How would Soviet formations preform in the Golan Heights battle?

The Israelis had Jericho 1 missiles with ranges of between 500-750 km which were nuclear capable, these had been available since around 1969 - they were deployed on mobile launchers. Warheads were guessed to be around the 20-30kt mark (although they could have been anything), the are indications they were also armed with HE and Chemical warheads.

The Jerichos would have most probably be used against cities or large fixed targets like airbases whereas air delivered tactical weapons would have been carried by F4E and A4 aircraft.

My guess is that, while it depends on the circumstances, the Israelis would probably do both. Try to hit the schwerpunkt, but also hit strategic targets. The reality is that the Golan was a pretty compressed front, so the Soviets or Syrians couldn't spread out *too* far.
 
So... With this whole nukes and actual Soviet invasion scenario here... What's the US doing? I doubt just sitting there and letting it all play out.
 
I think this is a good assessment.

The Soviets would win, although they would a price for it.

But then if we're talking a direct Soviet intervention, with major ground forces deployed, you'd have to think that the U.S. would intervene, too. And since both sides realized that American and Soviet troops and planes shooting at each other very quickly leads to a nuclear exchange, it really makes the whole scenario a non-starter, barring some major extrinsic development (like a big asteroid striking the continental U.S.).
The semi-serious answer to this would be that thats another consideration the Syrio-Soviet forces in the Golan would have to make when deciding whether to push or not.

The more tongue in cheek answer would be to note that OP has clarified there is no Soviet intervention in the thread's hypothetical. Rather there's a direct replacement of Syrian troops with Soviets.

So conversely, the next question is, American intervention would logically take the form of directly swapping out the Israeli brigades and Task Force Zvika, plus the reserves arriving over the next 4 days with a direct swap of the equivilant American brigades against the Syrian-Soviet swapped divisions. :p
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, but then you're sort of into ASB-land, true?

Why are you guys acting as if I had presented an AH scenario that puts Soviet troops in Syria before the Yom Kippur War? :confused:

This isn't a WI or a TL, just a hypothetical question (or "war game" if you will) on how the Golan Heights battle would have gone if the Israelis were facing a competent army. I only chose the Soviets because the Syrians were using their gear and doctrine during OTL.

Okay, but then you're sort of into ASB-land if they're Soviets, and if they're just "REALLY WELL-TRAINED AND EQUIPPED SYRIANS" at least should offer some sort of explanation of how and why the Syrians are doing "better" ... which in turn, raises the question of what the IDF does in response when it apprears the Syrians are getting top-tier Soviet equipment, including the T-64, which - IIRC - they didn't actually export...

Best,
 
Okay, but then you're sort of into ASB-land if they're Soviets, and if they're just "REALLY WELL-TRAINED AND EQUIPPED SYRIANS" at least should offer some sort of explanation of how and why the Syrians are doing "better" ... which in turn, raises the question of what the IDF does in response when it apprears the Syrians are getting top-tier Soviet equipment, including the T-64, which - IIRC - they didn't actually export...

Best,

You didn't actually read the post you quoted just now, did you?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No, I did; my point is if that's the question

You didn't actually read the post you quoted just now, did you?

No, I did; my point is if the question is:

1) "How well would the IDF do on the defensive against a "better" version of the Syrian Army"; then

you probably should try and explain why the Syrians are "better"....

Otherwise, the answer is whatever you want it to be, i.e.:

1) They'll go through them like butter;
2) Tel Aviv by lunchtime; and
3) "Take that, you Israeli Israelis, you!"

I mean, what's the point of asking the question? The answer is pretty much a given, correct?

Best,
 
Draftees in combat

I was with 173rd Airborne in RV 1966-67. I served as an ATL and then TL with 173rd Airborne LRRP. Airborne Infantry was at least 50% draftees and LRRP (which was considered a fairly good unit) was also 50% or more LRRP. So draftees can train quite well.
 
I was with 173rd Airborne in RV 1966-67. I served as an ATL and then TL with 173rd Airborne LRRP. Airborne Infantry was at least 50% draftees and LRRP (which was considered a fairly good unit) was also 50% or more LRRP. So draftees can train quite well.
What a coincidense. Friend of mine was with 173rd in RV.
 
No, I did; my point is if the question is:

1) "How well would the IDF do on the defensive against a "better" version of the Syrian Army"; then

No, it's not. That is certainly not the question. And you're really not reading anything I wrote, as evidenced by:

you probably should try and explain why the Syrians are "better"....

I never asked for a better Syrian army. Not once.

Otherwise, the answer is whatever you want it to be, i.e.:

1) They'll go through them like butter;
2) Tel Aviv by lunchtime; and
3) "Take that, you Israeli Israelis, you!"

If you want to accuse me of something, then do it directly. Don't hide behind stuff like this.

I mean, what's the point of asking the question?

To find out how a competent army would handle itself during the Battle of the Golan Heights. My interest here literally doesn't extend beyond that. I already said why I chose the Soviets. And I don't see where the problem is; questions like these are asked two-three times a day on this forum. I mean, if several people on the first page could answer the question normally without being excessively anal and obtuse, then why can't you?

The answer is pretty much a given, correct?

No. Look at the first page again and see that there was a bit of discussion before people brought up nukes.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Well, unless they teleport in, they need some sort of supply line,

To find out how a competent army would handle itself during the Battle of the Golan Heights. My interest here literally doesn't extend beyond that. I already said why I chose the Soviets.

Well, unless they teleport in, they need some sort of supply line...

Just trying to bring reality into the mix, rather than magic.:rolleyes:

Best,
 
Just trying to bring reality into the mix

Your continued obtuseness and passive-agressive behaviour say otherwise, as does the fact that you ignored the rest of that post. But since you ignored most of what was written in the thread already I guess that was to be expected. :rolleyes:
 
I was with 173rd Airborne in RV 1966-67. I served as an ATL and then TL with 173rd Airborne LRRP. Airborne Infantry was at least 50% draftees and LRRP (which was considered a fairly good unit) was also 50% or more LRRP. So draftees can train quite well.

The Israeli army also uses draftees. There is more to the equation than draftees versus non-draftees.
 
Top