Manifestations of the Egyptian Army’s Actions in the US Army’s 1976 Edition of FM 100-5 Operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies emphasize the contributions of the lessons gleaned from the IDF actions in the Yom Kippur War in shaping the 1976 edition. This paper adds another aspect to these claims. The 1976 edition clearly reveals that the doctrine sanctified defense over offense and firepower over maneuvering. This was not how the IDF operated; even in strategic-level defensive battles (especially in the Golan Heights); it adhered to tactical and micro-tactical offenses. Furthermore, on October 8 the IDF set out on two multi-divisionary counterattacks, the first of which (Sinai) failed while the second (Golan Heights) succeeded. With this in mind, this paper will claim that it was in fact the Egyptian model that set a better example from which to learn and implement in the Central European arena. The analysis of the Egyptian model in contrast with the characteristics of the 1976 edition will stand at the core of this paper. In other words, we shall analyze how the Egyptian war plans (up to October 14) execution had manifested in American doctrine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".