Arab-Israeli Conflict

[michael63000]

So, 1949, Palestine didn't Exist, Gaza Strip was part of Egypt and West bank was part of Jordan, at 1967 will Israel attack Egypt Syria and Jordon and take the lands historically and will they declare peace like it happened in real life? Will AI Countries ask for peace when their countries are being devastated? How bout the 1973 war? Will The changes of territory be shown, Egypt crossing the canal and defeating Israel? Will all that be shown?

How bout the tanks and stuff, what will the armies of let's say USA, Russia, Israel and Egypt compose of? It's going to be great researching tanks that exist today but not in the game. M60 tanks for USA FOR THE WIN!

Will the game be released soon?

[Balthagor]

The release date is listed as Q2, 2011.

We're not ready yet to get into specific details on stuff like your asking.

One point of clarification, Israel was attacked in 1967, it did not attack first.

[michael63000]

Actually, Israel was the one who struck first in 1967, they launched a pre-emptive attack using their air force to destroy the airforces of the arab nations. The Arab nations were just provoking Israel by massing on it's borders.

So you can't give info? Okay, best way to wait this out is play Call of Duty Black Ops until it gets released LOL.

[Balthagor]

Ah, your right. My mistake, wrong conflict.

Have fun, we hope to have info on at least some areas before long.

[michael63000]

Ah, your right. My mistake, wrong conflict.

Have fun, we hope to have info on at least some areas before long.

Were you talking about the 1973 war? Yes Egypt and Syria did attack Israel by surprise and dealt heavy casualties at first, but then Israel pushed back the Syrians and illegally crossed the Suez Canal without engaging Egyptian forces (The Egyptian Armies were mostly stationary during the crossing, However Israel was forced to withdraw by the UN from West bank and the victor on the West front was Egypt since they gained more land, but Syria lost land, making it a neutral outcome. Even though Egypt lost more soldiers than Israel, it was like the battle of Kursk, Soviets lost 1 Million troops, Germans lost 177,000 troops, Soviets still won.

Oh by the way, make us proud sir, make us play SRCW to death.

About the M60 tanks, does Israel have M60 tanks? Israel's army will be composed of Centurion A41's, M48 Patton's, M60A1 Patton's and Old M40 WW2 tanks, Sheron or whatever they are called. Aircraft will be F86 sabres, F4 phantoms and A4 Skyhawks by the 1960's. Will Israel have all that? Will Egypt have T-55's, IS-3's and T-62s, and Mig 17's. 19's and 21's? as well as Tu-16 Bombers? Fun, replaying the October War.

[Balthagor]

yes, was thinking of 1973.

The Israeli orbat (order of battle) isn't completed yet, but we are working hard as ever to assure accuracy.

[michael63000]

Thank you, you rock!

[AEWHistory]

Just to clarify about the 1967 war, while Israel "fired the first shot" there were multiple casus belli by the Arabs: closing the Straits of Tiran, the removal of the UN force in Sinai, a spike in Syrian cross-border activity in the Hula valley, and, arguably, the massing of forces along Israel's border.* Consequently, this is undoubtedly an Arab declaration of war on Israel. There is a great deal of effort, along with some historiography, that argues that this was a war initiated by Israel, but no respectable scholar of military history or foreign relations believes that, myself included.

*- although one can argue that simply amassing one's own forces, within one's own borders, near another nation's borders is not a justifiable casus belli, this is not historically true, nor is it a reasonable position from human psychology, foreign policy, and issues of logistics. In fact, the ONLY significant case in history where one or a group of nations have massed on another nation's border and attempted to claim that this was not an act of war is with the Arab states in 1967. Conversely, Stalin was afraid of giving the Germans a casus belli in 1941 that he not only did not allow the Soviet army to form up along its shared border with Germany--because this could be interpreted as hostile and therefore justify a German invasion--but he didn't even allow the Soviet's to redeploy AWAY from the border. Instead the army was left stationary in the unfortunate hope of defusing the inevitable German invasion.

[AEWHistory]

........then Israel pushed back the Syrians and illegally crossed the Suez Canal without engaging Egyptian forces (The Egyptian Armies were mostly stationary during the crossing, However Israel was forced to withdraw by the UN from West bank and the victor on the West front was Egypt since they gained more land, but Syria lost land, making it a neutral outcome. Even though Egypt lost more soldiers than Israel, it was like the battle of Kursk, Soviets lost 1 Million troops, Germans lost 177,000 troops, Soviets still won.

There was absolutely nothing "illegal" about Israel's crossing of Suez! That's like saying the Allies illegally invaded France on D-day or the British illegally crossed the Hudson into New Jersey in 1776. When two nations are at war you generally don't get to call "no fair" or "out of bounds." The only exceptions to this are things like hospitals and whatnot, but even this is fairly modern and only partly respected; it certainly doesn't apply to the entire invading nation. Surgeon General's Warning: Initiation of war may lead to injury, participate at your own risk!

I think I understand what you mean by the Israelis not engaging the Egyptians, but this is really poorly stated. Moreover, the Egyptian army was "stationary" because they needed to stay under their SAM umbrella. Egypt possessed significant armored and mechanized forces in 1973, and these were overwhelming deployed in Sinai. However, a detachment of these forces were mauled after going on the offensive at the Syrians behest and this created a small opening between the two Egyptian armies. The Israelis took advantage of this opening, pryed it open, and placed units on the west side of Suez and effectively surrounded the 3rd Army (if memory serves). Israel broke a ceasfire in order the expand its bridgehead in Africa, and perhaps this is what you're thinking of as illegal. OTOH, the Egyptians also violated the UN cease fire, so this is effectively a wash.

As for who won, militarily the war was a wash, politically it was an Egyptian victory, although the Syrians made minor gains as well.

There are many reasons why the '73 war turned out the way it did, but to be frank I don't think you've got a very nuanced understanding on the situation. For instance, Israeli military doctrine had swung violently in favor of the tank, effectively forsaking infantry support. This meant that their doctrine at the start of the war was deeply flawed, but it was also exactly weakest in ways that would make Egyptian and Syrian doctrine strongest. What the Israelis were able to do--this is Israel's strength--is simply change doctrine on the fly. Conversely, the Arab armies not only could not change doctrine on the fly, they were wedded to their scripted attack. Once that was played out, they had serious problems.

[SoB]

Persnaly i bielfie the Arabs lost the 1973 because they faild in there goal of wipeing israil of the map. Is there any truth the claim that irail had nukes load on aircraft and airborn during the 1973 yom kip war, to be used to bring the arbs down in the event of defeat (sort of like sampson bible story)

[Balthagor]

As this is not become a discussion of history, it is moving to off topic.

[The Khan]

Persnaly i bielfie the Arabs lost the 1973 because they faild in there goal of wipeing israil of the map. Is there any truth the claim that irail had nukes load on aircraft and airborn during the 1973 yom kip war, to be used to bring the arbs down in the event of defeat (sort of like sampson bible story)

They wouldn't win anyway. Attacking a nation with a nuke is a bad idea at the start.

[SoB]

[quote="The Khan"][/quote]

Who said attack it would have been a last final act of vegance targeting civlens, miltrie hell even mecca and all with out fear reprasil beacse there wouled no longer be a nation of israil to obliterate because there would no longer be a israil. The goal behind the strike would not be victory but punshment of the arabs for beating israil. The attack would have been poke in the eye
(With a sword) of a defeated nation it would have been beytiefull and terrabill act by the now dead

[Col_Travis]

Persnaly i bielfie the Arabs lost the 1973 because they faild in there goal of wipeing israil of the map. Is there any truth the claim that irail had nukes load on aircraft and airborn during the 1973 yom kip war, to be used to bring the arbs down in the event of defeat (sort of like sampson bible story)

The Israelis didn't have any nukes at this time, they lit several tires on fire and claimed they had succesfully tested a nuclear bomb in the Negev desert. As for the Arabs goals, they were different for each of the Arab states involved: the young King Hussien of Jordan was pressured into a war that he did not want and violated a treaty that his grandfather, King Faisal had signed giving all of the territory currently under Israeli control; Egypt wanted total control of the Suez canal and Syria wanted to drive the Israelis into the sea.