The second part of this article covered the artillery and engineering efforts along the Canal. In the final segment we will cover the air forces, the surface-to-air missile belt and the involvement of the superpowers.

Air Forces

Again the force pool of the belligerents closely reflected the force pool of their patrons. The Egyptian Air Force (EAF) used Soviet equipment while the Israeli Air Force (IAF) came to rely heavily on newly supplied American A-4 and F-4 aircraft.

The initial Israeli air strikes at the onset of the Six Day War devastated the EAF. The first IAF wave destroyed 189 aircraft on the ground and 8 MiG-21s in the air; the second wave destroyed an additional 107 aircraft at 14 bases. During the initial airattacks, thelsraelishad reduced the turn-around time for their aircraft to an amazing 7 1/2 minutes! This Arab debacle forced the Soviet Union to rebuild the EAF, a task they accomplished with amazing speed.

The Soviet Union supplied MiG17s, MiG-21s, and Su-7s to the Egyptians, but refused to supply the more advanced MiG-23s and MiG-25s, much to the frustration of the Egyptian leadership. Additionally, the Soviets required cash payment for many weapons systems, including aircraft, or provided credit with very stiff terms for others. (The Soviets seem to have had a firm grasp of capitalism). Despite the harsh Soviet terms, Egypt had taken possession of about 650 Russiar aircraft by the eve of the Yom Kippur War.

The IAF was able to shoot down large numbers of the Egyptian aircraft that rose to challenge them during the "War of Attrition" [1968-70]. It wouldn't be until December 9th, 1967 that an Egyptian MiG was finally able to best an Israeli Phantom in combat. Clearly the EAF could not take on the IAF aircraft for aircraft and prevail. The planners of "Operatior Badr," the assault against Israel, had to take into account the Egyptian Air Force's inferiority to Israel's as an integral part of the operation plans.

The Operation Badr plan for the October War limited the EAF to a large number of initial air strikes on the first day, with the sortie rate diminishing on each succeeding day. At 1400 hours local time Egyptian aircraft launched a series of air strikes in the Sinai with the intention of disrupting Israeli command and control activities, thus delaying the Israeli response. Overall these attacks seemed to have yielded mixed results, inflicting little serious damage. Afterwards the Egyptian Air Force would launch occasional sorties in the Sinai, but it was generally held back to protect against Israeli deep penetration raids.

The IAF was to become a major component of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) structure, and Israeli troops called it the "flying artillery." Given the size of the theater, the proximity of IAF bases, and the sophistication of IDF command and control, even junior officers could rely on close air support within minutes of their requests.

Due to this reliance on ground support, the IDF artillery forces did not receive a high priority in equipment and manpower. This would prove to be a mistake that cost the IDF dearly during the war. Many pilots engaged targets that artillery could have destroyed and troops suffered greatly due to a lack of supporting fire.

The IAF still held numbers of French Super Mysteres and Mirages; however, since the 1967 war the Americans assumed the role of Israel's main patron.

With the new American backing, Israel took possession of increasing numbers of A4Q Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom II aircraft. Unfortunately the electronic pods the Americans developed to deal with the surface-to-air missile (SAM ) threat in Vietnam where not supplied in sufficient numbers to help the IAF defeat the Egyptian SAM belt.

Egypt never really challenged the IAF in the Sinai, and Israel retained air superiority over the Sinai Peninsula through out the campaign. The Egyptian SAM belt effectively held the IAF away from the Canal Zone through a large portion of the war. The IAF could not fully make their power felt until the Israeli ground forces punched a hole in the SAM belt. This is the only case that I am aware of where SAMs were able to provide effective offensive antiaircraft defense.

This is not to say that the IAF didn't attempt to launch attacks along the Canal. Numerous air strikes where launched against the bridges and ground troops and lead to a high attrition rate of Israeli aircraft. Israel lost a total of 103 aircraft in the war, with only 21 being lost in the air-to-air contest and the balance to SAMs and Antiaircraft Artillery (AAA).

Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs)

Following the poor performance of the EAF during the War of Attrition, it was clear that any Egyptian attack would be at the mercy of the IAF. Clearly the planners would have to find a solution to this dilemma or risk certain failure. The Soviets suggested the construction of what would become the densest SAM belt in the world (even surpassing the SAM belt around Moscow). The Egyptian antiaircraft missile defenses included 420 SA-2 "GUIDELINE," 220 SA-3 "GOA," 40 SA-6 "GAINFUL" and some 600 SA-7 "GRAIL" missiles. Egypt also held numerous AAA assets, the most significant of which were 50 mobile ZSU-23-4s capable of engaging low level targets.

The SA-2 GUIDELINE, first introduced by the Soviet Union in 1957, is launched from a fixed site. This weapon has a flight envelope that extends to an altitude of 28 kilometers (km). The missile uses a radio-controlled guidance system and packs a 130 kg warhead. Due to these missiles' large size, pilots referred to GUIDELINEs as "flying telephone poles," and, when they detected them, avoided them easily. Interlocking sites would launch these missiles in swarms, making evasion more difficult.

The SA-3 GOA, first introduced by Moscow in 1964, is launched from a fixed site. This missile has a flight envelope that extends to an altitude of 12.5 km at Mach 3.5. The missile is radio controlled and contains a 60 kg warhead. This weapon served as the low-to-medium altitude complement to the SA2 and when interlaced within the SAM belt was quite effective.

The SA-6 GAINFUL was first fielded in 1967 and its supply to Egypt so quickly indicated how seriously the Soviets evaluated the threat from the IAF. The weapon is mobile and designed to defeat low-level aircraft. The missile holds a 80 kg warhead and is extremely effective between 30 and 18,000 meters. Additionally, the launcher can launch and track three missiles simultaneously.

The SA-7 GRAIL (STRELLA) is a man-portable missile designed to engage low flying aircraft with an infrared homing system. The entire weapon weighs only 33 Ibs, and due to its small warhead this weapon mainly caused damage (rather than outright destruction) to the IAF aircraft, necessitating downtime for repairs.

The IDF was not without its own SAMs, relying on the American Hawk missile. This weapon uses a proximity-fused HE warhead and only needs to detonate near an aircraft to destroy it. I have never heard of an account of an IDF Hawk destroying an Egyptian aircraft (although I'm sure it occurred at some point in the war). The Hawk's main value appears to have been in protecting the IDF C3I points and logistic sites, with most ground units relying on AAA units for anti-aircraft protection.

The effectiveness of the Egyptian SAM belt is legendary. It effectively provided forward air protection for the ground forces during the initial stages of the conflict. As indicated above, the IAF SAM suppression was marginally effective at best, and the SAM belt's defeat only occurred at the hands of the ground troops who punched holes in the network.

The Superpowers

During the initial stages of the October War, the superpowers confined themselves to logistical and diplomatic support of the belligerents. The Soviets seemed to respond very quickly to the Arab need for resupply with an airlift that began on the October 9th.

The Soviets' quick response lead the Israelis to accuse the Soviets of collusion with the Arabs. In fact the first resupply of El-Al flights at the Norfolk Naval Air Station could also be traced back to October 9th, the same day as the Russian effort. Evidently the American resupply effort quickly met and then exceeded that of the Soviet Union: so much for the myth of a preplanned Soviet resupply effort.

It would appear that the high consumption rate of munitions, especially Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs), caught all concerned by surprise. Even though the Russian effort seemed better organized in the initial stages, by the end of the war the superior American lift capability prevailed. By the October 24th the United States Air Force transported 22,400 tons of equipment, with El-Al transporting 5,500 tons. Both launched 815 sorties through the conflict. In contrast the Soviet airlift to both the Egyptians and Syrians amounted to 16,000 tons with 935 sorties.

More troubling would be the superpower nuclear alert at the close of the conflict. With the IDF ignoring the United Nations cease- fire resolution and continuing to surround the Egyptian Third Army, Moscow felt compelled to act. President Brezhnev sent a threatening telegram to President Nixon on the October 24th. Supposedly the telegram included the following: "If the Israelis are not going to adhere to the cease-fire let us work together to impose a cease-fire, if necessary by force." American intelligence observed signs of a Soviet airborne alert.

With President Nixon embroiled in the Watergate scandal, Secretary of State Kissinger was given wide latitude in handling the conflict. Kissinger informed the President that the National Security Council (NSC) suggested a limited nuclear alert. It seemed that unilateral Soviet action was imminent and that only a strong American reaction could prevent it. With many American ground units stripped of their equipment to resupply the IDF, America's options where limited, and only a few elite units held the capability to reach the Canal.

In the final event the American nuclear alert sent the right message to Moscow, and cooler heads prevailed. All parties agreed to the UN cease-fire, thus saving the Egyptian Third Army from destruction. The superpower ground forces included in the game are an enhancement put in place by Dean; these units do represent the types of forces that could have been expected to intervene in the Canal Zone. I believe they make for an interesting variant on the historic result.

Name	Date Introduced	Launched from	Envelope	Guidance	Warhead
SA-2 GUIDELINE	1957	fixed site	28 kilometers (km)	radio-controlled	130 kg
SA-3 GOA	1964	fixed site	12.5 km at Mach 3.5	radio controlled	60 kg
SA-6 GAINFUL	1967	mobile	30 to 18,000 meter	radio controlled	80 kg
SA-7 GRAIL	--	man-portable	--	IR homing system	less than 33 lbs.

More Weapons

Part 1: Armored, Infantry, and Recon Units
Part 2: Artillery and Engineers
Part 3: Air Forces, SAMs, and the Superpowers

Related:

Letter rebuttal (#25).