"challenging your credentials" No, just puffing your own and illustrating the preference for the untheoretical! "I might have made a comment about decisions made at that level in the chain of command". Now, don't be coy! You didn't mean El Alamein? Never mind, sandy places all look the same don't they! But you should try to get to the Egyptian battlefields; and then tour Sinai - original sources and all that.

If any one is interested. Most of you probably know this. But for the benefit of those who don’t. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_17/articles/deatkine_arabs1.html Seems relevant ………….maybe?

Without getting into the specifics of who's got the biggest skull-penetrating skull penetrator or the best skull-penetrating tactics, I'm looking at political and strategic objectives. Unless it was Egypt's intention to lose the Sinai and up to just east of Cairo, and Syria's intention to lose the Golan Heights, the question of "who won" the Yom Kippur War seems rather obvious. The Arab forces did not regain this ground until Israel GAVE it back. Considering the Arab strategic goal - destroying Israel - never manifested itself as a reality, and the Israeli strategic goal - repelling an Arabian offensive and securing defensible positions for Israel - did, I'd say Israel won. The only reason Egypt thinks it won is because the United States pays them $2 billion a year to think so.

AK, Actually, there is a perfectly valid argument to be made that Sadat, at least, did achieve a strategic victory. Before the '73 War, there was simply no movement, whatever, towards changing the facts on the ground. Egypt would not negotiate with Israel and, absent negotiations, Israel wasn't withdrawing from the banks of Suez. After the smoke cleared, the negoations finally began and when they finished, Israel had undertaken to return Sinai to Egypt. Now, it all comes down to what we think Egyptian strategic goals really were. (Syria simply lost. Period.) I think Sadat claimed, in later years, that he needed the '73 War to "restore Arab honor", never really intending a real military victory, and, once honor had been restored, he was able, only then, to negotiate. I've never looked closely at the matter. I have no doubt Assad, in Syria, began a war intending to win the war. I have some doubts about the Egyptians not really intending to try to win, outright. I seriously doubt the Soviets provided all that expensive aid, plus training, and some of their better weapons, and took a risk of violence escalating to a NATO-Warsaw Pact level in the belief that they were helping restore Egyptian honor. But, whatever was actually intended, as far as Egypt was concerned, the war led, directly, to a series of developments which returned to them the land they had lost to Israel in 1967.

"You didn't mean El Alamein? Never mind, sandy places all look the same don't they!" I said what I meant, in simple, declarative sentences in the English language. "...the British North Africa Campaign up to El Alamein..." is what I actually wrote. I made an analogy to a specific military setting, which is well known, and has been widely written about and described in both the US and UK for more than 50 years. If the analogy is inconvenient to your argument, perhaps you could work harder to refute it, rather than misquote me?

A poor analogy for reasons shown, but hide behind others if you must. Do try to keep your temper!

"A poor analogy for reasons shown," Where? " but hide behind others if you must." I'm not hiding. I'm showing your mistake. The one you made right out in the open, where everyone can see it and ask if you just screwed up or were deliberately mistating the fact?

Slight correction to an earlier post you made--while the IDF had Centurions, they've never used the Chieftain. Their tank units in Yom Kippur consisted mostly of Centurions, Pattons, and Super Shermans. Given the early Patton's propensity to catch fire, they probably wished they had Chieftains, but I don't think even the BAOR had Chieftains in large numbers in 1973. I don't think things would have reached the level of a nuclear confrontation. The Soviet paras were brought into Damascus mainly as a warning to Israel to go no further than the Golan, which the IDF wasn't going to do anyway. The Soviets had had about enough of Egypt, and the feeling was mutual. I have read some very sober accounts from Egyptian generals that, had Sharon chose to drive the 3rd Army northwest to Cairo, there wasn't much that could have stopped him short of the city limits. In the Arab world, a tie against Israel is tantamount to a victory, so Egypt in a sense did win something too.

Thankyou for your note. The IDF did have 8 Chieftains on loan/test which were used in Sinai in one major defensive engagement and thereafter as medium artillery! Strange but true. I agre that 8 is not significant, but they were impressed with the gyro platform and laser ranger with which they were scoring 80% first round hits as well as the improved layered glacis and turret armor - one hit, no penetration. The restriction on use was largely because there wasn't much brand new 120mm ammo around and the UK Conservative govt (Ed Heath) shamefully placed a ban on all ammo exports to either side (read "Israel") which cost the UK a major tank customer - despite the obvious superiority of Centurion XII and Chieftain, Israel went 100% US and then indigenous after this betrayal.

But then the UK sold Chieftains to the Shah instead.