Talk:Battle of Phase Line Bullet

Military history: Middle East / North America / United States

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

notice

i couldnt find real articles on google search about Battle of Phase Line Bullet , are you sure the tank's image belong to this battle ? Ammar 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I posted the image of the T-72 abandoned and captured by US 3rd Armored Division only to show an example of the Iraqi armored vehicles that faced the US Army in this battle, but there is certainly a chance that the tank actually belongs to this clash.

On the other hand, yes, any detail about this particular skirmish is hard to find online, the only source to mention the Battle of Phase Line Bullet is Atkinson's book (go to References). You also have the internal links inside the article showing official sketchs and their original web pages. DagosNavy 01:20, 28 February 2007

good work sir, :) i think its time to start an article about Wadi al Batin if your refrence books cover that also :) , i tried to start it but also couldn't find enough sources , have a nice day :) Ammar 02:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sir. You can find some references about Wadi Al Batin also as Ruqi Pocket or Battle of Ruqi Pocket. The only reason why I still not have started an article about this battle is (besides time :) that there is some confusion with another engagement between US Army and Republican Guard Forces around the Wadi during the coalition ground offensive, but I have some reference books too. If you will to start the article, here you have a link about Ruqi Pocket: www.hoskinson.net.

Good luck and Best regards. DagosNavy 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanx man , i'll see what i can do with that :) Ammar 03:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrhic victory

I think the best description of the battle outcome is "Iraqi pyrrhic victory". It's true that the US armor was unable to break the Iraqi screen line in this area for more than 12 hours; however it cost almost an entire company to the Republican Guard. The American account suggest that several Iraqi vehicles (T-72s and APC) managed to retreat, and no POW were taken (I didn't post this to the article because the NPOV and NOR guidelines). Nevertheless, the bulk of the Iraqi dug-in armor in this battle was destroyed or captured. I removed the former statement about a "tactical success". The common reader of Wikipedia knows that the final result was a lopsided victory for the Coalition, so it's clear that any Iraqi success was tactical, despite the failure of USA to achieve some strategic goals (complete encircling and destruction of the Republican Guard, prevention of scorched-earth tactics by iraqi forces in Kuwait). DagosNavy 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I witnessed very little out there that would lead me to believe Iraq had any kind of success. I actually laughed when I initially read this article. Don Brunett (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Don BrunettDon Brunett (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very seriously doubt that this qualifies as anything like a victory for the Iraqis. They abandoned their positions following the contact. Not sure how any of the outcome qualifies as a 'victory'.

Iraqi Military Objectives

What were the Iraqi's military objectives in this battle and how did they achieve them? Without such definitive criteria I don't see how this is a victory for the Iraqis given that they lost their fighting positions and their combat power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.192.191 (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Iraqi losses include armored vehicles attacked by US air assets and artillery the night after the ground action." 2001:9E8:9BD:8000:99D7:A705:1427:35AD (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That does not answer the question. How did the Iraqis achieve anything like a vicotry? 70.107.192.191 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi casualties

The Iraqi casualties mentioned in the article aren't an immediate outcome of the battle thus belong fittingly in the aftermath section. Adding said casualties to the infobox with a note like in previous revisions seeks only to clutter it and diverts from the template format. Damian Lew (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]