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

[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.

[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)

[Joseph_CutlerUSA]

"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."

What a laugh!

Try until the early 1970s, and only that long because the
T-62 was a failure! It is 1950s technology.

[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.

[Joseph_CutlerUSA]

I could also say the same exact thing if they were fighting with T-34s.

"In the absence of enemy tanks, the T-34 is reliable, cheap, easy to maintain, and deadly."

They are 1950s technology up against British Challenger IIs and attachments.

[Joseph_CutlerUSA]

Actually I've read that the T-62 was a failure, costing 3 times as much as the T-55 to build, but not providing 3 times the capability. So only a minority of T-55s were replaced by them.

Doesn't make the T-55 any better though.

[biblewonk]

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

Life expectancy in a tank near and not liked by an A-10 is just a matter of seconds.

[Justa]

Good points in both posts but you should consider these Iraqi T-55s are fielded and still operational after 12 years of sanctions. Also, it's not up against Challenger IIs but Scorpions and Warriors.

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.

[hobbes1]

Good points in both posts but you should consider these Iraqi T-55s are fielded and still operational after 12 years of sanctions.

Which tells you more about the operational capacity of the sanctions, than it does the tanks.....

[Joseph_CutlerUSA]

It is true that in this engagement they were only fighting British light tanks and IFVs (and got halted), but we already know there are Challenger IIs in the area around Basra because according to news reports the British 2nd Armored division was withdrawn to the outskirts of the city yesterday to give the Commando brigade a shot at the dug in Iraqis.

Yep, they are present and operational. But the only reason for that is as the article says, they were in city limits hiding among buildings. The Iraqis are making a major blunder by even coming out, because they are going to be pounded whenever they poke out, as a British officer said yesterday.

[Billthedrill]

Could cause us to loose. Vey series.

Series? It's hugh!

[EricT.]

Heck, those tanks ain't dug in! They are just broke down or their idiot driver got them stuck on narrow streets. Give a couple days and the local youths will have them up on blocks with half of the useful equipment missing.(I thought we could use a little levity to break the tension)

[Joseph_CutlerUSA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/875133/posts

Yep, they counterattacked against the Commando brigade and got nailed outside the city.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST