Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

3rd Infantry Seizes 3 Bridges in Fiercest Fighting So Far
The New York Times ^ | March 26, 2003 | STEVEN LEE MYERS

Posted on 03/26/2003 10:45:20 AM PST by demlosers

WITH THE THIRD INFANTRY DIVISION, in Central Iraq, March 26 — The Army's 3rd Infantry Division encircled the city of Najaf early today after seizing three bridges across the Euphrates River in the division's fiercest clashes since the war began.

The fight around Najaf — which lasted more than 36 hours — has considerably slowed the division's march northwards, as have the swirling winds and sand. The storm continued relentlessly today, reducing visibility to a few hundred feet and casting an eerie burnt orange glow as the sun set.

Najaf, a city of more than 100,000 about 90 miles from Baghdad, had not been one of the division's military objectives, and commanders here said they did not intend to occupy it. But they were forced to encircle it as Iraqi forces repeatedly attacked American forces after they pushed across the escarpment to the west on Sunday.

"What I've done is surround the city and cut it off," the division's commander, Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount 3rd, said in an interview today.

The Iraqi commander inside the city telephoned his superiors in Baghdad early today to say that he was surrounded, another American officer here said, but as many as 1,000 fighters, believed to belong to militia groups intensely loyal to Saddam Hussein, remained inside and continued to clash with United States Army soldiers arrayed around the town.

This morning and again this evening, the division's artillery batteries repeatedly struck Iraqi troops — some in tanks, most in troop transports — who tried to reinforce the city from the north and the south. Maj. Benjamin M. Matthews, artillery commander for the division's 1st Brigade, said the barrages, backed by air strikes, had destroyed more than two dozen Iraqi vehicles and killed scores of troops.

Iraq's military appears to have decided to make a stand at Najaf, though the forces fighting there are mostly militia fighters from Mr. Hussein's Baath Party and two other groups, Saddam Fedayeen and Al Quds.

General Blount said that he was surprised by the intensity of the Iraqi resistance — something that has forced changes in the Army's plans to press quickly towards the defenses of Baghdad, where Iraq's elite Republican Guard divisions are dug in.

The general added that it appeared, for now at least, that Mr. Hussein's government still maintained some control over its military.

"They're fighting fairly tenaciously," General Blount said. "They're organized, and some of them are fairly well equipped."

One soldier with the 3rd Infantry Division, a loader on a tank, was killed on Monday. Also two tanks and one Bradley fighting vehicle with the division's 3rd Regiment, 7th Cavalry Squadron were destroyed by anti-armored missiles. Officers here believe the missile may be a new Russian variant, known as a Cornet, purchased despite United Nations sanctions on arms sales to Iraq.

According to the division's estimates, as many as 1,000 Iraqi troops have been killed since the division swept into the scrub desert north of Najaf, essentially passing the city by. Hundreds more have been captured.

The situation inside Najaf itself — one of the holiest sites in the Shiite branch of Islam because it is the burial site of Ali, the cousin of the prophet Mohammed — remained unclear. Its population is predominantly Shiite, but the security and military forces loyal to Mr. Hussein still control it. Col. William F. Grimsley, commander of the 1st Brigade, described the city as "at least neutral and perhaps happy we're here."

General Blount said that American forces had been in contact with Shiite leaders and expected them to assume control once those loyal to Mr. Hussein, now cut off, surrender.

The battle around the city, the division's most intense in six says of fighting, began late Monday night when the 1st Brigade sent a tank company across a bridge north of the city, with the intent of blocking the main roads into it from the north. It was the first time the division's troops had crossed the Euphrates.

After three tanks passed, the Iraqis detonated explosives, buckling the bridge and cutting off the tanks. Engineers eventually made the bridge passable again, but fighting flared through the day on Tuesday.

The 3rd Regiment, 7th Cavalry, moving north from Samawah, captured a bridge south of the city late Tuesday, while the 1st Brigade seized another bridge north early today, effectively completing the encirclement.

The effort has distracted significant parts of the division, which had been consolidating its forces for what is expected to be a final assault on the Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad.

Despite the American foothold on the eastern side of the Euphrates, Iraqi forces continued to attack in what soldiers described as futile, almost fanatical assaults against M1-A1 tanks and Bradley armored fighting vehicles.

Cpl. Benjamin R. Richardson, who was among the engineers who went to the bridge, said he saw two civilian vehicles with armed Iraqis drive straight toward Americans. A tank drove simply over one of the vehicles without firing a shot, while a Bradley raked the other vehicle with gunfire.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 3rdid; baghdaddefense; battleforbaghdad; cornet; embeddedreport; groundassault; illegalweapons; kornet; najaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
To: Tin-Legions
http://www.howstuffworks.com/m1-tank4.htm

The M1 is mainly composed of sturdy rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) steel plates, sandwiched around thicker protective material.
The core armor is a variation on the British Chobham armor -- an arrangement of metal plates, ceramic blocks and open space. HEAT and Sabot rounds may make it through the outer layer of the armor, but they won't make it all the way into the crew compartment. The ceramic material can absorb a lot of heat, as well as heavy physical blows. The rest of the hot gases or metal pieces spread out in the empty air pockets.

Updated M1 tanks have extra layers of steel and depleted uranium that supplement the Chobham-style armor. This combination will hold up to any tank round and most missiles (the powerful Hellfire missile is a notable exception).
41 posted on 03/26/2003 11:24:50 AM PST by finnman69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
You got me-I have exhausted most of my knowledge of armour and armour shot. As a former infantry man and now transportation officer my training on armour is limited at best (shoot for the rear side and upper rear). Correct me if I am wrong-I understand HEAT has generally been replaced by other types of round, even in AT missles? Maybe the round attacks specific parts of the tank-like Javelin exploding above and sending its load downward through the lightest part of the tanks armour.

I do know that the improved TOW round, which has been copied with great success by the Russians and Chinese, can kill any tank in the world at a greater range than most main gun rounds. Maybe this Russian AT round is the result.

No bomb threats here in Germany-just communist sympathizing protesters.

42 posted on 03/26/2003 11:36:25 AM PST by Tin-Legions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
The Abrams are vulnerable to an engine shot, track shot (both disabling) or to penetration at certain angles near the rear.

We're not sure if the knocked-out Abrams experienced actual penetration of the turret armor. One report cited "catastrophic loss" of the tanks, and now we have reports (though denied by the DOD) that a tank loader was killed. If a loader was killed, we may have had a "cook off" of the tank rounds. Then again, he might have simply been wounded in abandoning the tank.

43 posted on 03/26/2003 11:38:10 AM PST by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
Third Infantry Finds Chemical Weapons
By Paul Strand
CBN News War Correspondent embedded with the Army's Third Infantry Division.
March 26, 2003

"What I just heard from a highly placed source here is that they've discovered, they've captured chemical warheads, they're Russian, they have Russian writing all over them and they are chemical warheads."

CBN.com – The Third Infantry Division has captured evidence of chemical weapons as they are fighting Iraq’s Republican Guard just 60 miles south of Baghdad. The evidence has yet to be confirmed, but CBN News War Correspondent Paul Strand delivered this exclusive information by satellite phone early Wednesday.

Link to rest of transcript

44 posted on 03/26/2003 12:11:49 PM PST by KriegerGeist ("In war there is no substitute for victory" General Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
This combination will hold up to any tank round and most missiles (the powerful Hellfire missile is a notable exception).

Wasn't there a report one of our copters goofed and hit an Abrams with a Hellfire in the rear? IIRC the tank was reported as damaged and crew were ok.

45 posted on 03/26/2003 12:13:51 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
"What I just heard from a highly placed source here is that they've discovered, they've captured chemical warheads, they're Russian, they have Russian writing all over them and they are chemical warheads."

Hello people.

46 posted on 03/26/2003 12:22:17 PM PST by demlosers (resetting the record)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
To the folks at the NY Times fierce is anything worse than having your pet chihuahua bite you in the ankles.
47 posted on 03/26/2003 12:26:39 PM PST by Pearman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Geist Krieger
Hadn't that Italian reporter for Corriere della Sera that was murdered in Afghanistan just discovered some biowarfare materials labeled in Russian?
48 posted on 03/26/2003 12:29:35 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
I presume supplying this Kornet to Iraq was in violation of the sanctions?
49 posted on 03/26/2003 12:31:32 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
A tank drove simply over one of the vehicles without firing a shot

If it wasn't a compact car before, it is now!

50 posted on 03/26/2003 12:31:39 PM PST by Reagan is King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
I presume supplying this Kornet to Iraq was in violation of the sanctions?

The Kornet wasn't marketed internationally until after the embargo was imposed. Any wonder the Russians don't want us in Iraq?

51 posted on 03/26/2003 12:41:29 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: All
I had misremembered. What Maria Grazia Cutuli had found was sarin gas labeled in Russian. Italian journalist killed in Afghanistan.
52 posted on 03/26/2003 12:57:23 PM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mister Magoo
>>>Why they didn't blow up every bridge on the Euphrates is sheer stupidity.<<<

I heard one analyst - ex military of some hi rank - say that Saddam left the bridges so his troops can beat a slow retreat back to Bagdad. He felt that the objective would be to blow them after most of his troops were across. Another felt that the Iraqis may be trying to blow the bridges with our vehicles or troops on them, but we are getting to their sappers and the charges first.

One bridge, either in Najaf or An Nasariha, was set with charges but our combat engineers got there before the detanators could be inserted - close call. that the Iraqis may be tryiong to blow the bridges with our vehicles or troops on them

So, in part at least its because we are foiling their attempts to destroy the bridges.....not because they are totally stupid.

53 posted on 03/26/2003 12:58:14 PM PST by HardStarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: I_Stern
"A tank drove simply over one of the vehicles without firing a shot"

And the competition among tank drivers begins... who will have the most silhouettes of a pickup trunk stenciled on the side of their tank

54 posted on 03/26/2003 1:01:47 PM PST by handy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
What is a great story like this doing in the NYTimes????
55 posted on 03/26/2003 1:17:28 PM PST by CPT Clay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: handy
No one has ever written a satisfactory account of how the bridges at Nasiriyah and now, at Najaf came to be seized intact. A British article compared the seizure at Nasiriyah to the bridges at Remagen. But now Najaf!

River crossings are the most hotly contested objectives in land warfare. The Iraqis are really fighting disconnectedly. They can't seem to put their punches together. A team with a Kornet here doesn't constitute a defense. For comparison, consider the performance of a battalion of the First British Airborne at Arnhem. They held the bridge for many days with nothing but Piats against infantry and armor. They were under orders not to blow the bridge, as the allies had planned on using it.
56 posted on 03/26/2003 1:19:41 PM PST by wretchard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: demlosers
"What I've done is surround the city and cut it off," the division's commander, Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount 3rd, said in an interview today.

WOW. Imagine one solitary General surrounding the entire city. Why send 300,000 troops when we can send a handful of Generals? LOL

57 posted on 03/26/2003 1:56:47 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain
"It seems we're killing a hundred Iraqis per one of our own"

Maybe more like a thousand to one. During a Fox commercial, I heard some dolt on MSNBC commenting on the ill-advised southbound column out of Baghdad. He said that Saddam was using "a highly imaginative strategy of attrition".

About all you can conclude from the above is that: 1.) Saddam is not a military genius. 2.) The MSNBC dolt is even less of one.
58 posted on 03/26/2003 2:10:10 PM PST by PETAMember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
That's right. We'll just arm Osama's buddies. Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
59 posted on 03/26/2003 2:18:07 PM PST by nhbob1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine
"A tank drove simply over one of the vehicles without firing a shot,"


Maybe there was some terrorist's house back there about to be demolished by the IDF ;-)
60 posted on 03/26/2003 2:27:12 PM PST by battousai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson