# Yom Kippur War 1973: The Egyptian Revenge



## lionheartsalahudin



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pak-yes

what revenge?after initial success they were ultimately beaten to hell.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## lionheartsalahudin

stupid politicaly motivated decisions by sadat were the cause as was musharaf,yahya,bhutto,in our case,and there were rats who sold out freinds ,and i am sure our country has a lot of them too

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gazzi

This must be the first time in warfare history that troops were ordered to halt to allow a chance for ceasefire talks. The US deliberately pressured the Egyptians to halt their troops from advancing after the Egyptians has pushed through Israel's Primary and Secondary positions and were marching ahead. The US fooled/lied the Egyptians into thinking they were going to play neutral, allowing the Israelis to re-arm, regroup, and supplied further weapons and launched a ferocious attack on soldiers who were sitting ducks in the open Seuz, with no defence as the Israelis now had the element of surprise.

I have never heard of a halt in military advance to allow for these sort of ceasefire talks. They are normally always done under fire and military objectives are still there to be achieved. 

Another reason why they Arabs should never trust the US when it comes to anything to do with Israel.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## AVIAN

Gazzi said:


> This must be the first time in warfare history that troops were ordered to halt to allow a chance for ceasefire talks. The US deliberately pressured the Egyptians to halt their troops from advancing after the Egyptians has pushed through Israel's Primary and Secondary positions and were marching ahead. The US fooled/lied the Egyptians into thinking they were going to play neutral, allowing the Israelis to re-arm, regroup, and supplied further weapons and launched a ferocious attack on soldiers who were sitting ducks in the open Seuz, with no defence as the Israelis now had the element of surprise.
> 
> I have never heard of a halt in military advance to allow for these sort of ceasefire talks. They are normally always done under fire and military objectives are still there to be achieved.
> 
> Another reason why they Arabs should never trust the US when it comes to anything to do with Israel.




Surprized, surprized and Surprized, it is the only reaction from me after reading your post. Based on your comment, why didn't you first accused Egypt for its foolhardy attempt to let their soldiers vulnerable to Isreali attack? Ceasefire or no Ceasefire, Soldiers in the war always need to remain on standby to deal with anyother contengencies.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

Gazzi said:


> This must be the first time in warfare history that troops were ordered to halt to allow a chance for ceasefire talks. The US deliberately pressured the Egyptians to halt their troops from advancing after the Egyptians has pushed through Israel's Primary and Secondary positions and were marching ahead. The US fooled/lied the Egyptians into thinking they were going to play neutral, allowing the Israelis to re-arm, regroup, and supplied further weapons and launched a ferocious attack on soldiers who were sitting ducks in the open Seuz, with no defence as the Israelis now had the element of surprise.
> 
> I have never heard of a halt in military advance to allow for these sort of ceasefire talks. They are normally always done under fire and military objectives are still there to be achieved.
> 
> Another reason why they Arabs should never trust the US when it comes to anything to do with Israel.



On the contrary, the decision of the Egyptian Army to halt was part of the initial strategic plan as envisaged by its chief designer Gen Saad El Shazly.

The idea was to stay under the SAM missile cover at all times.

Shazly strongly opposed any Egyptian army movement outside this limited area to the East of the Suez Canal. 

However, after the stunning initial gains, Sadat overruled him and insisted that the Egyptians push forward. Thus deprived of the SAM missile umbrella, the Egyptian Army suffered huge reverses.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BATMAN

EyelessInGaza said:


> On the contrary, the decision of the Egyptian Army to halt was part of the initial strategic plan as envisaged by its chief designer Gen Saad El Shazly.
> 
> The idea was to stay under the SAM missile cover at all times.
> 
> Shazly strongly opposed any Egyptian army movement outside this limited area to the East of the Suez Canal.
> 
> However, after the stunning initial gains, Sadat overruled him and insisted that the Egyptians push forward. Thus deprived of the SAM missile umbrella, the Egyptian Army suffered huge reverses.



This is quite true as we know but Sadat was pressurized by Syrians, because after halt of Egyptians, Israel retaliated Syria and Israel had very good intelligence of Syrians defensive positions. Whereas egytian tanks proved inferior to israeli tanks.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

BATMAN said:


> This is quite true as we know but Sadat was pressurized by Syrians, because after halt of Egyptians, Israel retaliated Syria and Israel had very good intelligence of Syrians defensive positions. Whereas egytian tanks proved inferior to israeli tanks.



 Ah, a fellow enthusiast of the 1973 war?

You are right. Sadat was pressurized by the Syrians. My reading suggests that by then the Syrian thrust in the Golan had petered out and the Israelis were responding after being in the defensive for days. Syria was under a lot of pressure.

The reason that Egypt's later attacks petered out was that their tanks were charging into prepared Israeli positions without air or SAM cover which made them sitting ducks. In short, they had abandoned the strategy that was winning them the war. Instead of waiting for the Israelis to come to them, they attacked and paid the price. 

Regardless of the immediate result, 1973 is regarded by many military strategists as a war that _both_ Israelis and Egypt won. But that's another story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

I'm not an enthusist but i spoke with egyptians.
In addition, there was too much american participation in that war.
US brain and hardware behind Israel. There were US soldiers on ground in Israel, US pilots flew from Israel side. It was never one to one war.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jamal18

Sadat's decision to accept a ceasefire was his, and his alone. Even Egyptian GHQ did not know, and wasn't consulted.

The reason he gave was that the Egyptians had totally underestimated America's commitment to Israel. The scale of the U.S resupply to Israel had astounded them. In his estimation, for the last ten days of the war, Egypt had been fighting the U.S. In his view, to continue the war would have bought Egypt into direct conflict with the U.S., and this would have been a disaster for them.


----------



## pak-yes

^^I don't think so.In those days USSR was around and America couldn't just attack anyone like these days.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

BATMAN said:


> I'm not an enthusist but i spoke with egyptians.
> In addition, there was too much american participation in that war.
> US brain and hardware behind Israel. There were US soldiers on ground in Israel, US pilots flew from Israel side. It was never one to one war.



There I disagree. Saying that it was never a one to one war is propaganda.

First, Israel was attacked on two fronts simultaneously by overwhelming forces. The advantage lay with Egypt and Syria.

If there was US hardware behind Israel, Egpyt and Syria were loaded to the brim with the latest Soviet hardware.

The claim of US pilots on the Israeli side has never been proven, is propaganda and is likely false IMO. 

On the other hand we do know that Egypt and Syria were supported by a formidable number of Muslim countries with men and materials, including Pakistan.

The fact is that Israel pulled off a major battlefield achievement. If it was not a one to one war it was only because Israel's enemies had overwhelming support.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## EyelessInGaza

jamal18 said:


> Sadat's decision to accept a ceasefire was his, and his alone. Even Egyptian GHQ did not know, and wasn't consulted.
> 
> The reason he gave was that the Egyptians had totally underestimated America's commitment to Israel. The scale of the U.S resupply to Israel had astounded them. In his estimation, for the last ten days of the war, Egypt had been fighting the U.S. In his view, to continue the war would have bought Egypt into direct conflict with the U.S., and this would have been a disaster for them.



But we should not forget that tremendous Soviet supply to Egypt and Syria either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gazzi

EyelessInGaza said:


> If it was not a one to one war it was only because Israel's enemies had overwhelming support.



Please choose your argument and stick with it. Instead of sitting on both sides of the fence. Either they were supplied or they weren't, you can;t have it both ways, either they were fighting "one to one" or they weren't.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

Gazzi said:


> Please choose your argument and stick with it. Instead of sitting on both sides of the fence. Either they were supplied or they weren't, you can;t have it both ways, either they were fighting "one to one" or they weren't.



You have misunderstood what I wrote.

In any case I will elucidate- It is claimed that 1973 was not a one to one battle because the Israelis outgunned the Egyptians through overwhelming support. 

I am against that position, for the reasons I described- because the Egyptians and Syrians were fighting one enemy. Because they also had other nations behind them. Because they were also supported by Soviet arms. Because they attacked first.

So to the extent it was ' not a one to one battle' it was the Israelis who were with the disadvantage of fighting larger numbers rather than the other way round.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

EyelessInGaza said:


> There I disagree. Saying that it was never a one to one war is propaganda.
> 
> First, Israel was attacked on two fronts simultaneously by overwhelming forces. The advantage lay with Egypt and Syria.
> 
> If there was US hardware behind Israel, Egpyt and Syria were loaded to the brim with the latest Soviet hardware.
> 
> The claim of US pilots on the Israeli side has never been proven, is propaganda and is likely false IMO.
> 
> On the other hand we do know that *Egypt and Syria were supported by a formidable number of Muslim countries with men and materials, including Pakistan.*
> 
> The fact is that Israel pulled off a major battlefield achievement. If it was not a one to one war it was only because *Israel's enemies had overwhelming support*.



US participation in 1973 war is a known fact and well documented.
I don't know what sort of proof are you asking for.
one can see US retaliation to those Muslim majority states whom Israel consider as a threat.
Due to Yom Kippur War, US have always bombed Muslim states in month of Ramadan. Till todate US is fighting Yom Kippur War.
You clearly seems to miss the point, 1973 war's objective was to take back the occupied territory. hence Egypt got it and today both states are living peacefully sideby side, sensibly enough.

i never read that any other army supported Egypt or Syria in 1973... so please elaborate, how you claim so?
How you relate Pakistan to 1973 war?

Of course you forgot that volunteres from all across the globe (holy warriors) came to Israel to fight this war.


----------



## jamal18

EyelessInGaza said:


> But we should not forget that tremendous Soviet supply to Egypt and Syria either.



On the Egyptian side it was always said that russian support for them never matched American support for Israel. I am giving Sadat's view.
I believe the view was that russian support was conditional and limited. American support was unconditional and unlimited. They were of different scales. This is the Egyptian view.


----------



## BATMAN

EyelessInGaza said:


> You have misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
> In any case I will elucidate- It is claimed that 1973 was not a one to one battle because the Israelis outgunned the Egyptians through overwhelming support.
> 
> I am against that position, for the reasons I described- because the Egyptians and Syrians were fighting one enemy. Because they also had other nations behind them. Because they were also supported by Soviet arms. Because they attacked first.
> 
> So to the extent it was ' not a one to one battle' it was the Israelis who were with the disadvantage of fighting larger numbers rather than the other way round.



US bases in Israel is an undeniable fact, and hastly US reinforcement during 1973 war are well known.
When you say nations behind syria and egypt i hope you meant morally not militarily. As we know Jordan never participated in that war.
Soviet union is a major arms supplier, what is the big surprise?
When we talk of US support, we meant US men and tanks flew to Israel in the middle of war!


----------



## hataf

what ever happen there but we can say that for certain with the outcomes that 
PAF is for more better than Arab air forces
and also superior to israeli air forces


----------



## BATMAN

eyeless, for your eye...only:
Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US

By David R. Francis Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / December 9, 2002 

Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.

This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.

For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.

And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.

Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.

Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost of a war with Iraq.

Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.

Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition, the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.

"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of Maine.

These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are little known.

One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.

In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo against the US.

That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.

Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively, $134 billion, Stauffer reckons.

Other US help includes:

 US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says Stauffer.

 The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.) Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.

 The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and Arrow missile projects.

 Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment. Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over recent years.

 Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives to Israel.

US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.

 US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.

 Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over 10 years, says Stauffer.

Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they criticize America's policies toward Israel.

Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported the amount of housing loans guaranteed by the US.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

BATMAN said:


> US participation in 1973 war is a known fact and well documented.
> I don't know what sort of proof are you asking for.
> one can see US retaliation to those Muslim majority states whom Israel consider as a threat.



'Proof of participation 'to me would mean US fighters / soldiers on the ground. If by participation you mean that the US was against Muslim majority states, well the USSR was against Israel. At that level it balances out.

Actual US retaliation in the 1973 war? I d not know if that happened. 

Is there any reading material you have or source that you could point to? Would be most appreciated.



BATMAN said:


> Due to Yom Kippur War, US have always bombed Muslim states in month of Ramadan. Till todate US *is fighting Yom Kippur War*.



I do not understand. Please explain?



BATMAN said:


> You clearly seems to miss the point, 1973 war's objective was to take back the occupied territory. hence Egypt got it and today both states are living peacefully sideby side, sensibly enough.



I agree. Thus my very initial statement some strategists say that both sides won the war. Egypt got back the Golan later.



> i never read that any other army supported Egypt or Syria in 1973... so please elaborate, how you claim so?



This is from Wikipedia. I know that wikipedia isn't exactly the last word in reliability, but the sources are Shazly and Abramovich



> several other Arab states were also involved in this war, providing additional weapons and financing. Algeria sent a squadron of MiG-21s and a squadron of Su-7s to Egypt, both of which arrived at the front between October 9 and October 11. It also sent an armored brigade of nearly 200 tanks, the advance elements of which began to arrive on October 17, but it arrived at the front only on October 24, too late to participate in the fighting. Libyan forces were stationed in Egypt before the outbreak of the war. Libya provided one armored brigade and two squadrons of Mirage V fighters, of which one squadron was to be piloted by the Egyptian Air Force and the other by Libyan pilots. Morocco sent one infantry brigade to Egypt, and one tank regiment to Syria.[105][106] An infantry brigade composed of Palestinians was in Egypt before the outbreak of the war.[7][106] Saudi Arabia and Kuwait gave financial aid and sent some token forces to join in the battle.[106] Pakistan sent sixteen pilots and an ambulance unit to Egypt and another to Syria. Bangladesh sent a medical team and relief supplies.




How you relate Pakistan to 1973 war?

Pakistan sent fighter pilots.



> Of course you forgot that volunteres from all across the globe (holy warriors) came to Israel to fight this war.



Of course Jewish organizations did help; some individuals did volunteer. However, I doubt if this was of the scale of the state support I have quoted above.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

jamal18 said:


> On the Egyptian side it was always said that russian support for them never matched American support for Israel. I am giving Sadat's view.
> I believe the view was that russian support was conditional and limited. American support was unconditional and unlimited. They were of different scales. This is the Egyptian view.



Far enough. While I believe otherwise, I do not have the competence to question that opinion.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

BATMAN said:


> ........
> When we talk of US support, we meant US men and tanks flew to Israel in the middle of war!



I do not think this happened; IMO, it is a near urban legend. But I am willing to re - consider if someone can educate me, I am always willing to learn.



BATMAN said:


> eyeless, for your eye...only:





Nice. I will read it and get back.


----------



## EyelessInGaza

Before I go further, let me add that the initial Egyptian military performance, i.e the breach of the Canal line, was brilliant. It shattered for ever the myth of Egyptian military incompetence (from the 67 war). It, more than anything else, won the respect of the Israelis.


----------



## Mercenary

The War started on October 6.

By October 10, the Egyptians had halted in Sinai and Syrian attack in Golan was defeated and Syrians were back at their starting position.

American Aid to Israel only arrived on October 14 and was not absorbed by the Israeli Military for several days later.

Egypt launched its disastrous attack on Sinai passes on October 14 which was totally defeated to support the Syrians. Soviet Union supplied 60,000 tons of supplies to Syria and Egypt while Israelis got 20,000 tons of supplies.

So what this means, Israel defeated the Syrians on its own without outside help and Egyptians were defeated due to their own stupidity of launching an attack outside their SAM cover.

The American Aid allowed the Israels to expend what they have more freely and thus enabled them to launch the counter-attack on the Egyptian 3rd Army.

The Soviets heavily supplied the Syrians and they halted the Israelis.

So in conclusion, the Egyptians and Syrians fought well and had a good plan but they should have realized that the Syrians would bear the brunt of the fighting and the Syrians should have had more troops, tanks, weapons initially to hold back the Israeli counter-attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## brahmastra

Understand Yom-Kippur war

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

EyelessInGaza said:


> On the contrary, the decision of the Egyptian Army to halt was part of the initial strategic plan as envisaged by its chief designer Gen Saad El Shazly.
> 
> The idea was to stay under the SAM missile cover at all times.
> 
> Shazly strongly opposed any Egyptian army movement outside this limited area to the East of the Suez Canal.
> 
> However, after the stunning initial gains, Sadat overruled him and insisted that the Egyptians push forward. Thus deprived of the SAM missile umbrella, the Egyptian Army suffered huge reverses.



very well put this is the actual truth! not what others here would like to believe! once the egyptians left the cover of their SAMs the israeli airforce had a meal!


----------



## Kansu

What a revenge... i m not a nationalist but i dont think that arab brothers are suitable for army =) i cant remember even a single war they won in last millenium...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## FreekiN

Egyptians aren't Arabs...


----------



## Kansu

FreekiN said:


> Egyptians aren't Arabs...




Really? So what they are? K&#305;pti?


----------



## totach7

My editing from Yom Kippur 1973 war















IDF ARMOR


----------



## ARSENAL6

FreekiN said:


> Egyptians aren't Arabs...



Yeah there're Pharos building Pyramid, who walk side ways and by chance speak Arabic !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S-2

Sadat's decision to attack out of the Egyptian enclave carved out along the east bank was politically-driven by Syrian pleas for assistance to pressure the Israelis. 

The Syrians, with great bravery and less skill, were smashed by elements of two Israeli armor-heavy brigades who stood toe-to-toe with the Syrian and duked it out in day-night combat that was unceasing in its ferocity. 

It was a ballsy fight with no quarter given or taken on the Golan. Unmatched by either Kursk or DESERT STORM because the Israelis certainly lost the best parts of both brigades but gave back even more. The relatively short frontage created huge numbers of modern MBTs fighting one another but the Syrians ended up stacked upon one another and simply couldn't penetrate into the valley behind the Israeli tankers. There was no room for Israeli retreat. It was DIP (defend in place) or more euphemistically known as die-in-place. And so they fought...and died but bought time for Israeli reserve divisions to slowly muster, come forth and eventually counterattack into Syria.

Whether you hate the Israelis or otherwise, it was an epic defense of the highest order against incredible odds on the Golan. In the Sinai, a different story where the IDF, both ground and air initially fought without heed to the development of Soviet anti-tank and SAM capabilities.

Had Israel better understood or appreciated the ATGW threat, they possessed the means to neutralize such. Their artillery was quite capable but underutilized. Both HE and WP/HC smoke would have served them well but their battle-plan didn't fully integrate these fires as they should have been. 

Neither did they use artillery in SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) well. SAM-2 and SAM-3 sites were invulnerable to this type of attack by virtue of their distance from the front but, certainly, both AAA (ZSU-23-4 _Shilka_ and ZSU-57-2) and mobile SAM (SA-7 GRAIL SA-6 GAINFUL) were vulnerable to artillery fires.

It didn't have to go as it did in the Sinai. It couldn't have gone any other way in the Golan.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PakSher

Israel's got an edge from the US with satellite imagery, reconnisance and intelligence information. There is no doubt about that. The claim of Israel that they did that all alone is not credible without USA extra ordinary overt and covert support.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Facinating thread

Jordanians King lol flew in to inform Israel talk about a sincere friend


----------



## S-2

Same imagrey was available to Syria and Egypt from the Soviet Union. Weaponry resupply. Same. U.S. resupply didn't stop the Syrians from taking the Golan. U.S. pilots sure as hell didn't FLY for Israel.

The Jews did their own dying.

Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## yuba

what revenge are we talking about at the end of war the israeli army was less than 50 km from cairo and even nearer to damascus the sinai was only given back after peace with israel


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Very nice video post made me learn few more stuff about that time frame , I was not awar Mr Saddat was such a bold leader, but not very , nice to launch an attack on someone's holiday disrespectful - Kinda strange to see the only guy who won something back from Israelis and get Nobel Peace award ^_^ ...for peace efforts - how the story unfold after that ..wow


----------



## su-47

Actually the best tactical move was done AFTER the war, by Sadat. He recognised Israel. And in return, got the Sinai back. And more importantly, he lost an enemy. Egypt doesn't have to fear a war with Israel any more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## totach7

PakSher said:


> Israel's got an edge from the US with satellite imagery, reconnisance and intelligence information. There is no doubt about that. The claim of Israel that they did that all alone is not credible without USA extra ordinary overt and covert support.



Satellite?????? 1973 I don't think so
"
For more info you may visit my humble blog on the "YOM kIPPUR WAR" post
http://idf-armor.blogspot.com/2008/11/blog-post_28.html


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

yuba said:


> what revenge are we talking about at the end of war the israeli army was less than 50 km from cairo and even nearer to damascus the sinai was only given back after peace with israel


they got destroyed in suez and ismailia what makes you say they could do anything from going even 1 km to cairo ?


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Kansu said:


> Really? So what they are? K&#305;pti?


no we are egyptian only


----------



## PteX

The delusions Egyptians have is very sad. Even Arab wikipedia articles about the wars dramatically lie about history.
Easy to see where wishful thinking has brought you.


----------



## VanessaK

It is hard to stay normal in such cruel world, according to such short screens.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

PteX said:


> The delusions Egyptians have is very sad. Even Arab wikipedia articles about the wars dramatically lie about history.
> Easy to see where wishful thinking has brought you.


then you say you won how ?
sainai is ours and we brought it back 
your army got destroyed your once supierior air force was shot down your tanks destroyed the barlev line which was the most advanced defence line was captured in 6 hours


----------



## King Solomon

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> then you say you won how ?
> sainai is ours and we brought it back
> your army got destroyed your once supierior air force was shot down your tanks destroyed the barlev line which was the most advanced defence line was captured in 6 hours



It must be admitted that it was a *military* defeat for Egypt, even though *political* victory was achieved by getting back Sinai (the peace deal).

The Egyptian plan initially was a super one. Israel was almost wiped out when its intelligence failure allowed Egypt to attack surprisingly (an egyptian spy acted as a double agent for Israel). But in the end, tide was turned and Israel achieved military victory even though after much help from US. Israel conceded Sinai because it saw the potential of Egypt in that war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

S-19 said:


> It must be admitted that it was a *military* defeat for Egypt, even though *political* victory was achieved by getting back Sinai (the peace deal).
> 
> The Egyptian plan initially was a super one. Israel was almost wiped out when its intelligence failure allowed Egypt to attack surprisingly (an egyptian spy acted as a double agent for Israel). But in the end, tide was turned and Israel achieved military victory even though after much help from US. Israel conceded Sinai because it saw the potential of Egypt in that war.


Fair enough...


----------



## aamerjamal

PAF also shoot down some of Isreali Jets. dont know much info about this although. btw whats isreal's point of view about it coz they called them self as invincible AF.


----------



## 500

aamerjamal said:


> PAF also shoot down some of Isreali Jets. dont know much info about this although. btw whats isreal's point of view about it coz they called them self as invincible AF.


Israel lost 102 jets in Yom Kippur war, the overwhelming majority of them to SAMs. PAF did not shot any Israeli jet in that war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

aamerjamal said:


> PAF also shoot down some of Isreali Jets. dont know much info about this although. btw whats isreal's point of view about it coz they called them self as invincible AF.


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH! I got a headache with the three Israeli jets you shot down! why don't you adopt the victory?



500 said:


> Israel lost 102 jets in Yom Kippur war, the overwhelming majority of them to SAMs. PAF did not shot any Israeli jet in that war.


@500: How do you evaluate Jordanian engagement in 1973 war?


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> @500: How do you evaluate Jordanian engagement in 1973 war?


On 10-12 Oct Israeli forces captured a salient inside Syria. Jordanian 40th brigade participated attacks on this salient on 16th and 19th Oct together with Iraqis and Syrians. Since it was attack of three different countries together, it was poorly coordinated and executed and doomed to fail. For example in 16th Oct attack Syrians who attakced first stopped very fast and Iraqis attacked much later with little strength as result Jodanian bigade alone attacked entire Israeli division. Also since Jordanians had same Centurion tanks as Israelis, Iraqis and Syrians fired at them in both attacks.

Overall perfromance of Jordanians was best, Syrians second and Iraqis were worst.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> On 10-12 Oct Israeli forces captured a salient inside Syria. Jordanian 40th brigade participated attacks on this salient on 16th and 19th Oct together with Iraqis and Syrians. Since it was attack of three different countries together, it was poorly coordinated and executed and doomed to fail. For example in 16th Oct attack Syrians who attakced first stopped very fast and Iraqis attacked much later with little strength as result Jodanian bigade alone attacked entire Israeli division. _*Also since Jordanians had same Centurion tanks as Israelis, Iraqis and Syrians fired at them in both attacks.*_
> 
> Overall perfromance of Jordanians was best, Syrians second and Iraqis were worst.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

S-19 said:


> It must be admitted that it was a *military* defeat for Egypt, even though *political* victory was achieved by getting back Sinai (the peace deal).
> 
> The Egyptian plan initially was a super one. Israel was almost wiped out when its intelligence failure allowed Egypt to attack surprisingly (an egyptian spy acted as a double agent for Israel). But in the end, tide was turned and Israel achieved military victory even though after much help from US. Israel conceded Sinai because it saw the potential of Egypt in that war.


i wont admit it is a defeat unless you say what did isreal do to say they had the victory


----------



## King Solomon

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> i wont admit it is a defeat unless you say what did isreal do to say they had the victory



At the end of the war

- Israel had recaptured all of Sinai as well as territories on the western side of the Suez

- Israel captured Suez canal.

- Israel sorrounded all of Egypt's 3rd Army and could kill them all at will

- Egypt suffered 3-4 times casualty (men and material) to that of Israel


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

S-19 said:


> At the end of the war
> 
> - Israel had recaptured all of Sinai as well as territories on the western side of the Suez
> 
> - Israel captured Suez canal.
> 
> - Israel sorrounded all of Egypt's 3rd Army and could kill them all at will
> 
> - Egypt suffered 3-4 times casualty (men and material) to that of Israel


not true at all 




as you can see we had most of what we gaiend in sainai 
they tryed to do anything with this gap but they couldnt 
the attack on suez didnt succed and it was beaten by the people of suez and some remining from infantry 
the attack on ismailia was stopped by sa3ka commandos who won faced alot of armour and was outnumberd 
if they tryed to attack the 3rd army they would have suffered the same 
not to mention the heavy losses before in their air force and tanks 
do you know that sharoun has faked an injiry and got out 
we had the replacian guard unites in cairo and some troopes in sudan 
their economy cant stand a long war 
we could get help from sudan 
after their heavy losses our commandos could strike deep in their territory


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> not true at all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as you can see we had most of what we gaiend in sainai
> they tryed to do anything with this gap but they couldnt
> the attack on suez didnt succed and it was beaten by the people of suez and some remining from infantry
> the attack on ismailia was stopped by sa3ka commandos who won faced alot of armour and was outnumberd
> if they tryed to attack the 3rd army they would have suffered the same
> not to mention the heavy losses before in their air force and tanks
> do you know that sharoun has faked an injiry and got out
> we had the replacian guard unites in cairo and some troopes in sudan
> their economy cant stand a long war
> we could get help from sudan
> after their heavy losses our commandos could strike deep in their territory


You should read Shazly's memories.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

500 said:


> You should read Shazly's memories.


i did he was a great aman but he had issues with el sadat and the defence minster at the time so i dont know how accurite they are but we agree that there was a gap and the attacks on suez and ismailia happened and we defended so any one who say that you could attack cairo or finish the 3rd army is a liar 
do you agree ?


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> i did he was a great aman but he had issues with el sadat and the defence minster at the time so i dont know how accurite they are but we agree that there was a gap and the attacks on suez and ismailia happened and we defended so any one who say that you could attack cairo or finish the 3rd army is a liar
> do you agree ?


3rd army was cut off supplies in open desert withour air defence. If war continued it would not survive a week. Thats why Saddat literally begged for cease fire.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

500 said:


> 3rd army was cut off supplies in open desert withour air defence. If war continued it would not survive a week. Thats why Saddat literally begged for cease fire.


we egyptians dont fear death and the 3rd army could have attacked anyway and try to kill as much as he can
remeber we can take losses but you cant you dont have the numbers


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> 3rd army was cut off supplies in open desert withour air defence. If war continued it would not survive a week. Thats why Saddat literally begged for cease fire.




And why did you beg for a cease fire in the first place!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## somebozo

It was smart how Egyptians defeated with CIA spy satellites by accurately calculating their positions and then moving the arms in a perfect time sync to avoid detection.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

The October 1973 Ramadan War was an amazing military and political victory for Egypt that changed the political and military thinking of the entire region as well as introduced a major new school of thought in military matters. Egyptian military victory is still taught in multiple countries' military academies today, although Zionist propaganda as usual tries to label it a Zionist victory despite all the proof and facts on the ground which showed facts to the contrary. 

The Zionists could not push either the 2nd Army or the 3rd Army one inch from the Sinai, as far as I can recall. All they could do was rely on American SR-71 Blackbird flights (which were detected by Egyptian radars) and maybe reconnaissance satellites for sneeking past the "Chinese Farms" during dark for propaganda purposes with very few soldiers and material that were smashed thoroughly, and this "breakthrough" was achieved by violating ceasefires. 

Except propaganda, Zionists won nothing and that's why they left Sinai. If the usual excuse provided by them were to be true, why don't the Zionists hand over Al Quds/Jerusalem to Arabs?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 500

Banglar Lathial said:


> The October 1973 Ramadan War was an amazing military and political victory for Egypt that changed the political and military thinking of the entire region as well as introduced a major new school of thought in military matters. Egyptian military victory is still taught in multiple countries' military academies today, although Zionist propaganda as usual tries to label it a Zionist victory despite all the proof and facts on the ground which showed facts to the contrary.
> 
> The Zionists could not push either the 2nd Army or the 3rd Army one inch from the Sinai, as far as I can recall. All they could do was rely on American SR-71 Blackbird flights (which were detected by Egyptian radars) and maybe reconnaissance satellites for sneeking past the "Chinese Farms" during dark for propaganda purposes with very few soldiers and material that were smashed thoroughly, and this "breakthrough" was achieved by violating ceasefires.


3 Israeli armor divisions "sneaked" with Egyptian notice?  There were very bloody battles at Chinese Farms, which ended with IDF victory.



> Except propaganda, Zionists won nothing and that's why they left Sinai. If the usual excuse provided by them were to be true, why don't the Zionists hand over Al Quds/Jerusalem to Arabs?


Because Egypt made peace with Israel.

Let me show u some quotes:

The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself begging for Soviet help.

During the early hours of October 24, six Soviet airborne divisions were put on alert and Soviet Premier Brezhnev sent President Nixon what amounted to an ultimatum. Under pressure from the United States, Israel accepted another ceasefire from October 24. They could afford to: they had their bargaining counter. They refused to comply with United Nations Resolution 339 calling upon them to return to their October 22 lines. Of course. 

25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, nobody could come up with a realistic plan.

"My men and I are ready to die to open the road to the Third Army," Qabiyl (Brigadier of the 4th Armored division) said. "But I have to say I do not think we will succeed. And if our division is destroyed the road to Cairo will be wide open." 

To stay alive the Third Army needed rather over 150 tons of supplies a day. The vast column of soft-skinned vehicles needed to carry such quantitiies would simply be an added burden on the tank crews of 4th Division as they fought their way down the road. 

And after. On October 30, when the plight of Third Army was desperate, the Egyptian newspapers appeared with banner headlines: "Our forces are in complete control of the West Bank of the Canal between Deversoir and Suez Town" and: "The Third Army is Receiving Supplies in the Normal Fashion." The whole world was being told of the encirclement of Third Army except the wives, mothers, sisters and sweethearts of the men suffering out there. Of course, rumors began to circulate. It was a catastrophe too big to hide. 

I had lost almost 11 pounds in six weeks. But how could I relax while the 45,000 officers and men of Third Army were cut off?

You know who wrote it? A Zionist? - No, *Egyptian chief of staff *in that war. Amazing victory, indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## agentny17

500 said:


> 3 Israeli armor divisions "sneaked" with Egyptian notice?  There were very bloody battles at Chinese Farms, which ended with IDF victory.
> 
> 
> Because Egypt made peace with Israel.
> 
> Let me show u some quotes:
> 
> The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself begging for Soviet help.
> 
> During the early hours of October 24, six Soviet airborne divisions were put on alert and Soviet Premier Brezhnev sent President Nixon what amounted to an ultimatum. Under pressure from the United States, Israel accepted another ceasefire from October 24. They could afford to: they had their bargaining counter. They refused to comply with United Nations Resolution 339 calling upon them to return to their October 22 lines. Of course.
> 
> 25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, nobody could come up with a realistic plan.
> 
> "My men and I are ready to die to open the road to the Third Army," Qabiyl (Brigadier of the 4th Armored division) said. "But I have to say I do not think we will succeed. And if our division is destroyed the road to Cairo will be wide open."
> 
> To stay alive the Third Army needed rather over 150 tons of supplies a day. The vast column of soft-skinned vehicles needed to carry such quantitiies would simply be an added burden on the tank crews of 4th Division as they fought their way down the road.
> 
> And after. On October 30, when the plight of Third Army was desperate, the Egyptian newspapers appeared with banner headlines: "Our forces are in complete control of the West Bank of the Canal between Deversoir and Suez Town" and: "The Third Army is Receiving Supplies in the Normal Fashion." The whole world was being told of the encirclement of Third Army except the wives, mothers, sisters and sweethearts of the men suffering out there. Of course, rumors began to circulate. It was a catastrophe too big to hide.
> 
> I had lost almost 11 pounds in six weeks. But how could I relax while the 45,000 officers and men of Third Army were cut off?
> 
> You know who wrote it? A Zionist? - No, *Egyptian chief of staff *in that war. Amazing victory, indeed.



Did you even read his book ? He never claimed that you guys won the war. He is basically saying that Egypt could have achieved WAY more in the war, if Sadat didn't interfere..... Now read this, i am not going to quote and Egyptian or an Israeli a source, but i will quote Major Michael C. Jordan, United States Marine Corps:

The 1973 Arab-Israeli War ended with no clear decisive outcome on the battlefield. Militarily, the war was a stalemate, though on 24 October when the cease-fire took effect, Israel had seized the initiative, crossed the Suez Canal and maneuvered elements of three divisions on the west bank between the Egyptian Third Army, located primarily on the east bank, and Cairo. The Egyptians, however, clearly were not defeated, as was readily apparent by the significant casualties their forces inflicted on Adan's division in Suez City immediately prior to the cease-fire. Both sides suffered casualties and equipment destruction and supply consumption at rates neither could support, even with resupply from the superpowers. Time worked against the Israelis much more so than against the Arab side. Thus, whether the Israelis could have destroyed the Third Army in detail, as they claim, one may only speculate. 

What seems clear, however, is that the Arab grand strategy eventually proved successful in achieving most of thei Arab's strategic policy objectives. While as an immediate result of the war, Egypt recovered only a small portion of the territory seized by the Israelis in 1967, and the Syrians lost some territory, a clear shift in the political balance occurred in the Arab's, particularly Egypt's favor.

Just as the Arab alliance planned, the return to Middle East hostilities broke the political impasse, refocused world attention on the Arab question, and forced international negotiations concerning the occupied territories. These negotiations ultimately resulted in the return of the Suez Canal and land in the western Sinai to Egypt and more Golan Heights territory to Syria than it lost during the fighting. Further, the war shocked and embarrassed Israel internationally. The Arab's military successes, particularly the deception campaign resulting in strategic surprise, shattered the twin myths of Israeli invincibility and Arab incompetence. This restored Arab confidence and morale, a psychological victory for them, while conversely, Israel was downcast and very paranoid about its future
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Jordan.htm


----------



## Banglar Lathial

No need to use "big fonts" to write propaganda. 

1) Why could you not take Ismaelia or Suez cities?
2) Why could you not push 3rd or 2nd Army one inch from Sinai? 
3) Do you want to read everything Saad El Shazly wrote? 
4) Should we start quoting from Zionist ministers themselves? 

I think Egyptians can handle this topic better, but I can direct you to better sources of information to you than cheap propaganda that requires use of big fonts and red colour.

The Zionist propaganda machinery has fed so much unadulterated tripe to its gullible public that they can not fathom the concept that they were thoroughly trounced in warfare, on the ground. That's why they come up with silly excuses and propaganda operations. Should I quote what the Jewish Kissinger (American minister of foreign affairs/secretary of foreign affairs) said to Sadat if he were to liquidate all "Israeli" forces West of the Suez Canal? 

It is widely available information, so I would save the Zionist members here more blushes.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

No wonder the Arab leaders called this "war": Operation Spark (etincelle).
I personally think that without American intervention, or if it is neutralised, Israel can be overwhelmed by the Arabs in less than 24 ours.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Since an image is better than a thousand words:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

That is why "Israel" keeps the "Samson option" open, now Germany has gifted it with six dolphin submarines for "second strike" capability, and American publicly stated position is to maintain "Israeli" air superiority over all regional countries by any means at all times (which is what 400-450 freely gifted American planes+many more would come in time of actual war with a strong coalition actually manages to do). 

No doubt that conventionally Arab countries are far superior to "Israel" but that is where the "superiority" ends because there has not been any Arab unity of any use since many centuries perhaps. Even during 1973 Jordanian king supposedly flew to "Israel" to tell them about the upcoming war, and having multiple centres of command (one for Egypt, one for Syria, etc) and other Arab countries helping in with one or two squadrons of aircraft at most does not change the balance much in times of war. 

The Arab world has much potential indeed, but it needs to be realized, with a visionary leadership, with the correct ideology, with united effort to build and outdo the suppliers of "Israel". Besides, I fail to understand why a Jordanian member here (also many Jordanians and other Western allied Arab country nationals) do not have as much problem with "Israel" as with Iran, nor do they have any problems with America despite all its enormous crimes against Arabs and Muslims. 

For the Arab Muslims, the ranking for the greatest enemies should be: 
1)America/West ("Israel" is nothing in itself, and America/West is totally against Islam as it has proven in the last decade openly, so why do Arab public, not talking about sell out leaders but the public, think those kafir Westerners who dont know their parentage are the Muslim Arabs' allies?)
2)Iranian regime
3)others are less significant like Ethiopia for Egypt etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## agentny17

The SC said:


> No wonder the Arab leaders called this "war": Operation Spark (etincelle).
> I personally think that without American intervention, or if it is neutralised, Israel can be overwhelmed by the Arabs in less than 24 ours.


Given Israel population, economy, and the its enemies. Israel can NOT fight a long war, the country would collapse, same applies to the economy. America interfered to stop the war, and they did. The whole Egyptian plan by the Great General Shazly was to stay in the postions that Egypt occupied at the begining of the war for months, up to 6 months. Just in a defensive postion. Israel would have collapsed if that was the case. Imagine a country of 3 millios, with most of the population in the army, no factories working, no farming, no production what so ever ect. for 6 months.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Banglar Lathial said:


> No need to use "big fonts" to write propaganda.


Its quote of Egyptian chief of staff. 



> 1) Why could you not take Ismaelia or Suez cities?


We were outnumbered 1/2, so we surrounded Egyptians.



> 2) Why could you not push 3rd or 2nd Army one inch from Sinai?


Stop repeating nonsense. We did push 2nd army away from crossing and surrounded 3rd.



> 3) Do you want to read everything Saad El Shazly wrote?
> 4) Should we start quoting from Zionist ministers themselves?


Ahlan wasahlan. 

Here the facts you cant deny:

1) 3rd Egyptian army was surounded.
2) Egyptian army could not resque it.
3) Saddat was begging for cease fire.
4) Egyptian loses were several times bigger than Israeli.

Great victory indeed.



The SC said:


> No wonder the Arab leaders called this "war": Operation Spark (etincelle).
> I personally think that without American intervention, or if it is neutralised, Israel can be overwhelmed by the Arabs in less than 24 ours.


More fairy tales. US sent help to Israel only on 14 Oct, when Israeli forces returned Golan and were deep in Syrian territory. In Sinai large Egyptian offensive was crushed. USSR aid to Arabs started on 10 Oct and was bigger.


----------



## The SC

Or for example:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

I do not have time to respond to Zionist nonsense, hopefully, there are some Egyptian/Arab members here who can inform the general public of the truth. They claimed that American airlift to "Israel" was less than Soviet "airlift" to Arabs. There is no point writing more nonsense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Nobody denied that initially Egypt was in an advantageous position. An Egyptian spy played for an Israeli double agent in a very good way which allowed Egypt to go for pre-emptive strike. Israel would have been occupied by Egypt if not for American help.

However, by American help or otherwise, tide was turned at the end and Israel recaptured Sinai as well as some territories on the west side of Suez. Prior to the ceasefire, Israel had captured some territories in west side of Suez, Egypt had also captured some territories on the Sinai peninsula. In the end, it could be said that it was _status quo anti bellum._ (with Sinai belonging to Israel). However, considering the fact that Egypt's man and material loss was several times higher than Israel's and Israel captured the Suez canal, the military victory was for Israel, not Egypt.



Banglar Lathial said:


> That is why "Israel" keeps the "Samson option" open, now Germany has gifted it with six dolphin submarines for "second strike" capability, and American publicly stated position is to maintain "Israeli" air superiority over all regional countries by any means at all times (which is what 400-450 freely gifted American planes+many more would come in time of actual war with a strong coalition actually manages to do).
> 
> No doubt that conventionally Arab countries are far superior to "Israel" but that is where the "superiority" ends because there has not been any Arab unity of any use since many centuries perhaps. Even during 1973 Jordanian king supposedly flew to "Israel" to tell them about the upcoming war, and having multiple centres of command (one for Egypt, one for Syria, etc) and other Arab countries helping in with one or two squadrons of aircraft at most does not change the balance much in times of war.
> 
> The Arab world has much potential indeed, but it needs to be realized, with a visionary leadership, with the correct ideology, with united effort to build and outdo the suppliers of "Israel". Besides, I fail to understand why a Jordanian member here (also many Jordanians and other Western allied Arab country nationals) do not have as much problem with "Israel" as with Iran, nor do they have any problems with America despite all its enormous crimes against Arabs and Muslims.
> 
> For the Arab Muslims, the ranking for the greatest enemies should be:
> 1)America/West ("Israel" is nothing in itself, and America/West is totally against Islam as it has proven in the last decade openly, so why do Arab public, not talking about sell out leaders but the public, think those kafir Westerners who dont know their parentage are the Muslim Arabs' allies?)
> 2)Iranian regime
> 3)others are less significant like Ethiopia for Egypt etc.



At present, I'm afraid the status quo is highly in Israel's favour. Israel's highly advanced nuclear and biological program means it can wipe out all Arab countries if it wishes to, in a matter of hours. Dolphin submarines gives Israel a second-strike capability as well. Had it not been for the fear of the "islamic bomb", Greater Israel would have already been established. The process of taking out Pakistan's nukes is underway, and when it is completed, we will see the dramatic territorial expansion of Israel from Egypt to Iraq, with KSA, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria reduced in size or wiped out.

Compared to Egypt, Israel's air force is vastly superior. The major handicap of Egypt is that it has no BvR capability on its F 16s. These F 16s would be taken out by Israel by BvR and Egyptian F 16s won't even have the ability to lock on outside range. 

The recent NATO attack on Libya means Egypt would be attacked from *TWO* fronts now, from the east by Israel and from the West by NATO (from Libya), in addition to naval blockade in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, there is very little chance of Egypt surviving when Israel decides to initiate the great war.


----------



## agentny17

S-19 said:


> However, by American help or otherwise, tide was turned at the end and Israel recaptured Sinai as well as some territories on the west side of Suez. Prior to the ceasefire, Israel had captured some territories in west side of Suez, Egypt had also captured some territories on the Sinai peninsula. In the end, it could be said that it was _status quo anti bellum._ (with Sinai belonging to Israel). However, considering the fact that Egypt's man and material loss was several times higher than Israel's and Israel captured the Suez canal, the military victory was for Israel, not Egypt.


Egypt recaptured 194 KM accross the Suez Canal, 12-15 deep inside Sinai after 4 days of fighting. Egypt intial plan was completed after 4 days, until the end of the war they never gave back the land they retook from Israel. Also, israel could not capture any cities West of the Canal, and they got crushed at Suez and on their way to Isamelia. They did surround the Third army, but the Third army didn't surrender, or stop fighting. Also, these Israeli forces that surrounded the Third army was surrounded by Egyptian forces also. Their was no way they could have went forward toward any city in Egypt, not enough force. Plus at this time all the Arab help was starting to come to Egypt. Egypt didn't withdraw one man from the East side of the Canal toward the West side, and that was Sadat idea. Shazly wanted to take some forces from the East, and send it to the West to crush the Israeli forces instead of ending the war. That is what they disagreed on, and the reason Shazly thinks Egypt could have achieved more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Accounts vary, but according to official and widely endorsed account, Sinai was re-conquered by Israel during the time of ceasefire.

Little known is the fact that Israel contemplated the use of nuclear weapons at the worst point of the war in 1973.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

@500
I want an honest answer if you know and I will accept it.
Did king Hussien flow to Israel and inform them about the war time? if yes why? 
noting that Jordan participated effectively in the war against Israel.


----------



## agentny17

S-19 said:


> Accounts vary, but according to official and widely endorsed account, Sinai was re-conquered by Israel during the time of ceasefire.
> 
> Little known is the fact that Israel contemplated the use of nuclear weapons at the worst point of the war in 1973.


No, whole Siani was captured in 1967. Egypt captured 194 KM accross the Canal, 12 to 15 KM deep inside Sinai during the first 4 days of the war. Egypt didn't lose them till today. Everybody agrees on that, even all Israeli sources.



BLACKEAGLE said:


> @500
> I want an honest answer if you know and I will accept it.
> Did king Hussien flow to Israel and inform them about the war time? if yes why?
> noting that Jordan participated effectively in the war against Israel.


Egypt's former foreign minister Abu Elgeit denied such reports in an interview with Youm7 news agency about 2 or 3 years ago .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

agentny17 said:


> No, whole Siani was captured in 1967. Egypt captured 194 KM accross the Canal, 12 to 15 KM deep inside Sinai during the first 4 days of the war. Egypt didn't lose them till today. Everybody agrees on that, even all Israeli sources.


 
I was talking of the status at the time of ceasefire. It is true that whole Sinai was captured by Egypt at the beginning, but was re-conquered by Israel with 3rd army trapped, at the time of ceasefire.

Egypt regained Sinai through peace agreement, which is why I said *Political Victory* was achieved by Egypt.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

agentny17 said:


> No, whole Siani was captured in 1967. Egypt captured 194 KM accross the Canal, 12 to 15 KM deep inside Sinai during the first 4 days of the war. Egypt didn't lose them till today. Everybody agrees on that, even all Israeli sources.
> 
> 
> Egypt's former foreign minister Abu Elgeit denied such reports in an interview with Youm7 news agency about 2 or 3 years ago .


*LOVE YOU* 

Can you give me a source or a link?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## agentny17

S-19 said:


> I was talking of the status at the time of ceasefire. It is true that whole Sinai was captured by Egypt at the beginning, but was re-conquered by Israel with 3rd army trapped, at the time of ceasefire.
> 
> Egypt regained Sinai through peace agreement, which is why I said *Political Victory* was achieved by Egypt.


Egypt never recaptured whole Sinai during the war. It is impossible to do so with Israel huge advantage when it comes to their air force... At the time of the cease fire, Egypt had control over 194 KM across the Suez canal, 12 to 15 KM deep inside Sinai. Israel penetrated a 5KM gap between the Second and the Third and crossed the Canal and cut the support lines to the Third Army. They failed to enter Suez or Ismaelia and had huge losses trying to do so. The Third army didn't surrender or stop fighting thu. The Israeli forces in the West bank of the Canal was surrounded by Egyptian and Arab forces too. Right after the cease fire, the two parties had an agreement(first disengagement agreement) that would allow the the Israeli forces to go back to the Eastern side of the Canal. It also limited the presence of the Egyptian forces in Sinai, but didn't give up any lands that Egypt recaptured during the war. Also, i woulldn't call returning Sinai a political victory, since it left the Palestinians alone with the Israeli criminals. If Egypt was to have peace with Israel, they should have helped in securing peace for the Palestinians too. It was card that Egypt should have used more. I think Sadat should have been more patient. Now if we are honest, we can say that Egypt abondeded its historic role which was defending the regions countries, and fighting for Islamic cause.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

agentny17 said:


> Egypt never recaptured whole Sinai during the war. It is impossible to do so with Israel huge advantage when it comes to their air force... At the time of the cease fire, Egypt had control over 194 KM across the Suez canal, 12 to 15 KM deep inside Sinai. Israel penetrated a 5KM gap between the Second and the Third and crossed the Canal and cut the support lines to the Third Army. They failed to enter Suez or Ismaelia and had huge losses trying to do so. The Third army didn't surrender or stop fighting thu. The Israeli forces in the West bank of the Canal was surrounded by Egyptian and Arab forces too. Right after the cease fire, the two parties had an agreement(first disengagement agreement) that would allow the the Israeli forces to go back to the Eastern side of the Canal. It also limited the presence of the Egyptian forces in Sinai, but didn't give up any lands that Egypt recaptured during the war.



Yes, the thing is, Israel recognised that Egypt has the capability to give it a bloody nose through this war. That is why Sinai was given back to Egypt for peace, while Israel builds up its defence and military industry for the future war with Egypt and all Arabs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## agentny17

S-19 said:


> Yes, the thing is, Israel recognised that Egypt has the capability to give it a bloody nose through this war. That is why Sinai was given back to Egypt for peace, while Israel builds up its defence and military industry for the future war with Egypt and all Arabs.


I agree with you 100%

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## agentny17

BLACKEAGLE said:


> *LOVE YOU*
> 
> Can you give me a source or a link?


It was a TV which i can't find, but you can read the news here http://news.egypt.com/arabic/permalink/691062.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## agentny17

Moshe dayan before and after the war . Now i don't think anybody can even argue that Israel was going to give Egypt Sinai if it wasn't for Yom Kippur war. Hence we call it an Egyptian victory. He actually says that we don't want peace with Egypt, and we won't even give them their land for peace.




Here Golda Meir before the war saying that she won't give an inc of the lands they occupied in 1967.




Both changed their mind after Yom Kippur/October war because they won the war ??? Come on people, we are not that stupid!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

S-19 said:


> Israel would have been occupied by Egypt if not for American help.


For god's sake. Egyptians captured some 2% of Sinai if first day and did not make any gains since then. US aid started to arrive only 8 days later, and very little portion of it was unpacked and used during the war itself.



agentny17 said:


> Egypt recaptured 194 KM accross the Suez Canal, 12-15 deep inside Sinai after 4 days of fighting. Egypt intial plan was completed after 4 days, until the end of the war they never gave back the land they retook from Israel.


Egypt captured 1200 km2 in Sinai, while Israel captured 1600 km2 in Africa. More over, half teritory captured by Egypt was encyrcled and doomed to fail in days.



> They did surround the Third army, but the Third army didn't surrender, or stop fighting.


Because superpowers forced Israel to cease fire the same day enyrclemend was completed.


----------



## agentny17

500 said:


> Egypt captured 1200 km2 in Sinai, while Israel captured 1600 km2 in Africa. More over, half teritory captured by Egypt was encyrcled and doomed to fail in days.
> 
> 
> Because superpowers forced Israel to cease fire the same day enyrclemend was completed.


It is not even possible that the small portion of your army that crossed the Canal, and only could go South toward Suez and the behind the Third army can occupy 1600 Km2. The Land that Egypt recaptured had to be close to double what Israel captured hence your forces was only begind half of Egypts army.

Kissenger threatened Sadat the US would intervine if Egypt attacks the Israeli forces West of the Canal after Egypt got resupplies from the Arab world amd organizing their positions and withdrawing some forces from the Second army that wasn't engaged in any fighting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

agentny17 said:


> It is not even possible that the small portion of your army that crossed the Canal, and only could go South toward Suez and the behind the Third army can occupy 1600 Km2. The Land that Egypt recaptured had to be close to double what Israel captured hence your forces was only begind half of Egypts army.
> 
> Kissenger threatened Sadat the US would intervine if Egypt attacks the Israeli forces West of the Canal after Egypt got resupplies from the Arab world amd organizing their positions and withdrawing some forces from the Second army that wasn't engaged in any fighting.


Small portion?  Three Israeli armir divisions crossed the canal.


----------



## agentny17

500 said:


> Small portion?  Three Israeli armir divisions crossed the canal.


Come On, you are a smart man, you should know better... In the map you posted, the Israeli forces are spread far away from cities, they are just wondering in the desert, does that even make sense ??? The cities are by the Canal, it doesn't make sense to go in the desert were nobody is around you, and where its hard to move, and where you would be far from your supply lines.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

our plan was to make a foothold in sainai within our air defence range and force the isreals to attack us on land becouse we didnt have moble air defence and look at we have done 
1 the bar lev line which take more than 6 years to build we took it in 6 hours
2 the isreal counter attack which was a complete fail 
3 we know as long the battle goes you become weaker your econmy and the whole life in isreal stops imagne if we countinue the war for 2 mounth you will be broke 
4 the forces who croosed the suez canal couldnt take suez or ismailia 
5 the thierd army could have attacked anyway like i said we can take losses but you cant
6 after your heavy losses our commandos can strike even deeper in sainai or can reach tel aviv 
7 we had reserves do you know that every one enters the army 3 years at the time we could have called the older reserves 
8 about the chineese farm dont say you won again i saw a docmuntry made by isreals themselfs admitting there loss


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY




----------



## 500

agentny17 said:


> Come On, you are a smart man, you should know better... In the map you posted, the Israeli forces are spread far away from cities, they are just wondering in the desert, does that even make sense ??? The cities are by the Canal, it doesn't make sense to go in the desert were nobody is around you, and where its hard to move, and where you would be far from your supply lines.


When Israelis crossed canal there were two main objectives:

1) Encircle 3rd Egyptian army,
2) Destroy air defence batteries.

Both were achieved. I dont know why you talk about cities. Did you take any cities? Citizes had no any importance.

Encyrcled 3rd army gets supplies after the cease fire:
















Captured Egyptian SAMs:


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

500 said:


> When Israelis crossed canal there were two main objectives:
> 
> 1) Encircle 3rd Egyptian army,
> 2) Destroy air defence batteries.
> 
> Both were achieved. I dont know why you talk about cities. Did you take any cities? Citizes had no any importance.
> 
> Encyrcled 3rd army gets supplies after the cease fire:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Captured Egyptian SAMs:


do you know that you tryed to occupay 2 cites and failed ?
if you failed to take 2 small cites while half of the people have left them becouse of war what made you think you can achive anything 

about the 3rd army to sourrond the 3rd army you have spread your forces and if the situation continue like that all our artillary air force commandos would have attacked from all sides and dont forget you sourrounded the 3rd army but the force sourrounding the 3rd army was also sourronded 
and like i said we had reserves

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> do you know that you tryed to occupay 2 cites and failed ?
> if you failed to take 2 small cites while half of the people have left them becouse of war what made you think you can achive anything
> 
> about the 3rd army to sourrond the 3rd army you have spread your forces and if the situation continue like that all our artillary air force commandos would have attacked from all sides and dont forget you sourrounded the 3rd army but the force sourrounding the 3rd army was also sourronded
> and like i said we had reserves


Do you know the main rule of blitzcreig? - Attack, if you meet resistance, dont waste time just surround. Thats exactly what Israelis did.

I repeat, did you take any cities? 



> about the 3rd army to sourrond the 3rd army you have spread your forces and if the situation continue like that all our artillary air force commandos would have attacked from all sides and dont forget you sourrounded the 3rd army


3rd army was left in open desert without water, food, air defence. How long they would last like this?



> but the force sourrounding the 3rd army was also sourronded


wut?


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

> Do you know the main rule of blitzcreig? - Attack, if you meet resistance, dont waste time just surround. Thats exactly what Israelis did.
> 
> I repeat, did you take any cities?


our plan is to advance within the couver of our air defence 


> 3rd army was left in open desert without water, food, air defence. How long they would last like this?


they had ther weapons before they die of hunger they could have attacked anyway and to completly sourround them you have your forces in circle around them they could attacked one side elemente it and go back to suez if they attacked with all they have on one side 



> wut?







you were in our terretory we had the replacican guard units in cairo we had reserves and there was some forces in sudan we could call back


----------



## The SC

agentny17 said:


> Given Israel population, economy, and the its enemies. Israel can NOT fight a long war, the country would collapse, same applies to the economy. America interfered to stop the war, and they did. The whole Egyptian plan by the Great General Shazly was to stay in the postions that Egypt occupied at the begining of the war for months, up to 6 months. Just in a defensive postion. Israel would have collapsed if that was the case. Imagine a country of 3 millios, with most of the population in the army, no factories working, no farming, no production what so ever ect. for 6 months.




That is why Anouar Sadat was assassinated for, he betrayed the Original Army plan and struck a political deal with the US to save Israel. This war was full of deceit and betrayal, it looked like a zig saw to get the Sinai back in a way decided by politicians wearing the Uniform of the supreme command and sacrificing good soldiers with good faith in them on the terrain, for political gains, a game that should have been played much later and from a stronger position, since the capabilities og the egyptian army were proven in the the first 6 hours of the conflict by destroying the myth of the barlev line and the Israeli ego at the same time.
The army was betrayed and lost too many soldiers and material of war by the acceptance of the first cease fire, asked for by Israel and not respected by this same deceitful entity.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> our plan is to advance within the couver of our air defence
> they had ther weapons before they die of hunger they could have attacked anyway and to completly sourround them you have your forces in circle around them they could attacked one side elemente it and go back to suez if they attacked with all they have on one side


They could not attack. After catastrophe of 14 Oct attack and suicide attack against crossing with elite 25th brigade on 17 Oct they had not any attack strengths.



> you were in our terretory we had the replacican guard units in cairo we had reserves and there was some forces in sudan we could call back


Egypt could not do anything against 3 armor divisions.


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> They could not attack. After catastrophe of 14 Oct attack and suicide attack against crossing with elite 25th brigade on 17 Oct they had not any attack strengths.
> 
> 
> Egypt could not do anything against 3 armor divisions.




You seem to create your own facts. Egypt started the war with 800 000 soldiers, 3rd army 40 000 soldiers, read my lips!!!!!!
Go back to post #95, and also have a look at videos made by the Egyptians, they seem to be more honest than the others.
You are talking about the apparent truth on the terrain,while ignoring the hidden truths, this is why we are here in this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> You seem to create your own facts. Egypt started the war with 800 000 soldiers, 3rd army 40 000 soldiers, read my lips!!!!!!
> Go back to post #95, and also have a look at videos made by the Egyptians, they seem to be more honest than the others.
> You are talking about the apparent truth on the terrain,while ignoring the hidden truths, this is why we are here in this forum.


*All* Egyptian attacks against Israeli armor *miserably* failed:



> 8 Oct:
> Counter attack with 2 mech brigades from 2nd and 16th divisions. Repelled by Amir, Nir and Tuvia.
> 
> 9 Oct:
> Two batallions of 14th armor brigade attack. Repelled by two batallions of Tuvia.
> 
> 9-10 Oct:
> 5 massive infantry attacks of 2nd div with armor support. Repelled by Adan.
> 
> 11 Oct:
> Nir brigade destroys 15 T-62 tanks from 15th brigade that attacked his positions.
> 
> 13th Oct:
> Hagai battalion from Baram brigade stops 7th division's probe attack.
> 
> 14th Oct:
> 15th armor brigade attacks Balouza, defended by 204 Ram and 11 Peled mech brigades.
> 
> 24th amor brigade attacks Gonen armor brigade.
> 
> 1st and 14th armor brigades attack Tasa, defended by Erez and Reshef armor brigades.
> 
> 11th mech brigade attacks Giddi, defended by Baram armor brigade.
> 
> 3rd and 22nd armor brigades attack Mitla, defended by Dayan mech and Shomron armor brigades.
> 
> 250 Egyptian tanks destroyed, 6 destroyed from Israeli side.
> 
> 17th Oct:
> Amir Yoffe battalion from Gabi Amirs brigade stops offensive of 16th div.
> Nir brigade supported by Reshef's platoon destroys advancing 25th armor brigade.
> 
> 18th Oct:
> 23th armor brigade from strategic reserve attacks Adans forces on west bank. Brigade virtually destroyed.


----------



## The SC

You are talking about recon, not brigades and divisions, the were not formed yet by the 8th of october 1973.

Oops you jumped the 12th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

May be you telling the world that Israel could and still can win a war against Egypt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Banglar Lathial said:


> That is why "Israel" keeps the "Samson option" open, now Germany has gifted it with six dolphin submarines for "second strike" capability, and American publicly stated position is to maintain "Israeli" air superiority over all regional countries by any means at all times (which is what 400-450 freely gifted American planes+many more would come in time of actual war with a strong coalition actually manages to do).
> 
> No doubt that conventionally Arab countries are far superior to "Israel" but that is where the "superiority" ends because there has not been any Arab unity of any use since many centuries perhaps. Even during 1973 Jordanian king supposedly flew to "Israel" to tell them about the upcoming war, and having multiple centres of command (one for Egypt, one for Syria, etc) and other Arab countries helping in with one or two squadrons of aircraft at most does not change the balance much in times of war.
> 
> The Arab world has much potential indeed, but it needs to be realized, with a visionary leadership, with the correct ideology, with united effort to build and outdo the suppliers of "Israel". Besides, I fail to understand why a Jordanian member here (also many Jordanians and other Western allied Arab country nationals) do not have as much problem with "Israel" as with Iran, nor do they have any problems with America despite all its enormous crimes against Arabs and Muslims.
> 
> For the Arab Muslims, the ranking for the greatest enemies should be:
> 1)America/West ("Israel" is nothing in itself, and America/West is totally against Islam as it has proven in the last decade openly, so why do Arab public, not talking about sell out leaders but the public, think those kafir Westerners who dont know their parentage are the Muslim Arabs' allies?)
> 2)Iranian regime
> 3)others are less significant like Ethiopia for Egypt etc.



Samson ! you mean the US, is it as suicidal as Samson? let's say they have Massada option.

The rest of what you are saying is right, the Muslim Ummah is in the making, its potential is enormous and Muslims are aware of it, so they are working very hard to achieve their objectives of self reliance in all fields.
The problem with Jews (banou Israel) dates back to our prophet Mohammed and the Koran, they are known for killing prophets and saints, the proof is that they tried to kill Mohammed himself even though they knew and acknowledged his coming from their sacred books.
In Koran it goes back to the beginning of time, and why they were treated as bad people by every civilisation that saw the sun.
Besides all this, they play with religion so much it is appalling, try to read the Torah than the Gematrya than numerology and so many esoteric theories about black and white magic and in the End, God= devil since 666=666.
I do not wish their disappearance, but I wish they'll give up their false believes of superiority (God choose them above all other humans to carry his words of wisdom but they betrayed him many times and opted for gold witch is the financial markets of the world today as money was in gold before ) witch only shows their inferiority complex.There is no need of feeling inferior and projecting it as a superior feeling if you are honest. Honesty brings a serene feeling, a very good feeling indeed.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> You are talking about recon, not brigades and divisions, the were not formed yet by the 8th of october 1973.
> 
> Oops you jumped the 12th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On 14th Oct two Egyptian armies attacked Israeli forces. It ended with 250 destroyed tanks vs. 6 Israeli.

All Egyptian attacks against Israeli armor not simply failed, they failed miserably with huge loses from Egyptian side and minimal loses from Israeli.



> May be you telling the world that Israel could and still can win a war against Egypt.


Israel *did* win 4 wars with Egypt.



> they are known for killing prophets and saints


The truth is the opposite: Jews *produced* more prophets than all other combined.


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> On 14th Oct two Egyptian armies attacked Israeli forces. It ended with 250 destroyed tanks vs. 6 Israeli.
> 
> All Egyptian attacks against Israeli armor not simply failed, they failed miserably with huge loses from Egyptian side and minimal loses from Israeli.
> 
> 
> Israel *did* win 4 wars with Egypt.
> 
> 
> The truth is the opposite: Jews *produced* more prophets than all other combined.



You mean the Jews "produce" prophets not God, so prophet hood is "a product" of the Jews.
See, you can not help it, you think only in commercial terms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

What you call war , we call skirmishes , wait till you see war.

You needed American pilots and tank crew commanders and air-planes and tanks and every thing America could send in very huge quantities these are known facts.
The most important fact is what Golda Meier said during the what you call a war.
I will agree with you if you say the US instead of Israel in all your statements.
Otherwise you are lying.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> You mean the Jews "produce" prophets not God, so prophet hood is "a product" of the Jews.
> See, you can not help it, you think only in commercial terms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> What you call war , we call skirmishes , wait till you see war.
> 
> You needed American pilots and tank crew commanders and air-planes and tanks and every thing America could send in very huge quantities these are known facts.
> The most important fact is what Golda Meier said during the what you call as war.
> I will agree with if you say the US instead of Israel in all your statements.
> Otherwise you are lying.


Its funny to see ur frustration and lack of arguments. Theer were no any American pilots or tank crews in Israel. Again the opposite is truth. Here Soviet pilots and SAM crews in Egypt:

Pilots:




















SAM crews:


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> Its funny to see ur frustration and lack of arguments. Theer were no any American pilots or tank crews in Israel. Again the opposite is truth. Here Soviet pilots and SAM crews in Egypt:
> 
> Pilots:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SAM crews:




You forgot to say, before the skirmish, so you are lying again.
Only a fool will expect you to recognise that you had pilots and tank crews from the US, let alone to show their photos.


----------



## King Solomon

500 said:


> Its funny to see ur frustration and lack of arguments. Theer were no any American pilots or tank crews in Israel. Again the opposite is truth. Here Soviet pilots and SAM crews in Egypt:



Posting big big pictures do not convert a lie into a truth. And the truth is: Israel would have been wiped out in 1973 if US did not intervene.

If that conflict took place today, it would be a different matter altogether though.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> You forgot to say, before the skirmish, so you are lying again.
> Only a fool will expect you to recognise that you had pilots and tank crews from the US, let alone to show their photos.


USSR fought for Arabs.
USA never fought for Israel.

These are facts. I'm sorry that truth hurts u.



S-19 said:


> Posting big big pictures do not convert a lie into a truth. And the truth is: Israel would have been wiped out in 1973 if US did not intervene.
> 
> If that conflict took place today, it would be a different matter altogether though.


Repeating nonsense does not make it truth. Here are facts:

1) Arabs did not even plan to wipe Israel in that war, they only wanted to capture some territory.
2) US did noy intervene in that war.
3) US sent aid to Israel only on 14th Oct, when Israel was on offensive.
4) USSR sent aid to Arabs 4 days earlier and it was bigger.

Cheers.


----------



## The SC

Any proof of USSR sending aid to Egypt or the Arabs in 1973.
Indeed truth hurts you so much that you feel compelled to lie and mostly to have the last word in any conversation to sooth your illness.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

*Aid to Israel*
- During the night of October 8&#8211;9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple".

- Israel began receiving supplies via US Air Force cargo airplanes on October 14, although some equipment had arrived on planes from Israel's national airline El Al before this date. By that time, the IDF had advanced deep into Syria and was mounting a largely successful invasion of the Egyptian mainland from the Sinai, but had taken severe material losses.

- By the end of Nickel Grass, the United States had shipped 22,395 tons of matériel to Israel

- American C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy aircraft flew 567 missions throughout the airlift. El Al planes flew in an additional 5,500 tons of matériel in 170 flights

- The United States also delivered approximately 90,000 tons of matériel to Israel by sealift until the beginning of December, using 16 ships.

- By the beginning of December, Israel had received between 34 to 40 F-4 fighter-bombers, 46 A-4 attack airplanes, 12 C-130 cargo airplanes, 8 CH-53 helicopters, 40 unmanned aerial vehicles, 200 M-60/M-48A3 tanks, 250 armored personnel carriers, 226 utility vehicles, 12 MIM-72 Chaparral surface-to-air missile systems, 3 MIM-23 Hawk surface-to-air missile systems, 36 155 mm artillery pieces, 7 175 mm artillery pieces, large quantities of 105 mm, 155 mm and 175 mm ammunition, state of the art equipment, such as the AGM-65 Maverick missile and the BGM-71 TOW, weapons that had only entered production one or more years prior, as well as highly advanced electronic jamming equipment. Most of the combat airplanes arrived during the war, and many were taken directly from United States Air Force units. Most of the large equipment arrived after the ceasefire. The total cost of the equipment was approximately US$800 million (US$4.19 billion today)

- he speed and altitude were those of the US SR-71 Blackbird, a long-range strategic-reconnaissance aircraft. According to Egyptian commanders, the intelligence provided by both reconnaissance flights helped the Israelis prepare for the Egyptian attack on October 14 and assisted it in conducting Operation Stouthearted Men

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## King Solomon

500 said:


> Repeating nonsense does not make it truth. Here are facts:
> 
> 1) Arabs did not even plan to wipe Israel in that war, they only wanted to capture some territory.
> 2) US did noy intervene in that war.
> 3) US sent aid to Israel only on 14th Oct, when Israel was on offensive.
> 4) USSR sent aid to Arabs 4 days earlier and it was bigger.
> 
> Cheers.



Dear, if US did not intervene, you would not be able to select that flag with that 6-pointed star in the forum.  

Be grateful to your master for his previous help. Who knows what, you may need your master's help once again. Be a good dog so you can hope him to cover your back in the future.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

a claim disputed by Schiff, who stated that Soviet freighters loaded with tanks and other weapons reached Egyptian

On the Golan front, Syrian forces received direct support from Soviet technicians and military personnel. At the start of the war, there were an estimated 2,000 Soviet personnel in Syria, of whom 1,000 were serving in Syrian air defense units. Soviet technicians repaired damaged tanks, SAMs and radar equipment, assembled fighter jets that arrived via the sealift, and drove tanks supplied by the sealift from ports to Damascus. On both the Golan and Sinai fronts, Soviet military personnel retrieved abandoned Israeli military equipment for shipment to Moscow. Soviet advisors were reportedly present in Syrian command posts "at every echelon, from battalion up, including supreme headquarters". Some Soviet military personnel went into battle with the Syrians, and it was estimated that 20 were killed in action and more were wounded.



S-19 said:


> Dear, if US did not intervene, you would not be able to select that flag with that 6-pointed star in the forum.
> 
> Be grateful to your master for his previous help. Who knows what, you may need your master's help once again. Be a good dog so you can hope him to cover your back in the future.


Couldn't you be a man just once!


----------



## King Solomon

------------------------------------------------------


----------



## The SC

"IDF had advanced deep into Syria and was mounting a largely successful invasion of the Egyptian mainland from the Sinai, but had taken severe material losses."

This was a lie check the video for some truth.

Most of the US aid to Israel was mostly for replacing their huge and enormous losses even human.
They have asked the UNSC for a cease fire on the 13th of October merely a week since the hostilities began, Egypt nicely accepted, only to be betrayed the same day (at night) when the Israelis or I should say the helpful hands from the US attacked with all disrespect for international law, taking some Egyptian units by surprise.


The battle for Suez city- Egyptian victory - Yom Kippur defeat


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> Any proof of USSR sending aid to Egypt or the Arabs in 1973.
> Indeed truth hurts you so much that you feel compelled to lie and mostly to have the last word in any conversation to sooth your illness.


USSR aid to Arabs:

1) Started on 10th Oct
2) 15,000 tons by air
3) 63,000 tons by sea
*4) 78,000 tons total*

USA aid to Israel:

1) Started on 14th Oct
2) 22,400 tons air by USA
3) 11,000 tons by El Al
4) 33,000 tons by sea
*5) 66,400 tons total*

Truth hurts 



> The battle for Suez city- Egyptian victory - Yom Kippur defeat










http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-war-1973-egyptian-revenge-5.html#post2709106


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

The SC said:


> "IDF had advanced deep into Syria and was mounting a largely successful invasion of the Egyptian mainland from the Sinai, but had taken severe material losses."
> 
> This was a lie check the video for some truth.
> 
> Most of the US aid to Israel was mostly for replacing their huge and enormous losses even human.
> They have asked the UNSC for a cease fire on the 13th of October merely a week since the hostilities began, Egypt nicely accepted, only to be betrayed the same day (at night) when the Israelis or I should say the helpful hands from the US attacked with all disrespect for international law, taking some Egyptian units by surprise.
> 
> 
> The battle for Suez city- Egyptian victory - Yom Kippur defeat


My brother its 40 years ago, lets be realistic and logical. What Egyptian did was overwhelmingly impressive but let us put info from unbiased sources. The quot said that Israel attacks were successful and facts prove that, but got heavy losses though.


----------



## The SC

October the 14th 1973, complete Egyptian air superiority, Israel lost 90 fighter jets, Egypt none.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> USSR aid to Arabs:
> 
> 1) Started on 10th Oct
> 2) 15,000 tons by air
> 3) 63,000 tons by sea
> *4) 78,000 tons total*
> 
> USA aid to Israel:
> 
> 1) Started on 14th Oct
> 2) 22,400 tons air by USA
> 3) 11,000 tons by El Al
> 4) 33,000 tons by sea
> *5) 66,400 tons total*
> 
> Truth hurts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...-war-1973-egyptian-revenge-5.html#post2709106



-By the end of Nickel Grass, the United States had shipped 22,395 tons of matériel to Israel

- American C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy aircraft flew 567 missions throughout the airlift. El Al planes flew in an additional 5,500 tons of matériel in 170 flights

- The United States also delivered approximately 90,000 tons of matériel to Israel by sealift until the beginning of December, using 16 ships.

= *118,000 Tons*

_*VS*_

- Starting on October 9, the Soviet Union began supplying Egypt and Syria by air and by sea. The Soviets airlifted 12,500&#8211;15,000 tons of supplies, of which 6,000 tons went to Egypt, 3,750 tons went to Syria and 575 tons went to Iraq.

- The Soviets supplied another 63,000 tons, mainly to Syria, by means of a sealift by _*October 30*_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

The SC said:


> October the 14th 1973, complete Egyptian air superiority, Israel lost 90 fighter jets, Egypt none.


Love TU-16 
TU-16 carrying mig-21


----------



## The SC

Here is a shocking video about the Ramadan War 1973:
This is the movie, "The bullet is still in my pocket" A real story with real footage:

&#x202b;

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

500 said:


> USSR fought for Arabs.
> USA never fought for Israel.
> 
> These are facts. I'm sorry that truth hurts u.
> 
> 
> Repeating nonsense does not make it truth. Here are facts:
> 
> 1) Arabs did not even plan to wipe Israel in that war, they only wanted to capture some territory.
> 2) US did noy intervene in that war.
> 3) US sent aid to Israel only on 14th Oct, when Israel was on offensive.
> 4) USSR sent aid to Arabs 4 days earlier and it was bigger.
> 
> Cheers.


Let me put it this way without the traitor of Arabs leader trust me there will be no Israel this is a big game mate, now about military actions if you think about it you will see some arabs moves that is totally suspicious like the offensive that made by sadat towards the straits of Sina and the move of tanks brigades to the west bank, he made all of that despite the objections of his generals those only two of more of thing happened make every one asks why.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Malik Alashter said:


> Let me put it this way without the traitor of Arabs leader trust me there will be no Israel this is a big game mate, now about military actions if you think about it you will see some arabs moves that is totally suspicious like the offensive that made by sadat towards the straits of Sina and the move of tanks brigades to the west bank, he made all of that despite the objections of his generals those only two of more of thing happened make every one asks why.


Sadat moved third army (I guess) to the west to keep it for emergency situation. He thought USA would intervene directly with Israel. Noting that he was very suspicious from USA navies build up near Egyptian waters. So he was keen to keep reserve forces for unexpected scenarios. But Alshathly strongly opposed this. Nevertheless, it seems that Alshathli's view was the right one though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

BLACKEAGLE said:


> Sadat moved third army (I guess) to the west to keep it for emergency situation. He thought USA would intervene directly with Israel. Noting that he was very suspicious from USA navies build up near Egyptian waters. So he was keen to keep reserve forces for unexpected scenarios. But Alshathly strongly opposed this. Nevertheless, it seems that Alshathli's view was the right one though.


how about his order to occupy the straits without the coverage of the air defense how can someone solve it.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Malik Alashter said:


> how about his order to occupy the straits without the coverage of the air defense how can someone solve it.


Air deffene systems were already covering the strait until Israeli Army got into west bank with tanks and destroyed some of Egyptian sam-2+3+6 which made a gap in the coverage, that allowed IAF to strike egyptian land forces. IAF wouldn't dare to attack Egyptians if the air defense systems weren't got destroyed.


----------



## nwmalik

But dont forget
egypt was fighting both USA and Israel, victory was not possible 
you were able to get early gains until uncle Sam joined the war fully.
Still egypt did well in the war.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

nwmalik said:


> But dont forget
> egypt was fighting both USA and Israel, victory was not possible
> you were able to get early gains until uncle Sam joined the war fully.
> Still egypt did well in the war.


All of us are proud of them.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> October the 14th 1973, complete Egyptian air superiority, Israel lost 90 fighter jets, Egypt none.


Next time you invent stories, make them at least a bit relable, not complete joke. 

Israeli Air-to-Air Victories in 1973



nwmalik said:


> But dont forget
> egypt was fighting both USA and Israel, victory was not possible
> you were able to get early gains until uncle Sam joined the war fully.
> Still egypt did well in the war.


There was no any USA. Tiny Israel was fighting alone against Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco...


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Next time you invent stories, make them at least a bit relable, not complete joke.
> 
> Israeli Air-to-Air Victories in 1973
> 
> 
> There was no any USA. Tiny Israel was fighting alone against Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco...


Actually 102 Israeli jets were shot down in the whole war not 90. I hope you get your info from unbiased sources. If I get my info from Arabic Wiki, it would be a totally different story.
Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[URL="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf"]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf[/URL]


----------



## Banglar Lathial

S-19 said:


> Nobody denied that initially Egypt was in an advantageous position. An Egyptian spy played for an Israeli double agent in a very good way which allowed Egypt to go for pre-emptive strike. Israel would have been occupied by Egypt if not for American help.
> 
> However, by American help or otherwise, tide was turned at the end and Israel recaptured Sinai as well as some territories on the west side of Suez. Prior to the ceasefire, Israel had captured some territories in west side of Suez, Egypt had also captured some territories on the Sinai peninsula. In the end, it could be said that it was _status quo anti bellum._ (with Sinai belonging to Israel). However, considering the fact that Egypt's man and material loss was several times higher than Israel's and Israel captured the Suez canal, the military victory was for Israel, not Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> At present, I'm afraid the status quo is highly in Israel's favour. Israel's highly advanced nuclear and biological program means it can wipe out all Arab countries if it wishes to, in a matter of hours. Dolphin submarines gives Israel a second-strike capability as well. Had it not been for the fear of the "islamic bomb", Greater Israel would have already been established. The process of taking out Pakistan's nukes is underway, and when it is completed, we will see the dramatic territorial expansion of Israel from Egypt to Iraq, with KSA, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria reduced in size or wiped out.
> 
> Compared to Egypt, Israel's air force is vastly superior. The major handicap of Egypt is that it has no BvR capability on its F 16s. These F 16s would be taken out by Israel by BvR and Egyptian F 16s won't even have the ability to lock on outside range.
> 
> The recent NATO attack on Libya means Egypt would be attacked from *TWO* fronts now, from the east by Israel and from the West by NATO (from Libya), in addition to naval blockade in the Mediterranean. Unfortunately, there is very little chance of Egypt surviving when Israel decides to initiate the great war.




Most of the information you provided is wrong and the rest of your prognosis regarding the future is likely to be wrong as well but the future is always uncertain and only Allah (SWT) knows best what the future holds. If you think it's Pakistani nuclear bombs that is holding "Israel" back, you are sadly mistaken, though. One threat from America forced Pakistan to allow Americans and NATO to invade and kill Afghans by the millions, possibly, and cause unspeakable damage which continues to this day. Drone attacks continues, Pakistani air defence is pretty much non-existent so American helicopters can sneak in any time, and they killed 24 or so Pakistani soldiers openly without any repercussion. 

At least Iranian gov't and North Korean gov't openly say that Americans are evil and that Americans should leave Afghanistan immediately (read any Iranian gov't newspaper or North Korean gov't newspaper to find out those govt viewpoints). Pakistan is not even strong enough to say that openly, how can you say that "Israel" is holding back because of Pakistan? What is the basis for this highly illogical claim? 

In reality, "Israel"s supplier, donor, cash-cow America itself is not strong enough to eliminate the entire Arab world and Middle Eastern militaries alone, by conventional warfare alone at once. The Arab world's major problems are internal lack of unity, lack of Islamic belief (all Arab wars against "Israel" or even by Saddam Hussein against America were led by secular regimes that in fact suppressed and worked against all sorts of genuine Islamic movements, for example). Saudi kingdom itself supports the devil Americans' dollar, or currency, as the benchmark for setting SR exchange rate (same as other Gulf Arab countries except Kuwait). All these Arab rulers are aligned with Americans because they are not Islamic at all, nor are their regimes. Their support of American dollar is one of the major reasons that American dollar maintains its position as the "reserve currency" even though there is no logical basis for such a distinction. 

All those factors are not closely related to the Egyptian massive victory in the 1973 Ramadan or October war. You are wrong that "Israel" re-occupied Sinai in 1973, they could not move either the Egyptian 2nd or the 3rd Army one inch from the areas captured by Egyptians since 6th of October, 1973 in Sinai. 

Their propaganda stunts about moving few military assets west of the canal were simply propaganda. It's like claiming Bangladeshis have surrounded all Western capitals (including Washington DC, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, etc) and are about to capture them any moment now because there are a few thousand (or more) Bangladeshis in each of those capitals at the moment! The first and most basic requirement to continue any conventional war for any sustained period of time is to maintain supplies (of all sorts), which is maintained via supply lines. 

For the same reason that Bangladesh (or any other country) can not claim that all Western capitals are about to be captured by Bangladeshi (or some other nations) but those Western nations are spared by the good will of the Bangladeshis (or other nations), "Israeli" propaganda stunt about cutting of Egyptian 3rd army is propaganda and nothing more. 

Some Zionist quoted Saad El Shazly but Saad El Shazly also says Egypt won the war. Any extended war is bound to contain so many events that lengthy discussions, expositions, explanations become necessary, I have no time or intention of going that route, which is why I avoid it, but if there are any knowledgeable Egyptian/Arab/Muslim/other member on this matter, they can show you lots of videos (not "recreated" videos but actual ones during the war), pictures, maps, charts, and quote from actual commanders on the ground regarding the exact locations, nature of attacks and counterattacks etc etc. 

If you eliminate Zionist propaganda from Zionist veterans' narratives (like Ariel Sharon the criminal's narratives), you can understand easily that Zionists were terribly defeated in that war which is why they not only gave up Sinai but Americans were up in arms, why American resupplied them so much and still could not turn the tide of the war that the Jewish Kissinger warned Anwar Sadat that liquidating the few propaganda stuntsmen from "Israel" west of the Suez Canal would make Americans intervene directly with troops and so on. American "equipment" lost once already, and Americans "could not allow" the same experience of defeat against Soviet weapons to happen again. Egypt was in quite a politically inconvenient position because only a few months (or maybe a year) back, Sadat had expelled all Soviet advisers, so the Soviets were never as forthcoming on their political aid to Egypt (like threatening to call any American "bluffs", if any, for example). 

You need to read lots and lots of books, and volumes could be written about 1973 or any other war for that matter. One of the "first casualties" of any war is the "truth", so if you take all your information from Western/Zionist media and propaganda sources, you are going to be misled.


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> Actually 102 Israeli jets were shot down in the whole war not 90. I hope you get your info from unbiased sources. If I get my info from Arabic Wiki, it would be a totally different story.
> Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> [URL="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf"]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf[/URL]


Thats true, but virtually all of them were shot down by SAMs.

Egypt lost 235 jets and Syria - 135, virtually all of them in air combat.


----------



## 500

Banglar Lathial said:


> Egyptian massive victory in the 1973 Ramadan or October war.


*Facepalm* Commander of Egyptian army admits defeat, but you still call it a great victory. What a joke.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

BLACKEAGLE said:


> Actually 102 Israeli jets were shot down in the whole war not 90. I hope you get your info from unbiased sources. If I get my info from Arabic Wiki, it would be a totally different story.
> Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> [URL="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf"]http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB98/octwar-56.pdf[/URL]



I do not believe the Zionist propaganda that only 102 "Israeli" jets were shot down in 1973. Just like there is no reason to believe American gov't provided casualty figures in their illegal terroristic invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, or the African Union official casualty figures in Somalia, as another example. There is actually a lot of proof that totally falsifies all those bogus American and African Union "official casualty figures", and the same way, you can understand that the Zionists actually lost a lot more soldiers and equipment. 

Their official number of casualties was 2000 or 2200 (something like that), but Ariel Sharon the criminal himself admits that he was so scared and struck by Egyptian soldiers and that on one night alone, Sharon's brigade (if I remember correctly) lost more than 300 soldiers and more than 1000 others were wounded. Imagine, that on one night alone, and only from Sharon's brigade, if 300+ soldiers are killed and more than 1000 wounded, how many Zionists were killed during the entire war across all sectors and on both fronts? 

Usually, "modern" Western/Zionist official casualty figures need to be multiplied by 10 to 12 times, to arrive at a safe estimate of the actual number of casualties. 

Another clue. If "Israel" actually lost only 102 aircrafts on both fronts during the entire war, do you think they would have needed American resupplies (of aircrafts) as early as 14th of October, 1973 or earlier when most "Israeli" leaders including Moshe Dayan (I still find his facial expressions at the time of that war very funny, because they were so afraid and shocked) were in disbelief at the swift Egyptian and Syrian/other combined thrust?



500 said:


> *Facepalm* Commander of Egyptian army admits defeat, but you still call it a great victory. What a joke.



Are you talking of Zionists? Saad El Din Shazly said it was a massive Egyptian victory and critized Sadat for not liquidating the Zionost propaganda stuntsment west of the canal which Egypt could easily do to make the Egyptian triumph more emphatic. Sadat did not take that route because Jewish Kissinger warned that Americans weapons lost against Soviet weapons in "modern times" once already and America "can not allow" that to happen again. 

Let me find Saad El Din Shazly's quote that Egypt won.

Here (an American website, from a country that has always been a good servant of Zionism). 
Saad El-Shazly




> "*It was a victory, the most outstanding feat of Arab armies in modern times."*
> The Economist
> 
> 
> *This brilliant military victory,* was turned into a political defeat, when Egypt was removed from the camp of resistance, to Israeli occupation of Arab lands to the camp of appeasement.




Saad El Din Shazly criticizes Sadat's decision to make peace with "Israel" (which most Egyptians, Arabs and Muslims also criticize and those that support the agreement also said it was never a genuine peace but only a "cold peace"/temporary stoppage in war for Egyptians and Arabs to strengthen their economy etc). 

Thank you.


----------



## 500

> Saad El Din Shazly said it was a massive Egyptian victory and critized Sadat for not liquidating the Zionost propaganda stuntsment west of the canal which Egypt could easily do to make the Egyptian triumph more emphatic.


Seems you really believe in fairy tales you invent. Here what Shazly really wrote:



> 25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, *nobody could come up with a realistic plan.
> 
> ...the plight of Third Army was desperate... It was a catastrophe*


Super great victory, indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Banglar Lathial said:


> I do not believe the Zionist propaganda that only 102 "Israeli" jets were shot down in 1973. Just like there is no reason to believe American gov't provided casualty figures in their illegal terroristic invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, or the African Union official casualty figures in Somalia, as another example. There is actually a lot of proof that totally falsifies all those bogus American and African Union "official casualty figures", and the same way, you can understand that the Zionists actually lost a lot more soldiers and equipment.
> 
> Their official number of casualties was 2000 or 2200 (something like that), but Ariel Sharon the criminal himself admits that he was so scared and struck by Egyptian soldiers and that on one night alone, Sharon's brigade (if I remember correctly) lost more than 300 soldiers and more than 1000 others were wounded. Imagine, that on one night alone, and only from Sharon's brigade, if 300+ soldiers are killed and more than 1000 wounded, how many Zionists were killed during the entire war across all sectors and on both fronts?
> 
> Usually, "modern" Western/Zionist official casualty figures need to be multiplied by 10 to 12 times, to arrive at a safe estimate of the actual number of casualties.
> 
> Another clue. If "Israel" actually lost only 102 aircrafts on both fronts during the entire war, do you think they would have needed American resupplies (of aircrafts) as early as 14th of October, 1973 or earlier when most "Israeli" leaders including Moshe Dayan (I still find his facial expressions at the time of that war very funny, because they were so afraid and shocked) were in disbelief at the swift Egyptian and Syrian/other combined thrust?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking of Zionists? Saad El Din Shazly said it was a massive Egyptian victory and critized Sadat for not liquidating the Zionost propaganda stuntsment west of the canal which Egypt could easily do to make the Egyptian triumph more emphatic. Sadat did not take that route because Jewish Kissinger warned that Americans weapons lost against Soviet weapons in "modern times" once already and America "can not allow" that to happen again.
> 
> Let me find Saad El Din Shazly's quote that Egypt won.


So, where should people get the true story? Both sides exagerate, and even Syria annually celebrates 1973 "victory" although it was a very clear defeat to Syrian Army. I believe that neither Egypt nor Israel were defeated in that war in fighting terms but wars get measured by achieving its goals and Egypt got what they want while Israel got nothing but lost Sinai.


----------



## Farhad Hassan

nwmalik said:


> But dont forget
> egypt was fighting both USA and Israel, victory was not possible
> you were able to get early gains until uncle Sam joined the war fully.
> Still egypt did well in the war.



Umm my dear proud Muslims, Egypt AND Russia were fighting Israel AND USA, if you want to take it like that.


----------



## Farhad Hassan

And guys seriously, Arabs lost that war BADLY, and I must say they deserved it. I have read Israeli history. I know what Jews have done in last 60 or so years wasn't so good as well. They diverted even from the real Zionist goal. Which was actually a secular idea. But oh well Muslims deserved when they ruled and they lost it when they deserved it no longer. It was justice imho. Otherwise there was the time of Umar ibn al khattab and Saladin when they conquered Jerusalem WITH the help of Jews against Christians. And it was during time that there was actual piece in the Israel with all communities living peacefully and WHEN the Muslims started prosecuting the Jews and Christians there (I am not saying what the Crusaders did was right, it was even worse) that was the time Muslims should have and actually did lose Jerusalem.


----------



## Major Shaitan Singh

IF US supplied Weapons to Israeli the Soviet too supplied weapon too.... but the Egyptian choose wrong person to trust.... I heard that Russian Pilot flew MiG for Egyptian, they could have gained more.


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> So, where should people get the true story? Both sides exagerate, and even Syria annually celebrates 1973 "victory" although it was a very clear defeat to Syrian Army. I believe that neither Egypt nor Israel were defeated in that war in fighting terms but wars get measured by achieving its goals and Egypt got what they want while Israel got nothing but lost Sinai.


Egypt got Sinai because it signed peace with Israel.
Syria did not get Golan because it did not sign peace with Israel.

Very simple. 



Banglar Lathial said:


> Usually, "modern" Western/Zionist official casualty figures need to be multiplied by 10 to 12 times, to arrive at a safe estimate of the actual number of casualties.


I can name u every single Israeli soldier died in war. One by one.

2,222 Israeli soldiers died (including crashes, friendly fire, died from injuries etc) from 6 oct to 24 oct 1973. Another 305 soldiers died from 24 Oct 1973 to 12th February 1974.
Arab loses no one knows exactly, but somewhere over 10,000.

POWs:
293 Israelis.
8,372 Egyptians, 392 Syrians, 13 Iraqis and 6 Moroccans.

Captured territory:
Israel from Egypt - 1600 km2
Israel from Syria - 500 km2
Egypt - 1200 km2 (nearly half of it in encyrcled 3rd army)
Syria - 0 km2

Destroyed tanks:
460 Israeli
2,250 Arab

Ships:
0 Israeli
19 Arab, including 10 missile.

Jets:
102 Israeli
370 Arab

Helicopters:
5 Israeli
55 Arab

SAM batteries:
1 Israeli
47 Arab


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

500 said:


> Seems you really believe in fairy tales you invent. Here what Shazly really wrote:
> 
> 25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, nobody could come up with a realistic plan.
> 
> ...the plight of Third Army was desperate... It was a catastrophe
> Super great victory, indeed.


 i have said it ten times we can take losses but you cant it is true the 3 rd army was sourrounded but they could attack with all they have in one front and break the siege or at least finish half of the army sourronding them and belive me you dont want a long war with us you will loss in the end


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

> Egypt could not do anything against 3 armor divisions.


we have destroyed a much larger army what is so speachial about 3 armored divisions ? and isnt that what you said about bar liev line and we need the engineers of usa and ussr to cross the line and we brought down with water 


> Thats true, but virtually all of them were shot down by SAMs.
> 
> Egypt lost 235 jets and Syria - 135, virtually all of them in air combat.


so the jets shot by sam dont count ?


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Egypt got Sinai because it signed peace with Israel.
> Syria did not get Golan because it did not sign peace with Israel.
> 
> Very simple.
> 
> I can name u every single Israeli soldier died in war. One by one.
> 
> 2,222 Israeli soldiers died (including crashes, friendly fire, died from injuries etc) from 6 oct to 24 oct 1973. Another 305 soldiers died from 24 Oct 1973 to 12th February 1974.
> Arab loses no one knows exactly, but somewhere over 10,000.
> 
> POWs:
> 293 Israelis.
> 8,372 Egyptians, 392 Syrians, 13 Iraqis and 6 Moroccans.
> 
> Captured territory:
> Israel from Egypt - 1600 km2
> Israel from Syria - 500 km2
> Egypt - 1200 km2 (nearly half of it in encyrcled 3rd army)
> Syria - 0 km2
> 
> Destroyed tanks:
> 460 Israeli
> 2,250 Arab
> 
> Ships:
> 0 Israeli
> 19 Arab, including 10 missile.
> 
> Jets:
> 102 Israeli
> 370 Arab
> 
> Helicopters:
> 5 Israeli
> 55 Arab
> 
> SAM batteries:
> 1 Israeli
> 47 Arab



Plz put sources. I hope our Egyptian brothers clarify things up. I have read about the war, but they know better than me.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

500 said:


> Seems you really believe in fairy tales you invent. Here what Shazly really wrote:
> 
> 
> Super great victory, indeed.




From Saad El Shazly's WEBSITE:

Saad El-Shazly




> "It was a victory, the most outstanding feat of Arab armies in modern times."
> The Economist
> 
> 
> *This brilliant military victory*, was turned into a political defeat, when Egypt was removed from the camp of resistance, to Israeli occupation of Arab lands to the camp of appeasement.





*This brilliant military victory*

Repeat:
*This brilliant military victory*

Repeat:
*This brilliant military victory*


Says who?

Visit Saad El Din Shazly's website
Saad El-Shazly

You are so deluded by Zionist propaganda machinery you can not accept that you were terribly defeated. Here is what American military academies learn from Egyptians (and they considered this material "classified" I guess for a long time until it was declassified because the shame of Zionist defeat was so long ago they thought there would be very few people left to unveil Zionist propaganda)

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391166&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

*Go straight to the October War section of this PDF file* 

Even your "allies" Americans study how Egyptians defeated Zionists but they are too afraid to admit it as a defeat so they study Egyptian tactics in their military academies, but qualify all historical truths with the "disclaimer" that Americans do not necessarily agree with them (but they needed to hide this information from the public for so long for what reason exactly then?)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Banglar Lathial

500 said:


> Egypt got Sinai because it signed peace with Israel.
> Syria did not get Golan because it did not sign peace with Israel.
> 
> Very simple.



Jordan signed peace deal with "Israel" but did not get Al Quds/Jerusalem back. Egyptians kicked out Zionists. Not one inch could be taken from land captured by 2nd and 3rd armies in Sinai.



> I can name u every single Israeli soldier died in war. One by one.



What about those deaths you will be hiding?



> 2,222 Israeli soldiers died (including crashes, friendly fire, died from injuries etc) from 6 oct to 24 oct 1973. Another 305 soldiers died from 24 Oct 1973 to 12th February 1974.
> Arab loses no one knows exactly, but somewhere over 10,000.
> 
> POWs:
> 293 Israelis.
> 8,372 Egyptians, 392 Syrians, 13 Iraqis and 6 Moroccans.
> 
> Captured territory:
> Israel from Egypt - 1600 km2
> Israel from Syria - 500 km2
> Egypt - 1200 km2 (nearly half of it in encyrcled 3rd army)
> Syria - 0 km2
> 
> Destroyed tanks:
> 460 Israeli
> 2,250 Arab
> 
> Ships:
> 0 Israeli
> 19 Arab, including 10 missile.
> 
> Jets:
> 102 Israeli
> 370 Arab
> 
> Helicopters:
> 5 Israeli
> 55 Arab
> 
> SAM batteries:
> 1 Israeli
> 47 Arab



You have any shame left? How can you (Zionists) LIE so blatantly? Only 460 "Israeli" tanks destroyed in 1973? 460 "Israeli" tanks were destroyed by Egypt in less than one week. Yes, in less than one week. Read Kissinger the Jews comments. Even he could not understand how the Americans can help "Israel" because it kept losing. 

The October War and U.S. Policy


> Document 21B: Memcon between Dinitz and Kissinger, *9 October 1973*, 6:10-6:35 p.m.
> Source: RG 59, SN 70-73, Pol Isr-US
> Early in the morning of 9 October, Kissinger received a call from Dinitz that Israeli forces were in a more "difficult" position. A counter-offensive launched the previous day had failed with major losses. At 8:20, the two met for a more detailed conversation, with a chagrined *Dinitz acknowledging that the Israelis had lost over 400 tanks to the Egyptians and 100 to the Syrians*. Egyptian armor and surface-to-air missiles were taking their toll in the air and ground battle and the Israeli cabinet had decided that it had to "get all equipment and planes by air that we can." Kissinger, who had assumed that Tel Aviv could recapture territory without major infusions of aid, was perplexed by the bad news--*"Explain to me, how could 400 tanks be lost to the Egyptians?*"--and the diplomatic implications of substantial U.S. wartime military aid was troublesome. *As indicated on the record of the 8:20 a.m. meeting, Dinitz and Kissinger met privately, without a notetaker, to discuss Golda Meir's request for a secret meeting with Nixon to plea for military aid,* a proposal that Kissinger quickly dismissed because it would strengthen Moscow's influence in the Arab world. To underline the urgency of the situation, Dinitz may have introduced an element of nuclear blackmail into the private discussion. While Golda Meir had rejected military advice for nuclear weapons use, *she had ordered the arming and alerting of Jericho missiles--their principal nuclear delivery system*--at least to influence Washington



On 9th of October 1973, Dinitz admitted to Kissinger that you lost more than 400 tanks to Egyptians and more than 100 tanks to Syrians. On 9th of October!

In the entire war, you probably lost 1500 tanks or more.


----------



## 500

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
The difference between me and you is that I talk about *facts*, you only say its suped duper victory because its super duper victory 

Here *facts*, from Egyptian commander:



> Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, *now found himself begging for Soviet help*.
> 
> 25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, *nobody could come up with a realistic plan.*
> 
> *...the plight of Third Army was desperate... It was a catastrophe*



These are facts:

1) Saddat begs superpowers for help.
2) 3rd army encircled in desperate condition.
3) Egypt cant do anything to resque them.

You call it a great victory? Welcome. Wish you more victories like that.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

It was easy to prove your Zionist "government" propaganda false regarding your destroyed tanks. Then there is no need to disprove any of your other bogus numbers unless you want to see Moshe Dayan's frightened look or Sharon's video admitting that more than 300 of his soldiers were killed and more than 1000 wounded on ONE night by Egyptians alone. 

Just one night, Egyptians killed more than 300 of Sharon's soldiers (not including other brigades and divisions etc), so you still want to spread this Zionist propaganda about your casualties?


----------



## user1

In the end, the Winner (Israel) handed over Sinai back to Egypt. The patron of Israel, United States started giving huge amounts of economic and military assistance to the losing nation Egypt and to save the Egyptians from Israel's wrath in the future, US provided largest share personnel in Multinational Force and Observers (MFO).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

All your propaganda has been "busted", Zionist. Show us some facts. Some videos of Sharon encircling 3rd Army or whatever you have. This was Sharon during the war. You call it victory?


----------



## user1

user1 said:


> In the end, the Winner (Israel) handed over Sinai back to Egypt. The patron of Israel, United States started giving huge amounts of economic and military assistance to the losing nation Egypt and to save the Egyptians from Israel's wrath in the future, US provided largest share personnel in Multinational Force and Observers (MFO).



For the first time in history, the losing side is extracting the ransom

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> we have destroyed a much larger army what is so speachial about 3 armored divisions ?


You never destroyed. All your attacks against Iraeli armor miserably failed. 3rd army conducted 2 



> so the jets shot by sam dont count ?


I did count everything.



Banglar Lathial said:


> JOn 9th of October 1973, Dinitz admitted to Kissinger that you lost more than 400 tanks to Egyptians and more than 100 tanks to Syrians. On 9th of October!


Israel restored most of the tanks. Most during the war itself.

And Israel suffered biggest loses in two periods:

1) 6-8 Oct. Repelling massive Syrian attack and Israeli counter attacks on Egyptians (7th, 188th brigades, Magen and Adan divisions suffered very heavy casualties).
2) 16 Oct. Chinese farm battles (Sharon division suffered very heavy casualties).


----------



## agentny17

Banglar Lathial, bro. give it a rest, this guy prob. gets paid to defend Israel on the Internet. No need to waste your time with him. We know as an Ummah what we achieved, and what we failed to achieve. Hope we can learn from our mistakes, and celebrate our success. We don't need to worry about his kind. I am sure in his mind he considers all Muslims to be terrorists. It is prob. something he shares with his whole nation, we should not worry about them or what they think.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

user1 said:


> In the end, the Winner (Israel) handed over Sinai back to Egypt. The patron of Israel, United States started giving huge amounts of economic and military assistance to the losing nation Egypt and to save the Egyptians from Israel's wrath in the future, US provided largest share personnel in Multinational Force and Observers (MFO).


Israel handed Sinai in 1982. 9 years after the war. 

In 1956 Israel handed Sinai in same year. According to this logic 1956 war was much bigger victory 



Banglar Lathial said:


> It was easy to prove your Zionist "government" propaganda false regarding your destroyed tanks. Then there is no need to disprove any of your other bogus numbers unless you want to see Moshe Dayan's frightened look or Sharon's video admitting that more than 300 of his soldiers were killed and more than 1000 wounded on ONE night by Egyptians alone.
> 
> Just one night, Egyptians killed more than 300 of Sharon's soldiers (not including other brigades and divisions etc), so you still want to spread this Zionist propaganda about your casualties?


As I said, there were two periods in war whn Israel suffered the heaviest casualties:

1) 6-8 Oct.
2) 16 Oct.

Sharon division indeed suffered very heavy casualties on 16th Oct. But battle of Chinese farm was won. Egyptian casualties were much bigger.



> All your propaganda has been "busted", Zionist. Show us some facts. Some videos of Sharon encircling 3rd Army or whatever you have.


1) Egyptian chief commander openly admits that 3rd army was encircled, desperate and he was unable to resque it.
2) All historians say that. Here US military academy map:






3) Here pics of surrounded 3rd army soldiers recieving water under Israeli supervision:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Banglar Lathial said:


> Jordan signed peace deal with "Israel" but did not get Al Quds/Jerusalem back. Egyptians kicked out Zionists. Not one inch could be taken from land captured by 2nd and 3rd armies in Sinai.
> 
> 
> 
> What about those deaths you will be hiding?
> 
> 
> 
> You have any shame left? How can you (Zionists) LIE so blatantly? Only 460 "Israeli" tanks destroyed in 1973? 460 "Israeli" tanks were destroyed by Egypt in less than one week. Yes, in less than one week. Read Kissinger the Jews comments. Even he could not understand how the Americans can help "Israel" because it kept losing.
> 
> The October War and U.S. Policy
> 
> 
> On 9th of October 1973, Dinitz admitted to Kissinger that you lost more than 400 tanks to Egyptians and more than 100 tanks to Syrians. On 9th of October!
> 
> In the entire war, you probably lost 1500 tanks or more.


My bro, I can't find a single logical reason of involving Jordan like this. Egypt couldn't even getting back Gaza while Jordan kept West bank from 1948-1967 alone. Palestinians themselves requested to put an end to Jordanian control of West Bank in 1981 (I guess) in Arab league.Not a single inch of original Jordanian territery was ever captured by Israel which brings out the defeat of Israel military in Alkarama battle in 1968.

@500 
Do you consider Alkarama battle a defeat or victory or what? plz be logical.


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> @500
> Do you consider Alkarama battle a defeat or victory or what? plz be logical.


Israel lost 32 soldiers, Jordan over 80, Palestinians about 200 + over hundred POWs.

Decide urself.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Israel lost 32 soldiers, Jordan over 80, Palestinians about 200 + over hundred POWs.
> 
> Decide urself.


- A member of the Israeli Knesset (Shlomo Grosk) we have no doubt about the number of casualties among our soldiers


- The Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev, in an interview published in Haaretz newspaper on 31/3/68 "The process of Karama was unique and we did not get used to it. (the people (Israel)), in such as this type of operation. in other words, all the of our operations resulted in decisive victories for our troops, and here our people used to see its military forces victorious of every battle. The battle of Karamah was unique, because of the large number of casualties among our forces, and other phenomena resulting from the battle, such as Jordanian forces seized a number of our tanks and our machinery, and this is why it was surprising that hit the Israeli community about the Battle of Karamah.

- Haim Bar-Lev, the Israeli chief of staff aid: that Israel lost in the latest offensive on the Jordan military vehicles equivalent to three times what it lost in the Six-Day War.

- The member of the Knesset (Shmuel Tamir) requesed to form a parliamentary committee to investigate the results of the campaign on Jordanian territory, because the number of victims is relatively more in the Israeli forces.

- A battle group commander (Aharon Peled) to the Israeli newspaper Davar said: I had seen heavy shelling several times in my life but I have not seen anything like this before, most of my tanks were hit in the battle with the exception of only two.

Israel tanks and vehicles seized by Jordanian army:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

*(Israeli destroyed jet)
*


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> Haim Bar-Lev, the Israeli chief of staff aid: that Israel lost in the latest offensive on the Jordan military vehicles equivalent to three times what it lost in the Six-Day War.


Israel lost 32 men and 4 tanks in Karameh. In Six day war we lost 777 men and 110 tanks.



> Israel tanks and vehicles seized by Jordanian army:


Two tanks from left are Jordanian M47.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Israel lost 32 men and 4 tanks in Karameh. In Six day war we lost 777 men and 110 tanks.
> 
> - The member of the Knesset (Shmuel Tamir) requesed to form a parliamentary committee to investigate the results of the campaign on Jordanian territory, because the number of victims is relatively more in the Israeli forces.
> 
> - A battle group commander (Aharon Peled) to the Israeli newspaper Davar said: I had seen heavy shelling several times in my life but I have not seen anything like this before, most of my tanks were hit in the battle with the exception of only two.
> 
> 
> Two tanks from left are Jordanian M47.


 I proved that we won from your leaders words, I didn't even mentioned anything from Jordanian sources. Wouldn't you admit it?


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Israel:
dead: 250-350
wounded: 450 
tanks: 47
armored cars: 53 
aircraft: 7

Jordan:

dead: 87 
wounded: 108 
tanks: 13 
armored cars: 39 
aircraft: 0
Chief of Staff of the armed forces in the Soviet union, Gereshko Marshal said: the battle of Karama has formed a turning point in the history of Arab military.


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> True, thats why I removed it before your post. I proved that we won from your leaders, I didn't even mentioned anything from Jordanian sources. Wouldn't you admit it?


Karameh supposed to be a fast operation against PLO militia, but turned in to a battle between armies with dosens of killed. Nevertheless objectives of the operation were completed, though at much highter cost than expected.

Israel:

dead: 32
wounded: 70
tanks: 4
armored cars: 4
aircraft: 1

Jordan:

dead: 60 
wounded: 108 
tanks: 13 
armored cars: 39 
aircraft: 2

PLO: 

Dead: 128 dead
Captured: 120


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Israel lost 32 men and 4 tanks in Karameh. In Six day war we lost 777 men and 110 tanks.
> 
> 
> Two tanks from left are Jordanian M47.


Please, don't tell me that you yourself believe that Israel lost only 4 tanks in the whole battle. This is just ridiculous. If you said 25 I could have digest it but 4!?


----------



## 500

BLACKEAGLE said:


> Please, don't tell me that you yourself believe that Israel lost only 4 tanks in the whole battle. This is just ridiculous. If you said 25 I could have digest it but 4!?


Well since battle was on Jordanian soil lost tanks left in Jordan. Can u show 25 lost tanks?


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Karameh supposed to be a fast operation against PLO militia, but turned in to a battle between armies with dosens of killed. Nevertheless objectives of the operation were completed, though at much highter cost than expected.
> 
> Israel:
> 
> dead: 32
> wounded: 70
> tanks: 4
> armored cars: 4
> aircraft: 1
> 
> Jordan:
> 
> dead: 60
> wounded: 108
> tanks: 13
> armored cars: 39
> aircraft: 2
> 
> PLO:
> 
> Dead: 128 dead
> Captured: 120



Again

- A member of the Israeli Knesset (Shlomo Grosk) we have no doubt about the number of casualties among our soldiers


- The Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev, in an interview published in Haaretz newspaper on 31/3/68 "The process of Karama was unique and we did not get used to it. (the people (Israel)), in such as this type of operation. in other words, all the of our operations resulted in decisive victories for our troops, and here our people used to see its military forces victorious of every battle. The battle of Karamah was unique, because of the large number of casualties among our forces, and other phenomena resulting from the battle, such as Jordanian forces seized a number of our tanks and our machinery, and this is why it was surprising that hit the Israeli community about the Battle of Karamah.

- Haim Bar-Lev, the Israeli chief of staff aid: that Israel lost in the latest offensive on the Jordan military vehicles equivalent to three times what it lost in the Six-Day War.

- The member of the Knesset (Shmuel Tamir) requesed to form a parliamentary committee to investigate the results of the campaign on Jordanian territory, because the number of victims *is relatively more in the Israeli forces*.

- A battle group commander (Aharon Peled) to the Israeli newspaper Davar said: I had seen heavy shelling several times in my life but I have not seen anything like this before, most of my tanks were hit in the battle with the exception of only two.


*Israeli main goals:
*
1. Forcing Jordan to accept the settlement and the peace imposed by Israel.

2. Have a foothold on the land east of the Jordan River to occupy the heights of Salt and turn it into a security belt for Israel, just as happened after that in South Lebanon. In the purpose Bargaining it with to achieve its goals and expand its borders.

3. Ensure security and quiet on the cease-fire line with Jordan.



500 said:


> Well since battle was on Jordanian soil lost tanks left in Jordan. Can u show 25 lost tanks?


Yes they are in a museum in Hashimite squire in Amman and they are 47 tanks not 25.



500 said:


> Well since battle was on Jordanian soil lost tanks left in Jordan. Can u show 25 lost tanks?



Jordan presented most of these losses to public at Hashmite Squire in Amman[14].


----------



## 500

Sorry, but your "quotes" are not relable. I showed that.



> Jordan presented most of these losses to public at Hashmite Squire in Amman


Can you show me a pic with more than 4 Israeli tanks?


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500, as you know (I guess) Jordanian Officials nor people like exaggeration in any way about anything and you know they are realistic and logical unlike radical regimes. And thats why Jordanian losses in Jordanian sources match Israeli sources. Israel has never admitted the real number of its death toll in all of its wars. Jordan admitted its defeats as well as victories.



500 said:


> Sorry, but your "quotes" are not relable. I showed that.
> 
> 
> Can you show me a pic with more than 4 Israeli tanks?


I haven't gone there and all the pic are old and rare in the Web. But since you brought this up, can you show me the pic of all 250 destroyed Arab jets?
absolutely no


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Sorry, but your "quotes" are not relable. I showed that.
> 
> 
> Can you show me a pic with more than 4 Israeli tanks?


*
From Israeli sources:
*

- the Jordanians repelled several Israeli assaults.
^ a b Pollack (2002), pp. 332&#8211;333

- the Damiya force held Musri, but could not advance south, as the advance was repulsed by the northern brigade of the Jordanian 1st Division.

- The paratroopers suffered heavy losses. ^ a b Dupuy (2002), p. 353


- A small force of Israeli infantry and armor tried to protect the right flank of the forces invading from the south from attacks by the Jordanian forces deployed near the King Abdullah bridge. The Jordanians attacked with some armor, but the Israelis put up resistance, and the battle turned into a stalemate. 

- Frustrated in their hopes of entrapping the entire PLO force, the Israelis quickly pulled out, but had to fight their way back to Israeli territory.[15] At 11:00 the Israelis began to withdraw, with Sikorsky H-34 helicopters evacuating the troops. Because orders came down to recover as many vehicles as possible, they only completed their withdrawal by 20:40.

^ a b c d "Foray into Jordan". Time. 1968-03-29. ISSN 0040-718X. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
^ a b c "Operation Inferno". iaf.org.il. Retrieved 2008-09-03. (Hebrew)

- Uzi Narkis, who commanded the operation, resigned as chief of the Central Command for a position in the Jewish Agency shortly after the battle.

^ a b Ben-Tzedef, Eviatar (2008-03-24). "Inferno at Karameh". nfc. Retrieved 2008-09-03. (Hebrew)


----------



## 500

There are all Israeli tankers who died in Karameh battle:


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> There are all Israeli tankers who died in Karameh battle:


Other 178 could be wounded !? I guess not, however, I don't believe in Israeli sources. Give me a single unbiased source that proves your numbers and I will accept it other wise your just wasting your time here.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

Israeli specialist in military affairs and columnist for Haaretz newspaper Yossi Melman said he has classified documents revealing that Israel was defeated in the battle of Karama that took place on March 21, 1968 and covered its failure.

The specialist said the *abysmal defeat in 1968 was not investigated* and Israel did not draw lessons from this battle.


----------



## King Solomon

Banglar Lathial said:


> From Saad El Shazly's WEBSITE:
> 
> Saad El-Shazly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This brilliant military victory*
> 
> Repeat:
> *This brilliant military victory*
> 
> Repeat:
> *This brilliant military victory*
> 
> 
> Says who?
> 
> Visit Saad El Din Shazly's website
> Saad El-Shazly
> 
> You are so deluded by Zionist propaganda machinery you can not accept that you were terribly defeated. Here is what American military academies learn from Egyptians (and they considered this material "classified" I guess for a long time until it was declassified because the shame of Zionist defeat was so long ago they thought there would be very few people left to unveil Zionist propaganda)
> 
> http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA391166&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
> 
> *Go straight to the October War section of this PDF file*
> 
> Even your "allies" Americans study how Egyptians defeated Zionists but they are too afraid to admit it as a defeat so they study Egyptian tactics in their military academies, but qualify all historical truths with the "disclaimer" that Americans do not necessarily agree with them (but they needed to hide this information from the public for so long for what reason exactly then?)



Thank you for the doc. Must admit, learned a lot.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Sorry, but your "quotes" are not relable. I showed that.
> 
> 
> Can you show me a pic with more than 4 Israeli tanks?


Actually I have just checked a Jordanian army official numbers about Israeli losses:
27 tanks destroyed
20 tanks were left and their crews fled the battle field.

dead: 250
wounded: 450 
armored cars: 34 
Truck: 19
aircraft: 7

OFFICIAL NUMBERS.
http://stocksexperts.net/showthread.php?t=21538


----------



## 500

Israel lost 4 tanks. 10 tankers were killed. I posted their names and photos. You are free to disbelieve.

Also if numbers of casualties were so high, Jordan was capturing some POWs for sure (snce battle was in Jordan). But fact that no POW was captured.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> Israel lost 4 tanks. 10 tankers were killed. I posted their names and photos. You are free to disbelieve.
> 
> Also if numbers of casualties were so high, Jordan was capturing some POWs for sure (snce battle was in Jordan). But fact that no POW was captured.


There was no POW from both sides. By the way:
Ariel Sharon was a prisoner of war in Jordan in 1948.







Sharon was a prisoner of war in Jordan in 1948

Oman: «Middle East»
Revealed a Jordanian researcher in military affairs, disclosed that the Israeli Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon has already been arrested in Jordan after a prison that was captured by one of the battles in Palestine in 1948 between the Jordanian and Israeli forces.
The researcher said Baker Khazer told «Middle East» that Sharon was arrested by the Jordanian military forces during armed clashes between Jordanian forces that were defending the city of Jerusalem in the month of June in 1948 and was taken prisoner of war along with three hundred Israeli soldier. He Khazer says that Sharon was then lieutenant first, where Israeli troops sought to control the towns near Jerusalem Vtsdt with troops led by Jordanian Habis submitted Majali, who became later the leader of the Jordanian Army.

He explained that the Jordanian researcher Sharon and the rest of his troops spent several months in a prison of Jordan underwent treatment by the medical units of Jordan as a prisoner of war and ethics as required by the Arab.

And this is the one who captured him:
Habes Rfifan Almajali


----------



## 500

More alf laila walaila fairy tales. Sharon was injured in May 1948 and spend entire June in hosputal. He returned to service in July and fought till the end of war.


----------



## BLACKEAGLE

500 said:


> More alf laila walaila fairy tales. Sharon was injured in May 1948 and spend entire June in hosputal. He returned to service in July and fought till the end of war.


AS YOU LIKE...
By the by, I proved my numbers correct from Israeli sources (most). Israel wouldn't request cease fire many times like a little baby unless it got heavy losses. King Hussein refused those requests until Israel withdrew from all Jordanian territories. At least be grateful that we ceased fire only to let you withdraw your losses. Don't miss with Jordanians again.


----------



## King Solomon

I used to believe Zionist propaganda like everyone else on the matter. However, observing the discussions in this topic gave me a more balanced viewpoint. Thanks Banglar Lathial, Blackeagle and all others who participated in the discussion.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Farhad Hassan

Oh this thread seems to go on and on trying to decide which side murdered more HUMANS.


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> Next time you invent stories, make them at least a bit relable, not complete joke.
> 
> Israeli Air-to-Air Victories in 1973
> 
> 
> There was no any USA. Tiny Israel was fighting alone against Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco...




Projecting yourselves again, anyone can compile an excel sheet with names and squadrons and the rest, so who is the joke, the video or you "sheet"?

before in the thread you were talking about the US aid to Israel and you were caught lying, now the lie is bigger"there was no any USA"

Don't you know when to quit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Banglar Lathial

S-19 said:


> I used to believe Zionist propaganda like everyone else on the matter. However, observing the discussions in this topic gave me a more balanced viewpoint. Thanks Banglar Lathial, Blackeagle and all others who participated in the discussion.



Thank you too, but I do not want to discuss any thing more here even though tomes can be written on the massive Egyptian victory in 1973 Ramadan/October War. The reason I am not eager to discuss anything further here is the pure vile evil intention of denying historical truths that is manifest in all forms of Zionist propaganda (Western propaganda is the same as Zionist propaganda btw) has soured the mood for an honest appraisal of historical events almost 40 years from the momentous events of Ramadan War. 

Sharon was busted and bloodied in 1973 but they call Zionists winners? What sort of a victory is it when the "winning general Sharon" was going to be sacked from his job, so he resigned before hand? What sort of a "victory" is it when a commission of enquiry has to be formed (on the causes of defeat presumably). Does any body initiate a commission of enquiry on the causes of victory for a nation?The name was Agranat commission? 

All their casaulty numbers are bogus just like any Western numbers propagated nowadays. Their only resort is to keep repeating falsehood ad nauseam until the gullible public actually believe their BS. That was proved very well by me in one instance in one of my earlier posts. Can you imagine that Golda Meir would resign after a victorious war? Can you imagine that Moshe Dayan would say the Third Temple is about to fall during their victory? Can you imagine that Dinitz would ask Jewish Kissinger for help/supply on October 9th, 1973 (war started on October 6th, 1973) if so called "Israel" was victorious? Can you believe that Dinitz would admit openly to Kissinger (and this admission was only "declassified" recently) that they lost 400+ tanks to Egyptians and 100+ tanks to Syrians before October 9th, 1973 but throughout the entire war they would end up losing 460 tanks in total? Can you believe that even more telling nature of "Israeli" admission of defeat in their conversations with Jewish Kissinger would be published/"declassified" by their benefactor/patron/cash cow Americans? Can you even make a 4 year old kindergarten student believe that provided he knows the simple arithmetic operation of addition? 

Can you believe that a "pocket" that could not face either the Egyptian 2nd Army or 3rd Army face to face in Sinai despite numerous attempts would be able to successfully encircle 3rd Army without repercussions from behind? Why not push 3rd Army back to West of the Canal from the front from where the supply lines are shorter and more secured if you do so? Does it not mean that it was the so called "Israeli pocket" west of the Canal that was surrounded because Jewish Kissinger knew it very well, and warned Sadat that a repeat of the victory of Soviet weapons over American weapons can not be allowed, so American troops will be landed in Sinai if this "Israeli pocket" were eliminated. 

If you want some more REAL information, you need to study accounts provided by actual military men from both sides, and come up with your own conclusions. You need to read, for example, the wonderfully well written stories of the Jewish Howard Blum, who treats the October 1973 war as some sort of novel or movie perhaps, and creates a mystique or aura of righteousness around the "Israeli" while demonizing the Arab participants in the war in negative ways. In his book, _On the Eve of Destruction_ too, you can find out how much "Israeli" gov't lied, "Israeli" media lied, "Israel" lost, and how he ended the book (in typically Zionist manner) by trying to claim that "Israel" still won. It's like saying, 2+2=4 and 4<101, 2+3=5 and 5<101, 2+4=6 and 6<101, BUT 2 is greater than 101 nonetheless! That's the basis of all Zionist propaganda arguments but sadly, many people actually believe them without any questions asked. 

If you are curious, then learn a few interesting snippets about that war here
Crossing40

It's a matter of shame that Westerners and Zionists and other propaganda loving nations have no shame that they have to lie all the time to the extent that they claim a clear Egyptian victory in 1973 as an "Israeli" victory. Do Egyptians or other Arabs claim they won in 1967? Do they debate over those issues? Then what is the matter with so called Zionists that they have to live on this make believe world of fantasies where they can not admit publicly what every one within their own ranks have admitted privately, that they were terribly defeated? 

Look at the troop dispositions and decide which one would be the victor. I think Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, or whatever other nationalities like to follow, should take a leaf out of Zionist propaganda books and claim that each of us defeated every single Western country in the world out there since there are hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis, Pakistanis or other nationals in every one of the larger Western countries. So, like the Zionists, we can claim that we surrounded every Western capital, defense ministry, presidential/parliamentary buildings or other important political/military offices, that we "encircled" them BUT agreed to make peace only because of UN (United Nations). Millions of Britons not only drink water but eat all sorts of food at Bangladeshi restaurants in Britain, so we can claim that Bangladeshis surrounded millions of Britons and more than multiple corps, in fact, millions of Britons were actually fed by us. Never mind the "troop disposition", never mind the "military balance", never mind the sustainability of "supply lines"! 

If Golda Meir wrote in her book "My Life" that 


> The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians.


, by ordinary transitivity, you can calculate that Egypt+Syria would have to be stronger than "Israel" in the view of Golda Meir based on the outcome of the 1973 war. Then, what sort of an "Israeli victory" in 1973 could prompt the so called Prime minister to admit in her memoirs (in an indirect manner) that Egypt+Syria was stronger than so called "Israel"? 

A copy of the Zionist Jewish Howard Blum's book "On the Eve of Destruction" is with me, so I can post lots of embarrassing facts admitted by that Zionist Jew in his book to educate a lot of ignorant people, provided the moderators agree with it, but like I have already said, I have no intention of coming back to the poisonous argument about a clearly decided event. A clear victory should not induce any arguments, otherwise, Egyptians and Syrians can also argue about 1967 war and many other wars as victories for them, and present dozens of pages of arguments, "Israeli" deaths, etc to support their arguments, but have you ever seen any Egyptian or Syrian claim they won in 1967? It only points to the toxic core that drives Zionism, that foments and instigates all sorts of internecine infighting amongst brotherly countries by infusing the general public with false information even in such simple matters as historical accounts to suit their ****** agendas. 

What were the status of the so called "Israeli pocket" to the west of the Canal? To understand this better, you had better know who is "Saad Ma'moun"? 
Al-Ahram Weekly | In our pocket

If the criminal 'Arik' Sharon himself admits that all his propaganda stunts were such humongous failures in his biography "Life Story" (but in an indirect way, as is usual for all Zionists), then how can others still argue on and on and on about the resolved issue of complete "Israeli" defeat? 

Ariel Sharon - Biography: 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War)


> The swift success of moving an entire brigade plus tanks and APC's to the other side of the canal, turns out to be *a dangerous move, because Sharon's forces which are also in charge of broadening and securing the corridor through which the Israeli divisions should cross, fail to accomplish this part of the task. Now there is no safe way for the Israeli divisions to cross the canal and join the forces that have already crossed, and so there is a fear that the forces on the western side would remain cut off.*





> *Bren's division also fails to create a safe corridor for crossing between the two Egyptian Armies.*





> *Following the interviews to the American press and the things Sharon writes in the order of the day, Chief of Staff removes Sharon from his position as division commander*




The so called "Israeli" victory was supposedly snared by "Arik" Sharon, and in all their propaganda, it is "Arik" Sharon that is feted, then the question remains, why was this "victorious" general removed from his position as division commander immediately after the war? 

All these Zionist propaganda would be funny jokes if they were not sad because by fooling and keeping the masses in darkness about the truth, they turn a blind eye to the catastrophic defeats in military terms they suffered in 1973.



S-19 said:


> I used to believe Zionist propaganda like everyone else on the matter. However, observing the discussions in this topic gave me a more balanced viewpoint. Thanks Banglar Lathial, Blackeagle and all others who participated in the discussion.



Thank you too, but I do not want to discuss any thing more here even though tomes can be written on the massive Egyptian victory in 1973 Ramadan/October War. The reason I am not eager to discuss anything further here is the pure vile evil intention of denying historical truths that is manifest in all forms of Zionist propaganda (Western propaganda is the same as Zionist propaganda btw) has soured the mood for an honest appraisal of historical events almost 40 years from the momentous events of Ramadan War. 

Sharon was busted and bloodied in 1973 but they call Zionists winners? What sort of a victory is it when the "winning general Sharon" was going to be sacked from his job, so he resigned before hand? What sort of a "victory" is it when a commission of enquiry has to be formed (on the causes of defeat presumably). Does any body initiate a commission of enquiry on the causes of victory for a nation?The name was Agranat commission? 

All their casaulty numbers are bogus just like any Western numbers propagated nowadays. Their only resort is to keep repeating falsehood ad nauseam until the gullible public actually believe their BS. That was proved very well by me in one instance in one of my earlier posts. Can you imagine that Golda Meir would resign after a victorious war? Can you imagine that Moshe Dayan would say the Third Temple is about to fall during their victory? Can you imagine that Dinitz would ask Jewish Kissinger for help/supply on October 9th, 1973 (war started on October 6th, 1973) if so called "Israel" was victorious? Can you believe that Dinitz would admit openly to Kissinger (and this admission was only "declassified" recently) that they lost 400+ tanks to Egyptians and 100+ tanks to Syrians before October 9th, 1973 but throughout the entire war they would end up losing 460 tanks in total? Can you believe that even more telling nature of "Israeli" admission of defeat in their conversations with Jewish Kissinger would be published/"declassified" by their benefactor/patron/cash cow Americans? Can you even make a 4 year old kindergarten student believe that provided he knows the simple arithmetic operation of addition? 

Can you believe that a "pocket" that could not face either the Egyptian 2nd Army or 3rd Army face to face in Sinai despite numerous attempts would be able to successfully encircle 3rd Army without repercussions from behind? Why not push 3rd Army back to West of the Canal from the front from where the supply lines are shorter and more secured if you do so? Does it not mean that it was the so called "Israeli pocket" west of the Canal that was surrounded because Jewish Kissinger knew it very well, and warned Sadat that a repeat of the victory of Soviet weapons over American weapons can not be allowed, so American troops will be landed in Sinai if this "Israeli pocket" were eliminated. 

If you want some more REAL information, you need to study accounts provided by actual military men from both sides, and come up with your own conclusions. You need to read, for example, the wonderfully well written stories of the Jewish Howard Blum, who treats the October 1973 war as some sort of novel or movie perhaps, and creates a mystique or aura of righteousness around the "Israeli" while demonizing the Arab participants in the war in negative ways. In his book, _On the Eve of Destruction_ too, you can find out how much "Israeli" gov't lied, "Israeli" media lied, "Israel" lost, and how he ended the book (in typically Zionist manner) by trying to claim that "Israel" still won. It's like saying, 2+2=4 and 4<101, 2+3=5 and 5<101, 2+4=6 and 6<101, BUT 2 is greater than 101 nonetheless! That's the basis of all Zionist propaganda arguments but sadly, many people actually believe them without any questions asked. 

If you are curious, then learn a few interesting snippets about that war here
Crossing40
 
It's a matter of shame that Westerners and Zionists and other propaganda loving nations have no shame that they have to lie all the time to the extent that they claim a clear Egyptian victory in 1973 as an "Israeli" victory. Do Egyptians or other Arabs claim they won in 1967? Do they debate over those issues? Then what is the matter with so called Zionists that they have to live on this make believe world of fantasies where they can not admit publicly what every one within their own ranks have admitted privately, that they were terribly defeated? 

Look at the troop dispositions and decide which one would be the victor. I think Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, or whatever other nationalities like to follow, should take a leaf out of Zionist propaganda books and claim that each of us defeated every single Western country in the world out there since there are hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis, Pakistanis or other nationals in every one of the larger Western countries. So, like the Zionists, we can claim that we surrounded every Western capital, defense ministry, presidential/parliamentary buildings or other important political/military offices, that we "encircled" them BUT agreed to make peace only because of UN (United Nations). Millions of Britons not only drink water but eat all sorts of food at Bangladeshi restaurants in Britain, so we can claim that Bangladeshis surrounded millions of Britons and more than multiple corps, in fact, millions of Britons were actually fed by us. Never mind the "troop disposition", never mind the "military balance", never mind the sustainability of "supply lines"! 

If Golda Meir wrote in her book "My Life" that 


> The war has shown that we were no stronger than the Egyptians.


, by ordinary transitivity, you can calculate that Egypt+Syria would have to be stronger than "Israel" in the view of Golda Meir based on the outcome of the 1973 war. Then, what sort of an "Israeli victory" in 1973 could prompt the so called Prime minister to admit in her memoirs (in an indirect manner) that Egypt+Syria was stronger than so called "Israel"? 

A copy of the Zionist Jewish Howard Blum's book "On the Eve of Destruction" is with me, so I can post lots of embarrassing facts admitted by that Zionist Jew in his book to educate a lot of ignorant people, provided the moderators agree with it, but like I have already said, I have no intention of coming back to the poisonous argument about a clearly decided event. A clear victory should not induce any arguments, otherwise, Egyptians and Syrians can also argue about 1967 war and many other wars as victories for them, and present dozens of pages of arguments, "Israeli" deaths, etc to support their arguments, but have you ever seen any Egyptian or Syrian claim they won in 1967? It only points to the toxic core that drives Zionism, that foments and instigates all sorts of internecine infighting amongst brotherly countries by infusing the general public with false information even in such simple matters as historical accounts to suit their ****** agendas. 

What were the status of the so called "Israeli pocket" to the west of the Canal? To understand this better, you had better know who is "Saad Ma'moun"? 
Al-Ahram Weekly | In our pocket

If the criminal 'Arik' Sharon himself admits that all his propaganda stunts were such humongous failures in his biography "Life Story" (but in an indirect way, as is usual for all Zionists), then how can others still argue on and on and on about the resolved issue of complete "Israeli" defeat? 

Ariel Sharon - Biography: 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War)


> The swift success of moving an entire brigade plus tanks and APC's to the other side of the canal, turns out to be *a dangerous move, because Sharon's forces which are also in charge of broadening and securing the corridor through which the Israeli divisions should cross, fail to accomplish this part of the task. Now there is no safe way for the Israeli divisions to cross the canal and join the forces that have already crossed, and so there is a fear that the forces on the western side would remain cut off.*





> *Bren's division also fails to create a safe corridor for crossing between the two Egyptian Armies.*





> *Following the interviews to the American press and the things Sharon writes in the order of the day, Chief of Staff removes Sharon from his position as division commander*




The so called "Israeli" victory was supposedly snared by "Arik" Sharon, and in all their propaganda, it is "Arik" Sharon that is feted, then the question remains, why was this "victorious" general removed from his position as division commander immediately after the war? 

All these Zionist propaganda would be funny jokes if they were not sad because by fooling and keeping the masses in darkness about the truth, they turn a blind eye to the catastrophic defeats in military terms they suffered in 1973.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 500

/\/\/\/\/\

Its funny how many words this frustrated guy has to write in order to prove that enciricled Egyptian army is great victory for Egypt  You won, your army is encircled!


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Malik Alashter

500 said:


> Next time you invent stories, make them at least a bit relable, not complete joke.
> 
> Israeli Air-to-Air Victories in 1973
> 
> 
> There was no any USA. Tiny Israel was fighting alone against Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco...


OK, congratulations but there's one big fact you always either forget or try to, which is you fought almost tied Arab armies by traitors like Sadat King Hussein and so on, that's excuse me to say not a victory to you, yes the Egyptian made real surprise to you the almost claimed there victory but as I said the Sadat changed the whole situation to your favor, this conclusion I had from reading the story of that war, at the end most of us know what the German army did in world war 2 to the french British Russian with a little power compared to the allied forces in either fronts so, little or big make no difference in the tactics warfare, no doubt again about your abilities but it rise from the exaggeration some people of you claim.


----------



## Malik Alashter

Mahmoud_EGY said:


>


I have seen this documentary it's informative one, in my opinion the biggest Israeli failure mainly due to there reliance on tanks Alon without the support of the infantry.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Malik Alashter said:


> I have seen this documentary it's informative one, in my opinion the biggest Israeli failure mainly due to there reliance on tanks Alon without the support of the infantry.


yes but from what i heared from men who were there in 73 the isreal infantry cant do like the egyptian if you know the airbone company who attacked in the chineese farm battle they were the best elite infantry in isreal and look at what happend to them 
they tryed to take out the AT teams and got pinned by our infantry and to save them the isreals payed a high price 
can the isreal infantry stand up to thousands of tanks in open desert and destroy them ?
anyway here is a docmuntry made by the isreals translited to arabic




&#1604;&#1608;&#1575;&#1569; &#1605;&#1592;&#1604;&#1609; &#1605;&#1583;&#1593;&#1608;&#1605; &#1576;&#1579;&#1604;&#1575;&#1579; &#1603;&#1578;&#1575;&#1574;&#1576; &#1605;&#1583;&#1585;&#1593;&#1575;&#1578; ... &#1601;&#1609; &#1605;&#1602;&#1575;&#1576;&#1604; &#1603;&#1578;&#1610;&#1576;&#1607; &#1605;&#1588;&#1575;&#1607; &#1605;&#1610;&#1603;&#1575;&#1606;&#1610;&#1603;&#1609; . &#1575;&#1585;&#1610;&#1610;&#1604;&#65279; &#1588;&#1575;&#1585;&#1608;&#1606; &#1601;&#1609; &#1605;&#1602;&#1575;&#1576;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1588;&#1610;&#1585; &#1591;&#1606;&#1591;&#1575;&#1608;&#1609;


----------



## 500

Malik Alashter said:


> I have seen this documentary it's informative one, in my opinion the biggest Israeli failure mainly due to there reliance on tanks Alon without the support of the infantry.


This doumentary is a joke.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> yes but from what i heared from men who were there in 73 the isreal infantry cant do like the egyptian if you know the airbone company who attacked in the chineese farm battle they were the best elite infantry in isreal and look at what happend to them


They were regular infantry. And Chinese farm battle was won by Israel.



> they tryed to take out the AT teams and got pinned by our infantry and to save them the isreals payed a high price
> can the isreal infantry stand up to thousands of tanks in open desert and destroy them ?


On 8 Oct when Israel launched its major counter attack Egypt had on East bank 5 reinforced divisions 100,000 men + 1020 tanks all that supported by 2000 artlllery pieces. Israel attacked this enermous force with one Adan division (less than 300 tanks).


----------



## Malik Alashter

500 said:


> This doumentary is a joke.
> 
> 
> They were regular infantry. And Chinese farm battle was won by Israel.
> 
> 
> On 8 Oct when Israel launched its major counter attack Egypt had on East bank 5 reinforced divisions 100,000 men + 1020 tanks all that supported by 2000 artlllery pieces. Israel attacked this enermous force with one Adan division (less than 300 tanks).


So, what was the outcome of that 300 offensive??? that courageous of the Israelis tell me a lot of the Arabs traitors trust me I have big respect for them as a solders but courageous has limitations no doubt, remember the Japanese the Germans they fought with great of courageous but they finally failed with the enormous fire of the allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Document 54: Memcon between Meir and Kissinger, 22 October 1973, 1:35 - 2:15 p.m.

Source: RG 59, SN 70-73, POL 7 US/Kissinger

Although Ambassador Keating had no notice about Kissinger's plans, the secretary of state arrived in Tel Aviv for consultations with Meir and her advisers. The jovial mood in Moscow was forgotten; as Israeli diplomat Ephraim Evron later remarked, "We were suffering. Henry noticed this right away." "It did not take him long to sense that the country did not want to go through this experience again." (Note 54) Nevertheless, there was a feeling of resentment about the U.S.-Soviet "dictate" and Kissinger found himself justifying Resolution 338's references to 242, which plainly displeased Meir. He argued that, given previous U.S. efforts on behalf of 242 in negotiations with the Soviets, it had to be mentioned but that it did no harm to the Israeli position because the language about "just and lasting peace" and "secure and recognized borders" "mean nothing" until they are negotiated. Essentially the talks were hand-holding sessions; Kissinger tried to assuage Meir's concerns about U.S. strategy, prisoners-of-war, the Egyptians, the continued U.S. airlift, and Syrian Jews. In his recent book, Crisis, Kissinger claims that he used the meetings with Meir to "establish the cease-fire" but the conversations show a far more ambiguous situation. Again, Kissinger gave the Israelis leeway in interpreting the cease-fire so they could gear-up military operations before it went into effect. He advised Meir that if Israeli forces moved "during the night while I'm flying" there would be "no violent protests from Washington." Once the Israelis violated the cease-fire, however, Kissinger would regret emboldening them, while Brezhnev became deeply suspicious that there had been a secret deal in Tel Aviv. (Note 55) On the airlift, Kissinger assured Meir that "I have given orders that it is to continue" and promised more Phantom jets and a military aid request totaling $2.2 billion. He also filled her in on some of the side conversations with the Soviets, who had been "very nasty about the Arabs." On the fundamental issues, Kissinger used brutal language that he might have thought would satisfy his hosts: U.S. strategy was to "keep the Arabs down and the Russians down." Those goals had been achieved: "you have won, and I believe we have won." Whatever the Arabs thought of Israel and the United States, Kissinger claimed, "objective reality" forced them "to talk to us." Only Washington could help them reach a settlement.

Document 47: Situation Room Message from Peter Rodman to Kissinger, TOHAK 20, 20 October 1973, transmitting memorandum from Scowcroft to Kissinger

Source: NPMP, HAKO, box 39, HAK Trip - Moscow, Tel Aviv, London - October 20-23, 1973 TOHAK 1-60

After meeting with Brezhnev, Kissinger was shocked to receive a message from Scowcroft based on Nixon's dictation. Believing a "permanent Middle East settlement" to be a critically important goal, Nixon wanted a U.S.-Soviet agreement reached on "general terms" which would make it easier for both superpowers "to get out clients in line." Probably suspecting that Kissinger was too partial to Israeli interests, Nixon wanted his adviser to take a tough approach to both sides. As neither the Israelis nor the Arabs would approach "this subject  in a rational manner," Nixon believed that Moscow and Washington had to impose a settlement: to "bring the necessary pressures on our respective friends." Facing continued attack in the Watergate scandal and no doubt seeing great political advantage in a diplomatic success, Nixon wanted Brezhnev to know that if they could reach a settlement "it would be without question one of the brightest stars in which we hope will be a galaxy of peace stemming from the Nixon-Brezhnev relationship." (Note 48)


----------



## The SC

All in all it was a little spark like it was said before:

11 Arab divisions against at least 70 or 80 Israeli divisions + 2.2billion(at least)in US military aid+ the best US Military technology+Us satellite and SR-71 intelligence on the battle field.
Result = Arab recapture of Sinai peninsula + Arab military victory


----------



## sarthak

The SC said:


> All in all it was a little spark like it was said before:
> 
> 11 Arab divisions against at least 70 or 80 Israeli divisions + 2.2billion(at least)in US military aid+ the best US Military technology+Us satellite and SR-71 intelligence on the battle field.
> Result = Arab recapture of Sinai peninsula + Arab military victory



Which arab fanboy page did you get these bullshit figures from?

According to wikipedia , which is way more reliable than any hamas/jihadi page which you visit

Egypt: 650,000[8]&#8211;800,000[9] troops, 1,700 tanks (1,020 crossed),[10] 2,400 armored carriers, 1,120 artillery units,[11] 400 combat aircraft, 140 helicopters,[12] 104 Navy vessels, 150 surface to air missile batteries (62 in the front line)[13]
Syria: 150,000[8] troops, 1,200 tanks, 800&#8211;900 armored carriers, 600 artillery units,[11][14][15]
Expeditionary Forces*: 100,000 troops,[8] 500&#8211;670 tanks,[16][17] 700 armored carriers[16]

VS 

Israel
375,000[8]&#8211;415,000 troops,
1,700 tanks,[18]
3,000 armored carriers,
945 artillery units,[11]
440 combat aircraft


Casualties have been posted on the same page , but they would be too much for you to handle. 
It took 4 arab armies supported by several muslim nations just to stand up to Israel. Says a lot about the quality of arab soldiers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Malik Alashter said:


> So, what was the outcome of that 300 offensive???


Naturally the suicidical attack of one Israeli division against strengthened 5 Egyptian was doomed to fail. This battle was biggest Arab victory in that war. Later Israelis became smarter and attacked breech between 2 Egyptian armies and succeeded.



The SC said:


> All in all it was a little spark like it was said before:
> 
> 11 Arab divisions against at least 70 or 80 Israeli divisions


What u are smoking there? 

*South Front:*
Egyptians had 10 divisions (18, 2, 16, 21, 23, 7, 19, 4, 6, 3) + independent brigades + 4 brigades from Algeria, Morocco, Libya and Sudan.
Israel had 4 divisions (252, 143, 162, 440) + Namer force (about 2 brigades).

*North front:*
Syrians had 5 divisions (7, 9, 5, 3, 1) + independent brigades + 2 Iraqi divisioins (3, 5) + 2 Jordanian brigades + 1 Morocco brigade.
Israel had 3 divisions (36, 210, 146).

Arabs had more than 2 times advantage on both fronts.



> + 2.2billion(at least)in US military aid+ the best US Military technology+Us satellite and SR-71 intelligence on the battle field.


USSR aid to Arabs was bigger they also provided satellite images.

http://egyptianchronicles.freewebsitehosting.com/Crossing41.html



> Result = Arab recapture of Sinai peninsula + Arab military victory


No. Result = Israel was 30 km from Damascus and 100 km from Cairo. 3rd Egyptian army encircled.


----------



## The SC

Just cigarettes dear, I know (you)your army needs a lot of drugs to sustain its artificial "moral", so keep projecting yourself and you'll get slapped every time you try.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

> 100 km from Cairo. 3rd Egyptian army encircled.


why didnt you replay to my post about that i have sayed this more than 3 times 
if you cant say anything dont repet yourself


----------



## Malik Alashter

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> yes but from what i heared from men who were there in 73 the isreal infantry cant do like the egyptian if you know the airbone company who attacked in the chineese farm battle they were the best elite infantry in isreal and look at what happend to them
> they tryed to take out the AT teams and got pinned by our infantry and to save them the isreals payed a high price
> can the isreal infantry stand up to thousands of tanks in open desert and destroy them ?
> anyway here is a docmuntry made by the isreals translited to arabic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#1604;&#1608;&#1575;&#1569; &#1605;&#1592;&#1604;&#1609; &#1605;&#1583;&#1593;&#1608;&#1605; &#1576;&#1579;&#1604;&#1575;&#1579; &#1603;&#1578;&#1575;&#1574;&#1576; &#1605;&#1583;&#1585;&#1593;&#1575;&#1578; ... &#1601;&#1609; &#1605;&#1602;&#1575;&#1576;&#1604; &#1603;&#1578;&#1610;&#1576;&#1607; &#1605;&#1588;&#1575;&#1607; &#1605;&#1610;&#1603;&#1575;&#1606;&#1610;&#1603;&#1609; . &#1575;&#1585;&#1610;&#1610;&#1604;&#65279; &#1588;&#1575;&#1585;&#1608;&#1606; &#1601;&#1609; &#1605;&#1602;&#1575;&#1576;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1588;&#1610;&#1585; &#1591;&#1606;&#1591;&#1575;&#1608;&#1609;


What respect in these people that they talk & study there failures to find where there faults lie!!! not like our dictators they always call there defeats as victories and who can say no!!!!?????.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

Malik Alashter said:


> What respect in these people that they talk & study there failures to find where there faults lie!!! not like our dictators they always call there defeats as victories and who can say no!!!!?????.


well brother i like that you are not afried to respect your enemis the moment you dont respect your enemy and think that you are supirior to them is the secound before your defeat (that what happend in isreal before 73 war ) i am not ashamed to say this piont i respect in the enemy and that i want peace in egypt i dont want to see my country go to war unless we have to some people say that i am a coward to say this but i know who i am i am egyptian man who is willing to burn the whole world to see even a smiple smile on the faces of my people i dont want my people to suffer 
and also my best wishes for iraq and may we see iraq a strong nation again

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

sarthak said:


> Which arab fanboy page did you get these bullshit figures from?
> 
> According to wikipedia , which is way more reliable than any hamas/jihadi page which you visit
> 
> Egypt: 650,000[8]&#8211;800,000[9] troops, 1,700 tanks (1,020 crossed),[10] 2,400 armored carriers, 1,120 artillery units,[11] 400 combat aircraft, 140 helicopters,[12] 104 Navy vessels, 150 surface to air missile batteries (62 in the front line)[13]
> Syria: 150,000[8] troops, 1,200 tanks, 800&#8211;900 armored carriers, 600 artillery units,[11][14][15]
> Expeditionary Forces*: 100,000 troops,[8] 500&#8211;670 tanks,[16][17] 700 armored carriers[16]
> 
> VS
> 
> Israel
> 375,000[8]&#8211;415,000 troops,
> 1,700 tanks,[18]
> 3,000 armored carriers,
> 945 artillery units,[11]
> 440 combat aircraft
> 
> 
> Casualties have been posted on the same page , but they would be too much for you to handle.
> It took 4 arab armies supported by several muslim nations just to stand up to Israel. Says a lot about the quality of arab soldiers.



I told you the truth it was the little spark.
Those are the whole Egyptian and Syrian armed forces figures in 1973 you found in wikipedia.
Have you ever heard of Israeli mobilisation! the whole population, millions of soldiers.
Have you read my other posts and Egyptian guys posts.
have you heard about general Chazli.

Your opinion is obviously biased and your anti islamic rhetoric will backfire on you, and the day(if India is jewish like you) will face Muslim armies again it will regret its bad thoughts and will be remaindered of it cowardeness once and for all.
Hopefully you'll face some Arabs one day in a combat situation and we would like you to show us your courage which is what you desperately want to have but obviously lack.

But I know This is what and how you are,
http://azadindia.org/social-issues/poverty-in-india.html


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

> Casualties have been posted on the same page , but they would be too much for you to handle.
> It took 4 arab armies supported by several muslim nations just to stand up to Israel. Says a lot about the quality of arab soldiers.


you dont know what you are talking about even the isreale didnt say that let my tell you about the quality of our soldiers
before the youm kippor war the infantry role was to clear AT teams and support the armor this has changed when our infantry men faced hundreds of tanks and infantry incliding airbone 
it took 4 men (frogmen)to destroy the eliat port and returend missing only one man 
our commands were crossing the barliv line capture and kill and destroy every day before the war 
do you know anything about kibruit ? a strong point held by commandos for along time and isreals couldnt take it back after air bombardment and tanks 
ask the amircans what was their opinion about the quality of egyptian forces in the gulf war


----------



## Malik Alashter

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> well brother i like that you are not afried to respect your enemis the moment you dont respect your enemy and think that you are supirior to them is the secound before your defeat (that what happend in isreal before 73 war ) i am not ashamed to say this piont i respect in the enemy and that i want peace in egypt i dont want to see my country go to war unless we have to some people say that i am a coward to say this but i know who i am i am egyptian man who is willing to burn the whole world to see even a smiple smile on the faces of my people i dont want my people to suffer
> and also my best wishes for iraq and may we see iraq a strong nation again


respecting the other is the way of people with dignity, while those arrogance trust me they get beating real bad at the time they think the other don't deserve to be respected and that what happen to the German when they thought that Russian don't worthy th respect they got beaten to the level where they lost the war due to the Russian not the west, the Israelis after 1967 did under estimate the Arab due to the fast victories they made second to the propaganda they fed on, and these are a bigger mistake a nation can fall on, thanks for your warm feelings toward my country I believe we will be very good if the others leave us alone which is something I doubt it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> why didnt you replay to my post about that i have sayed this more than 3 times
> if you cant say anything dont repet yourself


I answered u. See post 182.



The SC said:


> Just cigarettes dear, I know (you)your army needs a lot of drugs to sustain its artificial "moral", so keep projecting yourself and you'll get slapped every time you try.


I dont know how u came out with 70-80 divisions then. Anyway I gave u numbers of all divisions. Arabs had more than 2 times advantage. That does not include the surprise factor, when they attacked tiny Israeli forces on the first day.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY




----------



## PteX

This is pathetic just how people delude themselves... How can there ever be peace between Israelis and Arabs when they so vehemently believe their own lies that are being spread throughout the generations.
This cold peace will eventually shatter when a majority voted for the Muslim brotherhood showed the mentality of the Arabs.

Arabs taking pride on attacking the Israelis on their holiest day of fastening and were crushed yet again.


----------



## Cem_

LOL @ *Egyptian revenge*...


----------



## Malik Alashter

500 said:


> Naturally the suicidical attack of one Israeli division against strengthened 5 Egyptian was doomed to fail. This battle was biggest Arab victory in that war. Later Israelis became smarter and attacked breech between 2 Egyptian armies and succeeded.
> 
> You know I'm not strategist or something like that but my reading to war history telling me that all the Arabs war not more than plays been directed very well, how come a nation goes to war and let the enemy make a gab in the army defenses without putting all over it's strategic reserve and how someone explain to me the orders to send that reserved units to the west bank and leave east bank with no armors and why the Shathly blamed Sadat and called him traitor and why he escaped to Damascus my little dull brain has all these questions???? now no doubt about the courageous the Israelis showed in the battlefield but even that raise some more questions? one more thing we have as Arab no doubt of the Arabs leaders traitors just like you have no doubt that you fought bigger armies and nations and ended victorious.


----------



## sarthak

The SC said:


> I told you the truth it was the little spark.
> Those are the whole Egyptian and Syrian armed forces figures in 1973 you found in wikipedia.
> Have you ever heard of Israeli mobilisation! the whole population, millions of soldiers.
> Have you read my other posts and Egyptian guys posts.
> have you heard about general Chazli.
> 
> Your opinion is obviously biased and your anti islamic rhetoric will backfire on you, and the day(if India is jewish like you) will face Muslim armies again it will regret its bad thoughts and will be remaindered of it cowardeness once and for all.
> Hopefully you'll face some Arabs one day in a combat situation and we would like you to show us your courage which is what you desperately want to have but obviously lack.
> 
> But I know This is what and how you are,
> Poverty in India, Poverty rate in India, Population below poverty line, Poverty Reduction in India, Urban Poverty In India, Rural Poverty In India, Indian Problems




LOL , are you serious? Arabs can fight? Just shut up and go back to riding your camels . You people are the most uselss race on Earth. 0 aptitude for science and technology. Just stop all this war rhetoric and go back to making your falafels and shawarmas because that's all you are good for. The only reason arabs actually have somewhat civilised societies is because of all your oil money. The day that ends , you people would go back to the medieval ages and massacre each other like savages.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

Malik Alashter said:


> You know I'm not strategist or something like that but my reading to war history telling me that all the Arabs war not more than plays been directed very well, how come a nation goes to war and let the enemy make a gab in the army defenses without putting all over it's strategic reserve


The gap was not empty. Battle for the gap was the bloodiest battle of the war. Sharon's division suffered super heavy loses.



> and how someone explain to me the orders to send that reserved units to the west bank and leave east bank with no armors and why the Shathly blamed Sadat and called him traitor and why he escaped to Damascus my little dull brain has all these questions???? now no doubt about the courageous the Israelis showed in the battlefield but even that raise some more questions? one more thing we have as Arab no doubt of the Arabs leaders traitors just like you have no doubt that you fought bigger armies and nations and ended victorious.


Egyptians had there some armor and other forces. They also had to retreat some forces from the east bank back to west, but Saddat for political reasons and pride refused to any retreat. Also Egyptians became victims of own propaganda, claiming that Israeli force that crossed canal is very small and unimportant (when actually 3 armor divisions crossed). Many Egyptians still claim that 



sarthak said:


> LOL , are you serious? Arabs can fight?


 If Arabs were not able to fight they would not create one of the largest empires in human history.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

PteX said:


> This is pathetic just how people delude themselves... How can there ever be peace between Israelis and Arabs when they so vehemently believe their own lies that are being spread throughout the generations.
> This cold peace will eventually shatter when a majority voted for the Muslim brotherhood showed the mentality of the Arabs.
> 
> Arabs taking pride on attacking the Israelis on their holiest day of fastening and were crushed yet again.


you blame us for something you have done can you tell me how many times extremest have won elections in isreal ?
and it was a surprise attack in 67 by you in the firest place



sarthak said:


> LOL , are you serious? Arabs can fight? Just shut up and go back to riding your camels . You people are the most uselss race on Earth. 0 aptitude for science and technology. Just stop all this war rhetoric and go back to making your falafels and shawarmas because that's all you are good for. The only reason arabs actually have somewhat civilised societies is because of all your oil money. The day that ends , you people would go back to the medieval ages and massacre each other like savages.


you are a joke nothing more do you think becouse you said this someone will notice you or do you think you are big egypt was the first civlization on the earth just go back to worship cows or elephants or what ever you are doing


----------



## Shinigami

sarthak said:


> LOL , are you serious? Arabs can fight? Just shut up and go back to riding your camels . You people are the most uselss race on Earth. 0 aptitude for science and technology. Just stop all this war rhetoric and go back to making your falafels and shawarmas because that's all you are good for. The only reason arabs actually have somewhat civilised societies is because of all your oil money. The day that ends , you people would go back to the medieval ages and massacre each other like savages.



arabs had the best armies in the world for centuries. modern warfare however, does not suit them.

surprisingly, this same trait can be found in pakistanis. maybe its the relegion

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## King Solomon

Shinigami said:


> arabs had the best armies in the world for centuries. modern warfare however, does not suit them.
> 
> surprisingly, this same trait can be found in pakistanis. maybe its the relegion



It is wrong to say "modern warfare does not suit them". It is just that in the past they have been lagging in training and coordination capabilities. However at present they are trying to improve that. Hopefully they will again rise to be one of the best.

About pakistan, what more could you hope? It successfully defended itself from a neighbour 5+ times stronger in the past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## P4K1ST4N

Shinigami said:


> arabs had the best armies in the world for centuries. modern warfare however, does not suit them.
> 
> surprisingly, this same trait can be found in pakistanis. maybe its the relegion



wake up its already morning......


----------



## The SC

Shinigami said:


> arabs had the best armies in the world for centuries. modern warfare however, does not suit them.
> 
> surprisingly, this same trait can be found in pakistanis. maybe its the relegion



You can have the best technologies of the world, if your soldiers lack courage, the fighting spirit and faith in what they are fighting for, than you loose; USA is the best example in Iraq and Afghanistan (USSR too), let alone a poverty stricken -economically, mentally and spiritually- wannabe power like India or an arrogant corrupt and corrupting entity as zionism.

The Arabs and Muslims in general have proven once again that they have the courage and faith to back it up, even in the heart of Europe and the USSR.
Long live The Arabs and The Muslim Ummah, Long live our faith Islam.
Allahu Akbar


----------



## PteX

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> you blame us for something you have done can you tell me how many times extremest have won elections in isreal ?
> and it was a surprise attack in 67 by you in the firest place
> 
> you are a joke nothing more do you think becouse you said this someone will notice you or do you think you are big egypt was the first civlization on the earth just go back to worship cows or elephants or what ever you are doing



Skim through this Mahmoud:

In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[23] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[24][25] UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite U.S. pressure.[26] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[27][28] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May. 22&#8211;23. On 27 May he stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." [29] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[30] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.


----------



## The SC

In 1956, France, England and Israel, attacked the Egyptians for the control of the Suez canal than stoped by the egyptian army and the intervention of the US(before converting it to zionism to contain it) hence the vengeance on the US electronic warfare ships in 1967 by Israel.
Between 1956 and 1967 the israelis were aware of the Egyptian's intentions to close the canal to Israel (as an economics response to Jewish occupation of Palestine, an economics occupation to start with , backed by fire power from England and France to some extent) through western spy agencies that controlled Mossad (their front till today) and implanted spies throughout the Egyptian army and mostly the air force which Israel was no match to.
You can read the story of "Al mar'a al lati hakamat Misr", in eng. "the woman who governed Egypt", if you seek the truth.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

500 said:


> /\/\/\/\/\
> 
> Its funny how many words this frustrated guy has to write in order to prove that enciricled Egyptian army is great victory for Egypt  You won, your army is encircled!



You could not DARE to face 3rd army or 2nd army face to face. Is that called victory? Is trying to score a propaganda UNDER CEASEFIRES called victory? 

Who was CUT OFF? Ariel "Arik" Sharon ADMITS IT CLEARLY that Zionists were CUT OFF:
Ariel Sharon - Biography: 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War)




> The swift success of moving an entire brigade plus tanks and APC's to the other side of the canal, turns out to be a dangerous move, because Sharon's forces which are also in charge of broadening and securing the corridor through which the Israeli divisions should cross, fail to accomplish this part of the task. Now there is no safe way for the Israeli divisions to cross the canal and join the forces that have already crossed, and so there is a fear that the forces on the western side would remain cut off.





> Bren's division also fails to create a safe corridor for crossing between the two Egyptian Armies.





> Following the interviews to the American press and the things Sharon writes in the order of the day, Chief of Staff removes Sharon from his position as division commander





Shinigami said:


> arabs had the best armies in the world for centuries. modern warfare however, does not suit them.
> 
> surprisingly, this same trait can be found in pakistanis. maybe its the relegion



India has been ruled by foreigners directly for many millennia, because modern warfare does not suit Indians. The Arab Armies that fought in "modern times" were all secular, from Nasser and Sadat's Egypt to Assad's Syria, or Gaddafi's Libya, or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and so on. Maybe it is secularism that is at fault. It is true.



sarthak said:


> LOL , are you serious? Arabs can fight? Just shut up and go back to riding your camels . You people are the most uselss race on Earth. 0 aptitude for science and technology. Just stop all this war rhetoric and go back to making your falafels and shawarmas because that's all you are good for. The only reason arabs actually have somewhat civilised societies is because of all your oil money. The day that ends , you people would go back to the medieval ages and massacre each other like savages.



Listen you illiterate, out of the 22 or so Arab countries, including war torn Iraq and occupied Palestine, every one of them excluding some sub-Saharan African ones is wealthier/richer, more educated, more prosperous and more advanced than the illiterate cow worshippers from your most illiterate country in the world (which contains 1/3 of the entire world's illiterate population).

There is not a single Indian city on earth that can be called developed, forget the third world dump that is India. The moment India actually starts contributing to the world in a positive way you can start to talk. As of now, India is just a big consumer of Western and Soviet military technologies but produces nothing of its own. Its economy is so dirt poor that millions of Indians go to Arab countries as beggars for their living and not the other way around.

If Arabs from Saudi Arabia, UAE and others, even after seeing the opinion of Indians on this forum, do not expel Indians and take strong diplomatic measures, then it's only the Arabs themselves, the Arab public themselves (not the leaders) that should be blamed. It's time for the Arab public to take matters into their own hands, and teach the Indians on their turf many a lessons. Let's see how long illiterate starved backward rotten India can stand without infusion of money from Arab countries in the form of remittances and without trading with the wider Arab and Muslim world. 

When India builds a working sniper rifle, then you should begin to compare your backward nitwit society to the Arab world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

PteX said:


> Skim through this Mahmoud:
> 
> In May 1967, Nasser received false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was massing on the Syrian border.[23] Nasser began massing his troops in the Sinai Peninsula on Israel's border (May 16), expelled the UNEF force from Gaza and Sinai (May 19), and took up UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh, overlooking the Straits of Tiran.[24][25] UN Secretary-General U Thant proposed that the UNEF force be redeployed on the Israeli side of the border, but this was rejected by Israel despite U.S. pressure.[26] Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered an act of war, or a justification for war.[27][28] Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on May. 2223. On 27 May he stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight." [29] On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a defense pact. The following day, at Jordan's invitation, the Iraqi army began deploying troops and armored units in Jordan.[30] They were later reinforced by an Egyptian contingent. On June 1, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on June 4 the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six-Day War.


alot of what you said is true but what caused all this is you isreals threatning syria so our troops in sainai were there like general shazly said as militry protest some came without uniform and some came without guns it was a trap we walk right in to blocking the straits and expeeling the un is a result to this



> gyptians had there some armor and other forces. They also had to retreat some forces from the east bank back to west, but Saddat for political reasons and pride refused to any retreat. Also Egyptians became victims of own propaganda, claiming that Israeli force that crossed canal is very small and unimportant (when actually 3 armor divisions crossed). Many Egyptians still claim that


like i said before the isreal forces who crossed the canal didnt have any big victorys they knocked out some air defence yes they ambushed some bases but i would have agreed with you if the attack on ismailia or suez worked but like i said many times in the attack on ismalia your forces were stoped by sa3ka commandos and in suez the people and a few infantry men has defended the city you know very well that i am right but you are just arguing and that is ok we can spend our life in this fourm saying the same things again and again



S-19 said:


> It is wrong to say "modern warfare does not suit them". It is just that in the past they have been lagging in training and coordination capabilities. However at present they are trying to improve that. Hopefully they will again rise to be one of the best.
> 
> About pakistan, what more could you hope? It successfully defended itself from a neighbour 5+ times stronger in the past.


i invite you all to the thread about egyptian armed forces to see the egyptian army now a real professional well trained and equiped army


----------



## Banglar Lathial

The Arab Muslims should create active propaganda units to spread information and to inform their fellow Muslim brothers all around the world. All your enemies employ active propaganda units, why should you be left behind?


----------



## 500

Banglar Lathial said:


> You could not DARE to face 3rd army or 2nd army face to face.


What u are rambling there? 

1) We crushed joint 2nd and 3rd army offensive on 14 Oct.
2) We captured Chinese Farms from 2nd army that allowed us to cross the Canal.
3) We repulsed 3rd army counter attack at Chinese Farms.
4) We encyrcled 3rd army.




> Who was CUT OFF? Ariel "Arik" Sharon ADMITS IT CLEARLY that Zionists were CUT OFF:
> Ariel Sharon - Biography: 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War)





> Bren's division also fails to create a safe corridor for crossing between the two Egyptian Armies.


You "forgot" to quote few lines later. Here is the full quote:



> Bren's division also fails to create a safe corridor for crossing between the two Egyptian Armies. Egyptian forces try to destroy Sharon's bridgehead the eastern embankment. *After a fierce battle Sharon manages to push them back.*
> 
> At night, a brigade of *Sharon's division launch an attack on the Egyptian stronghold named the Chinese Farm, on the eastern side of the canal. After a bitter fight, they manage to open the road to the rafts convoy, and the rafts can finally advance towards the Backyard, the site where the breach in the sand embankment was made.*



Crossing was indeed a dangerous move, but it worked. Egyptians were pushed back, their attacks against Israeli bridghead and counteratacks were crashed. 3rd Egyptian army was surrounded and only cease fire saved it from collapse.

This was 2nd Egyptian army position on 14th Oct:






And this is 2nd Egyptian army in the end of war:





The area marked in blue was captured by Israel from 2nd army (Chinese Farm battle) and this allowed to cross canal and encyrcle 3rd army:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Banglar Lathial

Nice stories.


----------



## Banglar Lathial

Meanwhile, the radical Christian fundamentalist and anti Islamic Briton, Edgar O'Ballance admits the following:



> Golda Meir writes, in _My Life_, "*The war was a near disaster, a nightmare that I myself
> experienced and which will always be with me. ... I found myself as prime minister, in a position
> of ultimate responsibility at a time when the state faced the greatest threat it had known.*






> The Soviets estimate that Israel lost 289 aircraft, the American estimate was 200, but whatever
> the true figures were, they amounted to a lot of aircraft in a short space of time. At the time the
> McDonnell plant in the United States was producing only three Phantoms a month. General Tlas
> told me that, according to a notice published on all notice boards in Israeli air force camps after
> the war, 160 Israeli pilots had been lost, but the Israelis will admit to only about fifty





> ...four or five Israeli pilots landed on Syrian airfields and gave themselves up and that he gave
> one of their Phantoms to the Soviet Union. Later, sixty-three Israeli pilots captured by the
> Syrians were exchanged for Arab prisoners






> The much-used Israeli handout photograph of a captured SAM-6, according to the
> Egyptians, was merely a wooden dummy.






> *By the end of the first day of the war the Israelis had lost from both missiles and ZSUs at least
> thirty Skyhawks, ten Phantoms, and a proportion of their best pilots*, the cream of the hunter
> squadrons. The *Syrian *claim for the day was *forty-three Israeli aircraft*, which may have been
> about right. The government appealed to the Syrian people over the radio to "*help our armed
> forces to capture Israeli pilots alive*," as already some downed Israelis had been killed by
> villagers. The *Egyptian *claim for the day was *twenty-seven Israeli aircraft* (perhaps rather
> optimistic considering their new-style, low-profile reporting), and they admitted losing fifteen of
> their own. *The shock to the Israeli government and GHQ was immense, and an example of the
> reaction was the almost panic move of the Sinai air HQ to El Arish.*






> The Egyptians, for example, estimate the number of Israeli dead at 8,000 and the
> wounded at over 20,000, figures that are supported by Soviet estimates.





> at the Israeli Symposium on the October War held in Jerusalem in October 1975 Colonel Trevor Dupuy stated that "it was clear that Brigadier Badawri and his Third Army were not on the verge of collapse."





> _Most of the material that we are furnishing Israel is being drawn from Department of Defense
> stocks and in some cases from the inventories of active and reserve units._
> William P. Clements,
> U.S. deputy secretary of defense





> Herzog quotes Dayan as saying, "We tried, and it has been no go. ... In the morning they
> will slaughter them on the other side." Dayan wanted to abandon the operation.





> The Egyptian paratroop brigade with a small detachment of frogmen moved toward the bridge to
> blow it up. Sharon claimed that in this morning attack on his bridgehead the Egyptians left ten
> tanks on the field when they were beaten off. According to Herzog, it was later admitted that
> Sharon had lost over 100 killed and 300 wounded in the fighting on the west bank up to that day.
> At about 1700 hours the astonished Egyptian commander received an order to withdraw to his
> former positions "to avoid creating a salient." He double-checked only to find, according to
> Heikal, that the order came directly "from Number Ten." The artillery which had moved forward
> with him was also ordered to return to its former positions





> The Israelis claim that Magen reached the road near kilometre 101 (about sixtythree miles from Cairo) on the evening of the twenty-third, and that he left a small group of tanks
> near that point; they admit that his division was reduced to only fifty tanks. The Egyptians do not
> agree and insist Magen did not reach that road until the following day





> The fact
> that the Israelis broke the cease-fire and went on to encircle the Egyptian Third Array led the
> Soviet Union to think the United States had deliberately outwitted it.





> On the twenty-fourth Magen's division, now on the Cairo-Suez road, began pushing westward
> but was held at kilometre 101, and so a part of it commenced moving eastward to try to cut off
> the Third Army. Suez was held by elements of the 19th Infantry Division, and in the morning
> Adan asked permission to attack that city again. He was told by General Gonen that "if it is to be
> a Benghazi, yes; but if it is to be a Stalingrad, no." Adan chose to attack, using a tank unit and a paratroop battalion. They openly advanced along
> the wide main boulevard into the city, only to be fired upon suddenly from the buildings on
> either side of the roadway. One Egyptian officer who was there told me that "within twenty
> minutes twenty of the twenty-four Israeli tank commanders of the column, who were exposed in
> their turrets, were killed or wounded." The Israelis had not expected such stiff resistance, but although surprised, the tanks still charged forward, mostly to take cover behind buildings.
> 
> Following in half-tracks, the paratroops also suffered casualties, but, dismounting rapidly, they
> took cover. Eventually, such Israeli tanks as were able withdrew from the city, but two groups of
> paratroops, cut off in the centre of the city, held out during the day. When darkness fell most of
> them managed to escape to their own lines. The Israelis admit to suffering eighty casualties in
> this abortive battle and to losing eleven tanks, seventeen armoured personnel carriers, and some
> trucks. The Egyptians say the Israelis left sixteen tanks and fourteen trucks behind in the city





> Their aircraft commenced
> dropping thousands of leaflets on the Third Army, urging the soldiers to either surrender or
> desert. The Israelis were now concentrating upon taking as many prisoners as possible; the
> majority were administrative and logistic personnel left behind in the withdrawal of the Air
> Defence Barrier and other units.



(as mentioned earlier, it was just Zionist propaganda efforts to try to claim a "face saving victory")



> On the morning of the twenty-fifth there was to have been a cease-fire at 0700 hours, but at 0650
> hours, as U.N. observers approached an Israeli tank battalion standing near Adabiya, south of
> Suez, instead of waiting to meet them, the Israeli tanks suddenly raced forward and entered
> Adabiya. The Egyptians claim this was an unfair trick. About a hundred Egyptian servicemen
> collected on a rocky protrusion just south of Adabiya, where they held out against the Israelis
> until the thirty-first but were not allowed by the U.N. observers to hoist their own national flag.





> On the twenty-fifth the Israelis made their third attack on Suez at about 0800 hours. This time
> they used one of their Soviet squadrons of some fifteen Tiran tanks supported by infantry in
> civilian-impressed trucks. Although the fighting continued until about 1550 hours, the Israelis
> could not break through into the centre of the city and had to withdraw with the loss of ten tanks.
> The fighting in this area died down about 1700 hours when four U.N. observers came on the
> scene. Later an Israeli spokesman gave the Israeli casualties for the battle for Suez as being 68
> officers, 23 pilots, 373 soldiers, and one civilian killed.





> The Israelis claim that on the twenty-sixth, the day that marked the end of Ramadan, they had
> completely encircled the Third Army, scattered leaflets over it, and called on it to surrender. On
> the other hand, the Egyptians claim that their "army, local militia, and civilians "were "besieging
> [the] Israeli pocket" on the west bank. Certainly civilians were blocking roads and tracks with
> vehicles and obstacles and preventing Sharon from reaching the Ismailia-Cairo road to the west
> of Ismailia. On the canal side, after flooding certain areas adjacent to the sand rampart, Egyptian
> rangers regained a pyramid while paratroops pushed Sharon's men backward along the sand
> rampart



Here's the so-called 'entrapped' Egyptian 3rd Army taking Zionists as Prisoners (of War). Maybe, the Zionists will claim next that Zionists got captured to trick the Egyptian 3rd Army into believing that it was not surrounded. Or maybe, they will claim that they surrendered themselves to the Egyptian 3rd Army to make the Egyptians feel better. 





Gen Saad El Shazly publishes this map in his book (Arabic version), which can be downloaded for free. 





Nobody needs to understand Arabic to understand who was encircled and trapped.


----------



## 500

Banglar Lathial said:


> Golda Meir writes, in My Life, "The war was a near disaster, a nightmare that I myself
> experienced and which will always be with me. ... I found myself as prime minister, in a position
> of ultimate responsibility at a time when the state faced the greatest threat it had known.


For Israelis losing 2,500 people is disaster, especially since this loss could be prevented if Israel was launching the preemptive strike. But Golda refused. For Arabs losing 10,000+ is nothing.



> the American estimate was 200


Plz show me that so called American estimate.

It's hard to undertsand for you that unlike Arab countries Israel publishes all its dead. Israel lost 46 pilots in that war, I can give all their names.



> Here's the so-called 'entrapped' Egyptian 3rd Army taking Zionists as Prisoners (of War). Maybe, the Zionists will claim next that Zionists got captured to trick the Egyptian 3rd Army into believing that it was not surrounded. Or maybe, they will claim that they surrendered themselves to the Egyptian 3rd Army to make the Egyptians feel better.


I dont understand whats that pic suppose to prove. Egypt captured 242 IDF soldiers, most of them in surprise attack in first days of war. IDF captured 8,372 Egyptian soldiers.



> Gen Saad El Shazly publishes this map in his book (Arabic version), which can be downloaded for free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs to understand Arabic to understand who was encircled and trapped.


This map clearly shows that 3rd Army is trapped.

And if its not clear from the map, here Shazly's words:



> The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself *begging for Soviet help.*
> 
> 25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, *nobody could come up with a realistic plan.*
> 
> *To stay alive the Third Army needed rather over 150 tons of supplies a day.* The vast column of soft-skinned vehicles needed to carry such quantitiies would simply be an added burden on the tank crews of 4th Division as they fought their way down the road.
> 
> And after. On October 30, when *the plight of Third Army was desperate*, the Egyptian newspapers appeared with banner headlines: "Our forces are in complete control of the West Bank of the Canal between Deversoir and Suez Town" and: "The Third Army is Receiving Supplies in the Normal Fashion." The whole world was being told of the encirclement of Third Army except the wives, mothers, sisters and sweethearts of the men suffering out there. Of course, rumors began to circulate. It was a catastrophe too big to hide.
> 
> I had lost almost 11 pounds in six weeks. But how could I relax while the *45,000 officers and men of Third Army were cut off*?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Kansu said:


> What a revenge... i m not a nationalist but i dont think that arab brothers are suitable for army =) i cant remember even a single war they won in last millenium...



Do not be so arrogant brother if they couldn't win any war you wouldn't have been a Muslim(if you are one, you might also be a Jewish Turk) today.
For a reference look up Khalid Ibn Al walid and the likes in Muslim warfare History, starting with the Prophet SAAS himself and ALI his cousin.


----------



## Juice

You will easily be able to tell when Arabs "win" a war against Isreal, Isreal will cease to exist (as per the stated aims of Muslims). Isreal is still there, ergo they have not lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

The synthesis of the Ramadan War 1973:

Egypt: To cross the Canal and destroy the fortification of the Bar Lev line.

In response
Israel had to destroy Egypt's Second and Third Army.

So Egypt won the war by any logic, since they have attained their strategic objective of crossing the Suez canal -under the treat of setting the canal on fire by the Israelis-, destroying the* most heavily protected fortification in history*, the Barlev line and ultimately recover the Sinai peninsula.

Israel failed to destroy or capture any Egyptian army, be it the second or the third.

On the Syrian front, it was an even war, nor the Syrians could recapture the Golan heights neither the Israelis could defeat the Syrian army.

So where anyone can see any "winning" of Israel.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> destroying the* most heavily protected fortification in history*, the Barlev line




The Israeli army was not moblized. The entire 150 km line was protected by 450 soldiers. 100,000 Egyptian soldiers attacked 450 Israeli.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

500 said:


> The Israeli army was not moblized. The entire 150 km line was protected by 450 soldiers. 100,000 Egyptian soldiers attacked 450 Israeli.


did you count the counter attack forces ? or the second attack which attacked the chineese farm ?


----------



## Ottoman-Turk

man stop this , egypt did beat israel in the yom kippur war as they got back alot of the disaster in 1967 and they did win but syria got a real big disaster , some people can mix up to fronts


----------



## PteX

Ottoman-Turk said:


> man stop this , egypt did beat israel in the yom kippur war as they got back alot of the disaster in 1967 and they did win but syria got a real big disaster , some people can mix up to fronts


Yes but Russians, Americans and every other nation, outside of the Arab world and the lunatic Islamists, know that Israel won. Even Turkish documentations say so. It is pathetic that so many people live in a delusional reality of their own.

1973 Arap-

Sonuç &#304;srail'in taktiksel zaferi

Kay&#305;plar
&#304;srail: 800[1] tank, 115[1] uçak, 2.523[1] asker M&#305;s&#305;r-Suriye: 2.000[1] tank, 450[1] uçak, 16.000[1] asker


----------



## 500

Mahmoud_EGY said:


> did you count the counter attack forces ? or the second attack which attacked the chineese farm ?


Counter attack forces are counter attack forces. The line itself was a joke. 



Ottoman-Turk said:


> man stop this , egypt did beat israel in the yom kippur war


when got their army encircled?


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

> Counter attack forces are counter attack forces. The line itself was a joke.


a joke ? your defence minster said before the war that egypt needs the entire combat engineers from the sovit union and the us to pass it


----------



## Ottoman-Turk

look it says this 


Sonuç	&#304;srail'in taktiksel zaferi
&#304;srail ve M&#305;s&#305;r'&#305;n politik ve stratejik zaferi
Arap devletlerinin petrol ambargosu

so it says Result = israil tactical victory

israel and egypt political and strategic victory 

and arab embargo thats what it says



PteX said:


> Yes but Russians, Americans and every other nation, outside of the Arab world and the lunatic Islamists, know that Israel won. Even Turkish documentations say so. It is pathetic that so many people live in a delusional reality of their own.
> 
> 1973 Arap-
> 
> Sonuç &#304;srail'in taktiksel zaferi
> 
> Kay&#305;plar
> &#304;srail: 800[1] tank, 115[1] uçak, 2.523[1] asker M&#305;s&#305;r-Suriye: 2.000[1] tank, 450[1] uçak, 16.000[1] asker


----------



## PteX

Ottoman-Turk said:


> look it says this
> 
> 
> Sonuç	&#304;srail'in taktiksel zaferi
> &#304;srail ve M&#305;s&#305;r'&#305;n politik ve stratejik zaferi
> Arap devletlerinin petrol ambargosu
> 
> so it says Result = israil tactical victory
> 
> israel and egypt political and strategic victory
> 
> and arab embargo thats what it says


Yeah, and? The topic here is Military. Military victory is Tactical victory. The Egyptians considered it a victory for not being completely destroyed and only partially destroyed. Israel won militarily and the Arabs gloated about their little diplomatic victory slogan, thus the peace agreement was signed.


----------



## KingMamba

EyelessInGaza said:


> Ah, a fellow enthusiast of the 1973 war?
> 
> You are right. Sadat was pressurized by the Syrians. My reading suggests that by then the Syrian thrust in the Golan had petered out and the Israelis were responding after being in the defensive for days. Syria was under a lot of pressure.
> 
> The reason that Egypt's later attacks petered out was that their tanks were charging into prepared Israeli positions without air or SAM cover which made them sitting ducks. In short, they had abandoned the strategy that was winning them the war. Instead of waiting for the Israelis to come to them, they attacked and paid the price.
> 
> Regardless of the immediate result, 1973 is regarded by many military strategists as a war that _both_ Israelis and Egypt won. But that's another story.



He may not be an enthusiast but I on the other hand am. Here is some reads that may come as a shock but it definitively worth looking into. This was written by an Israeli, also I have found many such articles about this online and also read the declassified documents which I can't seem to find right now. Enjoy  and reflect.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/02/22/what-really-happened-in-the-yom-kippur-war/



PteX said:


> Yeah, and? The topic here is Military. Military victory is Tactical victory. The Egyptians considered it a victory for not being completely destroyed and only partially destroyed. Israel won militarily and the Arabs gloated about their little diplomatic victory slogan, thus the peace agreement was signed.



PteX didn't I already discuss with you what happened in another thread to which you had no answer?


----------



## KingMamba

jamal18 said:


> Sadat's decision to accept a ceasefire was his, and his alone. Even Egyptian GHQ did not know, and wasn't consulted.
> 
> The reason he gave was that the Egyptians had totally underestimated America's commitment to Israel. The scale of the U.S resupply to Israel had astounded them. In his estimation, for the last ten days of the war, Egypt had been fighting the U.S. In his view, to continue the war would have bought Egypt into direct conflict with the U.S., and this would have been a disaster for them.



Yes agreed, many sources on this subject indicate that this was Sadat's reasoning. Following the initial gains the Israelis were in trouble and told the US that they were willing to go nuclear unless they were resupplied. This directly led to the re-arming of Israeli forces which then mounted their counter attack which pushed the Arabs back. From the US point of view they had little choice to rearming the Israelis or face nuclear retaliation from the Soviets who were backing Egypt and Syria. 

Israel's Nuclear Weapons 

scroll down to 1963-1973 you can find other sources if you look as well.



EyelessInGaza said:


> You have misunderstood what I wrote.
> 
> In any case I will elucidate- It is claimed that 1973 was not a one to one battle because the Israelis outgunned the Egyptians through overwhelming support.
> 
> I am against that position, for the reasons I described- because the Egyptians and Syrians were fighting one enemy. Because they also had other nations behind them. Because they were also supported by Soviet arms. Because they attacked first.
> 
> So to the extent it was ' not a one to one battle' it was the Israelis who were with the disadvantage of fighting larger numbers rather than the other way round.



It can argued that the Israelis were just cocky which is why they were surprised. It is said that they had an agent inside Egypt who told them about the impending war but was off by the hour at which it would start. Israelis never considered Arabs any sort of threat which is why they were overwhelmed. This also plays into the reasons as to why they were willing to compromise in 1979 as they finally respected Egypt military capabilities and decided peace meant more to them than the Sinai.



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Facinating thread
> 
> Jordanians King lol flew in to inform Israel talk about a sincere friend



Yes however Golda Meir disregarded the Arabs as being not a threat.



S-2 said:


> Sadat's decision to attack out of the Egyptian enclave carved out along the east bank was politically-driven by Syrian pleas for assistance to pressure the Israelis.
> 
> The Syrians, with great bravery and less skill, were smashed by elements of two Israeli armor-heavy brigades who stood toe-to-toe with the Syrian and duked it out in day-night combat that was unceasing in its ferocity.
> 
> It was a ballsy fight with no quarter given or taken on the Golan. Unmatched by either Kursk or DESERT STORM because the Israelis certainly lost the best parts of both brigades but gave back even more. The relatively short frontage created huge numbers of modern MBTs fighting one another but the Syrians ended up stacked upon one another and simply couldn't penetrate into the valley behind the Israeli tankers. There was no room for Israeli retreat. It was DIP (defend in place) or more euphemistically known as die-in-place. And so they fought...and died but bought time for Israeli reserve divisions to slowly muster, come forth and eventually counterattack into Syria.
> 
> Whether you hate the Israelis or otherwise, it was an epic defense of the highest order against incredible odds on the Golan. In the Sinai, a different story where the IDF, both ground and air initially fought without heed to the development of Soviet anti-tank and SAM capabilities.
> 
> Had Israel better understood or appreciated the ATGW threat, they possessed the means to neutralize such. Their artillery was quite capable but underutilized. Both HE and WP/HC smoke would have served them well but their battle-plan didn't fully integrate these fires as they should have been.
> 
> Neither did they use artillery in SEAD (suppression of enemy air defense) well. SAM-2 and SAM-3 sites were invulnerable to this type of attack by virtue of their distance from the front but, certainly, both AAA (ZSU-23-4 _Shilka_ and ZSU-57-2) and mobile SAM (SA-7 GRAIL SA-6 GAINFUL) were vulnerable to artillery fires.
> 
> It didn't have to go as it did in the Sinai. It couldn't have gone any other way in the Golan.
> 
> Thanks.



Agreed with most points, especially the part about Israeli bravado. This account which you can find in Wikipedia impressed me the most. 

"Captain Zvika Greengold, who had just arrived unattached to any unit, fought running battles with Syrian armor for 20 hours, sometimes with his single tank and other times as part of a larger unit, changing tanks half a dozen times as they were knocked out. Greengold suffered burn injuries, but stayed in action and repeatedly showed up at critical moments from an unexpected direction to change the course of a skirmish.[194] For his actions, he received Israel's highest decoration, the Medal of Valor."

Yom Kippur War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Ottoman-Turk

did egypt get back suez canal?



PteX said:


> Yeah, and? The topic here is Military. Military victory is Tactical victory. The Egyptians considered it a victory for not being completely destroyed and only partially destroyed. Israel won militarily and the Arabs gloated about their little diplomatic victory slogan, thus the peace agreement was signed.



they did so that is victory aswell


----------



## 500

Ottoman-Turk said:


> did egypt get back suez canal?


Not in the war.



Mahmoud_EGY said:


> a joke ? your defence minster said before the war that egypt needs the entire combat engineers from the sovit union and the us to pass it


Barlev line was basically a sand rampart + 450 soldiers in bunkers. Thats al. It was not Maginot nowhere even close to it.


----------



## Mahmoud_EGY

> Yeah, and? The topic here is Military. Military victory is Tactical victory. The Egyptians considered it a victory for not being completely destroyed and only partially destroyed. Israel won militarily and the Arabs gloated about their little diplomatic victory slogan, thus the peace agreement was signed.


can we discuss the egyptian front only it was a military and political victory 


> Barlev line was basically a sand rampart + 450 soldiers in bunkers. Thats al. It was not Maginot nowhere even close to it.


general saad el shazly described in his book what was the bar leiv line read it


----------



## PteX

KingMamba93 said:


> He may not be an enthusiast but I on the other hand am. Here is some reads that may come as a shock but it definitively worth looking into. This was written by an Israeli, also I have found many such articles about this online and also read the declassified documents which I can't seem to find right now. Enjoy  and reflect.
> 
> What Really Happened in the
> 
> 
> 
> PteX didn't I already discuss with you what happened in another thread to which you had no answer?


I apologize but i don't know who you are... Did we communicate before?


----------



## Arabian Legend

if the Zionists were not backed by the US Palestine would have been a part of Egypt today.


----------



## The SC

pak-yes said:


> what revenge?after initial success they were ultimately beaten to hell.


Read this and see how Israel took the beating of its life:

1973 Arab-Israeli conflict: The Truth once and for all


----------



## The SC

pak-yes said:


> ^^I don't think so.In those days USSR was around and America couldn't just attack anyone like these days.


They too were helping Usrael covertly. Egyptians have found out (with proofs) that Russians were giving their air force codes to the Usraelis. They have sustained many mysterious losses to that fact and decided to change the codes without soviet knowledge. And the Egyptian losses went down dramatically.


----------



## The SC

Mercenary said:


> The War started on October 6.
> 
> By October 10, the Egyptians had halted in Sinai and Syrian attack in Golan was defeated and Syrians were back at their starting position.
> 
> American Aid to Israel only arrived on October 14 and was not absorbed by the Israeli Military for several days later.
> 
> Egypt launched its disastrous attack on Sinai passes on October 14 which was totally defeated to support the Syrians. Soviet Union supplied 60,000 tons of supplies to Syria and Egypt while Israelis got 20,000 tons of supplies.
> 
> So what this means, Israel defeated the Syrians on its own without outside help and Egyptians were defeated due to their own stupidity of launching an attack outside their SAM cover.
> 
> The American Aid allowed the Israels to expend what they have more freely and thus enabled them to launch the counter-attack on the Egyptian 3rd Army.
> 
> The Soviets heavily supplied the Syrians and they halted the Israelis.
> 
> So in conclusion, the Egyptians and Syrians fought well and had a good plan but they should have realized that the Syrians would bear the brunt of the fighting and the Syrians should have had more troops, tanks, weapons initially to hold back the Israeli counter-attack.


The real story is something else. The American supplies started on the 5th day of the war unofficially.
How can one believe such a distorted statement that Egyptians went to help the Syrians, they were not on the same battle field. To put pressure on Usrael? that is non-sense, since they knew how many reservists Usrael had for both fronts.
And like you say the Syrians halted the Usraeli advances, they could have done it earlier, but that was not part of the plan.
The Plan was to give Usrael the lesson of its existence in warfare against the Arabs and erase its myth of superiority.
This was a due to all the Arabs, since Egypt in 1967 was the most powerfull nation in the middle east with a top notch air force of more than 400 fighter aircrafts (Yes, in those days). It was attacked without provocation, and most of its air force was lost to a 150+ jet attackers at the same time, then the Egyptian army was more or less decimated in the Sinai.
In between this "War" and the 1973 war there was another war, very seldom talked about, where the Egyptians with very few warplanes teached many lessons to the Usraelis.
You can watch the following documentary as a testimony to that preparatory war to the 1973 confrontation. It is called Wings of fury.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> The real story is something else. The American supplies started on the 5th day of the war unofficially.


Who told u that? Same guys who told u that Israel nuked Syria I bet?



> And like you say the Syrians halted the Usraeli advances, they could have done it earlier, but that was not part of the plan.


Yes, Syrian plan was losing tens billions and many thousands of troops without achieving anything at all. Genius plan. And by the way Israelis were halted by Iraqis and Jordanians, not Syrians.



> Egypt in 1967 was the most powerfull nation in the middle east with a top notch air force of more than 400 fighter aircrafts (Yes, in those days). It was attacked without provocation


How could Israel attack Egypt, if there were UN forces in between? Oh wait, Egypt ordered the UN forces to leave just before the 1967 war. 



> In between this "War" and the 1973 war there was another war, very seldom talked about, where the Egyptians with very few warplanes teached many lessons to the Usraelis.


Israeli Air-to-Air Victories in 1973 - www.acig.org

Tell us more abut the magnificent Qaher-313.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

In the 1973 war Egyptian infantry units performed very well ,as did the SAM units of both egypt and syria.Both airforces and armor units were badly outclassed by israeli pilots and tank gunners.Even syrian infantry was subpar compared to egyptians.
2000 syrian tanks lost to less than 200 israeli ones.That tells u something.


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> Who told u that? Same guys who told u that Israel nuked Syria I bet?
> 
> 
> Yes, Syrian plan was losing tens billions and many thousands of troops without achieving anything at all. Genius plan. And by the way Israelis were halted by Iraqis and Jordanians, not Syrians.
> 
> 
> How could Israel attack Egypt, if there were UN forces in between? Oh wait, Egypt ordered the UN forces to leave just before the 1967 war.
> 
> 
> Israeli Air-to-Air Victories in 1973 - www.acig.org
> 
> Tell us more abut the magnificent Qaher-313.



- Sorry for the mistake, they have started the supplies on the first day, due to the security pact with the US! The russians too have supplied Usrael with some 80 airplanes and the communication codes of the Egyptian airforce. 

- The Iraqis couldn't reach the Golan in time, so this is another of your fabricated lies. The Syrians have destroyed more of your aircrafts in the Golan than the Egyptians in the Sinai, and you know very well that were huge numbers. And how come they halted at 15 km from the bridges to allow your reserves to cross, for a fight.

- It was an air attack, what are you trying to lie about again.

- Every sane person knows that was an American victory ( the same as the deal to allow Sharon forces to cross the canal),not yours. Sadat himself said that he couldn't fight the US, and that Usrael was like a shewing gum for the Egyptian armed forces.
Usrael was dead in the first 6 hours of the 1973 war, without the US immediate morale and military support, it would have been buried in the first 24 hours of the war.
You will see the Qaher-313 that made you sick in time, when the Iranians will want it to be shown again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> - Sorry for the mistake, they have started the supplies on the first day, due to the security pact with the US!


Google "operation Nickle Grass". The first transport landed in Israel in the evening of 14th October.



> The russians too have supplied Usrael with some 80 airplanes and the communication codes of the Egyptian airforce.


Pure comedy. Your conspiracy theories getting dumber and dumber from day to day.



> - The Iraqis couldn't reach the Golan in time, so this is another of your fabricated lies.


Iraqi divisions arrived in Syria between 10-11 Oct. On 12th Oct 3rd Iraqi division attacked 210th Israeli division, halting its offensive.



> The Syrians have destroyed more of your aircrafts in the Golan than the Egyptians in the Sinai


Thats not true, Egyptians destroyed more.



> and you know very well that were huge numbers. And how come they halted at 15 km from the bridges to allow your reserves to cross, for a fight.


Either another of ur BS stories or Assad is a Mossad agent.



> - It was an air attack, what are you trying to lie about again.


How possible to capture Sinai with air attack?



> You will see the Qaher-313 that made you sick in time, when the Iranians will want it to be shown again.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Oublious

The SC said:


> They too were helping Usrael covertly. Egyptians have found out (with proofs) that Russians were giving their air force codes to the Usraelis. They have sustained many mysterious losses to that fact and decided to change the codes without soviet knowledge. And the Egyptian losses went down dramatically.



so why are these morons stil buying weopons from russian again? it doesn't make no sense....


----------



## The SC

By Qadri Hafny | Al Arabiya Institute for Studies
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
The Israelis felt defeated by the Egyptian victory of Oct. 6, 1973. It wasn’t just a defeat in battle but defeat in the face of the biggest threat to its existence in its 25 years of being. During that time, Israel feared for the fate of its people and its own existence as a state.

This Israeli assessment of the repercussions of the war was published a few months after the end of the October war, but it is worth revisiting the Israeli stance after the cooling down period; things have become clearer and more realistic.

In fact the famous social psychologist Richard Lazarus addressed the international association of psychologists at its yearly convention in Tel Aviv in 1975, speaking about the psychology of stressful situations and the way to face them, with particular emphasis on the situation Israel was in.

As a middle-aged American Jew, Lazarus expressed his support of Israel but noted that the Israelis were living in a continuous state of trauma, expecting to be killed or lose their loved ones in war or terror attacks anytime and feeling lonely in a world that hated them. This dislike of Israel increased after the October war, when the western countries supported the oil producing Arabs and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was well received at the U.N. while Israel was asked to leave UNESCO as a direct result of the growing role of third world countries.

He enumerated the changes that occurred to the Israeli assessments, especially since this war was against the Israeli perception of Arabs, who united and fought bravely and surprised the Israeli intelligence community.

Lazarus quoted one of the Israeli newspapers’ headlines one year after the October war as saying: “something was broken at the Yum Kippur war last year. The state was saved but our faith is lost, our confidence is broken and our hearts are torn as we almost lost a full generation.”

He said that this was the first war that didn’t strengthen Israel as it was a psychological disaster in so much that it destroyed the legend of the invincible army. The biggest danger, he said, was replacing this idea by the fear of being under threat at all times.

Lazarus concluded by advising the new generation to connect with their ancestors and benefit from the experience of the diaspora, when Jews felt neglected and unable to rely on anyone but themselves.

He called for an informed assessment of the situation and for preparing Israel for a long conflict with the Arabs. He called for Israel to deal with the fact as an ongoing threat. It seems that he succeeded in nurturing Israeli aggression and their Zionist tendancies as well.

*A different view*
During that same period, Victor Sanouh, an American Jewish psychologist, with clear Zionist and anti-Arabs views, published a study about “the psychological effects of Yom Kippur war” in a specialized journal.

Sanouh said that 5 to 10% of Israelis were traumatized after the October war, which is a high percentage compared to minimal numbers in previous wars. He noted that this might be the result of the surprise war launched by the Arabs during the holiest of the Jewish holidays.

Sanouh noted that after the war, Israeli society witnessed a new trend of recoursing to the services of psychic intermediates to connect with lost or killed soldiers. This trend even reached the cultivated youth, he said.

That was the overall Israeli reaction to the October war. They all agreed that it was a defeat although they disagree over the reason, the consequences and the ways of facing it.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...y-of-the-October-war-in-Egypt-and-Israel.html


----------



## The SC

Oublious said:


> so why are these morons stil buying weopons from russian again? it doesn't make no sense....


Because time have changed. Remember that in those days, more precisely in 1972, .Nixon visited the Soviet Union and reached a deal for "Detente", So in the 1973 they were both reluctant to face each other or scrap the deal. Also Egypt sent 20,000 Russian military advisors back home just before starting the war, to keep them unaware of the Egyptian timing of the conflict. This fact alone shows how suspicious the Egyptians grew to be of the soviets in that era. The soviets did not like it and gave the Egyptian air force communication codes to Usrael, but Egypt found out quickly and changed those codes...


----------



## FaujHistorian

The SC said:


> Because time have changed. Remember that in those days, more precisely in 1972, .Nixon visited the Soviet Union and reached a deal for "Detente", So in the 1973 they were both reluctant to face each other or scrap the deal. Also Egypt sent 20,000 Russian military advisors back home just before starting the war, to keep them unaware of the Egyptian timing of the conflict. This fact alone shows how suspicious the Egyptians grew to be of the soviets in that era. The soviets did not like it and gave the Egyptian air force communication codes to Usrael, but Egypt found out quickly and changed those codes...




you my bro are putting conspiracy theories within conspiracy theories within conspiracy theories. 

like those Russian eggs within eggs within eggs within eggs. 

This is good for time pass shooting breeze. 


But the same time it is terrible from military history pov. 

militaries do not loose wars because somebody stole their codes. 

They loose wars because they were utterly incompetent and thus $tupid to start such wars.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Mercenary

Arabian Legend said:


> if the Zionists were not backed by the US Palestine would have been a part of Egypt today.



Says who?

USA only started backing Israel after the 6 Day War in 1967. Before that all Israeli Weaponry were of British and French origin.

Even in 1973, USA support to Israel didnt start until October 14. By that time, Syrian forces had been stopped in the Golan Heights and had been pushed back across the 1967 Lines and Israel had advanced into Syria proper. Against the Egyptians, Israel had defeated the Egyptian attack towards the Sinai passes and was planning to cross the canal.

In short, Operation Nickle Grass was not a game changer in the Yom Kippur War, all it did was gave the Israelis the comfort that their material losses would be replaced and thus allowed to expend what they had more fruitfully.

Egypt and Syria recived far more material from the Soviets than the Israelis from the Americans.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## The SC

FaujHistorian said:


> you my bro are putting conspiracy theories within conspiracy theories within conspiracy theories.
> 
> like those Russian eggs within eggs within eggs within eggs.
> 
> This is good for time pass shooting breeze.
> 
> 
> But the same time it is terrible from military history pov.
> 
> militaries do not loose wars because somebody stole their codes.
> 
> They loose wars because they were utterly incompetent and thus $tupid to start such wars.


Who told you the Egyptians or the Arabs have lost the war (they have found out about russian low intensity duplicity and remedied to that ), read post # 242.
There were conspiracy theories, that is too evident from the conduct of the war after the first 8 days. Any how world wide diplomacy is full of them up till now. What we are calling conspiracy theories is just the way hostile diplomacies work , so in reality those are not theories but practices.


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> Google "operation Nickle Grass". The first transport landed in Israel in the evening of 14th October.
> 
> 
> Pure comedy. Your conspiracy theories getting dumber and dumber from day to day.
> 
> 
> Iraqi divisions arrived in Syria between 10-11 Oct. On 12th Oct 3rd Iraqi division attacked 210th Israeli division, halting its offensive.
> 
> 
> Thats not true, Egyptians destroyed more.
> 
> 
> Either another of ur BS stories or Assad is a Mossad agent.
> 
> 
> How possible to capture Sinai with air attack?



Read post #242, it answers all your BS from your own kind who came back to reason.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> Read post #242, it answers all your BS from your own kind who came back to reason.


So after u failed miserably in military matters and backing ur moronic conspiracy theories u want us to discuss psychology? Really?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> So after u failed miserably in military matters and backing ur moronic conspiracy theories u want us to discuss psychology? Really?


I have already told you about your psychological problems long time ago!
That article in post # 242 was written for Usraelis like you from other Usraelis, about your miserable war failures and especially your lies about military matters. You can stop your BS or continue it won"t change anything in reality.
By the way your post is a testimony to your psychological disturbances, please spare us from your own shortcoming and go seek some help from a psychologist .


----------



## The SC

Martin Van Creveld suggested the explanation that on October 8, when Israel felt that the battle was being lost, it threatened Syria with a nuclear strike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_Tears
Valley of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He meant with American nuclear weapons.


----------



## The SC

*
...
EI: We have known later that (former Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat refused (former Presidential Chief of Staff Saad) al-Shazly’s plan to liquidate the Israeli infiltration between the Second and Third armies. I wonder what made the Egyptian army abide by the ceasefire although the Israelis were breaching it and advancing in the Western bank of Suez Canal?*

Daigle: That was what happened on 24 October exactly. On the night of 24 October after the Americans placed their forces on military alert, they recalled troops that were on leave. And they made it appear that the US was going to send forces. They started moving carriers and ships to the Mediterranean, so they’re making it appear that they were ready to intervene if needed. But they really did not want to send troops into the Middle East. You have to remember that in 1973 this was only nine months after the Paris-peace accords and this would be a sign of war, and Vietnam just ended, so the Americans didn’t want to get involved in another war in a far away land. So by pushing to the alert, Kissinger was saying to the Egyptians and to the Soviets “We are prepared to intervene if necessary.”

*EI: Finally, as a historian, how do you estimate the conclusion of 18 days of fighting in both military and political terms?*

Daigle: Obviously, the balance of power changed completely after Sadat advanced the attack following 14 October. Militarily, at the end of the war there was not one Egyptian soldier or one Syrian soldier on Israeli territory. The Israelis had moved beyond the Suez Canal, to the west side of the canal, they had moved further into Syria. So, it was a military victory for the Israelis. However, the war was also a political victory for Sadat, because his aims were not to defeat Israel militarily. His aims were to get the parties moved off their frozen positions, to get Kissinger actively involved. If you look at the documents leading up to 1973, what you see in early 1973 is that Kissinger doesn’t want to get involved. He’s fine with the status quo. And that’s what Sadat was trying to change. In (former US President Richard) Nixon’s first term he couldn’t do it. In 1973, Muhammad Hafiz Ismail, Sadat’s adviser for national security affairs, came to meet Kissinger in secret negotiations and he went back and said, “nothing is going to happen. Kissinger doesn’t want to get involved.” Kissinger was more interested in Europe and China; he said in a big speech that 1973 is going to be the year of Europe. The Middle East for him was a sideshow. So Sadat was trying to change that attitude. Two weeks after, Kissinger showed up in Egypt and they began the process of diplomacy and they moved the Middle East to the front of foreign policy agenda from 1974 to 1976. Sadat shook the myth of the Israelis as invincible. The Israelis believed that if there was another Middle East war, it was going to be 1967 all over again and Sadat showed them that the Egyptian defense and preparations had improved, and that the Israelis could not win another quick war. And, because they could not win a quick war against the Arabs, that made Israel weaker and it forced them to understand that they could not hold on to the territories. That was the other victory for the Arabs. They demonstrated that Israel holding on to the occupied territories doesn’t make Israel safer, because that’s the Israeli argument. But when you end up in a war and your people are dying, it doesn’t make you safer and so they realize that they had to negotiate.

Behind the Egypt-Israel October war: Q&A with Craig Daigle - Part 4 | Egypt Independent


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> *...
> EI: We have known later that (former Egyptian President Anwar) Sadat refused (former Presidential Chief of Staff Saad) al-Shazly’s plan to liquidate the Israeli infiltration between the Second and Third armies. *


Another conspiracy retarded theory. And here the Shazly own words:

_25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, *nobody could come up with a realistic plan*.

"My men and I are ready to die to open the road to the Third Army," Qabiyl (Brigadier of the 4th Armored division) said. "But I have to say *I do not think we will succeed*. And if our division is destroyed *the road to Cairo will be wide open*." _

---------------------------------
I must say that I never seen someone in my life so obsessed with conspiracy. I wonder what is ur problem. Its really unhealthy what is happening to u.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> Another conspiracy retarded theory. And here the Shazly own words:
> 
> _25 Oct 1100 hours: A meeting of the Armed Forces Supreme Council, the first since the outbreak of war. ...The main topic was, of course, how to open the road to Third Army. But though everyone spoke with passion, *nobody could come up with a realistic plan*.
> 
> "My men and I are ready to die to open the road to the Third Army," Qabiyl (Brigadier of the 4th Armored division) said. "But I have to say *I do not think we will succeed*. And if our division is destroyed *the road to Cairo will be wide open*." _
> 
> ---------------------------------
> I must say that I never seen someone in my life so obsessed with conspiracy. I wonder what is ur problem. Its really unhealthy what is happening to u.


Are you talking to yourself?
This is what your generals said about that war. so go talk to them and ask them why they have failed .





If it came to General Shazli, your troops would have never been allowed to cross the suez canal. You are quoting him desperately, but it only makes you think about what was stated , that the war was tricked, and the real objectives of Sadat were not the total defeat of Usrael, but to move the stalled diplomacy.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> Are you talking to yourself?
> This is what your generals said about that war. so go talk to them and ask them why they have failed .


These are just ramblings of some Arabic host.



> If it came to General Shazli, your troops would have never been allowed to cross the suez canal. You are quoting him desperately, but it only makes you think about what was stated , that the war was tricked,


I am quoting Shazly because u are a kid in denial. *Shazly, the Egyptian chief of staff in 1973 says that 3rd army was surrounded and that there was no way to rescue them*.

I could give you quotes of American historians but you will reject them as Israeli agents of something.



> and the real objectives of Sadat were not the total defeat of Usrael, but to move the stalled diplomacy.


There was no way to total defeat Israel in 1973. Their objective was to capture Golan and part of Sinai up to Mitla passing. Then they could dictate Israel conditions.

In first days it seemed possible. But then there was a turnover: Syrians were thrown from the Golan, offensive towards Mitla failed and the 3rd army was encircled.

Let me give u another quote of Shazly:

_The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself begging for Soviet help.

Egypt had no choice but to accept every humiliating condition. By such tactics the Israelis kept Third Army on the brink of collapse, the better to use it as a hostage against the conditions they now wanted to impose. 

They had plundered everything that could be taken, destroyed everything that could not. They had dismantled the Suez oil refinery and fertilizer factory and shipped them back to Israel. They had dismantled the cranes and harbor machinery at Adabia. They had dismantled every water and petroleum pipeline._


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> These are just ramblings of some Arabic host.
> 
> 
> I am quoting Shazly because u are a kid in denial. *Shazly, the Egyptian chief of staff in 1973 says that 3rd army was surrounded and that there was no way to rescue them*.
> 
> I could give you quotes of American historians but you will reject them as Israeli agents of something.
> 
> 
> There was no way to total defeat Israel in 1973. Their objective was to capture Golan and part of Sinai up to Mitla passing. Then they could dictate Israel conditions.
> 
> In first days it seemed possible. But then there was a turnover: Syrians were thrown from the Golan, offensive towards Mitla failed and the 3rd army was encircled.
> 
> Let me give u another quote of Shazly:
> 
> _The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself begging for Soviet help.
> 
> Egypt had no choice but to accept every humiliating condition. By such tactics the Israelis kept Third Army on the brink of collapse, the better to use it as a hostage against the conditions they now wanted to impose.
> 
> They had plundered everything that could be taken, destroyed everything that could not. They had dismantled the Suez oil refinery and fertilizer factory and shipped them back to Israel. They had dismantled the cranes and harbor machinery at Adabia. They had dismantled every water and petroleum pipeline._



Everyone knows the bitterness of Shazli concerning Sadat. The fact is that the first cease fire was announced on the 22nd, and Usrael violated it many times to consolidate a position of power till the 26th, but failed, it tried to take Ismaelia, it failed , tried Suez city, and failed again, than turned south towards the 3rd Egyptian army and said it has surrounded it, which was a lie again . If you look at it with any logic, you'll recognize that Egypt could mobilize at least a million men, the third army was composed of some 30 to 50 000 men, spread on a wide area, even if Sharon -who has said that no one knew who was surrounding whom, (I have provided links previously)- Would have surrounded a portion of it , there were Egyptian forces behind the Sharon brigades. Remember that Sharon was on the Egyptian side of the canal, and every attempt of Usrael on that side has failed. You should thank the US for the pressure put on Egypt among other things like the Aerial photographs taken by their SR-71 who give Usrael every and each position of the Egyptian armed forces including the so called gap,on top of unlimited weapons supplies. but all that to say the least was to no much avail,Usrael suffered the most horrible event in its recent history, and had to give back the Sinai, like it was officially asked to do peacefully many times before the war.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> The fact is that the first cease fire was announced on the 22nd, and Usrael violated it many times to consolidate a position of power till the 26th


The ceasefire was IMPOSED on Israel by superpowers after Saddat's begs. As result Israel could use air force in very limited way. Still it managed to encircle the 3rd army.



> but all that to say the least was to no much avail,Usrael suffered the most horrible event in its recent history


Well these are words of a dumb anonymous (dumb, because u seriously believe in nuking Syria and other nonsense) vs. words of famous historians, US military academy and Egyptian chief of staff.

I let people to decide which is more creditable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> The ceasefire was IMPOSED on Israel by superpowers after Saddat's begs. As result Israel could use air force in very limited way. Still it managed to encircle the 3rd army.
> 
> 
> Well these are words of a dumb anonymous (dumb, because u seriously believe in nuking Syria and other nonsense) vs. words of famous historians, US military academy and Egyptian chief of staff.
> 
> I let people to decide which is more creditable.


I have provided more links from academics, historians and military experts that you could ever handle, and now your try to reverse the odds that are against you anyhow.
Please wish the ceasefire was not imposed on Usrael by the same people who has armed it and provided all the opportunities for it to save face, and your troops would have been decimated to the last one. read it from Shazli too...
I am not in a contest with you, you have already lost any credibility on this forum Since all you learn in your schools is to deny facts, distort reality and live in denial with yourselves. Go ahead if it sooths your soul, but it knows that it is artificial, you just keep punishing yourselves psychologically. It is a vicious cycle that you can never escape.


----------



## 500

The SC said:


> I have provided more links from academics, historians and military experts that you could ever handle, and now your try to reverse the odds that are against you anyhow.


The best you provided is some arabic youtube and some psychiatrist. 



> Please wish the ceasefire was not imposed on Usrael by the same people who has armed it and provided all the opportunities for it to save face, and your troops would have been decimated to the last one. read it from Shazli too...


Sure lets read Shazly:

_The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself *begging for Soviet help*.

During the early hours of October 24, *six Soviet airborne divisions were put on alert* and Soviet Premier Brezhnev sent President Nixon what amounted to an ultimatum. Under pressure from the United States, Israel accepted another ceasefire from October 24._

Just keep quiet and stop embarrassing yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

500 said:


> The best you provided is some arabic youtube and some psychiatrist.
> 
> 
> Sure lets read Shazly:
> 
> _The rest, as they say, is history. Sadat, who had rejected the advice of the Soviet Union on October 12 to seek a ceasefire, and who continued to reject that advice until, too late, he accepted it on October 19, now found himself *begging for Soviet help*.
> 
> During the early hours of October 24, *six Soviet airborne divisions were put on alert* and Soviet Premier Brezhnev sent President Nixon what amounted to an ultimatum. Under pressure from the United States, Israel accepted another ceasefire from October 24._
> 
> Just keep quiet and stop embarrassing yourself.



What do you want General Shazly to say about Sadat? if it came to him -the general in command- ,Sharon would have never been allowed to cross the canal. See how ignorant you sound trying to interpret things to your liking. Sadat lost his life for those bad (or good ) decisions, but mostly for the many Egyptian lives he has scarified to please the US with his strategy of limited war.
Russia mobilized its troops because Usrael violated the cease fire, a deal struck by the US and the soviet union,but betrayed by the US under the command of Kissinger -A pro Usrael and a Jew himself- who was leading the US diplomacy and more, since Nixon was too busy with the Watergate scandal.

We have discussed this issue in many different threads where all the relevant links were provided. don't keep lying it is making you sound and look more ridiculous.


----------

