What's new

Yom Kippur War 1973: Why did Syria fail to take the Golan Heights?

The Israelis came within roughly 25 miles of Damascus. Retreating before this onslaught, the Syrians made a stand on the second of three defensive lines built in the years after 1967. Fighting on their own soil, they were tenacious. An Iraqi armored division appeared—part of the force promised Sadat before the war—and smashed into the right flank of the IDF's 240th Armored Division. The Israelis wheeled to deal with this threat, which grew more serious when the Iraqis were joined by an armored brigade sent by Jordan. The Israeli advance halted, but they had recaptured Mount Hermon and now stood close enough to shell Damascus.
Awesome. You just confirmed my post which u previously denied:

500: And by the way Israelis were halted by Iraqis and Jordanians, not Syrians.
SC: The Iraqis couldn't reach the Golan in time, so this is another of your fabricated lies.

Yom Kippur War 1973: The Egyptian Revenge | Page 16

You are such a retard kiddo, you dont even understand ur own sources.

General Shazly recommended pulling back four armored units from the Sinai to counter the threat. But Sadat, calculating the political need to hang on to Egyptian gains, ruled against a withdrawal.
And here you confirm my post #52.

Yom Kippur War 1973: Why did Syria fail to take the Golan Heights? | Page 4

But I am still waiting were Shazly said that he could destroy Israel but was not allowed.
 
.
Friday, July 12th, 2013 | Posted by Michael Chester
Israel Loses Face (and an F-16) in Syria
F-16 Loss, a Humiliation for Israel: Michael Chester


The loss of a single aircraft is relatively easy to sweep under the rug, but a major engagement would see the planes raining down like they did in 1973, though a complete media lock down kept that information from becoming common knowledge.


Israel announced on July 8 that one of their F-16s suffered a mechanical failure off the coast of Gaza. A military spokesman for the Israeli Air Force (IAF) said both pilots were recovered. The plane is said to have crashed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Almost no part of this story is true. It makes as much sense as the story of the American Navy putting 22 Navy Seals on a National Guard helicopter. Nobody bought that one.

Israel did lose an F-16. They are unable to hide the fact that one of their first line aircraft is no longer in “inventory.”

Did Israel, as multiple reports now indicate, and perhaps even confirm, really lose an F-16 and its crew of two to a Syrian S-300 missile 48 hours before the claimed incident and over 400 miles from the claimed location?

On May 4, 2013, the Syrian Navy sunk an Israeli Dolphin submarine. Israel, unwilling to accept the public humiliation of such a loss: a disaster of such a proportion to its citizens has been repainting hull numbers and shuffling crew rosters on its remaining submarines for two months.

As Senior Editor, Gordon Duff says:

“Israel has suffered a number of serious reverses of late. When Israel suffers, it loses face. Israel has found an interesting way of dealing with ‘losing face.’ They lie. “

Lost aircraft, or something like a Dolphin submarine, especially during an offensive operation, are routinely never disclosed to the public for a variety of reason. Informed sources have disclosed that the F-16 training accident reported off the coast of Gaza was cover for their plane lost in the Syrian warehouse attack which is claimed was targeted as an S-300 component part base.

This ‘attack’ sounded fishy to us right away, starting with it being reported by Global Research which is an organization rumored to have “complex allegiances.”

First, these missiles systems are roll on roll off mobile launching systems designed to be deployed rapidly. Upon arrival they can be ready to fire within…well…you wouldn’t believe it.

Second, S-300 components or inventory missiles would never be stored in an exposed warehouse facility where they would be sitting ducks. Each missile battalion moves continually and keeps its inventory moving with it.

Historically, the most effective way of destroying S-300 missiles is by crashing aircraft into them or, perhaps, the other way around.

Third, highly trained pilots, and Israel has them, are trained to defeat air defense systems. That said, the Israelis could possibly initiate and attack flying in at 50 feet. Our sources tell us the explosion in the photo shown by Global Research fit that of a 2000lb iron bomb, the standard payload for an F-16B. But while getting in is one thing, getting out alive is something entirely different.

For the Israelis not losing pilots has been a major morale booster for their people for decades now. During the 1973 war, Soviet SAMS over Syria destroyed much of the Israeli Air Force. American planes were quickly repainted with the Israeli Star of David with American pilots thrown into the breach, something long left out of that story even after all of this time.

This was the real reason for the oil embargo against the United States that put the American economy into a free fall that we have yet to recover from.

The Israelis have their nuclear weapons to threaten a Sampson option response, but that would be the end of the Zionist experiment, and unfortunately a lot of Holy Land architecture. But for the Zionists to confront Russia, or any major power they have not already neutralized is something they know they can’t do. They have to count on the US to act as their attack dog.

We would never have known that there was an attack had Israel chosen not to gloat by leaking their “triumph” through the blogosphere. The loss of a single aircraft would not be an embarrassment were it not for two minor issues.

Nothing debunks the success of a mission to destroy air defenses more than losing a plane to those defenses. High level sources in the Department of Defense indicate that Israel has long bragged of their ability to use “homegrown” ECM (Electronic Counter Measures) to defeat S-300.

When Israel next calls the Pentagon, yarmulke in hand, egg on their face, their tone will be more restrained.

Need we discuss the 2% success rate of the Iron Dome?

The loss of a single aircraft is relatively easy to sweep under the rug, but a major engagement would see the planes raining down like they did in 1973, though a complete media lock down kept that information from becoming common knowledge.

One of the reasons America has been so aggressive in forward basing is to get their missiles in strategic positions to be used for effective offense or defense in the region.

As the new Russian missile defense technology which will make conventional piloted planes deathtraps is fully deployed, the West’s abilities to take land by force without significant consequences will be history.

All planned attacks have contingency plans of cover and deception built into them to hide the failed missions from their own citizens. They do this through the liberal use of national security classifications that hide the truth from the American people.

This has been an ongoing threat to American national security for some time as mistakes never acknowledged can never be fixed. The designation of operations as classified or top secret can also be used to cover up those that serve the interests of foreign governments while undermining American interests.

The real cause of death, if these pilots did die, is hubris. Syria will never admit the attack. Syria can’t even claim the “kill.”

They fear Israeli desperation, and well they should.

Yom Kippur War 1973: Why did Syria fail to take the Golan Heights? | Page 4
 
.
@500
Hey kiddo, if I was you, after all these articles and facts, and much more provided before, I would have left this forum.
For the Iraqis, it depends on which offensive.
I am only answering you,to expose your lies,since your style of talk says a lot about you, and how uneducated you are. but hey,I do understand you are an Usraeli, meaning a zionist.,so there is nothing to expect from you but bad mouth and bad thoughts, combined with lies and facts twisting.
No luck here for you mam.
 
.
if isreal army was that good why did their attacks fail while our forces were under the air defense umbrella of course you know what happened in the isreali counter attack
There is a huge difference between attack and defence. For example 25th and 23th Egyptian tank brigades were destroyed with minimal loses from Israeli side while there were under the air defence umbrella.

then why the syrians did not defend the ground they got with ATGMs they could have greatly slow any isreali advance to retake the ground they lost
Egyptians crossed canal with 5 infantry divisions, set they ATGMs and waited for Israeli tanks to come.

Syrians on the other hand faced the Israeli tanks from the beginning and were pushing with their own tanks, the battlefield was much more dynamic there. You can ask yourself why Egyptians could not use ATGMs on 14 oct as they used them on 8 oct.

Friday, July 12th, 2013 | Posted by Michael Chester
Israel Loses Face (and an F-16) in Syria
F-16 Loss, a Humiliation for Israel: Michael Chester
LOL, after u miserably failed u are trying to divert with another conspiracy trash?
 
.
There is a huge difference between attack and defence. For example 25th and 23th Egyptian tank brigades were destroyed with minimal loses from Israeli side while there were under the air defence umbrella.


Egyptians crossed canal with 5 infantry divisions, set they ATGMs and waited for Israeli tanks to come.

Syrians on the other hand faced the Israeli tanks from the beginning and were pushing with their own tanks, the battlefield was much more dynamic there. You can ask yourself why Egyptians could not use ATGMs on 14 oct as they used them on 8 oct.


LOL, after u miserably failed u are trying to divert with another conspiracy trash?
You should ask yourself why the Egyptians didn't use the ATGMs again. and you will be confused, and even more importantly why the Syrians did not use them., And that because Usrael was too weak to sustain more losses , that was calculated in the Arab plan of limited war in 1973.
Everything that does not agree or exposes Zionists is a conspiracy. That is your opinion of things and is naturally wrong. The only trash I can see is coming from your mouth.
You have ignored two articles, one scholarly in post #58 and #59 because they are beyond your level of understanding . So better close this talk.
 
Last edited:
.
You should ask yourself why the Egyptians didn't use the ATGMs again. and you will be confused, and even more importantly why the Syrians did not use them., And that because Usrael was too weak to sustain more losses , that was calculated in the Arab plan of limited war in 1973.
Everything that does not agree or exposes Zionists is a conspiracy. That is your opinion of things and is naturally wrong. The only trash I can see is coming from your mouth.
You have ignored two articles, one scholarly in post #58 and #59 because they are beyond your level of understanding . So better close this talk.

Man what are you babbling about?

Egypt used ATGM during the Battle of Chinese Farms when Israeli Armor attacked the Egyptian 2nd Army.
 
.
There is a huge difference between attack and defence. For example 25th and 23th Egyptian tank brigades were destroyed with minimal loses from Israeli side while there were under the air defence umbrella.


Egyptians crossed canal with 5 infantry divisions, set they ATGMs and waited for Israeli tanks to come.
crossing the bar liv line was a massive attack that few armies in the world would do with light infantry we can attack if we have the tools with mobile air defense our second attack would make a lot of sense and this was our big mistake in the war sadat said it was because of arab and soviet pressure to help the syrians
Syrians on the other hand faced the Israeli tanks from the beginning and were pushing with their own tanks, the battlefield was much more dynamic there. You can ask yourself why Egyptians could not use ATGMs on 14 oct as they used them on 8 oct.
i mean why not keep the tanks attacking and let my infantry hold the ground and wait if the isrealis defeat our tanks they would find a defended line to retreat to
our ATGMs were used until the end from what i know from the Chinese farm to ismalia and suez our infantry defended themselves from tanks using ATGMs
 
.
Man what are you babbling about?

Egypt used ATGM during the Battle of Chinese Farms when Israeli Armor attacked the Egyptian 2nd Army.
Read the context of the answer it was about the attack in the Sinai, and why they were not used against the Usraeli brigades by the the 3rd army that was supposed to be surrounded.
So, i do not understand what you have been babbling about yourself.
 
.
crossing the bar liv line was a massive attack that few armies in the world would do with light infantry we can attack if we have the tools with mobile air defense our second attack would make a lot of sense and this was our big mistake in the war sadat said it was because of arab and soviet pressure to help the syrians

i mean why not keep the tanks attacking and let my infantry hold the ground and wait if the isrealis defeat our tanks they would find a defended line to retreat to
our ATGMs were used until the end from what i know from the Chinese farm to ismalia and suez our infantry defended themselves from tanks using ATGMs

Yeap.

Egypt could have won the War if it kept its Armored Reserves on the African side of the Canal instead of committing them in a futile effort to attack the Sinai passes to help the Syrians. By expending its armored forces, it weakened the 2nd Army that the Israelis was able to defeat it in the Battle of Chinese Farms and cross the canal and envelop the 3rd Army.

The Syrians lacked the cohesiveness of the Egyptian Forces and thats why their attack ran out of steam. The planners should have realized that Israel will prioritize the Syrian front over the Egyptian Front and thus Syrians should have had more tanks, planes and missiles.

Read the context of the answer it was about the attack in the Sinai, and why they were not used against the Usraeli brigades by the the 3rd army that was supposed to be surrounded.
So, i do not understand what you have been babbling about yourself.

The 3rd Army was on the other side of the canal. How could the Egyptians have fired on Israeli Tanks across the canal? Do you even know what you are talking about?
 
.
Yeap.

Egypt could have won the War if it kept its Armored Reserves on the African side of the Canal instead of committing them in a futile effort to attack the Sinai passes to help the Syrians. By expending its armored forces, it weakened the 2nd Army that the Israelis was able to defeat it in the Battle of Chinese Farms and cross the canal and envelop the 3rd Army.

The Syrians lacked the cohesiveness of the Egyptian Forces and thats why their attack ran out of steam. The planners should have realized that Israel will prioritize the Syrian front over the Egyptian Front and thus Syrians should have had more tanks, planes and missiles.
we won the war even if it could have happened with much less losses we accomplished our goals according to shazly and sadat the plan was simple cross the canal destroy the bar liv line wait for the isreali counter attack inflict heavy losses until they are ready to negotiate and give us our land back simple as that
 
.
Yeap.

Egypt could have won the War if it kept its Armored Reserves on the African side of the Canal instead of committing them in a futile effort to attack the Sinai passes to help the Syrians. By expending its armored forces, it weakened the 2nd Army that the Israelis was able to defeat it in the Battle of Chinese Farms and cross the canal and envelop the 3rd Army.

The Syrians lacked the cohesiveness of the Egyptian Forces and thats why their attack ran out of steam. The planners should have realized that Israel will prioritize the Syrian front over the Egyptian Front and thus Syrians should have had more tanks, planes and missiles.



The 3rd Army was on the other side of the canal. How could the Egyptians have fired on Israeli Tanks across the canal? Do you even know what you are talking about?
Do you understand what the term surrounded means? The Usraelis were on both sides of the canal.
What you are saying is hat the media has reported, please read post #59 to understand the deeper strategies involved.
The second army was not defeated , actually it has wiped out most of the crossing Usraeli forces, that is why they turned south towards the 3rd army...in desperation for a winning card to hold in the cease fire negotiations, what we commonly call a face saving attempt at any price. Justifying that the idea of the surrounding is false ,anyhow ,how can they cut the supplies of the 3rd army, while the 2nd army is one who can cut their own supplies, plus reserve Egyptian armies on the west side in their back.
All these Egyptian armies numbered not more than 200 000, while the Usrealis were at least 300 000. Do you really think that Egypt could not mobilize a million men it this wasn't a planed limited war?
 
.
Do you understand what the term surrounded means? The Usraelis were on both sides of the canal.
What you are saying is hat the media has reported, please read post #59 to understand the deeper strategies involved.
The second army was not defeated , actually it has wiped out most of the crossing Usraeli forces, that is why they turned south towards the 3rd army...in desperation for a winning card to hold in the cease fire negotiations, what we commonly call a face saving attempt at any price. Justifying that the idea of the surrounding is false ,anyhow ,how can they cut the supplies of the 3rd army, while the 2nd army is one who can cut their own supplies, plus reserve Egyptian armies on the west side in their back.
All these Egyptian armies numbered not more than 200 000, while the Usrealis were at least 300 000. Do you really think that Egypt could not mobilize a million men it this wasn't a planed limited war?

Are you really this stupid or just pretend to be while posting here?

The Second Army lost the bulk of its Armored Forces in the doomed attack on the Sinai Passes on October 14th. Then Israel launched its counter attack, it attacked in the southern flank of the Egyptian 2nd Army near the Chinese Farms area. Israeli Tanks met Egyptian Infantry and a ferocious fight, Israelis were able to secure a bridge head and cross the canal.

Israelis chose to encircle the 3rd Army as logistically it made more sense than turning north and encircling the 2nd Army as the 3rd Army's area of operation was smaller than the 2nd Army.

How could the 2nd Army have wiped out most of the Israeli Troops if they managed to cross the canal and encircle the 3rd Army?

The Egyptian Reserve Forces had already been committed to battle on October 14th, so beside support troops there were no Reserve forces left on the African side.

Anyways its clear you know absolutely nothing.

Its like trying to have a debate with a 5 year old about philosophy.
 
.
You should ask yourself why the Egyptians didn't use the ATGMs again. and you will be confused, and even more importantly why the Syrians did not use them., And that because Usrael was too weak to sustain more losses , that was calculated in the Arab plan of limited war in 1973.
As noted there was massive use of ATGMs later on during Chinese Farm battles, Mussuri, Hamutal, Lituf and so on.

Everything that does not agree or exposes Zionists is a conspiracy.
When you talk about shot down F-16 by Syrians although even Syrians themselves dont tell that, then obviously its stupid conspiracy. Especially when it comes from same Gordon Duff retard to who told us about Israel nuking Syria.

The second army was not defeated , actually it has wiped out most of the crossing Usraeli forces
Another retarted discovery which is not backed by anything as usual.

that is why they turned south towards the 3rd army...
That was the initial plan. Israel sent 2 divisions (Adan and Magen) to encircle the 3rd army, while 2 brigades from Sharon division were holding against the second army (Erez and Reshef).

anyhow ,how can they cut the supplies of the 3rd army
They cut it by surrounding it.

while the 2nd army is one who can cut their own supplies
They tried, but only lost the 25th brigade in desperate attempt.

, plus reserve Egyptian armies on the west side in their back.
After spending 23th brigade they remained with presidential guards brigade just, vs 3 divisions.

All these Egyptian armies numbered not more than 200 000, while the Usrealis were at least 300 000. Do you really think that Egypt could not mobilize a million men it this wasn't a planed limited war?
Egypt had 10 trained and equipped divisions vs 4 Israeli. They could mobilize more untrained and unequipped and send human wave mullah style. But I doubt it would work against armor divisions.

Every time u open ur mouth u embarrass urself. Are not u tired?
 
.
we won the war even if it could have happened with much less losses we accomplished our goals according to shazly and sadat the plan was simple cross the canal destroy the bar liv line wait for the isreali counter attack inflict heavy losses until they are ready to negotiate and give us our land back simple as that

Egypt militarily lost the war. Its armored forces were defeated, the 2nd field army was badly depleted while the 3rd army was totally surrounded.

But by inflicting heavy losses on the Israelis, it made the Israelis treat the Egyptians as equals which led to peace between Israel and Egypt.

So if the ultimate goal of the war was to get the Sinai back by shocking the Israelis, then it worked.

But on a purely militarily point of view, it was a defeat for the Egyptians. Only USA prevented the Israelis from totally destroying the 3rd Army.

As Kissinger famously said to the Israelis, "Destruction of the 3rd Army is an option that does not exist"
 
.
crossing the bar liv line was a massive attack that few armies in the world would do with light infantry we can attack if we have the tools with mobile air defense our second attack would make a lot of sense and this was our big mistake in the war sadat said it was because of arab and soviet pressure to help the syrians
Barlev 150 km line was defended by 400 infantry men. Thats all. Israelis has almost no artillery either. So when u see massive explosions during crossing in movies thats nonsense. In real crossing was very calm. They simply crossed between the Israeli posts (which were located some 10 km from each other) without meeting any resistance.

i mean why not keep the tanks attacking and let my infantry hold the ground and wait if the isrealis defeat our tanks they would find a defended line to retreat to
So i ask u, why u did not use that tactics on 14 oct?

our ATGMs were used until the end from what i know from the Chinese farm to ismalia and suez our infantry defended themselves from tanks using ATGMs
It was regular defence again. Using ATGM in defence is natural. But pushing ATGMs between the lines of attacking tanks is different story.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom