Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Operation Model 5

Operation Model 5 (Hebrew: דוגמן 5, Doogman 5), conducted on 7 October 1973, was an (SEAD) mission during the second day of the , targeting Syrian batteries deployed along the front. The operation sought to dismantle the integrated Syrian air defense network, comprising SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 systems supplied by the , to regain air superiority essential for ground force support against the Syrian advance. Despite employing F-4 Phantom strike aircraft at low altitudes to evade detection, the mission failed to neutralize the primary SAM umbrella, resulting in the loss of six Israeli F-4s to ground fire and only partial damage to one Syrian battery. This tactical setback for underscored the challenges posed by densely layered and mobile air defenses, prompting subsequent adaptations in SEAD tactics that proved decisive in later conflicts.

Background

Yom Kippur War Outbreak

On October 6, 1973, at 2:00 p.m. local time, Egyptian and Syrian armed forces launched a coordinated surprise offensive against Israeli positions, marking the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. The assault occurred on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, when much of Israel's military was at reduced readiness, with thousands of reservists on leave and air raid sirens silenced to avoid disrupting religious observances. Israeli military intelligence, adhering to the "conception" doctrine that Arab states would not initiate major hostilities without assured air superiority, had downplayed indicators of an imminent attack despite warnings from sources including Jordan's King Hussein. On the northern front, Syrian forces under the command of General initiated the attack on the with intense artillery barrages starting around 1:50 p.m. Israel time, followed by advances from three infantry divisions—the 5th, 7th, and 9th—supported by over 1,400 tanks and mechanized units. These forces targeted the thinly held Israeli defenses, primarily the 7th Armored Brigade and elements of the , achieving rapid initial penetrations into the Purple Line fortifications amid dense and disrupted communications. The Syrian offensive exploited the terrain's vulnerabilities, overrunning several outposts and threatening to descend toward the within hours. Simultaneously, on the southern front, Egyptian President ordered Operation Badr, involving five infantry divisions equipped with water cannons and high-pressure hoses to breach the Suez Canal sand barriers, followed by the deployment of some 2,000 tanks and 1,000 artillery pieces. Egyptian troops crossed the canal in amphibious assaults, neutralizing the Bar-Lev Line fortifications and establishing bridgeheads up to 10 kilometers into the by evening, supported by a Soviet-supplied (SAM) umbrella that limited Israeli air responses. The initial Egyptian advances succeeded in part due to meticulous deception operations, including false mobilizations earlier in the year that conditioned to anticipate attacks in spring rather than autumn. This dual-front assault caught unprepared, leading to emergency mobilizations and a scramble to reinforce both sectors as Arab forces consolidated their gains in the war's opening hours.

Syrian Air Defense Deployment

Prior to the , Syria had developed a layered and integrated air defense network along the front, drawing on Soviet doctrine and equipment to counter Israeli air superiority demonstrated in previous conflicts. This system included approximately 25 batteries of SA-2 Guideline and SA-3 Goa surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), supplemented by 15 advanced SA-6 Gainful (Kub) batteries, which were mobile and radar-guided platforms capable of engaging low-flying aircraft effectively. The deployment emphasized redundancy and overlap, with fixed SA-2 and SA-3 sites providing high-altitude coverage and the more agile SA-6 units positioned to protect forward ground forces and artillery positions. The Syrian Air Defence Command, reorganized in the late , integrated these SAM batteries with anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) such as vehicles and early-warning radars, creating a dense umbrella over the invasion corridors toward the . By , this network comprised around 45 SAM batteries in total, equivalent in scale to those fielded by multiple Soviet divisions, supported by rigorous exercises that emphasized rapid relocation to evade counterstrikes. Deployment strategies focused on forward positioning to shield the initial assault waves, with SA-6 batteries advanced closer to the Purple Line ceasefire demarcation to deny Israeli during the ground offensive launched on October 6. This air defense posture proved highly effective in the war's opening days, inflicting significant losses on aircraft attempting suppression missions, as the integrated system exploited terrain features like volcanic fields for concealment and ambushes. Syrian forces had prepositioned decoys and practiced countermeasures, enhancing against attempts. The emphasis on allowed batteries to displace after firing, complicating targeting efforts in operations like Model 5 on October 7. Overall, the deployment reflected a doctrinal shift toward denying air parity, leveraging numerical density and technological upgrades to achieve temporary tactical parity in the airspace over the .

Planning and Objectives

Strategic Necessities

The strategic necessities for Operation Model 5 arose from the 's deployment of a sophisticated integrated air defense system (IADS) on the front, which effectively denied the (IAF) operational freedom following the on October 6, 1973. had positioned approximately 30 () batteries, including mobile SA-6 Gainful systems, alongside SA-2 and SA-3 units, forming a layered "umbrella" that integrated coverage and . This network, modeled on Soviet doctrine and honed during the , inflicted significant losses on IAF sorties attempting to provide to ground forces, with at least six Israeli aircraft downed on the first day alone due to and fire. Israeli military doctrine, proven effective in prior conflicts like the 1967 , relied heavily on rapid achievement of air superiority to compensate for numerical disadvantages on the ground; however, the Syrian advance—supported by over 1,400 tanks and 60,000 troops—threatened to overrun thinly held positions, particularly in key battles such as the Valley of Tears, where tank units faced without adequate aerial of enemy armor and supply lines. The IAF's inability to operate below 10,000 feet due to the SAM threat limited bombing accuracy and exposed aircraft to further attrition, exacerbating the ground crisis as Syrian forces penetrated up to 10 kilometers into territory by October 7. Pre-war had identified the destruction of this IADS as prerequisite for enabling massed strikes on Syrian rear areas, artillery positions, and advancing columns, thereby halting the offensive and facilitating a . Executing Model 5 was thus imperative to restore IAF dominance, as sustained denial of air support risked collapse of the front, potentially forcing resource diversion from the simultaneous theater and undermining Israel's overall defensive posture. The operation's design emphasized a sweeping assault with unguided munitions from F-4 Phantom and A-4 Skyhawk formations to overwhelm and dismantle the sites en masse, reflecting the recognition that piecemeal attacks had proven ineffective against mobile and redundant defenses. Failure to neutralize this threat would perpetuate high IAF attrition rates—projected to exceed sustainable levels without intervention—and prevent the doctrinal shift to offensive air operations critical for reversing ground momentum.

Force Composition and Tactics

The (IAF) committed F-4 Phantom II fighter-bombers as the primary strike aircraft for Operation Model 5, with six such aircraft lost during the mission due to their low-altitude, unescorted approaches. These heavily laden Phantoms were tasked with visual identification and destruction of targets using unguided bombs, relying on pre-war intelligence that proved outdated. Support elements included decoy drones from the IAF's 200 Squadron to draw out Syrian SAM fire and reveal battery positions, though their effectiveness was limited by the operation's hasty execution. Israeli tactics emphasized a sweeping, large-scale SEAD strike to neutralize the entire Syrian SAM belt on the Golan Heights, bypassing standoff weapons in favor of direct, low-level attacks to evade detection without adequate electronic countermeasures. This approach, ordered by Defense Minister over objections, aimed to rapidly restore IAF air superiority but exposed to dense ground fire due to insufficient support and poor real-time intelligence. Syrian defenses comprised an integrated network of approximately 25 SA-2 and SA-3 batteries supplemented by 15 advanced SA-6 (Kub) batteries, forming a layered umbrella over the front that emphasized mobility and rapid relocation to counter strikes. These systems, crewed by Syrian Arab Army air defense units, were supported by MiG-21 interceptors from the , which scrambled to engage incoming Israeli formations and protect the SAM sites. Syrian tactics focused on active guidance and quick-response firing from concealed positions, leveraging the SA-6's capability to engage low-flying targets effectively while employing short-range anti-aircraft guns for close defense. This combination inflicted significant losses on the strikers, with only one battery destroyed and another damaged amid the operation's failure to dismantle the overall network.

Execution

Timeline of the Operation

Operation Model 5 commenced on October 7, 1973, the second day of the , as the sought to neutralize Syrian (SAM) batteries threatening operations over the . Under the command of Brigadier General Benny Peled, waves of F-4 Phantom II aircraft, heavily loaded with unguided bombs, took off from Israeli bases to conduct a preplanned sweeping assault aimed at destroying the entire Syrian SAM network on the front. The Israeli pilots approached at low altitudes to evade detection by Syrian radars such as the Flat Face and Long Track systems, intending to climb to medium altitude for bomb release over identified SAM sites. However, reliance on outdated intelligence proved critical; many targeted Syrian SAM batteries, including Soviet-supplied SA-6 Gainful (Kub) systems, had been relocated since the intelligence was gathered, rendering the strikes ineffective. As the F-4s executed their runs, defenses responded aggressively, launching missiles that downed six Phantoms and damaged several others, resulting in two pilots killed and nine captured. In return, forces managed to destroy one battery and damage another, but the failed to dismantle the defense umbrella, allowing it to remain operational and inflict further losses on aircraft. The mission concluded by the end of the day with the returning to base, marking Operation Model 5 as an initial setback in efforts to achieve air superiority over and highlighting vulnerabilities in SEAD tactics against mobile, Soviet-equipped defenses.

Key Engagements and Challenges

Operation Model 5 commenced at noon on October 7, 1973, involving Israeli F-4 Phantom II aircraft conducting low-altitude strikes against approximately 31 Syrian (SAM) batteries deployed along the front. The primary engagement centered on visual identification and bombing runs targeting Soviet-supplied SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 systems, which formed a multi-layered air defense network protecting Syrian ground forces. Despite the coordinated effort, only one SAM battery was confirmed destroyed, highlighting the operation's limited success. Israeli pilots flew at extremely low altitudes—often below 100 —to evade radar-guided SAMs, exposing them to intense anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire from ZSU-23-4 Shilka vehicles and other ground-based guns. This tactic resulted in six Israeli aircraft losses, primarily to AAA rather than SAMs, with four pilots killed and others captured or rescued. Syrian MiG-21 fighters were scrambled to intercept the incoming raids, leading to brief air-to-air engagements, though Israeli losses were predominantly ground-induced. Key challenges included the mobility of Syrian SAM units, which complicated pre-strike intelligence and targeting; reliance on visual acquisition in contested airspace without advanced standoff munitions or real-time reconnaissance; and the unexpected density and integration of Syria's air defenses, which had been significantly upgraded since the 1967 . The hasty execution, planned pre-war but adapted post-outbreak, underscored deficiencies in support and suppression tactics, contributing to the operation's failure to neutralize the threat. This engagement marked the first major Israeli attempt at dedicated SEAD in the conflict, revealing vulnerabilities that prompted subsequent doctrinal shifts.

Outcomes

Casualties and Material Losses

Operation Model 5 resulted in heavy losses for the , which lost six F-4 Phantom II aircraft to Syrian surface-to-air missiles and antiaircraft artillery while attempting to suppress Syrian batteries on the front. Two Israeli pilots were killed in the action, with nine others captured by Syrian forces after ejecting from their downed aircraft. Syrian material losses were limited, with only one SAM battery confirmed destroyed and another damaged during the strikes, despite the deployment of approximately batteries with over 130 launchers in the sector. Specific Syrian personnel casualties from the operation remain undocumented in available accounts, though the destruction of the SAM site likely incurred some operator fatalities or injuries.
SidePersonnel CasualtiesAircraft/Missile Losses
2 killed, 9 captured6 F-4 Phantom II destroyed
Unknown1 SAM battery destroyed, 1 damaged

Immediate Tactical Results

Operation Model 5 resulted in heavy losses for the with minimal degradation of Syrian air defenses. On October 7, 1973, six F-4 Phantom II aircraft were shot down by Syrian surface-to-air missiles, primarily due to low-altitude attacks necessitated by the failure to suppress radar-guided threats effectively. An additional six to ten Phantoms returned to base heavily damaged. Two were killed, and nine pilots or navigators were captured as prisoners of . Syrian defenses sustained limited damage, with only one to two SAM batteries destroyed or hit, out of an estimated 31 active sites in the Golan sector. Many Syrian batteries, particularly mobile SA-6 systems, had relocated based on prior intelligence, evading detection and destruction. No Syrian radars were confirmed destroyed, preserving the integrated air defense network's operational integrity. Tactically, the operation failed to achieve its objective of clearing the Syrian SAM umbrella, enabling continued restrictions on Israeli air operations over the and contributing to a Syrian defensive success in the aerial domain. The disproportionate losses underscored vulnerabilities in confronting Soviet-supplied integrated air defenses without adequate standoff capabilities or intelligence.

Analysis

Causes of Failure

Operation Model 5 failed primarily due to the Israeli Air Force's inability to effectively counter Syria's integrated air defense system, which combined stationary and mobile surface-to-air missiles (), anti-aircraft artillery (), and fighter intercepts. The operation targeted Syrian SA-3 and mobile SA-6 batteries along the , but only succeeded in destroying two stationary batteries while failing to damage any SA-6 units. This shortfall stemmed from outdated target intelligence, which did not account for the mobility and repositioning of Syrian SAM launchers following the initial assault on October 6, 1973. Tactical execution exacerbated these intelligence gaps. F-4 squadrons, heavily laden with for low-level strikes to evade SAMs, suffered reduced maneuverability and were forced into altitudes vulnerable to dense Syrian AAA networks. Consequently, most losses—six Phantoms destroyed and ten damaged—occurred to AAA fire rather than SAMs, with two aircrews killed and nine captured. The absence of effective (EW) jamming left exposed to radar-guided threats, while premature deployment of decoy Chukar drones by Squadron 200 failed to synchronize with Syrian missile reload cycles, negating their utility in depleting or exposing defenses. Broader operational constraints compounded the tactical deficiencies. The IAF's initial emphasis on the Egyptian front diverted resources, delaying dedicated suppression efforts against Syrian SA-6 systems, whose tactical surprise had already inflicted significant early losses. Without standoff munitions or robust EW support, the direct-attack approach proved unsustainable against a layered that integrated SAMs with ZSU-23/4 self-propelled . These factors not only preserved Syrian air defenses but enabled continued ground force advances until subsequent adaptations shifted tactics.

Intelligence and Preparedness Shortcomings

Prior to the , Israeli intelligence assessments underestimated the scale and sophistication of Syrian air defense deployments on the , including the integration of Soviet-supplied SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 missile systems with dense anti-aircraft artillery () networks, leading to an overly optimistic prewar plan for Operation Model 5 that assumed a single sweeping strike could neutralize the entire threat. This misjudgment stemmed from a broader failure in strategic warning, where and human sources failed to anticipate the full extent of Syrian preparations, including the forward deployment of mobile SAM batteries beyond previously mapped positions. Tactically, the (IAF) lacked sufficient real-time intelligence during the operation's execution on , 1973, as limited assets were diverted to immediate ground support amid the surprise offensive, preventing updated mapping of SAM relocations or activations post-invasion. The preplanned operation order emphasized high-speed, low-altitude runs with unguided general-purpose bombs to evade radar-guided missiles, but this exposed aircraft to intense AAA fire without accounting for the layered, redundant nature of the Syrian integrated air defense system (IADS), resulting in six F-4 Phantom II losses primarily to ground fire rather than SAMs. Preparedness shortcomings were evident in the IAF's doctrinal reliance on air superiority tactics from the 1967 Six-Day War, without adequate adaptation to counter modern Soviet-style defenses through specialized SEAD munitions, electronic countermeasures (ECM), or decoy systems; for instance, the absence of operational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for suppression or reconnaissance left pilots without effective standoff options or threat deception. Training exercises had not simulated the density of over 50 SAM batteries and associated AAA emplacements deployed by Syria, fostering overconfidence in the efficacy of massed strikes over precision or phased operations. These gaps, compounded by the hasty improvisation of the plan amid wartime chaos, yielded only one confirmed SA-3 battery destruction while inflicting heavy Israeli losses, underscoring a critical mismatch between preconceived strategies and the operational reality of a resilient adversary IADS.

Impact and Legacy

Effects on the Broader War

The failure of Operation Model 5 on , 1973, left Syrian (SAM) batteries, including SA-6 systems, largely intact, thereby sustaining a formidable air defense umbrella over the . This preserved Syrian protection for advancing ground forces and artillery, restricting (IAF) low-level sorties and during the critical phase of the Syrian offensive. As a result, Israeli ground units faced intensified pressure from Syrian armored divisions, contributing to initial territorial losses and higher casualties in the northern theater, where Syrian troops penetrated up to 10-15 kilometers into Israeli-held territory by October 7-8. The operation's poor outcome enforced tactical restraint on the IAF, fostering air inferiority over Syrian battlefields in the war's opening days and compelling a doctrinal shift toward standoff weapons, electronic countermeasures, and reconnaissance-led suppression. These adjustments mitigated the SAM threat over time, allowing IAF dominance to emerge by mid-October as ground counteroffensives advanced, but the delay hampered early aerial of Syrian supply lines and reinforcements. Syrian SAM effectiveness, unneutralized by Model 5, accounted for a significant portion of the IAF's total losses—around 40 to ground fire overall—prolonging operational challenges and elevating reliance on armored maneuvers to stem the tide. Strategically, the setback amplified vulnerabilities exposed by Soviet-supplied defenses, influencing Israeli prioritization of rapid ground stabilization and reserve mobilization while hastening U.S. resupply via from October 13, which bolstered depleted F-4 squadrons. Though Israel's eventual recapture of the and push into on October 11-16 demonstrated resilience, Model 5's ramifications underscored the integrated air-ground threats posed by Arab coalitions, testing the limits of Israel's prewar assumptions and contributing to postwar reevaluations of SEAD imperatives in high-intensity conflicts.

Lessons for Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD)

Operation Model 5, conducted on October 7, 1973, represented an early and unsuccessful attempt by the to suppress Syrian (SAM) batteries on the [Golan Heights](/page/Golan Heights) front during the . The operation involved a large-scale strike using unguided munitions from general-purpose fighter-bombers, resulting in minimal damage to the targeted SA-6 Gainful systems while exposing Israeli aircraft to intense anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) fire and some SAM engagements, with losses attributed primarily to AAA rather than direct SAM hits. This failure highlighted the limitations of conventional bombing tactics against integrated, mobile air defense networks equipped with radar-guided missiles. A primary lesson was the critical need for specialized SEAD assets and tactics rather than relying on massed, unguided attacks. The absence of anti-radiation missiles, such as the , and insufficient electronic countermeasures () allowed Syrian radars to maintain operational effectiveness, underscoring that SEAD demands precision weapons designed to home in on emissions or disrupt radar functionality before physical destruction. Post-operation analysis revealed that hasty planning, with reliance on pre-war , failed to account for the mobility and dispersal of Syrian SAM units, which had repositioned since initial deployments; this emphasized the requirement for real-time reconnaissance and persistent surveillance to track dynamic threats. Further insights stressed the integration of in SEAD to degrade enemy sensor networks prior to ordnance delivery. During Model 5, the lack of dedicated jamming platforms or pod-equipped permitted Syrian defenses to acquire and engage incoming formations, contributing to operational rates exceeding 4% per in early phases. The operation's shortcomings prompted doctrinal shifts toward multi-phased SEAD/ (Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses) approaches, incorporating standoff munitions, decoys, and coordinated missions to minimize exposure within lethal envelopes. These adaptations, refined in subsequent conflicts like the 1982 Bekaa Valley campaign, demonstrated that effective SEAD necessitates layered suppression—beginning with electronic degradation—followed by targeted strikes, rather than direct, high-risk penetrations. The experience also illustrated the risks of underestimating integrated air defense systems (IADS), where , , and fighters form mutually supporting layers. Model 5's focus on SAM sites alone neglected overlapping AAA coverage, leading to disproportionate losses from ground fire; this reinforced the imperative for holistic IADS mapping and simultaneous neutralization efforts across all echelons. Ultimately, the operation's high cost—part of the IAF's initial 50 aircraft lost in roughly 1,220 sorties over the war's first three days—drove investments in training, simulation, and technology, affirming that SEAD success hinges on rigorous pre-mission preparation, adaptive tactics, and technological superiority over improvised responses.

References

  1. [1]
    [PDF] An Historical Analysis of Israeli Drone Use, 1971-2014
    Nov 24, 2012 · On 7 October 1973, the second day of the 1973 Yom-Kippur war, the IAF launched. Operation Doogman-5, with the goal of destroying the Syrian ...
  2. [2]
    operation-dogman-5 - Consortium of Indo-Pacific Researchers
    Sep 22, 2022 · The operation against Syria codenamed, “Model-5” aka “Dogman-5” was intended to destroy the primary Syrian air defense umbrella covering the sector opposite ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Hard Lessons in the Holy Land
    Nevertheless, DOOGMAN 5 was carried out, but failed. Six of the air force's prized F-4 Phantoms were shot down, all by ground fire due to the low flying ...
  4. [4]
    A familiar foe emerges in the Israel-Iran proxy war
    Oct 30, 2019 · On the second day of war, Israel resorted to Operation Model 5, hoping to target and destroy the bulk of Syria's artillery batteries. It ...
  5. [5]
    The October War and U.S. Policy - The National Security Archive
    Thirty years ago, on 6 October 1973 at 2:00 p.m. (Cairo time), Egyptian and Syrian forces launched coordinated attacks on Israeli forces in the Sinai and ...
  6. [6]
    The 1973 Arab-Israeli War - Office of the Historian
    On October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel's forces in the ... By October 9, following a failed IDF counter-attack against Egypt's forces ...
  7. [7]
    The Yom Kippur War: Background & Overview
    Mubarak stated that six minutes before the large attack on Israel commenced, including other Arab armies, he attacked an Israeli communications outpost in his ...<|separator|>
  8. [8]
  9. [9]
    Military - GlobalSecurity.org
    Therefore, the number of Syrian missile batteries equalled what five Soviet divisions, supplemented by army and frontal assets, would field. The Israelis ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  10. [10]
    Does anyone know the syrian army size when 1973 Yom Kippur War
    Oct 28, 2019 · The number of men cited seems OK but the number of tanks was said to have ... 45 SAM batteries (SA-2/3/6) Source: Jane's. Like. Reactions ...
  11. [11]
    yom kippur war – Air Marshal's Perspective - 55 NDA Alumni
    Jun 28, 2025 · Syria had deployed a dense network of Soviet-supplied SAMs (including SA-6, SA-2, and SA-3 systems), which posed a significant threat to Israeli ...
  12. [12]
    The Israeli Air Force : Wartime Lessons
    Oct 7, 2019 · Missile batteries posed a great threat to the IAF's aircraft and our goal was to destroy them. We received the instruction to fly lower than a ...
  13. [13]
    Operation Model 5 | Military Wiki | Fandom
    Operation Model 5. Operation Model 5. Part of Yom Kippur War. Date, 7 October 1973. Location, Golan Heights. Result, Syrian victory. Belligerents. Israel, Syria.
  14. [14]
    Israel Studies An Anthology : The 1973 Yom Kippur War
    ... Doogman.” The operation was carried out at noon and proved to be a complete failure. Of thirty-one Surface to Air Missile batteries that were attacked, only ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] The Struggle for Air Superiority - Air University
    Mar 10, 2020 · The clearest manifestation of these trends was the Yom Kippur. War, in which the IAF experienced great difficulties in executing CAS and AI.Missing: details engagements
  16. [16]
    oct 7, 1973 - Operation Model 5 (Timeline) - Time.Graphics
    Operation Model 5 (Hebrew: דוגמן 5, Doogman 5) was an Israeli Air Force operation during the Yom Kippur War, aimed at destroying Syrian SAM batteries ...
  17. [17]
    #OTD October 6th, 49 years ago, the 'Yom Kippur' War broke out ...
    Oct 6, 2022 · Operation Model 5,The First Unsuccessful SEAD Operation Conducted During any Middle Eastern Conflict,October,1973: Operation Model 5 was a ...<|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Israel Air Force In the Yom Kippur War - Jewish Virtual Library
    In one operation alone, the IAF lost 6 planes while destroying only one Syrian SAM. On the Western front the IAF destroyed 32 Egyptian SAM sites and damaged 11 ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] Operation Dogman-5: The Israeli Phantom Massacre of 1973 ...
    By the start of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973, the Israeli Air Force ... Phantom IIs were shot down with a further 6 strike aircraft returning to Ramat.
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Lessons from Israeli Battlefield Air Interdiction During the ... - DTIC
    This study establishes lessons, and draws conclusions from Israeli Air Force air-to-surface operations during the battle for Golan in October, 1973. The Israeli ...
  21. [21]
  22. [22]
    Operation Mole Cricket 19 | The Jerusalem Post
    Jul 18, 2016 · Avi Barber, who was captured and taken hostage by the Syrians during the Yom Kippur War in Operation Model 5, commanded a squadron of Phantom ...Missing: necessity | Show results with:necessity
  23. [23]
    The air force and the Yom Kippur War: New lessons
    This work begins with description of the 7 October crisis and afterwards it illustrates the pre-war preparations of the IAF. Then, it analyses the IAF roles and.
  24. [24]
    [PDF] The Yom Kippur War and the Shaping of the United States Air Force
    Even then, Israeli air and ground forces had effectively suppressed the SAM threat in the Egyptian zone during the war - a development recorded by Herzog but ...
  25. [25]
    [PDF] The Yom Kippur War: Old Lessons. - DTIC
    Lessons from the war would form the foundational underpinnings for the evolution of American warfighting doctrine between 1973 and 1982. During this time, the ...