I tend to find some points in israeli-weapons.com that i disagree with. As far as i know the israel tank force in 67 was predominantly Israeli SuperShermans and only a few centurions had arrived in time. THer is mention on how a move was made tohugh one night to reach Jeruslaem's old city with an armoured column of shermans and half thracks through a rocky steep ravine. The trends to a number of tanks broke. But it makes specific mention of a handful of new centurions centurions that had just got off the boat, but IDF tankers had no training on, they were the first to break down or get stuck in this maneuver. Also in 67 the IDF faced 44 PAtton tanks from Jordon not Centurions. One commnder gives his account on how they could see msot of their shots bouncing off the Patton's amrour.

It is pleasing to see a decent discussion of the thread: Golan Heights 1973 and of the prime success factor in that battle which was the Centurion. It was not my intention (sigh!) to start a debate on the origins of Centurion. I am aware that Centurion started life in the dark days of WW2 (who isnt?), but the period under discussion is 1973 not 1943. Perhaps I should have said "intended", "used for", "constantly upgunned and up-armored to MK5 etc etc standard and beyond" for the purpose of defeating Soviet armor, in cooperation with Israel, but frankly that all seemed a trifle obvious. So those who believe that "designed for" only means 1943 and not the quite different Centurion of 1973 may take their point, abstruse as is is, as read. Centurion - with all its upgrades of gun,armor,engine, etc - was designed to defeat Soviet armor. But the point is the Golan, and with anything but Centurion, the result may have been quite different. P.S. The British had Sperry gyro stabilized platforms and laser range finders in service weel before the US P.P.S. The US paid the UK licence fees for the use of these systems and, as another abstruse detail, we are still paying RO/Vickers licence fees today for the use of the latest versions of their gyro-platform, lead computer core and armor technology in Abrams. Ask ITT, UTX and GD.

I have to disagree with you point 'if they had naything other than Centurions' because in the battel for the Golan many shermans, especially from reserve units took part.

'anything other than Centurions' I once watched a Israli tank battalion commander describing fighting his M48 tank unit on the 2d day of the Golan battle. if I remember correctly his battlion was reduced 75% that day. The following morning he was able to find just eight tanks to make a counter attack with, and imeadiatly lost five of them. Some of the things he attributed to winning the battle for him: The Syrian tank units halted at incomprehensible times. The Syrians had poor gunnery skills, but would still engage in shootouts, even when it was obvious they were being massacred. The Syrians would either advance directly towards their objective, irregradless of the Israli tank positions, or they would halt and try to have a gunnery duel. He could not recall the Syrians making much use of manuver to get an positional advantage on the Israli tanks.

"in the battel for the Golan many shermans, especially from reserve units took part" This say nothing. Answer these:- 1. Why do you think the IDF put Shermans in RESERVE units? 2. What would have happened if IDF had ONLY Shermans? 3. If the US was happy to supply Shermans for next to nothing (which we did) why did the IDF pay good money for Centurions?

"1. Why do you think the IDF put Shermans in RESERVE units?" The IDF does not BUY worse tanks for hteir reserve units. Thats not very smart. Rather sherman were for the longest time the main (and only) battle tank for the IDF and Israel had an easier time purchasing old WWII tanks no one wanted and upgrading them and maintaining them, then to convince any nation to sell them new modern tanks. There was huge reluctance to sell heavy arms to Israel early on until Israel managed to clsoe a deal with the centurion. So what happens when a new tank in brought it it replaces the weakest tanks and those tanks go into the reserves (possibly replcing weaker tanks in reserve divisions). When the merkava mk4 came to hte IDF it replaced the magach 6b (highly upgraded patton m60) and those tanks were put into the reserves. I beleive that answers question 1 "2. What would have happened if IDF had ONLY Shermans?" The Israel would have had a tougher time, but the shermans' guns had by 73' been upgraded to 105mm and so if Israel's gunnery and maneuver stay ahead of the syrians there is a good change they still owuld have won but at a greater cost. 3. If the US was happy to supply Shermans for next to nothing (which we did) why did the IDF pay good money for Centurions? Like i said the shermans are WWII tanks which means their design by 73' is three decades old. Israel had to keep uo with the modernisation of its military.

I'm actually looking for a detailed topography map of the Golan heights to laminate. Does anyone know of where I cna get one? Xmas is coming and all that cheers

i did a quick search and found this, hope it helps. http://www.cartographic.com/xq/ASP/MapID./AreaID.33/RegionID.134/CategoryID.3/ProductID.9/qx/data/topographic/maps/catalog.asp

hey thanks brittle steel cheers