Passover War instead of Yom Kippur War

WI instead of attacking during Yom Kippur, when the roads were clear and mobolization for Israel is easy, the Arab coalition attacked earlier during Passover, when there is no ban on motor vehicles and a large bit of the population is traveling (so ive heard)?

Oh and dont forget that Egypt and friends would be able to feed its soldiers during the day if they attack during Passover (no fasting for Muslims i think).

So what happens and who wins?
 
Last edited:

MacCaulay

Banned
So...that'd be early April or so, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not Jewish, so maybe one of our other members could doublecheck this goyim's memory.

Are you saying that everything else would stay the same? Like that Syria and Egypt would launch it in 1973? That'd make a difference. If they launched in April of 1973 that'd be earlier and the SAM system over the Sinai might not be in place as completely as it was by October. Though it's hard to imagine just how many SAM-2s, -3s, and -6s got shipped in during four or five month window that would be openned up.

In actuality, it might work better for the Egyptians and Syrians. Like you pointed out, the roads were clear when the Arabs invaded. Not only that, but just about every civilian in the country was at home and there were detailed plans in place to call up the reservists in just this event.

For those that are unfamiliar with the problems that they faced with the Yom Kippur War reservist call-up, apparently Jews were at home specifically not listening to the radio or answering the phone. According to Simon Dunstan's The Yom Kippur War, military couriers were assigned to do the job in the event of a Yom Kippur call-up.

The Israelis might very well see some of the reserve divisions go into the line 24 or even 36 hours later. This is almost what the Syrians were planning on in 1973. Abraham Rabinowitz's book on the war cites interviews with POWs that said they didn't expect Israeli reserve units to get to the field in force (read: brigade-sized) until the second or third day. In OTL, they were facing reserves in bits and pieces since almost the very beginning: the 2 Centurions of Task Force Zvika along the Tapline basically blunted a mechanized brigade on their own and when division armed with Shermans arrived on the north bank of the Jordan by Day 2 the Syrians were shocked.
 
So your saying it can go ether way? The Israeli air force would be hell for Egypt and Syria to deal with without the SAM systems in the Sinai and Golan.

Anyone else have any opinions on how far the Arabs could advance and who wins the war? Egypt and Syria could probably gain more ground through strength of numbers but they would be pushed back when mobilization is finished right? Israel considered going nuclear in rl, if the war goes worse for them would they try it? So what would be the effects of this. Egypt and Syria might think they could still stand a chance and try again in the future if they dont do too badly right?

Man you guys avoid all the topics on the Arab/Israeli wars, just because it involves the middle east doesnt mean its going to turn into a flame war. :rolleyes:
 

The Vulture

Banned
With all the travel, there'll be disorganization and confusion, as well as difficulty in calling up the reserves. It being a holiday, there's no guarantee that figures like Dayan could be easily reached. My inexpert opinion is that it might go a little better for Egypt and Syria, but to be honest, this isn't a topic I know a whole lot about.
 
Are we assuming the Arabs attack on April of 1973 or April of 1974?
I was personally thinking of April 1973 when i made this (which like Mac said would give Egypt and Syria all types of problems). But i suppose you can use 1974 if you want. ALthough they would be way different from each other.
 
If Tel Aviv falls with little chance of retaking it? The Israelis are going to glass the Middle East, the rest of the world be damned.
Your way to optimistic, even i know that the Syrians and Egyptians have no chance of reaching Tel Aviv.

Unless you mean that Israel will never be desperate enough to use nukes unless miracles happen, in that case your point is valid.
 
Last edited:
I agree they would never reach Tel Aviv. As it was Sadat only wanted to get the Canal and then win a political victory when the superpowers mediated a peace. His tanks only moved farther into the Sinai to help the Syrians. I know he gave up any ideas of total war when the Soviets refused to sell him long range bombers and scuds. Not sure if the Syrians had that limited a war plan but they would have to seriously have a better military then in OTL to get into Isreal.
 
Your way to optimistic, even i know that the Syrians and Egyptians have no chance of reaching Tel Aviv.

Unless you mean that Israel will never be desperate enough to use nukes unless miracles happen, in that case your point is valid.

I mean the second. Israel knows that going nuclear is a surefire way of losing US support, so unless they don't anticipate ever needing that support again*...

* - euphemistic way of saying 'the Zionists all got driven into the sea'
 
Obviously, but how bad would the situation have to be for them to get that desperate?

Depends. I'm doubtful that the Syrians could reach Tel Aviv, but a serious breakthrough on the Golan Heights before the Israelis can get their reserves in place is going to be worst case scenario for the Israelis. I'm not sure where they draw the line, but if Syrian tanks are running into Galilee more or less unopposed, the gloves might come off...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Israel ALWAYS wins in 1973.

The President of the U.S. was willing to go ALL THE WAY to ensure Israel survived. The Premier of the USSR was not willing to do the same for his Arab allies/clients. That means the IDF gets resupplied and the Arabs do not.

Game over.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
Israel nuking the Arabs could in the worst case mean WWIII.

Obviously, but how bad would the situation have to be for them to get that desperate?

There was no official discussion by either Golda Meir or her cabinet about using nuclear weapons. It wasn't even proposed to her. The highest level it got was in a meeting on the first day of the war where Moshe Dayan and other IDF commanders were together and it was mentioned. It was quashed then and there.
Considering that this was during the first 24 hour period when some Israeli generals were seriously considering handing out bazookas and rifles to high schoolers, the fact that they weren't considering nuclear weapons is very telling.

Depends. I'm doubtful that the Syrians could reach Tel Aviv, but a serious breakthrough on the Golan Heights before the Israelis can get their reserves in place is going to be worst case scenario for the Israelis. I'm not sure where they draw the line, but if Syrian tanks are running into Galilee more or less unopposed, the gloves might come off...

I suppose that would be true, but without a SAM net even better than the one they had in '73 the Syrians wouldn't get near Tel Aviv. Their war plan in 1973 centered around regaining the Golan, not wiping out Israel. That was the genius in the Arab attack in 1973, and why it worked as well as it did: they made a lot of political calculations about what they wanted, and how they could get it. They were also fairly honest with themselves about how much of a chance their forces stood against the IDF.
 
Top