Talk:Battle of Rumaila

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 not 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

Who really violated the ceasefire?[edit]

I heard, from front-line personnel and several books written on the first Gulf War that the Hammurabi Division had fired on the US forces as they were retreating, and that's after they agreed to a ceasefire. A couple of Iraqi divisions did this. The US responded by boxing them in and blowing them all up. I'll have the info on the books I'm referring to soon. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the first book is Army by The Army Historical Foundation. The second one is Triumph in the Desert by Peter David. 24.236.248.179 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Battle[edit]

Owing to descriptions of the event and the nature of the action, especially its asymmetry (the Iraqis could barely be said to have an order of battle for instance). Here http://milmag.com/2011/02/battle-at-rumaila/ confrims my suspicion. This outlines what happened (from a granted entirely biased perspective), in the diagram of the order of battle. NO Iraqi combat units can be identified, and such lines as 'There was no way out — the Iraqis were trapped' really sum up the partially organised rout that the U.S. forces sought to engage. I would hope this could be examined and addressed in time. 81.158.209.123 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's clearly identified as the Hammurabi Division force ("a division minus"). --Niemti (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a descriptor does not specify deployment echelons; there were none. For all intents and purposes, it was a fleeing mass of vehicles. 86.131.45.27 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did they fire on our troops? Iraqi forces violated the terms of the cease fire.Don Brunett (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Don BrunettDon Brunett (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were retreating, and came across enemy at their front, with enemy at their back, how else do you expect a soldier to react? The ceasefire was unilaterla, that is, the US stopped shooting. It was not a "peace agreement" or some kind of armistice. The americans could have bypassed them after receiving ineffective fire, instead, they massacred them. Being fired upon does not actually grant you free remit to commit any action you please.195.99.168.10 (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valor Citations[edit]

Those citations for valor are inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. In this context, they are propaganda. They should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.206.155.117 (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Valor Citations[edit]

I am not sure how the VUA citations are propaganda they are simply facts. and they were not a fleeing mass of vehicles .

67.3.191.160 (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]