This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
“ | Within 24 hours, most of the other Iraqi brigades were gone. | ” |
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 ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The sidebar says only one coalition casualty, but the subsection on the 3rd Division says:
2 > 1. Clearly 1 is not correct, and there are likely more than just this. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of 73 Easting's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto1":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Our article on Douglas Macgregor makes his role seem hugely prominent -- he "essentially directed" the battle, he "led" most of the tanks -- but that's not mentioned at all here. Is the other article unduly hyping him, or is this one curiously minimising him? And can the two be made more comprehensibly compatible with a tweak or two? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm drafting an article on Lt. Col. David Davis, one of the participants in this battle, who has been published on a number of topics during? and since his military career, and I came across this article, which is specifically about this battle. I think it could be a helpful reference to improve this page. AustralianSepticPolicyInstitute ( talk) 00:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
“ | Within 24 hours, most of the other Iraqi brigades were gone. | ” |
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 ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
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 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
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 ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The sidebar says only one coalition casualty, but the subsection on the 3rd Division says:
2 > 1. Clearly 1 is not correct, and there are likely more than just this. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
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)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of 73 Easting's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto1":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Our article on Douglas Macgregor makes his role seem hugely prominent -- he "essentially directed" the battle, he "led" most of the tanks -- but that's not mentioned at all here. Is the other article unduly hyping him, or is this one curiously minimising him? And can the two be made more comprehensibly compatible with a tweak or two? 109.255.211.6 ( talk) 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm drafting an article on Lt. Col. David Davis, one of the participants in this battle, who has been published on a number of topics during? and since his military career, and I came across this article, which is specifically about this battle. I think it could be a helpful reference to improve this page. AustralianSepticPolicyInstitute ( talk) 00:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)