| |

Yom Kippur War: Sacrificial Stand in the Golan HeightsMilitary History | Single Page | 7 comments | Print This Post | Email This Post Defeat seemed to be imminent for the state of Israel. The Syrians' Soviet-style massive frontal assault was too much to bear, and the Israeli front lines had already collapsed. The Israeli general in charge of the entire front had abandoned his nearly surrounded headquarters (HQ) and retired to a makeshift command post a few kilometers back. With two Syrian brigades advancing on the headquarters and no Israeli reserves in sight, defending the headquarters–left in the hands of infantrymen supported by only two trackless tanks mustered from the camp's repair depot–seemed almost futile. On October 6, 1973, during Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, a Syrian armored force of 1,400 tanks backed by more than 1,000 artillery pieces and supporting air power began a coordinated assault along the 36-mile-long Israeli-Syrian border in the Golan Heights in the north of Israel. That attack coincided with a similar onslaught by Egyptian forces along the Suez Canal, suddenly forcing Israel to fight a two-front war. Israeli defense doctrine relies on the standing army to hold the line with air support while the reserves are mobilized. Therefore, the two Israeli brigades that stood in the Syrians' way in the Golan had the daunting task of holding off the onslaught long enough for Israel's reserve mobilization to kick in. The 7th Armored Brigade's epic defense of the northern Golan has come to be widely regarded as one of the finest defensive stands in military history. Less publicity has been given to the heroism of the shattered fragments of the 188th (Barak) Brigade in slowing the Syrian advance in the south. In some respects, however, the Barak Brigade's story is more incredible, considering the fact that hundreds of Syrian tanks had overrun its sector and were held off by only a handful of tanks. The 1973 conflict was as much about honor as it was about real estate. In the Six-Day War of June 1967, Israel had seized the Golan Heights, which Syria had turned into one large network of bunkers and artillery positions. For years, Syrian gunners, shooting at random and without provocation, would fire on Israeli fishermen plying their trade on the Sea of Galilee or at Israeli farmers in the Hula Valley below. In a costly uphill battle, the Israelis swept out the Syrian defenders and put an end to the harassment. The loss of the Golan Heights in 1967, however, had been humiliating to Syria. Between 1967 and 1973, there were frequent skirmishes along the cease-fire line. For months leading up to its attack, the Syrian army had been fully mobilized and on war alert. Since the Israelis were accustomed to seeing those forces at battle strength, the Syrians were able to make final attack preparations without sending noteworthy warning signals. Furthermore, with tensions escalating between the two countries, Israeli leadership feared that strengthening its defenses might be misconstrued as preparation for a pre-emptive strike, thus provoking the Syrians to attack. The Golan Heights are made up of a 480-square-mile volcanic (basalt) rock plateau perched above the Hula Valley to the west and Jordan Valley to the south. It rises gently from 600 feet in the south to 3,000 feet in the north, with abrupt escarpments dominating the valleys to the west and south. It is transected in some areas by impassable canyons, limiting the number of routes leading up from the valleys to the heights. Since the heights' geography restricted defensive mobility, Israel continued its advance against the routed Syrians in 1967 until a defensible line was reached–a string of extinct volcano cones that commands strategic views of Damascus on one side and of all northern Israel on the other. Israeli defenses were based on 17 fortified observation posts. The Purple Line, as the 1967 cease-fire line was known, marked the end of the no man's land separating Syria from the Golan. Lacking a true defensive barrier, the Israelis had dug a 20-mile-long anti-tank ditch along the border from Mount Hermon to Rafid, an obstacle Syrian armor would be forced to cross under fire from Israeli tanks positioned behind ramparts. At the outbreak of hostilities in 1973, the Golan Heights were defended by two armored brigades: the 7th, which had only been dispatched to the northern sector on October 4, and the 188th (Barak) Brigade, a regular fixture intimately familiar with the area's terrain, in the south. The modified Centurion and M-48 Patton tanks fielded by both brigades were fitted with the 105mm NATO gun and modern diesel engines. Considering the faulty Israeli intelligence assessment that, at most, armed skirmishes with the Syrians would break out, the 170 tanks and 70 artillery pieces in the Golan were thought to be enough to meet any Syrian threats, at least until the reserves would arrive. Against that comparatively small force, the Syrian army fielded five divisions for its attack: two armored and three mechanized infantry, including some 1,400 tanks. Approximately 400 of those tanks were T-62s, the most modern Soviet-bloc tank at the time, equipped with a 115mm smoothbore gun and infrared night-fighting capability. The balance were T-54s and T-55s armed with 100mm guns. The Syrian plan called for its 5th, 7th and 9th mechanized infantry divisions, in BTR-50 armored personnel carriers (APCs) supported by 900 tanks, to breach the Israeli lines, opening the way for the 1st and 3rd armored divisions to move in with their 500 tanks to capture the entire Golan Heights before Israel had a chance to mobilize. At 2 p.m. on October 6, Syrian gunners opened up a tremendous barrage along the entire front as a prelude to their two-pronged attack–a northern one in the vicinity of the Kuneitra-Damascus road and one in the south where Rafid bulges into Syria. Facing Colonel Avigdor Ben-Gal's 7th Armored Brigade in the Golan's northern sector were the Syrian 3rd Armored Division under Brig. Gen. Mustapha Sharba, the 7th Mechanized Infantry Division and the Assad Republican Guard. When the Syrian assault began, mine-clearing tanks and bridge-layers led the way to overcome the Israeli obstacles. Naturally, those engineering vehicles were the 7th's first targets, but Syrian infantrymen, braving intense fire from the heights, rushed forward and used their entrenching tools to build up enough earthen causeways for their tanks to negotiate the Israeli anti-tank ditches. While the Israelis took out every Syrian vehicle they could get into their sights, the sheer mass of some 500 enemy tanks and 700 APCs advancing toward their lines ensured that the defenses would be overwhelmed. The number of defenders dwindled as Israeli tanks were knocked out, yet the vastly outnumbered Israelis managed to take a heavy toll on Syrian armor. In spite of their heavy losses, the Syrians pressed their attack without letup, yet the overexerted 7th managed to hold its ground, throwing stopgap blocking actions wherever the Syrians were on the verge of breaking through. When darkness fell, the Israelis had nothing to match the Syrians' night-vision gear and had to allow the enemy armor to advance to ranges effective for night fighting. In the close fighting, the Syrians succeeded in seizing some of the high ground, but a counterattack by the small group of persistent defenders forced them back. When some Syrian tanks did overrun the Israeli lines, the 7th's gunners would rotate their turrets to destroy them and then immediately turn their attention back to other oncoming tanks. It amounted to an armored version of hand-to-hand combat. The battle raged for two more days as the Syrians, seemingly oblivious to their heavy losses, continued their assault without letup. By the afternoon of October 9, the 7th Brigade was down to six tanks protecting what was for all intents and purposes a clear path into Israel's north. Those last few tanks fought until they were down to their last rounds. Then, just as the 7th Brigade tanks were finally starting to pull back, they were suddenly augmented by an impromptu force of some 15 tanks. The Syrians believed the clock had run out and that the first of the fresh Israeli reservists had arrived, and the Syrian offensive ran out of steam. In truth, it was a motley force of repaired tanks crewed by injured and other crewman, which had been mustered by Lt. Col. Yossi Ben-Hanan, a veteran commander who, upon hearing about the outbreak of war, had hurried home from his honeymoon overseas. By virtue of its timing, that force proved to be the 7th Brigade's saving grace. As individual tanks began to augment the Israeli forces, the Syrians, exhausted from three days of continuous fighting and unaware of how close to victory they actually were, turned in retreat. Hundreds of destroyed tanks and APCs littering the valley below the Israeli ramparts were testimony to the horrible destruction that had taken place there, leading an Israeli colonel to dub it the 'Valley of Tears.' Meanwhile, the Syrians, whose objectives included seizing the bridges spanning the Jordan River (most of which could be easily reached through the southern Golan), concentrated a large part of their attack in that sector. Up against hundreds of enemy tanks in a line of armor as far as the eye could see, the Barak Brigade crews had no choice but to hold fast, because the terrain did not allow for much defensive maneuvering. Retreat would give the Syrians nearly free reign to seize the entire heights and move on the Israeli settlements in the valley below. The Syrian advance was initially slowed by an Israeli minefield and by deadly, accurate cannon fire. With dozens of Syrian tanks destroyed, the first few hours of the war were encouraging for the Israeli crewmen–their intense training was paying off. Knowing they would be outnumbered in any engagement, the Israeli tankers had trained relentlessly on gunnery skills and rapid target acquisition to ensure kills on the first shot. Undeterred by their losses, however, the Syrians kept coming, apparently convinced that, if worst came to worst, the mass of their onslaught would ultimately overwhelm the defenders. When fighter aircraft were called in to help stem the flow of Syrian armor, many of the Douglas A-4 Skyhawks and McDonnell F-4E Phantoms that responded to the plea were shot down or damaged by the Syrians' dense anti-aircraft umbrella. Aware that Israeli doctrine relied on air power to even the score against the Syrian numerical advantage, the Syrians had acquired massive quantities of the latest Soviet missile and anti-aircraft systems. With the help of Soviet advisers, they created an air defense network over the Golan that was thicker than the one protecting Hanoi during the Vietnam War. With their air support thus limited, the tankers were on their own–and the fate of northern Israel was in their hands. The Israeli tanks stood their ground and were knocked out one by one. Pushed beyond their limits, the defenses in the southern sector broke. Bypassing the Israeli fortifications and pouring through gaps in the defenses, Syrian tanks pushed through the Israeli lines onto a wide-open plain that was ideal for tanks. The Iraelis knew that they had to hold on at all costs to allow time for the reserves to mobilize, and in many cases the tank crews sacrificed themselves rather than give ground. As the hours passed, fewer and fewer Israeli tanks were left to stem the tide of oncoming tanks. The Syrian force split into a two-pronged advance. Colonel Tewfik Jehani's 1st Armored Division moved northward toward the Golan command headquarters of Maj. Gen. Rafael Eitan, situated on the road leading down to the Bnot Yaakov Bridge, over the Jordan River and into the Israeli hinterland. The second prong of the Syrian attack, spearheaded by the 46th Armored Brigade of the 5th Infantry Division, moved south from Rafid on the southern access road toward El Al, with units breaking off toward the north in the direction of the Arik Bridge at the northern tip of the Sea of Galilee. Some 600 tanks were now engaged in the southern Golan, against which stood 12 tanks and isolated units that had been cut off near the various fortifications along the line. Night offered no respite from the Syrian advance as they capitalized on their advantage of sophisticated night-vision equipment. The Israeli crews' long-distance firing efficiency was hampered by their lack of adequate night-fighting equipment. They did their best to overcome this obstacle by ordering illumination rounds to light up the sky, in conjunction with the xenon light projectors mounted on their tanks. Those were no match for the Syrians' infrared searchlights, so the Israelis did what they do best–improvise. They directed small tank units to carry out stopgap blocking actions against the far superior enemy forces–a tactic that may have prevented the Syrians from overrunning the entire Golan. Subscribe Today
Tags: 20th - 21st Century, Historical Conflicts
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
What is HistoryNet?The HistoryNet.com is brought to you by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines. HistoryNet.com contains daily features, photo galleries and over 5,000 articles originally published in our various magazines. If you are interested in a specific history subject, try searching our archives, you are bound to find something to pique your interest. |
From Our Magazines
|
Weider History Group |
Weider History Network: HistoryNet | Armchair General | Great History | Achtung Panzer! Terms of Use | Copyright © 2009 Weider History Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. |
||
7 Comments to “Yom Kippur War: Sacrificial Stand in the Golan Heights”
An infrequently noted by product of the Yom Kippur war is that its aftermath witnessed the virtual dashing of any serious "peace" in the Middle East.
The Ramadam war, as it is known in Arab countries, was the inevitable outcome of the Arab defeat in the 1967 war and was meant, primarily, to liberate Israeli occupied lands of both Egypt, the Sinai, and Syria, the Golan.
Those objectives were substantially achieved or, at least, field military developments made them a distinct possibility.
UNTIL the USA intervened with massive military aid to Israel to redress the military situation to Israel’s benefits and thus frustrate any possibility of a negotiated settlement between two "equal partners" as distinct from negotiations between the “victor” and the “vanquished” !
The former setting in which both parties, the Arab side and the Israeli, would have been disillusioned would have provided the ONLY setting at which both sides would have had to succumb to the realities of the overall situation and concluded what both parties would have claimed to be to their respective constituencies an "honourable'" settlement.
America's pro Israel intervention to frustrate what was a plain Arab “liberation war”, initiated by US Secretary of State Kissinger, only bolstered and magnified Israeli illusions, ambitions and designs that led to the construction of more and bigger Settlements and upheld the vision of a greater Israel in Israeli circles while further antagonizing the Arab side, particularly the Arab masses, and depicting the USA as their prime enemy!
The rest is HISTORY with meaningless and practically insignificant peace treaties and an escalating conflict in which major regional entities now have a major stake.
By Omar Ibrahim on Dec 2, 2008 at 3:12 am
I suppose Mr. Ibrahim's suppositions can be argued round or flat, but it should be noted that the 1973 October War took place within the context of the Cold War. If memory serves, the USA did replenish Israeli stocks, as did the Soviet Union for the Arabs.
I also remember that a peace (of sorts) did come out of that war, specifically the Egyptian-Israeli accord that may not be to everyone's liking, but is certainly far better than the state of war that existed prior to it.
As to the war itself, it would be hard to characterize a winner, not that it matters 35 years later. The Israelis drove back the Syrians in the Golan and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army in Sinai. Still, nothing can match militarily the Egyptian Army's canal crossing on 6 October 1973.
Mr. Ibrahim sounds Palestinian… folks who tend to blame others for the lack of peace in the area. The West keeps pushing Israel toward a "two-state solution" while the Palestinians seem incapable of moving past their "one-state solution." Like Mr. Ibrahim, I hold out little hope for a peaceful compromise. Perhaps our grandchildren will see it.
By William Northrop on Dec 11, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Reading William Northrop's response to Omar Ibrahim, one can not help but notice the prejudiced and bigoted comment towards the end in which Mr. Northrop claims that Ibrahim sounds Palestinian and that Palestinians, the victims of this conflict, are folks who tend to blame others.
There is no peace without justice, Mr. Northrop.
I hope our grandchildren will not espouse the prejudice displayed in your message.
Historynet is not objective when it comes to covering this conflict. Their account is blatantly biased towards Israel.
By Karim Moroccan on Feb 11, 2009 at 1:42 am
Have not checked back on this site for several months, so forgive my tardiness in responding to Mr. Moroccan's last missive. Prejudice, Mr. Moroccan? Yes, well perhaps, but pardon me if I drop the name calling and refuse to argue over which olive tree belonged to whom and when. Like you, I believe there can be no peace without justice. I am an American and over 500 of our citizens were killed by the PLO during the two Reagan Administrations alone. (That does not count 9-11 and those killed since then.) Very few were supporters of Israel and there was not one "Crusader" among them. So, who do we see about "justice" for them, Mr. Moroccan?
The argument is not over Israel or American support for the Jewish State. The argument is over the Western influence in the Middle East … you and I both know that.
In truth, I would be happy to leave you Arabs to your own devices, but you keep killing our citizens and it is hard for us to figure out why. So, prejudice, Mr. Moroccan? You bet. Me and the rest of the West, which does not agree with you or your methods.
By William Northrop on Mar 23, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I am 26 years old now and I was born and raised in the Philippines, a country also torn by not only one but numerous armed conflicts over the course of history. To be honest I love looking at the past especially if it comes to war and peace. Recently, I was able to get a hold of a video that gives in-depth analysis of the Yom Kippur war.
Pulling back time as far there was no goverment in the middle east region who was and is interested in achieving peace internally and externally. I say that because when you look at the past governments or administrations there was no move, lobbying or government-sponsored initiative to promote peace in the region. Survival alone is not enough especially for those who are arguing about land and territory.
We live in a world that grows smaller everyday. We get closer together by the internet, population explosion and migration. My hope is we stop blaming and start looking at the right approach toward peace. This is through unified effort to rid ourselves of extreme thinking but be moderate and painstakingly wise in our decisions. Again, it is easy for a normal citizen like myself. As I talk Notter is still with the Abu Sayyaff and some people evacuate. All these man-made acts done in the name of God!
By Jaspah on May 23, 2009 at 4:01 am
Something rarely mentioned is Israel's massive attacks on cities along Suez canal during occupation of Sinia prior to 1973 war. High toll in Egyptian civilian deaths caused evacuation of almost a million people. In one incident Israel bombed a girls' school with many deaths.
As always claimed it being an error,as Israel always claims.
Also as important to note that the Israeli 1967 attack on EGYPT followed a 1956 Israel attack in collusion with the UK and France.Follwing 1956 war France would give Israel a nuclear reactor which would evolve into an illegal WMD program . Discovering Israel's secret WMD program,JFK would threaten sanctions against Israel before his asassination in 1963.In 1967 Israel is puported to have had two primitive Nuclear devices as a fallaback position,if sneak attack on it's 3 neighbors failed.
By 1973 in Egypt there was no doubt of Israeli belligerent intent.
Only in the West did Israeli spin gain Traction.
That same spin was used to get US into Iraq and same group has Iran in crosshairs.
According to The Christian Science Monitor,Israel has cost the US TAXPAYER over $1.3 TRILLION since 1973.
Also never mentioned!
By bruce on Jul 16, 2009 at 9:51 am