UK forces fight tank battle south of Basra

Reuters | 3/25/03 | Peter Graff

[kattracks]

UK forces fight tank battle south of Basra

By Peter Graff

ABOARD HMS ARK ROYAL, March 25 (Reuters) - British forces south of Basra have blocked an attempted breakout by up to 50 Iraqi tanks seeking to press southward from the edge of the city, a British naval commander said on Tuesday.

Captain Alan Massey of the flagship aircraft carrier Ark Royal said British light tanks from the Queen's Dragoons' Guard and marines from two battalions on the Faw Peninsula had halted the advance of the Iraqi tanks overnight and on Tuesday morning.

"They were aided by small helicopter gunships and further surveillance helicopters stationed on board ships in Britain's amphibious task force off the Iraqi coast," he told Reuters.

"We can't attack them directly because of fear of collateral damage (civilian casualties) so we get them when they poke out," Massey added.

He said the helicopter and ground forces had destroyed five to seven Iraqi tanks in the fighting so far.

British troops have taken over all responsibility for southern Iraq as U.S. forces press on towards the north in their campaign to oust President Saddam Hussein.

Earlier, a British spokesman at Central Command headquarters in Qatar said British troops would not enter Basra, Iraq's second city, to battle "Fedayeen" irregular Iraqi fighters.

"MILITARY IMPORTANCE"

"We're not going into Basra, it's simply considered a target," a British military spokesman at Central Command headquarters in Qatar told Reuters.

"The reason it is a potential target is because it has an enormous political and military importance in the area."

Brigadier Jim Dutton of the 3 commando brigade of the Royal Marines told Reuters an Iraqi unit of T-55 tanks was causing problems for the British at Abul Khasib, southeast of Basra, because they were hiding among houses.

The T-55 combines a high-velocity gun with a highly mobile chassis and a low silhouette. It was the former Soviet Union's primary frontline battle tank until the 1980s.

"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.

"They are in built-up areas on the southern edge of Abul Khasib on the main eastwest road that runs into Basra," he said.

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.

"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.

British Lieutenant Colonel Ronnie McCourt, also at Central Command, said: "All options are open to us. If you're going to put your hand into the hornet's nest you have to make sure you are fully protected. Close-quarter stuff (fighting) really would not be our first choice."

Iraqi resistance in Basra and the nearby port of Umm Qasr to the south has thwarted plans to distribute aid to Basra, which the United Nations says faces a humanitarian crisis without the speedy restoration of adequate water supplies.

Tonnes of humanitarian relief supplies are waiting offshore to the south of Basra while British and other naval vessels try to clear mines from the waterways leading inland.

(Additional reporting by Adrian Croft)

03/25/03 06:36 ET

[Sam's Army]

"As we have already scene."

This is so SERIES, it could be HUGH!

[Rebelbase]

""We can't attack them directly because of fear of collateral damage (civilian casualties) so we get them when they poke out," "

This policy is going to kill American and British troops.

[Coop]

"We can't attack them directly because of fear of collateral damage (civilian casualties) ..." Massey added.

Sure you can. You surround the city. Drop a bunch of leaflets and broadcast announcements on loudspeaker and radio that in 3-4 hours you will be blowing up tanks whereever they are found. Then do it. The innocents may lose their homes, but they can save their lives and some valuable possessions. And they can then be free.

By the way, it's really, really smart to broadcast to the Iraqi troops exactly what will keep us from attacking them. [groan]

[Grampa Dave]

These people will need water, and our engineers will help them.

The UN wants in Iraq so bad they will lie about anything.

The temp is not going to soar there as the UN/Red Cross scumbag liars are saying.

Here is the link to the weather forecast for that area: (Link to Weather for Basrah)

[Grampa Dave]

Here is my standard reply which I post whenever I see the typical BS article posted by the Islamofacist Controlled Reuters. Please use it when you see any BS Reuters article posted:

This is just more Reuters BS posing as a news article, and it is typical of the BS from Reuters since 9/11/2001.

Reuters is not able to print the truth when it comes to Islamofacist/kazi terrorism and the thugs in control of Iraq.

Reuters is controlled by an rich Opecker Prince who will not allow the words terrorism or terrorist to be used in any article where the Islamofacists/kazis are responsible.

The pure bull $ that Reuters has printed since New Years to save their Uncle Soddomite's rear end is massive and like a continuing wet dream by Reuters with little if any basis on reality! This wet dream posing as a news article is a prime example of the BS Reuters puts out posing as news.

Believe nothing that Reuters has to say about the Islamofacists leaders, our allies and our administration. Reuters creates more Bravo Sierra in a day than 1,000,000 cattle do.

This meter should be run with the posting of any Reuters article. Reuters makes the NY Slimes look all most honest.

Meanwhile, Reuters is taking a beating in the business world. Recently, Reuters reported a loss of $631 million, the largest in its 150-year history. In addition, Reuters announced 3,000 job cuts, along with the 3,200 jobs cut over the past two years. Reuters' market capitalization has plunged by almost 90 percent from its peak, and Reuters' stock has fallen to a 14-year low. (Reuters posts record loss, to cut jobs News provider to cut 3,000 workers as part of turnaround plan , Link to how the Reuters lies and BS hits Reuters's bottom line)

Apparently Reuters' dwindling credibility as a media provider is now affecting their bottom line. May Reuters go broke and slide into the Irrelevant Cesspool!

Ho Humm, more Bravo Sierra from Reuters!

[Scott from the Left Coast]

50 T-55's would have a damn hard time cutting off and encircling anything -- they are practically useless as anything except civilian type targets. They are slow, have little punch, are thin-skinned and breakdown every 5 miles. The Brits were killing the tanks with some pretty light weapons -- light tanks and scout helicopters.

These tanks are a threat only to the poor slobs trying to attack in them. Don't waste another minute or round of ammo on them. If they pop out and try to do something -- great -- they're dead. If they sit where they are, amongst houses, they're not in the war. Piece of friggin' cake. Drive to Baghdad to fight their real forces.

[Guillermo]

If they don't like close quarter fighting, what are they going to do in Baghdad, because we're going to get heavy doses of it there.

[Galatians513]

"As we have already scene."

This is so SERIES, it could be HUGH!

ROFLMArseO!

[Justa]

"It is 1950s technology."

And the AK-47 is 1940s technology.

When not used against front-line tanks the T-55 is probably the best general purpose tank in the world. It is to tanks what the AK-47 is to rifles: cheap, easy to maintain, durable, reliable and deadly.

[Arizona Pard]

"winkle them out"

Gotta love those Brits and their classic understatement!

[Proud Legions]

Although any tank is dangerous, this is not a good tank by any stretch of the imagination. I have been in a T-55. A piece of junk, especially if it has not been well maintained over the past 12 (40?) years.

[nhbob1]

They knew they were there. That's why they were waiting to kick their a$$es when they poked their nose out of their hiding places. Why go into the cities and lose advantages from long range weapons, night vision and air support when you can sit in prepared defensive positions and let the enemy come to you.

[The_Victor]

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.

I though the exact same thing. Who is this moron reporter. By the 1980's the T-72 was well established, and the T-62 had replaced all of the T-55s left in service. The T-55 is the Soviet equivalent of the US M48 "Patton" tank. Well, same era, clearly an inferior tank though. :)

[nhbob1]

That sounds like what they did. The Iraqi tanks were attempting a breakout.

[johnb838]

Could cause us to loose. Vey series.

[johnb838]

These people will need water, and our engineers will help them.

Reminds me of "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

[WhiskeyPapa]

The T-55 combines a high-velocity gun with a highly mobile chassis and a low silhouette. It was the former Soviet Union's primary frontline battle tank until the 1980s.

The T-55 dates from 1955. That is how all Soviet made tanks get ther designations -- the first year they are seen by the West. Guess when the T-72 first appeared? The T-55 is mostly a relic. Their guns can't penetrate the armor of an Abrams or Challenger tank. They could give Bradleys or AAV's some problems -- if they can hit anything. In 1991 one of the Marine tank battalions armed with M-60's (which a T-55 -could- perhaps kill) whacked @ 100 T-55s for no loss.

Walt

[Grampa Dave]

Our military has a long and honorable record of bring food, water, health care to the innocent victims after we have disposed of their leaders.