Yom Kippur War

Manic Moran

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How would the Egyptians have done if not ordered to advance ahead of the missile defence screen ?

It's a good question.

In reality, they'd have kept both banks of the Suez. Not because the Israelis would have been militarily unable to boot them out (Remember that the whole reason they advanced was to attempt to relieve pressure on the Syrians: If they had not, the Syrians would have been dealt with faster, thus allowing a later focusing on the Egyptians), but because the UN-imposed ceasefire would have still come down the line to freeze the positions before this could happen. Of course, this is said with the benefit of hindsight.

And relative to the events in Iraq what did it predict for the future of MBT's in terms of vulnerability in open country against well defended positions compared to their usefulness in other situations

It was the start of the Jeune Ecole for Land Warfare. There were predictions that the man-portable missile had declared the tank obsolete. (The same predictions which showed up with the advent of the anti-tank helicopter). Yet even by the end of the YK war, the Israelis were starting to develop counter-plans to deal with the missiles. Open country is still considered the better bet for tanks, at least as long as you have the technologically superior tanks.

NTM

Snickers Man

depaly wrote: »

So let's get this straight.
You want a peace deal - but only after a
'tactical military defeat' for Israel!!!!
And a few Israeli deaths....
As I said, considerable arrogance.....

It's not a case of what I want. I'm a pasty faced Irish Catholic. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I am sympathetic towards the plight of the Palestinians, who have suffered the most grevious wrongs in this whole story, but realise that a settlement which recognises Israel's right to exist is in everybody's long-term interest there.

Yet all supporters of Israel seem to talk about is how to justify the status quo of continuing suppression, expulsion and criminalisation as if world unanimity on their right to keep this nonsense up will do them any good in the long run.

They have to make a deal with the Palestinians and the Palestinians have to be strong enough to make that deal not look like a capitulation.

Ergo, Israel will have to lose a battle to win the war.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's not a case of what I want. I'm a pasty faced Irish Catholic. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I am sympathetic towards the plight of the Palestinians, who have suffered the most grevious wrongs in this whole story, but realise that a settlement which recognises Israel's right to exist is in everybody's long-term interest there.

Yet all supporters of Israel seem to talk about is how to justify the status quo of continuing suppression, expulsion and criminalisation as if world unanimity on their right to keep this nonsense up will do them any good in the long run.

They have to make a deal with the Palestinians and the Palestinians have to be strong enough to make that deal not look like a capitulation.

Ergo, Israel will have to lose a battle to win the war.

'the status quo of continuing suppression,
expulsion and criminalisation....'

It's clearly all one way traffic in your mind!!!!!
There's a 'status quo' of attitudes and
actions among Palestinians ( and their allies )
that never seems to impinge on your
consciousness....

'as if world unanimity.....will do them any
good in the long run.'

That is the joke of the century!!!!!
I'm afraid that you're losing credibility
fast!!!!
Israel, and Jews worldwide, certainly do their
best - but the sheer weight of numbers means
that they'll never overcome global
anti Israel propaganda.

As in all facets of life, perhaps they should
just be true to themselves!!!!
I'm confident they will.
Able to defend themselves, but flexible when
peace talks come round.
Apart from the two sides that are immediately
involved, let the other begrudgers and haters
simmer and sulk on....
The bona fides of various Arab states and
European 'activists' are questionable,
to say the least.

You are obsessed with the idea that 'Israel will have
to lose a battle'.
It speaks volumes!!!!!!!

Snickers Man

I've made my case, repeatedly. Which is that this war is interminable because Israel wants it so and indeed, given its attitude, needs it to be so.

As indeed is this debate. I've made my case. Nothing to add. Let's pick it up again in 10 or 20 years when it will still be essentially the same.

depaly

Snickers Man wrote: »

I've made my case, repeatedly. Which is that this war is interminable because Israel wants it so and indeed, given its attitude, needs it to be so.

As indeed is this debate. I've made my case. Nothing to add. Let's pick it up again in 10 or 20 years when it will still be essentially the same.

'this war is interminable because Israel wants it so'

One would think that Israel was the only player
in this conflict!!!!!

Certainly you've had nothing to add to your
one way approach and closed mind during the
entire debate.

Still, I would agree that this debate has
largely been pointless.

Let's not pick it up again, as our views
will, in all likelihood, be essentially
the same!!!!!!!!!!!!

Molloys Clondalkin

Wow just wow this thread has gone from the first few posts to something that should be in politics!!!
Im new here but have a huge interest in Military history so much I went to Israel and did a jeep tour of the 73 war fronts (it was during the anniversery of '67 so had to get it in too)
I have some mazing photos of captured eygyptian hardware from a very private museam Id love to get up on the net too.
In terms of a military profile it was the worst action Israel ever took due to the fact Golda Meir refused to allow Elazar call up the full reserves he broke his orders and called up more than he was allowed.
If I can find it I wrote a paper on this war for my nephews history exam.
Went down very well.
and Id love to answer any questions people may have bar the stupid political ones just the military ones please for now.