This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrg3105 (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 20 July 2008 (→On "battles": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:41, 20 July 2008 by Mrg3105 (talk | contribs) (→On "battles": new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
Casualty figures
I use antiwar.com, they list all of the attacks that happen every day in Iraq, along with casualty numbers, so I use that. I use the numbers from Salahadin and Diyala provinces because the operation is mainly focused there. (Top Gun) 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Basra (2008)
Just for your information, I moved the section post-operation clashes into the article Iraq Spring Fighting of 2008. The battle should only be about the March 25 - March 31 events. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Adoption offer
I would be happy to adopt you! Just let me know. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Basra operation
Looks like you're the expert here. Just let me quote the relevant sections from Jane's Defence Weekly (I've stuck the reference in as you probably saw), and then please rewrite my edits as you see fit:
'...particularly strong resistance was encountered within residential areas held by the Jaish al-Mahdi militia associated with Moqtada al-Sadr. Most of these areas were secured by Iraqi Army forces involved in securing a base of operations in the east of the city, anchored on Basra palace. In one case, however, roadside bombings and intense urban hit and run ops undertaken by experienced militia fighters caused an Iraqi Army battalion to lose cohesion during the initial day of fighting on 25 March. The unit in question, an element of the IA's 52nd Brigade (14th Division) had only recently graduated from the Besmeya training facility on 13 February. Raised from Basra recruits, the battalion proved unwilling to fight other Baswaris and disbanded with the loss of considerable numbers of Humvees, many of which were later recovered while dozens of others were burnt. The battalion commander and deputy commander were later relieved.' ... 'A set of experienced IA brigades tightened the cordon around key Jaish al-Mahdi neighbourhoods in western Baghdad such as Qarmat Ali, Qibla, Hayanniyah, Tamininyah, Khamsa Meel and Jumhuriya. These included the IA 14th Brigade (4th Division): a motorised unit of Kurdish and Arab personnel with a readiness ranking of C1 - the highest possible'.
That was mainly extra info I though you might like to have. This is the text of the 9 Div paragraph, immediately following: 'Alongside this unit were brigade-sized formations of Iraq's elite formations: the 1st and 9th divisions. The 3rd Brigade (9th Division), a motorised unit, was one of the first post-Saddam Iraqi units formed and is considered an elite quick-reaction force unit. The 35th Brigade (9th Division) is a tank formation with two battalions of reconditioned T-55 MBTs and BMP-1 IFVs plus a further battalion of motorised infantry deployed to Basra.' (JDW 23 April 2008, p.28)
Hope that helps in getting things straight. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the Military History Project
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
- Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
- We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
- We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
- If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
- The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Intellibeing's edit on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
Hello, please correct me if I'm wrong. He removed sourced content calling it POV when it scarcely is. I reverted. Ultra! 09:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
user:Hisham 5ZX
..should be paid attention to. Articles such as Dulaim are being frequently vandalised by him. After being blocked, his sockpuppet is resuming the same editing pattern. I see that you have been helping in reverting him and that is really admirable. Cheers mate! Λua∫Wise 10:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Update:
- Hello!! Your opinion here will be very appreciated.
- Cheers mate! Λua∫Wise 11:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
On "battles"
Hi Lawrence,
The average reader of Misplaced Pages does not need to be an expert on Soviet terminology to deal with the article titles since they are in English. Keep in mind that most people who access article on the Eastern Front are probably either already somewhat familiar with the subject, or are desiring to learn more, and are probably not expecting to find themselves in "Kansas" if you know what I mean.
However, the use of the word "battle" is what I consider a propaganda term, since a "battle" does not tell the reader what happened, but only where. Battle, as a military term is quite ambiguous, and you will not find many military personnel using the term in an operational setting, that is when the military operations are being planned and executed.
I will break the Battle of Basra for you down to specifics to show how the use of "battle" has been used in the media to obscure the information.
A "battle" is in fact considered a term of combat at the operational level of war, that is one where combat occurs above the tactical level of a division, but below the strategic level of an Army (US formation, not US Army or Iraqi Army). The information in the Battle of Basra says that some 30,000 Iraqi forces engaged about 16,000 Mahdi Army personnel. 30,000 troops are about two infantry divisions in strength. For a conduct of offensive operations the accepted conventional numeric superiority required by planner is at least 3:1. In the urban environment the ratio is likely to be required higher, maybe 4-5:1. This is largely known from the Soviet-German experiences during the Second World War. So, for a start we have under strength operation for the Iraqi Army as a whole. I then look at the order of battle. This gives five divisions with eight brigades, or somewhat less than two brigades per division. The usual US Army divisional strength is three brigades. What this means to me is that in fact there are four divisions participating, but all are at 50% strength in terms of personnel, and are at 2/3s of their expected force structure. In the US Army such divisions would have been considered to have fallen below combat readiness and would be withdrawn from combat operations if possible. However, for assured success, the Iraqis should have ad a minimum of 16K x 4(5)=64K(80) troops or four to five full strength infantry divisions. This immediately tells me that the operation was forced on the Iraqis, and that they were not ready for it by a long shot. The forces on the offensive need numerical superiority because they tend to suffer heavier casualties, but the heavier casualty toll was taken by the Mahdi Army, so I must assume that they were on the offensive, so conducting a very aggressive defensive operation. The ratio of deserters to killed and wounded by Iraqis is 2:1 which definitely suggests poor morale, and this coupled with under strength units suggests recruitment issues reported last year were not resolved.
Now lets consider other implications of the term battle here. Battle of Basra suggests a big combat engagement for an entire major city. However, nothing can be further from the truth. Firstly only a sector, or some sectors Basra were contested. Secondly it is not possible to conduct one "battle" in urban operations. What happens is that the city is divided into sectors and allocated to specific units so no friendly fire occurs due to misidentification of personnel in often confused terrain. For this reason urban combats are almost always tactical, or a number of simultaneous combat engagements. Given the order of battle, I would say that possibly the Army brigadeswould have been deployed for conducting the combat operations while, half the Iraqi forces, the security units, conducting security cordon operations around the combat area to prevent entry into combat area of any Mahdi supporters. Given the size of the Iraqi brigades, what we have therefore is not a grand "Battle of Basra", because even motorised infantry units devote as much as 30% of their personnel to combat service support functions. Of the remaining 10K, the about 20 battalions would have conducted tactical engagements, each of about 5-700 Iraqi troops, in their sectors, probably with not insignificant command and control difficulties for their first operation of the type which apparently went quite bad, and eventually succeeded only because the Mahdi were on the offensive and "ran out of steam". And this despite US and British air and artillery support.
So, this is why I don't like using "battle". Same goes for "invasion".
- Second Battle of Fallujah
Firstly note the disparity in casualties between US and Iraqi forces. Given they were the aggressors, the offensive nature of the US troops stands out like a sore thumb.
Its a bit confusing for the ordinary person to tell what was there, but in urban combat only infantry do the real fighting, all other units being combat support. The funny part is that the two regimental combat teams are in fact pretty much equivalent to good sized brigades or full regiments with three infantry battalions (one mech), while the two brigades are essentially two infantry battalions probably being used as either reserves or sector fill-ins. The Iraqi forces constitute a single brigade. Again, this is an urban combat, so eventually a tactical one. Effectively three brigades are involved, which is a full division, which in scale of combat terms means the upper limit of a tactical deployment. As far as "battles" go, it was probably half the size of the Basra, but significantly more intense because of the more aggressive US troops being used.
The appellation of "second" is funny because unlike field battles, urban battles generally follow same processes if the terrain is not taken the first time. There is little scope to change anything because the terrain is the same, so the more appropriate name would have been "first battle replayed". The interesting bit is that the First battle of Fallujah lists an entire Marine Division where as in fact it was five infantry battalions assuming use of Combat Engineer Battalions in infantry roles. A full Marine Division has three regiments of four battalions each for a total of 12. So what we have are elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (reinforced). Again, the use of battle together with the city name is meant to give the impression of a major combat, however what occurred was five tactical engagements in their respective sectors.
As you can see the term "battle" does not really allow the innocent bystander to tell the difference between tactical engagements and major historical operations such as the Battle of the Bulge. Its called misinformation. Invasion has same connotation since it does not carry any inherent information aside from assumption of an offensive.
Use of code names such as Operation Phantom Fury is mandated by military operational security, and removes all innate information from the title of the operation, so neither the scale or posture are known.
The Battle of Wanat was only a politically strategic "victory". In military terms it was an action, i.e. a small tactical combat that would have been called a skirmish 100 years ago. The media made more of it than it was worth, despite the casualties, or because of the casualties given Western sensitivity to them in the 21st century. Note the allied commander was 1st Lt. Jonathan P. Brostrom, i.e. a platoon commander! This is the lowest field rank of an officer. That his platoon withstood an attack by even 200 assailants, never mind 600, says much about the combat skills of the Allied troops involved because they were outnumbered by factors of 3-8.5:1, the correct factors for conducting offensives as you may recall from the start of this reply. Militarily, it was an overwhelming allied victory that showed even an Allied platoon commanded by a brand new Lt was capable of withstanding an assault by a better part of two companies or even a battalion of Taliban. Yet again, the word "battle" does not convey any of this to the reader--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)