The war began on 6 October 1973, when the Arab coalition jointly launched a surprise attack against Israel on the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur. Egyptian forces crossed the Suez Canal in Operation Badr and advanced into the Sinai Peninsula; the Syrians launched a coordinated attack in the Golan Heights to coincide with the Egyptian offensive and initially made gains into Israeli-held territory. This Israel ignored reports of an impending Arab attack . Although the Arabs were pushed back Israel was uncertain of it's ability keep at the Arabs at back because of their early successes which resulted in the 1978 Camp David Accords that followed the war, Israel returned the entire Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. But What if Israel believed the reports of Arab attacks and prevented them from making any gains while pushing them back ?
Yom Kippur War-Decisive Israeli Victory
- Thread starter Ohfshkssgb
- Start date
Had Israel mobilized before the 6th the arabs probably would've called off the attack. It's interesting, though, that Shazli actually came to regret Israel wasn't already mobilized at the start. After the arabs (using RPGs and saggers etc) repelled the initial counterattacks the Israeli reserves, arriving somewhat later, were more cautious. Had the reserves come earlier, on the 6th or 7th, they would've immediately followed up the initial counterattacks without learning from them, leading to much higher losses. I'm not sure it would've gone that way but some israelis agreed.
If the war had gone on for another few days to a week, the Third Army would almost certainly been completely defeated and the Second be on the way to being cut off, like the Third was OTL. The Israelis would have been more depleted though.
Bren Adan's "On the banks of the Suez" is an interesting read. After the ceasefire came into effect, they certainly were making plans to finish off the Third if fighting broke out again.
Bren Adan's "On the banks of the Suez" is an interesting read. After the ceasefire came into effect, they certainly were making plans to finish off the Third if fighting broke out again.
I considered mentioning this but the OP is concerned with the start. The Israelis could've heavily pounded the Third, deprived of SAM cover by the 22nd, but to overrun it they'd have to move forces back east. That was done in preparation for a possible ground attack in November.
Possible but the Israeli attempt to move farther north, to Ismailia, was defeated around the 22nd. Rabinovich mentioned a General Tamari who doubted Israel could take on the second army. A key problem was the unsuitability of the terrain west of second army for armored warfare--precisely why the bulk of the Israeli force moved south from deversoir, to Suez and adabiya. Btw, the Egyptians were foolish not to move the 15th armored back east after the Israeli crossing.
Last edited:
Even before the war started, Elazar suggested reaching Damascus in a counterattack, but Dayan opposed it, just as he had opposed reaching Cairo, Damascus and Amman in '67. "We don't need an arab capital with a big civilian population to hold down."
Btw don't you like my posts on your thread?
Israel has typically acted with a fair amount of restraint in terms of population centres due to the desire not to create a wider war then is happening.
Winning on the battlefield is not the same as winning overall. Israel has always wanted to win the peace that follows and as such has acted with restraint even when objectives achieved meet certain historical desires. The Dome of the Rock is a perfect example of achieving the religious goal but causing a larger conflict. Israel took it over and promptly returned it to meet winning the peace objectives.
Winning on the battlefield is not the same as winning overall. Israel has always wanted to win the peace that follows and as such has acted with restraint even when objectives achieved meet certain historical desires. The Dome of the Rock is a perfect example of achieving the religious goal but causing a larger conflict. Israel took it over and promptly returned it to meet winning the peace objectives.
This is the reason you are one of my fav althistorian hereEven before the war started, Elazar suggested reaching Damascus in a counterattack, but Dayan opposed it, just as he had opposed reaching Cairo, Damascus and Amman in '67. "We don't need an arab capital with a big civilian population to hold down."
Btw don't you like my posts on your thread?
Ultimately I’d say even otl Israel won both the war and along with Egypt the peace. At the end of the war, the Egyptian third army was completely encircled in the Sinai and Israeli forces had crossed the Suez Canal and were 100km from Cairo with basically no major Egyptian forces remaining between Israel and Cairo.
As for the peace, in its final treaty it’s closer or the pre-1973 Israeli offers than the Egyptian war but the early successes of Egypt probably helped the peace negotiation since it let Egypt consider Yom Kippur a victory in Egypt and it let Sadat restore honour after the debacle of 1967.
Ultimately I’d say both Egypt and Israel won off the camp David accords. Egypt regained the Sinai but Israel gained Egyptian recognition and normalisation of relations with its most powerful neighbour and a demilitarised Sinai.
As for the peace, in its final treaty it’s closer or the pre-1973 Israeli offers than the Egyptian war but the early successes of Egypt probably helped the peace negotiation since it let Egypt consider Yom Kippur a victory in Egypt and it let Sadat restore honour after the debacle of 1967.
Ultimately I’d say both Egypt and Israel won off the camp David accords. Egypt regained the Sinai but Israel gained Egyptian recognition and normalisation of relations with its most powerful neighbour and a demilitarised Sinai.
That’s very unlikely, like just in terms of population, the city of Cairo had over 6 million people while all of Israel had over 3 million people. And what do they gain? If leverage, they already have that from the rest, occupation would be a nightmare and urban fighting is always tough, also humiliating Egypt too much was seen as counter productive to the potential for normalisation
Peace with Egypt but not a general peace as fighting erupted again in '82 and subsequently.
Not entirely true. After the ceasefire the Egyptians sneaked in supplies via the gulf of Suez, in small boats.
This was true right after the war but by December Egyptian strength had revived to the point where Egypt was contemplating operation Shamel to eliminate the Israeli bridgehead.
Not sure I understand but the Egyptians by mid '82 got back essentially all of sinai whereas the Israelis down to 1972 envisaged keeping eastern sinai as part of a deal. In fact right after the '72 Olympics massacre the Israeli position hardened; instead of drawing the line in eastern sinai it was now central sinai i.e. even in the event of a peace deal Israel planned to keep half the peninsula.
Sinai wasn't demilitarized. Egyptian troops, albeit in limited numbers, stayed east of the canal.
Last edited:
I have a slightly unrelated question
Assuming everything else goes the same but Nasser has a different successor, like Ali Sabri or Zakaria Mohieddin
would these people stop larping as UAR and become Egyptian Arab Republic by 1971 (like in otl)
or is that a Sadat only policy?
I'd assume the survival of the "UAR" was Nasser's way of mitigating his '61 failure. Since it was obviously a fiction I don't think it would've long survived Nasser, regardless of who his successor was.
Even when Nasser was in power, many Egyptians wished he would "abandon his pan arab argosy" and focus on improvement at home. By 1970, when Nasser died, they were ready for an "Egypt-firster."
Last edited:
Yeah this devastating defeat would further dash any sense of Supremacy