Posted on 03/25/2003 3:43:01 AM PST by 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
Life expectancy in a tank near and not liked by an A-10 is just a matter of seconds.
Not to tout the Iraqis but do either of you think the British would have withdrawn if the T-55s weren't present and operational? I.e., they are still battlefield effective.
Which tells you more about the operational capacity of the sanctions, than it does the tanks.....
Series? It's hugh!
Isn't the population of Baghdad five million people, give or take?
That many people will go through all the groceries in town pretty quick. The Brits surrendered Singapore to a smaller force in 1942 at least partly because they had a million civilians onsite.
Walt
I am reminded of Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer observing a village of a few Indian dwellings along the Rosebud River on June 25, 1876, along with a nearby group of about forty warriors. Ignoring orders to wait, he decided to divide his forces in thirds and attack before they could alert the main party, not realizing that the number of warriors in the village numbered three times his strength. Custer sent troops under Captain Frederick Benteen to prevent their escape through the upper valley of the Little Bighorn River. Major Marcus Reno was to pursue the group, cross the river, and charge the Indian village in a coordinated effort with the remaining troops under his command.
Custer hoped to strike the Indian encampment at the northern and southern ends simultaneously, but made this decision without knowing what kind of terrain he would have to cross before making his assault. He belatedly discovered that he would have to negotiate a maze of bluffs and ravines to attack. And found to his surprise that the enemy forces totaled 2500 or more warriors against his total 650 men, now spread into three smaller targets more easily dealt with.
Reno and Benteen eventually linked back up, and the Indians broke off the fight against their recombined force, having already bled them and annihilated Custer and the force from C,E,F,I and L companies that had remained under his personal command. Custers force lost 197, all killed; Reno's battalion of 134 lost 36 killed and 26 and Benteen's force of 125 had 11 killed and 29 wounded.
But aside from that one small miscalculation, things went pretty much as Custer had planned. He really shouldn't have disregarded the intelligence reports given to him by his scouts....
Well, imo that's their job. They're not there to hold the city, they're there to disrupt nearby Allied supply lines and to prevent the port from being used by the Allies. Their "counterattacks" are to interdict supply operations. That's the primary mission imo. They'll continue doing it until they're defeated.
Will we never learn?? :)
You better call Gen. Franks and tell him he's all wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.