7th Cavalry inflicts heavy casualties in running battle (Awesome Read!)

USA Today ^ | 3/26/03 | Sean D. Naylor, Army Times

[jimbo123]

EAST BANK OF THE EUPHRATES RIVER, Iraq

[justshutupandtakeit]

Thanks.

[nomorecameljocks]

I also think they ought to drop the MOABs on the Republican >Guard that are stationed around Baghdad. They need some B52 therapy before our ground troops reach them.

>Note: I am not a military expert, but I play one on FreeRepublic :-)

>May God bless our troops and our nation.


It would seem than old fashoned Arc Light strikes would be devastating to these troops. It has been reported that the enemy is insufficiently concentrated to bring this type airpower to much use but if and when they concentrated, no doubt arc light type missions would be effective. Perhaps cluster bomb munitions would be even moreso.
Let's leave it to those who are totally familar with our current munition capabilities. That's what they are paid for and they are very good at it.

God bless the USA!

[laz17]

I was watching the briefing this morning conducted by that black dude. Any one know his name?

The questions by the presstitutes were irrelevent, obnoxious and disgusting. What a bunch of Clymers.

The only reason I was able to endure that was by picturing him wipping a SAW out from behind the podium and mowing them all down.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Now THAT I would pay to see.

[Seydlitz]

Iraqi troops may suck, but their artillery is superb. Saddam spent lavishly on Russian and South African artillery pieces. Our targeting systems and crews are much better, but on a gun-for-gun basis, Saddam's guns are better than ours.

It is no shame to lose some vehicles to such superb artillery. Moreover, as we will control the battlefield after the fight, we will be able to recover and (probably) repair the disabled Abrams and Bradley.

[Theophilus]

No, we lost them to a collapsed bridge, artillery fire (probably a firepower or mobility kill) and an antitank shot to the turbine. No personnel were lost. All is a dust storm with low visibility. You get an "F" for reading comprehension. Now read the article again.

[NorthGA]

From your screen name I suspect you know way more than I - but it seems hard to deny the effect of an artillery round on a tank.

They may be low grade infantry, but rpg's and artillery rounds would seem to have the same effect no matter who fired them.

[Capitalism2003]

"A convoy of U.S. marines was ambushed last night. Two Abrahms tanks were damaged, 300 Iraqis were killed, and there were no American casualties"

I heard this on the radio last night and it cracked me up. When their army ambushes us, it's pretty darn sad when the enemy is slaughtered while trying to ambush our guys. ;)

[borkrules]

I've been thinking about something lately.

Why, at the end of WWII, in Germany, did we not face this kind of running militia skirmish with the rag tag elements of the Reich? Or did we?

I'll get to the point: does TOTAL war, such as we waged on Germany (c.f., Dresden) break an enemy's will to resist in a way that the kind of war we are fighting in Iraq NEVER can? And not just bombing. I know most experts now understand that aeriel bombardment does NOT, by itself, break an enemy. In fact, it may embolden them. But I mean total war in the sense of no quarter given, none expected.

I don't mean this as a critique of the war plan, but just questions as we meet stiffer-than-expected resistance in the very early going.

[XJarhead]

No, we lost them to a collapsed bridge, artillery fire (probably a firepower or mobility kill) and an antitank shot to the turbine. No personnel were lost. All is a dust storm with low visibility. You get an "F" for reading comprehension. Now read the article again.

Uh, what did I say that was factually incorrect? I didn't say squat about a bridge, or how any of the vehicles were lost. Maybe you should reread my post and check your own reading comprehension. But anyway, I took your advice and reread the article.

The squadron captured three enemy soldiers before the Iraqis, perhaps using an anti-tank gun mounted on a truck, blasted the rear of two Abrams tanks, setting them ablaze.

That's two tanks knocked out directly by their infantry. The other was caught in a gulch after it was trying to find an escape route. But exactly how they were lost wasn't my point, which is why I didn't discuss it. I don't care if it was antitank rockets, mortars, artillery, or a gulch. All that matters is the bottom line. We were ambushed, and as a result, lost 6 vehicles to their infantry. Considering how badly outnumbered our armor is, I'm not happy about losing 3 Abrams in an infantry engagement. I'm not whining about a "defeat", but I think its important not to go rah-rah when the result doesn't warrant it.

Killing a bunch of peasant soldiers doesn't seem like a great trade-off for losing three Abrams. And I'm hazarding a guess that the brigade commander isn't thrilled about it either. I'm guessing that their forward and flank security will be a bit tighter after this.

[higgmeister]

bump for Haywood!

[Psycho_Bunny]

Come join the original thread

[Trueblackman]

Let me be a little bit more clear...These self promoted Generals and Admirals( Liberal News or Talkshow Host), who have never worn a uniform in their life and are speaking like they know what it is like to be out there in a tank fighter/bomber or a grunt. I wish they would shut the phuck up and let the real warriors do there work in freeing a oppressed people and nation.

[Theophilus]

perhaps using an anti-tank gun mounted on a truck

Not a peasant infantry weapon, with a 300/0 (personnel) loss exchange ratio for one skirmish, we'll win the war by attrition in a few weeks. Granted though, the loss of 3 M1's is nothing to celebrate.

[XJarhead]

The casualty rate is excellent -- no denying that. I was just concerned about the loss of the 3 Abrams. I would be less concerned if we had more heavy divisions in theater.

[XJarhead]

Let me add that this is in the context of what happened in the Gulf War. The Abrams were pretty much unstoppable and, as the article notes, we didn't lose any to enemy fire back them. Losing three when there was no enemy armor involved....ugh.