The Decisiveness Of Israeli Small-Unit Leadership On The Golan Heights In The 1973 Yom Kippur War

Major Oakland McCulloch

• Publisher: Tannenberg Publishing
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781786251374
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

This study is an analysis of the decisiveness of Israeli small-unit leadership on the Golan Heights during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. What allowed the Israeli brigades on the Golan Heights to defeat an Arab coalition that launched a surprise attack with a force that vastly outnumbered the Israelis in men, tanks and artillery? The one advantage the Israelis had was the quality of leadership at the small-unit level. This study begins with a brief review of the strategic and operational situation in the Middle East in 1973. This includes background information on the Israeli and Arab forces facing each other on the Golan Heights and their plans for the defense and attack respectfully prior to the start of hostilities. The majority of the thesis discussion is concerned with the actual battle on the Golan Heights. It highlights the contributions that small-unit leadership made during the battle that allowed the vastly outnumbered IDF to destroy a massive Soviet-style Arab army. This portion of the study also looks at the experiences of those Israeli leaders involved in the fighting. The study then looks at leadership from the Israeli perspective. I define what leadership is and why it is important at the small-unit level. I take a close look at how the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) picks and trains its leaders and what role the Israeli Military Culture plays in that process. The conclusion of the thesis is that the IDF was able to fight and win even though surprised and vastly outnumbered due to the quality of leadership at the small-unit level. This lesson may prove to be important still today as the armies of the Western societies continue to get smaller even though they still face the threat of fighting the massive Soviet-style armies of the "Axis of Evil" for decades to come.

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION

In 1948 the United Nations created the State of Israel in what was British occupied Palestine. Since the first day of Israel’s existence the Arab nations of the world have been attempting to destroy the state of Israel by any means available, including the use of force. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was born in battle and has been forced to fight repeatedly since Israel’s creation: a War of Independence in 1948, the Sinai-Suez War in 1956, the Six Day War in 1967, the Yom Kippur War in 1973 and the War in Lebanon in 1982. The coalition of Arab forces vastly outnumbered the IDF in manpower, tanks, artillery and aircraft and had the advantage of choosing when the war would start, except in 1956 and 1982. With all of these advantages then why is it that the IDF has been so successful in battle against the armies of the Arab coalitions? The quality of leadership at the small-unit level is the one advantage the IDF has had in every war they have fought against the armies of their Arab neighbors.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine the decisiveness of Israeli small-unit leadership in the battle for the Golan Heights during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. To do this I will look at Israeli leadership in several different ways. First, I will define what leadership is and show why it is important to an army, especially one that is numerically inferior to its opponent. Secondly, I will show that Israeli small-unit leadership is decisive due to the way the IDF picks and trains its small-unit leaders. Thirdly, I will show how the competent and confident actions of Israeli small-unit leaders were the decisive aspects of the battle for the Golan Heights during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Background

The Arab-Israeli War of 1973 was a war between Israel on one side and an Arab coalition led by Egypt and Syria on the other side. It was the fourth major military confrontation between Israel and the Arab states since 1948 and is also known as the Yom Kippur or Ramadan War.

There were two major factors leading up to the Yom Kippur War. First, there was a failure to resolve territorial disputes arising from the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. These disputes revolved around the Arab nations’ demand for Israel to return the Sinai to Egypt, the West Bank to Jordan and the Golan Heights to Syria. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat continued to call for the Israelis to comply with United Nations Resolution 242 since assuming power in September 1970. UNR 242 called for Israel to return all the land it conquered and occupied during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War in return for recognition of Israel’s right to exist by here Arab neighbors. However, President Sadat’s land for peace initiative failed to bring peace to the Middle East. Sadat wanted to sign an agreement with Israel provided the Israelis returned all the occupied territories, but Israel refused to withdraw to the pre-1967 armistice lines.{1} Since no progress was being made toward peace, Sadat was convinced that in order to force the Israelis back to the negotiating table and to gain legitimacy at home, he must renew the war against Israel.

The second factor leading up to the war in 1973 was the belief by both the Israeli military, at all levels, and the Israeli government that Israel was safe from Arab attack for the indefinite future. Therefore, Israel did not feel compelled to trade territory for peace. Israel felt this way because of the Israel Defense Force’s strength, the apparent political disarray of the Arab world, the dismal performance of the Arab coalition during the Six Day War, and the large buffer zone around Israel formed by the Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights.{2} Thus, in spite of Sadat’s threats of war throughout 1972 and much of 1973, Israeli commanders were unprepared for Egypt and Syria’s surprise attack on 6 October 1973.

Arab and Israeli Defenses Along the Golan Heights Prior to the War

The Golan Heights is an escarpment rising 800 to 1,000 meters above the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan Valley. Covering an area some 900 square kilometers (65 kilometers from north to south and 30 kilometers wide at its widest point), the escarpment rises gradually from south to north. These ancient hills were created by volcanic activity; lava pouring out of craters covered the high plateau with layers of basalt. A maze of ridges and wall-like lava patterns, completely impassable even to modem cross-country armored vehicles due to the slopes exceeding 45 degrees, covers most of the northeastern area. Further south the area becomes more open allowing better movement by armored vehicles. Scores of extinct volcanoes rise above the surrounding terrain making excellent vantage and observation points.{3}

In the six years since the end of the Six Day War, the Syrians had constructed three major defensive systems echeloned in depth from the Golan Heights towards Damascus. The first defensive system was sited close to the Purple Line, the United Nations cease fire line between the Israeli Army on the Golan Heights and Syrian Army in the valley below; the second defensive system lay east of the volcanic fields along the Kuneitra-Damascus road; and the third defensive system stood just to the west of Damascus in the Damascus basin. The Syrians manned these defensive systems with anywhere between a brigade and a division depending upon the time of year, and the tension level between Syria and the Israel.{4}

The Israeli defensive concept on the Golan Heights was to delay the Syrian attack long enough to allow strong Israeli reserves time to mobilize and reinforce the regular units. To accomplish this task the Israeli defense was developed based on two principles. The first principle was centered on terrain because the Israelis retained superior positions on the Golan Heights based on well-chosen defensive lines. The second principle was based on the Syrian’s doctrine in the attack, which called for the use of massed formations of tanks, just like the prevailing Soviet operational doctrine. The terrain on the Golan Heights is very restrictive and allows the movement of massed tank formations only in a few locations.{5} The Israelis could read the terrain the same as the Syrians and built their defensive fortifications over watching these critical pieces of terrain. This allowed the Israelis to mass their limited forces on the decisive terrain.

During the period of occupation in the six years since the end of the Six Day War, the IDF had fortified the Golan Heights by constructing a system of obstacles and fortifications on the eastern edge of the plateau. The IDF constructed an antitank ditch four to six meters wide and about four meters deep along the entire length and just west of the Purple Line. A system of concrete observation posts and strong points were built just behind the antitank ditch. There were seventeen such fortified positions, with 112 separate fortified and mutually supportive pillboxes and blockhouses. These positions ensured the Israelis would have continuous observation over all of the approaches to the Golan Heights from the east. In front of and behind the antitank ditch was an integrated minefield system around each strongpoint and on the important avenues of approach.{6} Israeli fortifications and defenses on the Golan Heights were formidable when fully manned with the proper number of infantry and tanks, however this was not the case in October 1973.

In September 1973 the Israelis manned the Purple Line with elements of two infantry brigades, which totaled less than the equivalent of one brigade in strength, and one armored brigade. Most of the infantrymen came from the elite 1st “Golani” Infantry Brigade and the tanks were from the 188th “Barak” Armored Brigade. The 188th Armored Brigade, consisting of three slightly under strength battalions totaling about 90 tanks, manned positions along the Purple Line from north of Kuneitra to Rafid. Eleven field artillery batteries with a total of 44 pieces stood in the rear in support of these forward positions. These guns ranged in caliber from 105 millimeters to 155 millimeters, all self-propelled.{7}

The Syrian Offensive Plan

The overall Arab concept for the Ramadan War envisaged a two-front, coordinated offensive launched simultaneously in the Sinai, by the Egyptian led coalition, and on the Golan Heights, by the Syrian led coalition, under conditions of complete surprise. The aims of the Syrian Army were threefold. First, the Syrians sought to paralyze the Israeli command by saturating the Golan Heights with overwhelming combat power. Second, they wanted to destroy as much Israeli armor as possible by sustaining an attack along the entire length of the Golan Heights and not letting the Israelis rest or push in reinforcements. Third, the Syrians wanted to exploit their initial success by committing their two armored divisions to complete the breakthrough and recapture the Golan Heights.{8}

The Syrian plan was completely of their own design, though strongly influenced by the Soviet doctrine their officers had learned at Russian military academies. The Syrian offensive was planned to follow typical Soviet doctrine, with a few minor changes to fit the Syrian situation. First, the offensive was to begin with a short period of intense and violent firepower to shock the Israeli defenders. This was to be delivered by combining the effects of aircraft, artillery, tank, and mortar fire on key locations. The Syrians decided against a long period of fire in order for their attacking formations to take full advantage of the surprise and shock. Second the offensive would be launched on a broad front in order to force the widest possible dispersion of the Israeli defensive effort. Lastly, the Syrians would concentrate overwhelming combat power at two critical points to create two penetrations through the overextended Israeli defenses.{9} The Syrian leaders believed that a plan following this model would allow the Syrian Army to overrun the under strength Israeli defenses and capture the Golan Heights before the Israelis could mobilize and push reserves to the battlefront.

The Syrian attack plan called for a double breakthrough by the 7th Infantry Division (reinforced with an armored brigade) near Kuneitra in the north, and by the 5th Infantry Division (reinforced with an armored brigade) near Rafid in the south. A double envelopment of the bulk of the Israeli forces on the Golan Heights would occur once the breakthrough succeeded. The envelopment would be accomplished with the 7th Infantry Division continuing the attack west toward the northern Jordan River crossings, and the 5th Infantry Division moving on a parallel route toward the Arik Bridge just north of Lake Tiberias (the Arab name for the Sea of Galilee).{10}

In order to keep the Israelis pinned down all along the Purple Line, the 9th Infantry Division (reinforced with an armored brigade), in the center, would attack west between Kuneitra and Rafid. At the same time Brigadier General Safrawi’s Moroccan Brigade would make a strong demonstration towards the foothills of Mt. Hermon to the north of the 7th Infantry Division. Both the 9th Infantry Division and the Moroccan Brigade were given limited objectives and were not to advance further without authority from General Headquarters in Damascus.{11}

The second echelon of the Syrian field army consisted of the 1st and 3rd Armored Divisions, which were to be used as the exploitation force once the breakthrough occurred. The 1st Armored Division would be the exploitation force if the 5th Infantry Division made a breakthrough, or if both the 5th and 7th Infantry Divisions were successful. The 1st Armored Division would drive between the 5th and 9th Infantry Divisions and attack towards Nafakh to the northern bridges over the Jordan River. However, if the 5th Infantry Division was unsuccessful and the 7th Infantry Division created the breakthrough then the 3rd Armored Division would become the exploitation force. The 3rd Armored Division would attack between the 7th and 9th Infantry Divisions toward Nafakh to capture the northern bridges over the Jordan River. In no case were both the 1st and 3rd Armored Divisions to be committed. One of them was to be held as a general reserve in the event of failure or unexpected developments.{12}

Syrian and Israeli Forces on the Eve of War

As the time for the attack neared, the Syrian Army began to move out of its defensive positions into attack positions and made the final preparations for the war that was about to begin. The Syrian Army habitually conducted field exercises during this time of the year so the Israelis were not overly concerning by the movement of forces opposite the Golan Heights. The Syrians left only 100 tanks in defensive positions around Damascus as a reserve. The Syrian Army massed some 70,000 soldiers organized in five divisions, two armored and three reinforced infantry, east of the Purple Line for its attack. In all, the Syrians fielded nearly 1,400 tanks (including 400 of the more modem T-62s), 950 artillery pieces ranging in caliber from 85 millimeters to 203 millimeters, at least 400 antiaircraft guns, and more than 100 batteries of SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 surface-to-air missiles with between 400 and 500 launchers. In addition, the Syrian Air Force added over 300 combat aircraft to the fight. These included 110 MiG-21s, 120 MiG-17s, and 45 Su-7s.{13}

With the majority of the Israeli active du...

Table of contents

• Title page
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
• ABSTRACT
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• ILLUSTRATIONS
• CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 2 - THE BATTLE FOR THE GOLAN HEIGHTS
• CHAPTER 3 - ISRAELI LEADERSHIP
• CHAPTER 4 - CONCLUSION
• APPENDIX A - ISRAELI BATTLE UNITS AND COMMANDERS
• APPENDIX B. - SYRIAN BATTLE UNITS AND COMMANDERS
• APPENDIX C - ILLUSTRATIONS
• APPENDIX D - ISRAELI OFFICER’S OATH OF OFFICE
• APPENDIX E - ISRAELI AND SYRIAN TANK AND ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS
• BIBLIOGRAPHY