Middle East War ’67 – Designer Notes
I. Why Middle East ‘67?
II. The Map
III. The Order Of Battle (OOB) and Units
IV. Sherman, Sherman, pick a Sherman
V. Modern Equipment
VI. The Scenarios
VII. List of Battles and Overviews
VIII. Bibliography
I. Why Middle East ’67?
The Middle East has been one of the most turbulent regions in modern times where bitter
rivalries, and major religious and racial differences have caused a succession of wars. As
much as the title is ME’67, and the game focus is on the Six Day War of 1967, there are
scenarios in this game depicting fighting from 1956 to 1973, thus examining an enormous
development in tactics and weaponry.
When John Tiller first shared with me his vision for the Modern Campaign Series, as a direction
to build from the Panzer Campaign Games, I was excited by the prospect of fighting these
actions, or ” What If” situations, that have held my interest for many years. But when he
decided we would do the Middle East first, and then focus on the Six Day War, well, I wasn’t so
sure this was the route to go.
Could we really do a game focused mainly on this short War?
In fact, back when the public was speculating on subjects for new Panzer Campaigns, Bob
Mayer of Computer Games Online remarked in a forum that: “Well, talk about unbalanced
fighting; the 1967 Arab-Israeli war makes France 1940 look like a slugfest. I'd suggest 1973 if
you want some kind of balance.”
True, the Six Day War was a lopsided affair. But it was a fast war too, where lots of ground
changed hands, and the entire game can be played without making an unduly long time
commitment. The Yom Kippur War on the other hand was four times as long and not much
ground changed hands.
The lopsided historical nature itself provides us a means to build scenarios, both historical and
good sound historical “What Ifs,” that will provide excellent entertainment in play vs. the AI, or
as well as more balanced scenarios for H2H play. To do this, we are using an alternate
Order-of-Battle that features an improved Morale for the Arabs, thus making some of those
historical, decisive, Israeli victories into much more interesting and closer battles for Human vs.
Human Play.
Page 1
One thing people asked for, in Panzer Campaigns, was the system to give them the ability to
create any battle in World War II. While that request was well beyond the scope of any single
Panzer Campaign Game for a number of reasons, here with ME ’67, we have provided a very
detailed Map of the entire region. In fact two maps, as there is even a different Map for ’73,
showing the new roads the Israelis created near the Suez Canal, a well-researched and
accurate OOB for 67, as well as information to enable people to design their own battles for
this war.
But ME ’67 is not a Panzer Campaign Game. It is the first game of a new Series that is based
upon the Panzer Campaign Engine. While players familiar with Panzer Campaigns will feel
right at home, there are a number of changes, and some quite fundamental to the system.
Furthermore we have included three complete 3 historical OOBs – 56, 67, and 73 along with an
alternate improved Arab morale OOB. And the Scenario Editor can make battles from 1948 to
1982 allowing players with more OOB info the ability to make battles on the maps from the
1948 War of Independence right up to the 1982 Peace for Galilee struggle.
II. The Map
We identified early in the design that we needed to provide the entire map of the region where
the Arab-Israeli Wars were fought, even though the initial design called for a focus on the Sinai.
With all fronts covered, we are able to offer scenarios that cover, not only different periods of
time, but also, action on all three Arab-Israeli Fronts; Egypt, Jordan and the Golan Heights.
Like any John Tiller Game map, this ME’67 map is very accurate and based on period
information. The published source is British War Office 1960, however, this map itself refers to
various sources, ranging from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 1950, to several Egyptian
North Sinai sheets from the World War II.
I say this because, while researching a scenario, I came across a map in a book that didn’t
match our game map. So I went back to confirm that our source was correct with respect to
the trails and passes through rough country. There are some people that feel maps are easy to
quickly throw together. Our operational maps are built in a careful manner with several passes.
In this case, the first pass is Land vs. Water. Next, the drainage pattern is plotted on the land
and yes, there is drainage in the desert. Having this done makes it easier to follow the lay of the
land for the third, and most difficult stage, the contouring. Next come the roads, trails, rails and
towns, which also includes the labels for place names.
Next, the Sand, Broken and Rough terrain is added. With sand, this can be read directly from
the map, but the Broken and Rough involves a little more interpretation on the mapmaker’s
part.
Lastly, the early year map was updated for the ‘73 War with new roads, such as the defense
roads the Israelis built along the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights. Anecdotal information was
then applied throughout the scenario development to fine-tune the map for additional changes
to things such as Broken and Rough terrain.
Some people may be unfamiliar with terms used on the labels, so I thought it would be useful to
include a few definitions here. These are taken directly from the map legend:
Bir
Dahr
Deir
well, cistern or pit
ridge or plateau
convent or monastery
Page 2
Gebel
Kafr
Khurba
Nahr
Ras
Wadi
mountain, hill, or range
village or hamlet
ruin
river or stream
cape,, rocky or mound
a dry watercourse.
Players may note that there is often more than one correct spelling for the places named on the
map, therefore, to be consistent, we selected one source and used it throughout.
The map scale is somewhat different in the Modern Campaign Series. Here we are using 1
mile per hex vs. the 1 km per hex used in the Panzer Campaign Series. Now this may not
sound like much of a difference between the series, but you must consider that 1 sq km
contains 1 million squares meters (1,000 x 1,000) 1 sq Mile contains over 2.5 million sq meters
(1,600m x 1,600m).
For this reason, the Panzer Campaigns’ Alternate Fire Rules, where fire effects can be spread
over all units in a hex, are not part of this series. Nor did we feel there was any need for a
modifier for hexes containing large stacks, as the unit stacking in this game is controlled only
by stacking limits! So in a game of this scale, concentrating forces is a good thing, something
that one would expect of the attacking player. To counter this, I would expect the defending
player to look to exploit the flanks. Also, Direct Fire at ranges greater than 1 hex is modified by a
Range Effect Parameter Data (PDT) Value. For example, if the Range Effect value is 1/3, then
the fire value of direct fire at a range of 2 hexes is multiplied by 1/3, with an exception for
Guided Missile Weapons.
On the topic of scale, players will note the Time scale of 3 hours day – 6 hours night (vs. the 2
hour day and 4 hour nights used with Panzer Campaigns). This time scale greatly reduces the
number of hours it takes to play any Modern Campaign game scenario, particularly Campaign
scenarios
III. The OOB and Units
One large issue surrounds the creation of an Order-of-Battle for a game based on the
Arab-Israeli Wars, and that is getting the very best information possible and cross referencing,
it as best as you can, to resolve conflicting data. We used a number of sources to create our
OOB, below I would like to illustrate what we were up against.
HAMMEL said, referring to the Six Day War:
“Estimates as to the number of first-line Israeli Brigades are just that, estimates. Long years
after the war, Israeli security remains so sensitive that a definitive 1967 order of battle will not be
released.”
O ’BALANCE has written a book on each War and in one of his books he uses his own letter
scheme for Brigades. For 1973 he says:
“The Israeli System of designations was deliberately confusing, and some designations were
duplicated; for example there was a 7th Armored Brigade on the Golan and the Sinai.
DUPUY say in a footnote to his 73 OOB appendix:
“This OOB list 30 separate brigades …Eight Brigades appear twice, one appears three times.
Among the Brigades not mentioned were ….(and he lists a number of formations known to have
Page 3
existed but are not shown anywhere). … At least four of the Armored Brigades listed were likely
mechanized brigades incorrectly identified.”
So you see, there is no perfect OOB model, and if you have a book that has different
information than we have in the game, then treat it as different, without judging which source is
right or wrong.
When playing scenarios from ‘56 upward to ’73 you will notice the structure of the OOB is
different for the Israelis. For 1956, we really set out to use battalion strength units only, but due
to different types of tanks in individual company strength units, we had to subdivide the armored
part of the OOB. But for 1967 and 73, we sub-divided all battalions into companies, as the
Israeli Defense Force (IDF) were frequently operating as battle groups made up of tanks and
infantry.
Furthermore, for 1973, the IDF is divided with individual brigades being defined as Combat
Commands. The result is that the IDF Brigades each sport their own “divisional marking” color.
Also, there is a rule that allows for IDF brigades to be transferred to other Division HQs, as was
the historical practice by the Yom Kippur War.
But the juggling isn’t only confided to the Israeli side. Players may look at the total Strength of
the Arabs in terms of men and tanks, as listed in the Game OOB, and compare that value to
gross numbers published in many books where estimates range upwards of 100,000 men in
the Egyptian Army that may have been deployed. But you must keep in mind that combat units
in this game are just the combat component. Any military formation is made up of a huge
number of staff, supply technicians, mechanics, and many others who are required to keep the
formation in the field.
When you see less than 5000 men in an Egyptian Infantry Division, you are not counting the
combat soldier with the artillery and supporting tank formations as these are counted as gun
and vehicles, not men. Also, part of the Hard Attack value of an Egyptian infantry unit is
considered to be from tanks attached directly to the infantry formations. So, if you see, from
other sources, a larger number of Egyptian tanks in the Sinai than we have shown in our OOB,
this is the reason.
While ME‘67 is the first in the Modern Campaigns Series, there are many aspects that are
similar to the Panzer Campaigns Series that cover WWII action. Over time we have seen a
number of common questions, or misunderstandings, with respects to some game aspects
and these I want to touch on here.
We often hear about the ability of Broken enemy units to holdup the advance of a friendly
combat unit, even though the game uses Zones-of-control (ZOCs). Broken units do not impede
movement of friendly units around them, because Broken units have no ZOC. However, if you
Assault the hexes containing them, the enemy will resist, all be it at a greatly reduced Defense
value, but it will take time to completely “round up the enemy” . This is by design, based on the
experience of Greg “Sturmer” Smith, who served as an Army Major in the Gulf War, and his
experience with processing Prisoners. In the Smolensk ’41 Designer Notes, Sturmer indicated:
“… Players may now wonder why a broken stack will sometimes survive two or three
assaults, but what is really happening is that taking prisoners does take time. It takes a long
time to actually process hundreds of surrendering soldiers (having done this in the Gulf, I can
testify that it is more difficult than it would seem on the surface, and time consuming). …
Now, broken units defend at reduced strength, but take additional losses. The effect turned
out to be much, much better and more realistic overall.”
Page 4
Having said that, John Tiller does try to make changes to improve the game systems he
creates, and in doing so does take into account customer requests. Therefore, in this game
there is an Optional Surrender Rule, whereby Broken units that are surrounded and forced to
retreat will be eliminated. This rule works much like the traditional Board wargame rule, but only
on the Broken Units. Using this rule will result in higher kills and in some cases unbalance a
scenario between equal opponents.
Another common misconception often surrounds Combat Engineers. In this game Engineers
can fight as infantry, but when doing so, their combat values are slightly less than infantry. You
see, not all Engineers are those elite troops made famous by WWII action such as Stalingrad.
Usually Engineers only fight when absolutely necessary, usually without any special training or
equipment.
IV. Sherman, Sherman, pick a Sherman
Wargamers familiar with the US-made Sherman tank of World War II may be surprised to learn
while playing Middle East '67, that the Sherman served in battle well into the modern era.
Toward the end of WWII there were many different versions of Shermans serving with the
Allied Armies and this trend, of modifying Shermans, continued right up past the '73 Yom
Kippur War.
In the Middle East, Shermans served on both sides, sometimes in their old WWII forms, but
more often with some improvement, or modification. Shermans still served in significant
numbers in the Egyptian Army in 1956, despite the fact that the Soviets were re-arming the
Arab armies. In fact, the Israelis captured 52 Shermans in that war and 12 of those had a
special turret. This adaptation is not something we could model in a game of this scale, and so
the Egyptian Shermans in 1956 are all treated as M4s.
The Israelis had more types of Shermans and that required a second Sherman component to
be modeled for 1956. In fact, the Israelis were the “Dr. Frankenstein” of armored vehicles in
general, taking parts from old discarded tanks and finding ways of making new effective ones
from them. This is well illustrated with the Sherman.
Some Shermans had diesel engines and a HVSS suspension, while others had gasoline
engines and a VVSS suspension (narrow track). It could be argued that these differences could
have an impact on game. Factors such as defense, where a gasoline engine would be more
prone to brew up, or a new suspension might give better cross-country performance.
There were some M4s in service, but there was also a significant number of French
Shermans, with a high velocity 75mm gun, that were supplied to Israel in early 1956 when
France learned that Egypt was backing Algerian rebels. Furthermore, the Israelis were making
there own upgraded variations that were somewhat equivalent to the French Shermans, at
least for the purposes of an operational level wargame. So, in the 1956 OOB, we have decided
to show two types of Israeli Shermans; M4s and a 1956 Sherman upgrade, which
encompasses several variations of improved Shermans available at the time of this conflict.
Dayan in 1965, as well as others, used the term Super-Shermans, even for tanks serving in
1956, these were obviously an upgraded Sherman. The Super-Shermans Dayan mentioned as
participating in the '56 Campaign, cannot be the same as the Super-Sherman with the 105mm
gun, developed by the Israeli army in the late 1960s. These later Super-Shermans saw action in
both the Six Day War of 1967, and the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and were developed to combat
the heavy Soviet-built armor of its Arab foes.
Page 5
Therefore, in the 1967 OOB, we will still have some Arab M4 Shermans, but you will see two
upgraded Israeli Shermans; the M-50 with the 75mm High Velocity gun, and the M-51, or
M-51HV, with the 105mm medium velocity, gyro-stabilized gun. The Sherman provides a great
example to illustrate how many variations of tanks had to be resolved into a few unit types in
game terms. Even if we modeled more types of Shermans, or other tanks for that matter,
knowledge of numbers and units each variation served with, would be difficult, if not impossible,
to determine.
V. Modern Equipment
No modern campaign game would ever be complete without the inclusion of modern
equipment such as helicopters. There are two main, and very different, purposes of helicopters
in modern warfare, that of attack helicopters and transport. Even in this period of time, when
the US was extensively using helicopter gunships in Vietnam, here, in the Middle East,
gunships did not play a large role. But helicopter transport did play a role – often a significant
one in terms of the number of machines involved.
In 67 the Israelis under Sharon used them to put a small force behind the Um Katef forts near
Abu Agheili. Only six Super Frelon and Sikorsky S-58 helicopters carried elements of Matt’s
Parachute Brigade behind the line at Umm Katef (see Scenario #67_07), while there was
supposed to be a dozen available. The others were re-deployed on an emergency supply
mission at Bir Lahfan. However, the helicopter role was important in causing the collapse of
this fortified position.
There were other places too, where choppers were used to transport troops behind the lines,
on the Golan, as well as plans for a large airborne operation (to include both Paratroops and
Helicopters) at El Arish. This operational plan was canceled early on the first day because of
the success of the Tal Division moving along the coast. Then the Airborne troops of the 55th
Parachute Brigade were deployed to the Jerusalem area, by motor transport, where they fought
as infantry.
In ‘73 there are claims, and counter claims, that the Egyptians used Rangers carried by
helicopters, there is also some question as to their effectiveness. But there were ranger teams,
in platoon strength, armed with AT Rockets that penetrated Bir Gifgafa, El Fredan, Tasa and
the Mitla Pass. The rangers also set fire to oil wells at Abu Zeina, Sudar and Feeran. There
were other places where the Egyptian Rangers fought in small groups - these are just a few.
Some Israeli claims say twenty helicopters were downed, others claimed eight. Each chopper
(Mi-4's) could carry around 14 fully loaded troops. The Egyptians say their worst set back was at
the Khatimia Pass, but wouldn't give details on the losses. General Herzog says the Egyptians
used thirty-five choppers and that fourteen were downed. So, yes - helicopters were used to
some extent in the conflicts.
Given the number of machines, and the fact that no units were equipped with their own
machines, we felt that allowing for player controlled helicopter transport would result in gamey
tactics that would take away from the operational aspect we were trying to depict. So Transport
helicopters are programmed into the scenarios where they were critical, but they are beyond
the control of the player. There are no Helicopter gunship counters that are not used in Middle
East ’67, however, they will very likely be a part of a future Modern Campaign games.
Similarly, we adopted to model SAMs – (Surface to Air Missiles), that were extensively used
along the Suez Canal, in an abstract manner. Depending on the Parameter Data for a
Page 6
scenario, a side may have SAM Interception ability against enemy air missions. By default, this
ability applies to any air mission by the enemy side. In all other respects, SAM Interception is
the same as normal Air Interception.
It is possible, in a given scenario, that one or more SAM Sites may be defined for a particular
side. Each SAM Site has a fixed location on the map and is assigned a radius value. When
SAM Sites exist, SAM Interception is only possible when the air mission is conducted against a
hex that is in range of one, or more of the SAM Sites. The Shade/SAM Coverage feature of the
View Menu allows a side to determine their own SAM coverage, but it is not possible to
determine the SAM coverage of the other side under FOW. When the enemy occupies a SAM
Site, it stops functioning as a SAM Site for interception purposes.
Another aspect of modern war is the increased range of direct fire weapons. This, coupled with
the scale of this game being 1 mile per hex, is handled by a Parameter that modifies the effect
by 1/3 when the fire is directed at a range of 2 hexes. Guided Missile Weapons are not subject to
range effectiveness and fire up to their maximum range at normal effectiveness. Depending on
the scenario, a Guided Missile Experience modifier may apply.
VI. The Scenarios
With all the great potential for scenarios in the Middle East, when we looked at the game play
potential, we decided to focus on the ’67 war for a number of reasons. First of all, people would
have one full war they could play from start to finish as well as a number of small scenarios
from that period. Furthermore, one of the aspects that make an operational game fun, is one
where ground changes hands – and quickly.
Having said that, we further saw that, with an extra effort on the OOB, we could provide players
with some very interesting scenarios from other periods. The 1956 war, in particular, offered an
attractive Campaign Scenario on its own, as in this war fighting was confined to the Sinai. In this
campaign, we elected to focus on the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis, so we didn’t
include the British and French Canal invasion.
We have also provided a few scenarios covering the more interesting aspects of the 1973 Yom
Kippur War, and even included a full and extensive OOB, at least, as full an OOB as we could
produce. However, as previously mentioned, the information gets harder and harder to
assemble accurately. The Israeli Defense Forces are extremely security conscious, so that
even to this day, formations involved in the Middle East Conflicts are not known in detail. When
researching these battles, it seems that every book written has differences in the unit make up,
numbers, and strength of individual units, and indeed, what actually happened.
We went to great lengths to uncover as much information as possible before building the
battles in “Middle East ’67” , however, we do acknowledge that there are some "gray" areas.
The Israeli unit organizations changed radically during the course of the wars, as divisional
boundaries were created, and shifted, with the ebb and flow of the battle. Brigades and
battalions, and parts of the same brigades and battalions, fell under new commands as the
Israelis responded flexibly to each new situation.
There is conflicting information in all sources and all periods, and I want to illustrate this with a
1967 example taken from Hammel’s excellent book entitled Six Days in June.
On pg 269, Hammel says: "Also, at dawn on 8 June, Mendler attacked into Kuntilla” (on the SW
border of the Negev Desert) ... and then on pg 395 in the part of the book dealing with the Golan
attack force he says: " ... and Mendler’s Armored Brigade which was rushed north on June 7th”.
Page 7
Obviously Mendler could not have been in two places so far apart at almost the same time, so
if you are reading an account of a battle we have modeled in the game, and something doesn’t
fit with the information between your book and our game, you will have an appreciation of why.
Another aspect of the game, that players will note, is how we have downgraded the effects of
Forts (Bunkers and Pillboxes) in the games, especially with respects to similar forts in the
Panzer Campaigns Series. While the forts were concrete, the fact is, they didn’t really stand up
in the face of a strong and determined attacker, and so we altered the game values here in order
to model more historical results, rather than defense based on X number of inches of concrete.
One very important, yet subjective judgment was that of troop quality. You will find many
accounts of heroic stands by Israeli troops and other reports that seem humanly impossible. Yet
we elected to go with our Troop Quality Model from Panzer Campaigns, where units are rated
from A to F. Now most Israeli units are A Quality, but A Quality means the same in Modern
Campaigns as in Panzer Campaigns.
On the other hand, many of the Arab units are rated with below average Morale, but they are not
all F Quality either. Were we too hard on the Arabs? That is really hard to say, even though, in
practice, they often didn’t fight well. So we have included for the 1967 War, a complete
Alternative OOB where every Arab unit is increased in Morale by one level. We have even used
this Alternative OOB in a number of the ’67 Scenarios so you can easily see the effects.
Scenarios that make use of the Alternative OOB with increased Arab morale have at the end of
the file name the suffix “_ALT” , and have a notation in the Title, that can be seen on the top of
your screen, when you load a scenario. If the scenario filename contains a lowercase “s ” after
the number, then this scenario has Explicit Supply Units built in and can be used with the Explicit
Supply Optional Rules. Filenames with a lowercase “v” after the number contain variable
releases of the Arab forces poised to strike at Israel, rather than an historical entry that an Israeli
player could have previous knowledge of.
With all the variables we have presented, we hope you enjoy this game and find both Human vs.
Human, and Play against the AI fun and interesting. Also that it is accurate in its depiction of the
operational aspects of this conflict. There has been no effort with this game to make a political
statement, or take any sides in this conflict, that continues in this, one of the World’s most
troubled regions. This struggle continues to affect the lives of many people and we would never
wish to exploit, or condone, the violence of either side. This is after all, only a game to be
enjoyed.
VII. List of Battles and Overviews
In this section we will present the listing of the scenario historical overviews, and include some
additional notes on the scenario on issues such as, historical outcome, and input from the
game developers and playtesters. We recommend that players have the FOW selected ON
when playing any scenario, our team of playtesters always played this way to balance them,
and you will find this adds very much to the enjoyment of the scenarios.
73_00: Getting Started - The Suez Crossing
**SEE the "Started.HLP” - El Qantara, 25miles south of Port Said, October 6th, 1973: Play as
Human Arab vs. Israeli AI. Six years had passed since the Israelis captured the Sinai in a
lightning fast war that saw the Arabs easily defeated. Now, six years later, armed with the best
Soviet equipment available, and the Egyptians were ready to strike back. This scenario depicts
a small part of the action on the north end of the Suez Canal. Here you will command the
Egyptian 18th Division as it crosses the Canal. It is designed to introduce new players to game
Page 8
concepts, as well as illustrate to the Panzer Campaign Veteran, new features added for this
series to bring it forward into modern time.[Size small]
This is the Game Tutorial Scenario as the overview says. It is designed to familiarize players
with the game system. Panzer Campaign veterans are still advised to play this one, as it
contains some information about ferrying units across a waterway, as well as bridging as a
means to crossing the Canal.
56_1s: Operation "Kadesh" - The '56 Sinai Campaign (Exp Supply)
The Sinai, October 29th 1956: The Sinai Peninsula is a parched desert area between Egypt
and Israel. Until 1953, the only Egyptian military presence there was a reinforced battalion, its
purpose was purely defensive, and to counter increasing drug smuggling. President Nasser
abruptly ended this by building roads, for swift movement of military traffic, and airfields to bring
the Egyptian Air Force closer to Israeli targets. Most wars usually begin with a major offensive,
with artillery bombardments, and air strikes, this did not. The element of surprise was used to
its fullest extent here, starting with a paradrop at the Mitla Pass. In fact, so great was the
surprise, for the first 24 hours Egypt did not really know a war had started. NOTE: This
scenario is for use with the optional Explicit Supply rules. [Size large]
If you want to get a sense of the vastness of the Sinai Peninsula, and the daunting task faced
by the Israeli’s at the outset of the ’56 war, this scenario will provide it. As the Israeli, you must
allocate your forces carefully and consider what objectives must be taken to achieve victory.
As the Arab player, you must conserve your resources until your forces wake up to the Israeli
onslaught. The scenario is perhaps best played as human Israeli vs. Arab AI, but can be
enjoyed in any fashion. Against the AI, the final outcome will likely never really be in doubt, but
the victory conditions will challenge a player to achieve as much as historically possible. You
will note that the Objective hexes show where the Israelis were trying to reach, and that was
not to capture the entire Sinai up to the Canal.
56_2: Fortress at Abu Agheila
Abu Agheila, 18 miles from Israeli border, October 29th 1956: One of the most crucial aspects
of the 1956 campaign was the attack on the Egyptian stronghold of Abu Agheila near the border
with Israel. After 3 days of fighting, the Egyptian fortifications were taken, but the strong forces
there fought tenaciously. By taking them, the Israelis had captured the central axis, and cut off
the Egyptian garrison in Gaza. [Size medium]
Abu Agheila is a good training scenario to become accustomed to the game system and the
strength of modern weapons. Players familiar with HPS games will be surprised by the range
and lethality of many of the units compared with the earlier historical games. Best played as
human Israeli, although a careful human Arab player may prevail against the strong Israeli
forces. Historically, the Abu Agheila forts were not taken by storm, rather the defenders
withdrew from their fortified positions and retreated in the face of Israeli forces deep in their
rear. This area caused great concern for Israeli planners of the 1967 War.
56_3: Gambit at the Mitla Pass
Mitla Pass, October 29th 1956: Israeli paratroopers of the 202nd Para Brigade opened the war
with an audacious move, dropping just east of the Mitla Pass. Their orders were to dig in and
defend the eastern side of the pass. They were NOT to move through the pass under any
circumstances. At 2230 on the 30th, they were joined by the Brigade Commander, Ari Sharon,
who had made a daring dash through El Thamad, and Nakhl to reach them. He ordered a
Page 9
strong "patrol", in fact, it was close to a battalion sized combat team, to move through the pass.
It was met with a violent reaction from the Egyptian 2nd Infantry Brigade, leading to more of the
Israeli brigade being committed, a bloody battle ensued. [Size medium]
This scenario is excellent played in any fashion, but should be played with FOW on. Much of
the fun here is finding out the hard way what forces the enemy has, and where they are. Pay
close attention to the victory levels and how many objectives must be held, or captured for a
victory. Historically the Israelis took a real risk with this deep penetration into the Sinai,
especially given the strength of the Egyptian Air Force at that time. But the move paid off and
was very successful.
56_4: 6 0'Clock Run to the Mitla Pass
Bir Gifgafa, 30miles N of the Mitla Pass, October 31st 1956: After a violent struggle, the Israeli
202nd Para Brigade was now holding the Mitla Pass. Although they had been re-supplied by air,
with a few men and some recoilless rifles also dropped, they were nowhere near full strength.
In effect, they had blocked the southern axis across the Sinai. "WHAT IF" Col Hassan Ali's 1st
Armored Brigade had been ordered to move from Bir Gifgafa to the south, instead of counter
attacking to clear the central axis. Once there, to join with the remnants of the 6th Infantry
Brigade. Their task... to retake the Mitla Pass. [Size small] *Designer note: This scn is best
played as Egyptian human.
This scenario is especially interesting when played from the Arab side. The Egyptian player has
two separated columns, time is of the essence, so he has to decide whether to attack with his
numerical inferior force or to wait for his Armored Brigade. FOW should be on of course.
56_5: Assault on Rafah
Rafah, the Gaza Strip, Oct 31st 1956: There could be no element of surprise when late on the
second day of the war, the Israelis began the attack on Rafah. The Egyptians awaited the
coming battle behind a labyrinth of multiple minefields and wire. This was to be a mop-up
operation with the Israeli goal of reaching El Arish. [Size small]
This scenario is a tough, but interesting, one for the highly trained Israeli troops. The Israeli
player has only 8 turns to cross the fortified Egyptian line of defense and to take the two
objectives that are defended by a higher number of Egyptian troops. Will the advantage in
artillery be the decisive factor in the battle for Rafah?
67_01s: The Six Day War of 1967 - (including all four variation)
The Sinai, June 5th 1967: The Six Day War in 1967 turned out to be a one-sided affair where a
small effective Israeli Army demonstrated how, by concentration of force, a much larger Army
could be defeated particularly when deployed piecemeal. The war began on the morning of 5th
June with a brilliant pre-emptive strike by the Israeli Air Force that destroyed the Egyptian Air
Force on the ground. This was followed by the "Iron Fist” of three Israeli Armored Divisions
attacking in the Sinai. On the third day of the war, with things in hand on that major battlefront,
some troops were spared to attack the West Bank in Jordan. Finally, two days after that, it was
Syria's turn to feel the sting of the Israeli Defense Force. In this scenario, you play the entire
war. It brings together the full Sinai action, and adds to it the West Bank and Golan Heights,
using the historic timetable. [Size large]
There are four variation of the ’67 Campaign Game.
Page 10
67_01s: The historical campaign that includes counters for the Optional Rule dealing with
Explicit Supply.
67_01v_s: The same campaign with variable entry of the Arab forces in Jordan and Syria.
Plus, there is a variation of each of the above scenarios with “_ALT” at the end of the file name.
These scenarios use the Alternative OOB file that has all Arab Units with a one level
improvement to their morale/quality.
Each of these campaigns has Explicit Supply counters in the scenario, the rule is Optional, and
the counters will be automatically removed at the start of the game if the option is not selected.
67_02s: Operation Kahir - (two variations)
HQ, Army of the Sinai, June 6th 1967: The Egyptian deployment, in the Six Day War of 1967,
was not the one drawn up by the General Staff. Had it not been for President Nasser's political
consideration to not "yield an inch of ground", the plan, called "Operation Kahir", whose sole
goal was the destruction of the Israeli ground forces in the Sinai, would have been used. The
Egyptian plan was to lightly screen the frontier and then to defeat an attacking Israeli Army
using a mobile defense in depth, by enticing them into the center of the Sinai. There they could
be crushed, with a series of counterattacks, from several directions. While this was the plan of
the General Staff, there were never any concrete plans to carry this out, and it is difficult to
guess if, indeed, the Egyptian Army could carry off such a bold maneuver with its ill-trained
army. [Size large]
These two scenarios are "WHAT IF” where the Israeli, Syrian, and Jordanian deployment is
exactly the same as scenario #01, but the Egyptians are re-deployed for defense in depth. The
variation of the scenario has the Alternative, or Improved, Arab OOB. Both scenarios have the
Explicit Supply option available.
67_03s: Nasser Strikes First
HQ, Army of the Sinai, June 5th 1967: The event leading to the Six Day War in 1967 was
Egyptian President Nasser deploying a large army to the Sinai Peninsula - a move which
threatened the security of Israel. Although there was no real attack plan passed down to the
various divisions of the army, this scenario examines the possibility of the Egyptians leading off
with the first strike. The largest variable here, is that the Egyptian Air Force, which was virtually
destroyed on the ground in the opening phase of the real war, would play a much larger role.
[Size large]
While reading accounts of the events leading up to The Six Day War, it struck us that these
events would make a great “WHAT IF“ scenario. The game begins with the Israeli Player
moving first, but many of his units are fixed and the Arab, well, mainly the Egyptian side, has
the option to strike first if he wishes. The largest variable in this battle is the Egyptian Air Force,
which is not destroyed, in the opening phase of the War as historically occurred. Syrian entry
on June 6th is variable and there is a slight chance that the 8th Iraqi Brigade will become active
too. I did not include another version of this scenario with the Alternative OOB, but if a person
wants to explore that option, they can open the scenario file in a text editor and add the “_ALT”
to the OOB filename.
67_04s: "Sadin Adom" - Red Sheet - (two variations)
The Sinai, June 5th 1967: The Sinai Peninsula in 1967 was the scene of the greatest modern
tank battles since World War II, and they clearly demonstrated the strengths, and weaknesses,
of both sides. In particular, how a small, highly motivated army could attack, and defeat, a
Page 11
much larger force. Codenamed "Sadin Adom", or Red Sheet, the Israeli attack began on the
morning of 5th June, with a brilliant move to destroy the Egyptian Air Force on the ground.....
AFTER the dawn alert had ended. Shortly after, the "Iron Fist", comprising mainly of 3 Israeli
armored divisions crossed the frontier. [Size large]
If truth be known, this Sinai campaign scenario was the inspiration for the game, which
ultimately was expanded to include other fronts and time periods. This battle is classic
maneuver warfare, and players wanting to read a brief, succinct account of Red Sheet are
advised to consult chapter 15 of Perrett’s book Iron Fist, one of the series from the Cassell
Military Classics.
The alternative scenario poses the question "WHAT IF" the quality, and morale, of the Egyptian
Army was a little better? Playing as the Israeli, you will try to duplicate the feat against a better,
but not first class foe. Alternatively, as the Egyptian Commander, you begin with a strong army,
but one with virtually no air support. Could the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) still prevail in this
alternative interpretation of the Six Day War?
67_05: Gaza and Beyond - (two variations)
Rafah, the Gaza Strip, June 5th 1967: The first objective of the Tal Division attack on day 1 of
the Six Day War was the Rafah Junction. After that, while some units reduced the 20th
Palestinian Division, the more mobile elements were to push forward to El Arish and beyond.
The Israeli attack started 45 minutes ago. [Size medium]
Most fun played Human Israeli v. AI Arab with FOW on. This is a difficult scenario for the Israeli
to achieve a major victory. From their experience in the ’56 War, the Arabs thought they knew
exactly which way the Israelis were going to come. The Israeli player, on the other hand, must
look carefully at the victory levels, the objectives, possible battle plans and the forces available,
especially because some units begin the game fixed as they were historically. Time is short!
If you find the AI is not a strong enough opponent, try the alternative version of this scenario that
uses the improved Arab quality and morale.
67_06: Crossing Wadi Haradin- (two variations)
Wadi Haradin, beside the Abu Agheila - El Arish road, June 5th 1967: In a brilliant move, the
Yoffe Division crossed the Wadi Haradin, a region the Egyptians felt was tank proof, and
uncrossable by vehicles. It had covered 35 miles, in 9 hours, to cut the Bir Lahfan to Abu
Agheila Road. There, on the evening of June 5th, they ambushed an Egyptian force headed
toward El Arish to counterattack the Tal Division which had taken El Arish earlier in the
day.[Size small]
The move to do the impossible – to cross the uncrossable was a one of many strokes of
genius in the Six Day War. But there was hard fighting involved in which the Israeli forces
prevailed. This scenario has been rated as quite fun as a more basic and introductory scenario.
It is most enjoyable as human Israeli with FOW on. Like #56_3, in that the Israeli player doesn’
t know quite what to expect from the enemy. There are two versions of this scenario, one using
the alternative OOB.
If you find the AI is not a strong enough opponent, try the alternative version of this scenario that
uses the improved Arab quality and morale.
Page 12
'67_07: A Plan Comes Together- (two variations)
Umm Katef, south east of Nitzana, June 5th 1967: By the evening of the first day, the Sharon
Division had advanced inside the frontier, and setup six battalions of artillery to reduce the
fortified position known as Umm Katef. Sharon's cautious approach was one in which he
carefully executed a five part plan. The final act was initiated by an evening attack by four teams
of paratroopers lifted in by helicopter. [Size medium]
The fact that this fortified position was never really taken in the 56 War, was the cause of much
concern and planning in 1967 when it was vital that a breakthrough was achieved early on the
frontier. The plan was something that was rigidly prepared and orchestrated, which make the
manner in which the helicopter troops are used in this scenario very accurate. The playtesters
found the scenario enjoyable no matter how it was played, but felt it was most challenging for a
human Israeli against either a human, or AI opponent. Paratroop forces are available, but use
caution when you use them, they are small units, and the Arabs have some tough units in this
battle. Look closely at the victory conditions before you start. It is tough to change strategy after
you launch your forces as there are only eight turns.
If you find the AI is not a strong enough opponent, try the alternative version of this scenario that
uses the improved Arab quality and morale.
67_08 Night Drop
El Arish, June 6th 1967: The original plan, for the 55th Parachute Bde, called for the brigade to
be dropped, or landed, at night behind the Egyptian lines at the El Arish airfield. That plan began
to change with the reports of the successes of the Southern Command Divisions. Around noon
on the 5th of June, the entire brigade was transferred to the Central front where it saw action at
Jerusalem. This "WHAT IF" scenario examines a series of events that might have unfolded had
the original plan been executed. "What if" the Egyptians had held longer around Rafah, but were
to move back to the El Arish area that night. The Israeli drop for 55th Para was back on with a
vengeance. [Size small]
This scenario can be played in from either side or as a Human vs Human battle. Although the
Israelis would be expected to have the element of surprise in this battle by virtue of their
paratroop drop, the Arabs have a few surprises of their own in store for an unwary Israeli
commander. The Israeli has little time to capture even some of the objectives, and this is one
time the Arabs can trade space for time if done carefully. A tough win for the Israelis.
67_09: The Irony of War - Jordan and the West Bank
Jerusalem, June 5th 1967: A strange irony of the Six Day War was that Israelis had no plans to
retake Jerusalem, much less the remainder of the area captured from Jordan. During the initial
fighting with Egypt, Israel actually notified King Hussein that it had no intention of attacking his
country. Hussein, however, saw no option but to side with Egypt and join in the great Arab
"victory." After shelling Western Jerusalem, the Israelis swiftly counterattacked, with astounding
success. [Size large]
This scenario well demonstrates the importance of mastering the use of combined arms.
Especially important is the wise use of armor by both sides. The scenario is fun played either
as Israeli or Arab against the AI, but is an excellent PBEM scenario. All in all, the Jordanians
may wish they had stayed home for this war. The scenario map is large, but the units are
actually quite small and scattered. Players will note the 8th Iraqi Brigade is not present in the
scenario, while it is on the map in the campaign scenario. This unit played no role and so it was
Page 13
left off for this scenario. In the larger campaign scenarios, the Iraqi brigade is fixed with a fairly
low chance of intervening in the action.
67_10: The Ghost Army Lives
Jebel Kherim, June 8th 1967: At dusk, on the night of the 7th, tanks of Sharon's Division halted
at the enemy outpost at Jebel Kherim, approximately 30 miles northeast of Nakhl. At dawn the
next day, the Israelis learned they had been fooled. Only a handful of Egyptian stragglers were
facing them, but in dug-in position were 18 x JS-IIIs, 30 x T-34s, a contingent of SU-100's, and a
company of Egyptian Centurions, all abandoned. "WHAT IF" the Egyptian troops had stood their
ground and fought? [Size small]
This is a very small scenario which serves to introduce the players to the ME game system
and its typical units. For the experienced HPS player, it will be a surprise to learn that tanks
often have a range of more than one hex, and infantry can fire at armor without assaulting. The
scenario can be played in any fashion successfully, and even though it is a “WHAT IF” , it has a
sound historical basis, if only the Egyptians had held their ground.
67_11: Clash of Armour - (two variations)
Bir Gifgafa, June 8th 1967: In the early morning hours of the 8th June, the tank battalions of a
battle-weary, Tal Division were halted on the main road back to Ismailia. It was an effort to block
the retreat of the finest division in the Egyptian Army, the 4th Tank Division. Although the Israelis
clearly won this battle, the Egyptians still managed to slip away in considerable numbers to
fight another day. [Size medium]
This scenario is enjoyable played in any fashion particularly as there is two versions of it.
Scenario #11a [PBEM] is specifically designed for play vs. a Human opponent. Both sides have
real challenges facing them given the victory conditions established at the outset. #11 should
be played from the Arab Side.
67_12: The Nakhl Nutcracker - (two variations)
Near Nakhl, 100 miles S of the Gaza Strip, June 8th 1967: At dawn on the 8th June, while the
entire Shazli Task Force, and much of the Egyptian 6th Mechanized Division had already
slipped past Nakhl, a full brigade, and remnants from another, were still on the road between
Nakhl and Kuntilla. It was about to be crushed between Mendler's Brigade and the Zippori
Brigade from Sharon's division. [Size medium]
By mid morning the disorganized and demoralized elements of the 6th Egyptian Mech Div ran
headlong into a blocking position set up only minutes earlier by elements of Zippori’s Brigade.
As the Arabs recoiled from the shock, more Israeli forces arrived and the Israeli Air Force
delivered a timely strike. The Egyptians became unglued and hundreds fled in panic running
deep into the Sinai wasteland.
Scenario #12 is basically the same as 12a except it had minor revisions from the PBEM
version. As the Egyptian you will be very lucky if you are able to use the exit hex. On the other
hand, it is a short scenario of only 8 turns, and you may be able to hang on with a stubborn
defense around Nahkl. If you play as the Israeli, your reinforcements may get to you in time to
smash any resistance.
'67_13 Gaining the Golan - (two variations)
Page 14
The Golan Heights, June 9th 1967: From their heavily fortified bunkers, and miles of trenches,
along the Golan Heights, Syrian gunners had harassed the Israelis for years. With action in the
Sinai winding down, Moshe Dayan saw an opportunity to swing elements of the army north, to
remove the further threat to Israel. However, this was not a desert, like the Sinai, where tanks
could maneuver easily. Furthermore, the Syrians had planted millions of mines to deter any
Israeli response to its constant shelling. The Israeli Air Force prepared the way by landing
paratroopers behind the Syrian lines. One unit of paratroopers actually fought on all three fronts
of the war in the space of six days! [Size medium]
There was no real plan at the outset of the War to strike a blow on the Golan, but opportunity
knocked for the Israelis. This was to be the true test of the Israeli Defense Force. This was a
frontal attack on a sheer escarpment that in places rose to a height of 1000 meters. Nor could
the Israelis use tactics and ploys developed against larger, more spread out formations on the
Sinai. In terms of numbers and deployment, all the advantages appeared to side with the
defender. This scenario examines the first two days fighting on the Golan. Some Israeli
reinforcements arrive by helicopter beyond the control of the player. There is an “_ALT” version
of this scenario that uses the OOB with the improved Arab Morale\Quality ratings should any
player require further challenge.
'73_1: "Y" Day Onslaught - (two variations)
The Sinai, October 6th 1973: The origins of the Yom Kippur War were rooted in the resounding
defeat the Arabs had to endure in the Six Day War. President Sadat of Egypt knew that if any
military action was taken against Israel, it would cause a massive Israeli reaction. Therefore,
logic dictated that the first blow must be in the same proportion. The Egyptian plan was to
cross the Suez Canal with five reinforced divisions at 5 crossing points. The first wave paddled
across in rubber rafts. This was followed by modern bridging equipment provided by the
Russians. They penetrated about 10 miles, and then set up defensive positions, under an air
defense system. They knew the power of the Israeli Defense Forces, both in the air and on the
ground. Their plan addressed both of these factors. The Egyptian forces would be under the
densest air missile defense system their Russian friends could provide, and to counter the
Israeli armor, ground forces were equipped with a huge amount of anti tank weaponry, from
shoulder operated RPG to vehicle mounted Sagger missiles. They rehearsed every phase of
the operation, then at 1400 hrs on the 6th October, "Y Day"..... a shattering barrage rent the air,
taking the Israelis by surprise. [Size large] *Hint - as Arab, review the rules Engineer | Ferry as
well as bridging* - *Designer Note: Large Egyptian Tank and Mechanized forces are present on
the map, as they were located there - but they have no effect early in the battle at this early
stage. See the alternative variant of this scenario where these tanks are used.
A veteran Playtester rated this scenario as one of the best scenarios in any HPS game. The
battle is enjoyable played in any fashion. The Arab player must take advantage early of the
surprise enjoyed historically by the Egyptian attack, including the neutralization of the Israeli air
power at the beginning of the battle. Although the Arab player is the attacker, it soon becomes
difficult to tell who is the aggressor in this scenario. Although the battle is large, there are only
fifteen turns, and both players must look carefully at the victory conditions and units’ availability,
to determine what is feasible, and what is too optimistic in terms of strategy.
Players will note the existences of powerful Arab Tank Division present on the map in this
game. They are placed there because, historically, this is where they were but they didn’t cross
the canal, or become a factor, in the time period represented in this scenario. I felt that if I didn’t
place these units in the scenario, some players consulting map from any book, might think that
this was a design oversight. Other players, seeing so low a chance that the units would come
into play might also think this to be a mistake. Therefore, we elected to leave the tanks divisions
Page 15
in the game, and to create a second copy of this scenario - #73_01a - with early release of
these reserves. Obviously, this early release scenario will be more challenging as the Human
Israeli vs. an Arab AI, particularly if the Egyptians in the more historical scenario are too easily
defeated.
73_2: Stick to the Game Plan - (two variations)
The Golan, October 6th 1973: President Assad of Syria had built a magnificent army. It had
been professionalized at every level, and modern Soviet equipment had been delivered to them
on a massive scale. The Syrian General Staff had devised Operation "Al-Owda" to re-capture
the Golan in 30 hours. It was a solid plan down to the last detail. When it was presented to their
allies, the Egyptians, they could not accept an attack at first light as they were attacking east,
the Syrians west. The Syrians did not like the idea of facing the wrath of the Israelis alone for
several hours, so they succumbed to their allies’ plan of a simultaneous attack at 1400 hours
on the 6th October. "Op Al-Owda" - a virtual blueprint for victory was replaced with "Op Badhr".
This plan was also very good, but did not throw the full weight of the Syrian Army into the battle.
It called for a major breakthrough attempt in the north, but the main thrust was to be in the area
of the Rafid Gap. The Israelis were caught by surprise as hundreds of Syrian armored vehicles
attacked across the cease-fire line. [Size large]
Unlike many of the battles in Middle East War, where armor and other mobile forces had to
cover large distances, this scenario focuses more on a frontal assault against well-entrenched
units. The Arab player must make careful use of the engineer units, and be certain to consult
the documentation on how to use these units. The Arab player must also be aggressive early,
as the Israelis only get stronger with time. Conversely the Israeli player needs to hang on to as
many critical positions as possible until the reinforcements begin to arrive.
It is important to read about the Sagger teams and consider their role here, particularly in the
early phase of this battle. #73_2 is best PBEM, but it can be played by a human Arab, just for
the fun of it as the Arabs can gain much more ground than they did historically. #73_2a is best
played as human Israeli a hectic defensive battle against an aggressive AI.
73_3: The Key to the Southern Golan
El Al Ridge, Southern Golan, October 8th 1973: The most successful Syrian attack was that of
Brig Gen Ali Aslan's powerful 5th Infantry Division. It had penetrated 20 miles westwards along
the important Rafid-El Al road, the southern route across the Golan. Although there were a few
Israeli units still holding at Tel Saki, Aslan decided to create a defense in depth at the
constriction of the ridgeline. He recognized this as the key to the southern Golan, holding this
line would force any Israeli counter attack to be funneled through a single approach. This
worked, the Israelis were constrained by the cramped space, and could only advance on a
narrow front. The Super Shermans were chosen to lead, backed by fire from the 9th Armored
Brigade. The Syrians were quite surprised to see the Shermans leading, in fact, they took this
as a sign of weakness. They did not see any major threat to their conquest.... this was to
change over the next few hours. [Size small]
This is best played as human Israeli, you must keep moving, as there is not a lot of time
available to you, but a victory should be within your grasp. The historical outcome of this battle
was that the Israelis easily broke through the initial Syrian defensive line, but they were
surprised at how deep the AT positions were along the route to Rafid.
73_4: Chinese Farm
Page 16
Chinese Farm, southern Suez Canal, October 17th 1973: The mission for the Sharon Division
was to take away the Arab initiative. The Egyptians bloodied themselves two days earlier with a
failed offense to help relieve the pressure on the Golan Heights. So Sharon proposed they push
a corridor though, or around, the Egyptians in front of them and cross to the west bank of the
Suez Canal. However, a black cloud hung over the Israeli Command....Chinese Farm. This
was a heavily defended area of infantry and anti tank positions, supported by tanks. The Israelis
found themselves in a real hornet’s nest while trying to keep the corridor open to bring up a
prefabricated bridge. [Size small]
No Middle East War game would be complete without a scenario on Chinese Farm. The name
actually is a misnomer taken after the location of a Japanese experimental test farm in that
region.
One and a half weeks after the Egyptian canal crossing (#73_1) the IDF is ready to strike back.
With part of his forces still fixed, the Israeli player has to attack fast, and hard, to gain access to
the Suez Canal. He has to cross it and then take several objectives including Fayid.
Unfortunately he has only 16 turns to achieve his goal. The scenario is also very interesting for
the Arab defender. With lots of the Egyptian armor, initially fixed to simulate the surprise effect
the Israeli forces attained, it will be quite a challenge to stem the flow against the Israeli tide.
'73_5: "Go Forward and Fight"
Tel el-Mal, Eastern Golan, October 16th 1973: The Arab allies of Syria, Iraq and Jordan, were
not given much in the way of orders when they arrived. They were told to "Go forward and
fight!". They positioned themselves on the southern flank of the Israeli breakthrough, and made
several minor attacks. Then the Iraqis came up with a plan for a combined attack. Inter-Arab
co-operation proved to be very faulty on the battlefield. The Jordanians were ready on time, but
the Iraqis were late, moving in a very uncoordinated fashion to the start line.... not a good start
to the day! [Size small]
This is best played as human Arab, the Jordanians actually started quite well here, and moved
forward on time and took the approaches to Tel el-Mal, however, the Iraqis were late putting in
their attack. This led to some confusion, and the Israelis recovered quickly and forced the
Jordanians to withdraw, both Arab forces took heavy losses.
VIII. Bibliography
Asher, Jerry & Hammel, Eric, Duel on the Golan: the 100 hour battle that saved Israel, New
York, W. Morrow, 1987
Bar-on, Mordechai, The Gates of Gaza, St. Martin’s Griffin, 1995
Churchill, Randolph S. and Churchill, Winston S., The Six Day War, Houghton Mifflin, 1967
Dan, Uri, Sharon’s Bridgehead: How the Israeli Army turned defeat into victory, University
Publishing Projects, Tel Aviv, 1975
Dayan, Moshe, Moshe Dayan: Story of My Life, Da Capo Press Incorporated, September 1992
Dayan, Moshe, Diary of the Sinai Campaign, Weinenfeld and Nichson, 1965
Page 17
Dupuy, Col T.N., Elusive Victory: The Arab-Israeli Wars 1947-1974 (Third Edition)
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 1978
Hammel, Eric, Six Days in June: How Israel won the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1992
Herzog, Chaim, The Arab-Israeli Wars: War & Peace in the Middle East, from the War of
Independence Through Lebabon., Random House, Incorporated, December 1983
Herzog, Chaim, The War of Atonement, Stackpole Books, 1998
Kalahani, Avigdor, The Heights of Courage: a tank leader's war on the Golan Heights,
Greenwood Press c1984.
Marshall, S.L.A., Sinai Victory, The Battery Press.
Neff, Donald, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days that changed the Middle East, Simon &
Shuster, 1984
O ’Ballance, Edgar, The Sinai Campaign, 1956, Praeger, 1959
O ’Ballance, Edgar, The Third Arab-Israeli War, Archon, 1972
O ’Ballance, Edgar, No Victor, No Vanquished: The Yom Kippur War, Presidio, 1978
Perrett, Bryan, Iron Fist: Classic Armoured Warfare, Cassell 1995
Pimlott, John, The Middle East Conflicts: From 1945 to the Present, Orbis Publishing, 1983
Stevenson, William, Zanek: A Chronicle of the Israeli Air Force , Bantam Books 1971
Trewhitt, Philip, Armoured Fighting Vehicles, Prospero Books, 1999
Verlinden, Francois, Warmachines No. 4: Israeli M4 Sherman and Derivatives, Verlinden
Publications, 1990.
Page 18