Famous Tank Battles

The phrase sounded almost unreal to Israeli soldiers who had spent the war fighting in Sinai: into Africa. The Suez Canal was more than a strip of water now. It was the line between the eastern bank, where Egypt had won its first great success of the war, and the western bank, where Israel hoped to turn that success inside out. By 17 and 18 October 1973, the crossing at Deversoir had survived its most fragile hours. Boats had carried paratroopers across in darkness, bridges were beginning to function, and Egyptian counterattacks had failed to cut the corridor. Now the war changed shape again. Israel was no longer merely trying to hold a foothold. It was pushing armor into Egypt proper, toward the rear of the armies that had crossed so brilliantly days before.

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.

For Avraham Adan, known by his nickname Bren, the west bank offered both opportunity and danger. His armored division had fought through the confusion and losses of the Sinai campaign, and now it was being fed across the canal into a battlefield few Israeli tank crews had expected to see. The mission was not simply to wave a flag on Egyptian soil. Adan’s forces had to expand the bridgehead, drive southward, attack the support system behind Egypt’s Third Army, and turn roads, missile sites, and supply routes into pressure points. This was exploitation, but not the effortless kind imagined in tidy histories. A bridgehead is born cramped. Vehicles must cross in order, find room to deploy, avoid congestion, and move before the enemy regains balance. Every tank arriving west of the canal increased Israeli power, but it also had to be fueled, supplied, commanded, and protected.

The terrain west of the canal was different from the deep Sinai desert that had shaped much of the earlier fighting. It was not all open emptiness. Near the canal and the cultivated belt, fields, irrigation canals, villages, tree lines, embankments, and roads complicated movement. Farther out, the desert opened again, but the first problem was to break free from the crossing area without becoming tangled in it. Israeli tanks that had been deadly in open desert now had to navigate a rear-area landscape full of military targets and civilian geography. This mattered because armored warfare is always shaped by the ground beneath it. A division can have excellent crews and powerful tanks, but if it cannot find routes, coordinate columns, and keep supplies flowing through the crossing behind it, its speed becomes fragile.

The Egyptian rear was not an empty backyard waiting to be overrun. It contained the machinery that had made Operation Badr possible: surface-to-air missile sites, artillery positions, command posts, transport routes, repair areas, supply dumps, and roads feeding the armies on the east bank. For nearly two weeks, that system had looked eastward, supporting the bridgeheads in Sinai and helping protect them from Israeli aircraft and armor. Now Israeli forces were appearing behind parts of it. That reversal was the heart of the countercrossing’s power. The Israelis did not have to destroy every Egyptian formation east of the canal in a frontal battle. By entering the west bank, they could threaten the roots of those formations, the connections that allowed them to remain strong. In modern war, the rear is not separate from the front. It is the front’s bloodstream.

Adan’s division moved with the hard urgency of men who knew the chance had to be widened before it closed. Tanks and armored personnel carriers crossed the canal, sorted themselves into columns, and began pushing outward. Some forces struck at Egyptian air-defense positions, whose destruction or disruption could open space for Israeli aircraft to operate more freely. Others moved to seize road junctions, block Egyptian movement, and expand the perimeter around the crossing. The work demanded more than speed. It demanded direction. A fast armored column in the wrong place can be irrelevant or even endangered. A slower column that reaches the enemy’s supply road at the right hour can change the operational map. On the west bank, the key question was not how far the Israelis could drive in a heroic burst, but which parts of the Egyptian system they could dislocate first.

For Egyptian commanders, the Israeli move west of the canal created a command problem unlike the one they had prepared to solve. Their armies east of the canal still held substantial ground and still possessed the achievement that had transformed the war’s politics. But now the danger came from behind the canal line, from a crossing point near the seam between their armies, and from armored forces moving through rear areas that had not been organized as the main defensive front. Egypt had to decide whether to pull forces back, counterattack the bridgehead, defend the missile network, protect the Third Army’s supply lines, or continue holding the east bank as proof of the crossing’s success. Each choice carried risk. When an enemy reaches the rear, he does not merely threaten equipment. He forces headquarters to think in too many directions at once.

This is where Israeli armored warfare began to recover its old rhythm, but in a changed form. The lesson of the first week had not been forgotten. Tanks could still die quickly when thrown into prepared anti-tank zones. Infantry missiles, air defenses, and artillery had shown that the battlefield had become more dangerous than the open victories of 1967 suggested. But on the west bank, Israeli armor found places where speed and initiative could again matter. The Egyptian defensive system was thinner, more rear-facing, and less prepared for a mobile fight in every direction. Israeli commanders could use armored columns to cut, raid, block, and unsettle. The tank had not returned as a solitary wonder weapon. It had returned as part of a moving operational system, fed by bridges and aimed at the enemy’s connections.

The bridges at Deversoir remained the narrow throat of the entire operation. Every success west of the canal depended on that crossing continuing to work. Fuel trucks, ammunition vehicles, recovery crews, engineers, medical evacuation, replacement crews, and command vehicles all had to pass through the same vulnerable system. The Israeli drive into Africa therefore had a hidden weakness behind every forward movement. If Egypt could strike the crossing, jam the corridor, or cut the routes east of the canal, Israeli forces west of the water might become overextended. This is the paradox of exploitation after a water crossing. The farther the armored force drives, the more dramatic its effect, but the more it depends on a thin line back to the bridge. Operational boldness and logistical anxiety traveled together.

The first Israeli attacks against Egyptian missile and artillery positions carried special significance. The Egyptian missile umbrella had shaped the war from its opening hours, limiting Israeli air freedom and protecting the canal bridgeheads. When Israeli armor began overrunning or threatening parts of that air-defense network from the west, the balance started to shift. Aircraft could not suddenly act everywhere without danger, and Egyptian air defenses did not vanish overnight, but the idea that the canal zone was protected by an intact shield began to break down. For armored warfare, this was a powerful reminder that air defense is geography as much as technology. A missile battery protects a zone only as long as its crews, radars, supply, and physical position remain secure. Once tanks appear behind it, the shield can become a set of isolated targets.

The Egyptian soldiers on the east bank may not have felt the full danger immediately, but the pressure was building around them. The Third Army, holding the southern bridgehead east of the canal, depended on routes and supplies from the west. If Israeli forces drove south and cut those connections, the army could remain brave and numerous while becoming operationally trapped. That is one of the cruelest situations in war: a force still capable of fighting, still holding ground, still armed, but increasingly separated from food, water, ammunition, fuel, and medical support. Tanks without fuel become bunkers. Artillery without shells becomes metal. Men without water in the Egyptian desert face a danger no amount of discipline can ignore. Adan’s movement southward began to turn geography into a noose.

The drive west of the canal also changed the emotional balance of the war. Egypt had begun with the dramatic act of crossing into Sinai and breaking the line Israel thought it could defend. Israel’s movement into Africa answered with a reversal that was equally dramatic, though different in meaning. It did not erase Egypt’s opening success, and it did not restore the prewar world. Egyptian soldiers still stood east of the canal, and Sadat had already achieved the political shock he wanted. But Israel had recovered from surprise and was now threatening to convert operational maneuver into strategic leverage. Both sides could claim something real, and both sides faced something painful. The battlefield was becoming more complicated than victory or defeat could easily contain.

For the tank crews driving west and south, the campaign must have felt strange and dangerous in equal measure. They were on Egyptian soil, moving through rear areas, striking targets that had once seemed protected by the canal itself. Yet they were not free raiders in an empty land. They faced local resistance, air attack, artillery, mechanical breakdowns, and the constant need to know where friendly forces were moving in a rapidly changing battle. A tank column advancing through the enemy rear can feel powerful until it runs low on fuel, loses radio contact, or meets resistance at the wrong crossroads. The men inside those vehicles lived in the narrow space between exhilaration and vulnerability. Their success depended on keeping motion purposeful and never forgetting the bridge behind them.

Into Africa matters because it marks the moment the Israeli countercrossing became an operational threat rather than a daring survival story. The boats, the corridor battles, the Chinese Farm, and the bridges had all been necessary to make this possible. Now the payoff began: Israeli armor could strike the rear of the Egyptian canal armies, damage the missile system, widen the bridgehead, and begin the movement that would eventually endanger the Third Army. In the history of armored warfare, this is the stage where maneuver proves its deepest purpose. Not movement for its own sake, not a romantic charge across open ground, but movement that changes the enemy’s choices. Once Adan’s division crossed in strength, Egypt no longer faced only a battle east of the canal. It faced a war behind the war.

The crossing into Africa did not end the campaign, but it opened its final and most dangerous phase. To the north, Sharon’s forces would push toward Ismailia and discover that the west bank could become slow, dense, and stubborn. To the south, Adan’s division would press toward Suez and the lifelines of the Egyptian Third Army. Ahead lay cease-fire deadlines, urban fighting, diplomatic crisis, and a trapped army whose survival would matter far beyond the battlefield. But for this moment, the key fact was simple and enormous: Israeli armor had crossed the canal and was moving in Egypt proper. The war that began with Egyptian soldiers stepping east across the water had now turned back across the same water in the opposite direction. The canal had become not a border, but a revolving door of initiative, and whoever moved through it with purpose could make the enemy’s victory tremble.