Communication Breakdown '67
The memoirs of General Fawzi provide insight into the failure of Egyptian communications during the 1967 war. Years after the disaster, Fawzi wrote:
"Sixteen communications battalions needed for the deployed Egyptian infantry corps and reserves remained behind on the west bank of the Suez Canal on the Egyptian side and therefore had not been set up to communicate in the field." Fawzi indicated this was the situation on the morning of June 5, 1967, when war broke out. From the start, Cairo's forces in Sinai lacked vitally needed communications equipment and personnel. Of course there must have been some means of communication already in place. But it probably didn't amount to much and soon succumbed to the stresses of combat. Fawzi's recollections suggest the problem was not so much a breakdown of communications but a lack of sufficient communications in the first place. Evidently, there just weren't enough radios and radiomen to adequately convey situation reports and orders. When the minimal existing capability, east of the canal, broke down, each unit was effectively on its own. Under the circumstances, the withdrawal order led to disaster. Although the frontier divisions were overrun before the order was issued, reserve forces suffered grievously from lack of command control. Some just disintegrated, and none could be employed in an effective, coordinated fashion. The withdrawal became a rout.
Can we be sure the 16 battalions mentioned by Fawzi played no role in the war? Couldn't they have crossed the canal after the war began, and aided their assigned units? This doesn't seem likely.
After the Israelis neutralized the Egyptian Air Force in their initial strikes, they targeted Egyptian infrastructure in the canal zone. No doubt their goal was to hinder resupply and reinforcement of the Sinai force. Since the Egyptians could not provide air cover, it is likely the Israeli mission succeeded. Few if any communications units may have crossed, and it was probably too late anyway. Fawzi didn't say why the units weren't where they belonged at the start. But once the conflict erupted, the situation couldn't be rectified, and catastrophe was the result.
Failure to ensure proper command and control wasn't the only communications failure during the war. Another egregious error involved intelligence. Fawzi described how a chance to thwart Israel's surprise attack was squandered:
"The Egyptian War Ministry in Cairo received two warnings from military intelligence in Arish....This message was the result of the Jordanian listening post at Ajloun, where it began to detect Israeli movements at 0400 and where it then sent warnings to Egyptian posts in Arish. The Egyptian intelligence officers did not forward this 0400 message urgently, issuing it at 0700. This nonurgency meant the message arrived at the General Staff at 0940; the Israeli attack began at 0800...."
Had the 0400 report been forwarded right away, the General Staff could've gotten it three hours before 0940, or at 0640--leaving ample time to alert the EAF. A timely warning might not have prevented the destruction of Egypt's air force but it could've cost the Israelis a lot more and tied down their air force longer.
Failure to ensure proper communications and convey a key message cost Egypt much of its armed forces, and the Sinai. Fawzi and his colleagues faced the daunting challenge of rebuilding the army and avoiding its past mistakes.
Reference
Reconstructing a Shattered Egyptian Army Fawzi (Aboul-Enein editor)
"Sixteen communications battalions needed for the deployed Egyptian infantry corps and reserves remained behind on the west bank of the Suez Canal on the Egyptian side and therefore had not been set up to communicate in the field." Fawzi indicated this was the situation on the morning of June 5, 1967, when war broke out. From the start, Cairo's forces in Sinai lacked vitally needed communications equipment and personnel. Of course there must have been some means of communication already in place. But it probably didn't amount to much and soon succumbed to the stresses of combat. Fawzi's recollections suggest the problem was not so much a breakdown of communications but a lack of sufficient communications in the first place. Evidently, there just weren't enough radios and radiomen to adequately convey situation reports and orders. When the minimal existing capability, east of the canal, broke down, each unit was effectively on its own. Under the circumstances, the withdrawal order led to disaster. Although the frontier divisions were overrun before the order was issued, reserve forces suffered grievously from lack of command control. Some just disintegrated, and none could be employed in an effective, coordinated fashion. The withdrawal became a rout.
Can we be sure the 16 battalions mentioned by Fawzi played no role in the war? Couldn't they have crossed the canal after the war began, and aided their assigned units? This doesn't seem likely.
After the Israelis neutralized the Egyptian Air Force in their initial strikes, they targeted Egyptian infrastructure in the canal zone. No doubt their goal was to hinder resupply and reinforcement of the Sinai force. Since the Egyptians could not provide air cover, it is likely the Israeli mission succeeded. Few if any communications units may have crossed, and it was probably too late anyway. Fawzi didn't say why the units weren't where they belonged at the start. But once the conflict erupted, the situation couldn't be rectified, and catastrophe was the result.
Failure to ensure proper command and control wasn't the only communications failure during the war. Another egregious error involved intelligence. Fawzi described how a chance to thwart Israel's surprise attack was squandered:
"The Egyptian War Ministry in Cairo received two warnings from military intelligence in Arish....This message was the result of the Jordanian listening post at Ajloun, where it began to detect Israeli movements at 0400 and where it then sent warnings to Egyptian posts in Arish. The Egyptian intelligence officers did not forward this 0400 message urgently, issuing it at 0700. This nonurgency meant the message arrived at the General Staff at 0940; the Israeli attack began at 0800...."
Had the 0400 report been forwarded right away, the General Staff could've gotten it three hours before 0940, or at 0640--leaving ample time to alert the EAF. A timely warning might not have prevented the destruction of Egypt's air force but it could've cost the Israelis a lot more and tied down their air force longer.
Failure to ensure proper communications and convey a key message cost Egypt much of its armed forces, and the Sinai. Fawzi and his colleagues faced the daunting challenge of rebuilding the army and avoiding its past mistakes.
Reference
Reconstructing a Shattered Egyptian Army Fawzi (Aboul-Enein editor)
31 Comments:
I was a telecommunications specialist in the U.S. Air Force. I know that communications are a key aspect of a military campaign. An adequate number of communications specialists are needed. In addition, they must be deployed at the right places. Furthermore, messages have to be sent on time. The Egyptians needed better planning for that campaign.
I will mention some other things about military communications. There are different types of communications specialists. Some are radio operators and others are ones that use computer email. When I was in the Air Force, there were teletype operators. I was a teletype operator. Of course, teletypes are now obsolete; computer email has replaced them. The military has various types of communications centers. I worked in fixed communications centers while I was in the Air Force. The Air Force has two types of mobile communications centers; one is an airborne communication center; it is in planes. The other mobile communications center is in vans. Communications specialists who travel in those vans go into combat zones and are often issued rifles. The other branches of the military also have different types of communications specialists and communications centers. For example, the Navy has communications centers on ships.
Thanks for your input Neal! :) I don't know what kind of equipment the Egyptians had in '67. Of course they didn't have email.
October 20, 2016
Who would you blame for keeping the communication units away from where they are "supposed" to be?
Amer? The SCF?
You're welcome, Tim. I'm not sure what types of communications equipment that the Egyptians were using. It would be interesting to find out.
In my opinion, it wasn't the fault of the Sinai Front Command. Murtagi was supposed to order combat units sent to Sinai. It was the responsibility of others to make sure units arrived and got what they needed. Blame for leaving communications battalions behind should go to Amer and maybe Muhsin, the eastern military district commander.
I found some articles written (Arabic) but I am not quite sure of its credibility; anyway it states that during Ras el Ush/Esh battle the Egyptians used R105 radios.
Did RPG-7s see action alongside of RPG-2 as well?
I don't know what kind of RPGs the commandos had. If I remember right, Ismail ordered antitank guns to be positioned just west of the canal in that area, while the commandos were on the eastern side. It wasn't a big battle. The Egyptians are said to have knocked out 2 or 3 tanks (out of ten), killed the Israeli company commander and wounded 13 soldiers. But of course they foiled the Israeli effort, which was to take the entire eastern bank up to Port Fuad.
By the way, I wonder how things might've turned out had the 16 communications battalions been where they were needed on June 5-6.
I understand it wasnt a big battle but as you said before it was a much needed a morale booster besides if Israel had taken over Port Fouad it could have possibly spelled the end of Egypt as an independent nation. Imagine a bridge crossing akin to the one that happened in 73 just right after the six day war would mean more than 2/3rds of mainland Egypt under IDF's control.
I think if the 165 comm battalions were over there then things might have happened happened how you expected. With a formidable defense line at the ridge while the rest of Sinai is under IDF control.
The Israelis would've crossed the canal had they taken Port Fouad? I think they were just trying to take what little of Sinai they didn't already have. It is true, though, that right after the '67 war Egypt was practically defenseless. Some Israeli generals wanted to take Damascus, Amman and Cairo but Dayan didn't want to have to control big arab populations.
Sure, with better communications, Murtagi's order for a withdrawal to the third line of defense, the central ridge, would've been carried out, without so much confusion or panic. The 4rth Armored, 6th mechanized and shazli force should have been able to hold the passes, so the economic assets of Sinai, the oilfields and canal, would've stayed in Egyptian hands.
October 23, 2016
BTW, what did Egypt have back on the other side of the canal?! Besides I remember hearing one of the Egyptian commanders on an old tv interview from the 90s saying that during the Suez Crisis war, 500,000 pieces of small arms was distributed to the population and even women before men. Ironically if Israel had moved into Cairo with the bulk of its forces I doubt it would have lasted long enough, worse case scenario (but extremely unlikely) getting trapped in Cairo. Battle of Suez in 1973 is a very good example of that.
You should write an article about the shift of military in the region with Israel acquiring the F-35s which would make most if not all arab air defenses redundant. Plus the distant probability yet still possible; a civil war in Egypt (in which I would join the rebels in a heart beat if it wasnt for my parents.)
I don't think Egypt had much west of the canal in '67. After the Israelis crossed to the west bank in '73, some rear Egyptian units, like the Presidential Guard, saw action. Units like that must've been for regime protection, and weren't committed to battle except in the gravest emergency. I don't know if there was a Presidential Guard division in '67.
Sure the Israelis were stopped at Suez, and Ismailia because of the difficulties of fighting in an urban environment. The Egyptians were helped, however, by the presence of regular soldiers with RPGs and other conventional weapons, in or near these cities.
I know the F-35 is a stealth aircraft, which means it is invisible, or nearly so, to arab SAM radars. I don't know if the Russians can counter that somehow--maybe with more efficient radars, or infrared detection and homing system(s)? What the arabs need is a good stealth capability of their own--something like the T-50.
So you don't like al-Sissi? :) Why should he go and what new domestic and foreign policies would you prefer?
That is very true; there was presence of regulars but Cairo would have a bigger military presence and police force. The civilian militia would serve as cannon fodder while the regulars are the ones who achieve the killing. Realistically speaking though, Soviet Union could potentially intervene like it did in 1967 to stop the Battle of Cairo. I think you meant the Republican Guard and yes they existed pre 67 as well.
Battle of Ismalia didnt involve civilian militias but the cream of the Egyptian infantry against their equal adversary much to Sharon's dismay.
By the way we just call him "sissy or ESSissy" the "al" in his name is not pronounced but lets not get into Arabic grammar now lol.
Why should he leave? This is a very quick brief list and by no means covers all the reasons:
1. Dragging the military into politics and turning it into a tool for oppression (again) Just like what Nasser did.
2. Betrayal of a Democratically elected president even if there is a section of the population that doesnt want him JUST LIKE any other country that has democratic system except the ones we had in Egypt were a bit jacked up.
3. Committing mass killing of anti coup protesters during Rabia al Adawiya camp in by pro Morsi supporters and if it wasnt for Israel's support for him he would have faced war crime trials. The most conservative statistics of how many got killed during the incident was several hundreds not including two or three more previous incidents.
4. Corruption on a maximum scale with financial aid received from Arab allies (traitors) being embezzled into many wallets especially senior military officers.
5. Ludicrious national project like the Suez Canal project which they named it the 2nd Suez Canal while its just a shortcut pathway that reduces a ships trip by 1-3 days maximum and with international trade going down....So instead of deepening the Canal for bigger tankers and to stay competitive with the Panama canal, he does the complete opposite.
6. Several other national projects that ended up being failures and government media just burying them away.
7. Backstabbing his own allies like what he did recently with Saudi Arabia and joined Putin's side. (Saudi Arabia deserves it). Not really a reason for why he should leave but proves he is nothing but a mercenary/war lord.
8. During one of his PRE COUP conferences (audio and visual recorded) with military officers he stated that the Sinai debacle isnt the problem of the military and it should be left for the Ministry of Interior. Getting the military involved wont solve anything as he stated. I assume you know what happened after he got into power? Evacuating most of Egyptian Rafah and literally leveling it into the ground, mistreatment, torture, and killing of local Sinaites as I call them by the military. Said Sinaites join Jihadist group that two years ago aligned itself with ISIS out of spite and revenge as the citizens are actually tribal people. So he is creating terrorism.
9. Being labeled as Israel's "Strategic Treasure" and having Ehud Barak personally launch a crusade to gain international support for him right after the coup.
10. Wasting financial resources on arms and military equipment and a time where we need to focus on fighting a massive economic crisis.
......I am no where near done yet.
Soon after the 1973 war an Israeli asked: "What do we do west of the canal? Defeat the Third Army and march on Cairo? Then what? Take Cairo, which could swallow the whole Israel Defense Force and never notice it? Or just sit outside and wait for them to surrender? I don't think they will. They've changed." (lol)
Exactly 43 years ago, when the Third Army was being surrounded, the USSR threatened to intervene, prompting Nixon to order the "Def Con (i.e. defense condition) 3" alert.
Adan referred to the Egyptian reserve unit as "the Guard of the Republic" but the ARAB MIGs Volume 6 tome used the term Presidential Guard. I'm sure some other work did too.
True, the battle near Ismailia, unlike Suez, had nothing to do with urban fighting. In a previous post, I assumed NEWSWEEK incorrectly predicted the Israelis were "encircling" Ismailia instead of taking it, because of reluctance to get bogged down in street fighting.
I don't follow Egyptian politics very closely but I recall a few years ago Morsi made himself very unpopular by trying to get additional powers, and the military stepped in.
So Egypt is now in the midst of a massive economic crisis? I heard of the discovery of vast gas reserves, which could provide Egypt with revenues comparable to those of an oil exporting state (finally!!). But I guess the gas fields won't be developed and making money for some time. And in the meantime, a much bigger population suffers from inadequate employment, housing etc...
October 25, 2016
You mean the gas field he gave most of it away to Israel and Cyprus?
^^ There you go, another reason to add in the last. I wish we really didnt discover it, just another resource that will be squandered and wasted away.
To be continued regarding Morsi, just came back from a 3 hour Advanced Managerial Accounting Session and I am turning into a zombie.
Sissi gave most of the gas field to Israel and Cyprus??! I thought Israel first discovered gas, then Egypt found an even bigger field.
October 26, 2016
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/22780
OK thanks for the link. So Israel is looting Egyptian gas...Hope something can still be done about that.
October 27, 2016
Not under the current regime. Its not just Israel but Cyprus as well, because the Egypt redrew its sea borders with both countries and gave them huge chunks of the gas in their "new territories".
Sisi just sold two of Egypt's Islands to KSA in gulf of Aqaba without even holding a referendum.
Yesterday LITERALLY he said live on TV that for ten years he had nothing in his fridge but water and paid its electricity bill and he didnt complain although he comes from a rich family.
Read it a couple of times Starman and let it sink in.
As much as history is fascinating but Egypt is heading towards a revolution with jet speed or perhaps, a civil war.
Imagine Rebel's M60A3 tank VS a government's M1A1 Abrams...my money is on the m60A3 at close range. Smaller target and our Abrams lack DU + bigger target.
Why did Egypt give away so much of the gasfields? How much did the KSA pay for those islands in the gulf of Aqaba (near Sharm el Sheihk?)?
Sissi may have to go, but let's hope it doesn't take a civil war...Surely nobody wants Egypt to become another Syria (except maybe Israel, lol).
M-60 rounds can penetrate Abrams front armor? T-72 ammo couldn't go through the M-1's front in '91 but maybe Egyptian armor isn't as good.
Injured my right knee...cant spend much time on PC but next time I sit I will allocate time to answer your questions when I am not dying from pain or classes.
Sorry to hear about the injury. :( Look forward to your next comment.
October 31, 2016
hi I enjoyed your article and all the comments . . . but just now I had almost finished typing an extensive comment myself when my d****d finger slipped and I got kicked out SO frustrating . . . will try again in a few days
OK progrev, hope to hear from you again soon. Btw I revised the Alternate Iraq scenarios post again.
November 4, 2016
Egyptian M1A1 is probably of the same quality as the Iraqi M1A1 while American Abrams had the glorious depleted uranium armor and much more advanced fire control systems (and a better trained crew lol).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/11/egypt-saudi-arabia-tiran-sanafir-red-sea-islands-transfer
This was before the fallout that happened a month ago between KSA and Egypt when Egypt decided to join Putin's camp and KSA stopped exporting/ giving aid to Egypt.
Funny enough, Egyptian military officers were obviously called on tv shows and one senior officer stated that the islands are actually Egypt, next day he changed his views 180 degrees on another tv show.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/world/middleeast/egypt-gives-saudi-arabia-2-islands-in-a-show-of-gratitude.html?_r=0
And the whole Saudi-Egypt bridge is a PR stunt even during the zenith of Egy-Saudi relations.
They had it coming (Saudis).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36010965
Why did Egypt give away all of that + gasfield? Two words, shoe licking.
Actually there is an interesting theory going around that Sisi is on purpose destroying the country and leading it to ruination as an actual agent for Israel.
Another interesting fact is, he is the sole survivor of the Egyptian plane crash full of military officers who were coming back from the US that happened in the US back in the 90s? American authorities deducted that the pilot basically wanted to commit the suicide while Egyptians (not authorities) assume it is an american black ops and somehow "commandeered" the plane (like an RC) and crashed it.
Sisi did not get on that plane.
BTW selling the islands means now you have international waters between Egypt and Saudi Arabia at that region= the only nation to benefit from that is Israel.
Did Sissi make the right decision when he joined Putin's camp, at the expense of relations with the KSA? A lot may depend on the outcome in Aleppo and Syria generally. If Assad and his allies prevail, the Saudis will lose prestige. That, coupled with the Yemen quagmire, may have repercussions within the kingdom (long overdue!). Thus far, the Saudis have been immune to the "Arab spring" because of the $$ they use to bribe people to stay quiet. It may sound like wishful thinking but I hope their archaic regime finally falls.
Rumors that Sissi is an agent, ruining his country to benefit Israel remind me of Sadat. Some of his decisions in '73 were so foolhardly he could hardly have done worse if he were a MOSSAD agent. And later came his separate peace and abandonment of the other arabs. I assume at least some of Sissi's decisions, like joining Putin's camp, and getting Russian weapons, aren't favored by Israel.
It was funny when Egyptian officials said Rafales and S-300s would help in the fight against ISIS. They aren't of much use except against Israel, which knows it.
Why would the US want to kill those Egyptians, but not Sissi? For some time, btw, I've been curious about the death of one of Egypt's best generals in 1973--Badawy. He was killed when his helicopter "hit a metal obstruction" back around 1980. I wonder if Sadat, with CIA or Mossad help, had him killed to ensure he wouldn't try to seize power...
November 4, 2016
There are people who believe Badawy was killed as well. I didnt research into the matter but given the long bloody history of arab regimes in the 20th century I say there is a very high chance it wasnt an accident.
IMHO, all the arms sales recently are nothing but bribery attempts by Sisi to get recognition from European countries. Besides, in the current economic state we are in no shape for arms sales (I admit some of the sale costs got covered by KSA/UAE) but what about future maintenance costs? Spare parts? KSA already turned its back on Egypt so no more $$$ from there.
Can the S-300 intercept IAF's F-35s? We are also buying KA-52s from Russia and some rumors about MIG-29 deal coming soon. Not to mention the french ships and helicopter carrier.
Instead of professionalizing our army, we are just inflating it like KSA.
My biggest evidence that he is intentionally supporting Israel is the destruction of tunnels between Egypt and Gaza + the complete evacuation of Egyptian Rafah and literally destroying most of the homes/ buildings and facilities in the area and this started in 2013.
influx of supplies to Gaza undermines any sort of economic blockade Israel puts into action. Hamas' military branch, Qassam, is becoming a very annoying thorn for Israel as they are become better trained and equipped as time goes by. Of course Israel has the military might to wipe off all of Gaza but that wont be good for PR and the international backlash could possibly lead to economic sanctions from Europe.
I am following the Battle of Aleppo everyday literally I believe the rebels will triumph at the end even when they had suffered setbacks. ISIS is ironically buying time for the rebels by having Iran divert some of its resources and manpower to help its vassal nation, Iraq. The Russians are being russians by bombing with Assad style- population centers mostly than actual military targets and the rebels adapted to the russian bombardment or else Aleppo would have completely fallen by now.
The US on the other hand is also bombing the rebels here and then but as always, the US military forces you to look at it with admiration when they carry out a single airstrike and kill HVT from the rebels (anti ISIS rebels but fundamentalist) like the one that happened yesterday in Idlib.
For sure the US wants to have some sort of control on the flow of the war. Its an opportunity to exhaust the arabs, Russia and Iran in one single basket. Russia's economy leaves much to be desired and with fighting in two different fronts (Ukraine and Syria) its economy will definitely suffer.
I am glad the Turks intervened (along with FSA supplied by them) and are fighting ISIS + the communist/socialist pro Israeli Kurds. The last thing in my opinion we need is a new ally for Israel right next door. If you checked the Peshmerga/YPG territory its quite vast and rich with resources. They might have been mistreated in the past but the costs are too high and we cant allow them to create a nation based on their current ideology.
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israel-and-the-middle-east/idf-volunteer-served-in-kurdish-peshmerga-they-view-us-as-their-brothers-12657
http://thepoliticus.com/content/strange-case-ms-gill-rosenberg
https://crushzion.k0nsl.org/category/kurdistan/
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/We-are-all-Peshmerga-a-call-for-recognition-of-Kurdish-statehood-360318
I was informed that there is a photo of a Peshmerga with Israeli SPIKE launcher too but cant find it yet.
Its one thing when the leadership is pro Israel and another when its also the people.
Kurds have a long history full of achievements during the era of Islamic Empires/ Golden age of Islam. If they are willing to uproot all of that in the name of nationalism then their lungs should be uprooted as well IMHO.
Aaaah the inner Vane of Iran Defense forum kicks out here and then, miss my ridiculous young mindset of these days.
Anyways here is the link to keep you up to date with ISIS and Syria and I have some videos with english subs if you are interested released by rebels mainly.
http://syria.liveuamap.com/
I don't know what may have motivated the killing of Badawy, whom I believe was Defense Minister at the time of his death. I guess Sadat thought he was a security risk. Badawy was a hero of the '73 war against Israel, and a capable general, but Sadat was by then committed to peace and an alliance with Israel's backers in Washington. Sadat could have simply fired Badawy, or forced him into retirement, but might have thought it safer to kill him, just to make sure he wouldn't be a problem.
I remember an Egyptian spokesman said helicopter carrying Badawy "hit a metal obstruction." What "metal obstruction"? The explanation for the crash sounds vague to me and even suspicious.
Maybe, if Egypt can't afford to maintain its Rafales and other western jets, it could hand some over to Moscow secretly in exchange for a larger quantity of Russian jets (SU-35s and even T-50s) delivered on easier terms if possible.
About the stealthy F-35, there was a thread in the pofo about its drawbacks and new Russian radars capable of detecting stealth aircraft.
Yeah, Sissi's policy toward Gaza and Hamas sure looks pro-Israel. But it would make sense to avoid a source of conflict with Israel for some time to come.
I think that Israel, under new far right leadership, such as Lieberman, might crush the Palestinians in the West Bank as well as Gaza (perhaps after Abbas is gone). The Israelis may be eager for a pretext to get more lebensraum for their own growing population.
I agree that Europe and much of the rest of the world would strongly oppose such an Israeli move. But unfortunately, the US is still so dominated by the pro-Israel bunch it will continue to support it--until someday when the costs and consequences become absolutely unbearable.
I've noticed that posters in the pofo, Russian Military forum and Middle East defence boards are strongly pro-Syrian regime. Of course that's not surprising for the Russian forum.
I agree absolutely: The Kurds must never be allowed to form their own state, allied to Israel. As soon as ISIS is beaten, the Iraqi and Syrian regimes, with Turkish help if necessary, must lay down the law to the Kurds. While they may have some autonomy, foreign policy is strictly the purview of the central governments.
I miss the old Iran Defense Forum. I guess most of the old gang is gone for good but it's nice to talk to at least one. :)
November 5, 2016
I just did some research on Badawy and wrote a post on him, and his death. Comment?
November 5, 2016
Post a Comment
<< Home