Israeli preparation for war with Syria was less extensive than the Egyptian preparations, because the border was smaller (Approximately 80 miles vs. 40 miles) in comparison to the Egyptian-Israeli border. (See Figure 2. Israel - Syria Border). Israel built fortified Jewish settlements in the Golan. Anticipating Syriawould attack with armor, Israel made obstacles, tank traps, and minefields. Reinforced bunkers and tank placements were created. The battlefield plan was laid out with interlocking fields of fire to halt any Syrian advance. Israel had made peace with Jordan so there was no perceived need to fortify the Israel-Jordan border.
Egyptian troop and installation preparations during the War of Attrition were in direct contrast to Israel’s Bar-Lev Line. Egypt did not anticipate a large scale attack across the Suez Canal so there was no need for the equivalent of a Bar-Lev Line on the west side of the Suez Canal. They did have mobile forces of armor, artillery, and infantry that harassed the Israelis with probes and artillery barrages. Egypt also practiced surge and retreat of troops along the Suez Canal. These surges were purposefully done to lull Israel into complacency and safety. Disinformation was practiced and journalists often found Arab documents detailing the shortcomings in Arab unity and military readiness. Egypt’s president Anwar Sadat contributed as well. Several times he had threatened military action against Israel and the deadlines passed with no repercussions. All the while, Sadat and his counterpart in Syria, President Hafez al Asad, were committed to military action. Egypt took action to address two specific Israeli advantages from the Six Day War, Israeli air superiority and Israeli tank operations. Egypt ...
... middle of paper ...
...y the tactical advantage from 6-8 October and would attack the Golan Heights on three fronts, a northern from, a middle front, and a southern front. One division allocated for each front and a Ranger Battalion to take an Israeli command and control outpost in the high north. An intense barrage of Syrian artillery prepared the assault. Unfortunately for the Syrians, the terrain of the Golan Heights provided limited avenues of approach so Israel had well planned defensive positions. 37 Three divisions proceeded to advance in their corridor encountering stiff resistance from the undermanned, but well prepared defensive Israeli positions. Syrian armor had difficulty negotiating preplaced minefields, tank traps, and obstacles and it was “target practice”38 for the Israeli defenders and the Syrians suffered heavy losses. Syria still had strength in numbers on its side.
The purpose of this paper is to perform a mission command analysis of the Battle of Gettysburg, honing in on Pickett’s Charge. The Battle of Gettysburg took place on July 1st through July 3rd in 1863 in the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The belligerents were the Army of the Potomac, led by MG George G. Meade and the Army of Northern Virginia, led by GEN Robert E. Lee. The goal is to analyze the decisions of GEN Lee using the six mission command principles described in the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0 and then assess the outcome of those decisions.
It is far easier for us in the present than it was for those at Gettysburg, to look back and determine the path that the leaders should have taken. As students, studying battles such as this, we have the advantage of hindsight, knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, we can still learn valuable lessons from it. To do so, this analysis will explore some of the decisions of the leaders at Gettysburg, and how they were affected by the operational variables. This essay will scrutinize some of the leaders at Gettysburg, and the impact of their actions. The outcome of this analysis will show that what was true in 1863 is still true today. While many variables are vital to a successful army on the battlefield, none should be neglected. Each variable discussed in this examination will prove to be important, but the information battle will be paramount in the battle of Gettysburg.
Operation Anaconda was an offensive operation conducted by Coalition Forces during the first invasion of Afghanistan. It was the last major operation to take place during the campaign (). While the operation was successful, there were many arduous battles that had to be fought in order to secure victory. One of these battles in particular stands out due to the sheer number of difficulties and setbacks that occurred during the engagement. This battle has become known as the Battle of Roberts Ridge. For the purpose of this Battle Analysis the Battle of Roberts Ridge will be analyzed with regards to the characteristics of an offense, in particular Surprise, Tempo, and Audacity.
In all US wars throughout history, the US Army Infantryman has played a crucial role in the success or failure of every battle. Typically, in any major battle when a country has stood toe to toe with the Army Infantryman, they have failed. The 173rd Airborne Brigade during the Vietnam War was no exception. The 173rd Infantryman accounted for more kills on the battlefield in Operation Hump than any other US asset.1 In this paper, we’ll review the 173rd Airborne Brigades mission, objectives, situation and outcome of their success in Operation Hump.
The word "privateer" conjures a romantic image in the minds of most Americans. Tales of battle and bounty pervade the folklore of privateering, which has become a cherished, if often overlooked part of our shared heritage. Legends were forged during the battle for American independence, and these men were understandably glorified as part of the formation of our national identity. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these men were common opportunists, if noteworthy naval warriors. The profit motive was the driving force behind almost all of their expeditions, and a successful privateer could easily become quite wealthy. In times of peace, these men would be common pirates, pariahs of the maritime community. Commissioned in times of war, they were respected entrepreneurs, serving their purses and their country, if only incidentally the latter. However vulgar their motivation, the system of privateering arose because it provided a valuable service to thecountry, and indeed the American Revolution might not have been won without their involvement. Many scholars agree that all war begins for economic reasons, and the privateers of the war for independence contributed by attacking the commercial livelihood of Great Britain's merchants.
Have you ever been a part of something big? Maybe a it was a big game or
The fight between Israel and Palestine has been seen as an unfair battle, due to the high-tech supplies given to Israel by the US. Israel’s military is extremely strong and constantly growing, with people joining from all over the world, while Palestine’s main defense is a terrorist group called Hamas. Israel has been forced into building a wall surrounding the Gaza strip to stop these terror attacks from harming the citizens of Israel. Palestine believes that Israel’s fighting is too severe compared to Palestine’s attempts at attacking Israel. Gideon Levy wrote, “Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification to them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law, and wisdom (Document 5, Palestinian View)”. The Palestinians believe that the Israeli military is fighting too much and unfairly, and should not be allowed to take these measures against them.
The first battle in Fallujah during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) is known as Operation Vigilant Resolve. This battle is regarded as one of the biggest single defeats that the United States Military has suffered throughout all its campaigns during OIF. The United States and international media outlets exploited this defeat, which in turn, bolstered Al Qaeda recruiting in Fallujah. This offensive failure and retreat was backed by a huge public outcry for troop withdrawal and successful exploitation of recruiting propaganda by the insurgents.
...n Iraqi face on the controllers of the city and Iraq quickly learned they could not bring Fallujah under control under their own power. Because of the lack preparation and coordination with Iraq the political situation proved to be too damaging. The situation turned out to have the opposite effect that America had intended. Instead of showing resolve it showed weakness and the Arab press exploited that turning the situation into a rally call to all to fight against the coalition. With things getting worse in Fallujah and with Iraqi concern and cooperation, in November they would have to go back into Fallujah to finish what they started in what was called Operation New Dawn (Gerald, 2009).
Warfare was in a state of transition. Older commanders and generals in the French and British militaries were very cavalry and infantry focused. These commanders believed that cavalry, infantry, and artillery would assure victory in any circumstance, against any foe. They clung to the static tactics of the bygone World War I era. World War I had been fought primarily on French soil, and the military as well as the government never wanted that to happen again, therefore they wanted to reinforce their main border against any future German. Little did they know that only twenty two years later they would be bested by German forces in a way that would shock the world. This research will be analyzing many important assumptions, oversights,...
The Gulf War was much more than a fight to liberate Kuwait. It was the first non-conventional war; in which new, fairly new, or even experimental weapons were used. The Gulf War displayed much new technology that you will learn lots about in this paper. This paper may sound very technical, but that is what it is about, the new weapon technology vs. the conventional types of weapons used in previous wars. This paper is about the advancement of weapon technology, and how the military changed the tactics used before.
In 1095, Jerusalem was a flourishing city that was the main powerhouse for three religions; all three religions wanted complete control over the holy land. These three religions were Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and all three religions were known to use Jerusalem as a place of religious reasons. But in turn, the best part about Jerusalem was the political power it held. Pope Urban’s demand for power and Jewish Israel’s desire to control Palestinians are the factors in the political conflict over the holy land.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is perhaps the most complex political issue of our time. Many have resorted to simply blaming one side or the other. If people took the time to understand the history and correct the misconceptions a potential path forward for the Palestinians comes in place. The main reason as to why the conflict continues is because both Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting over land for the past 66 years.
One of the first recognizable problems that the Arab forces had when entering the war in 1948 was the insignificant amount of soldiers the army contained. At the beginning stages of the war, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria, did not send their full armies into Palestine. The combination of all five countries led to about 25,000 soldiers who were poorly trained, unorganized, and did not have a supply system that could function properly. By May of 1948, it is estimated that Egypt sent a total of 10,000 soldiers, Jordan 8,000 soldiers, Iraq 4,000-6,000 soldiers, Syria 1,500-2,500 soldiers, and Lebanon fewer than 1,000 soldiers to fight in the war.# The Arab army lacked the ne...
Quarterly, inc. "Syria." The Middle East. 11th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007. 437 - 456. Print.