Well, we know how long it took the US to break through the gap (less than 1 day) and we know roughly how many casualties the US took: almost none.
Doesn't really sound like fierce fighting.
But the main thing that makes me believe this battle never happened is that the US never produced any photos of hundreds of burned out T-72s that would have been in those divisions. And they have good reason to do so, since the T-72 is really the only creible battle field weapon the US might have to face.
If they really knocked out two full RG divisions in less than a day with almost zero casualties, this would be VERY big news. Remember that Najaf and Nasaria, not to mention Basra, all experienced heavy fighting, took WEEKS at least a week to defeat, inflicting dozens of US casualties. And this was with, at best, laughable T-52s as armor.
It just doesn't make sense.
[edited for typos, I was on my mobile.]
Sounds pretty good but ughhhh! I'm warblogging & it really upsets me innards. Over & out Commander Himmy.
|
Doesn't really sound like fierce fighting.
But the main thing that makes me believe this battle never happened is that the US never produced any photos of hundreds of burned out T-72s that would have been in those divisions. And they have good reason to do so, since the T-72 is really the only creible battle field weapon the US might have to face.
If they really knocked out two full RG divisions in less than a day with almost zero casualties, this would be VERY big news. Remember that Najaf and Nasaria, not to mention Basra, all experienced heavy fighting, took
WEEKSat least a week to defeat, inflicting dozens of US casualties. And this was with, at best, laughable T-52s as armor.It just doesn't make sense.
[edited for typos, I was on my mobile.]
- jim 4-26-2003 11:12 pm
Sounds pretty good but ughhhh! I'm warblogging & it really upsets me innards. Over & out Commander Himmy.
- frank 4-26-2003 11:36 pm [add a comment]