Talk:Battle of the Chinese Farm

References

The word "Decisive" is misspelled in this section's book links, making it extremely difficult to find in a search engine. I don't know how to edit a { {reflist}}.

Error corrected. --Sherif9282 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of Egyptian tanks

This source writes almost exactly what Shazly says. Four armored brigades could never make up 1,000 tanks. He doesn't mention numbers, but Shazly does. Sherif9282 (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason I reverted was the removal of the "biggest tank battle since..." anecdote, which is quite famous and is appropriate in the lead. Here and here, following a fast Google search, are other sources. I'm not exactly sure about the numbers, I'll look for them when I have time. -- Nudve (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Zeev Schiff, the attack had 800 tanks (A History of the Israeli Army, p. 223). Benny Morris gives them 1,000 (Righteous Victims, p. 422). Chaim Herzog wrote that they had several divisions, and that some 2,000 tanks were locked in battle. Kenneth Pollack writes about this extensively in a footnote. He says there were 9-10 brigades. He thinks the Egyptian accounts that say only four brigades were involved are "absurd". He also says Gamasy recalled six or seven brigades in a later interview. (Arabs at War, pp. 612-613). Can you give me a page number on Gawrych? For some reason, it does not allow a search. Also, since the entire book seems to be online, can you give a link? Thanks, Nudve (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Egyptians only had 1,000 tanks across the canal, and had in total, 10 armored brigades according to Shazly. Gamasy states that the attack was carried aout by the 21st Armored Division (which Gawrych writes had 2 brigades), and by two other armored brigades, one of which belonged to the 4th Armored Division. In addition to these four armored brigades, there was one infantry brigades. Both Gamasy and Shazly give the same details on the prinipal axis of attacks of the forces. I gave you a link to Gawrych about this information. Here is a list of all works published by the Command and General Staff College.

The source you gave me has some mistakes in it. It says that Egypt and Syria had 2,200 and 2,000 tanks respectively, when they in fact had 1,700 and 1,400 respectively, and that Egypt had 550 first-line aircraft, when that number was actually 470, and of that there were only 200 Mig-21s. Even these had been surpassed at the time by the newer Mig-23.

As for Pollack, saying that all of the Egyptians 9-10 armored brigades were involved in the attack meant that the Egyptians were gambling with all their available armor; that sounds absurd to me. I don't understand what he sees is absurd about using 4 armored brigades. Frankly, I suspect Schiff, Morris and Herzog to be biased when it comes to describing the battle. Also, this source writes that the Israelis had 800 tanks in the Sinai and 60,000 infantry, using Nord SS.11 and TOWs. I think this should be mentioned in the article instead of "supporting infantry". Gamasy writes that there were 1,500 tanks locked in battle. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamasy and Shazli both write that on October 13, an aricraft was spotted on Egyptian radar screens, with a speed of Mach 3 and an altitude of over 20 kms, and based on this conclude that hte aircraft was the SR-71. The aircraft went over the entire Suez Canal. Later on, Gamasy writes It is worth mentioning that in a conversation I had with Dr. Kissinger during on of his visits to Egypt after the war, he told me that the United States had identified the 21st Armored Division crossing to the east bank of the canal. The United States had concluded that we would move on the offensive soon. I told him that Israel had confirmed the crossing and drawn the obvious conclusions on our intentions. I meant that the United States had provided them with the reconnaissancie information of October 13. He neither replied nor commentedm but the expression of his face gave him away. p.278. I don't know if this should be included in the article here, but I thought of mentioning it anyway. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I'm sure that there are many interesting pieces in there. When I asked for a page number, What I meant was the page number within the PDF file that says the attack was carried out by four brigades. -- Nudve (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. What you need is on page 56. Sherif9282 (talk) 07:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. This is interesting. As Pollack notes, these figures mean that 66-88 percent of the tanks were lost, which is unheard of in modern warfare. Especially considering that they weren't enveloped by the Israelis and broke off the attack after a few hours. Still, this would mean we'd have to provide a range. -- Nudve (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had read further on in Gawrych's book, you would have read a detailed breakdown of the losses, which shows that most units participating in the attack sufferred losses of at least half their force or even more. The attack started early morning (Gamasy is more precise, writing the attack began at 6:30 am) and ended in the afternoon, so actually, they were more than just a few hours. They could have been close to 7 or 8 hours of fighting, probably continuous. I'm not sure if such losses were unheard of in modern warfare; the Soviets, despite winning the Battl of Kursk, had lost 6,000 tanks in that battle. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a range. Turns out Rabinovich also estimates 400-500. What I meant was not the total number of tanks, but the percentage out of the original total. -- Nudve (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I know you meant the percentage. When I wrote the number of Soviet losses at Kursk I meant to show that they also lost a considerably large proportion of their original tanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright :) I suppose at this point this discussion is going into WP:NOTFORUM territory... -- Nudve (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge from Battle of the Sinai

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was confusion. Discussion of the merge was mixed with discussion of move and the terms used in discussion do not match the article title. Not being an expert on this topic, I don't know what the consensus was. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

---

I've just discovered that article. It has a few problems. First of all, the title is made up. More importantly, it covers the exact same engagement that is detailed here under Stouthearted men. I think it should be redirected. Any thoughts? -- Nudve (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I agree with you. Sherif9282 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts:, the battle of sinai should be re-named Operation Stouthearted Men and drastically expanded, telling only the story of the Israeli crossing itself (logistics, roller bridges, planning, initial crossing with zodiacks and so on). The chinese farm should be mentioned in it briefly, while all the Israeli crossing data should be imported from the chinese farm article into the re-named article. Both issues are huge on their own, and right now they are simply mixed together--Omrim (talk) 04:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)OR merge under the name Operation Stouthearted Men, in which case it will be a LONG article, but probably more easily structured.--Omrim (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, we could have three articles: one about "Operation Gazelle" (this is what the Egyptian offensive was called, right?), one about Stouthearted Men (the Israeli crossing), and one about the Chinese Farm. It all depends on how much info we have about those. Thoughts? -- Nudve (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the Egyptian offensive was called, but I don't think it was Gazelle. In this article the Chinese Farms battle is mentioned as being part of Operation Gazelle, the Israeli plan to strike between the 2nd and 3rd Egyptian Armies (I suppose that was a mistake and that it should said Operation Stouthearted Men). As for the Egyptian assault, I don't think there is any more info that we can add aside what is in the Battle of the Sinai article. I think we should create a separate article about Stouthearted Men which would briefly speak about the Chinese Farms. Along with the Battle of the Chinese Farm, that should be enough. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know (I might be wrong) Gazelle and Stouthearted Men are two names for the same operation. Gazelle being the code-name, and Stouthearted Men the popular-embraced name. The chinese farm was a battle fought early in the course of the crossing as part of Stouthearted Men. So it should be Stouthearted Men --> Chinese farm, both in seperate articles.--Omrim (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright. In that case, I support Omrim's suggestion. -- Nudve (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prelude

It looks like some changes need to be made to the prelude section. First of all :The plan established with Syria called for Egypt to act as a second front, diverting Israeli resources long enough for the Syrians to penetrate the Golan Heights and flood into Israel...

If the Egyptians and Syrians were to attack Israel at the same time, how was Egypt supposed to divert Israeli resources? It would sound more like the other way around, since the main Israeli effort was directed at the Golan. Also, the objective of both Egypt and Syria was to recapture as much ground lost in 1967, not to invade Israel, yet the sentence mentioned above, as well as this one:transversing the massive Sinai Desert to attack Israel directly was deemed impossible makes it appear that Arab armies really did intend to invade Israel.

Egyptians resolved to recapture as much territory... as possible This is also incorrect since the Egyptians only planned to capture and hold a strip of ground on the east bank of the canal. This fact should be stated instead of saying: recapture as much territory. Well? Sherif9282 (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No answer yet... Sherif9282 (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unclear

After a day and a half of savage fighting, eighty-five Egyptian tanks had been destroyed along with a similar number of Israeli tank losses,[2][5] the Egyptians had from the farm, and the Israelis were able to place the bridge across the canal.

The Egyptians had ??? from the farm? This is unclear, probably an editing error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pechaney (talk • contribs) 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Largest tank battle?

I have a question for Nudve.

The total number of tanks participating in this battle ranges from 1,200-1,800. In the Battle of Chawinda, 2,300 tanks participated initially, with the number rising to nearly 2,700 in the later stages of the battle. That article also states the Battle of Chawinda was the largest tank battle since the Battle of Kursk.

So which one is the largest tank battle since World War II? Sherif9282 (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the Battle of Chawinda. What is the source for those figures? -- Nudve (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've asked someone to provide me with sources, but he hasn't replied yet. I'll see what I can come up with. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: in this documentary (at 3:53), Sharon states that his division, alone, lost some 300 killed and 1,000 wounded on the night of October 15/16. How can this piece of information be included in the article? Sherif9282 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice doc. I think YouTube videos are generally deprecated as sources, but it's not impossible. I've looked, and Trevor Dupuy cites the 300 killed figure, as well as tanks losses (p. 500). I can add it, if you don't have conflicting sources. -- Nudve (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand YouTube is not a very reliable source, but these casualties were stated by Sharon in person! I don't have any conflicting sources by the way. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would put that video as an external link. I'll add the figures from Dupuy. -- Nudve (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, concerning the sources for the Battle of Chawinda, I've so far found this, this, this, and I suppose this one as well. What do you think?--Sherif9282 (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Some of the sources do say that it was the largest battle since WWII "at the time", so maybe it was the largest until 1973. Again, I'm not that knowledgeable here. -- Nudve (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Nudve, there's an argument going on at the Ofira Air Battle. Could you join in and state your opinion? Canadian Monkey has reverted my edit a couple of times so far. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake with the casualties Nudve. Those 300 KIA and 1,000 WIA belong to Sharon's division, and I think that's the same for the ~70 tanks destroyed (Reshef's brigade, part of Sharon's division, saw 60 of its tanks destroyed during the night of October 15/16). However, Sharon's division was not the only one to fight at Chinese Farms; there were also the two brigades in Adan's division, which apparently suffered heavy losses, and Ya'iri's paratroopers, who suffered an additional 40 KIA and 80 WIA. What I'm saying is, since we don't have the total number of losses (for either side probably), the losses should be mentioned individually in the article.

Furthermore, this battle began on October 15 with Sharon's attack, and ended on October 17 with the Egyptian withdrawal and the rescue of the paratroopers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The numbers refer to Sharon's division on the night of October 15-16, which is the "timeline" given in the infobox. I assumed they include Reshef's brigade, but maybe they don't. Interestingly, Dupuy calls the battle "Operation 'Strongheart' and the Chinese Farm", while the next chapter is titled "Battle of the Chinese Farm, October 16-17". -- Nudve (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose the timeline for the battle should be October 15-17. Accordingly we should change the casualties. Assuming we don't know the total losses for the entire battle, we should probably state them in the article itself rather than the infobox. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the info, hopefully to the right place. This article is a mess. I wish I had more time to work on it. -- Nudve (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of the Chinese Farm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I will review this shortly. It has a very interesting name! I hope the article and the review will be as interesting. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Infobox, "Heavy" losses are not adequate. Give more information. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Gawrych (2000) and Walter (2002) to the biblography zone.
  • Gawrych (1996) use the usual format, with a link to the webpages if you consider them neccessary. WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 03:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey there! Thank you for starting this review. At the moment, there's a revolution where I am :) , so this is far from the best time for me, so I hope you'll bear with me.

With regards to the losses. Heavy is more or less accurate for both sides, and there isn't a figure for the total losses for either side. We can change heavy to unknown, but the former is better in my opinion. The second comment has been addressed apparently thanks to User:Thurgate, and I'll see to last issue ASAP. Cheers! -Sherif9282 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

• Needs a tad of copyediting, I suggest you submit to the guild. 15:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Gawrych (1996) is now in the usual format. I've submitted a request to the guild too. --Sherif9282 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anything else? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Figures that the revolution is over (twas featured on ITN sometime ago). WikiCopter (♠ • ♣ • ♥ • ♦ • simple • commons • lost • cvu • onau) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit 26 Feb

Hi

During the copyedit a couple of things came to light which may need action:

Lead, Operation Abiray-Lev and Order of battle:

• "hoped to attrition the Israelis" - I changed this to "hoped to achieve attrition among the Israelis", I am not sure that is the most definitive solution though as "among" should possibly be "of".

* "counteroffensive" and "counterattack" - while counterattack may be accepted as a var. of counterattack, counteroffensive does not appear to be. For consistency I have retained counter-, also because the Oxford English says so. That may be an ENGVAR thing though and would appreciate information on that if it is.

• I standardised to "night of XX/XX"
• "and cutting off two Egyptian divisions across the canal" - the Israelis were to establish bhead, cross canal, build bridge, attack N & S, reach Suez, but were these two divisions on the east or west bank? As it stands it sounds like the Egyptians were on the bank they had just left - probably should be clarified.

Location of battle...:

• "Tel Salaam, near the GBL, six kilometers south" - What is the GBL mentioned here? I think it is the Great Bitter Lake but there is that old ass-u-me thingy lol - If so it should be "Great Bitter Lake (GBL)" first and can then be " GBL " after that.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been corrected on the hyphenated usage of counter attack and counteroffensive. ENGVAR compounds and hyphens

I will begin to change them now. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for taking up the request, the edits look great. I've tried to address some of your points:

• "hoped to attrition the Israelis" - I've changed this to "wear down the Israelis by means of attrition", although that might still need some tweaking.
• I've specified which bank of the canal the Egyptians were on.
• The GBL is indeed the Great Bitter Lake. I've edited the article introduction to point that out.

Sherif9282 (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Chinese?

Why it calls 'chinese'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.53.74 (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of the Chinese Farm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110218142111/http://www.almasryalyoum.com:80/news/«معاريف»-طنطاوي-انتصر-على-«باراك»-في-73-ومبارك-شخصية-ثانوية-في-الحرب to http://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/«معاريف»-طنطاوي-انتصر-على-«باراك»-في-73-ومبارك-شخصية-ثانوية-في-الحرب

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

217.54.138.202 (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Egyptian victory

-The battle of the Chinese farm was an Egyptian victory, not an Israeli one. I think you are confusing it with the Battle of Ibri Lev. The battle of the Chinese farm was a victory with the testimony of the Israelis themselves "I think my colleagues and I were sent into this battle to be food for the tanks," says Yorick Varta, one of the soldiers who survived the battle. As Ilan Cohen, a reserve soldier, said: "I participated in the rescue mission, I saw three wounded soldiers, I got off the armored car, to save them, and thirty meters away I heard a frightening explosion, I raised my head and was stunned by the sight of the friction of an RPG anti-tank missile." The roof of the armored car, and an Israeli armored car did not come out of this battle without a deep wound. Shoki Weinstein says: “The Russian RPG missiles were the surprise of the terrifying war of the Israeli armored corps. It was an unpleasant surprise by all standards. We had not been trained to confront it before, and we had not trained to rescue the wounded in an open field, the sky raining predatory Egyptian missiles. ". Jeffrey Eliezer adds: "I saw the rockets flying in front of my face, advancing towards me at lightning speed. At first, I did not know what kind of projectiles they were. As for General Moshe Afri, he said: "The Egyptian soldiers surprised us with their courage and determination. My generation was raised on fairy tales about the Egyptian soldier who, as soon as he saw a tank pounce on him, took off his shoes and started running away. This did not happen on the Chinese farm. We woke up. On the bitter truth. Their hearts were not broken in front of the tanks, they were going around in semi-circles around our tanks, directing RPGs in unparalleled insistence. I have no explanation for this situation except that they were drunk with victory, and in such a case the tank has no chance in the battle." After his visit to the Chinese farm on October 17, accompanied by General Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan said: "I could not hide my feelings when I saw them. Hundreds of smashed and burnt military vehicles were scattered everywhere, and as we approached each tank, I hoped that I would not find the mark of the Israeli army on them." My heart sank because there were a lot of Israeli tanks." Moshe Dayan also described in his memoirs the story of his meeting with Colonel "Uzi Yari", commander of the Israeli Parachute Force that participated in the Battle of the Chinese Farm, saying: "I knew Uzi well since he was director of the Chief of Staff's office under General Haim Bar-Lev and I knew that he had lost many of his men. In battle, but I did not expect to see him in this picture of depression, and his face was bearing signs of indescribable sadness.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotes by the Participants of the battle / End Result

There are quite alot of terrifying quotes and sayings told by the participants of the battle, while some of them is mentioned, I think we should add more.

And on what basis can we qualify this battle as an Israeli victory?

It is stated as an Egyptian victory over at the Arab wikipedia. Russavot (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you red the article? "The Egyptians attempted to restore their defenses to their initial dispositions with an armored attack on October 17. It initially succeeded, but was pushed back by Israeli counterattacks in an armored battle lasting the entire day. Seriously depleted by the continuous fighting, the Egyptians relinquished control of the routes to the canal, opening them up to the Israelis. "

Shorter version: At the beginning of the battle the Egyptians held an area, but were pushed back from it, and at the end, they didn't have it. What else would this be but an Israeli victory? Inf-in MD (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering that I have one more set of functioning eyes more than you, most likely, yes. There is a reason why I mentioned the Arabic wikipedia in this request, they have provided their own line of thinking of why Egypt won the battle, so therefore, it is classified as an Egyptian victory. No need to be a narcissistic asshat who barely listens to anyone, Infi-in!

Israel victory??

Egypt was not defeated in the battle of the Chinese farm but won militarily and resisted the Israelis but after their ammunition ran out,an order came for them to withdraw after the liberation of Talbieh (Missouri) Hamed2139 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The victory was for the Egyptian and their intelligent defence attack surprise plan in which yhe ISIS lost badly audio records of the screaming burning Israeli soldiers still hunting Zionists flees, stop forging true facts out of respect the poor doomed Jewish cowards, unfortunately we could be unique friends if you didn't kill them children JinnJF (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)