Talk:Battle of Debecka Pass

Edited for POV

Just cleaned it up a bit to make it sound a little less from the POV of the coalition. Feel free to build on it. Philippics (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Size of Iraqi forces

The infobox says <100 Troops but the main text says "They found themselves facing an Iraqi mechanized company with hundreds of troops". One of the linked articles say "a reinforced Iraqi motorized rifle company numbering in the hundreds" but the other says "dealt with an Iraqi infantry brigade that was equipped". Does anyone have an idea of the strength of a Iraqi company or brigade? Do any Iraqi accounts of the battle exist? --Mr link 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We Didnt fight Iraq

This was isnt against Iraq, its the insurgents in Iraq.

This was during Operation Iraqi Freedom, during which US forces engaged the Iraqi Army while Hussein was still in power. Note the date of the battle, this was only days after the invasion kicked off. --M45k3d N1Nj4 G4R0 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The insurgents do not have tanks to my knowledge.

Like Hell We Didn't Fight Iraq

The armed forces of a sovereign nation are a representation of that nation. If you fight them you are fighting the nation. Regardless if it was a former regime or not.

The original article has many inaccuracies and a lot of chronological errors about the sequence of events.

Frank, please tell the truth. 3rd Special Forces Group and ODA 391 were not in charge of the ground or the operation. Why don't you quit show-boating, and admit tht ODA 044 and the 10th Special Forces Group was in charge of the operation. If you read the accounts of 3rd Group, you would think they were the only unit there? I hope you enjoyed the attention.

Regardless, according to ODA 044, at one point of the battle, 3rd Group withdrew and left ODA 044 to fend for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.165.229 (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to clear up a few things

I was physically present during this engagement and captured the account from my perspective in the book: "Roughneck Nine One."

There were several documented accounts of the battle that were written by members of the media that interviewed members of my A-Team or the members of the other two teams that were involved. Almost all were different to some degree.

The actual numbers of Iraqi soldiers we fought that day was between 150-200.

The initial Iraqi assault had:

4ea T-55 Main Battle Tanks (4 man crews) = 16 men 8ea MTLB APCs (2 man crew plus 11 infantry)= 104 Men 3ea 2-1/2 Ton Trucks (2 man crew plus 10+ infantry) = 36+ There were also several small jeeps and SUV as well, each with a few passengers.

This is where we get the 150-200 man estimate.

Of the 19 Javelin Missiles fired, 16 hit enemy vehicles, two actually hit other structures (mud hut, monument) as a result of gunner error, (accidentally locking on the wrong target) and one missile actually missed.

So technically the missiles were 18 for 19 for hitting what they locked on.

We were then counter attacked the following day by a larger force of 6ea T-55 Main Battle Tanks and 16 MTLBs. We took out the lead tank with a Javelin and dropped some bombs on the rest. The counter attack stalled when the enemy turned around and withdrew, later abandoning their vehicles about 3 kilometers away.

The US force consisted of: 26 Special Forces Qualified Soldiers 3 USAF Combat Controllers 2 US Army Military Intelligence soldiers Total= 31 Americans and 80 Pesh (Kurds)

We (US) had eight modified HUMMVs called GMVs (unarmored) armed with either a .50 cal M2HB machine gun or a Mk19 40mm grenade launcher. We had a total of 24 Javelins. We also had two Range Rovers.

The Kurds had one US M151 jeep with a 106mm recoilless rifle, a Toyota pickup with a .51 cal DsHK Machine Gun, one 2 ton truck and several SUVs (Toyota trucks and land cruisers)

Feel free to contact me at Roughneck91@cox.net if you have any additional questions.

Regards, Frank Antenori

I'm glad to see your involvement in this page, as I was about to make a post asking for some clarification by some veterans. While I do not doubt your account of the battle, this page currently has zero citations, though it does have appropriate references (including your book) listed. If you could clarify the facts by backing them up with parenthetical annotation (page number) from your book, and then a brief excerpt of the line you took from the book listed in a notes section, that would be great, and fix a lot of the outstanding problems with this page. This may seem tedious, but it is just part of keeping it professional.

Thank you for your service. This.machinery (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

LiveLeak Video

Is this the video mentioned in the article? If so, shouldn't it be included as a citation?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36b_1320420480

To Sgt. Antenori: Thank you for your service and work protecting the people of the USA and Iraq (...and please ignore the user name - it's an old joke).

Subjugator (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the film - The Guardian has a screenshot here. But it doesn't work as a citation. What am I looking at? I see some pickup trucks - presumably the same ones mentioned above - and then lots of bodies. I've added a link to a contemporary BBC news report although a lot of the details are missing. In particular the text here blames F-14s, LiveLeak mentions F-16s, this follow-up report talks about F-15s. There was apparently never an enquiry so I wonder where Wikipedia's details came from. The irony is that the battle itself is completely forgotten nowadays; the friendly fire incident is remembered because it almost killed top BBC journo John Simpson and it came a few days after this more famous incident. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Debecka Pass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060602213134/http://www.raytheon.com/feature/javelin_warfighters/battle/index.html to http://www.raytheon.com/feature/javelin_warfighters/battle/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This article still reads like a US Army press release

The very last sentence of the first para reads -

"The numerically inferior US and KPD force was able to defeat the Iraqi mechanized infantry & tank force with combined air-to-ground strikes, superior maneuvering, and the use of the Javelin missiles."

Absolutely zero mention is made of USAF support, either as part of the preparatory bombardment by B-52 bombers (!) (first para, "The Battle") or the 2,000 pound bomb dropped by the F-14. I always find it offensive that reports of US military engagements nearly always fail to include the support of literally hundreds of millions of dollars of US airpower, which is basically what turns "26 men" into a force capable of taking out an Iraqi mechanized battalion.

Is there any way that the US auxiliary support (airpower, drones, presumably artillery on standby) can be included to help stop this sounding like yet another puff piece ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.176.129 (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• It also seeps through in the language, which is very much a hero narrative of the US soldiers, who have to deal with things like the "confused" pilot dropping a bomb on friendlies "despite being directed onto the T55s", fighting off the T55s with a "sudden onslaught of missiles". It reads more like an action movie than a clear description of military action. From an interview with one of the participants in the battle (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2lHgADXByw) it sounds like the incident was the result of miscommunication in the heat of battle, with the JTAC not realising that "tank on the crossroads with dismounts around" described two possible targets, not one - the BBC reference on this article calls it a 'tragic error' 110.174.46.199 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)