[Sayed Zakerya]

British historian Edgar Oballance in his valuable book "NO VICTOR, VO VANQUISHED " wrote the following:-
'The Israelis now give the impression that they were merely caught by surprise & that once they had recovered their balance, all was well. They insist that their quality was still superior to arab quantity & that their young, energetic, capable generals were superior to those of the arabs as was the Israeli soldier to his Arab counter-part. The Israelis like to say they drove back the Arabs on both fronts, crossed the suez canal, penetrated into Africa & surrounded the Egyptian Third Army with ease. They further claim that only intervention by the superpowers saved the Third Army from surrendering & the Israelis from advancing further into Arab territory, as the road to Cairo lay open before them. This was by no means the correct picture & by perpetuating it, the Israelis are in danger of falling into the same errors of Self-deception & overconfidence that they did after the 1967 War.

In addition
Trevor Dupuy sums up the issue well:
Thus, if war is the employment of military force in support of political objectives, there can be no doubt that in strategic and political terms the Arab States - and particularly Egypt - won the war, even though the military outcome was a stalemate permitting both sides to claim military victory.

[R_G]

The Israelis raped the Egyptian, Syria and Iraq armies.

They raped them.

It would have been triple sodomy had the U.S. not called Golda and told her to step back a bit.

[Schnitzel]

I'd say Israel...
After all, they had all of the excuses in the world to lose:
had bad timing, was surprisingly attacked etc...

[Far-Right Sage]

Israel, because they were fighting a defensive war.

If it were the other way around, and the Israeli Air Force bombarded Egyptian and Syrian territory on Eid or Ramadan, then the Arab states would have been fighting a defensive war, and the situation would be reversed. If you can hold your attacker off to a stalemate, that's a victory.

The NVA didn't defeat the U.S. Army. Why is the Vietnam War viewed as a North Vietnamese/pro-Red victory? We were on their soil.

[R_G]

The NVA didn't defeat the U.S. Army. Why is the Vietnam War viewed as a North Vietnamese/pro-Red victory? We were on their soil.

Whoa there, what is classified as defeat in your books? Because quiting is one of the definitions in mine.

[Far-Right Sage]

Whoa there, what is classified as defeat in your books? Because quiting is one of the definitions in mine.

What I'm saying is that the NVA did not defeat us militarily - We lost very few land battles. In the grand spectrum of the whole war, the U.S. suffered a defeat.

[Sayed Zakerya]

If it were the other way around, and the Israeli Air Force bombarded Egyptian and Syrian territory on Eid or Ramadan, then the Arab states would have been fighting a defensive war, and the situation would be reversed. If you can hold your attacker off to a stalemate, that's a victory.

The above statement requires the following ammendements:-
1- Sinai & Golan were occupied by IDF in 1967 ( 6 years prior to YK war. Accordingly, the Arabic armies were attacking to liberate their occupied lands. Such is rated as a legimate attack according to international law. The war declared targets were the liberation of the 1967 occupied arab terittories

2- The War started while IDF was occupying Sinai including the Suez Canal east bank. The military actions ended officially (not actually) on the 24th of October with the following situation:-
- The Egyptian 2nd army occupies 90 Kms length of
the 180Km length Eastern canal bank with a depth of
7 to 10 Kms
- The Egyptian 3rd army occupies 70Kms length of the
Eastern canal bank with a depth of 7 to 12 Kms.
- IDF occuipies 90 Kms of the Western canal bank with
a depth of 20 Kms. This area includes scattered Egyptian
army positions that were bypassed during the actions &
remained active during the ceasefire period. In addtion
the 3rd army land supply lines were cut by IDF.
- The IDF at the west of the Canal was bounded with the
Egyptian army troops while having long threatened routes
to its logistic bases east in Sinai. IDF positions on
the 24th of Oct were vulnerable. This led to the 1st
disengagemnet treaty as illustrated in the next paragraph

3- The war Ended on the 18th of Jan by signing the first disengagement treaty where IDF withdrew from the west of the Canal to 30 Kms inside Sinai with a 10 kms buffer area with the Egyptian army. This treaty was signed without any political commitments from the Egyptian side.

It may be confirmed that the Egyptian army has changed the forces positions on the ground in his favour by his military operations in YK war. This change was rejected by Israel during all peace negotiations that took place after 1967 war. Due to the War outcome , Israel was forced to accept it.

This is the Egyptian Victory

[pikachu]

Military-wise, it was a huge victory for Israel, but the domestic political fallout in Israel offset things a little.

[Sayed Zakerya]

Military-wise, it was a huge victory for Israel, but the domestic political fallout in Israel offset things a little

By the Military operations end on the 24th, it was proved that IDF had the followig drawbacks:-
- Failed to push the 2nd army from its new positions in the east of the canal to the west.
- Failed to push the 3rd army from its new positions in the east of the canal to the west.
- Failed to encircle the 2nd army.
- Failed to invade Suez city or Ismaeilia city.
- Could encircle the 3rd army on the 24th but was obliged to permit logistic supplies to this army on the 27th. Ie, this lasted for three days.
- Failed to occupy Missory position east of the canal. This failure prevented IDF from widening the passage between the troops in the west canal bank & its logistic bases in Sinai.

The first disengaement treaty together with the Resignation of Golda Maeir, Moshe Dayan, David aliaazer, Gonin & Mossad leaders in response to Agranat Commision decisions is a proof of the disasterous war results.

With these results it is pretty difficult to call this War
" Huge Victory for Israel"!

[R_G]

Israel didn't foolishly make breaks for the opposition.

It had been detailed and analyzed how the U.S. intervened because it didn't want a Northern Africa under Israel, which is exactly what would have happened.

Israel was stopped by the U.S. nothing more.

Egypt hasn't won anything of importance since about 200 B.C.

[Donna]

The above statement requires the following ammendements:-
1- Sinai & Golan were occupied by IDF in 1967 ( 6 years prior to YK war. Accordingly, the Arabic armies were attacking to liberate their occupied lands. Such is rated as a legimate attack according to international law. The war declared targets were the liberation of the 1967 occupied arab terittories

Whether it is "legitimate" or not is fairly arbitrary and justification has nothing to do with military victory.

- Failed to push the 2nd army from its new positions in the east of the canal to the west.
- Failed to push the 3rd army from its new positions in the east of the canal to the west.

The IDF did manage to break up the 2nd and 3rd armies and thus securing control of the Suez canal. You have a very broad definition of 'victory'.

[Nets]

If the US hadn't stepped in with arms to counter the massive influx of Soviet arms to the Arabs Israel could have faced far more serious defeats early on.

If Kissinger hadn't put his foot down at the end Israel would have completely humiliated the Arabs (again). The Egyptian third army would have been obliterated to the last man, and there were no major Arab forced obstructing Israeli thrusts towards either Damascus or Cairo.

Egypt won a psychological victory by proving their army wasn't completely incompetent; the initial Suez crossing was brilliant. The Arab psyche was completely smashed after the six day war, and early battle victories were enough to repair, it.

Israel lost psychologically.

But their is no question; Israel was on path to a victory that could have been more devastating then the Six Day War for the Arabs. An Arab capital had never fallen to Israel and artillery shells were already landing on Damascus.

In net terms, Israel finished the war holding more territory than it began with.

Wisely, the US could not allow this and stepped in and restrained it ally.

----

Incidentally, this is by far my favorite Arab-Israeli war to study. It is the only one where Israel had a worthy adversary.

[Sayed Zakerya]

The IDF did manage to break up the 2nd and 3rd armies and thus securing control of the Suez canal. You have a very broad definition of 'victory'.

Sorry but this statement is exactly opposite to what happened. Since the early hours of the war IDF employed its active Sinai Tank brigades (300 tanks) to counter attack the Egyptian army bridge heads. This limitted strength attacks failed to obstruct the Egyptian army crossing or affect its new positions on the 6th & 7th of October.
The 8th of october was the day when IDF could maintain all the reservists on the front. That day marks the major IDF counter attack againest the @d & 3rd Army. This attack was executede by 3 IDF divisions. General Bren ( ADAN), Sharon & Mendler led the three divisions. The target was to demolish major parts of the Two Egyptian armies & reach the water line.
For Egypt the 8th marks the major IDF attack failurewith more than 260 damaged IDF tanks. This day declared the successful effect of the soviet anti tank rockets (SAGGER).
General Mendler death that day summarizes the Victory in that day. IDF changed its tactics in this war as a result of this day.

[pikachu]

The Egyptian third army would have been obliterated to the last man, and there were no major Arab forced obstructing Israeli thrusts towards either Damascus or Cairo.

That could have resulted in a direct Soviet intervention.

Also, Syria was still feeling competent at the time when the armistice was signed and was even about to launch a new offensive in Golan.

but this statement is exactly opposite to what happened.

Among the entire world, only Egyptian Arabs (we had two on this forum) believe that the war was a military victory for the Arabs. The rest of the world laughs at this conclusion.

[Nets]

Sayed you are foolishly saying that early victories equal total victory.

Germany smashed France and Poland but lost the war. Egypt smashed the IDF initially in the Sinai before Gen. Goren was replaced and Israel was able to effectively counterattack.

[Sayed Zakerya]

If Kissinger hadn't put his foot down at the end Israel would have completely humiliated the Arabs (again). The Egyptian third army would have been obliterated to the last man, and there were no major Arab forced obstructing Israeli thrusts towards either Damascus or Cairo

Again, If the 3 major IDF divisions ( Adan, Sharon & Magen) were held in the west of the canal then which IDF divisions could wipe out the 3rd army at the east canal bank. Just remember that this army consists of Two infantry divisions with 3 armoured brigades & Potable anti air rockets with a total personal of 60000 troops. The story of demolishing the 3rd army can not be verified.

But their is no question; Israel was on path to a victory that could have been more devastating then the Six Day War for the Arabs. An Arab capital had never fallen to Israel and artillery shells were already landing on Damascus.

A further invalid stories are delievered. If IDF failed to conquer a small town like Suez on the 24th with losses of more than 100 killed troops & 40 damaged tanks & armoured carriers then, how on earth, this exhausted forces may form a threat to Cairo or any other Egyptian town.
Big words but too far from reality. The Fact is the opposite. IDF divisions west of the canal were in threatened positions. Only politics withdrawal commitment saved then from a disasterous fate.

[Nets]

Again, If the 3 major IDF divisions ( Adan, Sharon & Magen) were held in the west of the canal then which IDF divisions could wipe out the 3rd army at the east canal bank. Just remember that this army consists of Two infantry divisions with 3 armoured brigades & Potable anti air rockets with a total personal of 60000 troops. The story of demolishing the 3rd army can not be verified.

The unexpected Israeli crossing to the west bank knocked out the vast majority of the Soviet SAM batteries in range of the third army. The Israeli Air force would have made short work of them.

[Sayed Zakerya]

The unexpected Israeli crossing to the west bank knocked out the vast majority of the Soviet SAM batteries in range of the third army. The Israeli Air force would have made short work of them.

This is not 1967 War. The Egyptian Air force was there till the last moment of the War. Beside although the Egyptian Air defence rockets were pulled back to a safer bases away of the Canal banks starting from the 16th, IAF could not affect the 3rd army postions. The 3rd army had huge quantities of potable SAM7 anti-air personal rockets.
Sorry, it was different than 67.
Revisit this war events for an objective knowledge.

[Oxymoron]

1. The war led to a long term peace deal between Egypt + Jordan and Israel, it lead to long term end of any hot conflicts with Syria.

2. The IDF repulsed the attackers and invaded Egypt, as well as Syria and pretty much in position to take Damascus.

3.Yes Israel lost the Sinai but the only reason they needed it in the first place was for a Buffer against Egypt.

Basically the Arabs tried to throw Israel into the sea and ended up agreeing to a long term peace with Israel because they realised that there was no other choice, the IDF would never be defeated. Who won the war: The whole Middle East.

[Smilin' Dave]

The only real losers of the 1973 war were the Soviet Union, who lost Egypt as a client state, and Syria, who lost Egypt as an ally and didn't get any territory (or any other psychological victory) in the aftermath.

Addressing Anti-OP points:

The war led to a long term peace deal between Egypt + Jordan and Israel

Jordan was never truly hostile to Israel and if memory served didn't even broker an official peace with Israel till well after the Yom Kippur War.

The IDF repulsed the attackers and invaded Egypt, as well as Syria and pretty much in position to take Damascus.

You all seem to forget that the IDF stopped advancing into Syria in the wake of local counter-attacks (where Iraqi units had a starring role).

Yes Israel lost the Sinai but the only reason they needed it in the first place was for a Buffer against Egypt.

Almost right. Israel also saw the Sinai as a potential basing area for Palestinian guerillas (as it was in the 1950s for example). By the 1970s however the Palestinian groups had moved to other countries, notably Lebanon.

Basically the Arabs tried to throw Israel into the sea and ended up agreeing to a long term peace with Israel because they realised that there was no other choice

This view of the 1973 war isn't really supported by the material left by Egyptian government/military figures after the war. The Egyptians, who seem to have been the driving force of the re-initiation of hostlities, appear to have calcuated only on occupying the Sinai. It is not clear that the Syrians would go much further than the Golan either.

If Kissinger hadn't put his foot down at the end Israel would have completely humiliated the Arabs (again).

True, but Kissinger was always going to have to put his foot down, this would be like wishing it wouldn't rain. Inevitably the US was going to have to consider the Soviet Union, the threat to the Arab oil embargo and the staggering cost of resupplying the IDF (with the US often drawing from stockpiles in Western Europe earmarked for the event of a conflict with the Warsaw Pact) and realise there had to be an end. This 'superpower clock' had effected the 1956 and 1967 war (although the latter to a lesser extent) and was known to all sides when the war started.

Israel lost psychologically.

The Israeli military also had to acknowledge they couldn't sustain a 1973 level of attrition, moderating their military victory. This in turn lead to the compromise diplomatic result. Saying Israel lost only due to some lack of will is to ignore too many other factors.

Israel was on path to a victory that could have been more devastating then the Six Day War for the Arabs. An Arab capital had never fallen to Israel and artillery shells were already landing on Damascus.

The Israeli army didn't even want to storm Beruit (shelling is safer but often ineffective), there was no way the IDF was going to try and take Cairo or Damascus. Again, attrition made put this out of the question, and had put it out of the question in previous conflicts.

Addressing the OP:
- It's all very well to count how much of the Suez canal the Egyptians held, but you have to consider the position of the Egyptian units to the south. Their position wasn't really tenable.
- For example you neglect that 3rd army's supply routes had been cut, even if the encirclement wasn't air-tight.
- You seem to gloss over the Syrian defeat in the Golan Heights.
- No mention of the Egyptian failure by leaving a sufficient gap between 2nd and 3rd army for the Israelis to bridge the canal in the first place.
- No mention of the Egyptians over extending after their initial success in seizing the canal and repulsing counter attacks. This over extension in turn caused heavy losses and weakened the Egyptian position on the canal before the Israeli crossing.
- You give too much credit to the Egyptian airforce I believe Dupuy, (who you quoted) didn't rate the Egyptian airforce in '73 all that highly. Similarly you exaggerate the efficacy of the SA-7, somehow suggesting it made up for the loss of longer ranged batteries (or more correctly, their command and control).
- Finally you seem to take Dupuy over of context. Your argument seems to be focusing on the military aspect, when Dupuy points out at best it was a stalemate. When speaks of victory, it is in the post-war process.

Far-Right Sage is in danger of being the most sensible person in this thread.