Israel loses the 1973 war

If the Syrians had broken through the lines on the Golan

They did break through, at least in the southern Golan.

and threatened to rampage into the Galilee, Israel would have gone nuclear. Bet on it.

Assuming Israel was fast mobilizing, I doubt the Syrians would've entered Galilee or the Israelis would've needed nukes if they did. The Syrians wanted to reach the Jordan river, or the '67 border, in part because it would've made their best defense line--their best hope of holding out against large Israeli reserves. Going farther would've played into Israel's hands, both politically and militarily. It would've undermined the arab claim that they only sought return of their own territories.
 
Let's say Sadat keeps his troops in check and they manage to keep their foot hold on the east bank of the canal. The syrians having lost their advantage in the Golan are pushed back. If the Egyptians are no longer advancing, a ceasefire may be possible. Territorital changes in the Sinai occur but unlikely to include Sharm al sheik or el Arish.

In the OTL Egypt ultimately got all its territory back despite its very precarious situation, hence weak bargaining position, by the end of the October war. Had the Egyptians not suffered the setbacks they did historically from October 14-24, they'd have been in an even better position to get all of Sinai back. It wouldn't have been just the intact Egyptian army in Sinai. Egypt held over 200 Israeli prisoners and Israel was eager to get them back.


Perhaps formally putting Israel under the American nuclear umbrella in exchange for disarmament will be the sweetener for both Israelis and Egyptians.

The Israelis always insisted on assuming responsibility for their own defense.
 
On paper, the Syrians were definitely strong enough in both combat forces and logistics to smash through the Israelis defenses and blitz into the heart of Israel so it isn't totally academic. The problem was their systemic incompetence meant their strength was horribly misapplied and so the breakthrough didn't materialize.

They did break through, in the southern Golan but failed to exploit by reaching the Jordan. But even with competent commanders I doubt they could've "blitzed into the heart of Israel." It wasn't just the fast mobilizing reserves. It would've meant going beyond SAM cover and exposing themselves to attacks from a very capable air force. In fact, the Israelis could've kept most of them out just by blowing up the Benat Yacov bridge and another one, with air strikes.
 
They did break through, in the southern Golan but failed to exploit by reaching the Jordan.

After far too long, excessive cost, and much display of tactical-operational incompetence, such as that hesitation to exploit. NATO or WP Troops would have likely been through the Golan almost everywhere on day 1.

But even with competent commanders I doubt they could've "blitzed into the heart of Israel." It wasn't just the fast mobilizing reserves. It would've meant going beyond SAM cover and exposing themselves to attacks from a very capable air force. In fact, the Israelis could've kept most of them out just by blowing up the Benat Yacov bridge and another one, with air strikes.

In other words, because the Syrians are incompetent. A good SAM net isn’t a static thing. The SAMs Syria was equipped with were mobile and could have been integrated into moving up with the assault, but instead the air defense net wound up sitting back and doing it’s own thing independently of the ground forces. This is typical of Arab armies where attempts at combined arms tend to rapidly disintegrate into their component arms under anything but the most limited, scripted, and rehearsed circumstances (like the Egyptian crossing of the Sues or Iraq in the late Iran-Iraq Wars). This is ignoring that Syrian pilots and air controllers were also incompetent, otherwise they could have had the IAF too busy fighting for the skies, just based on their numbers and equipment, to entertain SEAD or interdiction. Such a failure is indicative of Syrian failure at combined arms.
 
Actually the U.S. recognized Israel, and then more or less left them out on their own hook. No arms, no military mission, no lavish air package, nada. Truman recognized Israel, followed by a couple high level resignations in the State Department. While Ike was President the only aid the U.S. sent the Israelis was food. It wasn't until LBJ entered office that the U.S. began to tilt towards the Israelis.

The primary arms supplies and financial backers of Israel in the 1950s into 60s were the French. If you look at the IDF's TOE in 1967 you will find that the IAF is flying almost exclusively French aircraft, the only exception being the ancient H-34, which was on its last legs.There were a number of Sherman tank variants in use, but those were purchased on the open market, including a large number that were literally bought in various European junkyards and rebuilt. The IDF also had some M-48s, as did the Jordanians and the Lebanese. About the only system that was actually U.S. sold was the Hawk SAM system, which the U.S. sold like it was corn dogs at a county fair. Even small arms were a mix of French weapons, Israeli designs like the Uzi, captured AK-47s and whatever could be found for sale. Anti-tank weapons were French and Belgian (except for some 105mm recoilless rifles that were so common that ski resorts had them).

yep +1, even by 1973 the IDF is still using a mix of stuff from all over the palce and from the previous couple of decades, which is why there are some up gunned Centuroins in the Golan!

Its also why I can see why the IDF has always been keen to have home grown armament industry, (even if it is still buying US, and others )

Just as an aside: After the attack on the Liberty, the 6th fleet launched a strike package with the intention of ATTACKING the Israeli bases that facilitates the air and naval attack. Per standing policy the carrier launched its Alert Five strike aircraft. Fortunately, before they got too far from the ship someone figured out that, due to the position of the carrier, the Alert Five package was part of a strategic exercise the USS America was running at the time and the strike aircraft were armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The U.S. came within about 40 minutes of nuking Israel.

whoops, that's going to be a nasty debrief
 
After far too long, excessive cost,

High losses and some delay were inevitable because of Israeli preparations--mines, antitank ditch, firing platforms on ground overlooking the approaching armor, obstacles which channeled attackers into kill zones....Just to get across the ditch the Syrians needed bridging tanks, yet they were high priority targets for the defenders.
Granted Syrian tankers weren't as competent as NATO ones. I note, though, Pollack said they "weren't bad at handling their vehicles" rating them an "8" compared to NATO "10."


A good SAM net isn’t a static thing. The SAMs Syria was equipped with were mobile and could have been integrated into moving up with the assault, but instead the air defense net wound up sitting back and doing it’s own thing independently of the ground forces.

:) It's my understanding, based on what I've read, that Syrian SAM deployment sufficed to cover the whole Golan even before the war started. Assuming the Syrians sought to take just the Golan, it should've been adequate where it was.


This is ignoring that Syrian pilots and air controllers were also incompetent, otherwise they could have had the IAF too busy fighting for the skies, just based on their numbers and equipment, to entertain SEAD or interdiction. Such a failure is indicative of Syrian failure at combined arms.

In light of bitter experience before October 1973, the Syrian (and Egyptian) decision to hold their MIGs back, mostly, is understandable. Syrian MIGs almost never fared well in air to air combat. This had been demonstrated a number of times even before the clash of September 1973, which cost the SAF around 12 MIGs whereas Israel lost a single Mirage. The chronic weakness of the arab interceptor arm--for which inferior Soviet equipment was at least partly responsible--explains the arabs's great investment in ground based AD. Rather wisely, I think, fighters were committed (en masse) only as a last resort.
 
yep +1, even by 1973 the IDF is still using a mix of stuff from all over the palce and from the previous couple of decades, which is why there are some up gunned Centuroins in the Golan!

What up gunned Centurions? The Centurion came with a 105mm gun which was good enough. Israeli Shermans and captured T-55s, however, were up gunned.
 
What up gunned Centurions? The Centurion came with a 105mm gun which was good enough. Israeli Shermans and captured T-55s, however, were up gunned.

Whoops my mistake, I thought the original '46 Centurions didn't come with a 105mm gun!
 
What up gunned Centurions? The Centurion came with a 105mm gun which was good enough. Israeli Shermans and captured T-55s, however, were up gunned.

Original 20 pdr Centurion.

The British Centurions, first delivered in the late 1950s were renamed “Sho’t” (“scourge” or “whip”), modified and upgraded soon after their acquisition. This started with the Mark III still equipped with a 20 pounder main guns, and up-gunned to the new locally produced 105 mm based on the British ROF L7 as soon as it was available. The cupola ring was modified to accommodate a heavy cal.50 on an AA mount.


The engine was kept as it was, earning the name (later on) for these unmodified vehicles of “Sho”t Meteor”. Other detailed modifications comprised an improved fire extinguishing system, better electrical systems and brakes, and increased fuel capacity.
 
The funny thing about this post is that according to offical Egyptian history they won the October war.
you could say they won the peace. They definitely lost on the military side of things, but their main goal was to start negotiations to get the Sinai back.. and they did.
 
you could say they won the peace. They definitely lost on the military side of things, but their main goal was to start negotiations to get the Sinai back.. and they did.
No, I mean they literally tell their people that they won militarily. The peace treaty is generally downplayed over there
 
No, I mean they literally tell their people that they won militarily. The peace treaty is generally downplayed over there
yeah, I figured that was what you meant. I always think of the 73 war as "Israel won the war, Egypt won the peace, Syria lost the war, and Jordan got a participation trophy"
 
I thought Jordan got spectators award
well, they did send an armored unit to help Syria after the latter lost their part of the war and everyone thought that Israel was going to go crashing down into Syria out of the Golan Heights... so, 'participation trophy'...
 
...no, in '73, as specified in your post.

In '48, worst-case scenario IMO is it degenerates into ethnic militia reprisal killings on both sides and forced eviction followed by the US stepping in after public pressure forces the issue to order a solution.
I find your argurment that the US would undoubtably intervene if the Arabs ethnicly cleansed the Jewish population very facetious.

Mainly because 700,000 Jews were ethnicly cleansed from Muslim states after the foundation of Israel with no response from the rest of the world

In 1948 the Jews would have simply been kicked back to refugee camps in Cyprus and would be into a similar state to the Rohingya now. A stateless people hated by everyone surrounding them.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I find your argurment that the US would undoubtably intervene if the Arabs ethnicly cleansed the Jewish population very facetious.

Mainly because 700,000 Jews were ethnicly cleansed from Muslim states after the foundation of Israel with no response from the rest of the world

In 1948 the Jews would have simply been kicked back to refugee camps in Cyprus and would be into a similar state to the Rohingya now. A stateless people hated by everyone surrounding them.
Ok this thread is only for 1973 issues. If you want to talk about other matters please create an appropriate thread. Lots of high emotions regarding Israel and Palestine and things have been testy and angry.
 
Ok this thread is only for 1973 issues. If you want to talk about other matters please create an appropriate thread. Lots of high emotions regarding Israel and Palestine and things have been testy and angry.
Fair, these things shouldn’t be allowed to get off track. I’m actually not familiar enough with the 1973 war to properly comment, however Isreali nuclear weapons heavily raise the risk of nuclear war.

Due to their history as a country Isreal has a seige mentality, beleiving that the threat of genocide will always be there. If Israel faces military collaspse, they’ll be confident that a Second Haulocaust would occur.

Which means they’ll take increasingly desperate measures in order to prevent this.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Fair, these things shouldn’t be allowed to get off track. I’m actually not familiar enough with the 1973 war to properly comment, however Isreali nuclear weapons heavily raise the risk of nuclear war.

Due to their history as a country Isreal has a seige mentality, beleiving that the threat of genocide will always be there. If Israel faces military collaspse, they’ll be confident that a Second Haulocaust would occur.

Which means they’ll take increasingly desperate measures in order to prevent this.
Yes I believe most people having lived through they did and facing the adversaries they did would behave that wAy.

I think that we need to think it like this. You having been attacked in your old home, victim of home invasion which caused part of your family to die.

You move back to your hometown but no longer welcome there and the day after you move in your neighbors attack you. Luckily you are able to repel them.

For next years these neighbors continue to say they going to destroy you.

Therefore it acceptable you believe them even if they say it was all talk.
 
you could say they won the peace. They definitely lost on the military side of things, but their main goal was to start negotiations to get the Sinai back.. and they did.

Right that was Sadat's plan. Whereas Syria stood a chance of getting back its territorial losses (which were quite limited) by military means, Egypt had no hope of doing so, and just wanted to get the major powers to help it.
 
Top