1973, Yom Kippur War Israelis dont quit

[Cryptic]

What if...

October 1973, the Israelis move to completely destroy the war making potential of Egypt and Syria. U.N pressure for a cease fire is ignored and the Americans are not pulling their supply plug (yet).

The Israeli plan is simple: Stay out of built up areas as much as possible. Systematically destroy all military and most civilian infrastructure. Damasus and Cairo are nearly surrounded, Israeli armoured columns are grinding towards Aleppo and Alexandria. Civilian casualties are climbing. Some desperate Egyptian units / militias are fighting under Islamic banners.

What happens next? Do the Soviets truly have the ability to save their quasi allies?, Will the U.S. risk a confrontation, How long can both nations resist? Do they have the skills to counter attack? Do hard core Islamacists fill the void in both nations? If so, what happens in the future?

 

[MerryPrankster]

If the Israelis got closer to Damascus, the Soviets were going to deploy paratroopers as a "tripwire." IIRC they pulled Jewish soldiers out of the units they planned to send.

I don't think the Israelis are dumb enough to attack Soviet troops and the US is going to stop them from doing anything really stupid.

 

[bouscher]

I doubt that Israel would have continued to attack because of 2 reasons:

1. Israel was caught by surprise, and took enough casualties.

2. The USSR threatened to intervene, meaning nuclear war (that's why Israel was under pressure to finish the war quickly).

So I doubt there is a place to wander "What if"...

 

[RogueBeaver]

They could probably have taken Cairo were it not for the threat of US/SU intervention, hell by the war's end they were within artillery range. Or bag the entire Third Army as POWs.

 

[Cryptic]

If the Israelis got closer to Damascus, the Soviets were going to deploy paratroopers as a "tripwire."

That could be risky for the Soviets. For example, if the Israelis surrounded but did not enter Damascus, the Soviet paratroopers would be "withering on the vine" (maybe with angry Islamcists as neighbors).

To really save the Egyptians and Syrians, the Soviets would need to send paratroopers and heavy armour -or- nukes (probably not a true option). I dont know if they could move heavy armour that fast.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I don't think the paratroopers were intended to defeat an Israeli thrust at Damascus--the point was if the Israelis did so, they would need to kill Soviet soldiers to do it, and there would be consequences and repercussions.

BAD consequences and repercussions.

 

[Cryptic]

the point was if the Israelis did so, they would need to kill Soviet soldiers to do it, and there would be consequences and repercussions.

BAD consequences and repercussions.

But aside from nukes, were the Soviets in a position to really hurt the Israelis fast enough? Moving enough heavy armour into the area was going to take weeks or longer (and risked U.S. responses). The Soviets could do a naval blockade and risk the U.S. running it.

Also, to make the Soviet paratroopers really uncomfortable, the Israelis could start covert arabic propaganda messages: secular governments backed Soviets mismanaged war and now.... the Soviets are scheming to make Egypt and Syria atheist states. Who knows, desperate and cornored Islamacists may actually attack Soviet units

 

[Faralis]

They could probably have taken Cairo were it not for the threat of US/SU intervention, hell by the war's end they were within artillery range. Or bag the entire Third Army as POWs.

Technically they were POWs if just for a day or 2 ...

But is almost ASB, because this means war!

... and in the apocalyptic nuclear sense ...

 

[Dave Howery]

I suppose it would come down to if the Arabs/Russians realize just what the Israelis are up to. If they realize that the Israelis are going after purely military targets, then they'll scream a lot, but it won't be Armageddon. If they don't, then anything could happen...

 

[Mr Qwerty]

But aside from nukes, were the Soviets in a position to really hurt the Israelis fast enough? Moving enough heavy armour into the area was going to take weeks or longer (and risked U.S. responses). The Soviets could do a naval blockade and risk the U.S. running it.

Also, to make the Soviet paratroopers really uncomfortable, the Israelis could start covert arabic propaganda messages: secular governments backed Soviets mismanaged war and now.... the Soviets are scheming to make Egypt and Syria atheist states. Who knows, desperate and cornored Islamacists may actually attack Soviet units

Were Islamicists a real concern in 1973?

 

[Earl_of_Somerset]

I could actually see Nuclear war happening, at the time of the war, Isreal did have 2 nuclear weapons. They had plans if "Push came to Shove" to drop one on Cario and another on Dascas, assuming the Arab invasion force was making some substantial progress

 

[MerryPrankster]

I could actually see Nuclear war happening, at the time of the war, Isreal did have 2 nuclear weapons. They had plans if "Push came to Shove" to drop one on Cario and another on Dascas, assuming the Arab invasion force was making some substantial progress

At this point, the Israelis are winning and they don't really NEED to use nukes.

Furthermore, some new evidence suggesting the Israelis weren't seriously considering nukes in 1973 has come to light, although if the Arabs got deep into pre-1967 Israeli borders, I am having trouble imagining them not being used.

 

[modelcitizen]

Were Islamicists a real concern in 1973?

If I recall correctly, I think Nasser was reasonably busy fighting Islamic fundamentalist opposition.

 

[Cash]

If the Israelis had ignored the U.N ceasefire, the U.S. would have closed the supply pipeline, and Israel couldn't afford to anger its U.S. ally. As it was, Kissinger delayed resupplying the Israelis to make them bleed a little more and be more amenable to his post-war plans for the Middle East.

U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces were already at high alert (I was stationed at Offutt AFB -- SAC headquarters -- at the time). Neither U.S. nor USSR wanted to see the war continue.

 

[Cryptic]

U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces were already at high alert (I was stationed at Offutt AFB -- SAC headquarters -- at the time). Neither U.S. nor USSR wanted to see the war continue.

I agree. At the end of the day, however, the Israelis and the U.S. had the soviets over the barrell (if they really wanted to force the issue, which the did not). Nukes were not a realistic option for anybody and significant Soviet heavy armour units were weeks or more away. By then, both Syria and Egypt would be collapsed.

Also, historically, it takes the Russian / Soviet military time to get up to steam. Israeli mobile warfare requires a very fast learning curve. Soviet straegists would also have to worry about their front line armour units suffering a large scale and embarassing first use defeat.

Were Islamicists a real concern in 1973?

I think so, especially with the stress of an invasion.

Whispers of the movement started in the 1950s. Some time after 1973, Islamacists assasinated Anwar Sadat, revolted in Syria (the secular Syrian regime pumped poison gas into rubble to ensure 100% casualties) and siezed the grand mosque in Mecca. As a side note, the Egyptian "operations director" of Al Queda is an old school islamacist who was arrested after the Sadat assasination.

 

[Ak-84]

The Isrealis push on, they fail. They were on their last legs when the ceasefire came. In Egypt they have to face Egyptian reserves (specially First Army) with the Canal to their backs with two Egyptian Army's on either side of their supply link-a very tenous supply link as it was.

On the Syrian Front the Syrians were IOTL preparing for a major counteroffensive when the end came, the Israelis were by the on the defensive.

What you are suggesting is that Israel abandon its strategy on nearly 30 years and fight according to the strengths of its enemys.

What happens; Sharon ends up giving supplication to the mummy of Ramses II thats what happens.

 

[MacCaulay]

At this point, the Israelis are winning and they don't really NEED to use nukes.

Furthermore, some new evidence suggesting the Israelis weren't seriously considering nukes in 1973 has come to light, although if the Arabs got deep into pre-1967 Israeli borders, I am having trouble imagining them not being used.

I cited The Yom Kippur War by Abraham Rabinowitz earlier. In his book, he cites interviews he did with officers in The Pit who talked to Golda Meir during the war and they went on the record as saying she never even asked about them so they never put them on the table.

Which is logical: she and they were obviously too busy running a conventional war the way they'd done two or three times before to put some completely knew variable into the equation.

 

[Hamurabi]

This would probably benefit the arabs.

The Egyptian reserves were reforming into a credible force 1st army and would have been ready to counter attack.
The syrians were prepared to continue fighting even after damascus falls and were already by the days of the ceasefire linked up with and Iraqi expeditionary force.

The arabs would love to get the chance to bleed the isrealis to death, and suck them into a never ending war..

The soviets would have resupplied them as they did for syria in the OTL.

The reality is that isreali forces are designed for one thing that they do very well. A short , sharp and decisive war.
With air superiority gaurenteed they are a fortress...

prolonged war takes away all their advantages.

 

[MacCaulay]

The Isrealis push on, they fail. They were on their last legs when the ceasefire came. In Egypt they have to face Egyptian reserves (specially First Army) with the Canal to their backs with two Egyptian Army's on either side of their supply link-a very tenous supply link as it was.

One of those Egyptian armies was at their backs because it had been completely surrounded by Israeli forces, and was only able to move back across the Canal when the UN finally brokered a ceasefire. Even then it took a little while, because the Israelis decided to take the opportunity to drive into them for another day or two just to make sure the Egyptians didn't take too much of their armour back across.

On the Syrian Front the Syrians were IOTL preparing for a major counteroffensive when the end came, the Israelis were by the on the defensive.

Can you cite that? One thing a lot of the histories of that war talk about is how there is no authoritative Syrian account to match the Egyptian and Israeli ones.

 

[Ak-84]

One of those Egyptian armies was at their backs because it had been completely surrounded by Israeli forces, and was only able to move back across the Canal when the UN finally brokered a ceasefire. Even then it took a little while, because the Israelis decided to take the opportunity to drive into them for another day or two just to make sure the Egyptians didn't take too much of their armour back across.



Can you cite that? One thing a lot of the histories of that war talk about is how there is no authoritative Syrian account to match the Egyptian and Israeli ones.

Was not completely surrounded. They were cut off with the Canal to the rear, the Red Sea to their right and the Israelis elsewhere, but the entrapment depended upon a very very narrow LOC across the canal. Remember when Sharon first suggested the action it was rejected for the reason that the link would be very tenous and could be broken easily. IOTL both armies had begun attempts to breakthrough. They do that and Israeli forces in Africa are screwed.