Suez

3.4654122855676 (1807)
Posted by kaori 03/19/2009 @ 23:09

Tags : suez, distribution and utilities, electric power, energy and water, business, as-suways, egypt, africa, world

News headlines
GDF Suez sells Abu Dhabi stake to Marubeni -ADWEA - Reuters
ABU DHABI, June 1 (Reuters) - French utility GDF Suez (GSZ.PA) has sold 20 percent of its stake in an Abu Dhabi water and power project to Japan's Marubeni Corp (8002.T), the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority (ADWEA) said on Monday....
Suez Canal revenue dips 22.7% - Business Standard
PTI / Cairo June 02, 2009, 0:15 IST Amid the global economic crisis, the revenue from the Suez Canal has dipped sharply by 22.7 per cent to $346.9 million in April this year, as compared to the corresponding period last year. A monthly report from the...
Distrigaz South becomes GDF Suez Energy Romania - Financiarul
Natural gas provider Distrigaz South changed its name into GDF Suez Energy Romania, on the occasion of a modernization process of the company services and of its integration into GDF Suez Group, according to a release of GDF Suez Energy Romania....
MENA Infrastructure Fund acquires GDF Suez stake in Manah power ... - SteelGuru
Oman Daily Observer reported that French utility giant GDF Suez Group has agreed a deal with Dubai based MENA Infrastructure Fund to sell its 32.81% stake in United Power Company SAOG which owns and operates the Manah power project....
GDF Suez Pays Camfin EUR119M For Energie Investimenti Stake - Wall Street Journal
MI) and GDF-Suez SA (GSZ.FR) Monday said they have finalized the transfer of a 40% share of Energie Investimenti held by Camfin to GDF Suez, which thus holds 100% of the company. The transaction was carried out for a consideration of EUR119 million and...
Suez Environnement: 09 Guidance For Slight Rev, Ebitda Growth - Wall Street Journal
PARIS (Dow Jones)--French utility Suez Environnement (SEV.FR) Tuesday confirmed guidance for revenue and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, or Ebitda, to grow slightly in 2009. That objective assumes constant foreign...
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge AS has selected SPT Group to supply the online ... - Your Project News (press release)
GDF SUEZ E&P Norge has awarded SPT Group the contract for delivery of an online Flow Assurance System (FAS) and associated flow assurance services for the Gjøa field located in the North Sea. The FAS will be configured in SPT Group's online e-Field...
EDF: To Support Areva, GDF Suez, Total In UAE Nuclear Bid - Wall Street Journal
In January 2008, utility GDF Suez SA (GSZ.FR) agreed with nuclear group Areva SA (CEI.FR) and oil major Total SA (TOT) to form a consortium to bid to develop nuclear capacity in the UAE. The UAE isn't part of EDF's list of target countries for...
VLCCs shun Suez to avoid costs and pirates - Lloyd's List
OWNERS of very large crude carriers have shunned Suez Canal transits to cut costs and avoid piracy trouble spots, at a time when spot charter rates are at loss-making levels. There was a 70% drop in the number of VLCCs going through the Suez Canal...
Suez Canal traffic slows - BBC News
But officials from Egypt's main waterway - the Suez Canal - insist that it is not piracy that is hitting their business - it is the global economic slowdown. The BBC's Yolande Knell has been to the Suez Canal to look at the troubles of the shipping...

Suez

Suez is located in Egypt

Suez (Arabic: السويس‎ as-Suways) is a seaport town (population ca. 497,000) in north-eastern Egypt, located on the north coast of the Gulf of Suez, near the southern terminus of the Suez Canal, having the same boundaries as Suez governorate. It has two harbors, Port Ibrahim and Port Tawfiq, and extensive port facilities. Together they form a metropolitan area. Railway lines and highways connect the city with Cairo and Port Said. Suez has a petrochemical plant, and its oil refineries have pipelines carrying the finished product to Cairo.

Suez is a way station for Muslim pilgrims travelling to and from Mecca.

In the 7th century a town (known as Clysma or Kolzum) near the site of present-day Suez was the eastern terminus of a canal linking the Nile River and the Red Sea. In the 16th century Suez was a Turkish naval station.

Its importance as a port increased after the Suez Canal opened in 1869. The city was virtually destroyed during battles in the late 1960s and early 1970s between Egyptian and Israeli forces occupying the Sinai Peninsula. The town was deserted following the Third Arab-Israeli War in 1967. Reconstruction of Suez began soon after Egypt reopened the Suez Canal, following the October 1973 war with Israel.

There was a canal from the Nile delta to the Gulf of Suez in ancient times, when the gulf extended further north than it does today. This fell into disuse, and the present canal was built in the nineteenth century.

The Suez Canal offers a significantly shorter passage for ships than passing round the Cape of Good Hope. The construction of the Suez Canal was favoured by the natural conditions of the region: the comparatively short distance between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, the occurrence of a line of lakes or depressions which became lakes (Lake Manzala in the north, and depressions, Timsah and the Bitter Lakes, part way along the route), and the generally flat terrain. The construction of the canal was proposed by the engineer and French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps, who acquired from Said Pasha the rights of constructing and operating the canal for a period of 99 years. The Suez Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez) was formed. Construction took 11 years, and the canal opened on 17th November 1869. The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on world trade.

In 1956, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the canal, provoking the Suez Crisis. Following the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, the canal was closed, to be reopened only in 1975.

Today, the canal is a vital link in world trade, and contributes significantly to the Egyptian economy.

Masjid 'Hamza in Suez.

Sadat's house in Suez.

To the top



Suez Canal

Suez Canal in February 1934. Air photograph taken by Swiss pilot and photographer Walter Mittelholzer.

The Suez Canal is a canal in Egypt. Opened in November 1869, it allows water transportation between Europe and Asia without navigating around Africa or carrying goods overland between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. The northern terminus is Port Said, with the southern terminus being near Suez. Ismailia is located halfway between Port Said and Suez.

The canal is 192 km (119 mi) long. The maximum depth of canal is 38 feet (12 m) It is triple-lane with 4 passing places north and south of the Great Bitter Lake, and links the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea. It contains no locks; seawater flows freely through the canal into the Great Bitter Lake from both the Red Sea in the south and the Mediterranean in the north, replacing evaporation.

The canal is owned and maintained by the Suez Canal Authority (SCA) of the Arab Republic of Egypt.

Two ancient west-east canals are documented as having facilitated travel from the Nile to the Red Sea. One smaller canal was constructed under the auspices of either Senusret III or Ramesses II. The other larger canal incorporated a portion of the first but was located farther south and was constructed under the reign of Necho II.

The reliefs of the Punt expedition under Hatshepsut 1470 BCE depict seagoing vessels carrying the expeditionary force returning from Punt. This has given rise to the theory that, at the time, a navigable link existed between the Red Sea and the Nile.

Evidence indicates its existence by the 13th century BC during the time of Ramesses II.

This ancient west-east canal was discovered in the early 1860s, running through the ancient Egyptian cities of Pi-Ramesses, Bubastis and Pithom, during the construction of the Sweet Water Canal.

The waterway fell into disrepair, and according to the Histories of the Greek historian Herodotus, about 600 BC, Necho II undertook re-excavation. Accounts are varied, however, as we are told that Necho endeavoured to either deepen the older canal between Bubastis and Heroopolis and/or between the Heroopolite Gulf and the Red Sea. Regardless, Necho is reported as having never completed his project.

Herodotus was told that 120,000 men perished in this undertaking. According to Pliny the Elder, Necho's extension to the canal was approximately 57 English miles, equal to the total distance between Bubastis and the Great Bitter Lake, allowing for winding through valleys that it necessarily had to pass through. The length that Herodotus tells us, of over 1000 stadia (i.e., over 114 miles), must be understood to include the entire distance between the Nile and the Red Sea at that time.

With Necho's death, work was discontinued. Herodotus tells us that the reason the project was abandoned was because of a warning received from an oracle that others would benefit by its successful completion.

Necho's project was finally completed by Darius I of Persia, who conquered Egypt. We are told that by Darius's time a natural waterway passage which had existed between the Heroopolite Gulf and the Red Sea in the vicinity of the Egyptian town of Shaluf (alt. Chalouf or Shaloof), located just south of the Great Bitter Lake, had become so blocked with silt that Darius necessarily needed to clear it out so as to allow navigation once again.

The canal left the Nile at Bubastis. An inscription on a pillar at Pithom records that in 270 or 269 BC it was again reopened, by Ptolemy II Philadelphus. In Arsinoe, Ptolemy constructed a navigable lock, with sluices, between the Heroopolite Gulf and the Red Sea which allowed the passage of vessels but prevented salt water from the Red Sea from mingling with the fresh water in the canal.

The Red Sea gradually receded over the centuries, its coastline slowly moving farther and farther southward away from Lake Timsah and the Great Bitter Lake to its present coastline today. Coupled with persistent accumulations of Nile silt, maintenance and repair of Ptolemy's canal obviously became increasingly cumbersome over each passing century.

Two hundred years after the construction of Ptolemy's canal, Cleopatra seems to have had no west-east waterway passage, because the Pelusiac branch of the Nile River, which had fed Ptolemy's west-east canal, had by that time dwindled, having choked up with silt.

Over the next 1,000 years the Suez Canal was successively modified, destroyed and rebuilt, until finally it was put out of commission in the 8th century by the Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur about 750 AD.

By the 8th century, we are told, a navigable canal existed between Old Cairo and the Red Sea, but accounts vary as to who ordered its construction -- either 'Amr ibn al-'As, Omar the Great, or Trajan. This canal reportedly linked to the River Nile at Old Cairo and ended near modern Suez.

The Abbasid Caliph al-Mansur is said to have ordered this canal closed so as to prevent supplies from reaching Arabian detractors.

Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah is claimed to have repaired the Old Cairo to Red Sea passageway, but only briefly, circa 1000 AD, as it soon "became choked with sand." However, we are told that parts of this canal still continued to fill in during the Nile's annual inundations.

Mehemet Ali is said to have ordered this canal closed in 1811.

Napoleon Bonaparte's interest in finding the remnants of an ancient waterway passage culminated in a cadre of archaeologists, scientists, cartographers and engineers scouring the area beginning in the latter months of 1798. Their findings, recorded in the Description de l'Égypte, include detailed maps that depict the discovery of an ancient canal extending northward from the Red Sea and then westward toward the Nile.

Later, in the second half of the 19th century, French cartographers would again record the discovery of the remnants of yet another ancient north-south canal running past the east side of Lake Timsah and ending near the north end of the Great Bitter Lake.This second canal followed a course along the ancient shoreline of the Red Sea when the Red Sea once extended north to Lake Timsah. Unknown, however, are exactly when these two ancient canals were constructed and by whom.

Napoleon had contemplated the construction of another, modern, north-south canal to join the Mediterranean and Red Sea. But his project was abandoned after the preliminary survey erroneously concluded that the Red Sea was 10 metres (33 ft) higher than the Mediterranean, making a locks-based canal too expensive and very long to construct. The Napoleonic survey commission's error came from fragmented readings mostly done during wartime, which resulted in imprecise calculations.

Though by this time unnavigable, the ancient route from Bubastis to the Red Sea still channeled water in spots as late as 1861 and as far east as Kassassin.

In 1854 and 1856 Ferdinand de Lesseps obtained a concession from Said Pasha, the viceroy of Egypt, to create a company to construct a canal open to ships of all nations, according to plans created by Austrian engineer Alois Negrelli. The company was to operate the canal by leasing the relevant land, for 99 years from its opening. De Lesseps had used his friendly relationship with Said, which he had developed while he was a French diplomat during the 1830s. The Suez Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Maritime de Suez) came into being on 15 December, 1858.

The excavation took nearly 11 years using forced labour of Egyptian workers. Some sources estimate that over 30,000 people were forced to work on the canal.

The British recognised the canal as an important trade route and perceived the French project as a threat to their geopolitical and financial interests. The British Empire was the major global naval force and officially condemned the forced work and sent armed bedouins to start a revolt among workers. Involuntary labour on the project ceased, and the viceroy condemned the slavery, halting the project.

Angered by the British opportunism, de Lesseps sent a letter to the British government remarking on the British lack of remorse a few years earlier when forced workers died in similar conditions building the British railway in Egypt.

The canal opened to shipping on 17 November, 1869. Although numerous technical, political, and financial problems had been overcome, the final cost was more than double the original estimate.

The canal had an immediate and dramatic effect on world trade. Combined with the American transcontinental railroad completed six months earlier, it allowed the entire world to be circled in record time. It played an important role in increasing European penetration and colonisation of Africa. External debts forced Said Pasha's successor, Isma'il Pasha, to sell his country's share in the canal for £4,000,000 to the United Kingdom in 1875, but France still remained the majority shareholder. Prime minister Benjamin Disraeli was accused by William Gladstone of undermining Britain's constitutional system, due to his lack of reference or consent from Parliament when purchasing the shares with funding from the Rothschilds.

The Convention of Constantinople in 1888 declared the canal a neutral zone under the protection of the British; British troops had moved in to protect it during a civil war in Egypt in 1882. They were later to defend the strategically important passage against a major Ottoman attack in 1915. Under the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the United Kingdom insisted on retaining control over the canal. In 1951 Egypt repudiated the treaty, and in 1954 the UK agreed to remove its troops, and withdrawal was completed in July 1956.

After the United Kingdom and the United States withdrew their pledge to support the construction of the Aswan Dam due to Egyptian overtures towards the Soviet Union, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the canal in 1956, intending to finance the dam project using revenue from the canal, while at the same time closing the Gulf of Aqaba to all Israeli shipping by closure of the Straits of Tiran. This provoked the Suez Crisis, in which the UK, France and Israel colluded to invade Egypt. The intention was for Israel to invade on the ground, and for the Anglo-French partnership to give air and other support, later to intervene to resolve the crisis and control the canal.

To stop the war from spreading and to save the British from what he thought was a disastrous action, Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs, Lester B. Pearson, proposed the creation of the very first United Nations peacekeeping force to ensure access to the canal for all and an Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai. On 4 November 1956, a majority of nations at the United Nations voted for Pearson's peacekeeping resolution, which mandated the UN peacekeepers to stay in the Sinai Peninsula unless both Egypt and Israel agreed to their withdrawal. The United States backed this proposal by putting financial pressure on the British government, which then agreed to withdraw its troops. Pearson was later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

As a result of damage and ships intentionally sunk under orders from Nasser the canal was closed until April 1957, when it was cleared with UN assistance. A UN force (UNEF) was established to maintain the neutrality of the canal and the Sinai Peninsula.

In May 1967 President Nasser ordered the UN peacekeeping forces out of the Sinai Peninsula, including the Suez Canal area. Despite Israeli objections in the United Nations, the peacekeepers were withdrawn and the Egyptian army took up positions on the Israeli border, closing the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. The canal itself had been closed to Israeli shipping since 1949, except for a short period in 1951-1952.

These actions were key factors in the Israeli decision to launch a pre-emptive attack on Egypt in June 1967, and to capture the Sinai Peninsula to the Suez Canal. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, also called the Six Day War, the canal was closed by an Egyptian blockade until 5 June 1975. As a result, fourteen cargo ships known as "The Yellow Fleet" remained trapped in the canal for over eight years. In 1973, during the Yom Kippur War, the canal was the scene of a major crossing by the Egyptian army into Israeli-occupied Sinai. Much wreckage from this conflict remains visible along the canal's edges.

The UNEF mandate expired in 1979. Despite the efforts of the United States, Israel, Egypt, and others to obtain an extension of the UN role in observing the peace between Israel and Egypt, as called for under the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty of 1979, the mandate could not be extended because of the veto by the USSR in the security council, at the request of Syria. Accordingly, negotiations for a new observer force in the Sinai produced the Multinational Force and Observers (MFO), stationed in Sinai in 1981 in coordination with a phased Israeli withdrawal. It is there under agreements between the United States, Israel, Egypt, and other nations. .

The canal allows passage of ships up to 150,000 tons displacement. It permits ships up to 16 m (53 ft) draft to pass, and improvements are planned to increase this to 22 m (72 ft) by 2010, allowing passage of fully-laden supertankers.

Some supertankers are too large. Others can offload part of their cargo onto a canal-owned boat and reload at the other end of the canal.

The main alternative is travelling around Cape Agulhas. This is the route for ships which are too large, and was the route before the canal was constructed and when the canal was closed. Today due to increasing piracy in Somalia this route is taken, due to safety reasons and the height of the canal dues.

Also, before the canal's opening in 1869, goods were sometimes offloaded from ships and carried overland between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. The most ships that can go in one day is 106.

The canal has no locks due to the flat terrain, and the minor sea level difference between each end is inconsequential.

There is one shipping lane with several passing areas. On a typical day, three convoys transit the canal, two southbound and one northbound. The first southbound convoy enters the canal in the early morning hours and proceeds to the Great Bitter Lake, where the ships anchor out of the fairway, awaiting passage of the northbound convoy. The northbound convoy passes the second southbound convoy, which moors in a bypass near El Qantara. The passage takes between 11 and 16 hours at a speed of around 8 knots (15 km/h). The low speed helps prevent erosion of the canal banks by ships' waves.

On 30 December 2007 it was announced that Egypt will increase Suez Canal transit fees by an average of 7.1% in 2008.

A railway on the west bank runs parallel to the canal for its entire length.

The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 created the first salt-water passage between the Mediterranean and Red seas. The Red Sea is about 1.2 m (3.9 ft) higher than the eastern Mediterranean , so the canal serves as a tidal strait that pours Red Sea water into the Mediterranean. The Bitter Lakes, which are hypersaline natural lakes that form part of the canal, blocked the migration of Red Sea species into the Mediterranean for many decades, but as the salinity of the lakes gradually equalised with that of the Red Sea, the barrier to migration was removed, and plants and animals from the Red Sea have begun to colonise the eastern Mediterranean. The Red Sea is generally saltier and more nutrient-poor than the Atlantic, the direction of flow is generally from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean, so the Red Sea species have advantages over Atlantic species in the salty and nutrient-poor eastern Mediterranean. Accordingly, most Red Sea species invade the Mediterranean biota, and only few do the opposite. This migratory phenomenon is called Lessepsian migration (after Ferdinand de Lesseps) or Erythrean invasion. The construction of the Aswan High Dam across the River Nile in the 1960s reduced the inflow of freshwater and nutrient-rich silt from the Nile into the eastern Mediterranean, making conditions there even more like the Red Sea, worsening the impact of the invasive species.

Invasive species originated from the Red Sea and introduced into the Mediterranean by the construction of the canal have become a major component of the Mediterranean ecosystem, and have serious impacts on the Mediterranean ecology, endangering many local and endemic Mediterranean species. Currently about 300 species from the Red Sea have been identified in the Mediterranean Sea, and there are probably others yet unidentified. The Egyptian government's intent to enlarge the canal have raised concerns from marine biologists, fearing that this will worsen the invasion of Red Sea species in the Mediterranean. .

Construction of the Suez Canal was preceded by cutting a small fresh-water canal from the Nile delta along Wadi Tumilat to the future canal, with a southern branch to Suez and a northern branch to Port Said. Completed in 1863, these brought fresh water to a previously arid area, initially for canal construction, and subsequently facilitating growth of agriculture and settlements along the canal.

To the top



Suez Crisis

Canadian members of the UNEF on the Egypt - Israel border in 1962.

The Suez Crisis, also referred to as the Tripartite Aggression, (Arabic: أزمة السويس - العدوان الثلاثي‎ ʾAzmat al-Sūwais/Al-ʿIdwān al-Thalāthī; French: Crise du canal de Suez; Hebrew: מבצע קדש‎ Kadesh Campaign, or מלחמת סיני Sinai War) was a military attack on Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel beginning on 29 October 1956. The attack followed Egypt's decision of 26 July 1956 to nationalize the Suez Canal after the withdrawal of an offer by Britain and the United States to fund the building of the Aswan Dam.

The Suez Canal was opened in 1869, having been financed by the French and Egyptian governments. Technically, the territory of the canal proper was sovereign Egyptian territory, and the operating company, the Universal Company of the Suez Maritime Canal (Suez Canal Company) was an Egyptian-chartered company, originally part of the Ottoman Empire.

The canal was strategically important to the British, and hence to the other European powers. To the British, the canal was the ocean link with its colonies in India, the Far East, Australia, and New Zealand. Because the canal was strategically important, the area as a whole became strategically important. Thus, in 1875, the British government of Benjamin Disraeli bought the Egyptian share of the operating company, obtaining partial control of the canal's operations and sharing it with mostly-French private investors. In 1882, during the invasion and occupation of Egypt, the United Kingdom took de facto control of the canal proper, finance and operation.

The Convention of Constantinople (1888) declared the canal a neutral zone under British protection. In ratifying it, the Ottoman Empire agreed to permit international shipping to freely pass through the canal, in time of war and peace.

The Suez Canal proved its strategic importance during the Russo-Japanese War when the Japanese entered an agreement with the British. The Japanese launched a surprise attack on the Russian Pacific Fleet, based at Port Arthur. When the Russians sent reinforcements from the Baltic, the British denied them access to the canal. This forced the Russian fleet to steam around the entire continent of Africa, giving the Japanese forces time to regroup and solidify their position in the area.

The importance of the canal as a strategic center was also apparent during both World Wars; in the First World War, the British and French closed the canal to non-Allied shipping, in the Second World War, it was tenaciously defended in the North African Campaign.

In 1948, the British Mandate of Palestine ended, the British forces withdrew from Palestine, and Israel declared independence on the territory partitioned by UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) for the Jewish state. The Arab League declared its refusal to recognize the UN resolution and the two-state solution, favoring a one-state solution run by an Arab majority, and including both the Jewish and Arab territories. This led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War from which Israel emerged victorious over the Arabs, including Egypt. Failed peace talks in the aftermath of the war, combined with escalating border violence between Israel and its neighbours in the following years, helped to cement Arab-Israeli enmity.

At the outset of the 1950s, Great Britain, the predominant foreign power in the Middle East, was reassessing its position in the region. The economic potential of the Middle East, with its vast oil reserves and the Suez Canal, as well as its geo-strategic importance in the context of the Cold War, prompted Britain to consolidate and strengthen its position there. Vital to maintaining British influence in the region were the kingdoms of Egypt and Iraq.

Britain's military strength was spread throughout the region, including the vast military complex at Suez with a garrison of some 80,000 making it one of the largest military installations in the world. The Suez base was considered an important part of Britain's strategic position in the Middle East; yet it was increasingly becoming a source of tension in Anglo-Egyptian relations. In the wake of the Second World War Egyptian domestic politics were experiencing a radical change, prompted in no small part by economic instability, inflation and unemployment. Unrest began to manifest itself in the growth of radical political groups, such as the Communist Party and the Muslim Brotherhood, and an increasingly hostile attitude towards Britain and her presence in the country. Added to this anti-British fervour was the perceived role Britain had held in the creation of Israel.As such, the actions of the Egyptian government began to mirror those of its populace and an anti-British policy began to permeate Egypt's relations with Britain.

In October 1951, the Egyptian government unilaterally abrogated the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the terms of which granted Britain lease on the Suez base for 20 years. Britain refused to withdraw from Suez relying upon its impinged treaty rights, as well as the sheer presence of the Suez garrison. The price of such a course of action was a steady escalation in increasingly violent hostility towards Britain and British troops in Egypt, which the Egyptian authorities did little to curb. On 25 January 1952, British attempts to disarm a troublesome auxiliary police force barracks in Ismailia resulted in the deaths of 41 Egyptians. This in turn led to anti-Western riots in Cairo resulting in heavy damage to property and the deaths of several foreigners, including 11 British citizens. This proved to be a catalyst for the removal of the Egyptian monarchy. On 23 July 1952 a military coup by the 'Free Officers Movement'- led by Muhammad Neguib and future Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser - overthrew King Farouk and established an Egyptian republic.

Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, cargoes to and from Israel were intercepted and removed or destroyed by the Egyptians while attempting to pass through the canal. On 1 September 1951, the Security Council called upon Egypt: "... to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial ships and goods through the Suez Canal wherever bound and to cease all interference with such shipping." This interference, contrary to the laws of the canal (Article 1 of the 1888 Suez Canal Convention), increased following the coup. For example, on 31 October 1952, a cargo of meat was confiscated, on 2 September 1953, 500 tons of asphalt and a number of Israel-assembled cars were detained, on 4 November 1953, two boats destined for Italy were removed, on 28 September 1954 a shipment of 93 tons of meat, 42 tons of plywood and 30 tons of hides was confiscated, and the crew thrown in jail. On 8 July 1955, a Dutch ship was detained en route to Haifa. Part of its cargo was confiscated. On 25 May 1956, a Greek ship en route to Eilat was detained in the Suez Canal with a cargo of 520 tons of cement. The crew was not allowed ashore for three months despite a severe shortage of water and the spread of illness.

Britain's desire to mend Anglo-Egyptian relations in the wake of the coup saw her strive for rapprochement throughout 1953 and 1954. Part of this process was the agreement, in 1953, to terminate British rule in Sudan by 1956 in return for Cairo's abandoning of its claim to suzerainty over the Nile Valley region. In October 1954, Britain and Egypt concluded an agreement on the phased evacuation of British troops from the Suez base, the terms of which agreed to withdrawal of all troops within 20 months, maintenance of the base to be continued, and for Britain to hold the right to return for seven years.

Despite the establishment of such an agreement with the British, Nasser's position remained tenuous. The loss of Egypt's claim to Sudan, coupled with the continued presence of Britain at Suez for a further two years, led to domestic unrest including an assassination attempt against him in October 1954. The tenuous nature of Nasser's rule caused him to believe that neither his regime, nor Egypt's independence would be safe until Egypt had established itself as head of the Arab world. This would manifest itself in the challenging of British Middle Eastern interests throughout 1955.

Britain's close relationship with the two Hashemite kingdoms of Iraq and Jordan were of particular concern to Nasser. In particular, Iraq's increasingly amicable relations with Britain were a threat to Nasser's desire to see Egypt as head of the Arab world. The creation of the Baghdad Pact in 1955 seemed to confirm Nasser's fears that Britain was attempting to draw the Eastern Arab World into a bloc centred upon Iraq, and sympathetic to Britain. Nasser's response was a series of challenges to British influence in the region that would culminate in the Suez Crisis.

Throughout 1955 and 1956 Nasser pursued a number of policies that would frustrate British aims throughout the Middle East, and result in increasing hostility between Britain and Egypt. Nasser "... played on the widespread suspicion that any Western defence pact was merely veiled colonialism and that Arab disunity and weakness—especially in the struggle with Israel—was a consequence of British machinations." He also began to align Egypt with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia—whose rulers were hereditary enemies of the Hashemites—in an effort to frustrate British efforts to draw Syria, Jordan and Lebanon into the orbit of the Baghdad Pact. Nasser frustrated British attempts to draw Jordan into the pact by sponsoring demonstrations in Amman, leading King Hussein to dismiss the British commander of the Arab Legion Glubb Pasha in March 1956 and throwing Britain's Middle Eastern security policy into chaos.

Nasser struck a further blow against Britain by negotiating an arms deal with communist Czechoslovakia in September 1955 thereby ending Egypt's reliance on Western arms. Under the terms of this deal, Czechoslovakia sold Egypt 200 tanks, 150 artillery pieces, 120 MiG jet fighters, 50 jet bombers, 20 transport planes, 15 helicopters, and hundreds of vehicles and thousands of modern rifles and machine guns. Although the arms were to be delivered promptly, Egypt paid for them over the span of 12 years with shipments of cotton to Czechoslovakia. This volume of arms was unlike any the Middle East had ever seen, and it was coupled with the sale of 100 tanks, 100 MiG fighters and hundreds of other items to Syria, as well as the provision of Czechoslovakian trainers and assistance personnel. Bulgaria later sold four destroyers, two submarines, and one frigate to Egypt, and two submarines and a missile boat to Syria, as well as minesweepers to both nations. In practice, all sales from the Eastern Bloc were authorized by the Soviet Union, and an attempt to increase Soviet influence over the Middle East.

This caused tensions in the United States because Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria now had a strong presence in the region. Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria were joined by the other members of the Warsaw Pact in selling arms to Egypt and Syria. Increasingly Nasser came to be viewed in British circles — and in particular by Prime Minister Anthony Eden — as a dictator, akin to Benito Mussolini. Anglo-Egyptian relations would continue on their downward spiral.

The events that brought the crisis to a head occurred in the spring/summer of 1956. On 16 May Nasser officially recognized the People's Republic of China, a move that angered the U.S. and its Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, a keen sponsor of Taiwan. This move, coupled with the impression that the project was beyond Egypt's economic capabilities, caused Eisenhower to withdraw all American financial aid for the Aswan Dam project on 19 July. Nasser's response was the nationalization of the Suez Canal. On 26 July in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser gave a riposte to Dulles. During his speech he deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, constructor of the Canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the Canal and implement nationalization of it.

In his 26 July speech in Alexandria, Nasser announced that the Nationalization Law had been published, that all assets of the Suez Canal Company had been frozen, and that stockholders would be paid the price of their shares according to the day's closing price on the Paris Stock Exchange.

The nationalization of the Suez Canal hit British economic and military interests in the region. Britain was under immense domestic pressure from Conservative MPs who drew direct comparisons between the events of 1956 and those of the Munich Agreement in 1938. After the American government didn't support the British protests, the British government decided in favor of military intervention against Egypt to avoid the complete collapse of British prestige in the region.

However, direct military intervention ran the risk of angering Washington and damaging Anglo-Arab relations. As a result, the British government concluded a secret military pact with France and Israel that aimed at regaining the Suez Canal.

Soon an alliance was formed between Eden and French Prime Minister Guy Mollet, with headquarters based in London. Chief of Staff was made of General Stockwell and Admiral Barjot. The British sought cooperation with the United States throughout 1956 to deal with what it maintained was a threat of Israeli attack against Egypt, to little effect.

Between July and October 1956, unsuccessful initiatives encouraged by the United States were made to reduce the tensions that would ultimately lead to war. International conferences were organized to secure agreement on canal operations; all were ultimately fruitless.

Three months after Egypt's nationalization of the canal company, a secret meeting took place at Sèvres, outside Paris. Britain and France enlisted Israeli support for an alliance against Egypt. The parties agreed that Israel would invade the Sinai. Britain and France would then intervene, purportedly to separate the warring Israeli and Egyptian forces, instructing both to withdraw to a distance of 16 kilometres from either side of the canal. The British and French would then argue that Egypt's control of such an important route was too tenuous, and that it needed be placed under Anglo-French management.

The interests of the parties were various. Britain was anxious lest it lose efficient access to the remains of its empire. France was nervous about the growing influence that Nasser exerted on its North African colonies and protectorates. Both Britain and France were eager that the canal should remain open as an important conduit of oil. Israel wanted to reopen the canal to Israeli shipping, and saw the opportunity to strengthen its southern border and to weaken a dangerous and hostile state.

Prior to the operation, Britain deliberately neglected to take counsel with the Americans, trusting instead that Nasser's engagement with communist states would persuade the Americans to accept British and French actions if they were presented as a fait accompli. This proved to be a fatal miscalculation for the colonial powers.

Operation Kadesh received its name from the ancient city of Kadesh, mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy and in more distant antiquity the site of the battle fought by the forces of Pharaoh Ramses II against the Hittites, located in the northern Sinai Area. Israeli military planning for this operation in the Sinai hinged on four main military objectives; Sharm el-Sheikh, al-Arish, Abu Uwayulah, and the Gaza Strip. The Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits was based at Sharm el-Sheikh, and by capturing the town, Israel would have access to the Red Sea for the first time since 1953, which would allow it to restore the trade benefits of secure passage to the Indian Ocean. The Gaza Strip was chosen as another military objective because Israel wished to remove the training grounds for Fedayeen groups, and because Israel recognised that Egypt could use the territory as a staging ground for attacks against the advancing Israeli troops. Israel advocated rapid advances, for which a potential Egyptian flanking attack would present even more of a risk. al-Arish and Abu Uwayulah were important hubs for soldiers, equipment, and centres of command and control of the Egyptian Army in the Sinai. Capturing them would deal a deathblow to the Egyptian's strategic operation in the entire Peninsula. The capture of these four objectives were hoped to be the means by which the entire Egyptian Army would rout, and fall back into Egypt proper, which British and French forces would then be able to push up against an Israeli advance, and crush in a decisive encounter.

The Israeli chief-of-staff, Major General Moshe Dayan, first planned to take the vital Mitla Pass. Dayan planned for the 1st Battalion, 890 Paratroop Brigade, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Rafael Eitan, a veteran of the Israel War of Independence, and future head of the IDF; to drop at Parker's Memorial, near one of the defiles of the pass, Jebel Heitan. The rest of the brigade, under the command of Colonel Ariel Sharon would then advance to meet with the battalion, and consolidate their holdings.

On 29 October 1956, Operation Kadesh, the conquest of the Sinai, began when the battalion dropped into the Peninsula. However, the landing had not gone as planned, and the forces were now several miles from their target, and wasted valuable hours, and physical energy, moving into their positions opposite the Egyptian positions in the pass. The Israelis then dug in, received artillery and weapons from another airlift, and awaited the rest of the brigade.

Meanwhile, the 9th Infantry Brigade captured Ras an-Naqb, an important staging ground for that brigade's later attack against Sharm el-Sheikh. Instead of attacking the town by a frontal attack, they enveloped the town, and negotiated their way through some of the natural chokepoints into the rear of the town, and surprised the Egyptians before they could ready themselves to defend. The Egyptians surrendered, with no Israeli casualties sustained.

The 4th Infantry Brigade, under the command of Colonel Josef Harpaz, captured al-Qusaymah, which would be used as a jumping off point for the assault against Abu Uwayulah.

The portion of the 890 under Sharon's command continued to advance to meet with the 1st Brigade. En route, Sharon assaulted Themed, and was able to storm the town through the Themed Gap, and was able to capture the settlement. On the 30th, Sharon linked up with Eytan near Nakla.

Dayan had no more plans for further advances beyond the passes, but Sharon decided to attack the Egyptian positions at Jebel Heitan. Sharon would send his lightly armed paratroopers against dug-in Egyptians supported by air and heavy artillery, as well as tanks. Although the Israelis succeeded in forcing the Egyptians to retreat, the heavy casualties sustained would surround Sharon with a lot of controversy. Most of the deaths sustained by the Israelis in the entire operation, were sustained at Jebel Heitan.

To support the invasion, large air forces had been deployed to Cyprus and Malta by Britain and France and many aircraft carriers were deployed. The two airbases on Cyprus were so congested that a third field which was in dubious condition had to be brought into use for French aircraft. Even RAF Luqa on Malta was extremely crowded with RAF Bomber Command aircraft. The British deployed the aircraft carriers HMS Eagle, Albion and Bulwark and France had the Arromanches and La Fayette on station. In addition, HMS Ocean and Theseus acted as jumping-off points for Britain's helicopter-borne assault (the world's first).

On 30 October, in the morning, Britain and France sent an ultimatum to Egypt. They initiated Operation Musketeer on 31 October, with a bombing campaign. On 3 November F4U-7 Corsairs from the 14.F and 15.F Aéronavale taking off from the French carriers Arromanches and La Fayette, attacked the Cairo aerodrome. Nasser responded by sinking all 40 ships present in the canal, closing it to further shipping until early 1957.

On late 5 November, the 3rd Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment dropped at El Gamil Airfield, clearing the area and establishing a secure base for incoming support aircraft and reinforcements. At first light on 6 November, Commandos of Nos 42 and 40 Commando Royal Marines stormed the beaches, using landing craft of World War II vintage (LCA's and LVT's). The battlegroup standing offshore opened fire, giving covering fire for the landings and causing considerable damage to the Egyptian batteries and gun emplacements. The town of Port Said sustained great damage and was seen to be alight.

Acting in concert with British forces, 500 heavily-armed paratroopers of the French 2nd Colonial Parachute Regiment (2ème RPC), hastily redeployed from combat in Algeria, jumped over the al-Raswa bridges from Noratlas Nord 2501 transports of the ET (Escadrille de Transport) 1/61 and ET 3/61, together with some combat engineers of the Guards Independent Parachute Company. Despite the loss of two soldiers, the western bridge was swiftly secured by the paras, and F4U Corsairs of the Aéronavale 14.F and 15.F flew a series of close-air-support missions, destroying several SU-100 tank destroyers. F-84Fs also hit two large oil storage tanks in Port Said, which went up in flames and covered most of the city in a thick cloud of smoke for the next several days. Egyptian resistance varied, with some positions fighting back until destroyed, while others were abandoned with little resistance.

In the afternoon, 522 additional French paras of the 1er REP (Régiment Étranger Parachutiste, 1st Foreign Parachute Regiment) were dropped near Port Fouad. These were also constantly supported by the Corsairs of the French Aéronavale, which flew very intensive operations: for example, although the French carrier La Fayette developed catapult problems, no less than 40 combat sorties were completed. In total, 10 French soldiers were killed and 30 injured during the landing and the subsequent battles.

British commandos of No. 45 Commando assaulted by helicopter, meeting stiff resistance, with shore batteries striking several helicopters, while friendly fire from British carrier-borne aircraft caused casualties to 45 Commando and HQ. Street fighting and house clearing, with strong opposition from well-entrenched Egyptian sniper positions, caused further casualties.

Total British dead were 16, with 96 wounded. Total French dead was ten and the Israelis lost 189. The number of Egyptians killed has "never reliably established'. It is estimated 650 where killed by the Anglo-French operation and 1000 killed by Israel.

The operation to take the canal was highly successful from a military point of view, but was a political disaster due to external forces. Along with Suez, the United States was also dealing with the near-simultaneous Hungarian revolution, and faced the public relations embarrassment of criticizing the Soviet Union's suppression of the revolutionaries there while at the same time avoiding criticism of its two principal European allies' actions. Perhaps more significantly, the United States also feared a wider war after the Soviet Union and the other Warsaw Pact nations threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side and make rocket attacks on London, Tel Aviv, and Paris.

Thus, the Eisenhower administration forced a cease-fire on Britain, Israel, and France which it had previously told the Allies it would not do. The U.S. demanded that the invasion stop and sponsored resolutions in the UN Security Council calling for a cease-fire. Britain and France, as permanent members of the Council, vetoed these draft resolutions. The U.S. then appealed to the United Nations General Assembly and proposed a resolution calling for a cease-fire and a withdrawal of forces. The General Assembly consequently held an 'emergency special session' under the terms of Uniting for Peace resolution, and adopted Assembly resolution 1001, which established the first United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), and called for "an immediate cease-fire". Portugal and Iceland went so far as to suggest ejecting Britain and France from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defense pact if they didn't withdraw from Egypt. Britain and France withdrew from Egypt within a week.

The United States also put financial pressure on Great Britain to end the invasion. President Eisenhower warned the British that unless they withdrew, he would order the sale of the United States' currency reserves of British Pounds and Sterling Bonds; thereby precipitating a collapse of the British currencies' exchange rate. Eisenhower in fact ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, George M. Humphrey to prepare to sell part of the US Government's Sterling Bond holdings. The Government held these bonds in part to aid post war Britain’s economy (during the Cold War), and as partial payment of Britain’s enormous Second World War debt to the US Government, American corporations, and individuals. It was also part of the overall effort of Marshall Plan aid, in the rebuilding of the Western European economies.

Britain’s then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Harold Macmillan, advised his Prime Minister Anthony Eden that the United States was fully prepared to carry out this threat. He also warned his Prime Minister that Britain’s foreign exchange reserves simply could not sustain a devaluation of Pound that would come after the United States’ actions; and that within weeks of such a move, the country would be unable to import the food and energy supplies needed simply to sustain the population on the islands.

Furthermore, in concert with US actions Saudi Arabia started an oil embargo against Britain and France. The U.S. refused to fill the gap until Britain and France agreed to a rapid withdrawal. The other NATO members refused to sell oil they received from Arab nations to Britain or France. There was also a measure of discouragement for Britain in the rebuke by the Commonwealth Prime Minister St. Laurent of Canada.

The British government and the pound thus both came under pressure. Sir Anthony Eden, the British Prime Minister at the time, was forced to resign and announced a cease fire on 6 November, warning neither France nor Israel beforehand. Troops were still in Port Said when the order came from London. Without further guarantee, the Anglo-French Task Force had to finish withdrawing by 22 December 1956, to be replaced by Danish and Colombian units of UNEF. The Israelis left the Sinai in March, 1957.

Before the withdrawal, Canadian Lester B. Pearson, who would later become the Prime Minister of Canada, had gone to the United Nations and suggested creating a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Suez to "keep the borders at peace while a political settlement is being worked out." The United Nations accepted this suggestion, and after several days of tense diplomacy, a neutral force not involving the major alliances (NATO and the Warsaw Pact--though both Canadian and Yugoslavian troops participated as both being disinterested in the dispute) was sent with the consent of Nasser, stabilizing conditions in the area. By April 24 of 1957, the canal was fully reopened to shipping. The Israelis refused to host any UN force on Israeli controlled territory. Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957 for his efforts. The United Nations Peacekeeping Force was Pearson's creation and he is considered the father of the modern concept of "peacekeeping".

Eden's resignation marked the last significant attempt Britain made to impose its military will abroad without U.S. support. Harold Macmillan, British Prime Minister Eden's successor, was every bit as determined as Eden had been to stop Nasser, although he was more willing to enlist American support in future, for that end. Some argue that the crisis also marked the final transfer of power to the new superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union.

The incident demonstrated the weakness of the NATO alliance in its lack of planning and cooperation beyond the European stage. From the point of view of General de Gaulle, the Suez events demonstrated that France could not rely on allies any more. Britain withdrew its troops in the midst of the battle without warning its allies. In 1957, following these events, the French government launched an autonomous nuclear programme conducted in the Sahara, known as Force de frappe, as a deterrent not only against the USSR but vis-à-vis every potential threat around the globe. By 1966 de Gaulle withdrew France from the integrated NATO military command. According to the protocol of Sèvres agreements, France secretly transmitted parts of its own atomic technology to Israel, including a detonator.

The imposed end to the crisis signalled the definitive weakening of the United Kingdom and France as Global Powers. Nasser's standing in the Arab world was greatly improved, with his stance helping to promote pan-Arabism. The crisis also arguably hastened the process of decolonization, as the remaining colonies of both Britain and France gained independence over the next several years.

After Suez, Aden and Iraq became the main bases for the British in the region while the French concentrated their forces at Bizerte and Beirut.

UNEF was placed in the Sinai (on Egyptian territory only) with the express purpose of maintaining the cease-fire. While effective in preventing the small-scale warfare that prevailed before 1956 and after 1967, budgetary cutbacks and changing needs had seen the force shrink to 3,378 by 1967.

After border disputes led to a series of military clashes between Israel and Syria, the Egyptian government, warned by a false Soviet intelligence report of an imminent Israeli invasion of Syria, began to remilitarize the Sinai in support of its ally, and demanded that UNEF withdraw. This action, along with the blockade of the Straits of Tiran, was the final step in a series of escalations between the two sides that led to the Six Day War of June 1967. During the war, Israeli armed forces captured the east bank of the canal, which subsequently became a de facto boundary between Egypt and Israel and the canal was therefore closed until June, 1975.

During the first few hours of the war, the Israel Border Police militarized the Israel-Jordan border (including the Green Line with the West Bank) which resulted in the killing of 48 Arab civilians by Israeli forces on 29 October (known as the Kafr Qasim massacre). This event and the resulting trials of officers had major effects on Israeli law relating to ethics in war and more subtle effects (though perhaps in the long run just as great) on the legal status of Arab Citizens of Israel.

To the top



Suez Canal Bridge

Suez Canal Bridge

The Suez Canal Bridge, also known as the Mubarak Peace Bridge or the Egyptian-Japanese Friendship Bridge, is a road bridge crossing the Suez Canal at El Qantara. The Arabic "al qantara" means "the bridge".

The bridge was built with assistance from the Japanese government. The contractor was PentaOcean Construction.

The Japanese grant, accounting for 60% of the construction cost (or 13.5 billion yen), was agreed to during the visit of President Mubarak to Japan in March 1995, as part of a larger project to develop the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt bore the remaining 40% (9 billion yen). The bridge opened in October 2001.

The bridge, which has a 70-metre (230 ft) clearance over the canal and is 3.9 kilometres (2.4 mi) long, consists of a 400-metre (1,300 ft) cable stayed main span and two 1.8-kilometre (1.1 mi) long approach spans. The height of the two main pylons supporting the main span is 154 metres (510 ft) each. The towers were designed in the shape of Pharaonic obelisks.

The clearance under the bridge is 68 meters, which defines, therefore, the maximum height above the waterline (Suezmax) of ships that can pass through the Suez Canal.

The Suez Canal Bridge, is part of a major drive to develop the areas surrounding the Suez Canal, such as the Ahmed Hamdi Tunnel under the Suez Canal, completed in 1983, the El Ferdan Railway Bridge and the Suez Canal overhead line crossing.

To the top



Across Suez

Across Suez is a board game simulating operational level ground combat between Egypt and Israel at the Battle of Chinese Farm during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. The game is an introductory level product with an emphasis on playability over simulation value.

Simulations Publications, Inc. (SPI) in 1980 issued Across Suez in a 1" accordion box with a paper map. Decision Games in 1995 reissued Across Suez with additional counters for new variants and scenarios.

The Israeli player seeks to establish a bridgehead across the Suez Canal while the Egyptian player attempts to block this. Israeli units are generally quicker, stronger, better supported, and able to push Egyptian forces back, but stringent victory conditions maintain game balance. Games are usually concluded in 1-2 hours.

Play is divided into seven turns governed by the standard move-shoot sequence, zones of control, a terrain effects chart, and a differential combat results table (CRT). Artillery fire is abstract. Air and naval power are not simulated. Units begin the game at set locations and both sides later receive reinforcements. Night game-turns (turns one, four, and seven) slow movement and disallow artillery use. Both sides may achieve combined arms effects, which result in a column shift on the CRT, for a specific attack by attacking with armor units and infantry or mechanized infantry.

The Israeli side achieves victory if at the end of the seventh turn the player has installed a bridge over the Suez Canal, has crossed at least six Israeli units over the canal, and maintains a clear line of communication (LOC) back to the Israeli starting point. If not, the Egyptian player wins. There are no ties.

SPI did not include variant scenarios or alternate rules.

Across Suez has limited simulation value and does not describe Egyptian or Israeli military equipment or tactics during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War or provide significant context about the events leading to or resulting from the battle at Chinese Farm.

The introductory paragraph to the rules credits only the Egyptian Third Army with launching the successful October 6 cross-canal surprise attack, when three of the five infantry divisions involved were actually from the Second Army. Order of battle data is generally correct, but unit counters contain only designation and type, not size. The map omits Nahala Road, which ran along the Great Bitter Lake between the Bar Lev Line strongpoints of Lakehan and Matzmed. And the designers appear to have focused on the role of Israel's unique rolling armored bridge, described as a "convoy of bulky bridge sections" and historically laid on October 19 across the canal, rather than a pontoon bridge put down two days prior.

Game play unfolds much along historical lines, but the LOC victory condition tends to lead the Egyptian player to rush the Israeli LOC near game end regardless of the actual military value of such a move, i.e., gaming the rules rather than gaming the scenario. Combat also typically results in substantially greater numbers of units destroyed, on both sides, than the historical record supports.

SPI did not include designer's notes or references.

100 die-cut counters (54 are blank) representing Egyptian and Israeli units; an 11" by 17" hexagon-patterned abstract scale map, one six-sided die, and a rulebook.

Decision Games in 1995 released a second edition of Across Suez that closely followed the original SPI version, with the exception of graphics tweaks. Game mechanics did not change. The second edition also included 16 additional Arab and Israeli counters, as first described by James Meldrum in Moves #60, to allow for an airborne landing variant and an amphibious landing variant to the historical scenario, and a further 18 Soviet and US counters, as first published in Moves #82 again by James Meldrum, for five non-historical scenarios.

To the top



Source : Wikipedia