Talk:Battle of 73 Easting

Categorization
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)
 * Category:Battles of the Gulf War is already a subcategory of Category:Battles of the United States, and, per the guideline, "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory".
 * Category:Military operations in Saudi Arabia is incorrect, since the battle in question happened in Iraq, not Saudia Arabia. Also, Category:Battles by country has been converted to use "Battles of" rather than "Battles in" for subcategories; this particular category is the lone holdout, so I was attempting to get rid of it.  If it's really useful, it should probably be reparented somewhere else for consistency.
 * 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   (and not category speedy deletion), and we'll see what happens. -- Eagleamn 02:15, September 5, 2005 (UTC)¸

Coalition casualties
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
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
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
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
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
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...
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)

bull
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)

Last sentence
Within 24 hours, most of the other Iraqi brigades were gone.
 * 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."
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)
 * 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
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)

Neutral POV and Perspective
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
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)

Conflicting casualties
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 &para; 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
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)

Orphaned references in Battle of 73 Easting
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": From Task Force 1-41 Infantry: Dinackus P.4–10 From H. R. McMaster:  From Kuwaiti oil fires:  From Kuwait:  From Corps:  From Gulf War: VUA Citation From Yom Kippur War:  From British Airways Flight 149: </li> </ul>

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)

Douglas A. MacGregor's role
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 expect that the answer to that is whether Macgregor is described as having a leading role by sources other than himself. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 17:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He is, insofar as the main source used on the other article is by our criteria a reliable third-party secondary source. But on examination it doesn't look like the best, and I don't propose to introduce it here.  So I think for the purposes of this article I'm happy to leave it at the addition I've just made, stating the appointment he held at the time.  As the article does describe the actions of the CO of 2nd 2nd ACR (LtCol Kobbe), I'm not seeing a gaping omission in that respect.  The other article might need rather more work.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In my reading on Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, McGregor came up quite a bit. My understanding was that he was prominently involved in the battle. AustralianSepticPolicyInstitute (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Potential useful reference
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)