviet Mediterranean Squadron. But if the shooting war between the superpowers would start... well, there would be no naval historians left to study the last battle for the Mediterranean.
 
I really don't think the Soviets will turn a blind eye...
If Israel goes for broke & US sees the other way than Kremlin will probably move.

Not into NATO countries no.
But probably they'd start bombing Israel with missiles or planes.

How? Soviet warplanes would have to overfly NATO nations, especially Turkey, to get to Israel. Not gonna happen. Missiles from where? Offshore ships and subs? First, Soviet cruise missile technology in the early 1970s wasn't that good. Second, the Israelis would be shooting back. That could get embarrassing for the Soviets very quickly, more than it already has after the debacle of seeing huge numbers Sov-block tanks and BMPs fail so miserably against vastly outnumbered -- and US-equipped -- Israeli units.

I've seen it credibly argued that the failure of Soviet armor in 1973 ended any plans by the Warsaw Pact to invade Western Europe.
 
How? Soviet warplanes would have to overfly NATO nations, especially Turkey, to get to Israel. Not gonna happen.
They could overfly Romania and Jugoslavia, then fly over international waters of the Mediterranean.


Second, the Israelis would be shooting back.
So what? Soviet Air Forces had more than enough pilots and planes to destroy Israel.

But all those discussions have not much sense, because the USA would intervene inevitably, if the USSR would start war of annihilation against Israel. And then... My parents would die in Ukrainian town of Zhovti Vody (center of uranium mining and enrichment, thus obvious target for the Americans), even before their first meeting with each other.
 
They could overfly Romania and Jugoslavia, then fly over international waters of the Mediterranean.

Assuming Yugoslavia permitted it, that's a looong flight (midair refueling means the tankers need protection, means more aircraft, more complications, and we're talking about a Soviet air force that's high on show and low on go) with all sorts of warning to Israeli air defense along the way.

So what? Soviet Air Forces had more than enough pilots and planes to destroy Israel.

Perhaps, if Israel is in West Germany, across a thin border, not at the eastern end of the Mediterranean far from any reasonable support facilities except the airfields the Israelis have already pounded into dust. Not such a sure thing.

But all those discussions have not much sense, because the USA would intervene inevitably, if the USSR would start war of annihilation against Israel. And then... My parents would die in Ukrainian town of Zhovti Vody (center of uranium mining and enrichment, thus obvious target for the Americans), even before their first meeting with each other.

And I would be radioactive ash floating around the upper atmosphere from the multiple warheads that exploded above Omaha and Offutt AFB.
 
Instead of WWIII, what happens if the Third Army is taken prisoner, or some Rhino pilot shacks Sadat's residence or Army GHQ? Alternatively, Nixon sends Cobras and Wild Weasel equipment to the IAF. Lastly, an Islamic Republic of Egypt, along Iranian lines, if Sadat is assassinated and the Brotherhood takes over?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Instead of WWIII, what happens if the Third Army is taken prisoner, or some Rhino pilot shacks Sadat's residence or Army GHQ? Alternatively, Nixon sends Cobras and Wild Weasel equipment to the IAF. Lastly, an Islamic Republic of Egypt, along Iranian lines, if Sadat is assassinated and the Brotherhood takes over?

You don't just climb into a Weasel and go SAM hunting. It is a special skill set that takes time to acquire. You just load up and go and you're dead.

Same goes for AH-1s, they don't simply react to thought, you have to know how to fly one, more importantly, you need to know how the weapon system works and what it can and CAN'T do. You do not learn that in combat. You DIE trying to learn that in combat.

The scenario as described is simply a no-go.
 
Lastly, an Islamic Republic of Egypt, along Iranian lines, if Sadat is assassinated and the Brotherhood takes over?

I don't think this is the most likely result. Before Camp David, the Muslim Brotherhood was not seriously looking to take over the Egyptian government, nor were they in a good position to do so even if they wanted to. I would guess that the NDP government would limp along as long as at least some element of the Army remains intact.
 
Top