[starman2003]

Hi yoyo and welcome to the forum. Good to see this thread rejuvenated. Sure, the EAF didn't shoot down 17 IAF jets on the 14th. But the Mansoura battle definitely occurred. Based on what I've seen in the ACIG site and in Arab MIG-19 and MIG-21 Units in Combat the EAF claimed victory on the basis of only four kills. I agree the battle has been hyped, probably to divert attention from the army's disaster that day. But IIRC the 14th became Air Frorce Day before Mubarak attained power so it may not have been intended to promote him. Sayed Zakerya, the IDF had no plans to attack Cairo, but I doubt Egypt had 600,000 troops at the end of the war.

[yoyo]

Regarding Mansoura battle, Pls source your figures

Look at the Israeli air force web site
http://www.iaf.org.il
English
Past
Flight Log
70's
1973
October 6th - 24th: the Yom Kippur War
Or simply copy & paste:
http://www.iaf.org.il/Templates/FlightL ... lderID=843
There you can find detailed information about the Israeli air force activity during the war, day after day.
The website does mentions Israeli air force failures during the 1973 war but the "Egyptian victory at El Mansoura" is missing.
Not a single Israeli jet flight toward El Mansoura on the 14/10/1973.
I know there an article on www.acig.org about the "El Mansoura air battle",
Published by Dr. David Nicolle and Sherif Sharmy.
In the same article it is also mentioned that the Israelis insist that the battle has never occurred.
I guess that David Nicolle was fooled by Sherif Sharmy or that both of them were fooled by the corrupt Egyptian regime.

In addition, ask Israel to uncover this war documents.

Many Israeli army audio records and documents are no more classified, including ones from the 1973 war.
Everyone can read and hear those documents which are found in the army archive in "Tel Hashomer" near Tel Aviv.
These testimonies do show Israeli failures as were in the Bar-Lev line and in Suez as well as victories like the encirclement of the Egyptian 3rd army.
Some of them were published on Israeli radio and TV but unfortunately, most of them are not available via internet so you must visit the archive.
However there is a retired Israeli soldier, a veteran of the 1973 war named Avi Yafe.
He was in the Bar-Lev line on 6/10/1973 and he independently recorded the radio network of battalion 68,
The only battalion that occupied the Bar-Lev line that day and faced 100,000 crossing Egyptians.
Visit his site:
http://www.aviyaffe.com/studio_en/main/index.aspx


In regard to the battle of Suez:
Egypt was loosing the war to Israel and asked for a truce.
The Israelis made a hurried and failed attempt to capture Suez city minutes before an American-Soviet mediated cease fire was in force.
However Suez wasn't so important for the Israelis.
And they didn't try to seize Suez it all costs
There is an audio record of an Israeli general giving an order before the battle of Suez in these words:
"If it's Beersheba - go for it, if it's Stalingrad - don't".
In 1948 the Israelis entered Beersheba with no resistance, unlike the Germans in Stalingrad.
Israel failure in Suez wouldn't change the fact that the 3rd army was doomed.
By 24/10/1973 all of its supply lines were blocked and its air defense missile shield was totally destroyed while the Israelis had air superiority in that area as well as secured supply lines.
If the war would have been continuing for another week,
The 3rd army would run out of food and water and all of it soldiers would have surrender to the Israelis,
as many did.
That is why the Israelis tried to delay the cease fire, Saadat desperately begged for it, and the Soviets treated to send their troops and fight on Egypt side if the Israelis wouldn't stop annihilating Saadat's army.

[starman2003]

On the 14th it says "13 Egyptian interceptors were shot down in air battles and two others were destroyed on the ground. There had to have been attacks on EAF bases that day. They may not have mentioned Mansoura but it would've been a prime target in any assault on the EAF. Moreover, the site didn't mention IDF heliborne operations that day. I agree with your remarks on Suez and the Third Army.

[Sayed Zakerya]

I guess that David Nicolle was fooled by Sherif Sharmy or that both of them were fooled by the corrupt Egyptian regime.

IDF censorship is a well known policy that is applied against publishing of many historical events. Do you have official figures for Adan division tanks losses on the 8th of Oct battles? Do you have official figures for IDF losses in the battles for the chineese farm or Missouri or Ismaeilya?? Do you have official figures for IDF reserves losses due to the Egyptian commandos operations in Sinai routes to the Canal? Israel information concealment policies are wellknown. A fixed IDF policy since its establishment is to bar any information regarding the Arab commando operations against it.

Everyone can read and hear those documents which are found in the army archive in "Tel Hashomer" near Tel Aviv.
These testimonies do show Israeli failures as were in the Bar-Lev line and in Suez as well as victories like the encirclement of the Egyptian 3rd army

A researcher would not be looking for individuals stories & tails. He would be interested in the IDF General command plans to confornt the Egyptian army on the 6th & 7th. The official IDF goals behind its main armoured counter attack that was launched against the Egyptian army on the 8th. A researcher would be looking for the 35 years old MOM that took place in IDF Sinai headquarters in Tasa on the 12 & 13th. What were IDF crossing targets & time schedule? Were thier targets include surrounding the 3rd army only or it included surrounding the 2nd army as well.?If you are claiming that Israel have disclosed the 35Year old was archieves then guide me to these which include the answers to my previous questions??

Egypt was loosing the war to Israel and asked for a truce.

aqgain you misread the facts. A truce was firsly asked by Israel on the 12th of Oct but was rejected by Egypt. Now re-read my previous paragraph which question the concealement policies of IDF. In that paragraph, I was looking for IDF Canal crossing military targets. To win the War, IDF should have ended it with restoring its lost eastern Canal shore to maintain the Prewar military & political status. This condition should not be absent while discussing the 1973 War outcome. IDF can not claim victory in a War that ended with losing his positions along 180 Kms length front although of his questionable accomplishment on the Canal west bank.
From 1967 till 5th of Oct 1973, IDF stayed on the Canal east shore rejecting all withdrawal proposals. On the 6th of Oct the Egyptian army launched its liberation offensive which pushed IDF for good away of the Eastern Canal bank. IDF failed to repulse the Egyptian army.
IDF crossing operation was only facilitated by the US Nickel Grass operation. Without it IDF would not pocess 400 tanks out of the 650 tanks that crossed the canal. Even with these, IDF penetrated the Egyptian army lines in Defresour through the most bloody battles that faced it since 1948. It was a journey to Hell that led to a clear threatened military status. The 7 armoured IDF battalions that were located west of th Canal were wittnessing a fast Egyptian power build up against them. Their political unconditioned withdrawal on the 18th of January to 35 kms east of the Canal, while the Egyptian army continue gaurding its positions east of the Canal is an unquestioned evidence of the Egyptian army victory in that war.

However Suez wasn't so important for the Israelis.

Is that the reasons behind IDF repeated attacks on the city on the 24th & 25th. Is that the reason behind deploying 105 Tanks forming the brigades no, 217th & 460th to occupy the city. Is that the reason behind losing 400 casualities according to IDF with more than 100 killed ( IDF figures----be very carefull!!!)? is that the reason behind IDF loss of 40 Tanks of the assaulting tanks.? No you need to read a lot about 1973 War. The importance of Suez city in this war can be summarized as following:-
1- The city included large amounts of supplies for th ethird army.
2- The city location is strategically important as it controls the southern Suez Canal enterance. IDF occupation would have a large psyclogical results.
3- Occupying the city would wipe the last access of the surrounded 3rd army troops in the Canal west shore. This location was very important in the planned future Egyptian army offensive to break IDF seige.

If the war would have been continuing for another week,The 3rd army would run out of food and water and all of it soldiers would have surrender to the Israelis, as many did.

That is why the Israelis tried to delay the cease fire, Saadat desperately begged for it, and the Soviets treated to send their troops and fight on Egypt side if the Israelis wouldn't stop annihilating Saadat's army

Do you have sources for these astonishing assumptions! Those who defended Suez were the 19th Division troops of the 3rd Army. Do you have any source for IDF plans targetting the destruction of the 3rd Army.? Just state them.
The israelies did not delay the ceasefire. You should be more specific. Israel asked for a ceasefire on the 12th & signed another on the 22nd. The lines of the 22nd are clear to you on my posted map that was published in the UK Sunday times after the war. These lines show the exact location of IDF armoured divisions after 7 days of thier canal crossing on the 15th night. This reflects the price that was being paid by IDF for advancing 20 Kms/7 days ( 3 kms/ day ) against the Heroic resistance of the Egyptian commando & general command reserve forces. While IDF bypassed the main Egyptian army divisions on the Eastern Canal, they failed against infantry forces to fullfill a major achievement west of the Canal. Sharon Division that was attacking to the north in the Ismaeilya direction to isolate the 2Nd army was stopped by the 182nd paratroopers brigade, 129th commandos brigade & 139th commandos brigade. IDF crossing yard was being shelled on a minutely basis by the2ND army & the 3rd army artillary & rockets. The Missory fortification east of the canal was strangling IDF logitic supplies passage to the west. Together with the chineese Farm battles, the Missory 16th armoured division troops destryed IDF operation time schedule & wasted IDF prime goals of Canal crossing.

IDF propganda which is presenting the 3Rd army seige as the only outcome of the war ,while ignoring the forced existence of more than 200,000 Egyptian troops in IDF prewar positions, is pathetic.
This may suit Israel biased blovers & the semi-educated masses but has nothing to do with the truth.

[starman2003]

Various figures have been published regarding Adan's tank losses on the 8th; Rabinovich indicated the two failed attacks cost the IDF only about 20 tanks and only a few were hit by commandos along the coast road. The withdrawal of January 1974 was due to political pressure not military pressure. Even without Suez the IDF had trapped the 3rd Army, and as Dupuy wrote, it would've lasted only a week had the war continued. Israel air power coupled with lack of supplies would've finished the 3rd. The 3rd was dependent on UN supplies moving through Israeli lines because the Egyptians coud not save it on their own. As Kabil said, the 4rth could not break through to it. The 16th was an infantry division not an armored division, and it was steadily pushed back, out of the Chinese farm and even half of Missouri in the first week of the crossing. The second army inflicted some losses on the IDF crossing area but it could NOT stop or seriously impede the offensive. After Sharon's units crossed, Adan followed and then Magen.

[Menes]

yoyo:

Another lie of the Mubarak regime is the El Mansoura air battle.
The alleged battle occurred on the afternoon of 14/10/1973.
During 53 minutes, 60 Egyptian aircraft shot down 17 Israeli planes out of 120,
while loosing only 6 (3 of them crashed because of non combat reasons).
Nonsense.
According to Israeli original operation's diaries, not a single Israeli plane flight toward El Mansoura on 14/10.
The Israelis do admit their failures during the 1973 war like:
1. 06/10 use of tanks against crossing Egyptian Infantry
2. 07/10 air attack on Syrian radars
3. 08/10 attack by general Adan
4. 09/10 attack by general Sharon
5. rescuing the few soldiers defending the Bar-Lev line
6. first attempt to recapture an abandoned farm in Sinai
7. first attempt to recapture mount Hermon
8. Sharon attack on the Cairo-Ismailya road
9. Adan attack on Suez
Every year new Israeli documents and audio records are uncovered,
so the public will be able to know the true about the 1973 war, both achievements and failures.
Some how, the "Egyptian victory at El Mansoura" is missing.
It simply didn't happen.
The EL Mansoura story was fabricated in order to preserve the reputation of the failed general Hosni Mobarak.
Mobarak was promoted only because he was loyal to Saadat.
Ask him to uncover documents from that war.

Hi MegaIdler,
I always reading this comment posted in every topic related to the Egyptian military, air force, or to the Yom Kippur War, specially on youtube videos.

[centre][/centre]

It's very hard that to believe that someone has enough time to spend many hours aday spamming the same comment, you are either a computer software, or maybe it's your job?.
Now, who is spreading propaganda?, the corrupt Mubarak's regime or the Nazi Israeli government?, huh Goebbels?

[starman2003]

I guess he wants to undermine Mubarak's regime. Not such a bad idea but it can't be achieved by posting dubious claims, like the Mansoura battle never happened.

[Sayed Zakerya]

I guess he wants to undermine Mubarak's regime. Not such a bad idea but it can't be achieved by posting dubious claims, like the Mansoura battle never happened.

I agree with you Starman. Thanks to Menes.
Historical discussions should not be mixed with Political opinions.

[starman2003]

Right, especially if history is distorted to serve a political agenda.

[yoyo]

Israel did ask first for cease fire on 12/10/1973 but it was not because it was beaten by Egypt.
Israel's fuel and ammunition was running out.
Those can be lost even by activity not caused by the enemy.
On 10/10/1973 the Soviets began their massive supply to Syria.
On 11/10/1973 the Soviets began their massive supply to Egypt.
By 12//10/1973, The U.S. was refusing to deliver supplies for Israel unless it agrees for a cease fire,
and Israel had to buy and transport American equipment by its own.
Sea ways were still blocked by the Arabs and the only aircraft available for long range flights were few passenger airplanes converted into freighters.
Israel understood that it can't fight the whole Arab world, continuously supplied by the Soviet Union while not getting supplies by its own.
Once the Israelis agreed for a cease fire, the U.S. agreed to supply Israel.
Once the U.S. started to send supplies for Israel, Israel no longer asked for a truce,
even if outnumbered and outgunned by its enemies.
Since 12//10/1973, Israel only wanted more time to crush both Egypt and Syria.
While the U.S. sent advanced weapons to Israel like the TOW and F-4, the Soviets also sent advanced materials to both Egypt and Syria like SA-6, and tanks with night vision measures.
On the other hand, Israel's tanks had no night vision even if they had some mechanical advantages.

The Israelis had high casualties in Suez because they had underestimated the size of the Egyptian forces in Suez and thought that the Egyptians will surrender in Suez as they did previously.
They made a hurried attempt to occupy the city hours before the second UN cease fire was in force.
A relatively small armored column moved hastily thru the main street toward the center of the city and ran into an ambush.
If the Israelis would know what will happen in Suez they would never send such a small force made of a column of tanks and APCs in the main avenue.
Probably they would never try to capture the city.
However, Israel failure to capture Suez didn't bring good news for the two Egyptian divisions that were trapped in the east bank.
Being surrounded from all sides means that the Egyptians couldn't bring new SAMs and bridges instead of those the Israelis destroyed.
Even if there were supplies on Suez, I don’t see any way to transport it to the 3rd army in the east.
If the war was to continue a few days the 3rd army would run out of drinking water in the middle of the desert, and the Israelis would have easily destroy it.
The most obvious evidence for Egypt's critical situation is that Brezhnev told Nixon that he would send Soviet troops to fight on Egypt side if Israel would continue the siege on the 3rd army.
If Saadat wasn't loosing the war, why should he need the Soviets to fight his war ?
If Israel wasn't winning the war, why should it violate repeatedly the cease fire, and thus giving its enemies an excuse to fight back ?

Here comes the question why did Israel accepted the humiliating Agreement on Disengagement of 18/01/1974,
if it was victorious in the Yom Kippur war ?
The answer is events which happened after the war ended on 26/10/1973.
After Israel accepted the cease fire the Egyptians did a few moves.
They brought massive reinforcement from long distances and put them close to the Israeli forces on the west bank of the Suez Canal, threatening them.
They had continued to supply the surrounded 3rd army in the east bank thru Israeli check points.
Israel on the other hand was running out of resources to sustain it large force in the Suez Canal since it is a small nation in compare to Egypt that had no such a problem.
Therefore Israel had to reduce its forces in the canal area after months of standing by.
If Israel had the upper hand on the 26/10/1973, on the 18/01/1974 the Israeli forces in the canal area were reduced and the Egyptian forces were increased.
The Egyptians improved their situation during the cease fire, not by combat.
But do not forget for a single moment.
If there was no cease fire in the first place on the 24/10/1973,
the 3rd army would be easily destroyed by the Israelis, maybe the 2nd army as well.
The Egyptians would have never be able to bring their reinforcement since they had ran out of SAM batteries, making them vulnerable to Israeli air strikes long before they reach their position.

[yoyo]

During the last 20 years, not a single Israeli government agency tried to hide any empiric details about the 1973 war.
Some protocols were steel classified till recent years.
Some are still classified like those who reveal Israel's nuclear capabilities.
But exact details like casualties, positions and the maneuvers of Israeli forces during the war,
are free information for at least 20 years.
If you are so interested on how many Israeli soldiers were killed, where and when,
you might look on www.izkor.gov.il the memorial website of fallen Israeli soldiers.
I am sure that the Israeli army will give you more details if you only ask.
No one in the IDF tries to hide any embarrassments of that war.
As I mentioned before the Israelis do not deny:
1) 06/10 use of tanks against crossing Egyptian Infantry
2) 07/10 air attack on Syrian radars
3) 08/10 attack by general Adan
4) 09/10 attack by general Sharon
5) rescuing the few soldiers defending the Bar-Lev line
6) first attempts to recapture "Chinese Farm"
7) first attempt to recapture mount Hermon
Sharon attack on the Cairo-Ismailya road
9) Adan attack on Suez
On the other hand, a few years ago, the corrupt Egyptian regime didn't allow a BBC team to enter Egypt and to interview Egyptian war veterans of 1973.
They simply have something to hide.
When I claim that Moubarak regime is corrupt and spreading disinformation it is not because I have something against its policy.
In fact I am very pleased with Moubarak friendly policy toward Israel,
especially when Israel does in Gaza what is being described as terrorism by some of this forum's participants.
I only try to describe the reasons for the spreading of the lies by his regime.
It has two reasons to fabricate the El Mansoura victory.
1) To make a justification for Moubarak promotion after the war since he was responsible for commanding and training of the Egyptian pilots of 1973.
Actually he was promoted only because he was personally loyal to Saadat unlike Shazly, the real Egyptian hero of 1973.
2) To make the Egyptian people forget that 14/10/1973 was a devastating defeat for their ground forces.

[starman2003]

Yoyo, with regard to your second claim about Mansoura, were the Egyptian people even aware of the October 14 army disaster, when that date became Air Force Day? Right after the war, Ismail said the battle was a "draw" and Gamasy defended the decision to attack for years. So Mansoura doesn't appear to have been hyped as a distraction--there wasn't much public knowledge of the army's defeat anyway. IMO the feeling of accomplishment was genuine. While claims about Mansoura may have been exaggerated, it seems the EAF did at least relatively well. Granted, Sadat may have wanted his syncophant Mubarak to look good. But why hype up the October 14 air battle, specifically? Why not the initial air strikes of the 6th, or the air battles over the delta the next day? (Kadri Hamid and his wingman claimed victories then.) Honestly I think the EAF must have done something right that 14th of October.

According to Rabinovich, Elazar wanted a cease fire in the first week to recover from losses and to have more time to figure out how to deal with Arab weapons. And the Israelis needed more than just more fuel and ammo (I don't think fuel was a problem at all, btw). They also wanted replacement aircraft and armor--testifying to their losses.
With the exception of Bab el Mandeb, sea ways were NOT blocked by the arabs. Egypt received very little via the soviet airlift during the war. I think arab armor already had night vision equipment at the start. I agree the 3rd army wouldn't have lasted long if the war continued. I think Israel accepted the January 1974 disengagement agreement for the reasons you gave and US pressure; by then the US wanted to wean Sadat away from the soviets by demonstrating the efficacy of US diplomacy i.e. obtaining withdrawals.

[Menes]

loooooool yoyo, you post the same comments everywhere, you sounds like Goebbels.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
- Joseph Goebbels

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
- Joseph Goebbels

I'm glad that the nazi israeli regime adopts these propaganda techniques, you also chose a british propaganda poster from WWI as an avatar, but IMO your username is not a proper one for an effective propagandist.

Here is a report by an israeli newspaper Haaretz shows us how zionists use cartoons in US as a propaganda against arabs like what nazis were doing.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107871.html

[starman2003]

Zionists constantly use the "anti-semite" smear tactic to cow their critics (or would-be critics), when in reality the only real antisemitism anymore is their own doing, against the arabs.

[yoyo]

Zionists constantly use the "anti-semite" smear tactic to cow their critics (or would-be critics),
when in reality the only real antisemitism anymore is their own doing, against the arabs.

When Zionists claim that many anti Israeli criticisms are actually anti Jewish they have just reasons.
There are many organizations that are responsible of reporting on human rights violations.
Many report on alleged violations committed by Israel more than reporting on violations made by all the countries in the world together.
That’s include organizations that should be unbiased like the United Nation human rights council,
that publishes more pages about Israeli "crimes in Palestine" than letters about crimes made by the governments of Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Egypt, Angola and Iran together.
The only differences between Israel and those countries are that Israel is:
rich, developed, educated, free, democratic, supported by the U.S. and represents Jewish people which have a land dispute with Arabs.
While Israel does injustice toward the Palestinians, almost any Arab regime including the Egyptian one is much more repressive toward its own people.

[starman2003]

Israeli absuses are understandably of particular concern to Americans because unlike Iran, Cuba, North Korea etc, our money is subsidizing Israel and by extension its policies. We've shelled out many billions to that country and bear much respnsibility for what it does. Moreover, Israeli propaganda has long waxed eloquent over how wonderfully democratc they are. The issue is not just abuse per se, but hypocrisy. Any state that claims to be virtuous yet commits abuses naturally invites scrutiny. Lastly, while Israel has many critics, some not very objective, it shouldn't whine because its supporters have orders of magnitude more money and clout. AIPAC and similar groups practically control the US Congress and have milked this country for decades.

[Sayed Zakerya]

Dr Milestien ,One of the most important Israeli Historians, declared in his Article " The collapse" the following:-

In the 6–Day War of June 6 1967 Israel was able to defeat, incidentally, the armies of four Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq) which threatened her from the south, the north and the east. She attacked first in order to break the impending attack and remove the danger from her borders. Israel did not prepare then its army for a total battlefield defeat of the enemy forces and a complete overturn of the strategic balance in the region. That tremendous result, achieved paradoxically despite the poor functioning of the top command which did not control the situation, surprised Israel's leaders no less than the rest of the world.

He follows with the following :-

On Oct. 6 1973 the Egyptian and Syrian armies managed to surprise Israel and opened the Yom Kippur War by storm–crossing the Suez canal successfully and establishing a 10 km wide strip on the Israeli held east bank. The very crossing of the canal represented a strategic victory for Egypt and Sadat was able to close a 3,000 year old account between the Jewish and Egyptian Deities with the latter triumphant. This irrational aspect, residing in the subconscious of both people, seems to have had a decisive effect on the morale of both armies and the subsequent conduct of the war. The success of the Egyptian crossing so shocked Israel's leaders and its top military command that they simply did not function properly thereafter. It turned out that most fighting units of the IDF did not function as they did in the 6–Day War or even during training.

But, somehow, at the end of the second day Oct. 7, Israel?s leaders began to believe that the IDF recovered and overcame the results of the intelligence failure (timely call–up of reserves) and other logistical mishaps and was ready to defeat the enemy. The faulty decision making process and the planning of the operation designed to subdue Egypt and shows how the personal clashes between the top commanders led them to choose the worst alternative whose chances for success were nil. The front commander gen. Gonen did not control fully his divisions, the division commander did not control fully his brigades and the brigade commander did not control fully his regiments.

From gen. Adan?s division, only two armored regiments went into battle and that with a four hour separation. The first regiment under Adini almost succeeded in its mission but both regiments received neither artillery nor aerial support, nor were they reinforced by the other troops scheduled to attack so that the Egyptians managed to contain the attack and finally defeat it completely. This incompetent failure only caused an additional shock to the top command whose officers did not know battlefield details and did not fully understand its progress. Without a deep analysis, they concluded that the IDF is a poor army, abandoned the military decision option and embraced anew the traditional security policy of the old Zionist movement: passive defense and reliance on external protection. Thus they gave up on the very real possibility of defeating decisively the Egyptians and Syrians in Oct. 1973.

It is the abandonment of this option on Oct. 8 which explains Israel?s return of the entire Sinai peninsula, arbitrarily assigned by the British empire to Egypt only in 1904, for a peace treaty in a complete reversal of its previously declared policy; which explains the domestic opposition to the 1982 Lebanon War where prime minister Begin and defence minister Sharon sought to defeat the terrorist arm of the PLO and Repose a new peace arrangement with Syria; which explains holding back the IDF from crushing the civilian disturbances (intifada) at their inception in 1987. The latter is odd since prime minister Shamir was supposed to be more hawkish than Golda Meir who, in May 1970, did not hesitate to order the successful crushing of the first intifada in Gaza.

As we always believed., the truth will always be revealed. Salute to the 6th of Oct Egyptian Vitory anniversary.

[starman2003]

Hi Sayed. I thought this thread was finished, so I left to discuss these topics in the Iran board, and only saw this today.
I don't buy "the abandonment of this option" (defeating the arabs decisively) on Oct. 8 lead to Israel's return of Sinai. The IDF failed on the 8th, but they did not by any means give up trying to defeat the Egyptians decisively. Elazar was contemplating a crossing in the first week, and it was scheduled even before Egypt's failure on the 14th.