AP 44: JB-GPT's AI TUTOR—1967–1973: The Failure of Arab Air Forces stemmed from a number of reasons such as poor training.

COMMENTS TO: zzzz707@live.com.au

1. INDEX PAGE: JB-GPT's AI TUTOR—MILITARY HISTORY 

2. LINK: FREE SUBSTACK MAGAZINE  JB-GPT's AI TUTOR MILITARY HISTORY  

3. LINK: HOW TO USE JB-GPT's AI TUTOR MILITARY HISTORY

4. LINK: JB-GPT's AI PROMPTS DEEP SEARCH—MASTER BIBLIOGRAPHY & REFERENCES

5. LINK: INDEX PAGE...JB-GPT's AI TUTOR—MILITARY AIR POWER HISTORY 1903 –  2025.  

Copy and paste everything on this page below this line, into the AI of your choice. Fill in or delete where indicated.

========================================================

AI INSTRUCTIONS

• Preferred use references from: https://www.jb-gpt-prompts.com/jb-gpts-military-references

• If additional references are used, they must be drawn from reputable and scholarly sources. These may include academic publications, books from established historians, official government documents, respected think tanks, and recognized academic institutions such as leading universities.

• For follow-up question:

• Provide 5 (or change number) numbered key points (40–60 words each), with author, book title, and chapter.

• Add a separate Harvard-style bibliography.

• Suggest 3 more follow-up questions.

• Use clear language—no specialist jargon.

Follow-Up Questions (Delete those you don't use, or create your own e.g,, expand on key point four). 

01. How did cultural and political factors within Arab militaries undermine the effectiveness of their air and ground coordination in 1967 and 1973?
02. What lessons can be drawn from Egypt’s successful but ultimately inflexible Suez Canal crossing in 1973 about the limits of rehearsed operations?
03. In what ways did Arab air forces' failure to integrate with ground operations contrast with Israeli and Western doctrinal practices?

1967–1973: The Failure of Arab Air Forces stemmed from a number of reasons such as poor training.

OVERVIEW

The catastrophic failure of Arab air forces in 1967 and again in 1973 cannot be attributed to a lack of bravery or equipment parity. As Kenneth Pollack argues in Why Arabs Lose Wars, these failures stem from deeper structural and cultural patterns. Arab militaries, though capable of great personal courage, consistently struggled with combined arms warfare, decentralized command, and initiative-based tactics. Both the Egyptian and Syrian air forces failed to operate effectively under surprise, stress, or in conjunction with ground manoeuvre. While the Egyptian canal crossing in 1973 was drilled to tactical perfection, Arab forces could not adapt dynamically once the Israeli Defense Forces recovered. The result was an initial success that nearly collapsed when confronted by Israeli counterattacks. These wars underscore how political interference, institutional rigidity, and doctrinal inflexibility crippled Arab air-ground coordination.

GLOSSARY

1. Operation Focus: Israeli pre-emptive air campaign in 1967 that destroyed Arab air forces on the ground.

2. Combined Arms Manoeuvre (CAM): The integrated employment of air, armor, infantry, and artillery to achieve operational effect.

3. Suez Canal Crossing (1973): Egypt’s well-rehearsed initial crossing of the Suez under SAM cover, successful but tactically limited.

4. SAM Umbrella: Layered surface-to-air missile defenses used by Egypt to shield advancing forces.

5. Initiative: The ability of junior officers to adapt to battlefield change without direct orders—generally lacking in Arab forces.

6. Decentralized Command: Tactical decision-making authority delegated to lower-level units; absent in Arab doctrine.

7. Air-Ground Integration: Coordination between air forces and ground troops for mutual support; failed in Arab militaries.

8. Political Interference: Regime-driven control over military decision-making, prioritizing loyalty over effectiveness.

9. ILAF: Israeli Air Force, widely credited with operational flexibility and initiative.

10. Hezbollah Exception: Pollack notes Hezbollah briefly broke the Arab pattern by allowing tactical initiative—until degraded by Israeli targeting​.

KEY POINTS

1. Not a Question of Courage: Arab troops in 1967 and 1973 fought bravely, but courage cannot compensate for institutional dysfunction in planning, command, and adaptation​.

2. Combined Arms Failure: Arab forces lacked the capacity to conduct true combined arms manoeuvre. Even in U.S.-led coalitions (e.g. Desert Storm), Arab units were slow, over-centralized, and unable to coordinate effectively across services​.

3. Rigid Doctrinal Execution: Egyptian forces rehearsed the Suez crossing with precision, but this inflexibility meant they could not adapt when Israeli forces counterattacked. What worked on Day 1 failed by Day 3​.

4. Political Control and Fear of Initiative: Commanders prioritized obedience to regime expectations over battlefield innovation. Officers feared reprisal for unauthorized decisions—even if tactically sound​.

5. Air Power as Isolated Asset: Arab air forces operated in doctrinal silos, rarely supporting ground maneuver or integrating real-time battlefield data into strike decisions​.

6. Failure to Exploit Success: In 1973, Egypt’s early gains were nullified when follow-on operations extended beyond SAM cover. Israeli counteroffensives nearly encircled Egyptian forces and reached the outskirts of Cairo​.

7. Operational Paralysis under Pressure: Arab forces generally collapsed or became static under battlefield surprises. Even well-equipped formations lost cohesion when faced with fluid Israeli maneuver warfare​.

8. Doctrinal Incoherence: Despite Soviet equipment, Arab forces failed to replicate Soviet operational art. The same doctrine succeeded in Vietnam and Korea, proving the issue was not the model but its misapplication​.

9. Failure in Multinational Coalitions: Arab units in Desert Storm lagged behind U.S. and Western formations. They struggled with communications, movement synchronization, and combined arms integration​.

10. Air Defense Shield Created Static Doctrine: In 1973, Egypt’s SAM umbrella allowed initial protection—but once advancing forces moved beyond its range, their inability to fight dynamically was exposed​.

11. Hezbollah Briefly Broke the Pattern: Pollack observes that Hezbollah, unlike regular Arab militaries, permitted decentralized tactical initiative during the 1990s. This advantage was later degraded by Israeli SIGINT and precision targeting​.

12. Arab Air Forces Were Not Decapitated—They Were Ineffective: In both 1967 and 1973, Arab air assets survived in part but could not generate meaningful battlefield effects due to poor planning and doctrinal constraints​.

13. Symbolic over Tactical Value: Regimes valued their air forces as symbols of prestige rather than as functional combat arms, which led to underutilization or politically driven deployments​.

14. Operational Plans Ignored Adaptability: Warfighting was reduced to executing rehearsed sequences. Once conditions changed, Arab air and ground forces had no ability to improvise or reorient strategy​.

15. Doctrine Did Not Evolve Post-1967: Despite lessons available from the Six-Day War, Arab militaries failed to reform or adopt meaningful joint doctrines by 1973, repeating many of the same structural flaws​.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Pollack, K. M. (2004). Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948–1991. University of Nebraska Press.

2. Pollack, K. M. (1999). “The Influence of Arab Culture on Arab Military Effectiveness” in Why Arabs Lose Wars, Middle East Quarterly.

3. Aloni, S. (2024). Yom Kippur War 1973: Air Power in Israel’s Hardest Fought War. Osprey.

4. Builder, C. H. (1994). The Icarus Syndrome: The Role of Air Power Theory in the Evolution and Fate of the U.S. Air Force. RAND.