Yeah, I quite agree, Syria did come very close. The defense was so fierce (and costly) on the Israeli side that the Syrians may have thought the reserves had arrived. They did indeed begin to pour in during that lull or regrouping or whatever it was. The Syrian losses to that point must have been daunting; the final toll was something close to 1000 tanks lost. The consideration on the Syrian side may have been to assess whether the attack could/should continue. As one of the biggest tank battles since WWII, and as a Soviet-style massed armor offensive, I’m glad to hear that it is studied.
It’s odd to me that the massive tank-killer tactics used by the Egyptians hasn’t caught on per se. Seems like an effective counter against a foe with superior quality or quantity of armor.
But anyway... Greenspan’s erudite style and intransigence really got to the Congress. He basically blackmailed them into balancing the budget in order to get the lower rates they were trying to demand. :’)
And then the comet hit, and...
There really hasn't been a conflict that would showcase modern anti-tank equipment and tactics since 1973. We expected it in the first Gulf War, but Saddam's antitank weapons were older and basically ineffective against the Abrams, so he mainly relied on tank v. tank defenses. If we ever have to take on Syria, they have some of the Russians' more up to date equipment.
BTW, I remember participating in a huge war game simulating a Warsaw Pact conventional attack on Germany. With heavy losses, we stopped them about half way across. When I read Tom Clancy's book on the same subject it struck me how close our results were to his description of the Army side of the conflict. I always wondered if he was privy to the results.