Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arabs attack Israel 1967

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arabs attack Israel 1967

    In 1967 Nasser boasted that he was going to destroy Israel, and King Hussein that on the way to throwing the Israelis in to the sea, that his troops should rape all the women. Instead the Israelis preempted with 200 jets and took out the Arab airforces, took Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan etc.

    What would have happened if the Israelis had not preempted, and simply maintained a defensive posture through June 1967? When was the Arab D Day planned for?

    How exactly did the Arabs plan to fulfil their dream, and could they have succeeded against the Israeli defences? Were the Arabs competent enough to invade on three fronts simultaneously, remembering that in 1948 they also tried, and with heavy fighting inside Israel, were repulsed.

    It is said that Israel had one working atom bomb in 1967.
    Last edited by Mifletz; 21 Mar 19, 03:55.

  • #2
    The outcome would have been the same, although not as fast.

    The IDF blitz in RL overshadows the fact that the Israelis had a massive advantage in training, troop quality, and above all doctrine.

    IDF tanks, dug in behind berms, would have decimated Arab tank forces trying to maneuver in open terrain.

    Another problem facing their Arabs in '67 is that their troops were not nearly as motivated as the IDF. It would not be until after the '67 war that you would see a major grunt-level motivation.

    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
      In 1967 Nasser boasted that he was going to destroy Israel, and King Hussein that on the way to throwing the Israelis in to the sea, that his troops should rape all the women. Instead the Israelis preempted with 200 jets and took out the Arab airforces, took Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan etc.

      What would have happened if the Israelis had not preempted, and simply maintained a defensive posture through June 1967? When was the Arab D Day planned for?

      How exactly did the Arabs plan to fulfil their dream, and could they have succeeded against the Israeli defences? Were the Arabs competent enough to invade on three fronts simultaneously, remembering that in 1948 they also tried, and with heavy fighting inside Israel, were repulsed.

      It is said that Israel had one working atom bomb in 1967.
      maybe a bigger defeat morally too for arabs

      atleast in 67 they can accuse israel of aggression , if they lost in an offensive war than morale in arab militaries would have sufferred tremendously.Maybe toppling of Nasser in another coup

      militarily I just do not see the arabs coordinating their attacks togather and it would probably cause the western european powers to provide more assistance to Israel in the short term atleast.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        The outcome would have been the same, although not as fast.

        The IDF blitz in RL overshadows the fact that the Israelis had a massive advantage in training, troop quality, and above all doctrine.

        IDF tanks, dug in behind berms, would have decimated Arab tank forces trying to maneuver in open terrain.

        Another problem facing their Arabs in '67 is that their troops were not nearly as motivated as the IDF. It would not be until after the '67 war that you would see a major grunt-level motivation.
        Israelis fought to survive, arabs because of their arrogance. Till arab armies are there to protect monarchies or beat their own people like in Egypt, Isreal will be safe.

        Comment


        • #5
          The tactical possibilities are tantalizing....

          In the north, Syria had the matchless advantage of the Golan Heights, and over-watch position that could have allowed direct-fire support all the way to Nazareth (if they had D-30 guns) and observation of enemy daylight movements as far as the coast in good conditions.

          In the south, a link-up between Egypt and Jordan appears possible, Be'er Shiva was fought over in WW1, perhaps General Allenby left notes that could be useful at Staff meetings in Cairo.

          However, at that point, things become very dicey. There is the heavily populated Ashod-Haifa corridor, not very rugged compared to the West Bank and with a good road-net. This actually works against the invader; with interior lines of communication the Isrealis can shuttle their assault units from one place to another in a matter of hours, as indeed they did in 1967. They could still smash enemy armies in succession if all their Airforce can do is maintain local air superiority.... and there is no reason to think they can't.

          In the end, it comes down to leadership, or the lack of it.
          The Arab nations had no great General that could take charge of all 3 armies and use them effectively. In part this was due to the political systems in the Arab countries. Israel, with it's more Western system, had a surplus of excellent leadership.
          Changing that would have been the only way to change the outcome.
          "Why is the Rum gone?"

          -Captain Jack

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            The tactical possibilities are tantalizing....

            In the north, Syria had the matchless advantage of the Golan Heights, and over-watch position that could have allowed direct-fire support all the way to Nazareth (if they had D-30 guns) and observation of enemy daylight movements as far as the coast in good conditions.

            In the south, a link-up between Egypt and Jordan appears possible, Be'er Shiva was fought over in WW1, perhaps General Allenby left notes that could be useful at Staff meetings in Cairo.

            However, at that point, things become very dicey. There is the heavily populated Ashod-Haifa corridor, not very rugged compared to the West Bank and with a good road-net. This actually works against the invader; with interior lines of communication the Isrealis can shuttle their assault units from one place to another in a matter of hours, as indeed they did in 1967. They could still smash enemy armies in succession if all their Airforce can do is maintain local air superiority.... and there is no reason to think they can't.

            In the end, it comes down to leadership, or the lack of it.
            The Arab nations had no great General that could take charge of all 3 armies and use them effectively. In part this was due to the political systems in the Arab countries. Israel, with it's more Western system, had a surplus of excellent leadership.
            Changing that would have been the only way to change the outcome.
            I dont know how important Golan would be in future, having in mind ballistic projectiles with reach of 2000km and more. Israel is in pretty small area and no way it can survive such attack.



            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Daud View Post

              I dont know how important Golan would be in future, having in mind ballistic projectiles with reach of 2000km and more. Israel is in pretty small area and no way it can survive such attack.


              My mistake, I keep calling the M-46 130mm gun a D-30 for some reason.
              That gun has a range of 27.5 km with normal ammo, and a max of 38 km with the special shells.
              Syria had over 600 of them at one point, probably a lot less now.

              Oh, ballistic missiles now?
              Sure, and they fire next, but then that begs the question; if it is too small to survive such an attack, why did anyone bother with it in the first place?

              Its like using a cannon to kill a Chicken, while a Tiger is coming up behind you....
              You know, the one that speaks Persian.
              "Why is the Rum gone?"

              -Captain Jack

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mifletz View Post
                In 1967 Nasser boasted that he was going to destroy Israel, and King Hussein that on the way to throwing the Israelis in to the sea, that his troops should rape all the women. Instead the Israelis preempted with 200 jets and took out the Arab airforces, took Sinai, the West Bank and the Golan etc.

                What would have happened if the Israelis had not preempted, and simply maintained a defensive posture through June 1967? When was the Arab D Day planned for?

                How exactly did the Arabs plan to fulfil their dream, and could they have succeeded against the Israeli defences? Were the Arabs competent enough to invade on three fronts simultaneously, remembering that in 1948 they also tried, and with heavy fighting inside Israel, were repulsed.

                It is said that Israel had one working atom bomb in 1967.
                You should provide a source for THAT claim. the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan has always fought with honor.

                The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post

                  My mistake, I keep calling the M-46 130mm gun a D-30 for some reason.
                  That gun has a range of 27.5 km with normal ammo, and a max of 38 km with the special shells.
                  Syria had over 600 of them at one point, probably a lot less now.

                  Oh, ballistic missiles now?
                  Sure, and they fire next, but then that begs the question; if it is too small to survive such an attack, why did anyone bother with it in the first place?

                  Its like using a cannon to kill a Chicken, while a Tiger is coming up behind you....
                  You know, the one that speaks Persian.

                  Because it would de double KO, and noone want to kill that number of people anyways, even Iran doesnt want to kill all jews. That is one of many zionist lies to the society.

                  Just , Golan is not that more important as it was.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X