Famous Tank Battles

Anwar Sadat did not need Egyptian tanks to reach Tel Aviv. He did not even need them to reach the mountain passes deep in Sinai, though those passes had a powerful place in every general’s imagination. What he needed was something more subtle and, in some ways, more difficult: a war that would be big enough to break the political deadlock left by 1967, but limited enough that Egypt could survive it. That idea sits at the heart of the whole canal campaign. The crossing of the Suez Canal was not born from a fantasy of total conquest. It was born from the grim recognition that diplomacy had stalled, that Israeli confidence had hardened, and that Egypt had to change the facts on the ground before anyone would take its lost territory seriously again.

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.

Sadat inherited a country still living in the shadow of defeat. Nasser’s death in 1970 left Egypt with unfinished grief, damaged prestige, and an army that had been rebuilt but not yet redeemed. The east bank of the Suez Canal was visible from Egypt, and that visibility mattered. Lost territory can become abstract when it lies far away, but Sinai began just across the water, close enough for soldiers to see the line they were expected one day to cross. The canal towns had been battered by years of shelling and displacement. Families had been pushed from homes near the front. The war of 1967 was not simply a date in national memory; it was a daily geography of absence, a reminder that Egypt’s army had been driven back from land it had once defended.

Yet Sadat was not free to order any war he wished. Egypt had courage, manpower, and Soviet weapons, but it did not have unlimited military options. Israeli armor had proved deadly in open maneuver, and Israeli air power had shown in 1967 how quickly exposed forces could be shattered. A deep advance across Sinai would pull Egyptian troops away from the protective cover of their air defenses and into the sort of desert battle Israel preferred. Sadat’s generals knew this. The more honest planners understood that Egypt could cross the canal, seize a belt of territory on the east bank, and hold it under a shield of missiles and artillery. Beyond that belt, the risks multiplied. A limited war was not timid. It was an attempt to match Egypt’s political need to Egypt’s military reach.

The word limited can be misleading, because nothing about the coming battle would feel small to the men ordered into it. A canal crossing required thousands of soldiers, immense artillery preparation, boats, bridges, engineers, tanks, medical units, communications teams, and supply columns. It required secrecy on a scale difficult for any army, especially one watched closely by Israeli intelligence. It required coordination with Syria, whose own front on the Golan Heights lay far to the north but whose attack would help divide Israeli attention. Most of all, it required a clear purpose. Sadat did not want an impressive raid that ended with Egyptian troops thrown back into the canal. He wanted a foothold that would endure long enough to make the old diplomatic language obsolete. Once Egyptian soldiers stood on the east bank in strength, the world would be forced to look again.

That was the political engine of the plan. Since 1967, diplomacy had often circled the same dead center: Israel held Sinai, Egypt demanded its return, and neither side trusted the other enough to move first. The United States was increasingly important to Israel, the Soviet Union supplied Egypt, and the Cold War turned every regional crisis into something larger. Sadat believed that a controlled military shock could reopen the diplomatic door. He did not expect the battlefield alone to solve Egypt’s problem, but he believed the battlefield could make diplomacy unavoidable. In this sense, the tanks and infantry waiting near the canal were instruments of statecraft as well as war. Their task was not merely to take ground. Their task was to change what leaders in Jerusalem, Washington, Moscow, and Cairo believed was possible.

The challenge was that limited wars are easy to describe and hard to control. Once armies move, they create their own demands. An ally may need help. A commander may see opportunity. A success may tempt expansion, while a setback may force escalation. Sadat’s idea depended on discipline at the strategic level, but the battlefield would be crowded with pressures pulling in different directions. Syria wanted to recover the Golan Heights and needed Egypt to apply real pressure in Sinai, not merely stage a symbolic operation. Egyptian officers wanted to restore the honor of their army and might not all accept a narrow objective once the first success came. Israeli leaders, if shocked, might respond in ways no Egyptian plan could fully predict. A limited war is a wager that violence can be made to serve politics without escaping politics altogether.

For Egyptian Chief of Staff Saad el-Shazly, the military logic of limitation was especially important. Shazly understood the danger of pushing too far too soon. The Egyptian army could be formidable if it fought from prepared bridgeheads, close to the canal, beneath the reach of surface-to-air missiles that threatened Israeli aircraft and alongside infantry armed with anti-tank weapons. In that environment, Israeli armor would not be meeting the same enemy it had crushed in 1967. But if Egyptian formations drove deep into Sinai, they would outrun some of the protection that made the plan work. Tanks that looked powerful on a parade ground could become isolated shapes in the desert if fuel, air defense, infantry support, and artillery coverage fell behind. Shazly’s caution was not defeatism. It was a clear-eyed understanding of what modern armored warfare demanded.

The plan that emerged was therefore built around a deliberate first act. Egyptian infantry would cross the canal in assault waves, overwhelm or isolate Israeli strongpoints, and establish positions on the east bank. Engineers would cut through the sand rampart and prepare routes for vehicles. Bridges and ferries would bring tanks and heavier equipment across after the infantry had made room. Artillery would suppress known Israeli positions, while air defenses on the west bank and then forward elements near the canal would make the sky far more dangerous for Israeli pilots. The first Egyptian tanks across were not meant to gallop wildly into Sinai. They were meant to strengthen the bridgeheads, help defeat Israeli counterattacks, and turn the canal from an obstacle into a protected base for political leverage.

This was a different vision of armored warfare from the sweeping desert battles that filled popular imagination. It did not treat the tank as a lone knight charging across open ground. It treated armor as one instrument in a carefully arranged system. Infantry with portable anti-tank weapons would blunt Israeli counterattacks. Engineers would create the paths. Artillery would shape the battlefield before enemy tanks arrived. Air defense would limit the Israeli air force, whose presence had once seemed almost automatic. Communications would keep the crossing waves, bridge units, and command posts tied together under pressure. None of this made tanks unimportant. It made them dependent on everything around them. In the canal plan, the tank’s power came not from freedom of movement at the start, but from being placed inside a protective web.

On the Israeli side, the danger lay in misreading both Sadat and the nature of his objective. Israeli leaders often judged that Egypt would not go to war unless it had the ability to recover Sinai in a major campaign. Since Israel believed Egypt lacked that ability, the chance of war seemed manageable, even when warning signs appeared. This was the fatal gap between capability and intention. Sadat did not need to be capable of winning the kind of war Israel expected him to attempt. He needed to be capable of winning the first phase of a different war, one with a narrower aim and a political purpose. When an opponent changes the definition of success, old intelligence judgments can become dangerous. Israel looked for signs of a war of conquest, while Egypt prepared a war of disruption.

That misunderstanding gave the coming attack some of its power. The Egyptian plan was not secret because every individual movement was invisible. Armies preparing for war make noise, move supplies, rehearse procedures, and leave traces. Its deeper secrecy lay in the fact that many observers doubted Egypt would dare act within such limited military boundaries. Sadat’s war aim seemed too restrained to those expecting a grand offensive, and too risky to those who thought defeat would destroy him politically. But that was precisely the space he chose. He was willing to gamble that a successful crossing, even without the conquest of Sinai, would puncture Israeli certainty and restore Egyptian agency. The point was to make the post-1967 order unstable. The crossing did not have to end the conflict. It had to end the illusion that the conflict could be frozen at Egypt’s expense.

There was also a human dimension inside this strategy that can be lost when the story is told only through arrows on a map. Egyptian soldiers had spent years training for a mission whose first minutes would be terrifyingly exposed. They would climb into boats knowing the far bank held strongpoints, guns, and the memory of previous defeat. Engineers practiced with pumps and bridging equipment because hesitation at the water’s edge could doom entire units. Tank crews waited for the moment when they would cross not as the opening spearhead, but as part of a larger machine already in motion. On the Israeli side, reservists expected that if war came, they would once again race to the front and restore the situation through speed and skill. Both armies were preparing men to act inside stories larger than themselves.

Sadat’s limited war mattered because it challenged one of the most seductive ideas in armored history: that victory belongs simply to the side that can move fastest and strike hardest. Speed still mattered, and Israeli operational recovery would later prove how dangerous a flexible armored force could be. But the opening logic of the 1973 war showed that tempo could also be denied, delayed, and redirected. Egypt did not try to win the first battle by outracing Israel across Sinai. It tried to make the first Israeli race forward collide with infantry, missiles, artillery, water obstacles, and prepared ground. In the long evolution from Cambrai to modern mechanized war, this was a crucial lesson. Tanks had become more powerful since the First World War, but so had the systems designed to stop them.

The tragedy and brilliance of Sadat’s plan lay in the same fact: it was a war designed to be incomplete. It aimed to cross, shock, hold, and negotiate, not to settle every question by force of arms. That made it strategically sophisticated, but also unstable, because once blood was shed, no statesman could fully control the emotions and pressures unleashed. The later battles at Chinese Farm, Deversoir, Ismailia, and Suez would grow from both the success and the limits of this opening idea. Egypt would prove that Israel could be surprised, wounded, and forced into crisis. Israel would prove that an army staggered at the start could still recover operationally and strike back across the canal. Sadat’s limited war opened the door to both outcomes. It began as a carefully measured gamble, and it would soon become a campaign of sand walls, missile belts, shattered assumptions, and tanks fighting for roads that had suddenly become the hinges of history.