Famous Tank Battles

Lexicon, Tirtur, and Akavish were not famous names before the night fighting near the Suez Canal. They were road names, code words on Israeli maps, the kind of labels soldiers use so they can speak quickly without reciting every feature of the ground. But in October 1973, those names became the difference between an audacious countercrossing and a stranded raid. The Israeli plan at Deversoir did not depend only on reaching the canal. It depended on feeding men, bridges, tanks, ammunition, fuel, ambulances, and orders through a narrow and contested corridor east of the water. Around the Chinese Farm, the war became a fight for movement itself, and these roads became the veins through which the Israeli counteroffensive either lived or died.

If you would like to move beyond the podcast, you can see my available books at Military Author dot me. And at Trackpads dot com, you will find magazines and galleries with hundreds of thousands of photos and videos to explore.

To follow the ground without a map, imagine the Suez Canal running roughly north and south, with the Israeli forces still mostly on the east bank in Sinai and the Egyptian army holding bridgeheads along that same east bank. Lexicon was the route close to the canal, the line near the water’s edge. Akavish and Tirtur were routes leading westward toward the canal crossing area from the Israeli-held desert to the east. They were not broad highways in the comforting civilian sense. They were desert tracks and military routes, vulnerable to fire, congestion, confusion, and sudden blockage. Yet everything heavy that Israel needed for the countercrossing had to use them in some form. A bridge that cannot reach the water is not a bridge. It is only machinery stuck in the wrong place.

This is why the battle around these roads feels different from the popular image of tank warfare. Many people imagine armored battle as a clash of spearheads, with formations racing across open country until one side breaks. That kind of fighting did happen in Sinai, especially on 14 October when Egyptian armor moved east and was beaten in the open. But Lexicon, Tirtur, and Akavish belonged to another world. Here, a few hundred yards of passable track could matter more than a sweeping maneuver. A disabled tank could block the way for bridging equipment. A trench line beside a road could delay an entire operation. An Egyptian anti-tank team hidden near an embankment could force Israeli vehicles to halt, bunch up, and expose themselves. The battle was not about who possessed the desert in theory. It was about who could use the road at the next hour.

The Israeli countercrossing had already placed Danny Matt’s paratroopers on the west bank in small boats, but that achievement remained fragile until the corridor behind them was secure. Those men across the canal needed reinforcement, and reinforcement meant flow. Tanks had to cross. Artillery support had to follow. Supplies had to move forward. Wounded men had to move back. Commanders had to know which roads were open, which were blocked, and which were only believed to be open because a report had arrived too late. The first crossing could be brave and successful, yet still fail if the east-bank roads collapsed into chaos. This is one of the harshest truths of mechanized war: victory is not only seizing a point. Victory is keeping access to that point alive long enough for combat power to accumulate.

Egyptian soldiers understood the road fight in a more immediate way, even if they did not always know the full Israeli plan. For them, the tracks and junctions near the Chinese Farm were parts of a battlefield they had been ordered to hold. They had trenches, anti-tank weapons, artillery, and the advantages of prepared ground. A local Egyptian commander did not need to know that Israeli generals were trying to reverse the direction of the war. He only needed to know that Israeli tanks and infantry were pushing through his sector and that stopping them would protect the bridgeheads Egypt had won at such cost. This is how operational history becomes personal. A road that means “counteroffensive corridor” to one headquarters means “do not let the enemy pass” to the men dug in beside it.

The Israeli difficulty was that the roads had different meanings at different levels of command. At the highest level, they were lines of communication to the crossing site. For Sharon’s division, they were the practical problem that had to be solved before the crossing could grow. For a tank company in the dark, they might be no more than a dust-filled track with burning vehicles ahead and uncertain reports over the radio. For an engineer dragging bridge equipment forward, the road was everything. It determined whether the war changed before dawn or stalled before the water. This layering of meaning is important because armies often speak as if routes are either open or closed. In reality, a road can be open to tanks but not to bridge convoys, passable in daylight but deadly at night, clear at one end and under fire at the other.

The fight for Tirtur showed how a road could become a battlefield in its own right. Israeli forces needed it opened to move toward the canal and support the crossing, but Egyptian positions around it made movement costly and uncertain. Attempts to clear or use the route collided with entrenched defenders who were difficult to locate and harder to dislodge quickly. Tanks alone could not solve every problem because the threat was not always visible from inside armored vehicles. Infantry had to move into the broken ground, but infantry moving at night against prepared positions pays dearly for poor information. The result was a grinding struggle in which the road itself seemed to resist use. The Israeli plan depended on speed, but the ground around Tirtur turned speed into a series of small, dangerous delays.

Akavish carried its own burden because it was part of the lifeline for the bridge equipment. Heavy crossing gear is unlike a tank battalion that can scatter, maneuver, and fight for position. It is awkward, vulnerable, and demanding. It needs space. It needs traffic control. It needs vehicles ahead of it not to stop in confusion. If a route is blocked by wreckage, enemy fire, or lost units, the bridge cannot simply improvise a new path across the desert. The men escorting and moving the bridging equipment were therefore fighting a battle in which time had weight. Every delay increased the danger to the paratroopers already across the canal. Every pause gave Egyptian commanders another chance to identify the threat and react. In this operation, logistics did not follow combat. It was combat.

Lexicon, closer to the canal, represented the final approach and the dangerous nearness of success. To reach Lexicon was to come near the water, but nearness did not mean safety. The canal bank was vulnerable to artillery, confusion, and sudden Egyptian action. Forces arriving there had to sort themselves under pressure, prepare crossing equipment, protect the site, and keep from becoming tangled in their own movement. The closer the Israelis came to their objective, the narrower their options became. A unit far back in the desert might still maneuver around trouble. A bridge convoy near the canal had fewer choices. It had to get to the right place, in the right order, while the fight for the roads behind it remained unresolved. The canal did not reward arrival. It rewarded organized arrival.

The night fighting around these routes also exposed the limits of command and control. Radios could carry orders, but they could not make a commander see through smoke, darkness, and dust. Reports of Egyptian positions might be incomplete. Claims that a route had been cleared might be true for one section and dangerously false for another. Units moving in opposite directions could jam the same track. Wounded men, ammunition vehicles, tanks, half-tracks, and engineers all needed the same narrow space. In a clean diagram, arrows move without friction. On the ground, friction has engines, fear, dust, and men shouting in the dark. The fight for Lexicon, Tirtur, and Akavish teaches that operational maneuver is not a graceful line drawn across a map. It is a traffic problem under fire, with death waiting at the bottlenecks.

The Egyptians, for their part, were not passive obstacles in an Israeli drama. Their resistance around the roads bought time and inflicted serious losses. Dug-in infantry could make a desert track feel like a city street, because every advance had to be checked, every ditch suspected, every embankment treated as a possible firing point. Egyptian artillery could add confusion by striking junctions or approach routes. Anti-tank weapons made Israeli armor cautious where caution itself could slow the operation. Even when Egyptian command did not fully grasp the scale of the Israeli crossing, local resistance still mattered enormously. This is another recurring lesson in war: a tactical unit can shape strategic outcomes without knowing it. Men holding a road at night may be holding the hinge of a campaign.

For Israeli soldiers, the road battle carried a bitter sense of urgency. They knew, at least in broad terms, that the crossing mattered. They knew that the west-bank foothold had to be fed. But many also fought with only fragments of information, pushed forward into terrain that proved more dangerous than expected. Tank crews tried to protect infantry and routes while avoiding hidden anti-tank fire. Infantry tried to clear positions that tanks could not see. Engineers waited for paths through wreckage and confusion. Commanders pressed units onward because the alternative seemed worse. That is what made the corridor fighting so tragic. The mission was genuinely important, yet importance did not make the ground clearer, the enemy weaker, or the coordination easier.

These roads also mark an important stage in the evolution of armored warfare. By 1973, tanks were still decisive instruments, but they could no longer be understood apart from the network that sustained them. A tank needs fuel, ammunition, recovery, maintenance, infantry support, artillery coordination, and routes wide enough and secure enough to move. In earlier episodes, Egypt had shown that engineers and missile defenses could make the canal crossing possible. Here, Israel showed that recovery and counterattack depended on keeping a corridor open under intense pressure. The lesson is not that roads are more important than tanks. The lesson is that tanks become powerful only when the roads, bridges, radios, and support behind them keep working. Break that chain, and armored force becomes stranded strength.

By the time Lexicon, Tirtur, and Akavish had been fought over, blocked, opened, disputed, and forced into use, the Israeli countercrossing had survived another of its tests. The routes were not made safe in any simple or permanent sense, but enough passage was created for the operation to continue. That was the hard, unsatisfying kind of success that does not look clean from the ground. It left wrecked vehicles, exhausted men, confused memories, and arguments that would last long after the shooting stopped. Yet without the fight for these roads, the boats in the dark might have remained only a daring episode, and the bridgehead west of the canal might never have become a true operational threat. The names sounded like code words because that is what they were. But in the darkness east of the canal, Lexicon, Tirtur, and Akavish became something larger: the narrow passages through which Israel dragged the war into its next phase.