@Hell NO
Putting your quotes in one post
Wrong egyptains didn't aim to recapture sinai as it would be impossible without an airforce something that soviets didn't supply egypt with both commanders of egypt and Israel understood this The aim was to show the israelis who refused to negotiate as they felt that having the suez canal, barlave line and sinai between egypt and Israel is much safer thus the egyptian attack to prove them wrong and start negotiations.
The bold part, that is where you are wrong from the beginning. The aim of any military action is to undertake the process of achieving your foreign policy objectives. The commencement of hostilities begin with the government of the day defining the political objectives of the whole war.
The armed forces of
ANY nation, are given directives based on the overall objective. The armed forces define their objectives based on overall narrative given to them.
The objective of Sadat was to reclaim the lost territories of Sinai and Gaza! Period! And if once again someone says Gaza is not Egyptian territory ... I will seriously call that person a demented retard who is simply trolling at the least ....!!!! The Gaza strip was under de-facto governance of Egypt till 1967. The aims of Egypt I will clearly spell out so that YOU can
understand what was to be done:
1. To recapture all territories lost in 1967 (Egypt lost Sinai and Gaza)
2. To be able to commence commercial activities on Suez to correct the economy.
3. To restore the Egyptian pride and pre-eminence in the Arab world, which had been dented post-defeat in 1967.
The italics:
You had the best Air Defence for the theatre. It was a ploy of Sadat to kick out the Russians, a great ruse which unfortunately Nasser's son in law ensured did not achieve the full surprise it was intended to. You had Scuds ..... !
You know who is worst than someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all someone who knows very little about something and talks as if he gets it all and when a guy who knows enough corrects him he just I don't know what to call what you just did.
Bro my information is from the israeli head of intelligence ,Egyptian chief of staff and american embassies to egypt.
why do you think the egyptians didn't counter attack and just kept their positions?????
Let me answer that for you because they got what they aimed for there wasn't a good reason to gamble again I am not coming up with these things I am quoting the egyptian chief of staff who got a direct order not to start the counter attack they planned and keep positions.
again not my opinion but facts.
The bold part - What one can infer from your statement as highlighted by the bold portion above, is your information is from the quoted people. So either you were out trying to impress by bluffing or simply put, your English is limited. If it is the latter case, then my apologies but your English sucks mate, and you are responsible for the misunderstanding of your quote. However, since neither of us are native English speakers, it can happen!
Come to italics, they didn't counter attack as after canal crossing and mopping up of the Israeli defences on the East Bank of Suez (which took longer than anticipated) the only attempt by Egyptian 1st Mechanised Brigade to push East was badly mauled by Israelis. The Egyptians realised the import of ensuring their SAM cover and hence the 2nd and 3rd armies did not push Eastwards till the reorganisation of forces and establishment of air protection for the armoured and mechanised forces was adequately achieved.
For your reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
The red portion: you are again referring to him as if he spoke to you ... so a deliberate attempt at trying to impress by conveying that the gentlemen spoke to you!! LOL!!!!
The green part - I really do not have any words left ... simply am at a loss for words to describe that!!!
A misunderstanding you see nowhere did I mention personally speaking to any of those people and I thought that it would be a common sense thing to assume that iam quoting their book/interview. (Just to make sure you understand that iam talking about people who held these positions around the time of the war right???????)
Nope. The phrases you have used were deliberately penned to portray first hand account. If you were indeed quoting the references, you would have provided the links .... did you?
the reason I didn't quote Sadat because my post was about the plan of attack something the prisident would not explain in a book/interview as it wasn't his job to plan the attack and thus my quote of the chief of staff.
Now this is called covering your *** after it has been handed over to you on your posts so far bereft of facts and merely based on your rhetorics. I said the objective of the war was to capture Sinai and Gaza and you simply said that the objective was not that. Instead, you have chosen to now change tack and are claiming you were discussing military objectives. Now if a 15R dune is to be captured next to a burnt out village, how the fcuk am I concerned that Egyptian army could capture 15R and with it overlook the nearby oasis which could be water point for enemy thereby denying the enemy source of water? Now you are being an *** and wasting my time.
My dear sir, first of all get it into your head that there is nothing called a limited war. There is always a total war or no war. The only time one says a war is limited war, is when the objectives are limited, time and resources allocated are limited, and the ability and means of the initiating nation is such that it can dictate the timing of initiation and cessation of hostilities. There is, today, only one nation which can do that to a certain degree and that too only against minor banana republics, that is US. No other nation can ever be in a limited war ...something I think you have tried to portray ( I may have misunderstood this I admit). The war is always total as you have to mobilize all your resources, industrial capacity, output your monetary resources, diplomatic resources, your reserves ... the whole nation is involved in every facet of war ... hence the war is always total.
your post about how the israeli counter attacked and managed to get to the canal shows how little you know about the war sneaked is the term you should use in this case as the israelis advanced throw a gab between the two armies facing the great bitter lakes considered too wide for a crossing by the egyptians (a narrow gab)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chinese_Farm
also mentioning an open road to Cairo which is laughable giving that this is what happened when they tried advancing on a small city
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ismailia
I gave you a crux of the overall war and not simply isolated battles. The US was the sole supplier of weapons to Israel, it forced Israel to a ceasefire and Egypt also had no option as its 3rd army was surrounded. Israelis were within 65 miles of cairo .... just how long do you think you would have lasted if US had not applied pressure on Israel to stop? Don't answer, its a rhetorical question!!!!!
You are quoting isolated battles. Every war has reverses. heck Indian infantry division got bogged down thinking of superior Pakistani forces in 1971 .... and sat throughout on its nether regions doing nothing ....!! Does it mean India lost 1971? Don't be a funny toon!
I can go on and on explaining the whole situation but I know I would be met with the same baseless answer that iam Tring to re write history and........etc +have exams in a couple of days so
You sir believe whatever you see believable.
Oh my! And I thought I was talking to a military history buff or a veteran!! My apologies ... you are authorised to think whatever you want!!!
Go study mate ..... you are talking to a guy who had done this for a living and has been an avid student of military history for almost 25 years now ...... don't waste your time here. All the best for your exams.
@Frogman
Was not denying that Gaza was under Egyptian administration pre 1967. No one would deny that. However, it was never part of the plan to retake it militarily or through negotiations.
The quote below is from your intervention in my discussion with
@Hell NO (and it turns out I was arguing with a kid!!!)
Gaza was never part of the plan before or after. It isn't Egyptian territory.
When it was under your de-facto control, it was technically your territory ... so please can it. We are not in International Court of Justice or whatever arguing like effing attorneys!!!
Please go through the objectives stated earlier in my post. Gaza was always an extended objective as the aim was to restore the perceived lost pride of Egypt as pre-eminent power in the Arab world (remember even Syria consider Camp David accord a betrayal and voted against you in 1979??) and to rally the Arab world for support by unifying the Arabs on Palestinian cause.
Sharm Al Shaikh and both passes were never part of the plan.
The crossing occurred across the entirety of the Canal and there were no such plans for crossing the Gulf or deploying troops from the Canal crossing to Southern Sinai (to capture Sharm) deep into Israeli territory.
Mitla and Gadi were beyond the 20km zone which was to be occupied and out of Egyptian SAM range. When Egyptian forces did eventually surge into those areas to face Israeli armour basically the entirety of the 21st Armoured was lost. Although a Battalion did venture to claim the passes several days into the war also against Shazlis wishes, that as well didn't end well.
Thank you for the bold part. I did not know that I had to put up a flow chart of when the weapon was cocked and how the round was chambered and how the aim was taken ... man, seriously ..?
I TOLD THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE WAR!!!!! Ever heard of summation of a really long war? Next you will discuss World War 2 .. and you will spend 20 years just writing about the annexation of Czechoslovakia if you write this way ...
Answer me - did or did not Egypt have Mitla Pass and Gidi Pass as an objective along with a possible heliborne assault on Refidim in consonance with advance on ground on directives of the Legal president of the time Anwar el Sadat? (I don't care a fig for General Shazly and his resisting the Minister of War General Ahmed Ismail Ali; in the end the effing political directive superseded and always does; this despite the loss of 1st Mechanised Brigade)
Didn't the attack take place with Egyptian 3rd and 2nd armies advancing eastwards with disastrous consequences?
If the answer to all these queries is yes ... then if I summed up that these were objectives instead of wasting bandwidth and my time, am I wrong?
Now a military objective can be changed as narrative of war changes, is it not? Is there something called fluidity in war? If yes, then military objectives are variable at best. What is
always constant is the political objective(s)/directive(s)!!!
So what is the problem with you guys? Is a summation so difficult to digest?
Do I have to write that when I sum, your eyes should be able to read and the neuronal electrical impulses travel via optic nerves which receive inputs from the image formed on retina and then the same causes an electrochemical impulse to generate in rods and cones, the sensory pigments in the retina who have electrical variance which is conducted as electrical impulse along nerve fibres which have saltatory conduction on account of their axons being myelinated by oligodendrocytes instead of schwann cells which normally myelinated cranial nerves, but in this case the optic nerve is the only nerve that is a cranial nerve but acts as a nerve of Central Nervous System instead of the Peripheral Nervous System to which all Cranial Nerves belong .... blah blah and then the information is processed by your visual cortex and the same has a complex mechanism involving the limbic system, instead of just saying read and understand it?
If I go this way .. you will surely fly from wherever you are and kill me out of sheer frustration!!!
Accept it ... militarily you lost the war - politically you lost the war!!!
You got Sinai back only AFTER you recognised Israel. So you didn't win as you had sworn to destroy Israel ...!
So you lost EVERYTIME!!!
Don't care if Moroccans or Iraqis or Jordanians or for that matter even the Martians were coming to intervene on your side!!
Even the Nazis were on threshold of making a nuke and god knows they did have the first fighter jet operational in the final stages of war ....
What didn't happen ..... does NOT matter!