Talk:War of Attrition

Untitled

Why does this article say the '1970' war of attrition? It was a three-year period that *ended* in 1970. How does one change the name of an article?

There is no referacne here to what a 'war of attrition' means, rather the specific war known as the 'war of attrtion'

"No serious diplomatic efforts"

As of 28/08/18 the article reads: "Following the 1967 Six-Day War, no serious diplomatic efforts tried to resolve the issues at the heart of the Arab–Israeli conflict.". This is entirely false. Israel offered the Sinai peninsula and the Golan heights to Egypt and Syria respectively in exchange for peace, an offer supported by the US and the USSR which Nasser refused. It was essentially the same proposition that Sadat would later accept. See the last few minutes of the following documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UKuxPyrpx0 (the strange title of the youtube video is no indicator of the quality of the documentary, which contains testimonies from the likes of foreign secretary McNamara, Abba Eban, and several Egyptian generals). I hope this error is swiftly corrected, as I feel this fact is essential to the understanding of the situation in the middle East from 1967 to 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.214.158.137 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

A few sound-bites stitched together. Nothing at all that is citable here. Zero^talk 10:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Who won the war?

Egypt tried to re-capture Sinai, but failed. Instead, they fought a long-lasting and expensive war near the Suez Canal. The egyptian casualties were much higher than the israeli, although they recieved help from the Soviet Union, amd Jordan and PLO attacket Israel at the same time. At last, Egypt gave up, and they returned to Status quo. So who won? Israel. The succeeded in protecting Sinai from the egyptian invasion, and Egypt failed in causing the israelis high casualties. Although the egyptians also claimed victory, Israel was the real victor. Anyone who disagree? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like draw to me. 88.100.47.221 (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The only way Israel could have lost this war, would be by loosing post-1967-territory to Egypt. Israel did not only halt the Egyptians from re-capturing Sinai, but also inflicted them huge casualties. I highly favour this being an Israeli victory.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems you want every war Israel's been in to be an Israeli victory. No one cares what you "highly favour", find a reliable source that states it to be an Israeli victory and then you may have some basis for this claim. What you're doing is original research. ElUmmah (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I just can't see any way Egypt might have "won" this war. They attempted to recapture Sinai, and failed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

They weren't trying to recapture Sinai, read up on their stated objectives. And like I said, stop with the original research. Wiki is about finding reliable sources. ElUmmah (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is already stated in the article; "Egypt was determined to regain Sinai, and also sought to mitigate the severity of its defeat.". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First off, regain doesn't necessarily mean recapture. Second, I'm telling you for the third time, get a RELIABLE source that EXPLICITLY states that the war was an israeli victory, and then raise the issue again. I'm done here. ElUmmah (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

July 30th, 1970 ambush

There were not 24 MiGs. Maybe there were 24 in air at one time, but if this is so, then 12 of them did not reach the battle in time, so they did not take part. There is much confusion about the number of planes involved (24:12?, 12:20?, 8:16?, 8:12?), but it would not be much of an ambush if the Israelis were outnumbered 2:1.

• There are many sources that say there were 24 MiGs. There are other sources that put the ratio at 20:12, but I have yet to see one claiming there were more Israeli planes than MiGs. In any case, it is bad form for you to just replace the original figures in the article with others, without citing a source. It may very well be that some of them arrived later than the others.

Looking at sources from one side are not you? You have to look at both sides to get a more clear picture. Even the account of an Israeli pilot contradicts the 24:12 statement: "Now some more of our aircraft had joined the battle; the Russians no longer had numerical superiority." from here http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_263.shtml

• You presume too much. I've looked at numerous sources, mostly neutral, and have yet to see your claim of an 8:12 ratio. Indeed, the very article you cite above is one of my sources,and is a neutral one, and gives a 16:12 ratio, as follows "Four high-flying Mirages were nearby, with four additional Phantoms at low level, all waiting for the Soviets to appear. Further to the rear four additional Mirages were positioned as well. When there was no reaction from the Soviets, the front section of Mirages penetrated deeper into Egypt: almost 12 minutes after the initial attack, the Soviets finally reacted. The first to be scrambled were eight MiG-21s of the 135th IAP, led by Capt. Kamencev. They expected to clash with a group of Skyhawks or Phantoms that were apparently underway towards Cairo: in fact, the Mirages were only dragging them in front of Phantoms. As the pursuit continued, four additional MiGs were scrambled from Kom Awshim, and now the rear quartet of Mirages joined the fray as well: in response, the Soviets scrambled four additional MiGs from Kutamiyah." Other sources have it at 20:12: "four Mirage IICs were sent to attack a radar base in the Nile Delta to draw the Russian pilots into the battle. At the same time, another four Mirages and four F-4s were lying in ambush at a very low altitude. The Russians sent two formations of four MiG-21s to shoot down the Mirages. A short time later, another dozen MiGs took off. " http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1998/articles/jul_98/jul2a_98.html

And of course, if you want the account of Israeli pilots, thoe official IAF history books have the ratio at 24:12

---

Again, the IDF official account is only one side. What are your other neutral sources? By neutral, I don't mean a non-Israeli website or book, but something that does not only use Israeli sources and/or is not biased to one side. You have to have a truely neutral source or atleast look at sources from both sides and compare. I posted the website to provide a source for the pilot's quote. Acig has some anti-Soviet bias, so I don't consider it a neutral source. Anyway, on there and on the site you posted, it does not say that the additional MiGs reached the battle in time. Russian sources state that the Israelis had numerical superiority (8:12 or 12:20) in the actual battle. Maybe I will translate them later if needed. I think it is not wise to say that the Israelis were fighting outnumbered 2:1. Why does the Israeli pilot contradict the 24:12 assumption?

---

The IDF account is only one side, but I've given you 2 other sources, the ACIG site, and the CodeOne site. To me, they are both neutral, as they are neither Israeli nor Soviet. But if you're going to discount every such source by alleging it has an anti-Soviet bias, there's not much point in bringing up sources, is there? [I have yet to see a single one of your sources, BTW]. I don't know why you think it's not wise to say that the Israelis were fighting outnumbered 2:1. Sela's testimony does not contradict the 24:12 ratio, it merely states that at one point in time, the Israelis achieved numerical parity. This tells us the Israelies were outnumberd before that point in time, but does not rule out that they were again outnumbered later, when the additional 4-8 MiGs arrived on the scene Isarig

---

He describes the crucial part of the battle and we know that atleast half the battle (2 MiGs already down, Israelis in positions to shoot others) was not fought with Israelis outnumbered. The CodeOne site does not list any sources, so you can't say it is neutral (again it is not only about who wrote it, but what sources were used). And from the way it is worded, it seems to only use Israeli sources (well it is about the IAF). As for the article on acig, it mentions a Russian source, but again from the tone of the article and from my knowledge about the author, Cooper, I can say that it primarily uses Israeli sources and is biased towards the pro-Western Israel. Cooper, looking at his books, articles, and forum activity, has a generally anti-Soviet point of view (in a post he made on the acig forums, he hints that Russian sources are unreliable). I could direct you to the Russian sources, but they are in Russian.

Obviously untrue information

"On June 27 around eight Egyptian Su-7s and MiG-21s attacked Israeli rear areas in the Sinai, shooting down a Mirage and capturing its pilot." How exactly PLANES managed to CAPTURE a downed pilot over pilot's own territory?!? 88.100.47.221 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

William Rogers

The list of people at the bottom of the page contains a link to William Rogers. That link is to a disambiguation page, and it's not clear which William Rogers on that page is the relevant one. Would someone who knows this please (1) update the link to be to a page about the right William Rogers, and (2) add some text after the link indicating this person's role in the conflict (for example, "U.S. ambassador to Israel", or whatever he did)?

War of Attrition:Timeline

Under the "Timeline" heading there is a reference to Superpowers that I found misleading. I'd previously deleted this reference, but a dissenting contributor felt I was mistaken in my belief that it referred to Israel and Egypt, two nations that I don't believe were ever considered 'superpowers', in that it represented the US and Soviet Union. I'd accept that but for the fact that there is no preceding mention of the US or Soviet Union in the "Timeline" segment. I ask that someone more knowledgeable than myself review the article, and determine if my understanding of its context is correct. In any case, to the casual reader, it is confusing, and either a referring statement needs to be added before "Superpowers" or the word should be removed as inaccurate. I've chosen not to edit this again myself for hopefully obvious reasons. Thanks.--Dphoenix1701 14:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)dphoenix1701

• The basic dates given in the introduction don't correspond with a much more specific timeline that appears later in the article. It seems like the introduction prioritizes a specific interpretation in the controversy over who was the aggressor, who was justified, and so on. If the detailed timeline given is correct and fair (I can't personally speak to either), then the introductory section of the article should match. Better, it should probably clarify immediately that the specific dates identified with the war are controversial (and thus also which events are relevant or not to the page). A secondary but related point (made elsewhere on the talk page) is that the origin and usage of the label 'War of Attrition" is not prominent or clear in the article. There is a reference to a specific use of the term by Nasser, but since many wars in this region have also involved controversy over the "correct" name, it would help to clarify when this one became the standard usage and by whom. The relationship of this label to the earlier WWI-era usage should be clarified, since another Wikipedia page ("Attrition warfare") is similarly titled and could easily be confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.76.17 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Who started the War?

At the very beginning of the article, it reads "(the war) was initiated by Israel as a way to prevent recapture the Sinai from Israel". At the Beginning of the timeline it reads "The war began in June 1968 with sparse Egyptian artillery bombardment of the Israeli front line on the east bank of the canal.".

So who started the war?

Egypt. They wanted Sinai back. Thier tactic was simple: Egypt has more manpower than Israel so they'll use some of their man power to weaken the Israeli forces guarding the border by shoting them day after day. Then Egypt will use it extra power to take Sinai back while Syria will try to take the Golan Hieghts back. In Yom Kipur War they failed doing so for some reason, never understood what it is.--Tharbad 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I had the same question. If Egypt did indeed initiate the conflict, shouldn't the intro be changed to reflect this? I'm far from an expert, I'd appreciate clarification from someone with better subject knowledge. --NoahElhardt (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Use as generic phrase

Should there not be an entry for the phrase "war of attrition" rather than just for this particular conflict?

Yes, I think there should be. When you think of a war of attrition, you should think of World War I. Unfortunately, as it stands people have to enter a disambiguation page via a hyperlink at the top of the page and then click another hyperlink, Attrition warfare.--189.62.170.155 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New Information

In 2003 IDF has changed one attribute of the war: the time. According to that info this war started on 7.1967 and lasted until 8.1970. The part of the which is mentioned in this article is the third one; the lasted from 7.1967 till autumn 1968, the second, which was a cease-fire, from fall 1968 till spring 1969 and the third as mentiond in the article.

External link (Hebrew).

--Tharbad 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vanadlized!!!!!

Please fix this page, and lock it, it looks like the same guy did this all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82abhilash (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Casualty Report

The article states there were a little over 350 dead Israeli soldiers. Israeli Governmental Figures, The Jewish Virtual Library, and all other sources I've seen say there were 1,424 dead Israeli soldiers during the war. I would also like the article to note the 100 dead Israeli civilians.

The The Jewish Virtual Library also shows ~2,000 wounded soldiers and ~700 wounded civilians on the Israeli side. Perhaps "more that 3,000 wounded" should be replaced with the more detailed "2,000 wounded soldiers. 700 wounded civilians." Besides the fact that this would provide a more detailed breakdown, it also has a source, which the original article does not.

I would make the edit myself, but I'm a new user. Aside from the technical challenges, I'm not sure what I'm at liberty to edit without first consulting the discussion board.

    Also I can't see where it says anything about the 10,000 dead on the Egyptian side. I looked in the reference and it doesn't give a specific figure.

I m dude2002 21:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The 10000 figure came from reference 3, though that was not the one sourced and hence I changed the numbers to match the source that was referenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.104.191 (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

as the israelis bombed "strategic" non-military targets such as factories, infrastructure and the like, the civilian casulties on the egyptian side were very heavy. Lom Nordeen (international airpower vol 8, p103) cites a figure of 30,000 ! no reference or break-down of figure are given, however.

sinzov —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinzov (talk • contribs) 09:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Sinzov (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

some strategic considerations

i think some of the more complex consideration should be included in the main text.

all of this would be an original research (bordering on propaganda) and thus unsuitable for the wikipedia 88.100.47.221 (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

- after the victory of 1967 israel was fighting a multi-front war, since military actions were continued from egypt, syria and the palestinians. instead of exploring chances for peace, the leaders of israel opted for agressive military actions. strategically, these israeli actions were not defensive, but offensive in trying to establish and secure the israeli occupation of foreign land (some 30 years later a discussion started: did israel - and the arabs - loose the peace in the late 60ies ?).

- the israeli effort would have faltered soon, if not for the massive military and economical support by the USA. there is no way the israeli economy could have fed the war without the US support and money.

- the egyptian build-up of a dense air-defence organisation including thousands of soviet troops changed the whole military situation. in spite of severe setbacks this umbrella denied air-supremacy to the israelis and reestablished egyptian control over her country and troops.

- the following israeli abondonment of deep strikes was surely not a question of ethical considerations after the killing of dozens of school children but of military facts. bombing non-military targets such as factories (Helwan) or infrastructure has always had an element of terror bombing with the agressor willing to accept heavy civilian casulties.

- evidently the israeli air force had simply lost it's war against the air defence. any continuation would have meant a further escalation with the potential of a direct confrontation of the superpowers. that is why the superpowers forced their "ally" to step down and agree to a cease fire.

so the outcome was twofold: egypt had not regained control over sinai - whether this really was an objective for the "war of attrition" could be disputed -, but it had reestablished it's control west of the suez canal, reestablished the morale of it's population and military, and some of it's reputation at least partyl. egypt did learn it's lessons, israel obviously only to a much lesser extent.

p.s.: facts and figures given in the main article are far from neutral. sources are mostly israeli or of a very dubious value (especially Cooper's many articles are next to worthless). scores of israeli aircrafts were shot down by sam-missiles, and many more by fighters, including those shot down by soviet pilots. suffering heavy losses, they effectively forced the israeli air force to restrict their actions to the canal.

Sinzov (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

generic phrase

was the war named after the generic phrase or vice versa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkdewey (talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster, the word 'attrition' dates to the "14th century"[2]. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the etymology of 'attrition' as "ad. L. attrtin-em, n. of action f. attrt-: see ATTRITE and -ION1. The theological sense 4 was earliest in Eng." Sense 4 is "An imperfect sorrow for sin, as if a bruising which does not amount to utter crushing (contrition); ‘horror of sin through fear of punishment, without any loving sense, or taste of God's mercy’ (Hooker), while contrition has its motive in the love of God. (A sense invented by scholastic theologians in 12th c.; the earliest in Eng.)" The earliest quotation mentioned in the entry is "c1374 CHAUCER Troylus I. 557 Thou..wailist for thi synne and thyn offence, And hast for ferde caught attrition." Here are all quotations for the relevant definition 2. b. ("Mil. The wearing down of the enemy's strength and morale by unremitting harassment, esp. in phr. war of attrition."): "1914 Sphere 21 Nov. 181/1 This is a war of attrition, in which each side tries to wear down the other. 1915 KITCHENER Memorandum in Lloyd George War Mem. D. Lloyd George (1933) I. xii. 435 The end of the War must come through one of the two following causes: (1) by a decisive victory..or (2) by attrition. 1918 E. S. FARROW Dict. Mil. Terms 45 Attrition, in a military sense, the act of wearing away the enemy's strength, increasing his mortality list, and lowering his morale. 1919 HAIG Desp. 21 Mar. (1919) 326 The rapid collapse of Germany's military powers..would not have taken place but for that period of ceaseless attrition. 1927 W. S. CHURCHILL World Crisis 1916-18 I. ii. 45 The only method of waging war on the Western Front was by wearing down the enemy by ‘killing Germans in a war of attrition’. 1958 Listener 13 Nov. 791/3 Nor did Montgomery, unfairly scornful though he is of generalship in the first world war, disdain tactics of attrition at times." The military definition of "attrition", as well as the term "war of attrition", are strongly associated with W. W. I, and I personally have never heard of this term in relation to the Arab-Israeli Conflict in anything but the most informal sense. All the Oxford English Dictionary quotations are from '[3]' and do not include bolds, italics or underlines.--189.62.170.155 (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Casualty Report

Israel had a total of 721 dead - 127 civilians and 594 soldiers. (sources - hebrew wiki, taken from idf stats itself) you should change it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.113.178 (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

To what fact does including Jordan and PLO stand? The war was between Egypt, and Israel, any other actions were not by planning by Egypt, and cannot be considered part of the war. the PLO Olympic attacks for example cannot be included for sure. Also the Soviet participation was in form of air defense i.e.e engaging IAF planes attacking Egypt, not participating in Egyptian raids. The first and last engagement between the soviets and the Israelis was an Israeli victory were three out of four soviet-piloted aircrafts were shot down, according to Gen. El-Shazly. So also the soviets did not have great impact of the war. --( ΡHARAOH  The Muslim  18:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

1973 War material removed

The "Egyptian Front" section contained material unrelated to the subject of this article, with lots of details about events that really don't belong here. This article still has a lot of room for expansion, it's a shame so much of it was taken up by content that belongs elsewhere. Poliocretes (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ACIG

I noticed that many sources in this article are attributed to ACIG. ACIG is a blog and open to editing from anyone with a user ID and password. It does not comply with WP:RS and edits which are sourced to ACIG should be removed. In the alternative, new sources for these edits should be found.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect, Sabena Flight 571

The link "Sabena Flight 571 (Operation Isotope)", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabena_Flight_571 (in the template generated content at the end), is a redirect (to Sabena Flight 571 hijacking). --Mortense (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

July 1, 1967 battle, Ras-el Esh

Concerning this battle, four sources are provided but I've found serious source distortions, omissions and errors. First, Herzog notes on page 196 that the Egyptian force was driven off but this is not reflected in the edit. Second, neither Dunstan nor Shazly reference the number of Egyptian commandos deployed during the battle nor do they note that 10 Israeli tanks were utilized (@ noted page references). The term "repeated attacks" is not employed by either source. Moreover, Shazly refers to a battle in August so it's not even clear that he's referring to the July 1, battle. If he is, he's off by at least a month, calling into question the reliability of his entire statement.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It says PLO 900-1000 but then look at PLO killed and wounded over 3x's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ur-loki (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Participants

This particular war took place along the Suez canal. Unless Syrian/Iraqi/Jordanian/Cuban/Palestinian involvement on this particular front can be sourced, they should be removed from the infobox regardless of border clashes occuring simultaneously. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

PLO Killed/Captured

The article cites 900–1000 PLO members participating in the War of Attrition but 1828 killed and 2500 captured. Obviously these numbers don't add up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.85.195 (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Benny Morris

Benny Morris is a biased Israeli, this break Wikipedia's neutral sources requirement! you consider soviet estimates "biased" while you rely on Israeli historians for Israeli casualties?!? Benny Morris claims 10,000 Egyptians dead, but the Egyptian chief of staff says 2,800, Morris exaggerates Egyptian losses and minimizes Israeli losses everytime, he's a biased ISRAELI JEWISH HISTORIAN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.41.82.133 (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on War of Attrition. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070930230243/http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060629235830/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 01:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on War of Attrition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930230243/http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm to http://www.sis.gov.eg/En/Pub/magazin/fall1998/110208000000000003.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060629235830/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/archives/67-97/sup8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 19:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Should Jordan, Syria, and the PLO be included?

I am under the impression that the War of Attrition was declared by Egypt, and that clashes with the PLO and Jordan and Syria were an entirely separate matter from the war.--RM (Be my friend) 11:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War of Attrition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324150613/http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt to http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324150613/http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt to http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324150613/http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt to http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/0771A94F-B23C-43E6-8955-9630D34B8076/0/WarofAttrition40Years.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

War started in 1967?

Zeev Maoz talks about the War of Attrition of 1969-70 (2006, p. 36). This article says July 1, 1967 – August 7, 1970. What is correct? Uglemat (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Add to the beginning of this article most people don't know what war is

Attrition warfare is the term used to describe the sustained process of wearing down an opponent so as to force their physical collapse through continuous losses in personnel, equipment and supplies or to wear them down to such an extent that their will to fight collapses. Infinitepeace (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/attrition_warfare#:~:text=Attrition%20warfare%20is%20the%20term,their%20will%20to%20fight%20collapses.

Who will address this????????,, Infinitepeace (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Propaganda

This is a lame propaganda page, reading throughout it reveals that almost not a single neutral and/or egyptian source was used, only israeli statements and sources were used as facts. 41.46.206.173 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well you know what they say

"history is written by the victors"

- Winston Churchill 2.54.182.117 (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

10000 !!!!!

10000 Egyptians were killed in that war? Of course, 10000 is mentally and logically incorrect Army Chief of Staff Saad El-Shazly will not align himself with the Egyptian army He said the exact number of Egyptian soldiers is 2882 meaning in name As for the idiot Benny Morris says 10000 how is that a very large number? He is an Israeli Jew who takes sides with his people every time. It never happened that the Egyptian army lost 10,000 men in any war until the defeat of 1967 we lost 9,800 men, according to Al-Gamsy sources and the October war the Egyptian army lost 6000-9000 How can we lose 10,000 soldiers? You have to wipe this cloak from Morris and not take it as a source for anything Hamed2139 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Terrible bias towards Israel

The article lists completely unrealistically about the details of the war, that it is a false propaganda page, not facts

The Moon Over Suez: Between the Novel and the Reality of the War of Attrition Yossi Ozard

The writer, Yossi Ozard, creates an excellent story about a photographer named Amnon who makes memorial films for families. Amnon is asked to make a memorial film about the father of the family, who was killed during the War of Attrition as a "tiger" in its expiring decades. "Tigers" is a nickname for the reserve commanders who volunteered to serve in the canal outposts for several months. They formed the backbone of the leadership in this war. Amnon, who was a former spokesperson for the Israeli army and was sent to the channel as an activist in Gopnik to document the fighting in the strongholds along the same canal line, is exposed to daily bombardment in appalling conditions in which fighters, separated from the state, spend most of their time. From their time in the shelters under .. at the hands of the Egyptians and they suffer many losses every week. Excursions from the outposts were mostly fatal, and there was no patrol that was not hit or killed by the bombing, sniping, and ambushes that the Egyptians deployed along the canal. Ever ground (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please use this book, as well as the Egyptian General Intelligence’s book on the War of Attrition for Easter from Le Pen, as well as the book The War of Attrition by Field Marshal Mohamed Fawzi, The War of Attrition. Ever ground (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Israeli historians are completely fair and completely impartial to Egypt much more than you are Ever ground (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I also recommend the memoirs of General Ahmed Ismail, her name is Mushir al-Nasr, everyone is available in English Ever ground (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

Please add Kuwait's 17 fatalities from April-June 1970 on the Egyptian front according to to the "Casualties and loses" section of this article. Wikiuser552 (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: www.kuwait-history.net appears to be an internet forum which qualifies as user-generated content and is probably not a reliable source for this claim. If the same claim can be verified by independent reliable sources, please post those here and re-open the request. --N8_wilson 🔔 02:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Weapons And Equipment

What Is With The Equipment & The Weapons Of The War ?.Can Someone Add That To That ? 188.136.9.8 (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Cuban participation - Huge mistake

The article says that Cuba took part in the Egyptian-Israeli War of Attrition, this is wrong. This article cites as a source Efraim Karsh's "The Cautious Bear". However, that book is clear when, in its chapter 4, states the following: "The Syrian-Israeli War of Attrition (1974) was the first case in which Cuban ground troops took an active part in a local war.". I am unable to edit the article, but please correct it. 95.247.230.107 (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of libya was involved https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/حرب_1967

Add kingdom of libya Samira819 (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That article appears to be about a different conflict, the Six-Day War, which already mentions the involvement of Libya. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra oh I didn't know talk page could be old but uhm so I saw this and I had to see but there is no Kingdom of Libya in the six day war ? Jamalie7 (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra oh and I found a book on Amazon saying the got involved so do I add them or nah Jamalie7 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra oh and I found a book on Amazon saying the got involved so do I add them or nah Jamalie7 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to see the source to know that it's a reliable source and is talking about this war, and not a different one. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Date format

What is the reason this articles uses MM/DD/YY format, which is US specific, rather than the internationally used DD/MM/YY format? Wikipedia's article on date format, [4], shows that DD/MM/YY is the appropriate one for Egypt and other the other mentioned countries. Perhaps someone with editing access could make the necessary change to DD/MM/YY. Danke. 93.204.178.203 (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Its a WP:LANGVAR issue, whatever was first used is generally kept absent a very good reason to change it. I dont think MOS:TIES really comes in to play here, but dont really care either way. nableezy - 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2023

I would like to edit the result because:The War of Attrition was fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt from 1967 to 1970

. The war was centered largely on the Suez Canal, and it involved fighting between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), and their allies

. The war was characterized by large-scale shelling along the Suez Canal, extensive aerial warfare, and commando raids

. The Arabs managed to win the war of attrition by wearing down Israel and providing Egypt with the opportunity to dislodge Israeli forces from the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel had seized from Egypt in the Six-Day War of 1967

. The war was inconclusive, and no territory was exchanged, and there was no obvious victor

. However, Egypt gained a diplomatic victory in persuading the Soviet Union to provide military assistance and in moving SAM missile batteries, which Egypt used in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, close to the Suez Canal

. The long-term effect of the war of attrition has been to make Israel more suspicious of international peace proposals and Egypt more precise in its strategic military planning So I would like to add that it was indeed an egyptian victory 2603:6010:1C00:325:2A25:2FBD:51C:491 (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)