UK forces fight tank battle south of Basra

Reuters | 3/25/03 | Peter Graff

[machman]

A few mintues of A-10 flight time should take care of 50 Iraqi tanks, don't you think?

[SCR1]

This is an obvious attempt to cut supply lines and encircle a great number of our troops. Didn't they see the 50 Tanks in the city??

[Credo]

The T-55 was NOT the Soviet premiere tank until the 1980's. It was developed in the 50's. British Challengers will eat them as well as our Close Air Support.

[metesky]

"They pose no real threat to us. They are not going to be able to advance but it is very difficult to winkle them out because of our collateral damage requirements," he told Reuters.

Key paragraph.

[Forceful1]

BBC now reporting 20-25 Iraqi tanks destroyed in initial fighting. Good!

[libertylover]

As long as they're contained I don't see any reason to waste ammunition on them. They can't do much damage stuck in the middle of Basra unless they start shooting up the civilian population.

[SJackson]

A few mintues of A-10 flight time should take care of 50 Iraqi tanks, don't you think?

Not without damaging the houses. Please note it is very difficult to winkle them out because of our collateral damage requirements," he told Reuters…"They are in built-up areas…If we were prepared to flatten the houses we could destroy the tanks but we are not prepared to flatten the houses because that is not what we have come here for.

[NittanyLion]

Seems to me all the Iraqis are doing is preventing food rations from pouring into the city.

[chachacha]

Polically correct (collateral damage) wars, cost American lives. As we have already scene.

[Coolidge]

Exactly, they want the people to starve to death so they can blame us.

[CatoRenasci]

You're right that the T-55 was not the Soviet frontline MBT after about 1968, when the T-62/4 and thereafter the T-72 took those honors. You're also right that Challenger 2s will eath them for lunch, but from the article, it didn't sound like Challengers were being used. Rather, it sounded like British light tanks (Scorpions?) were opposing the Iraqis. That would be a much more even fight, unfortunately.

[rebel]

Our Rules Of Engagement which as he said, "If we were prepared to flatten the houses we could destroy the tanks but we are not prepared to flatten the houses because that is not what we have come here for," Dutton said.

This will have to change or it will be impossible to fulfill the mission of destroying the RG and Saddam's control.

There is no way to take Bagdad unless we are willing to have some collateral damage.

Will we never learn?? :)

[small_l_libertarian]

The following sentence jumped out at me:

Since the United States and Britain invaded Iraq last Thursday, British troops have been reluctant to engage in urban warfare which would endanger the civilian population.

Apparently, Reuters thinks that American troops are hoping for urban warfare that would endanger the civilian population? Ugh.

[Pukka Puck]

Great word, winkle.

[metesky]

For some strange reason that I can't fathom, the English seem to have a way with the ... er... English language.

[arkady_renko]

Yes. The Iraqis play the media like a violin. Reminds me of the way the Democrats flatten the Republicans with PR all the time. I think it is time to make the TV's go out in Iraq. The images (fake though they may be) of Saddam, are inspiring some and terrifying others in Iraq. We need images of a dead Sadam or NO images at all.

A_R

[12B]

Wonder why they just didn't let them out into the open. And then....

[ironman]

"Since the United States and Britain invaded Iraq last Thursday"

Author also failed to mention the Australian and Polish forces that have been involved in combat operations.

[Future Useless Eater]

no offense, but I would personally LOVE it if everyone quoting Reuters would add (REUTERS PUKE) after their titles.