Going for Broke- Suez '73

BTW the Iraqis at this time were next to useless.

LOL! According to who?

according to history. The Iraqis got utterly stomped in the Golan; their first time in battle, they drove a whole division straight into a 'kill box' set up by several Israeli brigades, and the Iraqis retreated after losing 80 tanks, with a loss of 0 Israeli tanks. Days later, the Iraqis attacked again, in (poor) coordination with Jordanian armor, and lost again, leaving 60 tanks on the field. Over the next few days, they continued to attack, but proved incredibly unable to coordinate with their allies (once hitting Jordanian positions with artillery fire). Their last major attack of the war saw a huge armored/infantry attack against several Israeli brigades, and this time they did manage to inflict some damage, but still lost the battle and 60 more tanks. The general analysis was that the Iraqis were too hesitant and slow in the use of their big armored forces; plus, they just didn't seem to want to coordinate their efforts with their allies...
 
Did you actually read his post? He wrote:

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?

Yes I read the post.

But whoever launches first strike, and doesn't kill the enemy + runs out of nuke warheads, will lose...

And this time does Meir actually want to condemn the rest of world's jews into another persecution? Assuming they hit Arab oilfields of course. Millions of people losing job will know that this was because of the oilfield nuking by Israel.

I stand by my statement that you have GOT to be mad to go all out with nuke against Russia when they don't even use their nukes on you...

Oh & I think the Soviets will airlift their troops if only to save the Egyptians' asses, assuming that the Israelis go for Cairo. That will be a good propaganda for them vis a vis the Arabs.
 
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.
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.
The Soviet Air Force had long-range bombers, hundreds of them, and they could fly to the USA and back home without refueling. It is reasonable to assume that attack on Israel would be easier than attack on the American continent (and the Soviets were confident they could bomb the North America successfully, while suffering heavy losses).
 
How? Soviet warplanes would have to overfly NATO nations, especially Turkey, to get to Israel. Not gonna happen. Missiles from where?

If the IAF had managed to sneak past Soviet air defenses, and nuke Odessa or Tblisi, the Soviets would have assumed an American first strike. Many SS-11's and R-36's would be launched from Tyuratam and Baikonur. Fifteen minutes later, my viewing of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" would've been interrupted by the Emergency Broadcast signal (or by the thermal pulse igniting my parent's house).

That could get embarrassing for the Soviets very quickly,
"WWIII begins. All die, oh the embarrassment ..."
 
Last edited:
I meant turning a blind eye to Israel destroying the Third Army or sending some 2000 pound iron bombs towards the presidential palace or Army HQ (as in Syria) by means of the Rhino delivery system. Would anyone like to do a TL where Sadat is assassinated by the Brotherhood, thereby spawning an Islamic Republic of Egypt?


Yes, I would. That sounds very interesting.
 
My comments about the Israelis using their limited nukes against the USSR (as well as a few well chosen Arab targets) is in the context of the Sovs directly intervening in such a way that the Arabs are going to win - ie: occupy & destroy Israel or the Sovs were going to use nukes (or had used a tac nuke on an Israeli military concentration (a much more likely first use). The Israelis knew (and know) that an Arab victory in a war will mean destruction/elimination of the State of Israel accompanied by wholesale killings of civilians, raping of women, and when the situation cools off all the Jews remaining alive being deported with 2 suitcases & all possesions, valuables etc left behind. This is not a fantasy, what happened at Jewish settlements over-run in 1948 and subsequent wars, and how Jews were expelled from Arab countires (like Iraq which had 300,000 assimilated Jews in a community over 2,000 yrs old in 1945 and essentially zero in 1955). Use of any nukes on Saudi oil fields would only be in the context of being sold down the river by the USA, Europe completely - and is very unlikely, especially depending on the number of weapons available. In any case, the odds of the Israelis going along with a "be good little jews and die quietly or we'll persecute any of you left alive" in 1973 (or any time) are precisely exactly zero and not one bit more.

A Sov attack on the 6th Fleet also brings in NATO, and all Sov ships and any allies who fight with them are sunk. NATO is hurting, but they win simply because there are no Sov ships left. None can come from the Black Sea (Turks won't let them through), and Baltic or Northern Fleet units if they get past NATO will be a long time coming. And, BTW, whichever russian sailor that pushed the launch button on the first SSM is the man who started WWIII. Depending on how fast it goes nuke I (a) die when Boston is nuked (b) Get myself & family someplace away from a target & hope it works (c) Since only 4 months off RAD & in reserve status get recalled to active duty in the Navy.
 
Sorry to do 2 posts - to the poster who said USSR had lots of bombers go round trip to USA no refueling - wrong answer. Just like B-52, B-47, B-66 Sov bombers needed to tank to get there & back. Depending on a/c, base, target might be one tank-up going, one returning. In any case, if the Israelis pick up bombers of this type flying towards Israel they will assume a nuke strike is coming. Russian strategic bombers were basically nuke only carriers in 1973 & if using iron bombs would be of little use unless they were simply bombing cities. The Russians would have to have lots of their fighters flown by their pilots protecting the bombers or Israeli air defense will have many of them for lunch - not happening.
 
Sorry to do 2 posts - to the poster who said USSR had lots of bombers go round trip to USA no refueling - wrong answer. Just like B-52, B-47, B-66 Sov bombers needed to tank to get there & back. Depending on a/c, base, target might be one tank-up going, one returning. In any case, if the Israelis pick up bombers of this type flying towards Israel they will assume a nuke strike is coming. Russian strategic bombers were basically nuke only carriers in 1973 & if using iron bombs would be of little use unless they were simply bombing cities. The Russians would have to have lots of their fighters flown by their pilots protecting the bombers or Israeli air defense will have many of them for lunch - not happening.
Thanks. I should know better. However, I assume that Soviet bombers could fly to Israel and back without refueling? Because distances would be so much shorter, and Tu-95s allegedly had range of 15,000 km without refueling?
And yes, they would need fighter escort, and this returns us to the problem of destroyed airfields in MidEast, but with several Airborne divisions in Syria or Egypt, I think, this problem could be solved?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Thanks. I should know better. However, I assume that Soviet bombers could fly to Israel and back without refueling? Because distances would be so much shorter, and Tu-95s allegedly had range of 15,000 km without refueling?
And yes, they would need fighter escort, and this returns us to the problem of destroyed airfields in MidEast, but with several Airborne divisions in Syria or Egypt, I think, this problem could be solved?

The problem would actually be Sixth Fleet. Nixon had ordered the carriers into position to interdict Soviet attempts to airlift supplies or forces into the Levant or Egypt. Once they were there they were also far enough East that they became part of the SIOP.

American ships that were now part of the SIOP being attacked (and attacking) Soviet platforms in a high tension period constitutes a VERY BAD THING.

Fortunately both the Kremlin and White House decided that October '73 was no better a time to end the world than October '62.
 
If the IAF had managed to sneak past Soviet air defenses, and nuke Odessa or Tblisi, the Soviets would have assumed an American first strike. Many SS-11's and R-36's would be launched from Tyuratam and Baikonur. Fifteen minutes later, my viewing of "A Charlie Brown Christmas" would've been interrupted by the Emergency Broadcast signal (or by the thermal pulse igniting my parent's house).

I wasn't referring to nuclear weapons in that response, only conventional ones. Certainly the Soviets had nuke missiles in range, although I would question how many had Israeli target coordinates loaded into their guidance systems.
 
As far as I know neither the US nor the USSR had conventional warheads for mrbm/irbm/icbms. Given the accuracy and throw weight of all missiles at that time, putting conventional (ie: high explosive) warheads on them was a complete waste. Put it all together and when those missiles fly everybody assumes they have nukes on top.
 
Top