Talk:Battle of 73 Easting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Categorization[edit]

Since an explanation is requested:

I will leave the categories in place for now; I hope you will reconsider their removal. -- Kirill Lokshin 02:02, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Battle of Khafji and Operation Granby clearly happened inside Saudi Arabia. The other two battles took place (at least partially) in Saudi Arabia. However, if the category is to be deleted, do not remove the articles; instead, use {{cfd}} (and not category speedy deletion), and we'll see what happens. -- Eagleamn 02:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)¸

Coalition casualties[edit]

12 kia and ff, 57 wounded and 26 tanks damaged or destroyed

Source : http://www.checkpoint-online.ch/CheckPoint/Histoire/His0010-CombatTawakalna.html

And the battle ended the 27 february 1991.

This is probably correct as I personally saw some of our damaged/destroyed tanks and Bradleys. At the time I believe this information was classified for various reasons.Don Brunett (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Image[edit]

Given that this battle was an overwhleming U.S. victory, shouldn't a picture of a burning Iraqi tank be used to illustrate the article rather than a burning U.S. Bradley?

(Trolling commentary also snipped.)

What difference does it trully make? I don't see a Wikipedia guideline stating that having a picture of the losing-sides vehicle, rather than the 'winning' side. It illustrates the article just fine. If I recall, somewhere close to 20 Bradleys were lost. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the vehicle, but this battle undoubtedy caused it some of the greatest casualties than any other battle I've read about. Of course, most of those were Friendly Fire incidents, but that's irrelevant. 75.149.203.217 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Um no. One Bradley was lost in the battle. 20 were lost in the entire war, so yeah, it makes a huge bloody difference. Having a main caption image of a burning US Bradley on an article talking about a US landslide armor victory is insane. It doesn't illustrate this article 'fine' at all - in fact, it's incredibly misleading. They lost 1 bradley in the battle and I'm removing the main image until I find an appropriate image of a burning T-72 where over 25 of them were lost in the actual BATTLE. --70.25.226.135 (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Bradley IFV reference in the 'casualties' section[edit]

Ignoring for a moment the complete lack of citations in that entire section, what grounds was the comment about Bradleys somehow being 'easy targets' based/sourced from? From my observations, all APC's/IFV's are 'easy targets' when engaged in heavy armored battles, and it sure doesn't mention the (likely) metaphorical tons of Iraqi BMP-1's lost, now does it? I've removed that particular claim (it can be viewed in the Edit History), but I reccomend this entire section be rewritten and given proper citations. 75.149.203.217 (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience as an M1 tanker in a Cavalry Regiment that the Bradley CFV/IFV is an easy target based on its incredibly tall stature alone. In various FTXs we used to wait for the Bradleys to expose themselves and then it was a turkey shoot. I did not write the original section, and actually haven't read it, just making a generic comment on the visibility of the Bradley. Aramis1250 (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Battlefield Commanders[edit]

Saddam Husein was not the present battlefield commander at 73 easting for the opposing force. This should be corrected as it is plainly false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.217.9.24 (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Order of Battle[edit]

According to the article at the outset of E Troop's hasty attack there were 10 M1A1 tanks which were assigned from M Company. Normal TOE for a Regimental Armored Cavalry Troop includes 9 M1 tanks, 4 each in 2d and 4th platoons, with an additional tank in Headquarters Platoon. (usually the CO tank). Are the 10 tanks referenced an additional attachment from M Company? Aramis1250 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Asked, and answered. Aramis1250 (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. "E-Troop consisted of 13 M3 Bradleys, two M106 mortar carriers, one M577 command track, a M981 FIST-V, and 10 M1 Abrams tanks from 3d Squadron's M- ("Mike") Company." Going back to my original point, the article seems to imply that Echo Troop had 10 tanks, and that they were an assignment from the tank company for that squadron. TOE for a Regimental Armored Cavalry troop at that time would have been 12 CFVs (six in each scout platoon) and 9 tanks (four each in two tank platoons plus a tank from HQ Platoon). Was Echo troop understrength two tank platoons, and therefore needed to have two and a half platoons of tanks from Mike company assigned to it, or is the article in error, and fails to note that the troop was at normal strength PLUS ten additional tanks? Aramis1250 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In reading the Introduction, as well, I note the inclusion of "M2A3" Bradleys for the 2nd ACR's scout vehicles. While I was in the 3d ACR at the time (and quite a bit north of them), I can say that the TOE for the scout platoons in the ACRs was the M3A1 (not the M2, which is an Infantry vehicle, and not the A3 variant which was not introduced into the US Army until 1998). While it is possible that the 2nd ACR was using the M2 Bradley, I am reasonably sure they did not, but instead used the same M3 Bradley as the 3d ACR was using at the time. Aramis1250 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Losses not Listed[edit]

Iraqi losses need to be ammended. 600 killed 'and' wounded. Well which is it? How many killed and how many wounded? Even worse is the battle of norfolk - Iraqi losses listed as 'heavy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.179.49 (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You can tag the "casualties2" entry requiring a proper citation.--Darius (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox picture...[edit]

The picture in the infobox is clearly fake...it is a vismod Centurion tank from Courage Under Fire (look at the wheels: the Centurion has six wheels while the M1 Abrams got seven wheels).

Courage Under Fire screen --94.39.226.90 (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Real M1A1 Abrams tank
File:Tankbattle2.jpg
Vismod M1A1 Abrams tank
Real Centurion Mk III tank

bull[edit]

I personally believe American losses are truely known only to the government cuz I can't believe in this era that thousands+ Elite Iraqi Republican Guards who fight to the death only killed 1 guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.173.73 (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I served on the front-line of this battle as a medic in 3rd squadron, 2nd ACR - we had one single US casualty in our squadron. Jikaku (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

While McMasters 2nd ACR was a excellent unit. They were a scout unit that saw just a fraction of the combat that took place. I was involved in this battle and we had a lot of damaged armor/especially Bradleys out there and quite a few casualties. I believe this was classified information and still might be. Foreign sources have released some information on the casualties and losses.Don Brunett (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

The Regiment lost seven soldiers killed in its complete operation, four of these were from the 82nd Engineer Battalion that supported the ACR. A greater number were wounded. Sergeant Nels Moller was the only soldier killed in Second Squadron's fight on the 26th.Slats319 (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slats319 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Last sentence[edit]

  • Is that armored brigades or brigades of all types?
  • "gone" -- does that mean destroyed, captured, surrendered, or retreated? patsw (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

VII Corps raced east from Saudi Arabia into Iraq in a maneuver later nicknamed the "Hail Mary."[edit]

I think we need to update this. They didn't "race" and they didn't go east from the Saudi border. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-shooter (talkcontribs) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And it wasn't just VII Corps, but also the XVIII Airborne Corp, who were even farther west than was the VII Corps. Aramis1250 (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Summary of Fires[edit]

Please clarify the Order of Battle in reference to the 210th FA BDE. It is stated that 2 Battalions and "a single MLRS battery" fired all of those rounds. I can not even find an MLRS unit assigned to a 210th FA Brigade. Please help, Thanks. 1. What units were assigned to the 210th FA BDE? 2. A single MLRS Battery existed only at the Division level. Field Artillery Brigades were assigned MLRS Battalions. Having been on location during the battle, as well as through research of AAR's from 3AD, 3AD Artillery and 41st FA Brigade, it might be found that a majority of the MLRS rockets were fired by either 1/27th FA, MLRS (41st FA BDE) and/or 'A' Battery 40th FA, MLRS 3rd Armored Division Artillery. MLRS units known to be in the area of 73 Easting: A/21 FA MLRS, 1CAV A/40 FA MLRS, 3AD 1/27 FA MLRS, 41st FA BDE 2/32 FA MLRS, VII Corps — Preceding unsigned comment added by A40DeepStrike (talkcontribs) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral POV and Perspective[edit]

Even as a former service member, I couldn't help but notice that this article is clearly written from the POV of the US Army. The Iraqis do not make unsuccessful attacks, but rather Americans repel "wave after wave" of the enemy.

While I understand that the reconstruction of the battle will obviously rely heavily on the documentation of the US Army versus the disorganized, if even extant documentation of the Iraqis, but this article is clearly not written from a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.214.137.76 (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

British participation[edit]

Everything was initially wrong with the information in this section. The initial article actually had some of the U.S. 1st Armored division's combat operations mixed in. There was very little correct with the initial section. Even the brigades were incorrect. I have provided a good detailed article on the British contribution which they deserved. They were that good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Brunett (talkcontribs) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflicting casualties[edit]

The sidebar says only one coalition casualty, but the subsection on the 3rd Division says:

Unfortunately, that same evening, the 4th Battalion, 32d Armor lost the division's first casualties in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle to 25mm cannon fire – with two soldiers killed

2 > 1. Clearly 1 is not correct, and there are likely more than just this. - Keith D. Tyler 20:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any citation to suggest there was more than one KIA. I'm still looking though. Here's a Stars and Stripes piece on the battle.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The edit first appeared here and was taken from the 3rd Armored Division Wikipedia page which used this press release as the source stating 2 KIA. The problem with that is press releases sometimes have incomplete information about an event; more recent sources indicate 1 KIA. I'm still looking for more sources to put this one way or the other. Yojimbo1941 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
It's proving to be fairly difficult to find out exactly what the casualty count is for this battle. Some sources list 12, some 3, and many list Sgt Nels Moller as the single KIA. I think part of it is that Moller seems to be the only one named, and that is causing editors to deduce that there was only one KIA in the battle. Overall, I think the entire article has sections in need of a rewrite and I think that would help clear up the casualty count.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 14:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

The whole 'Technology and its impact on battle' section contains no actual source and looks a lot like it violates the No Original Research policy. The section should be removed unless it can be sourced and written without blatantly violating Wikipedia Policy. I added the fitting template.

Haage42 (talk) 13:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Someone re-added that section with no apparent changes to the sources, so I've re-added the template.Yojimbo1941 (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Removed again. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 23:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)