What's new

The threat of the growing Egyptian military power, an Israeli study

Israelis were already on route to Cairo,

Being on route and capturing are two totally different scenarios. Nazi Army Group Centre was "on route to Moscow", that doesn't mean that they were able to capture it.

Which would then easily allow us to do the same to the 2nd Egyptian army

Again, definitely not a guarantee.

Israel has outmaneuvered and defeated Egypt with only half of its army, against an enemy that triples its full army, with the other half fighting against Syria, also heavily outnumbered.


No, it didn't. Israel outgunned Egypt with American air power. Without control of the air due to the Egyptian SAM umbrella, the IDF couldn't beat Egyptian ground forces and got pretty badly beat in many engagements. When the Egyptians broke out of their own SAM umbrella, with total control of the Air due to American jets and weaponry, in the wide open fields of Sinai, it was practically like shooting fish in a barrel. That doesn't really apply when attempting to take a major metropolitan area like Cairo, Egypt had no incredibly large populace east of the Suez Canal but even a moderately sized city like Suez City resulted in Israelis getting badly beaten. The Battle of Suez proves that pretty well.

You don't seem to understand the only reason Egypt isn't Israeli territory today is because the US saved you, and the only reason you have the Sinai is because we gave it back to you for peace 6 years after the end of the war, which wasn't an obvious thing back then, Egyptian soldiers that fought for the Sinai thought for 6 years that they failed to get the Sinai.
Only after Israel, out of the goodness of its heart and aim for peace, agreed to give you the Sinai back, and now you use this as reason for your alleged victory. Pathetic.

That's not true. The U.S was attempting to save the IDF from getting drawn into an even further crushing defeat. While you assume that crossing the Suez would be a cakewalk with Cairo falling, that isn't a realistic assumption contrary to certain public perceptions and statements at the end of the war in an attempt to nurse the IDF's wounded pride. Had the IDF been drawn further into Egyptian territory it would've been steamrolled. Had Cairo been threatened a veritable human wave would be brought up into a crushing counter offensive on the ground while the IAF would've had to deal with the Soviets dropping metric tons of weapons including even more SAM systems into Egypt. The IAF would not be able to hold the air over Cairo, the EAF with a massive soviet resupply would've been the dominant power west of the Canal and could've just as easily retaken Sinai after the IDF forces would've been crushed. It would be a repeat of the ending of the Eastern Front in WW2, the numerically superior opponent would eventually grind the technologically superior and better trained force into dust through sheer might in defense of massive population centers under attack.


, Israel was just tired of senselessly defeating you and get casualties on the way and thought that peace is more important because we value human life and we don't go on wars for the sake of getting more power or land, but only to protect ourselves.

That's definitely not true and we both know it.

but it only takes one Stealthy F-35 with one cruise missile or just a ground launched cruise missile to destroy the Aswan dam to drown most of your country.
There's also the nuclear option.

The type of cruise missile required to destroy the Aswan dam would never be able to fit in the internal weapons bay of an F-35, thus making it non-stealthy since it would've been carried externally. That's ignoring the fact that it's definitely not possible for the IAF to attempt an air raid capable of blowing up a mega dam that deep in Egyptian territory simply because it would be going toe to toe with a relatively capable air force with a lot of radars. It would be much harder for IAF jets to avoid detection on that type of air raid and get away with it.


Chemical and biological warfare weapons aren't nearly as deadly as nuclear weapons and in an unconventional war Egypt would stop to exist, Israel won't.

No, chemical and biological weapons are definitely just as if not even more deadly than nuclear weapons. Especially considering how much more versatile of a weapon they are and how they function. If Egypt drowns Tel Aviv in Nerve gas, it would bring it about much more deaths and be disproportionately more damaging than if Israel nuked Port Said. Cairo would be the target in the most danger due to how dense it is especially in the city center and that would make Nukes very effective but in the modern era, Cairo is much more large and spread out, sprawl would work to it's advantage as the Egyptian government has moved a lot of people out of the main densely packed center. It would definitely bring Egypt to it's knees but it wouldn't annihilate it especially considering just how large the country is through population. Can't say the same if Egypt deployed chemical weapons on Israel, Israel would definitely be wiped out.
 
Last edited:
Being on route and capturing are two totally different scenarios. Nazi Army Group Centre was "on route to Moscow", that doesn't mean that they were able to capture it.
Except that Germany didn't encircle and was about to destroy over half of Russia's army after already destroying a considerable part of it, didn't destroy a large part of Russia's air force, and didn't win the battles with the other fronts it had which would have allowed it to focus solely on Russia, all that in less than a month,
like Israel did to Egypt when it encircled the Egyptian 3rd army and destroyed a huge part of its air force and decisively won against Syria which allowed Israel to focus more on the Egyptian front.

Again, definitely not a guarantee.
It's called momentum of war. Egyptian 3rd army's defeat would have been the start of Egypt's fall. Both the USSR and US acknowledged that, as well as Egypt. That's why Egypt was quick to cry to the USSR when Israel encircled the Egyptian 3rd army, and that's why Russia threatened to send an air mobile unit against Israel.

No, it didn't. Israel outgunned Egypt with American air power. Without control of the air due to the Egyptian SAM umbrella, the IDF couldn't beat Egyptian ground forces and got pretty badly beat in many engagements. When the Egyptians broke out of their own SAM umbrella, with total control of the Air due to American jets and weaponry, in the wide open fields of Sinai, it was practically like shooting fish in a barrel. That doesn't really apply when attempting to take a major metropolitan area like Cairo, Egypt had no incredibly large populace east of the Suez Canal but even a moderately sized city like Suez City resulted in Israelis getting badly beaten. The Battle of Suez proves that pretty well.
Israel outgunned Egypt because it was far stronger than it. 3rd army pushed with no SAM umbrella to relieve the Syrian front which didn't even work.

Huh, is that why there were 20 Egyptian dead for every one Israeli soldier they killed?

IDF tactically beat the Egyptians in the complete and utter majority of engagements.
Saying Israel won thanks to American weapons would be completely ignoring the fact the Arabs received far more weapons than Israel before and during the war.
Egyptian and Syrian T-62s had night vision which we lacked. Russian SAM systems were the most advanced of their time and the Arabs received numerous amounts of them.
MiG-21s proved fatal against American F-4s in Vietnam. Arabs had Tupelov strategic bombers armed with cruise missiles which Israel couldn't hope to match. AK-47s were superior to Israeli FN-FALs and Uzis.

Battle of Suez was insignificant, it was an ambush the Israeli soldiers didn't expect, that resulted in 80 Israeli casualties. Meaningless compared to the 15,000 Egyptians that were killed and 30,000 more that were going to be killed if the Egyptian Third Army was destroyed, which again, this was disrupted by the USSR and US, nothing Egypt could have done to stop it.
Israeli military leaders told the attacking force to take the city if the resistance is light, and don't if it's Stalingrad (Very heavy resistance). That's why Israel only sent 2 battalions with less than 1000 men combined to capture the city, it didn't intend to enter a massive battle. But at the end, it did capture 1/3 of the city in one day. Also, Israel didn't artillery strike the city before entering like it could have to not hit civilians.


That's not true. The U.S was attempting to save the IDF from getting drawn into an even further crushing defeat. While you assume that crossing the Suez would be a cakewalk with Cairo falling, that isn't a realistic assumption contrary to certain public perceptions and statements at the end of the war in an attempt to nurse the IDF's wounded pride. Had the IDF been drawn further into Egyptian territory it would've been steamrolled. Had Cairo been threatened a veritable human wave would be brought up into a crushing counter offensive on the ground while the IAF would've had to deal with the Soviets dropping metric tons of weapons including even more SAM systems into Egypt. The IAF would not be able to hold the air over Cairo, the EAF with a massive soviet resupply would've been the dominant power west of the Canal and could've just as easily retaken Sinai after the IDF forces would've been crushed. It would be a repeat of the ending of the Eastern Front in WW2, the numerically superior opponent would eventually grind the technologically superior and better trained force into dust through sheer might in defense of massive population centers under attack.
1641213450747.png

"Soviet intervention to rescue the Egyptian Third Army from destruction by the Israeli forces"

1641009595253.png


1641009621329.png


Israeli military superiority.

1641009810127.png


Destroying the Third Army, taking Cairo, bringing down Sadat government and total victory.

The only reason this was prevented was because the USSR and the US pressured us to.


Read all of that, I already replied the BS you've written.
Israel already crossed the Suez, with the Third Army dealt with.

Lol, massive Soviet resupply this, massive Soviet resupply that, it would have never helped Egypt. The Soviets were already resupplying Egypt with so many weapons by the end of the war and yet they still lost. Israel proved that no amount of Soviet advanced weapons would have ever saved Egypt.

Yeah right, after loosing so badly, suddenly the Egyptians would crush the Israeli offense. Like anyone besides butthurt losers would believe that.
Again, Egypt was in no means the USSR and Israel was by no means Germany.

If the Germans would have won their western front against the US, UK and Canada, and could focus solely on Russia, Russia would have stood no chance.
Which is exactly what happened with Israel, Israel had to focus on maintaining two fronts, the Syrians were a much greater threat than the Egyptians since Israel barely had any forces left to fight with the Syrians in the Golan. But in the end it won and started to focus more on Egypt. That's when Israel encircled the 3rd Egyptian army, and stopped the Egyptian 25th brigade existence.
The battle with the 25th brigade was a victory for the Israel Defense Forces, because they had caused heavy losses to the Egyptian Forces and pushed them onto the defensive. This battle is a key turning point in the Yom-Kippur War towards an Israeli victory. They tried to save the Egyptian 3rd army but failed.



The type of cruise missile required to destroy the Aswan dam would never be able to fit in the internal weapons bay of an F-35, thus making it non-stealthy since it would've been carried externally. That's ignoring the fact that it's definitely not possible for the IAF to attempt an air raid capable of blowing up a mega dam that deep in Egyptian territory simply because it would be going toe to toe with a relatively capable air force with a lot of radars. It would be much harder for IAF jets to avoid detection on that type of air raid and get away with it.
I think you missed the point of how easily Israel could destroy Egypt, completely conventionally. Even if Israel had to sacrifice its whole air force to do so, Egypt would still be completely defeated. Spoiler alerts, it still needs just one F-35.

You seem to not understand how structural integrity along with massive amounts of water work. It doesn't take much to destroy the dam. A few relatively small cruise missiles would be enough. F-35s could also carry Israeli 1 ton glide bombs. They don't need to fly through Egypt to bomb the Aswan
1641214857117.png


And if they wanted to, they could do that. Israeli F-35s, Harop drones, F-15s and F-16s along with electronic jamming would overwhelm the Egyptian air force and air defenses faster than 1967. F-35s probably could just fly above Egypt without getting detected, although that won't get tested. Israeli air force has more experience than all other air forces. It destroyed Russian Pantsirs and its drones destroyed Armenian S-300 radar systems and Buk M2s.

Israel could achieve the same with SLCM, air launched cruise missiles, Jericho missiles, LORA missiles etc.

No, chemical and biological weapons are definitely just as if not even more deadly than nuclear weapons. Especially considering how much more versatile of a weapon they are and how they function. If Egypt drowns Tel Aviv in Nerve gas, it would bring it about much more deaths and be disproportionately more damaging than if Israel nuked Port Said. Cairo would be the target in the most danger due to how dense it is especially in the city center and that would make Nukes very effective but in the modern era, Cairo is much more large and spread out, sprawl would work to it's advantage as the Egyptian government has moved a lot of people out of the main densely packed center. It would definitely bring Egypt to it's knees but it wouldn't annihilate it especially considering just how large the country is through population. Can't say the same if Egypt deployed chemical weapons on Israel, Israel would definitely be wiped out.
You would have to be a hopeful idiot to think Egypt could ever survive an Israeli nuclear attack.
And a bigger one to think chemical weapons are enough to kill Israel. Not only would pretty much all of the Egyptian missiles be destroyed on the ground in case of a war, Israeli air defenses are designed to intercept anything that flies.
It would definitely bring Egypt to it's knees but it wouldn't annihilate it especially considering just how large the country is through population. Can't say the same if Egypt deployed chemical weapons on Israel, Israel would definitely be wiped out.
Only if you would call a couple of Bedouin tents remaining in the Sahara desert survival.
 
Except that Germany didn't encircle and was about to destroy over half of Russia's army after already destroying a considerable part of it, didn't destroy a large part of Russia's air force, and didn't win the battles

Except that it did. It destroyed probably close to majority of the intial Soviet Army by the time it reached Moscow. It was irrelevant though because the Soviet Union could easily replace those losses and it did. By comparison the German army couldn't sustain those types of losses. Regardless of the technological, tactical, and training edge the Nazi army held; by the time it was at the gates of Moscow it simply couldn't sustain itself in the meat grinder that was the Soviet army.

The Luftwaffe and Panzers simply couldn't uphold the line despite the fact that they kept taking down so many because the Soviets could sustain the losses but the Germans couldn't. The same applied to Israel. Israel was done after the initial strikes done by the Arab armies, it was only because the U.S came with a massive resupply. The U.S definitely wasn't going to do it a second time especially when the IDF was at the road to Cairo. The IDF was done if it pushed forward.

" The initial momentum of the German ground and air attack completely destroyed the Soviet organizational command and control within the first few hours, paralyzing every level of command from the infantry platoon to the Soviet High Command in Moscow.[197] Moscow not only failed to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe that confronted the Soviet forces in the border area, but Stalin's first reaction was also disbelief. "

" Significant amounts of Soviet territory were lost along with Red Army forces as a result; it took several days before Stalin comprehended the magnitude of the calamity.[204] The Luftwaffe reportedly destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of the invasion[205] and over 3,100 during the first three days.[206] Hermann Göring, Minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Luftwaffe staffs surveyed the wreckage on Soviet airfields, and their original figure proved conservative, as over 2,000 Soviet aircraft were estimated to have been destroyed on the first day of the invasion.[205] In reality, Soviet losses were likely higher; a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft.[206][207] The Luftwaffe reported the loss of only 35 aircraft on the first day of combat.[206] A document from the German Federal Archives puts the Luftwaffe's loss at 63 aircraft for the first day "



like Israel did to Egypt when it encircled the Egyptian 3rd army and destroyed a huge part of its air force and decisively won against Syria which allowed Israel to focus more on the Egyptian front.

You can talk about encircling an army all you want, its irrelevant when we're talking about sieging Cairo, that simply wasn't going to succeed in any way, shape, or form. If Sadat armed even 1% of the male population in Cairo at the time, it would've been more than enough to completely grind down the IDF forces in Egypt several times over. Especially considering the nature of Urban combat. We're not talking about the empty plains of Sinai. Stop being in denial. The IDF was never capable of taking Cairo, its delusional to think so.


It's called momentum of war.

Momentum isn't going to win protracted sieges. That is simply nonsensical.

Egyptian 3rd army's defeat would have been the start of Egypt's fall.

Not even close dude.

Israel outgunned Egypt because it was far stronger than it.

No, it wasn't. Israel outgunned Egypt because the U.S made it that way, Israel had no part to play in that. The IDF and IAF was overwhelmingly reliant on U.S technological and industrial might.

Egypt was and still is by every metric stronger than Israel in everything except technology and air power precisely because it's the U.S that provides Israel that. Without it, Israel is utterly outmatched.


Huh, is that why there were 20 Egyptian dead for every one Israeli soldier they killed?

Because of American airpower? Yes.

IDF tactically beat the Egyptians in the complete and utter majority of engagements.

That's just objectively false. How else would Israel lose the Bar Lev line if they were winning all the battles? You can't seriously tell me that Israel somehow won it's way into being completely displaced from it's defensive line.


Saying Israel won thanks to American weapons would be completely ignoring the fact the Arabs received far more weapons than Israel before and during the war.

Who got more weapons is irrelevant. What matters is how powerful those weapons were. Israel getting an entirely new cutting edge air force from the U.S in the space of a month is worth a hell of a lot more than whatever Egypt got from the Soviets.

Israel won precisely because of American weapons were so much better than soviet weapons. It was America that won those wars, it wasn't Israel. Israel was done, it was a goner at the beginning of the Yom Kippur war, it was over. It was only because the U.S came and saved your asses that your nation is still around.


Battle of Suez was insignificant

Of course it was significant. Its basically what would've happened in Cairo but in miniature. Israeli paratroopers couldn't take on lightly armed policemen in Suez, what in the hell makes you think the pitiful amount of men that the IDF scrounged up could take one of the largest cities in the world.


Meaningless compared to the 15,000 Egyptians that were killed and 30,000 more that were going to be killed if the Egyptian Third Army was destroyed

And how many IDF soldiers would be lost in that battle? Even if they got minimal causalities and won the battle(which was not certain), they still wouldn't be able to take Cairo. This nonsense about the "route to Cairo" is utterly delusional, the IDF was never going to threaten it let alone take the city. Egypt wasn't even remotely near the bottom of the barrel when it came to manpower, they were near the top. The IDF never stood a chance of taking Cairo.


"Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N. Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty. According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on December 3, 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them."

David T. Buckwalter agrees that despite the isolation of the Third Army, it was unclear if the Israelis could have protected their forces on the west bank of the canal from a determined Egyptian assault and still maintain sufficient strength along the rest of the front."

Read all of that

I did already. It doesn't matter what the opinion study says, it simply isn't a realistic understanding of the strategic situation at play.


Lol, massive Soviet resupply this, massive Soviet resupply that, it would have never helped Egypt.

Yes, it would've especially if we're talking about the defense of Cairo.

Yeah right, after loosing so badly, suddenly the Egyptians would crush the Israeli offense.

Yeah, it's pretty simple, they would've. The IDF wouldn't have been able to beat that type of counteroffensive.


If the Germans would have won their western front against the US, UK and Canada, and could focus solely on Russia, Russia would have stood no chance.

No, the Soviet Union would've still won even if the U.S didn't open up a 2nd front. The Soviet Union was simply too strong for Nazi Germany to take. It didn't matter that they were better equipped, trained, and experienced. They still lost in the giant meat grinder. By the time the U.S opened up it's second front, the Soviet Union was already turning the tide on the German armies.


They tried to save the Egyptian 3rd army but failed.

Considering that the 3rd army was still around and the IDF still hadn't destroyed it means that it didn't "fail". The type of losses and the outcome of the battle were never determined in reality. The encirclement could've been broken if the war had continued, it wasn't a guaranteed win. The Israeli position was precarious regardless if the Syrian front was being closed. It definitely was not possible for the IDF to take Cairo either way.

I think you missed the point of how easily Israel could destroy Egypt, completely conventionally.

Except that it can't.

Even if Israel had to sacrifice its whole air force to do so,

Still wouldn't be enough.

You seem to not understand how structural integrity along with massive amounts of water work. It doesn't take much to destroy the dam. A few relatively small cruise missiles would be enough.

Yeah, no.


And if they wanted to, they could do that. Israeli F-35s, Harop drones, F-15s and F-16s along with electronic jamming would overwhelm the Egyptian air force and air defenses faster than 1967.

Ignoring the fact that the U.S would never in a million years allow that. Still no. Especially considering that blowing up the Aswan dam still won't "annihilate" Egypt.

to think Egypt could ever survive an Israeli nuclear attack.

No, it definitely could. It isn't that easy to genocide 100 Million people.


And a bigger one to think chemical weapons are enough to kill Israel.

They definitely are. 7 Million people is a much more manageable number if we're talking about genocide through chemical warfare especially considering how small and dense Israel is.


Not only would pretty much all of the Egyptian missiles be destroyed on the ground in case of a war, Israeli air defenses are designed to intercept anything that flies.

You don't have enough ammunition and a Israel doesn't have a 100% interception rate. Israeli air defenses would burn through all it's ammo in the space of a day if Egypt deployed its chemical weapons arsenal. The Iron dome can barely handle the crappy unguided tin darts Hamas throws at them. They would never stand a chance to what the Egyptian army could muster.

you would call a couple of Bedouin tents remaining in the Sahara desert survival.

A lot more would survive than just the Bedouins.
 
Except that it did. It destroyed probably close to majority of the intial Soviet Army by the time it reached Moscow. It was irrelevant though because the Soviet Union could easily replace those losses and it did. By comparison the German army couldn't sustain those types of losses. Regardless of the technological, tactical, and training edge the Nazi army held; by the time it was at the gates of Moscow it simply couldn't sustain itself in the meat grinder that was the Soviet army.

The Luftwaffe and Panzers simply couldn't uphold the line despite the fact that they kept taking down so many because the Soviets could sustain the losses but the Germans couldn't. The same applied to Israel. Israel was done after the initial strikes done by the Arab armies, it was only because the U.S came with a massive resupply. The U.S definitely wasn't going to do it a second time especially when the IDF was at the road to Cairo. The IDF was done if it pushed forward.

" The initial momentum of the German ground and air attack completely destroyed the Soviet organizational command and control within the first few hours, paralyzing every level of command from the infantry platoon to the Soviet High Command in Moscow.[197] Moscow not only failed to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe that confronted the Soviet forces in the border area, but Stalin's first reaction was also disbelief. "

" Significant amounts of Soviet territory were lost along with Red Army forces as a result; it took several days before Stalin comprehended the magnitude of the calamity.[204] The Luftwaffe reportedly destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of the invasion[205] and over 3,100 during the first three days.[206] Hermann Göring, Minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Luftwaffe staffs surveyed the wreckage on Soviet airfields, and their original figure proved conservative, as over 2,000 Soviet aircraft were estimated to have been destroyed on the first day of the invasion.[205] In reality, Soviet losses were likely higher; a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft.[206][207] The Luftwaffe reported the loss of only 35 aircraft on the first day of combat.[206] A document from the German Federal Archives puts the Luftwaffe's loss at 63 aircraft for the first day "





You can talk about encircling an army all you want, its irrelevant when we're talking about sieging Cairo, that simply wasn't going to succeed in any way, shape, or form. If Sadat armed even 1% of the male population in Cairo at the time, it would've been more than enough to completely grind down the IDF forces in Egypt several times over. Especially considering the nature of Urban combat. We're not talking about the empty plains of Sinai. Stop being in denial. The IDF was never capable of taking Cairo, its delusional to think so.




Momentum isn't going to win protracted sieges. That is simply nonsensical.



Not even close dude.



No, it wasn't. Israel outgunned Egypt because the U.S made it that way, Israel had no part to play in that. The IDF and IAF was overwhelmingly reliant on U.S technological and industrial might.

Egypt was and still is by every metric stronger than Israel in everything except technology and air power precisely because it's the U.S that provides Israel that. Without it, Israel is utterly outmatched.




Because of American airpower? Yes.



That's just objectively false. How else would Israel lose the Bar Lev line if they were winning all the battles? You can't seriously tell me that Israel somehow won it's way into being completely displaced from it's defensive line.




Who got more weapons is irrelevant. What matters is how powerful those weapons were. Israel getting an entirely new cutting edge air force from the U.S in the space of a month is worth a hell of a lot more than whatever Egypt got from the Soviets.

Israel won precisely because of American weapons were so much better than soviet weapons. It was America that won those wars, it wasn't Israel. Israel was done, it was a goner at the beginning of the Yom Kippur war, it was over. It was only because the U.S came and saved your asses that your nation is still around.




Of course it was significant. Its basically what would've happened in Cairo but in miniature. Israeli paratroopers couldn't take on lightly armed policemen in Suez, what in the hell makes you think the pitiful amount of men that the IDF scrounged up could take one of the largest cities in the world.




And how many IDF soldiers would be lost in that battle? Even if they got minimal causalities and won the battle(which was not certain), they still wouldn't be able to take Cairo. This nonsense about the "route to Cairo" is utterly delusional, the IDF was never going to threaten it let alone take the city. Egypt wasn't even remotely near the bottom of the barrel when it came to manpower, they were near the top. The IDF never stood a chance of taking Cairo.


"Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N. Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty. According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on December 3, 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them."

David T. Buckwalter agrees that despite the isolation of the Third Army, it was unclear if the Israelis could have protected their forces on the west bank of the canal from a determined Egyptian assault and still maintain sufficient strength along the rest of the front."



I did already. It doesn't matter what the opinion study says, it simply isn't a realistic understanding of the strategic situation at play.




Yes, it would've especially if we're talking about the defense of Cairo.



Yeah, it's pretty simple, they would've. The IDF wouldn't have been able to beat that type of counteroffensive.




No, the Soviet Union would've still won even if the U.S didn't open up a 2nd front. The Soviet Union was simply too strong for Nazi Germany to take. It didn't matter that they were better equipped, trained, and experienced. They still lost in the giant meat grinder. By the time the U.S opened up it's second front, the Soviet Union was already turning the tide on the German armies.




Considering that the 3rd army was still around and the IDF still hadn't destroyed it means that it didn't "fail". The type of losses and the outcome of the battle were never determined in reality. The encirclement could've been broken if the war had continued, it wasn't a guaranteed win. The Israeli position was precarious regardless if the Syrian front was being closed. It definitely was not possible for the IDF to take Cairo either way.



Except that it can't.



Still wouldn't be enough.



Yeah, no.




Ignoring the fact that the U.S would never in a million years allow that. Still no. Especially considering that blowing up the Aswan dam still won't "annihilate" Egypt.



No, it definitely could. It isn't that easy to genocide 100 Million people.




They definitely are. 7 Million people is a much more manageable number if we're talking about genocide through chemical warfare especially considering how small and dense Israel is.




You don't have enough ammunition and a Israel doesn't have a 100% interception rate. Israeli air defenses would burn through all it's ammo in the space of a day if Egypt deployed its chemical weapons arsenal. The Iron dome can barely handle the crappy unguided tin darts Hamas throws at them. They would never stand a chance to what the Egyptian army could muster.



A lot more would survive than just the Bedouins.
Lol retard
 
Except that it did. It destroyed probably close to majority of the intial Soviet Army by the time it reached Moscow. It was irrelevant though because the Soviet Union could easily replace those losses and it did. By comparison the German army couldn't sustain those types of losses. Regardless of the technological, tactical, and training edge the Nazi army held; by the time it was at the gates of Moscow it simply couldn't sustain itself in the meat grinder that was the Soviet army.

The Luftwaffe and Panzers simply couldn't uphold the line despite the fact that they kept taking down so many because the Soviets could sustain the losses but the Germans couldn't. The same applied to Israel. Israel was done after the initial strikes done by the Arab armies, it was only because the U.S came with a massive resupply. The U.S definitely wasn't going to do it a second time especially when the IDF was at the road to Cairo. The IDF was done if it pushed forward.

" The initial momentum of the German ground and air attack completely destroyed the Soviet organizational command and control within the first few hours, paralyzing every level of command from the infantry platoon to the Soviet High Command in Moscow.[197] Moscow not only failed to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe that confronted the Soviet forces in the border area, but Stalin's first reaction was also disbelief. "

" Significant amounts of Soviet territory were lost along with Red Army forces as a result; it took several days before Stalin comprehended the magnitude of the calamity.[204] The Luftwaffe reportedly destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of the invasion[205] and over 3,100 during the first three days.[206] Hermann Göring, Minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Luftwaffe staffs surveyed the wreckage on Soviet airfields, and their original figure proved conservative, as over 2,000 Soviet aircraft were estimated to have been destroyed on the first day of the invasion.[205] In reality, Soviet losses were likely higher; a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft.[206][207] The Luftwaffe reported the loss of only 35 aircraft on the first day of combat.[206] A document from the German Federal Archives puts the Luftwaffe's loss at 63 aircraft for the first day "





You can talk about encircling an army all you want, its irrelevant when we're talking about sieging Cairo, that simply wasn't going to succeed in any way, shape, or form. If Sadat armed even 1% of the male population in Cairo at the time, it would've been more than enough to completely grind down the IDF forces in Egypt several times over. Especially considering the nature of Urban combat. We're not talking about the empty plains of Sinai. Stop being in denial. The IDF was never capable of taking Cairo, its delusional to think so.




Momentum isn't going to win protracted sieges. That is simply nonsensical.



Not even close dude.



No, it wasn't. Israel outgunned Egypt because the U.S made it that way, Israel had no part to play in that. The IDF and IAF was overwhelmingly reliant on U.S technological and industrial might.

Egypt was and still is by every metric stronger than Israel in everything except technology and air power precisely because it's the U.S that provides Israel that. Without it, Israel is utterly outmatched.




Because of American airpower? Yes.



That's just objectively false. How else would Israel lose the Bar Lev line if they were winning all the battles? You can't seriously tell me that Israel somehow won it's way into being completely displaced from it's defensive line.




Who got more weapons is irrelevant. What matters is how powerful those weapons were. Israel getting an entirely new cutting edge air force from the U.S in the space of a month is worth a hell of a lot more than whatever Egypt got from the Soviets.

Israel won precisely because of American weapons were so much better than soviet weapons. It was America that won those wars, it wasn't Israel. Israel was done, it was a goner at the beginning of the Yom Kippur war, it was over. It was only because the U.S came and saved your asses that your nation is still around.




Of course it was significant. Its basically what would've happened in Cairo but in miniature. Israeli paratroopers couldn't take on lightly armed policemen in Suez, what in the hell makes you think the pitiful amount of men that the IDF scrounged up could take one of the largest cities in the world.




And how many IDF soldiers would be lost in that battle? Even if they got minimal causalities and won the battle(which was not certain), they still wouldn't be able to take Cairo. This nonsense about the "route to Cairo" is utterly delusional, the IDF was never going to threaten it let alone take the city. Egypt wasn't even remotely near the bottom of the barrel when it came to manpower, they were near the top. The IDF never stood a chance of taking Cairo.


"Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N. Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty. According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on December 3, 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them."

David T. Buckwalter agrees that despite the isolation of the Third Army, it was unclear if the Israelis could have protected their forces on the west bank of the canal from a determined Egyptian assault and still maintain sufficient strength along the rest of the front."



I did already. It doesn't matter what the opinion study says, it simply isn't a realistic understanding of the strategic situation at play.




Yes, it would've especially if we're talking about the defense of Cairo.



Yeah, it's pretty simple, they would've. The IDF wouldn't have been able to beat that type of counteroffensive.




No, the Soviet Union would've still won even if the U.S didn't open up a 2nd front. The Soviet Union was simply too strong for Nazi Germany to take. It didn't matter that they were better equipped, trained, and experienced. They still lost in the giant meat grinder. By the time the U.S opened up it's second front, the Soviet Union was already turning the tide on the German armies.




Considering that the 3rd army was still around and the IDF still hadn't destroyed it means that it didn't "fail". The type of losses and the outcome of the battle were never determined in reality. The encirclement could've been broken if the war had continued, it wasn't a guaranteed win. The Israeli position was precarious regardless if the Syrian front was being closed. It definitely was not possible for the IDF to take Cairo either way.



Except that it can't.



Still wouldn't be enough.



Yeah, no.




Ignoring the fact that the U.S would never in a million years allow that. Still no. Especially considering that blowing up the Aswan dam still won't "annihilate" Egypt.



No, it definitely could. It isn't that easy to genocide 100 Million people.




They definitely are. 7 Million people is a much more manageable number if we're talking about genocide through chemical warfare especially considering how small and dense Israel is.




You don't have enough ammunition and a Israel doesn't have a 100% interception rate. Israeli air defenses would burn through all it's ammo in the space of a day if Egypt deployed its chemical weapons arsenal. The Iron dome can barely handle the crappy unguided tin darts Hamas throws at them. They would never stand a chance to what the Egyptian army could muster.



A lot more would survive than just the Bedouins.
images (2).jpeg
FB_IMG_1547308071884-480x330.jpg
 
Except that it did. It destroyed probably close to majority of the intial Soviet Army by the time it reached Moscow. It was irrelevant though because the Soviet Union could easily replace those losses and it did. By comparison the German army couldn't sustain those types of losses. Regardless of the technological, tactical, and training edge the Nazi army held; by the time it was at the gates of Moscow it simply couldn't sustain itself in the meat grinder that was the Soviet army.

The Luftwaffe and Panzers simply couldn't uphold the line despite the fact that they kept taking down so many because the Soviets could sustain the losses but the Germans couldn't. The same applied to Israel. Israel was done after the initial strikes done by the Arab armies, it was only because the U.S came with a massive resupply. The U.S definitely wasn't going to do it a second time especially when the IDF was at the road to Cairo. The IDF was done if it pushed forward.

" The initial momentum of the German ground and air attack completely destroyed the Soviet organizational command and control within the first few hours, paralyzing every level of command from the infantry platoon to the Soviet High Command in Moscow.[197] Moscow not only failed to grasp the magnitude of the catastrophe that confronted the Soviet forces in the border area, but Stalin's first reaction was also disbelief. "

" Significant amounts of Soviet territory were lost along with Red Army forces as a result; it took several days before Stalin comprehended the magnitude of the calamity.[204] The Luftwaffe reportedly destroyed 1,489 aircraft on the first day of the invasion[205] and over 3,100 during the first three days.[206] Hermann Göring, Minister of Aviation and Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, distrusted the reports and ordered the figure checked. Luftwaffe staffs surveyed the wreckage on Soviet airfields, and their original figure proved conservative, as over 2,000 Soviet aircraft were estimated to have been destroyed on the first day of the invasion.[205] In reality, Soviet losses were likely higher; a Soviet archival document recorded the loss of 3,922 Soviet aircraft in the first three days against an estimated loss of 78 German aircraft.[206][207] The Luftwaffe reported the loss of only 35 aircraft on the first day of combat.[206] A document from the German Federal Archives puts the Luftwaffe's loss at 63 aircraft for the first day "





You can talk about encircling an army all you want, its irrelevant when we're talking about sieging Cairo, that simply wasn't going to succeed in any way, shape, or form. If Sadat armed even 1% of the male population in Cairo at the time, it would've been more than enough to completely grind down the IDF forces in Egypt several times over. Especially considering the nature of Urban combat. We're not talking about the empty plains of Sinai. Stop being in denial. The IDF was never capable of taking Cairo, its delusional to think so.




Momentum isn't going to win protracted sieges. That is simply nonsensical.



Not even close dude.



No, it wasn't. Israel outgunned Egypt because the U.S made it that way, Israel had no part to play in that. The IDF and IAF was overwhelmingly reliant on U.S technological and industrial might.

Egypt was and still is by every metric stronger than Israel in everything except technology and air power precisely because it's the U.S that provides Israel that. Without it, Israel is utterly outmatched.




Because of American airpower? Yes.



That's just objectively false. How else would Israel lose the Bar Lev line if they were winning all the battles? You can't seriously tell me that Israel somehow won it's way into being completely displaced from it's defensive line.




Who got more weapons is irrelevant. What matters is how powerful those weapons were. Israel getting an entirely new cutting edge air force from the U.S in the space of a month is worth a hell of a lot more than whatever Egypt got from the Soviets.

Israel won precisely because of American weapons were so much better than soviet weapons. It was America that won those wars, it wasn't Israel. Israel was done, it was a goner at the beginning of the Yom Kippur war, it was over. It was only because the U.S came and saved your asses that your nation is still around.




Of course it was significant. Its basically what would've happened in Cairo but in miniature. Israeli paratroopers couldn't take on lightly armed policemen in Suez, what in the hell makes you think the pitiful amount of men that the IDF scrounged up could take one of the largest cities in the world.




And how many IDF soldiers would be lost in that battle? Even if they got minimal causalities and won the battle(which was not certain), they still wouldn't be able to take Cairo. This nonsense about the "route to Cairo" is utterly delusional, the IDF was never going to threaten it let alone take the city. Egypt wasn't even remotely near the bottom of the barrel when it came to manpower, they were near the top. The IDF never stood a chance of taking Cairo.


"Despite being surrounded, the Third Army managed to maintain its combat integrity east of the canal and keep up its defensive positions, to the surprise of many. According to Trevor N. Dupuy, the Israelis, Soviets and Americans overestimated the vulnerability of the Third Army at the time. It was not on the verge of collapse, and he wrote that while a renewed Israeli offensive would probably overcome it, this was not a certainty. According to David Elazar, Chief of Israeli headquarters staff, on December 3, 1973: "As for the third army, in spite of our encircling them they resisted and advanced to occupy in fact a wider area of land at the east. Thus, we can not say that we defeated or conquered them."

David T. Buckwalter agrees that despite the isolation of the Third Army, it was unclear if the Israelis could have protected their forces on the west bank of the canal from a determined Egyptian assault and still maintain sufficient strength along the rest of the front."



I did already. It doesn't matter what the opinion study says, it simply isn't a realistic understanding of the strategic situation at play.




Yes, it would've especially if we're talking about the defense of Cairo.



Yeah, it's pretty simple, they would've. The IDF wouldn't have been able to beat that type of counteroffensive.




No, the Soviet Union would've still won even if the U.S didn't open up a 2nd front. The Soviet Union was simply too strong for Nazi Germany to take. It didn't matter that they were better equipped, trained, and experienced. They still lost in the giant meat grinder. By the time the U.S opened up it's second front, the Soviet Union was already turning the tide on the German armies.




Considering that the 3rd army was still around and the IDF still hadn't destroyed it means that it didn't "fail". The type of losses and the outcome of the battle were never determined in reality. The encirclement could've been broken if the war had continued, it wasn't a guaranteed win. The Israeli position was precarious regardless if the Syrian front was being closed. It definitely was not possible for the IDF to take Cairo either way.



Except that it can't.



Still wouldn't be enough.



Yeah, no.




Ignoring the fact that the U.S would never in a million years allow that. Still no. Especially considering that blowing up the Aswan dam still won't "annihilate" Egypt.



No, it definitely could. It isn't that easy to genocide 100 Million people.




They definitely are. 7 Million people is a much more manageable number if we're talking about genocide through chemical warfare especially considering how small and dense Israel is.




You don't have enough ammunition and a Israel doesn't have a 100% interception rate. Israeli air defenses would burn through all it's ammo in the space of a day if Egypt deployed its chemical weapons arsenal. The Iron dome can barely handle the crappy unguided tin darts Hamas throws at them. They would never stand a chance to what the Egyptian army could muster.



A lot more would survive than just the Bedouins.
Just laugh about the arrogant troll.. he still lives in 1967..not even 1973 where they were about to lose their best and most powerful 3 armored brigades in the shamil plan presented to the US that have saved them from annihilation 100 km from Cairo.. they were so happy to get out of there alive they were dancing with Sadat portrait picture in there hands..
 
Last edited:
Just laugh about the arrogant troll.. he still lives in 1967..not even 1973 where they were about to lose their best and most powerful 3 armored brigades in the shamil plan presented to the US that have saved them from annihilation 100 km from Cairo.. they were so happy to get out of there alive they were dncing with Anouar Sadat portrait picture..
You talk about US saving our brigades while the US and USSR saved your entire country, you are a hypocrite that recieved more aid by the USSR than Israel ever did yet you cry when Israel receives some aid from the US
 
Just laugh about the arrogant troll.. he still lives in 1967..not even 1973 where they were about to lose their best and most powerful 3 armored brigades in the shamil plan presented to the US that have saved them from annihilation 100 km from Cairo.. they were so happy to get out of there alive they were dncing with Anouar Sadat portrait picture..
Not only did the USSR send aid, it also actively helped both countries. Soviet crew manned and maintained the air defenses in Syria, Rssuian pilots and special forces were in Egypt and there are reports that they participated in the war, up to 100,000 Arab expeditionary troops that aren't Syrian or Egyptian, even North Korean pilots. Yet you still lost.

By the way
By the way, Egypt *actually* lost the best armored brigade it had, 25th armored brigade with its best tank crews and brand new T62s with new 115mm guns, night vision etc. Along with many other brigades.
Because you reply to a discussion with anther one and you replied…!!
I didn't understand you and have no idea what you're talking about
 
If you understand these pictures, these are not from me. If you're talking without knowing, go educate yourself a bit before you start talking or do you want the captives' clothes again?
After another look, I understood. This was barely readable, part of it is completely unreadable.
It's about some Egyptian fighter jet that entered Israeli air space by mistake, as a result of an Egyptian bombing campaign against ISIS in the Sinai. What's your point?

The other photo tells me absolutely nothing, I could infer it's some wargame of some sorts, honestly it looks comical.

Talk about captive clothes
1641390947125.png
 
After another look, I understood. This was barely readable, part of it is completely unreadable.
It's about some Egyptian fighter jet that entered Israeli air space by mistake, as a result of an Egyptian bombing campaign against ISIS in the Sinai. What's your point?

The other photo tells me absolutely nothing, I could infer it's some wargame of some sorts, honestly it looks comical.

Talk about captive clothes
View attachment 806087
Typical Israeli propaganda. Your statement ignores the following:

1- IDF failed to push the 2nd army from its new positions on Canal east shore to its 5th of Oct lines in the west.
2- IDF failed to push the 3rd army from its new positions on Canal east shore to its 5th of Oct lines in the west.
3-IDF failed to surround the second army or to capture Ismailia city.
4-IDF failed to occupy Suez city.
5-IDF failed to secure the passage of its logistic supplies from Sinai to its divisions on Canal west shores. Its troops failed to occupy missori or the northern sections of the Chineese firm.

The last War days recorded IDF Adan Division defeat inside Suez city by 19th DIV troops. Adan failed to occupy the city & lost more than 100 killed soldier.

In the north Sharon division was defeated by the Egyptian Paratrooper brigades no 150 & 182 who pushed his troops to the south.

In the East IDF failed to occupy missori or the northern section of the Chineese farm in that battle.

The War final status presented 3 IDF divisions in the west canal bank that are confronted from the north, West & south by Superior Egyptian forces. These divisions link to their logistic bases in the East was in the range of the Medium range Egyptian artillery.

This poor IDF military position was the reason for their retreat to the east to 35 Kms from the Canal chores in Jan 1974 in response to the First disengagement agreement. The lack of any political advantage for Israel in this agreement proved their military dispirited status.

The Egyptian limited war targets were achieved. This is best expressed by Trevor N. Dupuy, Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars, 1947-1974 (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 343.

He stated Egypt did not fight Israel only but the USA as well..

Egyptians were never driven back from the east side of the canal, Israelis drew back 35 km to the east side of the canal to avoid certain anhilation. All their forces that crossed to the western side of the canal were surrounded. and even their claim of surrounding the 3rd Egyptian army were false, since they were themselves surrounded as Sharon himself said after the war.. "We don't know who was surrounding whom".. and the Egyptian 3rd army advanced in the Sinai while they were claiming that.

The Egyptian third army counted more than 60 000 soldiers, only 20 000 of them or two divisions were "surrounded" by the USraelis, while another four divisions of the third Egyptian army were encircling these forces. Sharon said it himself to his commanders: in a desert war you can not know who is encircling who.

Even more evidence..The 7 armored IDF brigades that were located west of the Canal were witnessing a fast Egyptian power build up against them. Their political unconditional withdrawal on the 18th of January to 35 km east of the Canal, while the Egyptian army kept its positions east of the Canal is an unquestioned evidence of the Egyptian army victory in that war.

The 3rd army was not surrounded, I did not forget to mention it , because I have mentioned that the Israeli army was surrounded in west side of the canal, so it had no means of surrounding anything even by violating the cease fire 2 or 3 times it had to withdraw back 35 km on east side of the canal, So, where is the logic of being able to surround the Egyptian 3rd army that was still gaining terrain on the East side. The only thing I can see is your renewed arrogance and likings for lies.

The Syrians could have crossed to inside Israel in the first 2 days of the war, but they restrained. The Egyptians could cross the whole Sinai peninsula and threaten Israel itself, but they restrained too, since it was a very limited war in scoop. In a total war or even half total war, you won't stand the slightest chance of surviving it in the middle east. it'll take just one or two extremist governments like yours on the Arab side and it is done, regardless of the US and European total support you can get.

By the way General Al-Mansoury revealed a very interesting information regarding our allies the soviets; "it turned out that they used to give the Israelis our EAF frequencies and the EAF had to hide from them our real EAF frequencies giving them official fake ones"!!
Egyptian Chronicles: Another Crazy Egyptian Pilot : The Black Jaguar Leader


I did mention to you many times that the 1973 Ramadan war was called "spark", you can conclude from the codename that it was very limited in scoop, and you still could not handle it despite getting "everything that can fly" from the US, the best armaments on earth at that time, not to mention American (and others) personnel taken prisoners with fake Israeli IDs.

...Moshe Dayan expressed the grief of his nation as he recalled Chinese Farm in his memoirs: I am no novice at war or battle scenes, but I have never seen such a sight. Here was a vast field of slaughter stretching as far as the eye could see.

Israeli pathological lies are exposed all over the world, no need to point to them anymore, I did a good job at that, so you can lie no more and fool no one.


All your historians are liars mam!

Do not answer this, I know you like to troll...


Go read this thread again and clean your mouth from its bad breath.

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


Look well into this picture of your defeated IDF and never quote Arabs again..

image.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom