Curval,
The initial part of the airlift was primarily ammunition; TANK ammunition too. The promise to make good all loses did allow the release of the reserves; in short, they committed and were "all in". No forces held back.
Now while the unloading of TOW's and Mavericks from C-5's and C-141's was going on "Israeli and Egyptian armor, maneuvering just 100 miles to the southwest, were locked in a desperate tank battle that would prove to be the largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk".
The use of these TOW's and Mavericks "According to the Defense Intelligence Agency,
these weapons were responsible for the majority of Israeli tank kills (Arab losses were estimated at 1,900 tanks during the war). Since the TOW and Maverick were not present in the Israeli inventory in any significant numbers before the war began, it is apparent that the missiles delivered by airlift made the difference."
OK, let's "what if".
The Israelis were extremely low on ammo. That's a "given".
The Iraeli/Egyptian tank battle was in progress. With or without the US airlift, that battle was going to be fought to the bloody end.
Israeli reserves, particularly tank reserves, were at best, not front-line units.
There were considerable differences between the Reserve units. Colonel Gideon Gordon’s 70th Mechanized Brigade was a unit that time had forgotten. Indeed, there was activity afoot to disband the unit. It was equipped with virtually unmodified World War II-vintage Sherman tanks and equally ancient M3 halftracks. The troops even still wore old football-type helmets rather than the modern plastic headgear that had been issued almost universally throughout the IDF armored and mechanized units. All things considered, the brigade was a perfect snapshot of a 1963-vintage IDF formation. It was felt that 70th Brigade could be called upon to defend prepared positions or guard lines of communications, but no one thought the unit could be effectively or even safely employed in the attack.
So, assume Nixon had not given the promise of replacing units and not authorized the airlift of ammunition and modern anti-tank weapons like TOW and Maverick.
Who do you think would have won the "largest clash of armor since the World War II Battle of Kursk"?
Had the Egyptians won, who would have been on the offensive in the Sinai?
The idea that it was "all over" before the resupply started is not supported by the historical record.
Here's a nice google-read for you and bait to get you to read it.
October 1973 War & Lessons for the Arabs As has come out in the Arab-Israeli wars, the Arabs have only a limited potential for war fighting (i.e., in terms of time.) Their defence industries and weapon transfer arrangements during the time of war cannot sustain them for a long time. I wrote this some time back in this context. ...
Of course, a major factor of the blunting of the Egyptian assault, as pointed out by Anwer El Sadat in his revealing book In Search of Identity was the supply of armour replacements i.e., some 400 tanks from the USA to Israel in the heat of the battle which not only sustained them but also provided them with the means of carrying the war into the Egyptian and Syrian soils. The Arabs lack this capability.
Now, are you calling Sadat misinformed?
