Battle Of Samara - 7 Helicopters Downed, 147 Troops Killed

Excuse me, who are you talking to? Did I attack anyone?
Please for future write who are you talking to OK?

I would think it obvious that he was referring to "yeoldehomer"... for the "you're the f*cker" comment....

As to the obvious fictional stories in this thread....another poster hit it right on the head when they mentioned that even Al-Jazeera isn't backing up such drivel, hehe.... The .ru of the source should give you some clue.... Can you say "Pravda"...

Originally posted by zcheng

Through the end of April, the most recent accounting the VA could provide, a total of 166,334 veterans of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had separated from military service, and 26,633 � 16 percent � had filed benefits claims with the VA for service-connected disabilities . Less than two-thirds of those claims had been processed, leaving more than 9,750 recent veterans waiting.

More propaganda...misdirection...getting really tiresome.

Nearly all servicemen who get out of the military have some "service connected disability" that is filed with the VA. The vast majority have nothing to do with actual combat injuries. Everything that is in one's military medical records may be filed with the VA...a back injury, surgeries, and other medical conditions that may affect a person later in life. This is used to determine the percentage of disability one gets after service. The VA will pay 100% of all subsequent medical costs for service related disabilities. For retirees, percentage of disability adds income to retirement checks. Only a small percentage of disability is directly combat related. I will likely receive a fairly high percentage of disability, of which only a small percentage is combat related.

zcheng, in his oh so wonderful way of propaganda and misdirection, has attempted to make it seem as if many more soldiers are being wounded than actually are. But I disagree with those of you who think he is a Chinese propaganda artist...

I think he's a college student somewhere in the Berkley area who is bored to tears, so he comes here to troll and see how much crappolo he can stir up. The problem is, he is proving himself to be quite poor at it, as his "facts" are so easily proven to be total bull feces...best thing to do is simply ignore him...he'll eventually go away when he can't get a rise out of you...

Originally posted by Gazrok
As to the obvious fictional stories in this thread....another poster hit it right on the head when they mentioned that even Al-Jazeera isn't backing up such drivel, hehe.... The .ru of the source should give you some clue.... Can you say "Pravda"...

As a matter of facts, the articles posted on iraqwar.mirror-world.ru comes various sources.

For this particular articles, it is a translation of a report from www.islammemo.cc... But since I can not read Arabic, I do not know which particular report is the original.

You cant lie too easily about your OWN KIAs because they have family at home. From my experiance where they lie is inflating the ENEMY KIAs. In other words as someone else mentioned before take 20 dead and figure they carried off another 20 or whatever.

As for those that think they would HAVE to be more than one American killed, not really we are talking about people with not much more than small arms against heavy armor and air strikes.

I dont doubt the one American killed

Now as far as the 125 terrorists? Who knows

Following is Sendo's answering for questions posted by Blerb.

Blerb
by Sendo Guest on 03.10.2004 [20:52 ]

.........
Why do you find the death count of 65 US soldiers such a problem? Let's see: M113 APC's can carry 13 soldiers (including 2 crew), Bradley AFV can carry 9 soldiers (including 3 crew), HUMVEEs can carry 4 soldiers, and Abram MBT's can carry 4 crew. If the Resistance destroyes one of each, that's a total of 30.

The scale of this latest high profile US military attempt at defeating and securing the city of Samara is very high � it is logical to conclude that the volume of US personel and hardware would be very large (as they are intending to capture and retain the city, not just attack and withdraw).

US military docterine has always been to attack in large, overwhelming numbers, mixing armoured hardware (Abrams, Bradleys, and retro-fitted M113's) with dismounted troops � each providing the other with mutual support. The armour would hold back and fire at a distance, whilst the soldiers would cautiously move and secure each block within the built-up areas of Samara.

Top cover would be maintained by Apaches, Cobras, Pave Hawks, Black Hawks, and OH58 Little Birds. It is only the Apache and Cobra that have reasonable armour against light weapons and AAA. However none of these can resist well placed volleys of RPG's (as first demonstrated in Mogaishu, Somolia).

Pre-Iraq US standard attack procedures for Apaches consisted of hovering at stand-off distances whilst firing at selected targets. Obviously the Iraqi Resistance took advantage of this flawed strategy by carefully concealing themseleves within expected avenues of attack and then ambushing the vunerable hovering gunships with volleys of well-aimed RPG's. This forced the (surviving) gunships to fly high and at speed, this reducing their capability and accuracy.

Aerial troop transport would be provided by Black Hawks (holding capacity of 14 troops - including 3 crew) and Chinooks (holding capacity of 36 troops - including 3 crew). These helicopters have been proved to be very vunerable to light arms - as well as RPG's. Flying into a heavily fortified city such as Samara would be like flying into a hornet's nest. It is very probable that the Resistance would have easily shot down either of these transport helicopters during the battle, due to the sheer volume in the sky.

Taking the lesser of the two, the downing of a Blawk Hawk would bring the total to 44 dead US soldiers, leaving just 20 between the quantity quoted within the report and our analysis.

Western sources state that the US sent in 5000 troops into Samara in a three pronged attack. If we assume that these troops were divided evenly amoungst each of these prongs, that amounts to about 1666 troops per prong. If we then divide our remaining 20 dead count into 3 (for each prong), we can safely conjecture that it is easily achievable for the Resisitance to have killed around 6-7 troops per prong over 48 hours (especially when these troops are closer together due to fighting in built-up areas - a single RPG blast could easily accomodate for this figure). Thus, the report's figure of 65 dead US soldiers is actually realistic.

To answer some of your other questions,

"...Where are these resistance fighters getting all the Strellas from?..."
."...And what could they possibly be using to destroy 4 Abrams tanks..."
."...And as to the use of napalm, what purpose could that possibly serve?..."
"...Eight hours of bombardment with cluster bombs, napalm, and jDAMs
"...There would have been something like 20,000 killed, almost all noncombatants..."
"...If such an aerial attack had indeed taken place, there certainly would
"...So, on the face of it this account is an obvious load of crap, and anyone

==========
For the question in quotes please visit the original link.
iraqwar.mirror-world.ru... nts_maxComments=50

Please note the site is very slow, and please have patience.

I have to curtail the post as demanded by the moderators. I thougt I could save you some time, but not allow to do so.


[edit on 4-10-2004 by zcheng]

Edit the above text to shorten it and provide a link.

T&C

6.) You will not post any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by this website. You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive my advance permission). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4-10-2004 by John bull 1]

Originally posted by John bull 1
Edit the above text to shorten it and provide a link.

I copied it, because the site is extremely slow, and valueable analysis are buried in lots of non-senses. With the full post here, the viewer will not need wait and find the particular post. It is saving visitors of ATS time, which I deem it as a good thing.

zcheng, this is the 2nd time you are being asked to shorten the length of your copied material and provide a source link.
Kindly do so.

I'm going to lock this thread.

Imformation appears to be based on a discussion board thread.

This contravenes about two or three of our T&C.