CIA Report Yom Kippur War

APPROCVE
EO 13526 3.3(b)(1)>25Yrp
Dn I eae0i00
MCA
('-A
for Release: 2012/09/04
DATE: 29-Aug-2012
~/-
EO 13526 3.3(b)(6)>25Yrs
EO 13526 3.5(c)
FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF:
A2drfC
Intelligence Report
The 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
Overview and Analysis of the Conflict
.erer
SR IR 75-16
September 1975
Copy
Approved for Release: 2012/09/04
No
56
___________________________App roved for Release: 2012/09/04

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO DATE: 29-Aug-2012
-The
1973 Arab-Israeli War:

This study examines the military operations of Egypt, Syria, and Israel during
the 1973 Middle East war with a view to providing some indications of future force
developments in the area. Key findings:
Strategy. The Arabs had different goals and, consequently, different strategies.
The Syrians wanted to liberate the Golan Heights and attempted to do so in one
stroke. The Egyptians' main goal was to achieve a political effect, and they therefore
planned for a limited offensive.
The Israelis, because of overconfidence and because they failed to recognize
that their occupation of the Suez Canal's east bank deprived them of advance
warning of an Egyptian attack, did not react to mounting evidence of. Arab
intentions.
Performance of Troops. The Arabs were tough on defense but ill trained and
poorly led on offense.
The Israelis showed a depth of training and flexibility that enabled small units
to withstand the initial shock of the Arab attack without breaking, and to recover
quickly.
Antitank Weaponry. The most effective tank killer in this war was the tank-90
percent of the Arab tanks and at least 75 percent of the Israeli tanks destroyed
during the war were hit by enemy tanks.
Antitank missiles such as the Sagger, RPG-7, LAW, and TOW could be
countered by appropriate tactics, although they represented a new and dangerous
presence on the battlefield.
Air Defense. The Arab air defenses prevented the Israeli Air Force from
damaging Arab ground forces on anything like the scale seen in1967. They achieved
their primary aim by disrupting Israeli attacks rather than by shooting down or
damaging Israeli aircraft. Israeli loss rates were actually lower than they were in
1967, when the Arabs had only rudimentary air defense systems.
The Syrians destroyed or damaged Israeli aircraft at a rate two to three times
greater than the Egyptians because the tactical situation on the Golan front forced
the Israelis to accept greater risks.
Mobilization. The Israeli mobilization was untidy and revealed many flaws and
shortages. The situation was saved by the training of the troops and by standardized
procedures that allowed crews to be scrambled without degrading performance.
Despite the problems, the Israelis delivered more combat power to the front line in
less time than the plans called for.
Naval Operations. Israel's talent for tailoring its strengths to Arab weaknesses
was especially evident in naval operations during the 1973 conflict. The Israeli
navy's excellent performance was a sharp contrast to the prewar complacency and
overconfidence displayed by the ground and air forces.
SR IR 75-16
Sep 75
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012)
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Directorate of Intelligence
September 1975
INTELLIGENCE REPORT
The 1973 Arab-Israeli War:

Introduction
This study examines the military operations of

the major combatants--Egypt, Syria, and Israel--during
the October 1973 Middle East war.
It is intended
to uncover indications of future force developments
and military performance in the area. Another purpose is to provide a basis for considering the applicability of the October war experiences to forces
elsewhere in the world.
The arrangement of chapters or sections is designed to accommodate readers interested in only
certain aspects of the war. The commentary has been
grouped into four major sections: The Air War, The
Syrian Front, The Egyptian Front, and Combat Highlights. Within each of these, the account has been
further divided into subsections intended to enable
each reader to find the topic of special interest
to him. Readers of the whole report will find it
repetitive to some degree because of the effort to
analyze a particular event or situation in terms of
more than one aspect of the war. All readers are
urged to begin with the Comment on Sources (page 7)
and the Background and Summary of the War (page 10).
Comments and queries r

ardin
may be directed to
Office of Strategic Research,
report are welcome.

They
Strategic Evaluation Center,
Approved
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012
Contents
Page
Comment on Sources
Background and Summary of the War

Prelude to Another War
Opening Arab Assaults
Israeli Counterattack
The Air War
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
11
18
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Arab Reaction to 1967

.
........
Israeli Reaction to 1967
. ........
Arab Air Defense Systems . . . . . . . . . .
Measuring Effectiveness
. . . . . . . .
Another Measure of Effectiveness
Comparison of Syrian and Egyptian
Performance . . . .
..
.......
Performance of Israeli Air Defense
System
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
26
30
31
32
35
The Syrian Front .

The
The
The
The
The
The
The
47
Syrian Deployment
. .
Israeli Deployment . .
Syrian Attack
. . . .
Southern Penetration .
Northern Penetration .
High Water Mark
. . .
Hard Road to Sa'sa'
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
. .53
.
54
.
56
.
60
.
62
.
64
The Sinai Front
43
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Application of the Lessons of 1967

On the Egyptian Side . . . . .
On the Israeli
Side
. . . . .
Preparations and Deployment
. . .
The Crossing . . . . . . . . . . .
The Bridges
. . . . . . . . . . .
Sitzkrieg: 8-14 October
. . . . .
Into Africa
. . . . . . . . . . .
-3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
69
69
69
72
74
78
85
88
90
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012
Page
Combat Highlights
100
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . .
Strategy
Air Defense . . . . . . .
Performance of the Forces
. .
Tank Versus Antitank
. . . . . .
Mobilization
. . . . . . . . . .
Navy
. . .
Electronic Warfare
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ..
. -.
. ...
. .
- .
. .
. . .
.
.
.
.
100
. . .
103
.
-.
. . -. 104
108
. . . .
109
.
. ..111
.
- .-.-.113
. . . .
.
116
1. Growth of Arab and Israeli Air Defense

. . . . . . . .
Inventories, 1967-1973
28
Bibliographical Note
Tables
2. Israeli Aircraft Losses, by Date, by

Battlefront, and by Aircraft Type,
16-24 October 1973, and Loss Rates
....
as a Percentage of Total Sorties
34
3. Israeli Aircraft Losses on the Egyptian

Front, 14, 15, and 17-20 October 1973 .
40
4. Israeli Aircraft Damaged, by Date, by

Battlefront, and by Aircraft Type,
6-24 October 1973, and Damage Rates as
a Percentage of Total Sorties . . . . .
42
5. Israeli Aircraft Losses on the Syrian

. . . . . .
Front, 6-13 October 1973
46
6. Arab and Israeli Aircraft Losses by

Cause, 16-24 October 1973 . . . . .
..
-4
49

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012
Page
Photographs
Probable Sequence of Egyptian Canal
. .. . .
Crossing . . . . . . . . ..
-. .
14-15
Earthen Ramparts on Egyptian Side of

Suez Canal, October 1973 . . . . . . . .
Damage Inflicted on Egyptian SAM Sites
by Israeli Air Force, October 1973 . .
..-.
17
37
39
56
Egyptian Military Traffic Jamming Approaches

to Bridge Over Suez Canal, 13 October
1973 . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - Syrian Tank Thwarted in Effort to Cross
.
Israeli Barrier Ditch, October 1973
Al Firdan Sector on West (Egyptian)

Bank of Suez Canal, 1971 . . . .. . . . . .
Contrasting Battlefield Positions of

. . . .
Egyptian and Israeli Forces
..
Maps
- -
- -
- -
- -
2. The Golan Front: Israeli Counterattacks,

10-16 October
3. The Sinai Front: Israeli Counterattacks,
15-24 October
5 -
84
following 118
1. Arab-Israeli War, Initial Arab Attacks,

6-9 October 1973: (a) The Sinai Front,
(b) The Golan Front
74-75
Comment on Sources*
The October war was complex and the information

available to analyze it
is flawed and incnnleto
sources oen
value, but
These
provi e unique information o great
are limited in quantity and scope.
* See also Bibliographical Note beginning on page 116.
7-
Enough has been verified about tank

losses on both sides to establish the magnitude of
the losses and their relative number--the number of
Arab hulks counted is twice the Israeli number.
F
Current news
accounts can also be unreliable because of deliberate
falsification or propagandistic intent, and because
what was true for one newsman at a given instant and
place is seldom true for an entire action or campaign.
London Times correspondents claimed, for example, to
see pinpoint air support given by the Israeli Air
Force on the Golan front, whereas information
indicates that the IAF was
almost invisible to the Israeli ground forces there
because it tried to avoid confronting the Syrian air
defense system. These facts are not mutually exclusive, but do illustrate how perceptions have varied.
-8

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012)
Background and Summary of the War

The essentially unending Arab-Israeli conflict
since 1948 has been marked by major flareups in 1956,
The 1956 war forced Egypt to deny
1967, and 1973.
use of its territory to Palestinian resistance groups.
Galling though it was, the 1956 defeat of the Arabs
did not leave the sting that the 1967 engagement and
the almost total collapse of their forces did. From
that point on, the Egyptians and Syrians were preparing constantly for a war to recoup lost territories
and self-esteem.
Prelude to Another War
The time between the 1967 and 1973 wars falls
into fairly distinct periods. Through early 1969,
Egypt and Syria concentrated on rebuilding their
armed forces and retraining their troops. Egypt also
pursued diplomatic means of regaining its lost terSyria did not, choosing to encourage Arab
ritories.
guerrilla movements--as long as the guerrillas did
not attack Israel from Syria often enough to provoke
too great an Israeli reaction.
In mid-1969, Egypt initiated the War of Attrition
along the Suez Canal, designed to force the Israelis to
reach an accommodation. Israel, however, responded
by raising its retaliation to a level unacceptable to
Egypt. As the fighting mounted in cost and intensity
in early 1970, the Soviets were drawn into providing
not only vastly increased arms and air defense equipment, but also some 30 Soviet-manned SA-3 battalions
and five squadrons of MIG-21- fighters with Soviet
Only vigorous diplomatic action by the US
pilots.
brought about the August 1970 cease-fire which stabilized the lines in the Sinai, but which Egypt used
to install the beginnings of its canal-side air defense system.
The situation was manifestly unacceptable to
Egypt and other Arab states, but the Arabs had no
Hence the period
military leverage to alter matters.
10 -
SErET
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012|
from late
1970 through mid-1973 was characterized by
Arab diplomatic and Palestinian guerrilla activity
designed to put Israel under as much pressure as possible.
The most stark illustrations of this activity
were the killings in August 1972 at the Olympic Games
in Munich, and the July 1973 Security Council debate
on the Middle East, which increased Israel's isolation on the international scene.
By early 1973 the level of Arab frustration and
the preparations for war had reached a peak that
seemed to presage war by April or May. Egypt's apparent hope that something would emerge from the
Security Council debate and the US-USSR summit in
June seemed to stave off the outbreak.
It was during
the summer of 1973 that the "oil weapon" seems to
have been brought up in Arab councils as a real possibility. The oil-producing Arab states apparently
were to be given a chance to show how much influenbe
they could wield with their oil.
Throughout the period between the wars, preparations for the next one continued. The Arabs never
thought of diplomatic and military activity as mutually exclusive, but rather as complementary aspects
of a policy designed, at a minimum, to regain lost
territory.
Probably no single incident crystallized
the Arabs' decision to go to war.
Rather, the com-
bination of increasing confidence in their military

capability and frustration over the failure of diplomatic efforts to regain lost territory seems to
have tipped the scales in favor of war.
Opening Arab Assaults

Shortly before 1400 Israeli time on 6 October
1973, Syrian and Egyptian armed forces simultaneously
launched artillery and air strikes across the ceasefire lines.
On the Syrian front these attacks were
accompanied by tank and infantry thrusts between the
Israeli strongpoints into the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights.
Because there were so few men on duty at
the time, Israeli defenses in some areas were over-
11 -

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO[ DATE: 29-Aug-2012
whelmed quickly, and Israeli forces withdrew to hilltop strongpoints from which they harassed the Syrian
columns.
The Syrians pressed their attacks along two axes.
The first was directed north of Al Qunaytirah toward
the Jordan River. The second attacked south of Al
Qunaytirah and split into two main groups, one of
which headed north along the Trans-Arabian Pipeline
(TAPLINE).
The other column struck south down
the road leading around Lake Kinneret (Tiberias).
(See foldout map 1b, appended.)
While dramatic, these were not viable military

operations largely because all these armor columns
had insufficient infantry support and poor command
and control.
They were effectively blocked within
24 hours and defeated in less than 72.
Syria's
farthest known penetration was in the central sector
to about 25 kilometers (15 miles).
Only one of the
Israeli strongpoints along the 1967 cease-fire line
fell, and the Israeli armor forces in the area, though
small and badly damaged, did not yield. At daybreak
on 7 October, the Israelis hit the Syrian columns
with air strikes and freshly mobilized armor units.
By midday the Syrians apparently had been stopped
and by nightfall had been pushed back in many places.
Early on the 8th, the Syrians had been pushed back
to the 1967 cease-fire lines in some areas south of
Al Qunaytirah. By early on the 10th the Israelis
had restored virtually all the prewar border.
On the Sinai front, the Egyptian crossing of the
canal was deliberately, almost calmly, executed in
contrast to the Syrians' headlong rush to take ground.
Preparations had been made years before to organize
and shelter crossing forces on the west side of the
canal; roads and bridges had been built to facilitate
the movement of assaulforces from apemh
a, as to
the canal
Egyptian Chie
orstatt Sa'ad-l- Din Shazli has described
the operation in great detail, and his account is in
accord with the facts as we know them. The following
description is drawn largely from his account.
12 -
PjROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012
It was crucial for the Egyptians to move a large

number of troops across the canal quickly and to give
those troops protection against Israeli armor and air
forces.
The initial crossing was made in hundreds of
small boats by troops heavily supplied with antitank
weapons ranging from the shoulder-fired RPG-7 to sophisticated Sagger wire-guided missiles carried by
armored
two-man teams or mounted on a few BRDM-2 light
vehicles.
Egyptian troops were also given many SA-7
(Strela) small antiaircraft missiles which could be
fired by individual soldiers. Large amounts of artillery were emplaced on the west side to give fire
support to the crossing force until bridges could be
built to get tanks and artillery onto the Israelioccupied side.
Long before the war, the Egyptians had built a
series of earth mounds overlooking the Israeli side
They were thought to be no more than
of the canal.
observation posts.
On the outbreak of war, however,
these mounds sprouted tanks and antitank units, the
latter armed with Sagger missiles carried by men or
By this means the Egyptians added
BRDM vehicles.
still more antitank and covering fire to their crossing force. At the same time, Egyptian artillery
spotters on the mounds could look over the 40- to
50-foot sand wall the Israelis had built and call in
artillery fire on Israeli installations and reinforcements as much as five kilometers from the canal (see
drawing on page
17).
The Egyptians had also built one of the densest

and most diversified air defense systems ever erected
to provide protection against the Israeli Air Force.
This system consisted of dozens of SA-2, SA-3, SA-6,
and SA-7 SAM units, radar-guided antiaircraft artillery, and conventional AAA and heavy machine guns.
The first phase of the Egyptians' three-phase
operations plan on the west bank of the canal was
(see
essentially completed by the end of 6 October.
Three firm bridgeheads had been
foldout map la.)
established, but by nightfall Egyptian troops had
penetrated their planned eight to ten kilometers
13 -
'C6
I.
Aprvdfo
ees: 020/4
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012]
across the canal in only a few areas.

To accelerate
preparations against a counterattack, they used heavy
ferries before bridges were complete to bring in tanks
and still more antitank missile units.
By early evening several bridges were operating, and Egyptian armor
and troops were crossing in strength.
Within the first hours, the Israelis made two
costly mistakes.
Their experience in the 1967 war
led them to believe they could use tanks alone to
fight infantry.
They did not take adequate account
of the effect of antitank missiles in the hands of
now better trained, more highly motivated Egyptian
troops.
The Israelis compounded this error by sending
unaccompanied tanks to rescue the isolated garrisons
of their canal-side defensive barrier called the Bar
Lev Line.
When the Israeli tanks attacked alone on
6 and 7 October, they were badly mauled. The low
point came on the 8th when an Israeli armored battalion charged into an Egyptian ambush. The unit's
tanks were nearly all destroyed or damaged, and the
commander was captured.
On 6 October Israel had 293 tanks in the whole
of Sinai. Approximately half were out of commission
within 36 hours.
By the 9th the Israelis had pumped
a total of about 700 tanks into the Sinai, but only
300 were operable.
Many of the others were not destroyed but may have been down for essential maintenance or repair of battle damage, but it is obvious
that the Israeli armor corps was badly dented in
the first three days of the war.
The Israelis realized quickly that events had
made their tactics obsolete, and they adopted new
ones designed to overcome the Sagger antitank missile.
One tactic was to designate one tank in each formation to watch for the launch of these missiles and
to warn the others.
Often this would give them time
to take cover. The Israelis also found that, if they
fired at the point of launch, they could distract
the missile controller and cause the missile to go
astray, because the Sagger is wire guided and has
to be controlled until it hits its target. Another
technique was to fire at places likely to conceal
- 16 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012|
(driwinq is no! to scalJ1
2 Levels
-
am-
Parapet
Suez Canal
567046
17
9-75 C A
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012|
missile launchers, but this wasted ammunition. In

the end, the Israelis rediscovered that the best allaround results came from using a coordinated tankinfantry team: the infantry defended the tanks against
missile-carrying enemy infantrymen, while the tanks
defended the Israeli infantrymen against enemy tanks
and provided fire support.
Israeli Counterattack
First Syria... The Israelis decided--they had
little real choice--to stabilize the Sinai front while
seeking first to knock Syria out of the war. Having
forced the Syrians back to the 1967 cease-fire lines
by 10 October, the Israelis began a concentrated
attack along the road from Al Qunaytirah to Damascus.
They halted their hard-fought advance on high ground
near Sa'sa' about 30 kilometers south of Damascus,
only when Syrian resistance and counterattacks made
it clear that to go farther would cost more than IsIt
(See foldout map 2.)
rael was prepared to pay.
was during this drive that the Israelis met Iraqi
and Jordanian counterattacks at Al Harrah that
Israeli action
blunted their advance in this area.
on the Syrian front from 13 October through the
cease-fire on 24 October was confined to repulsing
Arab counterattacks.
...Then Sinai... While the Syrian front was spotlighted, fighting in the Sinai went into what the
Egyptian commander called an "operational pause" deFirst, the Egyptians
signed to accomplish two things.
anticipated needing several days after crossing the
canal to consolidate their position on the east bank
and prepare for the next stage of their offensive.
Second, because the Egyptians anticipated sizable
counterattacks, they planned to wear down the Israeli
armored forces as much as possible. In effect the
pause was to be a short war of attrition aimed at
making the breakout from the canal easier when the
time came.
After a few days, however, it became evident that
the Israelis were not going to cooperate. They stopped
sending their tanks against the Egyptian positions
18 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012
in blind charges and began to adopt tactics that

reduced the effectiveness of Egyptian antitank missiles. According to some reports, the final phase of
the Egyptian plan was to go into effect on 14 October
and would consist of a drive through the Sinai passes
to a north-south line running through Bi'r Jifjafah.
(see map la.)
The drive was to be spearheaded by
the 4th and 21st Armored Divisions--which, in fact,
only began to cross the canal in strength on 12 and
13 October. When the Egyptian breakout attempt came
on 14 October, however, it does not appear to have
been a well-planned or determined attempt. It lasted
one day and reportedly cost the Egyptians 200 tanks.
Because the battle of 14 October lacked the planning and enthusiasm of the canal crossing itself,
there is some speculation that it was designed to
divert Israeli resources from the Syrian front.* If
that was the case, the Egyptian tactic was too late
because the Israelis had already accomplished their
purpose in Syria and had begun diverting troops and
equipment to the Sinai in preparation for the Israeli
canal crossing scheduled for the night of 15 October.
The performance of the Egyptians in the few days
before 14 October and on that day itself was so lackluster that they appeared to be waiting for the
suitable moment to call for a cease-fire--something
they could hardly do while the Syrians were being
soundly beaten. The Egyptians first publicly mentioned the possiblity of a cease-fire on 15 October.
Their condition, however, was a return to the lines
of prewar 1967.
Since the Israelis were at that very
moment preparing to turn the tables on the Egyptians,
Tel Aviv failed to acknowledge the offer. The fact
that the offer was made just then, however, may indicate that an ending of the war with the gains up to
14 October in hand is what the Egyptians had in mind
from the start.
* There is considerable ambiguity surrounding the intentions of
the Egyptians in crossing the canal.
While their plan seems
ambitious, it appears they were willing to settle
for relatively
modest territorial gains.
Their real victory lay in crossing
the canal and holding onto some ground.
This they did well
enough to alter the Middle East equation.
19 -
Approved for.Release: 2012/09/04
...Then Africa. Between sunset on 15 October

and sunrise on the 16th Israeli forces successfully
crossed the canal into Egypt proper--"Africa" in the
Israeli vernacular. The Israelis had been debating
the timing of the crossing for some time.
General
Sharon, commander of the crossing force, has said he
argued for a crossing much earlier in the war. He
was overruled in favor of the scheme adopted--to take
the Arabs in turn, holding the Egyptians in Sinai
while defeating the Syrians on the Golan Heights.
The crossing was aided, according to Sharon, by
preparations he had made in the years when he was
commander of the Israeli forces deployed in the Sinai.
He had marked a deliberately weakened section of the
Israeli defensive wall along the canal so that it could
be knocked down quickly to make way for a crossing.
He had also prepared a protected area some distance
from the wall where the Israelis could assemble and
organize the crossing force. The Israeli operation
when it got under way ran into many unanticipated
delays.
The roads leading to the crossing site were
narrow, unpaved tracks.
They were unmarked and difficult to follow at night. Moreover, the Israelis
were trying to move elements of two divisions over
these roads, causing traffic jams and confusion.
Finally, the bridging equipment the Israelis were
to use was too large for the roads.
Some of it had
to be preceded by bulldozers to widen the road and
clear obstructions. These noncombat factors delayed
the Israeli crossing force and slowed the development
of the Israeli operation in Africa.
On the night of the crossing, Sharon launched his
143rd Armored Division at the point where the canal
enters the Great Bitter Lake.
(See map 3).
He counted
on the lake to protect his left flank while marshes
and half of his division protected his right. One tank
brigade drove to the canal and turned north to clear
the crossing site and push the Egyptians back from it.
The battalion of this brigade nearest the canal was
ordered to capture an Egyptian bridge if possible, but
the developing fight prevented this. An airborne infantry brigade followed to occupy the crossing site
and establish the first bridgehead on the west side.
At the same time another tank brigade was attacking
due west into the Egyptian 21st Armored and 16th
20 -

PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012)
Approved
Mechanized Divisions on the east side in order to

pin them down as much as possible, and to tempt the
Egyptians into deploying other forces on the east
bank away from the canal.
Finally, a tank brigade
followed the paratroopers, sending one battalion of
tanks across the canal on rafts early on 16 October.
For several days the remainder of this brigade was
tied up in beating back Egyptian attempts to close
off the Israeli corridor to the canal.
The Egyptians, victims of poor intelligence and
communications, did not grasp the impact of the
Israeli crossing but did not need to understand all
the details to know that Sharon's was an operation
they had to stop.
In addition to armored thrusts
from north and south, the Egyptians launched a number
of commando raids on the Israeli salient.
They also
called down intense, virtually continuous artillery
fire and--despite Israeli AAA and fighter cover-many air strikes, which killed at least 35 Israeli
engineer troops and wounded 150 more at the crossing
site alone. While never able to sever the Israeli
connection, the Egyptians were able for a day or two
to interrupt nighttime traffic to the crossing site.
After daybreak the Israelis were able to clear the
road and get traffic flowing again. Within two or
three days, the Israelis had secured their crossing
site against ground attack, although the Egyptians
kept some pressure on them throughout the war. Artillery and air strikes were continuous problems.
During this time the few square kilometers of the
east bank north and east of the Israeli crossing site
were the scene of some of the largest and fiercest tank
battles on record--centered on the misnamed "Chinese
Farm," a pre-1967 Egyptian experimental agricultural
project using Japanese irrigation equipment.
So severe
was the fighting and so great the losses, the Israelis
were still clearing the wreckage three weeks after the
cease-fire.
South of the crossing site, Egypt's 25th
Armored Brigade was ambushed before it could reach
the area and was virtually destroyed.
The intensity of these battles was a result of several factors.
The target area--the crossing site-was small, there was no cover or concealment in the
surrounding terrain, both sides appreciated the im-
21 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOw DATE: 29-Aug-2012
portance of the engagement, and both had plenty of

In the confused melee that
tanks to throw into it.
characterized the fighting, two factors took on
critical importance--the competence of small-unit
commanders and the quality of the gunnery. There
was little room for maneuver, and combatants were too
closely intermingled to give the air force of either
side room to intervene. This was the kind of combat
in which the Israelis held the advantage.
The Egyptian resistance to the crossing on the
east bank of the canal was matched on a much smaller
scale by individual and isolated units on the western
(Egyptian) side. The Egyptians had transported the

bulk of their combat forces to the east bank. On
15 October there were five infantry, two mechanized,
and two armored divisions there, plus two independent
armored brigades--a force, at full strength, of 80,000
to well over 100,000 men. This left only five widely
spaced mechanized infantry brigades and scattered air
defense, artillery, and local security troops to defend
the west bank. Whether this was the result of a blunder,
miscalculation, or gamble is not known. Only one of
those brigades was located in the Israeli crossing area.
It apparently resisted to the best of its ability but
was overwhelmed and destroyed on 16 and 17 October.
The Israeli crossing was conceived as a largeThe descale operation to defeat the Egyptians.
struction of SAM and artillery sites was a secondary
aim designed to facilitate the achievement of the
But, the crossing force was enlarged
main goal.
slowly and incrementally from not much more than an
armored battalion on 16 October to a force of 15,000
to 20,000 men and some 500 tanks by 24 October.
Caution was in order, however. The Israelis had
thrown a large portion of their Sinai strength into
If the crossing force were to
crossing the canal.
become bogged down in heavy fighting and unable to
disengage, the costs could have been immense. The
Egyptian mechanized brigade less than 16 kilometers
from the crossing site had to be neutralized before
the exploitation of the Israeli crossing could safely
proceed.
22 -
EfoGR-ET
The southward movement out of the Israeli bridgehead did not get under way until 17 or 18 October
and it was carried through by the armored division
under General Adan. His force crossed the canal on
17 October after having disengaged in the Al Qantarah
area--undetected by the Egyptians--and came south to
the crossing site in time to participate in the ambush of the Egyptian 25th Brigade. The full weight
of the Israeli drive on Suez did not develop until
21 October when General Magen's armored force joined
the move south.
The propaganda from Radio Cairo beclouded the
already confused situation. One cannot say whether
Cairo's false statements were the result of ignorance
or the dictates of propaganda. On the 16th the
Egyptians again offered a cease-fire based on a withOf course, the
drawal to the prewar 1967 lines.
deprecated the
Egypt
interested.
Israelis were not
Israeli crossing, saying that seven tanks had crossed
and they were being eliminated. The following day the
Egyptians claimed the Israeli crossing force had been
defeated and forced to withdraw. In fact, the crossOn the
ing force had grown to nearly a division.
18th, Egypt was still broadcasting the same story
about seven tanks having been forced to withdraw
while, in reality, a second Israeli armored division
had begun to cross into Egypt. The Egyptians' explanation for their confusion is that field commanders
minimized the first Israeli crossing force and failed

to pass timely information. Command and control were
further disrupted when the Egyptian division or brigade commander responsible for the defense of the
crossing site died of a heart attack in the early
stages of the west bank fight.
On the 19th, the Israelis claimed in public that
10,000 men and some 200 tanks were operating inside
Egypt. The Egyptian radio was still saying that the
Israeli crossing force had been neutralized and was
no threat. The Israelis had by then erected at least
two bridges across the canal and installed an air
defense system to protect them. Moreover, as the
Israeli operation succeeded in disrupting the Egyption rear and destroying SAM units, the Israeli Air
23 -
AEGRET
Force had greater freedom to operate. Between 18

and 22 October Israeli air activity reached a peak
as the Israeli Air Force took advantage of the exposed Egyptian forces on both sides of the canal.
The Egyptians were faced with a painful dilemma.
If they withdrew forces from the east side of the
canal to cope with the Israeli incursion, they would
give up the territory they had started the war to
reclaim. If they did not withdraw forces, they ran
the risk of losing all the forces deployed on the
east side of the canal.
In fact, from 19 October on,
the political factor became more and more important.
Rumors, later confirmed, circulated that Secretary

of State Kissinger was in communication with Soviet
leaders on a cease-fire proposal.
On the 19th,
Premier Kosygin returned from several days of consultations in Cairo. On the 20th, Secretary Kissinger
arrived in Moscow.
The Israelis obviously wished to encircle a
large part of the Egyptian Army. We do not know if
the purpose was to gain a postwar bargaining lever
or to accomplish the first stage of a general Egyptian defeat. Even as late as 21 October, however,
some senior Israelis reportedly perceived no need to
complete the encirclement quickly before rising political pressure from the great powers forced a
cease-fire.
When the joint US-USSR cease-fire resolution was voted in the UN on 22 October, the Israelis
had advanced barely more than halfway to the city of
Suez at the south end of the canal.
Claiming Egyptian
cease-fire violations, the Israelis pressed ahead
and cut off the Egyptian 3rd Army and the city of Suez
before accepting the cease-fire called for 0700 on
24 October. Violations by both sides continued for
several days as the Israelis sought to solidify
their hold on the west side of the canal and complete
the encirclement of Suez and as Egyptian 3rd Army
units made several attempts to break out.
The question of cease-fire violations aside, the
fact is that the war ended on a militarily inconclusive note.
The Israelis had managed to place the
Egyptian forces in the Sinai in a bad position, but
24 -
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012
the Egyptians had not yet been defeated. The Egyptian

armies maintained their organization and were still
well equipped and prepared to defend themselves.
There is little doubt they would have fought for some
time and that an Israeli effort to destroy the Egyptian Army would have been a costly business.
Nevertheless the Israelis had the tactical advantage at
that point.
On the west bank they had succeeded in
opening up the kind of mobile attack at which they
excel.
The Israelis had destroyed or neutralized
most of the Egyptian air defense system on the west
side of the canal, thereby freeing their air force to
attack the Egyptian armies in earnest.
On the Syrian
front also, the Israelis had achieved their tactical
objectives, but the Syrian Army remained undefeated.
25 -
SEGf RET
The Air War
Until June 1967 the Israeli Air Force had a reputation as an aggressive, highly competent lightweight
among world air forces although better by a wide margin than any combination of Arab air forces.
Then,
between the hours of 0745 and 1200 local time on
5 June 1967 this lightweight executed an air campaign
of unprecedented power and precision in the course
of which it destroyed the two largest Arab air forces,
In the following five days
those of Egypt and Syria.
the IAF destroyed Jordan's air force and demonstrated
the destructiveness of tactical airpower used against

unprotected ground forces. By the end of the war an
impression of efficacy and power had been created by
the IAF that led both Arabs and Israelis to make
mistakes in military planning and judgment that were
not exposed until October 1973.
In 1967
These mistakes are easily summarized.
the IAF had done so many things so well, the Israeli
command concluded that the IAF could simultaneously
provide air defense, tactical support to ground troops,
support for the navy, and strategic attack, and still
make up for shortages of ground-based artillery.
The Arabs were so impressed that they concluded
the IAF alone had caused their humiliating defeat
Hence, they believed, if they could but
in 1967.
find the means to neutralize the IAF, Arab ground
forces with some expansion and further training could
deal with Israeli ground forces on acceptable terms.
Arab Reaction to 1967

In 1967 the Arabs lost a total of about 450 airMost of them were destroyed on
craft of all types.
the ground in the first hours of the war. As for
other equipment, no count is reliable, but the evidence of damage done and the accounts of those who
underwent the attacks indicate that the IAF destroyed
a large percentage of the nonarmored vehicles and
equipment the Arabs lost during the war. There is
26 -
some question about how many armored vehicles the

IAF was able to destroy, but the number certainly
was not significant in terms of the outcome of the
The psychological impact of unopposed IAF
war.
attacks on Arab ground forces, however, made a
considerable contribution to the speed and extent
of the Arab collapse.
Arab military activity for the first two years
after the war was heavily devoted to replacement of
lost equipment, retraining of new troops, construction of passive defense measures against air attack,
(See
and the deployment of new air defense weapons.
By mid-1971 the number of SAM battalions
Table 1..)
deployed in Egypt had more than doubled. Moreover,
SA-3s had been received, the first ever to leave
Warsaw Pact territory. Major radar facilities had
increased in number and many of the preexisting sites
had been expanded and improved. The AAA inventory
also more than doubled to 2,080 guns. The number of
Egyptian MIG-21s on hand at the time more than tripled
Syria followed
from 61 in 1967 to 216 in July 1971.
roughly the same course as Egypt, in that its holdings
of MIG-21s had increased from 26 to 100 in the same
In addition, Syria had just begun
four-year span.
to receive SA-2 equipment to make up for the total
lack of SAM protection until then.
The state of things in mid-1971 was a drastic
change from the situation a year earlier, when
Israeli air attacks in retaliation for Nasir's War
of Attrition virtually destroyed the Egyptian air
The system in existence in mid-1971
defense system.*
It was not taken
was created with direct Soviet aid.
fully under Egyptian control again until late 1972
after Sadat expelled nearly all Soviet military advisers from the country. The period through September
* The 1967 experience as a motivating influence on the Arab defense buildup was reinforced by the Israeli Air Force's success
in turning Egypt's War of Attrition (1969-1970) against the Egyptions themselves. The fact that air defenses were being expanded
before the War of Attrition indicates, however, that the 1967
war clearly played the central role.
27
0
O
0
Table 1
Growth of Arab and Israeli Air Defense Inventories, 1967-1973
1-
Type of Weapon
Prewar 1967a,b
Israel
Syria
Egypt
Mid-1971c
Israel Syria
Egypt
Prewar 1973
Israel
Syria
Egypt
rn
Antiaircraft
guns
Air defense
radars
-
Hawk
SA-2
SA-3
SA-6
SA-7
o
Q
ID
950
11
10
80
800
1,500
2,080
1,000
1,900
2,750
20
85
360
z
d
O0
EZ50
---
----
--
--
--
--
--
26
-5
65
--144
214
-200
--
72
---
-70
--
-360
200
32
75
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
61
--
100
216
39
4
-----
249
68
-----
--
128
1
-----
2
46
78
120
69
378
337
229
--
-75
50
60
165
-420
220
400
600
--
186
326
320r
52f
-----
--61
99
172
22
168
----
275f
26
588
354
354
--
ma
o
Aircraft
rD
1,100
SAM launchers
CD
550
*~
MIG-21s
Other Soviet
Scc attack planes
Bombers
Mirages
F-4s
A-4s
Other aircraft
Total aircraft
a. Source:
91f
169
--
--
--
--
16f
659
December 1974,
Source:
- srae i
an ook, September 1966,
Source: Arab-Israeli Handbook, July 1971,
No figures available.
Egypt fired a few early models of the SA-7 (Strela) shoulder-launched missiles at Israeli aircraft in 1970.
We do not know how many were available in mid-1971 but it probably was few.
f. Total includes obsolescent aircraft. The Egyptians are phasing out MIG-15s and MIG-17s.
'he Israelis have
phased out Ouragans and older model Mysteres. In 1973 the Egyptians had 16 Iraqi Hawker Hunters on loan.
g. One squadron of Libyan Mirages was in Egypt before the war. The aircraft were flown by Egyptian pilots under
b.
c.
d.
e.
Egyptian Air Force command.
N) 0
c0
1973, nevertheless, saw continued rapid growth of

Egypt's air defense system.
While similar increases in facilities and equipment.were made in Syria, the deployment pattern remained centered on the cities of Hims, -Latakia, and
In effect, the air defense systems under
Damascus.
whose protection the Arabs launched the October 1973
war were built and emplaced in late 1970 and early
The major exceptions were the acquisition by
1971.
Egypt and Syria of 25 SA-6 battalions in 1972 and
1973 and the movement in the same period of Syrian
SAM units. from protecting cities to their positions
along the Golan cease-fire line.
Through all this the Arabs expanded their ground
force holdings and put their ground troops through
intense and nearly continuous training. Before the
1967 war the Egyptians and Syrians held about 1,600
tanks between them. By mid-1971 they had about 2,500.
And, on the eve of the October war they had almost
This is a substantial increase but hardly
3,800.
of the same magnitude as the effort expended on air
Throughout, the Arabs made no secret of the
defense.
fact that their equipment acquisitions and training
exercises were intended to build a capability to
drive the Israelis out of territory occupied in 1967.
The entire pattern of Arab training, equipment
acquisitions, and deployments between 1967 and 1973
can be seen as the gradual implementation of a plan
to overcome the two major assets of the Israeli armed
forces--tactical air and armor. This plan was based
on lessons the Arabs learned from the 1967 war, and
the main lesson learned was that the IAF had to be
The Arabs recognized problems in their
stopped.
That was the reason for increases
ground forces.
in equipment inventory and training time. But the
magnitude of the increases and effort never matched
that put into air defense. Clearly, then, the Arabs
believed that they had found the means to neutralize
the IAF by 6 October 1973, and it is in this light
that the effectiveness of the Arab air defense sysThe systems succeeded or failed
tems must be judged.
to the extent that they were able to neutralize the
effects of the IAF on the Arab forces in the field.
29 -
Israeli Reaction to 1967

From the Israeli point of view the 1967 war had
gone almost according to plan. It had not been easy-the fighting had been hard and the casualties relatively high. But it had been quick, and the main
lesson it imparted to the Israelis was that their
armed forces needed little changing. Thus, their
activity from 1967 through 1973 was confined to maintaining acceptable equipment ratios with the Arabs,
and training to retain the qualitative superiority
of Israel's forces over those of its most likely
Arab opponents.
While the Arabs increased their passive means of
aircraft protection, so did the Israelis--who had
always used aircraft shelters and camouflage to a far
greater extent because they had so few fields. Radar
coverage was improved and extended, taking advantage
of the territory occupied in 1967 which gave the
Israelis more warning time and provided high ground
on which to site their advance surveillance radars.
Their inventory of AAA pieces was almost half again
as large by mid-1971 in response to increased Arab
aircraft holdings, and by October 1973 was almost
double the prewar 1967 level.
The number of Hawk
units an4 missiles increased from 50 launchers and
174 missiles before the 1967 war to 75 launchers
by the time of the October war. This was a substantial, but clearly not a crash, effort. The Israeli
ground-based air defense system before 1967 was
modest, and it remained so through the October war.
The Israeli thinking was that the IAF could provide the bulk of what air defense might be needed.
Between 1968 and 1973 the Israelis poured the bulk
of their defense effort and their money into their
air force.
Over 270 F-4 Phantom and A-4 Skyhawk aircraft were purchased from the US.
With this acquisition of a large number of US aircraft capable of
ground attack, Israel's Mirage force--61 aircraft in
October 1973--was released to concentrate on its
primary role of air-to-air combat. But the Israelis
took care to give the IAF the capabilities to do the
wide variety of jobs assigned to it without unduly
30 -
increasing the number of aircraft involved.

While
the Israeli Air Force increased from 214 to 354 aircraft, the bomb-carrying capacity of the force was
raised to four times the earlier level.*
This capacity was intended to enable the force to perform
close support and strategic attack missions as well
as to provide "flying artillery."
Nevertheless, the
ratio of Egyptian and Syrian fighters to Israeli was
permitted to rise from 1.8 : 1 in 1967 to 2.8 : 1 in
September 1973.
On the ground, too, the Israelis were content to
ride with a winner. The Israeli inventory of tanks
increased from 1,250 in 1967 to approximately 1,950
in 1973--a hefty figure but one reflecting no great
urgency.
In fact, here again Israel allowed, perhaps for unavoidable economic reasons, a critical
equipment ratio to worsen: the Arab advantage in tanks
climbed from 1.2 : 1 to 2.0 : 1.
Evidently the Israelis believed they had a winning combination in relatively small but very welltrained armored formations and an air force equipped
with aircraft to perform a variety of specialized
missions--Mirages for air defense, A-4s for ground
support and flying artillery, and F-4s for deep penetration, strategic missions, and the flexibility to
provide ground support or air defense as well if
need be.
Arab Air Defense Systems

The air defense system that covered the Egyptian
crossing of the Suez Canal was essentially complete
by early 1971.
Both the SAM units and many alternate
sites for them were so placed as to extend Egyptian
SAM coverage 15 nautical miles or more into Israelioccupied Sinai.
When the October war began, the
Egyptians had deployed some 30 SA-2, 20 SA-3, and
10 SA-6 firing units in a belt extending the length
of the canal and some 30 to 40 nautical miles west
* Aircraft assigned to operational squadrons.
31 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012]
of Al
of it in the triangle formed by the cities
Qantarah, Cairo, and Suez.
This represented a change
from the situation that had existed since 1971 only
in that the SA-6 units were moved from positions
around airfields some 45 nautical miles west of the
canal to positions within less than five miles of it.
Interspersed among the SAMs were over 2,000 AAA
pieces, many of them organic to combat formations in
the area and many of them radar controlled. Altogether it was the most diversified air defense system
ever constructed with the exception of that built in
Syria.
Diversity is an important feature of the air
defense systems built in Egypt and Syria. The Arabs
had weapons designed to provide overlapping coverage
This meant
to altitudes over 60,000 feet (SA-2).
there was no airspace over the battlefield within
which the IAF could operate free of threat. The
electronic systems associated with these weapons operated in many different bands of the radio spectrum.
This meant that no fighter could carry enough gear
for electronic countermeasures (ECM) to defend itself
against all threats. Moreover, the Israelis had no
ECM gear to cope with some Arab systems such as the
SA-6.
Thus, despite the fact that the IAF had learned
how to cope with some air defense weapons rather well-the SA-2, for example, constituted little threat--the
IAF had to recognize that the sheer size and variety
of weapons it would face over Arab territory would
greatly hinder the accomplishment of its ground support mission and threaten high losses.
Measuring Effectiveness
In this and the following section the Egyptian
and Syrian air defense systems are examined from two
points of view--first, in the usual way, by counting
the number of aircraft they shot down; second, in a
much more general way, according to the amount of
damage the systems were able to prevent the IAF from
The first
inflicting on the Arab ground forces.
measure concentrates on the attrition factor while
the second attempts to reflect the degradation in
effectiveness a heavy air defense environment may
32 -
cause in an attacking air force. The higher attrition rates the IAF suffered on the Syrian front seem
to have resulted more from the differences in the
tactical situation on the ground rather than from
any difference in capability between the Syrian and
Egyptian air defense systems.
The coarsest measure of the effectiveness of an
air defense system is the number of aircraft shot
down. On the Egyptian front, the IAF lost 51 aircraft during the October war. The Israelis flew
about 8,400* sorties against Egyptian targets, meaning that the Egyptians shot down 0.61 IAF aircraft
out of each 100 sorties flown (see Table 2)--that is,
0.61 percent of the total number of sorties ended
with the loss of the aircraft.**
This is less than
half the loss rate the IAF suffered in the 1967 war,
during which the Israelis lost 46 aircraft altogether,
the great majority on the Egyptian front. A breakdown of IAF losses by front is not available for the
whole 1967 war. On the first day of the 1967 war,
however, the Egyptians downed 15 Israeli aircraft.
On the first two days of the 1973 war, the Egyptians
* The IAF flew 75 percent of its ground attack sorties against

the Egyptians and the remainder against the Syrians.
Lacking
better information, we assume that the IAF flew its air
defense
(aerial combat or patrol) sorties in the same proportion.
Other
assumptions could be made, i.e.,
Israeli air defense sorties
could be distributed in the same proportion as Arab air force
sorties--58 percent Egyptian and 42 percent Syrian.
The latter
assumption was discarded both because the connection between
Arab ground attack sorties and Israeli air defense sorties
is tenuous at best and because the end result is not greatly
different. Given ambiguities in the data, however, the details of the analysis which follows should be taken as illustrative rather than precise. We believe nonetheless that
the results accurately reflect the trend and yield useful
insights.
** Throughout this paper the loss rate is given as the number
of aircraft lost per 100 sorties flown--or, more conventionally stated, in aircraft lost as a percent of the total number
of sorties.
33 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE

CIA INFOLI DATE: 29-Aug-2012
IrI044$*+
010N10
0000
ow'or
NONO
'4-e
4m
0pOO
NNO
N
NO
0t
Hen-N
Ol
-40
H-
- -
000
N Il
0hhmO
encIO
.N 0-4
101
N
S440-H1
-N
NON
I1 p
1-iLn
I
N N
1f1
-4
pI
00/G
H-
10
01
1
0
01
..
H
IN
OWWNI
N O
1+-H 1
.4-
ONOI
O QN
0
-44 r
.1
011
11
1 0
-4J
en
10
O0
N
0
.4
M1
1
C
100
-. 4
N0
0e
1
li 1 1
Ip 1 1
'"
ryl
.i
!n
ifIII1
- I
I
1 11
M00
--
IN9
;;:
i I
ll
Nv
NOV
.1
Ni
i 1
NO'
N~
Ho
lII
H L
N-
I4 1-41
~.4I
lii
nI e1
I.-I-I
141
-dI
01
m0
NI
o
1N 1
. cI
1
SO
Q MN.H
L
.1
10
N1
0 14 I
40 10
I
I
0-
'00
HN
0
1.
.- I
04
I
I
I
i
NOQ
iLn-
e-4
N
N
10414
MNII
N'
NN
'0
10
N
0
iii
flO
40
101-i 10
N" -'1N
.4M
40
-34
44
4I4
"7
0\
en
om Q.-1Lfn
L
#n
-4
0
C
41
0Cent
nco
0'p
m0
14
41
N
In
Ln
en
NNN
1010
HO
N o 10ILnO \D
Io n
1.-l
0
10NN
-4
h1
No
10
0
,I
1-
0M
'N
GN
In
en-I -I
OH
N
00
n.
'
NN
- 101
00
N
O
-I
.11
e-
H
01010Q
'
100
N01
0e
en
enO
In
HiN
-I I
4)
h111
-I
1010
th40
N O
44?1
'4m m
010
N
"
0 "--1
4N
-4N
II
I"
I
NN
44L
0.
QCION
NN
I I
01
iii
0
;1
I ?I
0 U1
1 0
II
IH
I
ON
'
lI
F]'G
1 1
NC
-y
10
Q N I
4 --
-1
Q UI
NYC
lii
en
L4'I
0
en
41
Il
01
NI
I
I
1 1- 1
I
I
NiI0
li
4'I
1M
.1
0
5 1111
N
eI
WII
-I
100
u~~:
10
4+
M1
O,
'4
Approved for
Release: 2012/09/04
downed 14 Israeli aircraft.*

Bear in mind that the
Egyptians had nearly three times the AAA and more
than six times the SAMs in 1973 and the advantage of
prior warning and deployment.
In the first four days of the war--through 9 October--the Egyptians shot down 32 IAF aircraft and
the Israelis had flown only 1,897 sorties, a loss
of 1.69 percent. The reason the loss rate was so
much higher in the first days of the war was that
the IAF was preoccupied with trying to cut the EgypSince the Egyptians
tian bridges across the canal.
anticipated this reaction, they sited heavy air defense protection within range of the bridges. On
10 October the IAF gave up trying to hit the bridges,
and its loss rate through the remainder of the war fell
to a very low 0.29 percent. In those first days the
Israelis made virtually no attempt to suppress the
air defense system, concentrating instead on trying
to halt the flow of Egyptian men and materiel across
the canal.
Yet even on the worst day, 7 October,
the IAF loss rate was 2.86 percent, considerably
below the peak rate of the 1967 war, which was 3.9
percent on the first day. In terms of aircraft shot
down, the performance of the Egyptian air defense
system in October 1973 was dismal. Despite its
enormous increase in size, despite its advance warning, despite its increased sophistication, and despite the fact that the IAF did not attack it in force
for the first several days, the Egyptian defenders
were barely able to match the performance of their
1967 predecessors.
Another Measure of Effectiveness
On the other hand, aircraft shot down--in either
absolute numbers or percentages--may not be the best
or most instructive measure of the performance of
the Egyptians. The effectiveness of air defense
could also be measured by the extent of damage a
hostile air force is prevented from inflicting on
the force the system is protecting. There is little
* The first two days--6 and 7 October--are used because half
the first day had lapsed before fighting started.
35 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012|
direct information, but it seems clear that in preventing damage the 1973 Egyptian air defense system
attained considerable success. Evidence includes
the continued functioning of the bridges and changes
in tactics and weapons that resulted in less accurate
and effective Israeli air support.
The heavy volume of AAA and SAM fire must have
considerably degraded the accuracy and effect of IAF
strikes.
that the large volume of fire used by the Egyptians
when in contact with Israeli ground forces seemed to
double whenever an Israeli aircraft came into the area.
Evidence so far available from photography can
be misleading. Seldom do photographs obtained in
1973 reveal roadsides choked with burnt vehicles as
1967 photographs did. Such destruction as is evident
tends to be spread out and discrete. This is because
the Egyptians were neither retreating nor advancing,
and the IAF had to hit them where they were deployed
In
-- in battle order, spread across the landscape.
strikes
IAF
of
weight
the
scattered places, however,
Most of Bur
was plain
Fu'ad, opposite Port Said, was destroyed. The Israelis

made a concentrated effort there apparently to support Fort Budapest, the northernmost strongpoint of
the Bar Lev Line and the only one to survive the war
intact. This strongpoint was located on a narrow
neck of land just a few miles east of Bur Fu'ad.
The Egyptian forces attacking it moved through the
city and along constricted routes of advance to
It appears that IAF support was important,
reach it.
if not vital, to the defense of this point.
The Israeli bombing of Port Said/Bur Fu'ad was
reports of Scud
due partly to[
missiles deployed in this vicinity, where they would
have been within range of Tel Aviv. In addition,
certain point targets, such as SAM sites and the
bridges, show considerable evidence of IAF strikes,
indicating that the IAF was able to penetrate the
Cerair defense zone for particular purposes.
tainly, however, the IAF pilots could not loiter
over the battlefield looking for targets of opportunity or spotting them for artillery units as they
36 -
Aro
Approved for Release: 20 12/09/04

This represented a real advantage for

did in 1967.
Egypt due almost entirely to its ground-based air
defense system. As a result, targets inviting IAF
strikes--such as military convoys 'ammed at the aproaches to canal-crossing points
-often went unscathed.
Undoubtedly, the Egyptian ground forces were
spared much damage because the Israelis were reluctant
to operate over Egypt's main air defense zone. The
bulk of the IAF's strike sorties wer& flown along the
battle lines or against targets deeper inside Egypt
behind the main defended area. Strikes into the interior of the defended zone were concentrated in a
single week, late in the war.
In the final few days
of the war a large number of air strikes were flown
in support of the Israeli drive to encircle Suez and
the 3rd Army after many SAM units had been destroyed
The IAF had to contend
by Israeli ground forces.
with the variety of air defense systems deployed
throughout the area, but the number of 'air defense
units--hence the degree of risk involved--was considerably higher in the interior of the defended
area than it was along the periphery.
The IAF staged major raids inside the defended
area only on 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 October. In
the course of these raids the IAF lost seven F-4s,
four A-4s, and two Mirages--a quarter of the aircraft
lost in the whole war on the Egyptian front. The
figures (see Table 3, page 40) indicate that Israeli
caution was well advised.
The F-4 was the primary
strike weapon against SAM sites because it could carry
both larger ordnance loads and more ECM than the A-4.
The A-4s and Mysteres were used primarily for close
Using their aircraft in this way the Israelis
support.
incurred losses much greater than average among their
F-4s.
In the more permissive environment created by
the SAM strikes and the ground attacks on the air
defense system, however, the Israelis were able to
make greater use of their lower performance attack
aircraft. Over 57 percent of the total Mystere
sorties flown on the Egyptian front occurred during
In addition the A-4 losses were
these six days.
below average for the war, and much lower than might
have been expected.
38 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO
DATE: 29-Aug-2012]
Table
Israeli Aircraft Losses on the Egyptian Front,

14, 15, and 17-20 October 1973
Aircraft
Losses
Strike
sorties
(%)
Loss rate
Loss rate
(%) for
whole war on
Egyptian front
Expected
lossesa
A-4
1,066
0.38
'-4
449
1.56
0.67
Mirage
34
0.24
Mystere
335
0.42
at least i
13
1,884
0.69
0.61
12
Total
.8 5 1
,a.Applying Egyptian front loss rate for whole war to sorties flown in this period.
1. A-4s flew only strike sorties in the October war.
:. F-4s flew defense and strategic attack as well as strike missions. All F-4s
lost on the Egyptian front after 11 October were engaged in strike sorties.
These were mostly in
d. Mirage losses occurred only during air defense sorties.
the period 14-20 October, reflecting increased Egyptian Air Force reaction
late in the war as the air defenses along the canal were worn down.
-A
4R
Some days saw higher losses than others.

On 18
October six IAF aircraft were lost out of only 263
strike sorties flown. The next day, however, no
aircraft were lost out of 357 strike sorties flown.
The contrast is probably due to differences in targets attacked and tactics employed.
The Egyptian air defense system continued to be
dangerous throughout the war despite IAF efforts to
neutralize it.
In the last three days of the war,
for example, no Israeli aircraft were lost, but six
were damaged (see Table 4).
Throughout the war the
potential of the system to inflict losses forced the
IAF' to use tactics and types of ordnance that were
less than optimal.
The Israelis found that if they
stayed above 10,000 feet they could cope with the
Egyptian air defense weapons. At that height they
were above the effective range of AAA, their ECM and
tactics against the SA-2 and SA-3 were effective
enough to make the risks of operating at that altitude acceptable, and their pilots had sufficient
warning of-an SA-6 launch to take evasive action.
However, the combination of altitude and evasive
maneuvering severely degraded the accuracy of IAF
weapons delivery. The effect of the Arab air defense
system on ordnance loads shows in the almost total
absence from this war of napalm drops and strafing-tactics which require long, low, extremely vulnerable
approaches to the target for optimum effectiveness.
They would have been extremely effective against
Egyptian troops and soft vehicles deployed in the
relatively crowded areas of the Egyptian bridgeheads
in Sinai, especially in the first 24 to 36 hours.
The survival of the 3rd Army as a fighting force
is an indirect indication of the ability of the
Egyptian air defense system to protect its ground
forces. In the last four days of the war the Israelis
lost one aircraft and had six others damaged and the
average daily level of strike sorties was higher
than almost any other four-day- period of the war.
These Israeli strikes were concentrated almost exclusively on the 3rd Army area, including that part
of it on the east side of the canal. When the war
ended that part of the army consisted of some elements of one armored division (the 4th) and the
-41

CIA INFOL] DATE: 29-Aug-2012 ,-
aC
49d_
T4
9
r- )
d'm
0h
.4
"
M
)4
IA9
44
41
p
~~~~
"i
04p
0
v0
-
(4
-4
m O
-9
41I
u mVO
041
r-1
w
O2
-1NN
N NhO N
-4
Z
!
99
I I
1D
C)l
04
0
0
09
0.4
le 5
-1 . 10
049
04 I
.-
.C
4114
yl
Ii
ro~~
Aoy
YI
O
oN- 4
ly
004
400
041
-Il
G44 W
-- 4)404Nr
b
fl
-H.
1W
Q
04
49
a1-
N 0
0O.
0-0
0
N'
r
04-
04
04
O1
04
0
0044N
114
04Q4
04
.
4d
m
U4
>
.-
a,
*4
a.
'"
94
a
1r
-4
-4
Mi
49
V
IN44
IPIIA
~ ~
O
4-444.
49
49
*
49-4O
Nf
Il
a ~~
42
~
-
Appove fo Reeae 2012/09/04d
'0
U4
4994
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012
remnants of two infantry divisions, plus an armored

brigade.*
Though mauled in the fighting, these units
retained their organization and ability to fight with
some 200 operable tanks and associated combat and
support elements.
It seems likely that the AAA held
by the units in the Sinai and the SAM coverage extended over the area from the west side of the canal
combined to help prevent the IAF from inflicting the
widespread damage that characterized the 1967 war.
The story was quite different on the west side
of the canal over the area occupied by Israeli ground
forces.
In the final four days the IAF devoted considerable sorties to supporting the Israeli drive to
surround Suez, and it often used a tactic in which a
small Israeli ground unit would pin down an Egyptian
unit with fire and call in an IAF air strike.
This
minimized Israeli casualties and allowed the bulk of
Israeli forces to continue the drive south.
The IAF
was able to make this tactic work, because the Israeli
force on the west bank had knocked out many SAM and
other air defense units.
In this lighter air defense
environment the IAF apparently was able to provide
excellent ground support over at least part of the
Israeli enclave west of the canal.**
Comparison of Syrian and Egyptian Performance
The Israelis lost the same number of aircraft (51)
on each front, but the loss rate on the Syrian front
was three times as high as on the Egyptian front,
primarily because the situation facing Israeli ground
forces on the Golan forced the IAF to take greater
risks there.
The Egyptians, moreover, had some 130
SAM battalions and some 2,750 AAA guns, whereas the
Syrians had only about 37 SAM battalions (11 SA-2,
11 SA-3, and 15 SA-6) and 1,900 AAA guns.
This indi* By 20 October most of the 4th Armored Division had withdrawn
across the canal, where it helped defend the city of Suez when
Israeli forces surrounded, but did not occupy, it on 23 and
24 October.
** In this, the Israelis were helped by the weakness of the
SAM deployment opposite their crossing point and west of the
Great Bitter Lake.
-43
cates that the air defense system on the Syrian front

was much more effective than that along the Suez
Canal.
Of the possible explanations, equipment differences can be ruled out because both Arab states
used the same types of SAMs and AAA weapons. Differences in crew training are also unlikely because
the Egyptian and Syrian systems both were essentially
designed and installed with Soviet advice and Soviettrained manpower,* and other evidence indicates no
significant difference between th'e two systems in
terms of training activity or competence in combat.
Two factors, however, do seem to have been very
different on the Golan front and could account for
First, the battlefield area dethe higher losses.
Iended by the Syrian SAM system was smaller--about
1,800 square nautical miles, as compared with 3,700
sq nm for the Egyptian system. Second, and more important, the tactical situation in the ground campaign was very different. Initially, the Syrians
pushed harder and deeper into Israeli-occupied territory than Egypt did, and the Syrian attack was
much closer to Israeli population centers.
The
Israeli command, therefore, decided it had to give

priority to defeating the Syrians while the Egyptians
were only to be contained until forces could be freed
from the Golan front to deal with them. Air power
was a major element in this strategy, and the role
the IAF had to play forced it to accept greater casualties.
Until the Golan front was stabilized, the IAF
concentrated its strikes along the 1967 cease-fire
line and SAM units immediately behind it. The overall Israeli aims in the first days of the war were
to separate the Syrian tanks from their infantry and
logistic support and to interdict and harass lines of
communication deeper in Syria. While Syrian armor
* At the time of
working with its
of 200 advisers,
fense. This may
tiveness, though
the war Syria had about 350 Soviet advisers

air defense forces. The Egyptians had a total
most of them probably not involved in air dehave made some contribution to Syrian effecwe cannot calculate how much.
44 -
_Approved for Release: 2012/09/04
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO] DATE: 29-Aug-2012
forced its way past the Israeli positions along the

frontier, the bulk of Syrian infantry and other support units could not. According to Israeli accounts,
the IAF figured importantly in maintaining the separation of the two.
By so doing, the IAF helped the
Israeli ground forces in their effort to restore the
prewar boundaries quickly and go into the offensive.
In fact, the Syrian attack was blunted within 24 hours,
and the initiative had passed to the Israelis within
72 hours.
But the IAF paid.
Its loss rates on the Syrian
front through 13 October were the highest of the war
(see Table 5).
After 13 October both the number
of strike sorties flown and the number of aircraft

lost fell precipitously. By the end of 13 October
the IAF had lost over 84 percent of the aircraft it
was going to lose on this front, had incurred over
96 percent of the aircraft damage it was to experience there, and flown over 84 percent of the strike
sorties it was going to fly over Syria.
These figures show that the IAF could not break
down the Syrian air defense systems. For all its
efforts the IAF could only provide the necessary minimum of support to its ground force without establishing a zone where it was relatively free to operate.
In comparison, by the time the IAF had incurred 80
percent of its losses and 81 percent of its aircraft
damage on the Egyptian front, it had flown only 54
percent of its strike sorties, indicating a considerably eased air defense environment in the final
week of the war.
The significant difference in the situations
facing the IAF is shown by the fact that on the Egyptian front one SAM site was struck for every 116 strike
sorties flown, while on the Syrian front one SAM site
was struck for every 70 sorties flown.
In Syria
there was much less chance to hit worthwhile targets
without exposure to SAM fire. Hence, proportionately
more SAM strike missions were flown.
In strikes on
Egypt the IAF could avoid the SAMs, but the IAF's
mission in Syria forced it to operate in high risk
areas.
45 -
Table 5
Israeli Aircraft Losses on the Syrian Front,

6-13 October 1973
Loss rate
Aircraft
Losses
Strike
sorties
Loss rate
(%)
(%)
for whole war

on Syrian front
Expected
lossesa
A-4
21-
916
2.29
2.35
21
N-
14
568
2.46
1.74
10
Mirage
15
Mystere
42
4.76
3.41
43
1,541
2.79
1.80
Total
0"
.8
0
at least i
28
a. Applying Syrian front loss rate for whole war to sorties flown in this period.
b. No Mirages were lost during strike sorties.
46 -
CIA INFO[ DATE: 29-Aug-2012
The Syrian air defense system was more effective

than the Egyptian in terms of shooting down Israeli
aircraft, so it probably was as effective in preventing IAF damage to Syrian forces.
Isolated IAF
successes occurred when the IAF was able to show some
of its 1967 style.
One of its victims was a Syrian
artillery convoy caught on the road and almost totally
destroyed.
This was a rare exception. Though the IAF
helped maintain the separation between Syrian infantry
and armor units in the first two days of the war, it
had no major impact on the subsequent ground fighting
on the Golan front.
Its major successes against Syria
were the raids on infrastructure targets such as oil
depots and electrical generating plants.
The stubborn survival of the Syrian air defense network
mirrors the. slow, grudging giving of ground before
superior force that characterized the retreat of the
Syrian Army before the Israeli drive toward Damascus.
Indeed, there probably was considerable interaction
between the ground and air defense forces that made
the endurance of both possible.
Performance of Israeli Air Defense System
Primary responsibility for Israel's air defense
lay with the IAF, which controls all air defense
units.
The Israelis deployed about 12 Hawk battalions
of six launchers each, as well as 900 to 1,000 AAA
pieces.
The Israeli campaign against the Arab air
forces took three forms: ground-based air defense
against Arab aircraft intruding into Israeli-controlled airspace, aggressive patrolling to seek airto-air combat, and air attacks on Arab airfields.
The air activity was limited and not successful to
any significant extent because of the Arabs' hard
shelters for their aircraft. Although the IAF did
bomb the runways of a number of airfields, the damage was easily repaired. The IAF did not press a
campaign to keep any airfield closed.
We do not have enough information to judge the
success of the Israeli Air Force in intercepting
Arab aircraft. The IAF claims to have shot down at
least 14 Egyptian helicopters as they attempted to
47 -
_________________________
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOw DATE: 2asug-2012|
in the first
carry commandos into the Sinai interior
days of the war.
IAF aircraft were also heavily engaged in keeping Egyptian aircraft away from the
Israeli canal-crossing site.
The main burden of defense over Israeli-occupied
The Israeli
territory fell on Hawk and AAA units.
data indicate that Hawks shot down 22 Arab aircraft
in the course of 32 engagements during the war. This
very high success rate was due to the high state of
Israeli crew training and maintenance and to the absence of ECM and lack of skillful tactics on the part
of the Arab attackers.
Israeli AAA crews accounted
An indifor 78 Arab aircraft losses (see 2able 6).

cation of the intensity of the Egyptian air assault
on the Israeli canal crossing site is the claim that
25 Egyptian aircraft were shot down while attacking
it--nine by Israeli Major General Sharon's headquarters group.
One cause of the relatively high Arab losses to
the Israeli ground-based air defense system apparently was that the Arab air forces flew their missions
without taking as many precautions to avoid heavily
defended areas as the Israelis did. They also did
not seem to vary their tactics as much as the Israelis
did to take account of the capabilities of various
While thir losses were high
Israeli weapon systems.
as a result, the Arab air forces were able to inflict
At least two
significant casualties on the Israelis.
Hawk sites and two 175mm gun batteries were damaged
by Egyptian air attacks--one of the gun batteries
quite heavily. The Egyptians were also able to damage an Israeli tank repair depot, disrupting that
In a survey of 2,900 out of the approxvital work.
imately 8,150 combat casualties suffered by the
Israelis during the war, 266 were caused by Arab air
action. This included 76 killed.
A peculiarity of the Israeli air defense system
is that the IAF controls all antiair units as well
as all aircraft. This makes for a very tight and
responsive control, but the burden on the IAF command and control structure showed. One minor but
illustrative example was an order to an IAF aircraft
48 -
Table 6
Arab and Israeli Aircraft Losses by Cause,
6-24 October 1 9 7 3 a
Cause of aircraft loss
Israeli losses
Arab losses
Air combat
Air-to-air weapons
Otherb
3
0
261
73
334
Ground-based system
SAM, crew-served
40c
22'
SAM, man-portable
AAA
40
31
78
SAM/AAA
Miscellaneous
Technical failure
Other
Unknown
Total
81
100
221
10
59
25
81
109
515
a. Includes losses of noncombat aircraft.
b. Such as flying into the qround, premature ejection, or other pilot error.
c. Losses to SA-2, SA-3,
or SA-6 missiles.
d. Losses to Hawk missiles.

e. Losses to sA-7.
f. Destroyed on the ground.
49 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO] DATE: 29-Aug-2012|
when it was loaded

to deliver a close support strike
to drop propaganda leaflets. A more serious command
and control problem is revealed by a survey of 843
Israeli tank commanders and crewmen: a total of 118
men, 14 percent of them, stated they had been attacked
by friendly aircraft.
The IAF's greatest advantage relative to the Arab
air forces was, and still is, in air-to-air combat.
Air-to-air combat destroyed 334 Arab aircraft of all
Most of this comtypes,
bat occurred over Egypt. There is some conflict over
IAF losses in aerial combat. One IAF F-4 was lost to
Egyptian MIGs and two were lost over Syria. Three
Mirages were lost as a result of the
subsequent fail-
ure of repairs to damage incurred in aerial combat.

Assuming the loss of six aircraft, the IAF's air-toair kill ratio was almost 56 to 1--better than the
kill ratio of 48 to l that obtained between the 1967
and 1973 wars.
The main reasons for the disparity in
performance between Arab and Israeli pilots are the
exacting training of IAF air and ground crews and
their higher levels of technical proficiency. The
technical advantage shows in the fact that 176 of
the 261 Arab aircraft destroyed by air-to-air weapons
This is in marked conwere shot down by missiles.
trast to the 1967 war, when few air-to-air missiles
were used and none was credited with a kill. Of the
approximately 440 Arab aircraft destroyed in the 1967
war, only 60 to 70 were lost in aerial combat. Over
half of the AAM shoot-downs in 1973 were achieved
with an Israeli-built missile. The evidence and
Israeli assessments indicate that the performance of
the Arab pilots in 1973 showed no improvement over
1967.
It is noteworthy, however, that the Arabs
showed no reluctance to engage in combat once airborne as they had in 1967.
50 -
The Syrian Front

Strategically, the Israelis gave first
priority
to the Syrian front because Arab gains there would
have had an immediate adverse effect on Israel even
if the Syrians were prevented from occupying any
territory inside Israel's pre-1967 borders.
The
prospect of Syrian forces regaining the Golan Heights
from which they could resume shelling Israeli settlements was intolerable to Israel.
The somber Israeli reaction to what was a clear
victory is due to several factors whose full import
is still--almost two years later--only slowly becoming
clear.
Israel's confidence in its warning system was
demolished.
Despite steps taken to reinforce the
Syrian front in the week before the war, Israeli forces
there were grossly inadequate considering the threat.
The performance of the Syrian soldier came as a shock
--though it should not have--driving home the point
that Arabs could learn to fight and would do so.
More
important than these, however, are two nonmilitary
factors in the Israeli reaction to the Syrian attack.
The first is political. Wars are fought to obtain
some political end.
Syria's purpose was to recapture
the Golan area if possible, but at least to force
Israel to reconsider holding Syrian territory indefinitely, and, in this, Syria succeeded despite its
relatively poor military performance.
Secondly,
in the first 24 hours of the war Israel had a glimpse

of its mortality.
It seemed that the Syrians were
going to drive the Israeli Army off the Heights. For
the first time in its national existence Israel was
confronted with the real possibility that it could
lose a war, with all the terrors that this implied
and all the memories that were reawakened. No conceivable Israeli victory could have wiped out the
memory of those first 24 hours.
The Golan fighting reconfirms the supreme importance of good small-unit leadership, the value of
solid command and control, the primacy of quality
over quantity, the great difficulty of managing
multiservice operations, and the even greater difficulty of mounting multinational operations.
f
-
51 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO] DATE: 29-Aug-2012
Syrian Deployment
Since the 1967 war the Syrians had deployed the
bulk of their army between the cease-fire line and
Damascus. The orientation of some small units toward
Jordan was a relatively minor distraction, with the
exception of the September 1970 invasion of Jordan
precipitated by King Husayn's repression of the
In the years preceding the
Palestinian militants.
1973 war the normal case saw the cease-fire line
manned by battalion-size elements of three Syrian
infantry divisons--from north to south, the 7th,
9th,
and 5th
(see foldout map 1b).
Two armored
divisions--the 1st and 3rd--and three independent armored brigades were deployed over a wide
circle around Damascus. While this was the general
outline there was a large degree of variation. In
times of tension, which were common, the units along
the border would be reinforced and routinely larger
or smaller units would be rotated through training
cycles at training areas in the desert east of
Damascus.
As the war drew nearer--from around 10 September
on--the Syrian deployment underwent a drastic change
as more and more troops were moved to the border positions. Whereas each infantry division might normally
have only a battalion or two in the front line positions, by early October each division had two infantry
brigades up front with its mechanized and armor brigades close behind. Artillery and air defense forces
were also deployed to positions closer to the border.
In addition, the 9th and 5th Divisions, south of Al
Qunaytirah, were each assigned one of the independent armored brigades to help in their intended
The two armored divisions were moved
breakthrough.
out of their barracks, as was the other independent
armored brigade. This brigade, equipped with T-62
tanks, was called the Assad Force.
The Syrian plan was to make two main attacks.
The primary effort would be in the south, where the

9th and 5th Divisions would attack simultaneously
along a six-kilometer front centered on Ar Rafid.
This force would be backed by the 1st Armored Division
-- 52 -
SElE-2'

DATE: 29-Aug-2012
INFOD
CIA
RELEASE
APPROVED FOR
and two independent armored brigades. The secondary

effort would be made in the north by the 7th Infantry
Division backed up by the 3rd Armored Division and
the Assad Force brigade. The route of advance for
these units in the north would be through a small
gap between two hills four or five kilometers north
of Al Qunaytirah. Altogether the Syrians assembled
approximately 950 tanks, some 600 to 700 major artillery pieces, and about 70,000 men for the initial
assaults.
The Israeli Deployment

Against this force the Israelis would normally
have had one infantry and one armored brigade--a
force of approximately 5,000 men, 100 tanks, and 50
major artillery pieces.
These forces, moreover,
would have been spread thinly along the border in 15
fortified, hilltop outposts, each with one to three
tanks and a company or less of infantry, depending on
the local situation. The mobile reserve for this
line was provided by the remainder of the armored
brigade based at Kafr Naffakh a few kilometers southwest of Al Qunaytirah. Times were obviously not
normal in late September so a hasty reinforcement
was ordered. The 7th Regular Armored Brigade, based
at Beersheba in the Negev Desert, was ordered to the
mountains of the Golan.
Its personnel were flown
north and took possession of Centurion tanks from
reserves in northern Israel.
The first battalion
arrived on the Golan on 3 October. The last battalion arrived two hours before the war started on
.6 October.
With the arrival of the 7th Brigade and its 105
tanks, the Israelis had it, the 188th Regular Armored
Brigade with 76 operating Centurions, and the Alexandroni Regular Infantry Brigade--a total of 181 tanks,
about 7,500 men, and 50 major artillery pieces.
The
7th was assigned responsibility for the area north
of the road from Al Qunaytirah to the Benot Ya'aqov
Bridge, while the 188th took the area lying to the
south. The Alexandroni Brigade was scattered along
the outpost line and strongpoints over the whole
53 -
Because the 7th arrived late, it was

territory.
clustered close to Kafr Naffakh 13 kilometers or
less from the point at which the Syrian 7th Division
was due to penetrate. The defensive system adopted
by the Israelis on the Golan was, conceptually, similar to the system used along the Suez Canal--a string
of lightly manned fortified positions along the ceasefire line, with mobile armor concentrations in reserve.
The Syrian Attack

The Syrian attack got under way a little before
140'0 local time. The hour was chosen in a compromise
between the Egyptian and Syrian commands.
The Egyptians wanted to attack in the late afternoon while
they had enough daylight to get a substantial number
of men across but with a long night coming soon
enough to build their brigades and cross heavy equipThe Syrians would have preferred
ment in darkness.
a morning attack with the sun in the Israelis' eyes
and a long day in which to make their initial gains
and with nightfall before Israeli reserves could begin
to arrive in strength. The compromise on 1400 saved
the Syrians from having to attack with the sun in
their eyes, while giving the Egyptians most of what
they wanted.
The attack was preceded and accompanied by a
heavy Syrian artillery barrage and around 100 strike
sorties by the Syrian Air Force. In both cases the
targets were preselected and were bombarded without
Israeli troops
regard to effect and other activity.
soon learned to avoid paved areas and the hard surfaces of roads since the Syrians seemed to have pretargeted these and could quickly bring fire to bear
on them. On unanticipated targets, however, the
Syrians had mixed luck.
Via an extensive directionfinding and Comint network, the Syrians were able to
detect and target Israeli units quickly and well.
But the accuracy and effectiveness of the artillery
:fire which followed were well below par. As a consequence, the Israelis were able to neutralize much
of Syria's offensive punch by frequently moving their
headquarters and artillery units, and by curbing their
own communications.
54 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012)
The initial assault on the ground was carried

off by the armored battalions of the infantry brigades.
These units had been specially trained to overcome
the nearly continuous Israeli border barrier--a sandwich composed of antitank minefields on both sides of
an antitank ditch five meters wide by two meters deep.
The excavated soil was piled along the Israeli side of
the ditch to make a berm more than two meters high.
This was intended, of course, to hinder a crossing
force, but, ironically, it also provided some protection for the force as it approached the barrier.
The Syrian tactic was to form barrier-crossinq
units, each consisting of a tank with a mine-clearing
roller followed by a bridge-laying tank. These were
accompanied by eight or ten tanks and a company or so
of infantry in APCs. The roller would clear a path
through the minefield to the edge of the ditch, then
reverse along its own tracks to allow the bridge
layer to come in and bridge the ditch. The layer
would then back out and the roller tank would retrace the path, cross the bridge, and clear a path
through the minefield on the other side.
That was
the plan, and it occasionally worked.
Not infrequently, however, the antimine roller
would snap off when the tank hit the ground coming
off the far side of the bridge.
In that case the
tank would keep going until it was disabled and
other tanks would just follow each other's tracks
until a path was eventually cleared. Also, the loose
soil of the berm, and the fact that the resulting upward tilt of the assault bridges made for a slow and
unstable crossing, often toppled a Syrian tank into
the ditch
(see photograph, next page) .
The Syrians
were further hindered by a minefield on the Israeli

side of the ditch which had been installed only
several days before the war. The Syrians' performance, nevertheless, shows the willingness of their
tank crews to take chances and make sacrifices.
According to information
-__
from captured documents, the Syrians planned to
make about 30 crossings of the ditch in the opening
assault.
In fact only about 11 were made. Even
this limited success was made possible primarily by
continuous artillery fire on Israeli positions and
55 -
Syrian Tank Thwarted in Effort to Cross Israeli Barrier Ditch

October 1973
the covering fire of the tanks and infantry of the

ditch-crossing task force. Without these the Israelis
would have taken a much higher toll of the Syrian
tanks from their hilltop positions. During the night,
however, the Syrians brought in additional equipment,
including bulldozers, to clear and fill crossing
sites along the ditch. By morning the Syrians had
expanded the number of their crossing sites in a
limited number of areas, and at first light on 7 October the Israelis had to contend with large units
of
Syrian armor operating behind their positions in the
southern Golan and heavy pressure all along the line,
especially north of Al Qunaytirah.
The Southern Penetration

One of the accepted principles of military tactics
is that concentration of superior force at a chosen
point is the surest route to success. Of the Arab
armies the Syrians were the only ones to use this prin-
56 -
Their southern thrust

ciple even some of the time.
was their most successful one and the one in which
they came closest to applying the principle. The 9th
Division north and the 5th Division just to the south
attacked in concert as planned across the six-kilometer front centered on Ar Rafid. The leading elements of both divisions quickly penetrated Israelioccupied territory, bypassing the strongpoints in
their path. Before nightfall they had reached the
road paralleling the 1967 cease-fire line in the area
and had substantial numbers of troops behind the
Israeli defense line.
Once on this road, however, the divisions dissipated their momentum by spreading out. The 5th
drove straight ahead and also turned south along the
road, rapidly overrunning several Israeli settlements.
By daybreak on 7 October the Syrians in this sector
had advanced over 15 kilometers past Ramat Magshimim
and some eight to ten kilometers westward toward the
heights overlooking Lake Kinneret. The 9th Division
turned north along two primary routes: one followed
the road toward Al Qunaytirah; the other followed the

path of the TAPLINE, which runs northwestward across
Israeli-occupied Golan.
This drive penetrated the weakest part of the
The main defense in the area was
Israeli line.
made up of the understrength and scattered tanks of
the 188th Armored Brigade. Paradoxically, however,
the scattering of its tanks may have saved both the
brigade and the Israeli hold on the Golan. If the
188th had been deployed as a compact unit it might
have been overrun or shattered by the initial Syrian
rush. As it happened, small groups of Israeli tanks
maintained their organization and conducted a series
of holding actions, each of which by constant resistance sapped the strength of the Syrian forces,
which were also scattered by now. The bypassed
Israeli strongpoints harassed the Syrian units passing by on the roads beneath them. The Syrians were
largely held to the roads by the poor trafficability
of the Golan and by Israeli strongpoints on the high
ground.
The strongpoints proved their worth by de-
laying the infantry support that armor units need
57 -
for staying power.

Syrian logistics were also disrupted both by losses to Israeli fire and by delays
caused by traffic snarls on the roads, but the Syrians
never mounted a concerted effort to eliminate any of
the Israeli hilltop positions.
The Israelis, in short, were constantly nibbling
at the Syrians.
In one case eight tanks of the Israeli
188th hit the flank of the Syrian 43rd Armored Brigade
of the 9th Division as it tried to reach Al Qunaytirah.
According to Israeli figures, 60 Syrian tanks were
destroyed or disabled in this one action. In another,
five Israeli tanks met the Syrian thrust up the TAPLINE.
Before four of the Israeli tanks were destroyed, some
30 to 40 Syrian tanks were lost.
The fifth Israeli
tank ran out of ammunition, so it climbed to a hill
top, and its commander directed Israeli artillery fire
at the Syrians until it got too dark to see.
The Syrian 1st Armored Division moved down from
the Damascus area and came into the action in the Ar
Rafid area in the course of the first night, where it
established a base area in the vicinity of Al Khushniyah.
It turned north, reinforcing the drives along the road
to Al Qunaytirah and the TAPLINE. The Syrian 51st
Armored Brigade made the deepest penetration of the
war, moving up the TAPLINE and reaching--about noonon the 7th--Israeli Golan area headquarters at Kafr
Naffakh. Several tanks of the 51st actually drove
into the headquarters compound, apparently without
realizing the importance of the installation they
were in.
After shooting at whatever seemed most
obviously important they moved on. They were almost
immediately overwhelmed, however. Other tanks of this
unit moved along the road until they looked down on
the Benot Ya'aqov Bridge. From this vantage point
they picked off eight Israeli tanks trying to climb
onto the Heights before they were themselves destroyed
by a detachment from the Israeli 7th Brigade.
During the 7th the fighting continued, with the
Syrians bringing in reinforcements and.maintaining
constant pressure on the Israelis.
The Israeli 188th
Brigade was down from 76 operable tanks at 1400 on
6 October to 13 operable tanks 24 hours later. Within
those 24 hours the Syrians had occupied nearly half
the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. There was no
way of knowing what the precise status of any units
- 58 -
DATE: 29-Aug-2012
on the Golan was--either Syrian or Israeli.

But the
Israeli government and military command did know how
thin they had been at the start and the reports they
were receiving during the first 12 to 24 hours seemed
to tell of continual.Syrian advances. Moreover, their
outposts reported constant efforts to reinforce.
The
Israeli Air Force was trying to disrupt Syrian supply
lines and advancing units.
The IAF's losses, as previously noted, were very high. At that point the
effectiveness of the IAF attacks was still unknown.
All these factors contributed to a profound pessimism
on the part of Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, which
was, to some degree, shared by others in the Israeli
command and political leadership.
Even though neither side realized it at the time,
however, by midmorning of 7 October the situation on
the Golan had stabilized and Israeli advantages were
beginning to surface.
The 188th, although scattered
and decimated, continued to oppose the Syrians, exacting a high toll.
By its continual opposition the
188th had almost brought the Syrian thrust to a halt,
and some Syrian units had begun to dig in.
The
Israeli reserves were beginning to arrive in strength.
During the night the command elements and some small
units of two Israeli reserve armored divisions had
arrived on the Heights.
A unified field command had
been established to coordinate the fighting on the
scene, and areas of responsibility had been laid out
to facilitate the entrance into combat of the reserves when they arrived. The Israeli outpost line
remained intact and continued to harass and hurt
the Syrian troops trying to pass through to reinforce
and resupply Syrian units behind Israeli lines. The
Israeli Air Force appears to have succeeded more than
anyone knew at the time in interdicting Syrian supply
lines.
On 6 October the IAF flew only 71 strike missions
over the Golan, but on the 7th it flew 284.
The IAF
was accused of not supplying close air support in
the first days because the Israeli troops on the
ground saw very little IAF activity.
There were two
reasons for that.
Close air support requires close
cooperation between the air and ground, and in the
chaos of the first attacks this cooperation was lacking. The IAF could not acquire targets close to the
front line on its own because it had little idea of
59 -
where the front line was and the Syrian air defense
prevented the IAF from loitering above the battlefield
Secondly,
long enough to find targets on its own.*
the Syrian air defense system, as noted, was denser
than the one in Sinai. The IAF lost more aircraft on
the Syrian front on 7 October than on any other day
Providing the kind of close
or front of the war.
Israeli infantryman would have
the
by
sought
support
The fact is that,
resulted in still greater losses.
with minor exceptions, the IAF and the line of strongpoints had effectively cut off the Syrian armor operating behind the Israeli lines from the infantry
and logistic support it needed to hold its
gains.
The Syrians cooperated in their destruction by

dissipating their force rather than concentrating it..
Though they had occupied almost half the Golan, they
had consolidated their hold on none of it. Worst
of all, from their point of view, was the fact that
They committed all
they had virtually no reserves.
Consetheir armor and nearly all their infantry.
quently when the Israeli counterattack came on
10 October the Syrians had no fresh troops and virtually no hope of redeploying other forces to meet
Within 24 hours the Syrian attack was contained,
it.
the situation stabilized, and the bulk of Israeli
reserves began arriving when the Syrians had already
used virtually all available resources in the southern sector.
The Northern Penetration

The Syrian attack in the north apparently was
designed to pin down Israeli forces and divert their
* The fact that the Israelis also lacked sufficient trained men
and communications to effectively coordinate became apparent later
The problem of acquiring targets and bringing effecin the war.
tive strikes to bear on them is a difficult one in any case. On
both fronts, the Israelis suffered greatly from prewar lack of
training, the chaos of mobilization under unanticipated conditions, and the debilitating effects of Arab air defense systems.
Though some of the problems were eased toward the end of the war,
none of them was satisfactorily solved.
60 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOo DATE: 29-Aug-2012
resources away from the main battle to the south.

The attack was also to be the northern arm of a Syrian
encirclement of Al Qunaytirah.
The main route of
advance lay a few kilometers to the north of Al Qunaytirah up a gentle slope which crested between two
hills occupied by the Israelis.
Beyond those hills
the ground sloped down to the Jordan River, with
few intervening hills. This route probably was
chosen because the routes through Al Qunaytirah and
south of it were constricted by hilly terrain and
were more heavily fortified. An additional consideration may have been that the area south of
Al Qunaytirah would become too crowded if all five
Syrian divisions were trying to operate there.
The plan sounded good, but it quickly went sour.
After making some progress crossing the cease-fire
line, the Syrian 7th Division ran headlong into the
Israeli 7th Armored Brigade, which had occupied a
line between the two hills directly across the Syrian
route.
The Israelis had anticipated an attack in this
area and had built dirt berms and firing positions
between the hills, from behind which their tanks and
antitank units could fire and move with minimal exposure. The distance from hilltop to hilltop was
about four kilometers, and the ground to the east
over which the Syrians were attacking was practically
level except for the boulders and cracks in the Golani
basalt.*
The Syrians were stopped almost dead in
their tracks here.
The battle went on, with the
Syrians occasionally able to push the Israelis back
100 meters or so, and the Israelis always being able
to recover their original position but not able to
push the Syrians back. The Syrians committed first
the armor of the 7th Infantry Division and then the
whole division against the Israeli brigade, one outpost, and scattered infantry troops. The fighting
to the north and south was much lighter and largely
confined to the immediate vicinity of the 1967 ceasefire line.
* As an area of extinct volcanoes, the basalt surface of the
Golan Heights--although relatively flat--is marked by huge
boulders and cracks in the earth which restrict cross-country
movement.
-61
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO0 DATE: 29-Aug-2012
The High Water Mark

As daylight came on 7 October the Syrians were
The Syrian 1st
still advancing, although slowly.
Armored Division had entered the fight during the
night and its leading elements entered Kafr Naffakh
and were looking down on the Jordan around noon. By
about noon the Syrians had made their deepest penetrations: measuring from Ar Rafid the Syrians had
advanced about 25 kilometers to the vicinity of El Al,
about 20 kilometers to the area of Al Yahudiyah, about
24 kilometers to Kafr Naffakh, and to within a few
kilometers of Al Qunaytirah.
In the north, however,
only small gains were ever achieved.
Though Israel's position was still precarious,
three of its reserve armor divisions were arriving
on the Golan. First to arrive was Brigadier General
Rafoul Eitan, in command of the 36th Reserve Armored
Division. He came in during the night of the 6th
He was placed
before any of his unit had arrived.
in overall tactical command of forces on the Golan,
and his division was made responsible for the area
north of the Al Qunaytirah - Benot Ya'aqov Bridge
road. Major General Dan Laner and the lead elements
of his 210th Reserve Armored Division also arrived
during the night and took charge of the southern Golan
area. Finally, Brigadier General Moshe Peled's 146th
Reserve Armored Division began arriving during the 7th.
By late in the day the Israeli position had solidified
and some local counterattacks were undertaken.
The offensive to drive the Syrians back was laid
out to begin with daylight on the 8th. The Israeli
210th was positioned directly to the west of the Syrian
southern penetration and would press the Syrians back
from there.
The 146th was coming up from the south
and would drive along the road paralleling the 1967
cease-fire line to retake the border settlements. The
36th would press the Syrians toward the south and reinforce the area lying north of the Israeli 7th Brigade,
which was to be left in the pit with the Syrian 7th
Division until the Israelis had accumulated enough force
to begin a drive in that sector (see foldout map 2).
62 -
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012!
During the 8th of October the Israeli 146th Division regained some 17 kilometers lost to the Syrians.
A few isolated units reached the TAPLINE, where they
were struck by Syrian aircraft and artillery. The
210th, pushing eastward from Al Yahudiyah, squeezed
the Syrians back to the vicinity of Al Khushniyah, so
the Syrians at the end of the day occupied just a
small pocket about 15 kilometers long by five kilometers wide along the border from the TAPLINE to an
area south of Al Qunaytirah. In the north, the 36th
Division encountered much heavier resistance as it
tried to make its way back to Al Qunaytirah. At the
end of the day the Israelis claimed the recapture of
the town, but UN observers saw Syrian troops there
near sunset.
During the night the Syrians committed their
only remaining major reserve force. The 3rd Armored
Division and the Assad Force brigade followed the
battered 7th Division into the "Vale of Tears", as
the Israelis came to call the battlefield in front of
their own 7th Brigade. This brigade had been fighting
virtually without stop since 1400 on 6 October. By
the morning of the 9th it was down to 40 operable
tanks out of its original 105 and 10 replacements.
More importantly, the brigade was very low on ammunition.
The battle in the Vale of Tears reached its
climax at about 1000 on 9 October. At that point 13
Israeli tanks, at least some of which were the last
remnants of the 188th Brigade, moved just to the
north of Al Qunaytirah out into the buffer zone that
had separated Syrian and Israeli forces since the
1967 war. Just past the abandoned village of Ahmadiyah these 13 faced north and began shelling the
Syrians.
From their position the Israeli tanks were
firing on the left flank and rear of the Syrians in
the Vale. Apparently it was this attack from an unexpected quarter that broke the Syrian attack then in
progress. The Syrians pulled back at a moment when
some of the tanks of the Israeli 7th Brigade had
little or no ammunition left.
By the afternoon of the 9th, enough of the 36th
Division had arrived to relieve the 7th.Brigade. All
63 -

day on the 10th the Israelis organized for the offensive into Syria and pushed the last Syrians back
behind the 1967 lines. One brigade of the 146th Division continued northward after driving the Syrians
out of the Golan and was subordinated to the 210th
Division during the Israeli drive into Syria. By the
end of 10 October Israel's deployment to continue
its counterattack was complete. The bulk of the
146th Division had finished mopping up the Syrians
remaining inside the 1967 border, had relieved the
border outposts, and had taken up defensive poThe 210th Division had closed on the border
sitions.
The 36th
in the area just south of Al Qunaytirah.
Division had retaken Al Qunaytirah and held the 1967
In the far north the rested
line north of the city.
and reinforced 7th Brigade and the just-mobilized
Golani Infantry Brigade held the 1967 line extending
up Mount Hermon to just below the former Israeli
strongpoint, Position 102, which was still in Syrian
hands.
The Hard Road to Sa'sa'

Until 11 October the bouldered and cut-up face of
the Golan had worked in Israel's favor as it defended
its hold on the Heights. From that point on the
Golan's terrain favored the Syrians as they gave up
ground to the Israelis. Many Israeli and foreign
observers have expressed surprise at the tenacious
defense of the Syrians as they fell back before the
Israeli attack. The Syrian soldier had been written
off after 1967 because of his flight before the
Israelis when the Syrians lost what was supposed to
have been a virtually unassailable position on the
Golan Heights. The truer measure of the Syrian
soldier's abilities in that war, however, especially
on defense, was the experience at Tall Fakhr, where
in 1967 the first Israeli penetration into the Golan
was made. In these and nearby positions the Syrians
stood and fought the Israelis with rocks and bare
hands before being overcome.
This same spirit char-
acterized the Syrian fallback in 1973.
64 -
The Israeli offensive began at 1000 on 11 October,

with elements of all three armored divisions moving
across the cease-fire line. After only a little more
than a day's rest, the 7th Brigade, as part of the
36th Division, rolled along the lower slopes of Mount
Hermon, where the ground was smoother than the broken
The rest of the 36th Division
lava of the plain.
moved parallel to and north of the road to Damascus,
and the 210th and part of the 146th moved parallel
to and south of that road. Below Al Qunaytirah the
rest of the 146th Division held the line. On this
day the Israelis had things very much their way.
The
Resistance on the ground was relatively light.
IAF support on the Golan front reached its high
point with over 400 strike sorties flown. All three
divisions made good progress, almost 20 kilometers
in some cases.
The Syrian Army did not break and run,
however, but fell back in order from one set of prepared positions to another. Unable to stop the
Israelis, the Syrians slowed and bloodied them. The
Israelis, moreover, advanced in a manner designed to
minimize casualties by using heavy tank and artillery
fire to open the way rather than making costly armor
charges.
This slowed them down and gave the Syrians
a better chance to organize their defense.
The principal reason for the extent of the Israeli
success on this day was probably the depletion of
Syrian armored units against the Israeli 7th Brigade.
The Israelis estimate that the Syrians lost 650 tanks
in the Vale of Tears alone.*
The total Syrian loss
up to 11 October might have been some 800 out of the
total of 1,100 committed at the start of the war.
While this left the Syrians with an inventory of approximately 1,000 tanks, it would have taken some
time to redistribute and organize them for defense.
The Israelis were helped on the northern edge of
their salient by an Arab command and control problem
that caused a gap to open between the northernmost
* At least 166 destroyed tanks were counted in the area E]
after the Israelis had begun to clear
out the wreckage.
65 -
Syrian unit and the 1,800-man Moroccan contingent

holding the crest of Mount Hermon. The Syrian unit
was a brigade made up of members of the Druze sect,
a Moslem minority. When ordered to move forward to
meet the Israelis, a number of the troops reportedly
When the Israelis became
refused, causing the gap.
aware of this they took advantage by moving into the
gap and turning the flank of the Syrian 7th Infantry
and 3rd Armored Divisions confronting the Israeli
36th Division in the center of the salient. The
Druze commander is reported to have committed suicide
as a result. The only hitch in the Israeli effort on
the 11th was caused by a Syrian "shower" of antitank
missiles that hit the first brigade of the 210th Division to cross the cease-fire line into Syria. This
stalled the brigade, but the next brigade in line was
able to pass through and overcome this opposition.
It was the only time on the Syrian front that antitank
missiles had a significant impact on the Israelis.
On 11 October, the first day of their counteroffensive, the Israelis penetrated 10 to 20 kilometers
into Syria. The next day saw more of the same kind
of fighting but the Syrian resistance stiffened someIn the late afternoon, the Israeli 36th Diviwhat.
sion captured Mazra'at Bayt Jinn, just a few kilometers
from Israel's farthest penetration in that area.
On the southern flank of the salient, however,
the Israelis had tougher going. By late afternoon
Laner's advance troops arrived in the vicinity of
Kafr Shams at just about the same time that the leading armored brigade of the Iraqi 3rd Armored Division
began to arrive in the same area. Feeling himself
overextended, Laner pulled his troops back somewhat.
Getting himself better organized Laner undertook one
of the few deliberate night actions on the Syrian
front, although fighting had gone on almost continuously since 6 October. At 0300 on 13 October
one of Laner's brigades engaged, possibly from ambush, the leading Iraqi armored brigade and, by its
own claim, destroyed 70 Iraqi tanks while losing none
of its own. During the afternoon of the 13th one
brigade of Israelis tried and failed to take a hill-Tall ash Shams--in the central portion of the salient.
66 -
Approved for
Release: 2012/09/04
A Syrian battalion held the hill with a few tanks, BMP

infantry combat vehicles, and antitank weapons. The
Israelis finally occupied the hill after a night ground
attack launched by two battalions of airborne troops.
By early 14 October the Israelis had captured virtually all the territory that was to be theirs. That
morning all units were told to hold their gains and to
advance no farther. The advance halted on high ground
near Sa'sa', some 30 kilometers south of Damascus.
To
hold ground was the major aim thereafter.
Only two major actions occurred after the 14th--Israel's retaking
of its former position on Mount Hermon and the combined
Syrian-Iraqi-Jordanian counterattack of 16 October.
One of Syria's first targets of the war had been
the Israeli strongpoint on the slopes of Mount Hermon
called Position 102, which had been used for visual observation and Sigint collection since soon after the
1967 war.
The Syrian 82nd commando battalion took the
position on 6 October, killing 25 to 50 Israeli

troops.
On 8 October troops of the Israeli Golani
Infantry Brigade tried to recapture the position but
failed, losing 50 killed in the attempt.
On 21 October the Israelis tried again and succeeded--at the
cost of about 70 more Israelis killed.
In the same
operation, the Israelis lifted troops by helicopter to
the highest peak of Mount Hermon, capturing it from
the Syrians. The Israelis lost 145 to 170 men at Position 102, about 6 percent of all the fatalities suffered by Israel in the war. Among the plausible
reasons for the Israelis' accepting such casualties
at this place, the two most persuasive are the worth
of Position 102 as a visual and electronic observation post and the Israelis' determination to salve
their pride by not allowing the Syrians a victory there.
The largest Arab multinational operation of the
war ended in a tragic fiasco. The plan called for a
Jordanian and an Iraqi armor brigade to attack the
southeast corner of the Israeli salient on 16 October.
They would be supported by Syrian artillery and air
strikes.
The Jordanian brigade got off on time, but
the Iraqis started late and contributed only a battalion. The Syrian artillery preparation was late
67 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOE DATE: 29-Aug-2012
and arrived just as the Jordanians reached the Israeli

lines, so the major damage inflicted by the Syrians
was to the Jordanians. Similarly the Syrian Air Force
arrived late and attacked the Iraqi battalion, apparently because they were the most easily visible
tanks on the ground. At this point the Syrian operations coordinator called off the whole thing before
still more damage was self-inflicted.
The Arab forces continued to attack the Israelis
from time to time but none of them made any significant gains.
The only successful Arab effort at this
time was a small Jordanian gain on 19 October in the

Jabal al Harrah area. Because the Israelis sought
merely to hold their gains and diverted the bulk of
their air effort to the Sinai, the war on this front
appears to have simply petered out. The Syrians refused the first cease-fire on 22 October but finally
accepted the second on 24 October.
68 -

FRELAECIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012
APPROVED~~
The Sinai Front
Application of the Lessons of 1967
On the Egyptian Side
From the 1967 debacle the Egyptian military authorities had learned three main lessons: that they
had to overcome the Israeli advantage in long-range
tank gunnery with weapons that could be used by Egypt's
less competent troops; that the Israeli Air Force had
to be neutralized; and that Egyptian forces enjoyed a
relative advantage when employed defensively. The
planning and conduct of the 1973 war reveal how well
the Egyptians applied these lessons.
Efforts to neutralize the IAF began in 1967 and

proceeded along several avenues simultaneously.
Extensive steps were taken to prevent it from again
destroying the Egyptian Air Force on the ground.
These measures included the construction of enough
hard aircraft shelters to protect Egyptian fighters.
Camouflage and deception measures included the construction of dummy shelters, the deployment of dummy
aircraft, disguising aircraft shelters as dwellings,
and the construction of shelters in villages located
near airfields.
To keep the IAF from again immobilizing the EAF by destroying runways, additional runways were built at every Egyptian airfield, and
taxiways were widened and improved to serve as emergency runways.
The new runways and taxiways were
built at offset angles to make bombing more difficult.
In some cases highways running near airfields were
improved and connected via taxiways to the main
runways so they could be used in an emergency. This
was a major feat on the part of the Egyptian construc-
tion industry and began within six months after the

1967 war. In 1973 this effort paid off. Only about
20 EAF aircraft were destroyed on the ground, and
69 -
PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO
DATE: 29-Aug-2012
no EAF airfield was closed down for more than a few

hours despite a dozen Israeli attacks.
Egyptian.success against Israeli armor was mixed.

The major improvement was in the willingness of infantrymen to use a new weapon to stand up to attackThis weapon was the unguided RPG-7 baing tanks.
zooka-type antitank rocket, which filled a gap the
1967 war had shown to exist. In 1967 the Israelis
had used their armor, unsupported by infantry, in
The lack of
direct assaults on Egyptian positions.
weapons to defeat the Israeli armor at close range
often left the Egyptian infantryman with no choice
In 1973 the Egyptians deployed the RPG-7
but to run.
widely and the favored tactic was to set up RPG-7
ambushes in advance of the main Egyptian positions.
The Egyptians could thus bring antitank fire to bear
on the more vulnerable sides and rear of the Israelis.
The tactic worked quite well until the Israelis adopted
countertactics.
In tank-to-tank combat there seemed to be little

or no improvement in Egyptian performance, although
here too the Egyptians showed a greater willingness
to fight. Adoption of the Sagger wire-guided missile
was also intended to remedy a flaw evident in 1967
and showed Egyptian recognition of the superiority
of Israeli long-range tank gunnery. The Sagger
bridged the gap between the several-hundred-meter
reach of the RPG-7 and the 3,000-meter maximum effecThe tactic here was
tive range of Israeli tank guns.
to open fire at maximum range and keep firing until
the Israeli tanks were closer than the minimum effective range of the missile, at which time the Israelis
would be taking RPG-7 fire. When the Sagger scored
a hit, it was an effective weapon. It suffered,
however, the faults inherent in wire-guided missiles.
It was relatively slow, requiring 20 to 30 seconds
That often gave the target
to reach maximum range.
enough time to see and avoid the missile by taking
cover or firing on the launch point. Since the missile had to be guided all the way to impact, fire
directed at the launch point could, and often did,
70 -
cause the controller to miss the target. The Sagger

could be set up to be fired remotely via a cable
running from the missile to the launch and guidance
controls. When used, this capability somewhat offset
Israeli tactics. The vehicle-mounted Sagger had a
cable for this purpose as much as 80 meters long,
but was used less frequently than the remote cable
of the man-packed Sagger, which was only about 10

meters long. Finally, the Sagger was difficult to
control.
Troops required continuous and intensive
training, using a simulator designed for the purpose.
In the first two or three days of the war, the
Egyptian antitank system inflicted heavy losses on
the Israelis when they tried to use their armor according to the 1967 pattern. The most effective use
of the antitank missiles was made from fixed defen-
sive positions. Subsequently, however, the Israelis

learned to spot potential ambush sites, recognized
Sagger firing signatures and likely launch points,
and began operating in conjunction with infantry
teams to defeat the antitank missile. By the end of
the 1973 war, the Israelis' armored forces had learned
to operate effectively despite Egypt's antitank

missiles.
The capacity and willingness of Egyptian infantry
to defend a prepared position but inability to cope
with rapid change and lack of central direction--as
demonstrated in 1967--affected the fundamental strategy and organization of the Egyptian attack in 1973.
The massive air defense buildup was designed to protect a large Egyptian force deployed in relatively
fixed positions. The Egyptian canal-crossing forces
were rehearsed and drilled in the crossing operation
many times over. Motion pictures obtained by the
Israelis as long ago as 1971 show an Egyptian exer-
cise rehearsing the crossing of the canal by troops

in small boats and the launching of a ponton bridge.
Such training, conducted in full view of the Israelis
on their Bar Lev Line, was intended to ensure that
a minimum of control from the top would be necessary

and that a maximum of surprise would be achieved.
71 -

APPROVED FOR RELEASE -CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012
The evident guiding principle of the Egyptians was

to so thoroughly train the army to perform a fixed
sequence of acts that the success of the crossing
would be virtually guaranteed, barring overwhelming
Israeli force on the canal.
The concept made maximum use of Egypt's abundant
resource--manpower--in a way which vitiated Israel's
advantages in mobility and small-unit flexibility.
However, the Egyptians had given themselves a limited
objective. Once that objective had been achieved all
the old problems of unreliable command and control,
overcentralization of direction, rigidity of tactical

thinking, and poor training reappeared. The Egyptians
had trained to win a battle, which by 8 October they
had done. Sixteen days later, however, they were on
the brink of losing the war.
On the Israeli Side
The Israelis also learned lessons from the 1967

war. They learned that their air force was an allpurpose instrument capable of simultaneously attacking the enemy's air force and rear areas, providing
close support to its troops and defending the airspace over Israel proper and the battlefield. They
concluded that the tactics and techniques that won
the 1967 war would be appropriate for another war.
The Israeli soldier had always distinguished himself
above his Arab counterpart by being better educated
and trained, more highly motivated, and more willing
and able to function in a rapidly changing situation.
The Israeli military placed a high value on improvisation and creativity in military operations. These
general propositions continued to be reinforced in
Israeli training through 1973.
In one respect, however, the Israelis were hurt

by their reliance on the IAF for ground support--so-
72 -
ROVED FOR RELEASE

29-Aug-2012
CIA INFOD
called flying artillery. This tactic, which proved

successful in 1967, was nullified in 1973 by the unprecedented intensity of both Arab air defense systems, which reduced both the amount and effectiveness
of the ground support the IAF could provide, especially in the first week or so of the war. In the
face of this, the Israelis were left with inadequate
artillery forces. While additional artillery almost
certainly could not have stopped the Egyptian crossing, it might have slowed it and allowed the Israelis
to reduce their initial tank losses by providing an
alternative to unsupported armored sorties against
the Egyptians. More artillery might also have allowed the IAF to avoid such great losses in futile
attacks on Egyptian bridges across the canal.
What hurt the Israelis badly in 1973 was that

they had learned to disdain and disparage the Egyptian soldier.
That marvelous facility of the human
brain to remember selectively allowed the Israelis
to remember the Egyptian peasant soldiers who, in
1967, had thrown away their shoes in order to run
faster in the sand, and to forget the Egyptian soldiers .of the same peasant background who had returned again and again to the pass at Garadi to
stall the Israeli drive along the Mediterranean
coast. Gradually the Israelis convinced themselves
that the Egyptians could not win and therefore would
not attack; so the Israelis were, psychologically at
least, unprepared for an attack.
But this must be
distinguished from the ability of the Israeli forces
to absorb an attack, defeat it, and go over to a
counteroffensive. By war's end the IAF was in fact
simultaneously providing close support, air defense,
and strategic attack on two fronts and doing it
relatively well and with relatively small losses.
Israeli armor did learn to cope with the antitank
missile and did lead the Israeli counterattack, which
was successful.
The Arabs taught the Israelis a
harsh lesson on 6 October, but that should not obscure the fact that by war's end the Israelis had
demonstrated their generally predicted superiorities.
73 -

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Au
-212|
Preparations and Deployment

The first Egyptian activity that can be clearly
associated with an intent to cross the Suez Canal by
force was the emplacement of numbers of SAMs within
Hunrange of the canal in the latter half of 1970.
dreds of sites were constructed during the cease-fire,
eventually to be occupied by real as well as dummy
missile units. The dummies improved the survivability
of the system by confusing and dissipating Israeli
air strikes. The number of AAA pieces deployed in
the area doubled within a year. During 1971 hundreds
of additional revetments were dug in areas where
troops and equipment would be assembled just before
the crossing. New and improved roads were built connecting these areas with the canal. On the canal
itself, the banks were cut and graded to allow the
passage of amphibious vehicles and ferries directly
into the water.
In numerous
places along the canal, areas up to several hundred
meters long were leveled and graded to serve as
74 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012)
launching ramps for the ponton bridges which would

carry heavy equipment across the canal. By the end
of 1971, the mechanics. of the E
tian crossin
lan
were known to the Israelis
In the same period the Egyptians deployed their

forces as they would for a crossing (see foldout map la),
dividing their army into three parts.
The 1st Army
was headquartered in Cairo and consisted of the lastditch reserves: the 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division,
the Presidential Guard Armored Brigade, and a miscellany of other combat units drawn from the large
camps in the area of the capital.
The 2nd Army,
headquartered at Ismailia, on the canal, included
the 2nd, 16th, and 18th Infantry Divisions, the
135th Independent Infantry Brigade, the 23rd Mechanized Division, the 21st Armored Division, and
the 15th Independent Armored Brigade. The 3rd Army,
headquartered at Suez, consisted of the 7th and 19th
Infantry Divisions, the 6th Mechanized Infantry Di-
75 -
vision, the 4th Armored Division, and the 25th Independent Armored Brigade. The only changes this deployment represented from the situation of a year
earlier was the movement of the 25th Armored Brigade
from the 1st to the 3rd Army, the shift of the bulk
of the 6th Mechanized Division from the Cairo area
to join its detached brigade in the 3rd Army area,
and the movement of the 24th Armored Brigade from
Cairo to join its parent 23rd Mechanized Division
in the 2nd Army area.
With one crucial exception, all supporting arms
were deployed well forward in the year before the
attack. During that year, artillerycin the canal
zone was nearly doubled. Over the year or two preceding the attack, the Egyptians went almost encommuni
ftirely .to landlines rather than radi
tions,
and making the Egyptian command and control system
more reliable up to the instant when the attack began. All that was lacking from the canal area until
a few days before the attack was the heavy ferry and
bridging equipment that would carry Egypt's armor
This equipment was concentrated at two trainacross.
ing areas on the Nile River north and south of Cairo.
Since 1971 training conducted at these areas had
demonstrated the ability of Egyptian engineers not
only to erect the bridges but to operate ferries and
rafts designed to get heavy materiel across a water
It
obstacle even before the bridges could be built.
was probably the presence near the canal of these
ferries, the heavy bridging, and a large increase in
of the Egypartillery
that caused
tian deploymen
Israeli
General sharon to conclude that
war would
break out within 48 hours.
The Israeli preparations for a crossing included
the Bar Lev Line, which sheltered troops on the canal's
edge. The function of those forces was to observe and
report on any Egyptian crossing and to harass the
Egyptians to the best of their ability. The Bar Lev
Line was not intended to be a desert Maginot Line.
The Israelis also built a wall of sand some 50 feet
high along virtually the whole length of the canal.
Ao76

CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012
Approved
The Israelis' main defense force for the Sinai was

the division-sized Armored Force Sinai (AFS), with
250 tanks deployed in small mobile units along the
length of the canal and in a large mobile reserve at
Bi'r Jifjafah, east of the canal.
In the canal area
the Israelis had built a series of roads parallel to
the canal and small strongpoints which added up to a
defense in depth stretching from the canal bank to the
more easily defended passes 30 to 50 kilometers east
of the canal across a relatively flat, open desert.
The Israeli defensive concepts did not envision
stopping the Egyptians at the canal's edge. The
main line on which a mobile defense would have been
based, was a road parallel to and some 10 to 20 kilometers from the canal. Known as the Artillery Road,
it was built to allow Israeli self-propelled guns to
move quickly along the canal to respond to Egyptian
artillery fire during the 1969-1970 War of Attrition.
Israel's 1973 main line of defense formed along this
road in the first 24 to 48 hours after the 1973
attack.
The concept was sound as far as it went,
but apparently the Israelis made the basic assumption that any Egyptian crossing would be sharply focused at one or a few main points.
If the troops
in the Bar Lev Line could pinpoint the crossings, the
Israeli armor and aircraft could be directed to those
points and hold the Egyptians in check until the
reserves arrived.
The Israelis apparently did not plan on what to
do if attacked by Egypt and Syria simultaneously,
what to do if the Egyptians crossed the canal in
massive numbers and at many points, or what to do in
the event of a military surprise.
These were all
symptoms of the arrogance and tunnel vision of which
the Arabs, and not a few Israelis, accuse the preOctober Israeli military command. Another aspect
of Israeli defensive preparations that failed was the
50-foot sand wall.
The wall was built as a delaying
device the Egyptians would have to cut through in
order to land heavy weapons and equipment. The Egyptians, however, used high-pressure water hoses to
wash the wall away in only two or three hours rather
than the six to eight hours the Israelis had allowed
77 -
for in their plan.*

The wall withstood Egyptian
efforts longer in the southern sector because of its
high clay content.
The Israeli deployment consisted of the normal
AFS headquarters, one armored brigade, and most of
the armor of three mechanized brigades at Bi'r Jifjafah, and elements of three mechanized brigades
strung along the canal. Near Rafah, on the coast
just inside the Gaza Strip, two additional armored
brigades constituted the normal reserve and security
forces for the Strip. Because of the strung-out
deployment of the Israeli forces along the canal,
the actual force facing the Egyptian crossing was

small. The Bar Lev bunkers were manned by a total
of fewer than 600 troops deployed in garrisons ranging from 10 to 20 men each. The twin bunkers opposite the Al Firdan Bridge--a major Egyptian crossing
site--had a total of about 30 men in them. Backing
up the bunkers were numerous armor positions manned
by tank platoons of four or five tanks each. Facing
the Egyptian artillery the Israelis had one artillery
brigade of 50 to 60 self-propelled 155mm and 175mm guns.
The Crossing
The actual crossing was accompanied by a 50- to
55-minute artillery preparation which began 15 minutes before the troops pushed off from the west bank.
In the first 15 minutes.
the Egyptians fired 100,000
rounds at 543 distinct Israeli targets using 2,000
artillery pieces. The targets consisted of all the
Bar Lev bunkers and all known fortifications, military
concentrations, and command and control targets within
range. The first troops used rubber boats to cross
and carried rope ladders which they affixed to the
Israel sand wall to help subsequent troops to climb
* The Israelis observed an Egyptian exercise in which hoses
were used to cut through a simulated section of a sand wall
in December 1971. They failed to determine that this method
of breaching their canal wall would be used in a real attack.
78 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO] DATE: 29-Aug-2012]
the steep incline. They carried antitank missiles

and many rifle
grenades.
The purpose of the rifle
grenades was to keep the Bar Lev bunkers under fire
between the time the Egyptian barrage was lifted from
the bunkers and the time when the troops landed and
got a foothold on the east bank. Subsequent waves
followed--12 in all--at 15-minute intervals until
five to ten brigades of infantry had crossed the
canal. These troops had two missions.
The first
groups were heavily equipped with Sagger and RPG-7
antitank missiles.
They were to move farther inland
and set up ambushes to neutralize the Israeli armored
counterattack the Egyptians were certain would come.
Later arrivals were to isolate and assault the Bar
Lev bunkers.
By the end of three hours the first ferries began
to operate and a start had been made on building the
bridges.
An example of the detailed planning that
went into the operation is the fact that some bridge
sections were towed across the canal so they could
be assembled under protection of the Israeli sand
wall.
From just before 1400, when the artillery barrage
started, until the middle of the night, the Egyptians'
main effort focused on building up their presence on
the east side. Evidently little attention was paid
to unit formations, and the crossing forces quickly
became disorganized.
Several Israeli witnesses describe a mob scene as troops poured onto the Israeli
side and milled around until they could get themselves sorted out. It was a vulnerable time for the
Egyptians, but they were covered by continuous artillery and heavy antiaircraft fire. Toward midafternoon the first assaults on Bar Lev bunkers were
staged and several fell quickly. Others, however,
held out stubbornly.
One held out throughout the war.
This was Fort Budapest located on a narrow strip of land
east of Port Said.
Egypt's 135th Independent Infantry
Brigade was unable, despite repeated efforts, to take
Budapest. At the Al Firdan Bridge, one of the twin
bunkers held for three days, apparently taking a heavy
toll of the attackers as the Egyptians tried to take
the fort by frontal assault. The other held for another
79 -
few hours and its garrison escaped, apparently

while the Egyptians were preoccupied with the final
assault on the other bunker.
The firs Egyptian tanks landed on the east bank
at about 1600 local time on 6 October. They were
carried by rafts and were seen unloading by Israeli
armored detachments fighting delaying actions.
Rafts
and ferries were the workhorses of Egypt's efforts
in the first 24 hours and probably during daylight
hours through most of the war.
By 2100 on 6 October
Egypt had some 40 self-propelled heavy ferries working
and they had delivered 100 tanks to the east bank.
During the day,
at least some
of the more vulnerable ponton bridges were swung parallel to the shore and camouflaged.
The Israeli reaction to the Egyptian crossing was
hampered by the failure of the Israeli Sinai commander
to implement the existing contingency plan in time.
Though General Gonen was warned of the impending war
early on 6 October when Israel ordered its mobilization, he did not redeploy his forces.*
The normal
deployment scheme called for only a third of the AFS
to be in the canal area, while the remainder was concentrated at Bi'r Jifjafah. The plan called for the
movement of another third of the AFS to the Artillery
Road vicinity on warning of an attack while the remaining third was held in reserve to meet a breakthrough
or to defeat the main attack. Gonen was censured for
his failure by the Agranat Commission of Inquiry into
the war. The criticism was based on the assertion
that if the Israelis had had more armor available,
deployed in proper positions, they could have stopped
the crossing or at least severely disrupted it at more
acceptable cost.
claim that Gonen's
failure was really a blessing in disguise.
The Egyptian artillery preparation,
was so heavy
* In his defense, Gonen was told to expect an attack at 1800
local time, but to do nothing which might be construed as provocative. As a result, he ordered the AFS not to move forward
until 1500-1700 hours. As the day wore on, his own apprehensions and those of AFS commander General Mendler caused them
to order the move minutes before the war started.
80 -
_Approved for Release: 2012/09/04
that virtually anything exposed would have been destroyed.

If the Egyptian plans were followed, nearly
200,000 rounds of artillery fire were poured onto the
Israelis on the first day of- the war. Even fire this
heavy, however, almost certainly would not have destroyed substantial numbers of Israeli tanks deployed
to oppose the crossing.
Israeli data indicate that
Israel's own artillery destroyed little Arab armor,
although near misses did shear off radio antennas,
lights, machine guns, and other external gear. Moreover, the number of rounds ostensibly fired by the
Egyptians seems large but, spread over 12 hours, over
500 targets, and the 1,600 square kilometers of the
Israeli-occupied east bank of the canal, the density
of rounds was not great.
Israeli tank losses in the first 24 hours of the
war are hard to establish. The Israelis began the
war with 250 tanks in the Sinai. Within 24 hours,
150 to 160 of these were out of action, although many
were repaired and returned to service within periods
of several hours to several days.
Some units were
almost wiped out.' The brigade in the Al Qantarah
sector was reduced from 50 tanks to 11 by early morning of 7 October.
The major cause of these losses
probably was the Egyptian antitank missiles employed
from ambush by troops who crossed early and moved five,
to ten kilometers inland from the canal. Also effective were antitank missiles fired from the mounds the
Egyptians had built along the west bank (see illustration on page 17).
These mounds provided Egyptian
Sagger and tank crews with a broad field of fire extending into the east bank area. Antitank missiles
were the primary cause of Israeli losses in the first
two or three days of the war.
The Israelis' use of
unsupported tanks made them vulnerable to Egyptian
infantrymen armed with portable antitank weapons.
The Israelis had simply failed to recognize that
antitank missiles would require them to change their
tank tactics.
The Egyptian RPG-7 and Sagger antitank missiles
undoubtedly took a heavy toll of Israeli armor in
the first several days of the war. Egypt's foresight in providing its infantry with large numbers
of these weapons and Israel's mistake in not taking
these weapons into account in developing its armor
tactics before the war account for most of these
81 -
losses.
In accounts immediately after the war, however, the effect of the antitank missiles was exaggerated.
Detailed information now available indicates
that in the whole war the Israelis lost approximatel
-Ennank
e mnnathee ae 119 disabled units
:
n
at least 6percent but no mr
No data are availpercen , were killed by Saggers.*
able for RPG-7 effects; it appears that the RPG-7 did
not destroy many tanks but did enough damage to knock
some out of combat.
is not
The sample of 119 Israeli tanks
bled Israeli tanks are in
an unbiased one
Egyptian hands,
Undoubtedly a significant percentage of those were
damaged or destroyed by Saggers. The sample does
It is
not include damaged tanks that were repaired.
probable that Saggers damaged more tanks than they
destroyed, but we now have no way to measure that
effect. Most damaged tanks were repaired during the
The Israelis were often remiss
war at field depots.
about keeping records, so the relevant information
on cause of damage is probably not available even to
them. Moreover, the Syrians did not use antitank
missiles nearly as much as the Egyptians did.
One factor key to the Israelis' losses in the
first days of the war was their failure to. give the
Egyptian soldier due credit for his ability to fight
on the defensive. This capability was the essence
of the Egyptian plan: to rapidly seize a limited
Tactical
territorial objective and then defend it.
doctrine contributed further to the losses by leading the Israelis to attempt to relieve the Bar Lev
Small tank
bunkers that rapidly came under siege.
forces trying to rescue the garrisons ran into antiIt was not until the third
tank missile ambushes.
* The wide range in estimated Sagger destructions is due to the

presence of more than one potentially killing hit on the same
tank and uncertainties in identifying the weapon scoring a hit.
In total, 8 tanks were definitely destroyed by Saggers, 11 had
multiple hits, and 18 others were possibly destroyed by Saggers.
82 -
SEls-2/
Approved
APROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012
or fourth day of the war that the Israelis authorized

the remaining isolated garrisons to surrender if
further resistance seemed pointless. The Israelis
had always set great store by the morale-boosting
doctrine that no Israeli dead or wounded would ever
be left behind and this idea had been fixed in Israeli
doctrine.
The Egyptian military command knew this,
counted it an Israeli weakness, and used it to set the
ambushes which caused the worst of the Israeli losses.
The 7th and 8th of October were devoted largely
to consolidation by both Egyptian and Israeli forces.
The separate bridgeheads established by each of the
five infantry divisions which crossed the canal were
linked together into a continuously defended strip
the length of the canal and roughly ten kilometers
wide.
It was up to 20 kilometers wide in the far
north both because there were more Egyptian troops
there and because the terrain was more open and they
were able to move more quickly. The Egyptians began
at once to fortify their holdings. Trenches and foxholes were dug, wire strung, and minefields laid in
the pattern that has become familiar through use by
the Egyptians in their last three wars
F It was obvious that the Egyptians anticipated a furious Israeli reaction and
had chosen to meet it in the way that gave them their
best advantage--defensively.
During the 7th of October the first Israeli reserve forces began to arrive. Before the middle of
the 8th of October the bulk of two reserve armored
divisions--the 162nd under Major General Adan and
the 143rd under Major General Sharon--were deployed
in the passes and along the Artillery Road. Until
the war began Adan had been commander of the Israeli
Armor Corps.
His appointment illustrates one method
the Israelis use to mobilize quickly--convert administrative and school commands to operational commands.
One of Adan's brigades was formed around the staff
and equipment of the Israeli armor school, and the
brigade commander was the commandant of the school.
Sharon represents another method of rapidly mobilizing units--recalling senior, experienced officers
who had recently retired. Sharon had a long and
83 -
A6

distinguished career in the IDF beginning during the

1948 war of independence.
In 1956 he had been a brigade commander and in 1967 the commander of a divisionsize task force.
Until July 1973 he had been commander
of all Israeli forces in the Sinai.
He had retired because he believed his right-of-center conservative political views would keep him from being appointed to
Chief of Staff, the senior Israeli military post.
On the second day of the war the Israeli deployment had the 162nd Armored Division minus most of its
artillery opposite Al Qantarah, the 143rd Division
opposite Ismailia, and an independent armored brigade opposite Suez. The remnants of the AFS were
regrouped into a brigade and placed under the 162nd
Division. The Egyptians continued to move the men
and equipment of five infantry and three mechanized
divisions across the canal. At least some of the
ponton bridges had been hit by Israeli air attacks
and some others may have been dismantled during the
day to protect them, but others continued in use to
facilitate the crossing of heavy equipment and supplies. Ferries played a large role in moving tanks
across.
By the end of the second day the situation
was stable.
There were still and there would continue to be occasional hot firefights as the Israelis
and Egyptians sought to improve their positions, and
the Israelis staged several strong thrusts toward
the canal, all of which ultimately failed.
But the
main lines that would hold until 15 October were
reached by early on the 8th.
The Bridges
about half the
bridges used were built in Egypt either under license
from the UK--Uniflote self-propelled bridge/ferry
units--or local copies of Soviet World War II pontons.
According to some reports, some of these pontons
were filled with styrofoam to keep them afloat even
if damaged. They were assembled in either of two
ways.
The Soviet PMP bridge section is designed to
be launched off its truck carrier into the water.
85 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012]
It then unfolds and automatically locks into a flat,

floating section which can be connected quickly to
others to form either a bridge or raft. These were
probably assembled using the long graded sections
of the canal bank. The sections probably would be
hooked together parallel to the bank and then the
completed bridge, or all but the last section or two,
would be swung across the canal to connect with a gap
in the Israeli sand wall. Other bridges were reportedly
assembled by dropping pontons into the water, attaching
decking to them and assembling a number of units into a
bridge, a slower process than the PMP.
Some sections
were
towed across the canal where they could be assem-
bled under the Israeli sand wall.

Egyptian assault
forces and artillery prevented the Israelis in the Bar
Lev bunkers from interfering effectively with these operations.
The Israelis did not have sufficient longrange artillery to seriously impede the Egyptian crossing
although they tried. Aircraft also tried to cut the
bridges, with little effect and the loss of 32 aircraft.
Recognizing the vulnerability of supply via
bridges and rafts, the Egyptians immediately began
building pipelines across the canal. A double
pipeline was built in each army area and carried
water and POL across.
The sand wall was pierced by high-pressure water
jets.
The jets were powered by West German fire
engine pumps installed in small barges floating in
the canal.
The technique had.been used in the construction of the Aswan High Dam and was suggested to
the military by the Egyptian engineer who had perfected the system.
In their search for a way to
penetrate the wall the Egyptians had tested explosives and earth-moving equipment and found highpressure water to be the quickest. It took the Egyptians two to three hours to make a gap in the 2nd
Army sector of the wall, where it was composed of
loose sand.
In the 3rd Army area, however, there
was a lot of clay mixed with the sand and it took
somewhat longer to establish bridges across the
southern sector of the canal. According to one
report, the Egyptians initially sent some armor and
86 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Au -2012
heavy equipment of the 3rd Army across the canal on

the northern bridges and moved it south on the Israeli
side of the canal. Within the first day, however,
the Egyptians had discovered or created gaps in the
wall that permitted the 3rd Army to move supplies and
some heavy equipment across the canal via ferry.
The first priority in the Egyptian crossing,
was to
neutralize an Israeli system for pumping inflammable

fluids into the canal and setting them afire. A
frogman unit is alleged to have put the system out
of operation during the night of 5-6 October. The
Israelis.discovered this on the 6th and an engineer
sent to correct the blockage was one of the first
Israelis captured in the war. From the Israeli side
the story is somewhat different. Only two operational systems to pump gasoline on the canal had been
installed when the war broke out. One failed to
work when needed and the Egyptians did not cross in
the area where th other was installed.
the other systems thaT The Egyptons sanotaged were dummies.
In any event, the
canal was not set ablaze.
The Israeli response to the bridges was rapid,
massive, and ineffective. Aircraft attacked the
bridges for the first four days of the war without
seriously impeding the flow of men and supplies
across them. With the bridges, ferries, rafts, and
the air defense system, the Egyptian supply line
was virtually invulnerable. The Israelis did hit
bridges and rafts both from the air and with artillery, but.they had no weapon big enough to damage
enough of a bridge to put it out of action for more
than a few hours. The Egyptians responded not only
with antiaircraft fire but by frequently moving the
bridges and actually dismantling some of them during
the day.
Camouflage was used to hide the dismantled
bridges, and smokescreens were used to protect some
bridges under attack.
87 -

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Au -2012
Sitzkrieg:
8-14 October
During the 6th and 7th the Egyptians had made

their deepest penetrations into the Sinai in the
northern area around Al Qantarah, gaining as much
as 20 kilometers.
Consequently it was in this sector that the Israelis staged their first major
counterattacks and suffered their worst setbacks of
the war. The Israeli 162nd Armored Division was
ordered to attack early on 8 October with the apparent objective of capturing one or more Egyptian
bridges in the vicinity of the Al Firdan Bridge.
Two armored brigades made the attack and through
Elements of one
the morning made good progress.
In the
brigade may even have reached the canal.
late afternoon, however, the tables were turned as
the Egyptians reacted to the attack and brought the
heaviest antitank missile fire of the war to bear.
By sunset the Israelis had been beaten back, with
heavy losses in tanks and men.
In the course of this attack, the Israeli 190th
Regular Armored Battalion, commanded by Lieutenant
Colonel Yagouri, ran into a large Egyptian ambush in
the Al Qantarah area. His unit was virtually destroyed and he was taken prisoner. The main effect
of the defeat was produced by the appearance of
Colonel Yagouri on Egyptian television received in
Israel. His appearance drove home to the Israelis
what a struggle they were in, while at the same time
raising Egyptian morale considerably.
After the costly lesson of the 190th, the Israelis
settled in to hold their position while amassing
Each
their reserves, and things reached a standoff.
side was evidently waiting for the other to come to
it. The Israelis were hoping the Egyptians would try
to penetrate deeper into the Sinai on the theory
that in so doing the Egyptians would move out of
their air defense cover and cause their antitank defenses to thin out. Under these conditions the
Israelis could hope to administer a 1967-style beating and send the Egyptians fleeing back across the
canal. On their side, the Egyptians knew what the
Israelis wanted and were determined not to give it
88 -

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012/
to them. Their plan called for a period of several

days--called an "operational pause"--during which the
Egyptians hoped the Israelis would hurl themselves at
the Egyptian phalanx along the canal. The Egyptian
crossing plan called for the Egyptians to advance
only after the Israelis had been considerably weakened in futile attempts to break the Egyptian front
on the canal.
If the battle lines were relatively static in
this period of the war, the fighting was not. The
Egyptians launched small-scale attacks several times
a day through the 13th. Most were directed at the
passes, but some headed south along the Gulf of Suez
coast. They were usually beaten off easily as they
were staged according to a stereotyped plan and moved

very slowly--that is, Egyptian tanks would advance
followed by troops in armored personnel carriers. At
a distance of two kilometers or so the infantry would
dismount and advance on foot, accompanied by the tanks.
Given the unvarying pattern of these attacks, the
lack of cover and concealment along the canal, and
the high quality of Israeli tank gunnery at the ranges
involved, these Egyptian forces were under almost
continual accurate fire. The motive behind these attacks is unknown. Most likely they were designed to
prod the.Israelis into rash counterattacks that would
be stopped by Egyptian antitank ambushes. After the
first two or three days of the war, however, the
Israelis stopped playing the Egyptians' game. For
the Israelis' part, they spent the time building up
their defense, preparing for their counteroffensive
and improving their lines with localized counterIn this period the Egyptians were squeezed
attacks.
into the final enclave, which averaged only 5 to 15
kilometers wide.
This period drew to a close on 13 and 14 October.
Beginning on the 12th and continuing during the
13th the Egyptians brought their two armored divisions across the canal--the 21st in the north and the
4th in the south. Their mission, apparently, was
either to initiate phase two and take the passes leading into the interior of the Sinai, or to divert the
Israelis from their drive against Syria. We cannot
89 -
Approved for
Release: 2012/09/04
conclusively choose between these alternatives because, while the timetable called for phase two to
begin about the 14th, the conditions on which it
was to be launched had not been met. Rather than
having been seriously weakened in the first week of
the war, the Israeli forces in the Sinai were growing
stronger, and other Israeli forces were being diverted
from the Syrian front by the 12th and 13th.
If the
Egyptian motive in bringing the armored divisions
over was to aid Syria, it was certainly a halfhearted
effort. The attacks by these divisions followed the
same basic pattern as the smaller attacks during the
preceding few days.
In the 2nd Army area, the 21st Armored Division
sent two of its brigades in against Israeli General
Sharon. Of the 200 to 210 tanks in these brigades,
118 were lost--almost entirely to Israeli tank fire.
In the 3rd Army area, one brigade of the 4th Armored
Division attacked the Mitla Pass area while the
armored brigade of the 6th Mechanized Infantry Division tried to break out to the south toward Ras as Sidr.
Both attacks were stopped cold, but with fewer losses
than the 21st Division suffered. The brigade of the
6th Mechanized Division lost virtually an entire
battalion--30 tanks--when it was trapped in a wadi.
Later that day the brigade of the 4th Armored Division was driven back, with the loss of about 50 tanks.
By day's end the breakout attempt was over at the
cost of more than 200 Egyptian tanks. The Israelis
had lost very little, either because they had ambushed
the Egyptians or because they had fired on them at
long range.
Into Africa
The Israelis had first entertained thoughts of
crossing the canal in 1967, as evidenced by the fact
that some Israeli commanders later lamented the fact
that Israel had not done so then. Certainly on 9 June
1967 the only thing that could have stopped the Israelis was lack of bridging and ferry equipment. They
had tested their ability to cross significant water
obstacles by raiding the Red Sea coast of Egypt in
90 -
DATE: 29-Aug-2012
September 1969 and in maneuvers conducted in the

Sinai in 1972.
General Sharon claims that, while
he was commander of Israeli forces in Sinai, he
had prepared for a crossing, probably in anticipation of staging a large raid in the event of another
war of attrition. To this end he had marked a certain
section of the Israeli sand wall to be used for a
crossing; the section had been built in a way intended
to make it easy to knock down during the operation.
The first crossing effort was the ill-fated attempt to seize an Egyptian bridge on 8 October. No
further effort was made until the successful crossing
a week later.
By then, operations against Syria
had been completed, and with the defeat of Egypt's
breakout attempt, the consequent heavy Egyptian tank
losses, and the completion of the Israeli buildup
in the Sinai, the time was opportune. The following
account of the crossing operations combines various
sources of information, mostly Israeli.
The initial crossing was carried out by General
Sharon according to a plan which--typical of him-was both complicated and bold. Preparations began
about 12 October when General Adan's 162nd Division
was ordered to slide leftward from its position opposite Al Qantarah to a position just north of and
behind Sharon's 143rd Division opposite Ismailia.
This move was completed by early 15 October and was
not detected by the Egyptians.
The gap left by the
move of the 162nd Division was filled by a task force
composed of an infantry brigade and a mechanized
brigade.
The crossing operation began late in the afternoon
of 15 October with four of Sharon's brigades moving
off from Jabal Tasa toward the canal on a staggered
schedule, the mission of each dependent upon the successful completion of the others' missions.
At 1700
an armored brigade commanded by one Tuvia* attacked
91 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012~
due west from Jabal Tasa into the 21st Armored and
16th Mechanized Divisions of the Egyptians. This
was to divert Egyptian attention from the canal and
to pin down a significant fraction of Egypt's armor
in the area to prevent reinforcement of its forces
at Israel's chosen crossing site. At 1800 Amnon
Reshef's brigade (probably the 14th Regular Armored)
struck out for the canal.
Reshef gave at least two
of his battalions the mission to get behind the
21st Division and drive it northward away from the
crossing site to open the way for the crossing.
One battalion--the 79th--reached the crossing site
undetected.
It then turned north and moved several
kilometers along the waterway hoping to capture an
Egyptian bridge. Another battalion to the right of
the 79th, however, ran into stiff opposition and
was stopped. The 79th was called back for fear the
Egyptians would exploit its exposed right flank.
The remainder of Reshef's brigade secured the
crossing site itself.
As soon as this was done the
leading battalion of Dan Matt's airborne infantry
brigade moved to the canal side with support and
engineer gear and crossed in rubber boats. The
paratroopers were to secure the bridgehead and probe
the east (Egyptian) bank. As soon as the airborne
brigade had signaled its initial success, Chaim's
M-60 armored brigade moved a battalion (about 30
tanks) to the canal. They crossed as quickly as
possible, reportedly using Uniflote bridge sections
as ferries.
The Israelis cut through their sand wall
with commercially available earthmoving equipment.
At no time did the Israelis consider this operation anything but an all-out effort to turn the tables
on the Egyptians and set them up for a major defeat.
This is not to say, however, that the Israelis had
not prepared contingency plans to withdraw quickly if
opposition proved much stiffer than expected or if
their plans went seriously awry. The stories about
the Israelis exploiting the unexpected success of a
small commando raid was part of the Israeli attempt
to confuse the Egyptians and minimize the true extent
of the Israeli plan.
92 -
DATE: 29-Aug-2012
The first paratroopers got across the canal at

about 0100 on 16 October and the first tanks were
operating on the west bank by 0600. There remains
some confusion over the method of Israeli crossing.
Reports from a number of sources on both sides relate that the first crossing used captured amphibious
tanks crewed by Arabic-speaking Israelis.
The only
evidence bearing on this point is a single photograph
of a captured PT-76 in Israeli service published in
a paperback history of the war. The caption reads:
"Tank breaking through to bridgehead receives farewells."
(See photograph, above.)
The Israelis deny
93
Approved for Release 2012/09/04
the use of any such ploy and claim that on that first
day they used only the Uniflote sections to ferry their
Some reports combine fragments of both
tanks across.
stories.
Regardless of the equipment and ploys involved,
the Israeli method of operation was to maximize Egyptian confusion. The first tank battalion across split
up into columns of a few tanks each and a few infantrymen and fanned out to probe the Egyptian deployment.
When the Egyptians characterized the Israeli force on
the west bank as being composed of seven tanks they
may well have thought that the multiple reports they
were receiving all referred to the same one or two
groups rather than ten or so different groups.
Egyptian reaction to this Israeli operation was
immediate and furious though initially confused and
uncoordinated. Tuvia's and Reshef's brigades were
One battied down in heavy fighting all night long.
talion of Reshef's brigade pushed as far north as the
"Chinese Farm"--an abandoned experimental farm set up
as an aid project by the Japanese in early 1967--before
If the Egyptians had trouble decidbeing stopped.*
Israelis were intending when they
what
the
ing just
crossed the canal, they had no trouble deciding that
stopping the operation should take priority in their
operations. Consequently, the Egyptian 21st Armored
Division and 25th Armored Brigade were ordered turned
toward the crossing site and pressed as hard as they
could to close the narrow corridor the Israelis had
cleared to the canal.
During the 16th the remainder of Chaim's brigade
crossed the canal, so the Israelis had two brigades
In addition
in Africa--one armored and one infantry.
General Sharon brought his command group over so that
* When the Israelis first occupied the area they thought the
The
markings indicated a Chinese project, and the name stuck.
area was chosen for an irrigation project because it was reasonably near fresh water piped from the west side of the canal and
and open--characteristics which made for the
the land was flat
kind of nose-to-nose tank battle which developed there.
94 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO0 DATE: 29-Aug-2012
he could stay in close touch with the fighting. General Adan's division was preparing to cross over as
well, but was temporarily diverted by an Egyptian
effort to close off the corridor frmtesouth-
As a result elements
o
two tank brigades from Adan's division and at
least part of Reshef's tank brigade broke off their
other activities and moved southwestward behind the
whole Israeli crossing force and set up an ambush.
The Egyptian 25th Brigade was virtually destroyed
within 15 minutes while the Israelis suffered no loss
at all.
Then the Israeli units returned to their
previous positions. Another of Adan's brigades, that
of Gabbi Amir, was held in Sinai for several days to
fight off a series of Egyptian counterattacks.
This
indicates the intensity of the Egyptian effort to
stop the Israeli crossing.
The Battle of the Chinese Farm was a horror story.
The Israelis claim to have destroyed about half of the
300 or so tanks the Egyptians threw into the area.
They lost 50 to 60 of their own tanks in the process.
While tanks were the predominant force in the battle,
artillery and mechanized infantry units got involved.
The fighting was often at point blank range and, since
there was no place to hide or maneuver, the affair
turned on rapid accurate shooting and small-unit leadership. The fighting also involved an Israeli attempt
to drive the Egyptians off a nearby hill codenamed Missouri.
The battle lasted through the night of the
15th and most of the 16th until the Egyptians were
finally beaten back far enough to leave the Israeli
corridor relatively secure. Even so, at night Egyptian
commandos, infantry, and light artillery groups filtered
into the Israeli-controlled area to harass the Israeli
supply route. At several points during the nights of
16-19 October the traffic through the corridor had to
stop until Egyptian infiltrators could be cleared out.
While the supply line was out of the direct line of
fire of Egyptian tanks, Egyptian artillery could and
did harass the Israelis constantly. Never able to
95 -
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFO[ DATE: 29-Aug-2012]
knock out any of the Israeli

bridges completely, Egyptian artillery and rockets did score hits on them.
While the crossing could be called a bold stroke,
the Israelis exploited it carefully.
First, the site
was chosen with an eye for local defense. Located

.at the point where the canal enters the Great Bitter
Lake, the site was protected on its left flank by the
lake itself. Marshes along the lake shore and canal
side helped protect it against armor assault from the
right. Sharon had wanted to leap across the canal
with two divisions at the outset and head for Cairo,
but he was overruled by the high command. His mission
was to secure the crossing and hold the northern end
of the Israeli bridgehead west of the canal. Sharon
operated alone through the 16th. General Adan's
division began crossing during the 17th.
Once across
the canal Adan found that at least one Egyptian mechanized infantry brigade was based on the road to
Cairo, a few miles west of the crossing site. Prudence demanded that the elimination of this unit be
accorded first priority. On the 17th Amir's brigade
crossed the canal and took out the Egyptian brigade.
We know little of the fight but it must have been
tremendous, for scattered photography shows at least
one battalion virtually destroyed where it stood some
15 to 20 kilometers northeast of the Israeli site.
Israeli testimony holds, moreover, that the Israeli
field hospital set up at Fayid (Fa'id) Airfield on
17 October treated "hundreds of wounded" during the
first 48 hours the hospital was open.
On top of and concurrent with these operational
considerations the Israelis were running into traffic
problems.
They were trying to move two armored di-
visions over narrow desert tracks or asphalt roads

to and through a narrow passage against severe, if
rather uncoordinated, opposition. The roads backed
up as each interruption by Egyptian fire disrupted
movement. The Israelis also had trouble getting
their bridging equipment into line.
The original
plan was to install a roller assault bridge (RAB)
early on. The RAB was an Israeli invention consisting of floatable rollers supporting a roadbed. It
96 -
was to be assembled on land and towed to the canal

by a specially trained tank company. That company,
however, got caught up in other aspects of the war,
and the untrained tank company that did try to tow
the RAB on the 15th and 16th ran into many delays.
The first bridge, then, was improvised of Uniflote
sections and a tank-launched assault bridge to cross
a gap caused by the loss of one Uniflote section.
By 18 or 19 October the Israelis were beginning

to benefit from the more fluid situation they had
created.
They operated in a number of independent
columns, either smashing through resistance as they
met. it or bypassing it.
The town of Fa'id was taken
on the 18th.
It was the 19th before Adan's entire division was across the canal.
Adan's division was to
head south along the Great Bitter Lake with the object.
of cutting off the 3rd Army--or that part of it in the
Sinai.
On the 19th a third Israeli unit began crossing
the canal: a task force under General.Magen drawn from
the 252nd Division at the south end of the canal.*
Magen's force secured the west flank of the Israeli
enclave as Adan drove south.
Despite this overwhelming force the Israelis were making slow progress.
Information from the book by

military historian Chaim Herzog concurs that Magen commanded
the task force in the north but makes no mention of a division
under Meron. Herzog says that the southern sector was held by
the 252nd Division, commanded by Major General Avraham Mandler,
until his death in an Egyptian artillery barrage near the Giddi
Pass on 14 October, when General Magen assumed command. In
this report Herzog's account has been accepted because
Herzog's account
complete and convincinq
in its
details.
97 -
is
Having taken Fa'id on 18 October--an advance of

some 15 kilometers--the Israelis had only gained
another 20 to 25 kilometers by midday on 22 October
just before the first cease-fire took effect.
This
placed the Israelis only about halfway to Suez from
their crossing point.
In the next 27 hours the
Israelis occupied considerably more territory eastward in the direction of the canal but made very
little progress to the south toward Suez.
It is
likely that the Israelis were slowed by their taking
the time to destroy SAM and AAA sites in the area.
The final encirclement of Suez, the taking of 'Adabiyah
farther south, and the cutting off of the 3rd Army all
occurred on the afternoon and night of 23-24 October.
It is a fair guess, based on the speed of their moves

and the fighting that continued after the second
cease-fire, that the Israelis were far from secure in
their.position even when the second cease-fire took
effect at 0700 local time on 24 October and that
they made considerable force changes and redeployments to tidy up their positions after the cease-fire.
By midday on 25 October the Israeli operation was
complete.
the Israelis ensconced
in an arc stretching from the Gulf of Suez at 'Adabiyah
to the Suez Canal just south of Ismailia.
It had taken the Israelis about eight and onehalf days to cover the approximately 110-kilometer
perimeter of their enclave. This translates into
a rate of advance of approximately 13 kilometers
a day.
While this may not have been trench warfare, neither was it blitzkrieg. Certainly it was
a lot slower than the 1967 war, when the Israelis
covered 160 to 175 kilometers in less than five
days.
Many things combined to slow Israeli progress

in the early stages of the crossing. First, the
Israeli political and top military leadership was
cautious, especially for the first few days of the
operation.
While the Israeli crossing offered the
possibility of turning the tables on the Egyptians,
perhaps catastrophically, it also held the possibil-
98 -
____
APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOL DATE: 29-Aug-20121
ity, if it failed, of turning into a disaster for

Israel. The battle at the Chinese Farm and continued
Egyptian attempts to choke off the corridor to the
crossing site could only have reinforced Israeli
caution.
Secondly, the Egyptian mechanized brigade located
opposite the Israeli crossing point represented a
force that had to be dealt with before the Israelis
could safely proceed.
It appears that the Israelis
held up any significant movements to the south until
that brigade had been eliminated during the 17th.
Finally--and, on this point we have little direct
evidence--it appears that the scattered Egyptian
forces in the area put up firm resistance. While
these forces were unable to halt the Israelis, they
certainly slowed them and forced the Israelis to
proceed perha s more cauti
ve
otherwise.
By the
last day or two of
e war, however, the Israelis apparently had the

ability to move quickly and did so by bypassing many
Egyptian units. Many of the cease-fire violations
in the few days following the end of the war probably
arose from Israeli attempts to eliminate bypassed
pockets of Egyptian troops.
99 -
Combat Highlights
Strategy
The contrast between the Syrian and Egyptian

The Syrians attempted to
strategies was striking.
liberate the whole of the Golan at a stroke; the
Egyptians attempted a very limited operation. The
Syrians attempted to resolve their problem militarily; the Egyptians viewed their military operation as a complement and prod to the political/
The
diplomatic process of regaining the Sinai.
Syrians attacked with their armor in front in an
attempt to wage an aggressive war of movement; the
Egyptians attacked with their infantry in front with
the specific aim of going to the defensive immediately after the initial penetration.
The campaigns of the two Arab combatants had certain features in common, however. Most significant,
both Egypt and Syria committed virtually their entire
ground force to the forward area. This left both
armies vulnerable to a concentrated counterattack
from the Israelis. On both fronts, when the Israeli
attack pierced the crust of the Arab line, neither
Arab state had sufficient reserves available to meet
the Israelis.
Both Egypt and Syria had apparently
devoted considerable effort to planning and training
for the initial stages of their attacks. After the
opening phases of the war, however, both Arab armies
exhibited the defects of command, control, training,
and maintenance which US intelligence had estimated
were present. In the final analysis, the Egyptian
and Syrian armies showed they could be trained to
win a battle but had yet to master the skills needed
to win a war against the Israelis.
As for the Israelis, their 1973 strategy exhibited
a surprising measure of stagnation because of, or despite, 1967 experiences. For one thing, in the ini-
100 -
tial days of the Sinai campaign the Israeli armored

forces were hurt badly in an attempt to apply a doctrine that had been used successfully in 1967--the
use of unsupported tanks against infantry. For another, the Israeli higher political and military
leadership evidently lost sight of the crucial imIn 1956
portance of time for Israeli war planning.
and 1967 the Israeli military was acutely aware that
success had to be achieved within a very few days
before outside powers could intervene to Israel's
In 1973 the Israelis appear to have
detriment.
operated under the impression that, because the other
side started the war, they could pursue the war relatively free of time constraints imposed from without.
The Israelis failed to allow adequately for the probability that, once the war had turned against the
Arabs, both the Arabs and the Russians would bring
pressure to bear to obtain a cease-fire to minimize
Israeli gains and protect the greatest possible adThe desire to minimize casuvantage for the Arabs.
alties and end the war quickly--considerations of a
military character--operated to impose a sense of
urgency among field commanders and, presumably, many
The
others at higher civilian and military levels.
available evidence, however, fails to indicate the
heavy, omnipresent sense of time that pervaded the
1956 and 1967 campaigns.
Further, the Israeli leaderhip appears to have
neglected to draw the implications of its decision

on 5 October, and again in the very early hours of
6 October, not to preempt. If the Israelis were
certain enough of a war to consider preemption, why
then was the situation not serious enough to order
general mobilization? To a considerable extent the
answer probably lies in their misperception of the

benefit accruing to them from the occupied territory.
Their leadership operated on the assumption that, in
the event of an Egyptian attack, Israel could trade
space for the time necessary to mobilize. Prime
Minister Meir turned down Chief of Staff Elazar's
pleas for mobilization because she had committed
Israel to avoid the appearance of provocation. Perhaps more fundamentally, she and her cabinet were
101 -
DATE: 29-Aug-2012;
inhibited because if Israel mobilized before an Egyptian attack it would appear to be an admission that
the Sinai, the Bar Lev Line, and all the money and
casualties the Israelis had spent holding the bank
of the canal had been wasted.*
The rationalization
for keeping the Sinai was that occupying it made it
unnecessary for the Israelis to mobilize until an
attack came.
Because of the inhospitable climate the Egyptians
had never based large forces permanently in the Sinai.
The movement of large numbers of troops across the
canal had been one of the principal precipitating
acts of the 1967 war.
By occupying the canal bank,
the Israelis had deprived themselves of this indicator and were forced to rely for strategic warning on
their intelligence appraisal of Egyptian intent. To
a large extent, loss of the canal-crossing indicator
nullified the military and political value of the
strategic depth of the Sinai by allowing the Egyptian
forces to close with the Israeli forces with virtually no warning. This ensured that the Israelis
fought the first major battles in a new war at the
end of long lines of supply and communications.
Egyptian security deprived the Israelis of. reliable
intelligence as to the Egyptian intent.
The same considerations did not apply with such
force on the Syrian front because the Israeli-held
Golan was only a little over 60 kilometers long by
25 kilometers wide, at most, and close to Israeli
population centers. Hence, the Israelis did take
the precaution of moving an armor brigade to reinforce this front several days before the war.
Once
it started, however, the proximity of Syria forced
the Israelis to give first priority to stabilizing
the Syrian front, thus giving the Egyptians time to
consolidate their hold on the Sinai.
In the final
analysis the strategy followed by the Israelis since
1967 of maintaining the Bar Lev Line made it virtually
impossible for Israel to hold the east bank in the
October war.
* Several accounts of the political/military interactions among
the higher Israeli leadership exist. They differ on detail but
agree overall with this interpretation.
102 -
_______________________Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOFI DATE: 29-Aug-2012
Air Defense
In the air
defense area the Egyptian and Syrian
systems had a good deal in common. Both systems were
equipped almost exclusively by the USSR, which had
also supplied virtually all the training and advice
necessary to establish them. The Soviet air defense
involvement began in the early 1960s in Egypt, but
not until after 1967 in Syria.
Since 1971 the Soviets' level of support, evidenced by their willingness to export relatively modern equipment, had increased greatly. As a result the Syrian and Egyptian
air defense systems probably were the most diversified and concentrated anywhere in the world. Diversification is an important factor, because it vastly
complicates the countermeasures problem for an attacker.
Despite the similarities, the differences were
more telling during the war. The Egyptians deployed
their SAMs in the combat area to cover about 3,700
square nm while the Syrians were covering only about
1,800.
Though the density of deployment was only
slightly higher in Syria, the location of the most
significant targets in a small defended area made it
easier for the Syrians to anticipate IAF attacks.
The Golan, however, offered many routes by which attacking aircraft could avoid detection by approaching
targets through valleys and in the-shadow of mountains.
By contrast, the relatively flat terrain along the
canal provided little cover for attacking aircraft.
Each Arab system shot down 51 aircraft even
though the Israelis flew three times as many sorties
against the Egyptians.
Israel's daily loss rate was
almost always higher on the Syrian front than on the
Egyptian because of the different tactical situations.
The Israeli Air Force had no choice but to fly over
the most heavily defended parts of Syria if it was
to play any part in stopping the Syrian penetration
or aiding the Israeli counterattack. Over the Suez
Canal area the situation stabilized more quickly,
the action was farther from Israel proper, Egyptian
forces were more widely deployed, and there were
areas where the air defense system was thin.
So
103 -
the Israelis could exercise a certain amount of

choice in risk taking.
The Arab air defense systems were designed to
compensate for the poor quality of Arab fighter pilots
by maximizing the use of ground-based technology. The
The quality
Israeli situation was just the opposite.
of Israeli pilots was so much higher than that of the
Arabs, the Israelis devoted virtually all their Mirage
aircraft--15 to 20 percent of their total air force-Israel succeeded in achievto counter air operations.
ing a kill ratio of some 56 to 1 in air-to-air combat.
The majority of the 500 or more Arab aircraft (including helicopters) destroyed in 1973 were destroyed
as a direct result of aerial combat.
It is easy to measure the number of aircraft an
air defense system shoots down and to calculate loss
rates, but the purpose of such a system is not to
Its purpose is to protect a
shoot down airplanes.
friendly force on the ground against damage inflicted
by a hostile air force. Shooting down enemy aircraft
is merely a means to that end. While direct evidence
is scarce, it appears that the Arab air defense systems achieved their greatest success in preventing
the IAF from inflicting as much damage on the Arab
forces in 1973 as it had in 1967.
At a minimum the
Israelis were forced to forgo certain weapons and
delivery techniques to minimize exposure to the Arab
systems.
The Arab systems kept the IAF from loitering over the battlefield, precluding its use as flying
The loss of this capability seriously deartillery.
graded the IAF's effectiveness.
Performance of the Forces

Many observers, including Israelis, were surprised
by the stiff defense put up by the Arab armies in 1973
and by the apparent improvement in their level of
competence. An accurate and balanced appreciation of
the differences in the performance of the troops in
the field between 1967 and 1973 depends upon putting
the 1967 war in perspective.
104
The experience of the 1967 war created a false

impression of the willingness of Arab troops to stand
and fight. Because the war lasted only six days, the
impression took root that the Arabs fled at the mere
approach of the Israelis.
Ever since, Israeli propagandists and psychological warfare experts have fostered that belief--too successfully. Not only did
they convince many in the Arab countries, but also
many in Israel. A good deal of the stagnation in
Israeli armor tactics probably had its roots in the
complacency abetted by Israeli-created attitudes.
The reason for the Israeli campaign was straightforward--if one could convince the Arab soldier that he
was hopelessly inferior to any Israeli soldier, the
ordinary Arab soldier would not be inclined to risk
much in combat. The Israelis were psychologically
unprepared for the steadfastness of the Syrians under
fire or for the willingness of Egyptian infantrymen
to stand up to Israeli armor. Thus, 1967 tactics
were attempted in 1973 with very costly results.
A distinction can be drawn between the willingness
of soldiers to use their rifles, machine guns, or
antitank weapons and the competence of troops to stand
their ground under unexpected or rapidly changing circumstances.
In 1967 the Arab collapse in the Sinai
was brought about because the Israelis relied on mobility to carry them into the flanks and rear of
fixed Egyptian defensive positions.
The Egyptian
soldier had not been trained sufficiently to cope
with such attacks.
The Syrians folded on the Golan
in 1967 because their government bungled an attempt
to force the UN to call a hasty cease-fire by proclaiming the fall of Al Qunaytirah some eight to
twelve hours before it fell in fact.
The Syrian
soldier, like his Egyptian counterpart, could not

cope with a fluid battlefield. However, when the
Israelis were unable to use their mobility to upset
the Arabs' carefully wrought defensive plans, they
found the Egyptians and Syrians very tough fighters-as the 1967 battles at Garadi in the Sinai and Tall
Fakhr on the Golan will testify.
The greatest weakness of the Arab armies has
always been the officer corps.
Through the 1967 war,
105 -
SEGRET
flaw could be largely ascribed to class differthis

ences, deficient education, and a consequent set of
attitudes on the part of officers which denigrated
the ordinary soldier. As a result, there was little
real contact between soldier and officer, less understanding, and virtually no trust. One of the major
strengths of the Israeli Army, in contrast, has been
the close relationship between men and officers--a
relationship so close that, in the eyes of some foreign
observers, it borders on the insubordinate. During the
period between 1967 and 1973, both Egypt and Syria took
steps to eliminate the worst officers of the old pattern and to recruit and keep younger, better educated
officers and NCOs whose competence and more open attitudes enabled them to be more effective leaders.
The relative gap, in this respect, between Arab and
Israeli armies probably narrowed somewhat.
Still, certain weaknesses of the Arab officer
This was especially so
corps were evident in 1973.
after the carefully planned and rehearsed opening
phases of the war ended. On both fronts, plans were
rigidly adhered to long after it was clear that they
were no longer profitable. On the Syrian front this
was manifested in the mindless march of the Syrian
7th Infantry and 3rd Armored Divisions and the Assad
In
Brigade into the dead end of the Vale of Tears.
the Sinai, the Egyptians crossed the canal and dug
in according to their plan. In so doing they forfeited the chance to improve on their plan.
On the Sinai front, command and control problems
It appears
once again bedeviled the Egyptian Army.
to have taken the Egyptian high command several days
to grasp the magnitude of the Israeli force which
crossed the canal. The Egyptians never did manage
to bring any major force to' bear on it, but simply
tried to block the roads leading from the canal area
to Cairo. After the war the Egyptian 3rd Army made
one or two desultory attempts to break its encirclement, but these never amounted to a serious challenge
to Israeli control.
The greatest mistake of the Arab armies in 1973,
as in 1967, was their failure to train their troops
106 -
adequately.
The soldiers themselves seemed willing
enough to do what they had been trained for, but often
their training was rigid or poor. For instance, both
the Syrian and Egyptian armored forces used their
tanks in rigid, stereotyped ways that crippled their
own effectiveness and made them relatively easy targets for the Israelis. Perhaps the Arabs are constrained by the inadequate capabilities of most of
their recruits.
The limited nature of the Egyptian
plans seems to indicate this.
The Israeli Army once again showed that its
superiority over the Arab armies was greatest in the
quality of the training and initiative of the lower
ranks--individual soldiers, NCOs, and platoon- and
company-grade officers.
In the first days of the war
it was the tenacity and adaptability of small units
and their immediate leaders that enabled the Israelis
to stabilize the front and go over to the offensive
so quickly. This was especially evident on the Golan,
where Israeli forces, though outnumbered five or six
to one in almost every category of equipment, were
able to stop the Syrian advance within 24 hours and
eliminate it within 72 hours.
In terms of artillery, the Israelis were severely
slighted not only in terms of equipment, but also in
terms of trained spotters and forward observers. Artillery liaison officers with forward units did not
have enough materiel and working space to direct proper
artillery support for these units.
Some artillery
units had to go to war without adequate spare parts,
and some found their equipment so scattered that it
took several days to gather it together. As one consequence the divisions of Generals Adan and Sharon
arrived at the Suez Canal on 7 and 8 October without
artillery. Lack of artillery support on 9 October
probably compounded the severity of the repulse the
Israelis suffered on that day.
In another instance, the Israeli mechanized infantry--those assigned to accompany armored units in
half-tracks or APCs--had been trained by the Armor
Corps in anticipation of the use of 1967-style tactics.
When it developed that those tactics could not be used
and the mechanized infantry had to fight on foot, their
107 -

training was deficient. As a result, the Israelis

suffered greater casualties than they might have.
Despite all the problems, however, the Israelis
once again proved the importance of flexibility in
maintaining their superiority. The most striking
example of this is provided by the Israeli response
to the Arab--particularly Egyptian--antitank weapons.
By 8 October the Israelis had recognized the flaws
in their armor tactics and adopted a defensive procedure under which they waited for the Arab armor to
attack and then took the Arabs under fire from extreme
range. This made it difficult for the Arabs to bring
their antitank weapons forward. This change of tactics
by the Israelis took maximum advantage of the longer
range of most of their tank guns and the superiority
of their long-range tank gunnery.
The Israeli attack on 8 October appears to have
been the last attempt to use tanks in the unsupported
1967 style and even then the Israelis may have been
drawn in by their initial success. Within four or
five days after the beginning of the war, the Israelis
were adopting tactics which reduced the threat from
This
Arab antitank weapons to manageable proportions.
adjustment in the midst of combat provides a fair measure of the flexibility of Israeli leadership and
the thoroughness of low-level training.
Tank Versus Antitank

The effectivenes of the Sagger and RPG-7 was described in almost mythical proportions in the immediThe evidence now
ate aftermath of the 1973 war.
available supports a much more realistic appraisal.
Antitank weapons like the Sagger and RPG-7 took a
heavy toll of Israeli armor. But they did not render
The initial impression created by
the tank obsolete.
the Egyptian use of antitank missiles was artificially
reinforced by the inappropriate tactics used by the
Israelis in the first few days of the war.
It is
probably safe to say that no large, modern army will
again make the mistake of using unsupported tanks
against massed infantry.
108 -
____________________Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOLI DATE: 29-Aug-2012
The Israelis state that they did not use the

French-built SS-ll antitank wire-guided missiles in
their possession before the war broke out. It appears
the SS-11 had been phased out of the Israeli inventory before the war. We have no reasonable explanation why. The TOW missiles arrived from the US too
late to be used during the war proper, but did see
some action during the cease-fire violations that
persisted for some weeks after 24 October. The
shoulder-fired LAW--the US answer to the RPG-7--was
used some.
It was effective, but too light and short
ranged to satisfy the Israelis.
The Israelis rediscovered some ancient priciples
in seeking a response to the antitank weapon threat
posed at the beginning of the October war. Foremost,
the Israelis found that no single weapon can long
dominate the battlefield. Victory requires the use
of a balanced force with many complementary offensive
and defensive elements.
The battlefield, in short,
is a complicated environment and no one weapon or
arm of service can function effectively on it without the.active aid and cooperation of others.
This
is reassuring for the Israelis, since the effective
and flexible use of mobile forces under difficult
circumstances is precisely the area in which they
hold the greatest comparative advantage over the Arabs.
Mobilization
The mainstay of Israeli military strength has
always been the ability to mobilize rapidly. The
population is too small and the economy too industrialized to permit Israel to have a large standing
army.
It is much more economical to maintain a small,
highly trained cadre of regular forces together with
a larger number of draftees on active duty. These are
supplemented by a number of reservists who are required to serve as much as a month each year on active
duty.
The net result is that Israel has a large number of people with a high level of military skill for
a relatively low cost.
Rapid mobilization, however,
is what makes it possible for Israel to use this
scheme. As a result the Israelis have always in the
109
past taken great care to see to it that the necessary

maintenance and notification systems worked to support a fast mobilization.
Superficially, these systems broke down in 1973.
Stories are rife about the poor state of maintenance
found to exist in much Israeli equipment at the time.
In any case, necessary supplies reportedly were missing when mobilization-occurred, causing delays while
In several inmisplaced equipment was rounded up.
stances the binoculars had disappeared from tank
units--allegedly appropriated by status-seeking inIn another case antitank missiles could not
fantry.
be located. Also, records were said to have been
neglected, causing the alerting system to malfunction
frequently. Almost certainly there is some truth to
all these stories, and many shortages and inconveniences are known to have been encountered.
What matters most, however, is how much combat
power was delivered to the fronts in how much time.
By that bare criterion the Israeli mobilization system
worked very well indeed. Three armored divisions
were delivered to the Golan Heights in less than 72
In the Sinai the major part
hours, mostly within 48.
of two armored divisions arrived along the canal withThe first reserve units were in
in 24 to 36 hours.
One could
action on both fronts within 12 hours.
hardly improve. The cause of the Israelis' frustration
is that, having been surprised, they could not with any
amount of speed repair the damage done by their failure
to begin mobilization promptly when significant evi
ce
indicated the imminence of war.
major items of bridging

equipment being brought to the canal for the first
time, as well as greatly increased artillery strengths
on both fronts.
The fact that the major part of the mobilization
took place after the war began caused all the normal
problems to become larger and harder to deal with.
The overriding necessity then was to get troops to
the fronts as fast as humanly possible.
In the north,
that meant sending tanks forward individually without
110 -
waiting to organize units.

Individual tanks were put
into service as soon as a complete tank crew was made
up.
Tanks on their way to the Golan were packaged
into units via radio as they drove along. The situation was only relatively better in the Sinai, but
even there both Generals Adan and Sharon moved into
battle without their organizational artillery because
equipment transporters were .lacking and because maintenance flaws were found. For the first several days
things were a tangled mess as units went to war in
tanks they had never seen with crewmates they had
never met.
Troops were formed into units under commanders they had never heard of.
he situation in the rear areas and
at major headquarters was chaotic.
The mobilization worked for two reasons. First,
the level of training among Israeli reserve troops
was sufficient to cope, and the qualities of those
troops and the situations in which they found themselves were complementary--the times demanded flexibility, ,adaptability, and high motivation, and these
assets the Israeli troops had.
Second, whether the
Israeli mobilization planners foresaw a situation
such as the one they found on 6 October 1973, we do
not know. Nevertheless, the Israeli stress on standardization of equipment layout .and loadings operated well enough to enable any Centurion crewman,
for instance, to operate with any Centurion tank.
Navy
The naval aspects of the October war have not

been discussed up to now in this study because they
are well treated in at least two excellent published
reports.*
The subject is introduced here because
the Israeli naval experience reinforces a point made
111 -
earlier.
While the Israeli Army had failed to tailorits
strengths to Arab weaknesses, the navy had done
so in painstaking detail. The Egyptian sinking of
the Israeli destroyer Elath in September 1967 had a
traumatic effect on the Israeli Navy. At the time,
Israel had two destroyers and 11 patrol boats, none
of them missile equipped. The Egyptians had about
12 Komar missile patrol boats and about six destroyers.
Israel quickly decided that ships as large as a destroyer had no chance against the Komars, and so the
acquisition of a suitable counter--small, fast missile
boats--was accelerated.
The result was the Saar class of fast patrol boat
armed with an Israeli-developed antiship missile.

The combination of the two systems represents one of
the clearest cases of Israel's tailoring its forces
to those of the Arabs.
Israel was unable to develop
a missile with a range more than half that of the
Styx missile mounted on the Komars, so the Saars developed tactics designed to ensure their ability to
get close to the Komars--and to the larger Osa boats
received by the Arabs after the 1967 war.
These tactics were essentially quite simple.
Each boat was equipped with a receiver capable of detecting the Styx search radar so the Israelis would
know when the Egyptians had detected them. The boat's
own radar was used to track the Styx missile, which was
similar to a remotely piloted aircraft. When the
missile came within 10 to 15 kilometers, the Israelis
launched chaff-dispensing rockets across its path and
headed toward the missile at maximum speed.
Since
the Styx is a homing missile, 'if its tracker could
be diverted even momentarily by the chaff, the missile
might be unable to reacquire a real target in time to
hit it. Also, since the Styx homed on the radar return from the target, by heading toward the missile
the Israeli boat would be presenting a minimum target to the missile. To reduce radar return even
further, a radar-absorbing coating was applied to the
forward part of each Saar's superstructure.
As final
defensive measures the Israelis used a shorter ranged
chaff dispenser fired slightly off to the side of the
boat to draw the missile off course and automatic
112
cannon and antiaircraft guns to shoot at the missile

itself.
The Israelis received a lot of help from the
Egyptians and Syrians in making their tactics work.
First, the Arabs were very "noisy" about keeping
their radars on and chattering on their radios, making
it easy for the Israelis to locate them. Secondly,
the' Arabs launched their missiles at maximum range-24 nm--giving the Israelis maximum time to detect and
deflect the incoming missiles.
Finally, the Arabs
were remarkably unaggressive. Typically they would
fire their missiles on first detecting the Israelis
and then flee for their harbors.
The Arab losses included eight missile boats, a
minesweeper, a landing craft, and two patrol boats.
The Israeli losses were nil, with slight damage to
one Saar.
The Arabs achieved no hits by the 50 or so
missiles they fired--a marked change from the three
hits scored by four Styx missiles fired at the Elath
and from the eight hits out of nine Styx missiles
fired in the Indo-Pakistani war.
The difference is
accounted for by the Israeli countermeasures and

tactics as well as the maneuverability of the Saar.
The outcome of the naval battle had little or no
impact on the outcome of the war as a whole, but it
provided a clear lesson to both Arabs and Israelis:
tailor one's own strengths to take maximum advantage
of the other side's weaknesses--complacency carries a
heavy price.
Electronic Warfare
There is no indication that EW had a major impact on the war despite the occurrence of several
incidents seeming to show the potential of this brand
of warfare. Early in the war Israeli Major General
Mendler, commander of the Armored Force Sinai, was
killed in an Egyptian artillery barrage. There is
some evidence to suggest that the barrage was fired
in response to intercepted communications which pinpointed Mendler's position. The Israelis had sufficient depth in personnel and resilience in the com-
113 -
mand and control structure to absorb this loss with

minimal disruption, but there could be circumstances
when such a loss could do great damage.
Israeli
communications security was lax in 1973 for two main
reasons--the pressing emergency of the situation and
the lack of secure voice communications gear. Much
Israeli communication at the tactical level was via
radio and almost entirely in the clear. The Arabs,
particularly the Egyptians, made a great effort to
intercept such communications and showed a considerable ability to redirect artillery fire in response
to intercepted radio chatter.
A blunder on the part of the Egyptians, however,
offers the best example of EW applied to tactical
combat situations.
On the afternoon of 16 October
the 25th Armored Brigade of the Egyptian 3rd Army
was ordered to move north along the shore of the
Great Bitter Lake early on the 17th.
The purpose of
the move was to help pinch off the corridor to the
Israeli crossing site.
The trap was sprung and virtually the

entire brigade, including all 60 of its tanks, was
destroyed within 15 minutes.
The Israelis claim to
have suffered no losses in this engagement. Before
the war the Egyptians had made maximum use of landlines to prevent Israeli interception of their sensitive communications traffic. Once .the war began,
however, the Egyptians were forced to use radio, and
their security was often poor.
On the Golan front, the Syrians took advantage
of the Israeli laxity in radio communications security
by directing their artillery at unit headquarters which
were located by radio direction finding. The Israelis,
however, responded in kind, and neither side gained any
decisive or dramatic advantages through exploitation of
the other's communications.
The Arab SA-2 and SA-3 systems were thought to
pose only a small threat to the Israelis because electronic countermeasures directed at them had been
developed over a period of years. The SA-6 and SA-7,
114 -
however, were quite different, and the Israelis did

not have ECM against them. Moreover, the air defense
systems of the Arabs were deployed more thickly than
any other system known.
The Israelis used electronic
measures heavily in an effort to hold down their
losses.
The drama of the war's outbreak and the
maiden combat of the SA-6 focused attention on EW in
a way that was unprecedented as far as the Middle
East went. But, as. in the naval aspects of the war,
EW made no major difference in the outcome of the war
as a whole.
EW tactics and techniques are well covered
in other reports* and will be covered in detail in
forthcoming reports.
On the basis of very sketchy reporting, it appears that the Israelis had again become complacent
about Arab developments in the field of EW and were,
as a result, surprised both at the extent and competence with which the Arabs used both passive and active techniques. That much said, it appears that the
Israelis retained a wide measure of superiority in
their use of highly refined electronic techniques
both to counter Arab air defense weapons and to collect and exploit intelligence.
In this new and still
largely unexplored form of warfare, however, Israel's
performance in 1973 does not leave it with the same
relative advantage still evident in other forms of
warfare.
115 -
Bibliographical
Note
The sources used in the preparation of this report

are too numerous to list. The following represent
only the most important and productive sources discovered in the period January 1974 through May 1975.
Three Israeli books are indispensable to understanding Israeli policy, intelligence perceptions,
and popular thinking just before and during the war.
They are Kippur by Y. Ben Porat and six other Israeli
journalists who covered the war both at rear headquarters and in combat. The second is October Earthquake by Ze'ev Schiff, an Israeli military writer and
historian. Written by a member of the Israeli "establishment" in late 1974, it is a more balanced, analytical account which focuses more on the problems
of intelligence and strategy than does Kippur. Finally,
Chaim Herzog's book The War of Atonement is probably
the best tactical summary. Herzog is a former Chief
of.Military Intelligence, is a military historian, and
was the principal government military commentator
during the 1973 war.
On the Arab side, lamentably little literature
has been translated into English. The only such
book available at this writing is The October War by
R. N. El Rayyes and D. Nahas, published by En Nahar
Press Service of Beirut in 1973.
It reprints the
official Egyptian and Syrian communiques and contains
a rather brief account from the Arab point of view.
Nevertheless, it contains some interesting material
and does make an effort to avoid bombast. The Journal
of Palestine Studies, a quarterly published in the US,
contains in numbers 10 and 11, January and March 1974,
interesting interviews with Arab leaders and articles
The biblion Arab strategy before and after the war.
ographic notes section of the Journal always contains
references to military articles and books written in
Arabic, most of which have never been translated.
For anyone with the linguistic resources, many leads
could be developed there.
116 -
Approved for Release:2012/09/04
PPROVEDFOR RELEASE - CIA INFOn DATE: 29-Aug-2012
TheSiiai Frt
Map lb
33'00,
32*30'
200'
B ulayrat
a/ Manilah 0nPortSa
Mediterranean
Fu'Ad
1udapes
rt
Sead(
~f
Khali atT Tinah
===-
o Da\r
~~~ ~-
r'
"I
(Bay of Tina)
'o:I -a
Bi'rarn
23
^^.-
a-A.._ I
/i
rah
AlSa
ARMY
'
'Istryria
2ND
1A2ND
ADA
wee
[Fi
al~
enno
SHARON
143RD
a-nm-SINAI
Is
'
rla
Tn.m
,-n~~
1.~
~~
PEN
~
SULAv
-- ----
g'y
a'id
3R -ufMw
Jra
n-'
Arb-saeiWar
Lake
p tMADE
ueBe
252ND
1973
7TH
000
18Th
nr
36TH
s
Suerce
o- 5
2012/09/04
Approvedfor Release.
Br4"d^d^
nmbts
~O~~
DATE 29-Aug-20121
0.L
--
Co
-y
\o
N
for R

DATE: 29-Aug-2012|
e .
A
ZE
ZA
-.
r~
_C
--
OL-
.. rert'

CIA Report Yom Kippur War

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIA Report Yom Kippur War

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIA Report Yom Kippur War

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

APPROCVE

for Release: 2012/09/04

FOR PERSONAL ATTENTION OF:

Overview and Analysis of the Conflict

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

___________________________App roved for Release: 2012/09/04

1973 Arab-Israeli War:

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOD DATE: 29-Aug-2012)

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

The 1973 Arab-Israeli War:

This study examines the military operations of

Comments and queries r

report are welcome.

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

for Release: 2012/09/04

PPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012

Background and Summary of the War

Arab Reaction to 1967

The Syrian Front .

The Sinai Front

Application of the Lessons of 1967

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012

1. Growth of Arab and Israeli Air Defense

2. Israeli Aircraft Losses, by Date, by

3. Israeli Aircraft Losses on the Egyptian

4. Israeli Aircraft Damaged, by Date, by

5. Israeli Aircraft Losses on the Syrian

6. Arab and Israeli Aircraft Losses by

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Earthen Ramparts on Egyptian Side of

Egyptian Military Traffic Jamming Approaches

Al Firdan Sector on West (Egyptian)

Contrasting Battlefield Positions of

2. The Golan Front: Israeli Counterattacks,

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

1. Arab-Israeli War, Initial Arab Attacks,

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012

The October war was complex and the information

* See also Bibliographical Note beginning on page 116.

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOO DATE: 29-Aug-2012

Enough has been verified about tank

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

Background and Summary of the War

Approved for Release: 2012/09/04

APPROVED FOR RELEASE - CIA INFOQ DATE: 29-Aug-2012|

the Arabs' decision to go to war.