Breaking the 

Mold

Tanks in the Cities

Kendall D. Gott

 Combat Studies Institute Press

 Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027

 
Cover photo is official DOD photograph 060203-F-7823A-008, M1 Abrams Tank 

in Tall Afar, Iraq.
Breaking the

Mold

Tanks in the Cities

Kendall D. Gott

Combat Studies Institute Press

 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gott, Kendall D.

 Breaking the mold : tanks in the cities / Kendall D. Gott.

 p. cm.

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

 1. Street fighting (Military science) 2. Urban warfare. 3. Tanks (Military 

science). 4. Armored vehicles, Military. I. Title. 

 U167.5.S7G59 2006

 355.4’26--dc22

 2006016027

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

ISBN-10 0-16-076223-5

ISBN-13 978-0-16-076223-9
iii

Foreword

Few lessons are as prevalent in military history as is the adage that 

tanks don’t perform well in cities. The notion of deliberately committing 

tanks to urban combat is anathema to most. In Breaking the Mold: Tanks in 

the Cities, Mr. Ken Gott disproves that notion with a timely series of five 

case studies from World War II to the present war in Iraq.

This is not a parochial or triumphant study. These cases demonstrate 

that tanks must do more than merely “arrive” on the battlefield to be successful in urban combat. From Aachen in 1944 to Fallujah in 2004, the 

absolute need for specialized training and the use of combined arms at the 

lowest tactical levels are two of the most salient lessons that emerge from 

this study. When properly employed, well-trained and well-supported 

units led by tanks are decisive in urban combat. The reverse is also true. 

Chechen rebels taught the Russian army and the world a brutal lesson in 

Grozny about what happens when armored units are poorly led, poorly 

trained, and cavalierly employed in a city. 

The case studies in this monograph are high-intensity battles in conflicts ranging from limited interventions to major combat operations. It 

would be wrong to use them to argue for the use of tanks in every urban 

situation. As the intensity of the operation decreases, the second and third 

order effects of using tanks in cities can begin to outweigh their utility. The 

damage to infrastructure caused by their sheer weight and size is just one 

example of what can make tanks unsuitable for every mission. Even during peace operations, however, the ability to employ tanks and other heavy 

armored vehicles quickly can be crucial. A study on the utility of tanks in 

peace operations is warranted, and planned. 

Breaking the Mold provides an up-to-date analysis of the utility of 

tanks and heavy armored forces in urban combat. If the recent past is a 

guide, the US Army will increasingly conduct combat operations in urban 

terrain, and it will therefore be necessary to understand what it takes to 

employ tanks to achieve success in that battlefield environment. CSI—The 

Past is Prologue!

Timothy R. Reese

Colonel, Armor

Director, Combat Studies Institute



Preface

This work examines the use of tanks in urban warfare. It seeks to pro-

vide insight and a historical precedence on the wisdom of employing tanks

in an inherently dangerous dimension of the modern battlefield, intensifying the shortcomings in technological design and the lack of crew training 

for city fighting. Instead of being a legacy system ready for the scrap heap, 

tanks are still a vital component of the US Army, even in the streets.

During most of my Army career from 1978 to 2000, I either served in 

or supported armor or mechanized units. This may or may not make me a 

subject matter expert, but the topic is very familiar to me. As an M60A3 

tank platoon leader, I witnessed firsthand the US Army’s doctrine and attitude for using armor in the city—it just wasn’t to be done. During my 

three tours in Germany, armor units spent a great deal of time in the forested hills overlooking picturesque valleys, but never deployed to towns 

and villages. Naturally, the specter of maneuver damage by heavy vehicles 

had something to do with this, but even the general defense plans had 

no serious discussion on armor in urban fights, presumably leaving such 

operations to the infantry or the Germans. Faced with the narrow maze of 

streets in most German towns, even the tankers thought their place was in 

the countryside. There were enough experiences with gun tubes rammed 

through the sides of buildings, crushed civilian vehicles, and crawling 

convoys in peacetime to give any tanker pause before choosing a city as 

battlefield. Tanks were made to go fast and shoot far; we could not do that 

in downtown Fulda or Frankfurt.

The Israeli experiences in the 1973 War reinforced these attitudes. 

After the Israelis’ stunning victory in the desert, many of us tried to emulate their procedures and tactics. Like the Israelis, tank commanders were 

encouraged to fight with their hatches open for rapid target acquisition. 

Most of us took stock that the Israelis had used American tanks against 

the Soviet-made counterparts. Again, most of us in the armor corps were 

thinking in conventional ways and did not apply the Israeli experience to

the city. In fact, the Israeli debacle in Suez City only reinforced our worse 

fears.

Since my tank and scout platoon days, a number of world events have 

illustrated the dynamics of successful employment of armor in urban terrain. If I doubted the wisdom of using tanks in the city in my youth, I am 

a firm believer now. The “Combat Arm of Decision” is just as relevant, if 

not more so, than ever before. Obviously, those in various levels of leadership around the world must think so too, as they have broken the mold and 

sent tanks into the urban fray.
v

In this work, I have endeavored to use a narrow focus in the roles and 

functions of the supporting arms. This is not meant to be a “how to fight” 

manual, as the US Army and the other branches of service have published 

doctrine on the subject. I leave it to the readers to seek out those documents. Research included no classified material. Defending units are in

italics to avoid confusion. Because accurate battle losses were often difficult to obtain, the best approximations are used. The footnotes highlight

particularly noteworthy sources should the reader wish to seek further 

information. Participants and historians are still analyzing the battle for 

Fallujah; therefore, source material is lean. No doubt, more information 

will become known in the coming years. It is not too early though to glean 

useful insights to the use of armor from that instance for consideration.

My thanks go to Colonel Timothy Reese, Director, Combat Studies 

Institute and to the topic and editorial board for their support and input. In 

addition, thanks go to Mr. John McGrath and Mr. Matt Matthews for research materials and their expertise on the subject. No author is complete 

without an editor, and I thank Betty Weigand for her efforts in making this 

work a reality.

The views expressed in this publication are mine and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army

or the Department of Defense.

Ken Gott

Combat Studies Institute
vii

Contents

Page

Foreword	.................................................................................................iii

Preface......................................................................................................v

Introduction.............................................................................................ix

Chapter	1.	Sherman Tanks in the Streets: Aachen, 1944 .........................1

	 		 The Westwall .........................................................................2

	 		 Encircling Aachen ..................................................................9

	 		 The Fight for Aachen ..........................................................13

	 		 The Final Push ....................................................................16

	 		 In Retrospect .......................................................................18

	 2.	Pattons to the Rescue: Hue, Vietnam, 1968 .........................23

	 		 The Attack on Hue ..............................................................26

	 		 Just Holding On ..................................................................27

	 		 Pushing Back .......................................................................32

	 		 Battle of the Citadel ............................................................36

	 		 In Retrospect .......................................................................41

	 3.	Rock the Casbah: Beirut, 1984.............................................47

	 		 The Israeli Defense Forces ..................................................49

	 		 The Palestine Liberation Organization ................................52

	 		 Syrian Forces .......................................................................52

	 		 The First Phase ....................................................................53

	 		 Battle of Beirut ....................................................................59

	 		 Into the City ........................................................................63

	 		 In Retrospect .......................................................................65

	 4.	Headlong into Hell: Grozny, 1995 .......................................71

	 		 Russian Order of Battle and Planning .................................73

	 		 Chechen Order of Battle and Planning ................................75

	 		 The Invasion ........................................................................77

	 		 After Grozny .......................................................................82

	 		 In Retrospect .......................................................................84

	 5.	Into the Maelstrom: Fallujah, November 2004....................91

	 		 Coalition Forces ..................................................................95

	 		 The Plan of Attack ...............................................................97

	 		 The Assault ..........................................................................98

	 		 The Dust Settles ................................................................104

	 		 In Retrospect .....................................................................104
viii

Page

	 	 6. Conclusion ......................................................................... 111

About the Author ................................................................................. 117

Bibliography ........................................................................................ 119

Index ....................................................................................................125

Maps

1.	 The Allied limit of advance, September 1944 ..................................3

2.	 The plan to take Aachen, October 1944............................................5

3.	 Aachen and vicinity, 2 October 1944 ...............................................7

4.	 Aachen, 4–7 October 1944 ..............................................................8

5.	 Aachen encircled, 10–11 October 1944 ......................................... 11

6.	 Fight for the city center .................................................................12

7.	 The final push, 18–21 October 1944 .............................................17

8.	 I Corps zone of operations, 1968 ...................................................24

9.	 Hue, Vietnam, 1968 .......................................................................25

10.	 North Vietnamese attack, 31 January 1968 ...................................28

11.	 Fight for southern Hue, 2–10 February 1968 ...............................31

12.	 US Marines—ARVN fight for the Citadel .....................................38

13.	 Tactical dispositions, 24 February 1968 ........................................40

14.	 The Israeli plan ...............................................................................48

15.	 6 June 1982 ....................................................................................55

16.	 7–8 June 1982 ................................................................................57

17.	 10–11 June 1982 ............................................................................58

18.	 Beirut, 1982 ...................................................................................61

19.	 Attack into Beirut, 1982 ................................................................62

20.	 The Republic of Chechnya ............................................................72

21.	 The Russian invasion, 1994–95......................................................78

22.	 The Russian advance into Grozny, 31 December 1995..................79

23.	 Situation, 20 January–13 March 1995............................................82

24.	 The battle of successive cities, 1995...............................................84

25.	 The Republic of Iraq ......................................................................92

26.	 The city and sections of Fallujah, 2004..........................................93

27.	 In position to assault, 8 November 2004 .......................................99

28.	 Initial assault, Fallujah, 9 November 2004...................................100

29.	 Fallujah, 11 November 2004 .......................................................102

30.	 Fallujah, 15 November 2004 ........................................................103
ix

Introduction

During World War I, the tank was developed as an infantry support 

weapon to exploit breaches made in enemy lines. Technological limitations in speed, range, and mechanical reliability kept tank doctrine at the 

tactical level until the German offensives in 1939–40 showed that modern 

armored forces were a key element to the operational level of warfare. 

Yet, there was virtually no discussion of employing armor in the cities. 

Even famed military historian and early theorist of modern armored warfare John Frederick Charles Fuller seldom mentioned using tanks in urban 

terrain, and then only to dissuade their use. Avoiding the employment of 

armor in cities is a long-held trend that holds sway in most modern armies. 

Historically, battles for large cities are full of examples of high casualties 

and massive collateral damage, and the specter of a tank’s easy destruction 

in the close confines of urban terrain weighs heavily on commanders and 

military planners. However, in a historical context, the vulnerability of 

armor in cities is proven to be overestimated and outweighed by the ability 

of the tank to bring its heavy firepower to the urban fight.1

Military operations on urbanized terrain (MOUT) are not new to the 

US Army. World War II has numerous examples of US military personnel fighting in cities. What is new is the increasing use of tanks and other 

armored combat vehicles in cities. What was once considered taboo is 

now becoming commonplace because of the worldwide demographic 

shift of rural populations to cities. Some analysts estimate that by 2010 

over 75 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas, thus 

shifting the future battlefields to within their limits. Additionally, the 

requirement to conduct stability and support operations will require the 

occupation of cities, whether large or small. Future military leaders will 

not have the luxury of avoiding Sun Tzu’s axiom, “The worse policy is 

to attack cities. . . . Attack cities only when there is no alternative.”2

Urban operations will become a necessity in the future because of 

these trends. To defeat an enemy, his major urban centers must be seized 

as they increasingly represent the power and wealth of a nation. This is 

because cities not only seat the ruling government, but also hold the industrial base, transportation network, and the heart of the country’s economic 

and cultural centers.

Future battles for cities will be fraught with the same perils that made 

armies of the past avoid them. Narrow streets are ideal ambush sites, and 

the risk of high casualties is great. Rarely is there a swift and sure outcome. In cities, the enemy often chooses to mix with the civilian populace. 

Heavy firepower is often counterproductive as the resulting rubble makes 
x

fighting positions even more formidable. Collateral damage will kill or 

wound civilians, while various media beam the pictures and tales of their 

suffering across the globe. Logistics and medical evacuation are difficult 

at best. Thus, it is not surprising military leaders prefer to give cities a 

wide berth.

During World War I, England and France developed tanks concurrently 

for a single specific purpose. Tanks were to beat a path for infantry in frontal attacks against an entrenched enemy with rifles and machine guns. By 

design, tanks were an infantry support weapon armed with machine guns 

and light cannons and equipped with enough armor protection to close 

with the enemy unscathed. Technological limitations and mechanical reliability severely restricted the use and effectiveness of tanks. In World 

War II, the tank was still an infantry support weapon, and the early nature 

of the conflict was traditional in that major urban centers were generally 

bypassed. This changed in 1941 as the Soviets adopted the tactic of holding on to their large cities and forcing the Germans to attack into them. 

The epic battle of Stalingrad is one example that cost the Germans dearly 

in manpower and armored vehicles. In 1943–44, it was America’s turn to 

learn firsthand the horrors of urban combat on a large scale as US soldiers 

advanced through Italy and France and into Germany. In these offensives, 

the Germans chose to fight from the cities, forcing the Americans to attack 

into them. The lessons were grim and reinforced the axiom that it was far 

better to avoid city fighting if possible. This is reflected by tank design 

toward the end of the war as it departed from the infantry support role. By 

then all sides of the conflict developed and fielded tanks suited for tankon-tank fights. This emphasis continued unabated for 60 years, although 

the role and effect of armor on the battlefield has come under scrutiny 

from time to time.3

Doctrinally, the US Army has tried to come to grips with urban warfare and the employment of armored forces in that spectrum of battle. 

Field Manual 90-10, Operations in Urbanized Terrain, for decades served 

as a blueprint for how to fight in such terrain. In 2003, Field Manual 3-06, 

Urban Operations, replaced Field Manual 90-10, incorporating the experience gained during the Iraq War. Various supplemental documents and 

a myriad of professional periodicals address this subject as well. The vast 

majority of documents on the subject of urban warfare is quite candid 

about the trials faced in this type of fighting and advocate avoiding the 

battle if possible. Generally, armored forces are relegated to the supporting 

role while the infantry remains dominant. This doctrine is time-tested with 

battlefield experience and through exercises at the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, Louisiana; the Combat Maneuver Training Center 
xi

at Hohenfels, Germany; and the Mounted Urban Combat Training Site at 

Fort Knox, Kentucky.

With the rise of insurgent wars and the proliferation of advanced 

weaponry, many American defense planners virtually wrote off the tank 

as a legacy system in need of retirement. In the 1990s, the US Army 

slashed its armor force and focused on developing and fielding vehicles 

and units that could rapidly deploy but not necessarily fight as effectively. 

The 2003 Iraq War and the subsequent occupation have shown that rather 

than being a mobile coffin, heavy armor still provides an overwhelming 

and lethal capability to any force. Its firepower, mobility, and shock combine to defeat an enemy, even those armed with modern antitank weapons. 

There are drawbacks though. The tank’s heavy weight and large size often 

restricts its speed and areas of use. Blind spots and frequently restricted 

turret traverse and elevation hinder the tank’s substantial firepower. Historical examples and recent experience show, however, that when employing armor in combination with infantry, supporting artillery, and air power, 

the tank is a dominant player in urban warfare.4

The representative case studies in the next five chapters show the evolution of the use of tanks in urban warfare. In the early case studies, the 

tanks were employed almost as an afterthought. Later case studies show 

tanks as an increasingly integral part of the operation plan. In each case, 

tanks proved their ability and worth, and when properly employed with 

supporting arms, tanks remain a relevant, if not vital, weapon on future 

urban battlefields.
xii

Notes

1. John F.C. Fuller, Armored Warfare (Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 

1994), 44–48. Fuller saw tanks as an open-country weapon used to achieve operational-level results. Although the use of armor in this role was revolutionary, 

Fuller was still quite conventional in avoiding battle in large cities.

2. Department of the Army, Field Manual (FM) 3-06, Urban Operations

(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2003). Sun Tzu, Art of War, 

trans. Samuel B. Griffith (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 78.

3. Trevor N. Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare (Fairfax, VA: 

Hero Books, 1984), 221–222. See also Richard Simpkin, Tank Warfare: An Analysis of Soviet and NATO Tank Philosophy (London: Brassey’s Publishers, 1979), 

164. Simpkin gives scant attention to urban warfare within his 250-page book. He 

points out that urban combat is inevitable, but does not present an argument for 

employing armor in cities.

4. Patrick Wright, Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine (New 

York: Penguin Putnam, Inc., 2002), 429–431. The M1127 Stryker Infantry Vehicle 

is an example. This light vehicle was capable of rapid deployment, but received 

expedient armor upgrades to make it battle-worthy against such legacy systems as 

the RPG-7.


Chapter 1

Sherman Tanks in the Streets: Aachen, 1944

In 1939, the US Army had less than 400 armored vehicles, many

of obsolete design, divided between the Infantry and Cavalry branches. 

At that time, there was not yet a separate branch of Armor. The German 

victories over Poland and France in 1940, spearheaded by panzer forces,

shocked the American military. In response, the US Army commenced a 

rapid program to manufacture and field tanks. The pace of the war and the 

need to raise and equip massed forces prevented the rapid deployment of 

suitable armored vehicles. As a result, American armor did not fight its first 

major battle until February 1943 in Tunisia. There the inexperienced 1s

Armored Division was roughly handled by the Germans but managed to 

come back fighting. Thereafter, with the exception of the short campaign 

in Sicily, American armor was not able to demonstrate its real potential 

for 18 months due to the harsh terrain in Italy and the need to conserve

resources for the cross-channel invasion.

By 1944, the armored division became a balanced force with a flexible 

command system. This consisted of three combat commands (A, B, and 

Reserve) that were allocated divisional resources according to the tactical situation. These divisional resources typically consisted of three tank 

battalions, three armored infantry battalions, three self-propelled artillery 

battalions, a tank destroyer battalion, an armored cavalry squadron, an 

engineer battalion, and divisional services. There were also some 40 independent tank battalions serving in Europe. Although generally allocated to 

provide close support for infantry divisions, they occasionally operated as 

semi-independent armored groups.

Doctrine for employing these armored formations was embryonic and 

constantly changing. This evolving US doctrine was generally conservative in approach and based on operating in open country. Only a few lines 

of doctrine were devoted to employing armored forces in urban terrain, and 

it was strictly to support the infantry effort. In fact, the infantry manuals 

at the time gave scant attention to urban terrain, mentioning villages and 

towns but not major cities. Commanders were urged to avoid fighting in 

built-up areas and encouraged to bypass them whenever possible. Tactics 

advocated in the doctrinal manuals included a methodical firepower-based 

approach. Advancing units were committed in a decentralized manner out 

of necessity and cleared strongpoints by a series of bounds. Frequent halts 

to reestablish contact with adjacent units were needed to prevent fratricide. 

Tanks were, by design, infantry support weapons and would accompany 

the riflemen, lending their heavy weapons against enemy strongpoints.2
The greatest weakness of the US armor doctrine was the weapons systems themselves. During World War II, the primary US Army tank was 

the M4 Sherman. Weighing approximately 35 tons, it mounted a 75mm 

general-purpose gun firing high explosive armor-piercing and white phosphorus rounds. The tank had a reputation for mechanical reliability, which 

was its best attribute. The Sherman was designed as an infantry support 

tank. To deal with enemy armor, the Americans later developed the M10

tank destroyer, which was based on the M4 chassis but mounted a 75mm 

high-velocity gun. This gun could penetrate most German armor and was 

adept at dealing with thick walls and fortifications. Its armor was even 

thinner than the Sherman’s armor though, so it could dish out far more 

than it could take. Both of these armored vehicles were nine feet wide and 

able to maneuver in most of the narrow streets of Europe. 

When American armor was employed, it was evident to the crews that 

they were heavily outgunned by the German panzers, which also had superior armor protection. Both the M4 Sherman and M10 tank destroyer were

extremely vulnerable to German tank fire and to the wide assortment of 

enemy antitank weapons, including the panzerfaust, which was a hand-held 

single-shot recoilless weapon firing a shaped charge. Although the panzerfaust had a very short range of 30 meters, it could devastate American 

armor. The Germans produced huge numbers of these cheap and effective weapons, and American tank crews learned quickly to avoid both the 

German panzers and infantrymen armed with the dreaded panzerfausts.

3

The Americans generally overcame the deficiencies of their armor by 

fielding a large number of tanks and by using massed artillery and aerial 

firepower. After the breakout from the Normandy hedgerows from August 

to September, the Allied armies raced across France after the retreating 

Germans. As the Allies neared the German border, the critical supply situation slowed and occasionally even halted the advance. The logistical 

situation restricted ammunition expenditure and movement until the end 

of 1944 with the capture of the port of Antwerp. By the time the Allies

approached the border of Germany, their armies were husbanding their 

logistics and poor weather conditions hampered air operations. An Allied 

pause gave the Germans the opportunity to recover enough to form a stubborn defense of their homeland. The period of massed Allied armies driving across open countryside was over.4

 (See Map 1.

The Westwall

The Siegfried Line or Westwall as the Germans called it ran from the 

Dutch frontier to the Swiss border and guarded Germany from an invasion 

from the west. These defenses consisted of a series of obstacles and 
fortifications backed by mobile reserves and artillery to contain and 

destroy local penetrations. Construction on the line began in 1936 after

the Germans reoccupied the Rheinland, but had languished in 1940 after

the fall of France. During the previous four years, the defenses were a 

bit dilapidated but still a significant force multiplier. Unfortunately for 

the Germans, many of the troops, tanks, and guns needed to conduct an 

effective defense were lost in the fighting across France.5

The First US Army sector was to penetrate the Westwall north of 

Aachen where the German defenses appeared the weakest. The 30th 

Infantry Division was tasked to make the break in the German defenses 

then swing to the south to link up with the 1st Infantry Division, under VII

Corps, near the town of Würselen, thus encircling the city of Aachen. The 

2d Armored Division stood by to exploit the penetration by crossing the 

Wurm River and push an additional nine miles to seize the crossings of 

Brussels

Rotterdam

Mons

Aachen Maastrict

XXXX

NINTH

Simpson

XXXX

SECOND

Dempsey

XXXX

XXXX

FIFTH

Manteuffel

XXXX

FIRST

Grerar

XXXX

SEVENTH

Brandenberger

XXXX

FIRST

Student

XXXXX

France

Luxemburg

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

50 Miles

Scale

XXXX

FIRST

Hodges

Dusseldorf

Köln

Meuse River

Mosel River

Rhein

River

Roer

River

Brussels

Rotterdam

Mons

Aachen Maastrict

XXXX

NINTH

Simpson

XXXX

SECOND

Dempsey

XXXX

XXXX

FIFTH

Manteuffel

XXXX

FIRST

Grerar

XXXX

SEVENTH

Brandenberger

XXXX

FIRST

Student

XXXXX

France

Luxemburg

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

50 Miles

Scale

XXXX

FIRST

Hodges

Dusseldorf

Köln

Meuse River

Mosel River

Rhein

River

Roer

River

Brussels

Rotterdam

Mons

Aachen Maastrict

XXXX

NINTH

Simpson

XXXX

Ninth

Simpson

XXXX

SECOND

Dempsey

XXXX

Second

Dempsey

XXXX

XXXX

FIFTH

Manteuffel

XXXX

Fifth

Manteuffel

XXXX

FIRST

Grerar

XXXX

First

Grerar

XXXX

SEVENTH

Brandenberger

XXXX

Seventh

Brandenberger

XXXX

FIRST

Student

XXXX

First

Student

XXXXX

France

Luxemburg

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

50 Miles

Scale

50 Miles

Scale

XXXX

FIRST

Hodges

XXXX

First

Hodges

Dusseldorf

Köln

Meuse River

Mosel River

Rhein

River

Roer

River

Map 1. The Allied limit of advance, September 1944.
the Roer River. To draw German attention and forces away from this main 

effort, the 29th Infantry Division was to make limited objective attacks 

along the corps north flank. The target date for the assault was 1 October. 

It was hoped the city could be taken “on the bounce” or bypassed so the 

Allied drive could continue unabated to the Rhein River, but that was not 

to be. Stiffening German resistance and the salient made by Aachen made 

its capture necessary.6

Major General Leland S. Hobbs, commander of the 30th Infantry 

Division, chose a narrow one-mile sector nine miles north of Aachen to 

make the penetration along the Wurm River. This area was chosen to avoid 

the stronger defenses near Geilenkirchen and the dense urban centers close 

to Aachen. Hobbs could have selected an assault sector further south to 

facilitate a quicker juncture with VII Corps, but ruled that option out. He 

saw that the roads in the north of his area of operations were better suited 

for supply routes, and he could avoid a number of potential urban fights.

The 1st Infantry Division was positioned to the right of the 30th

Infantry Division and it too sought the best routes to reach Aachen. Active 

patrolling by the 26th Infantry Regiment ascertained the approximate 

troop strength of the Germans in this sector and assessed the roads and 

avenues of approach to the city. These reconnoiters confirmed that Aachen 

was going to be heavily defended.7 (See Map 2.)

Meanwhile, the Germans had reinforced this sector with the relatively 

fresh 183d Volksgrenadier Division. The fortifications of the Westwall

were manned and reserves assembled from this division and an assortment 

of scratch units. The Germans were holding the line west of the city of 

Aachen with seven battalions of about 450 men each. From Geilenkirchen 

to Rimburg there were two battalions of the 330th Infantry Regiment of the 

183d Volksgrenadier Division. South of Rimburg was five battalions of the 

49th Infantry Division. There were four artillery battalions firing into the 

30th Infantry Division’s zone plus a battery of 210mm guns and two largecaliber railroad guns. There were only a few tanks available along this

portion of the front. The Germans had at least one battalion from each of 

the three regiments of the 183d Volksgrenadier Division situated for quick 

counterattacks. Positioned west of Aachen was the 116th Panzer Division,

an operational reserve. These German units were not the homogenous 

units of the past; at this stage of the war, these units were a collection of ad 

hoc and composite elements and unit cohesion suffered accordingly.8

Hobbs ordered his men to prepare for a general attack in this sector 

to cut off Aachen from the north and for the eventual link up with the 

1st Infantry Division attacking from the south. On 26 September, massed
artillery began the systematic attempt to destroy all enemy pillboxes in the 

30th Infantry Division’s sector. For this effort, 26 battalions were used, 

including units from the 2d Armored Division, 29th and 30th Infantry 

Divisions; four battalions attached to the 30th Infantry Division; eight 

battalions of XIX Corps Artillery; and three battalions from First Army 

Artillery. After the general bombardment of the front, the artillery was 

to shift targets a few hours before the infantry assault. At this phase, 

the artillery was to target enemy antiaircraft guns to protect the planned 

preliminary air strikes by medium bombers and conduct counterbattery 

fire. The air barrage was meticulously planned to avoid the fratricide 

experienced at Normandy.9

The regiments of the 30th Infantry Division conducted refresher 

training in the procedures for assaulting pillboxes and working with armor. 

Map 2. The plan to take Aachen, October 1944.

Netherlands

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen

Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

24

Herzogenrath 6

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

Rimberg

XX

3

XX

30

XX

2

XX

1

Eilendorf

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen

Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

24

Herzogenrath 6

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

Rimberg

XX

3

XX

30

XX

2

XX

1

Eilendorf

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen

Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

24

Herzogenrath 6

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

2 Miles

Scale

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

Rimberg

XX

3

XX

30

XX

2

XX

1

Eilendorf
No training was conducted on urban operations, but the skills practiced 

would prove useful in the weeks to come. Similar preparations were made 

in the 1st Infantry Division sector directly facing Aachen. There the 18t

and 26th Infantry Regiments prepared to assault the German Westwall

defenses. The 18th Regiment was positioned to drive north from the area

around Eilendorf and affect a juncture with the 119th Infantry Regimen

north of Haaren, thus sealing off Aachen. The 26th Infantry Division would 

make the actual assault into the city. Two companies of medium tanks 

from the 3d Armored Division, numbering 20 vehicles, were allocated to 

the 26th Infantry Division as a counterattack force.1

The assault on the Westwall began the morning of 2 October as Allied 

aircraft streamed from the overcast skies to drop their bomb loads on the 

German positions opposite the 30th Infantry Division. Meanwhile, more 

than 400 artillery pieces fired a rolling barrage to support the infantry attack. 

The riflemen of the 117th and 119th Infantry Regiments surged forward, 

crossed the narrow Wurm River on duckboards, and found shelter behind 

the railroad embankment on the opposite bank. Quickly regrouping, the 

men began knocking out the pillboxes and bunkers to their front one by 

one using small arms, grenades, flamethrowers, bazookas, and guts. The 

teamwork and skills practiced in the days before the attack paid off. Each 

man knew his job and did it. Unfortunately, tanks and tank destroyers were 

unable to cross the Wurm River due to the soft banks. They would have 

to wait to cross the river until the treadway bridge was completed that 

evening. Although casualties were high, the infantrymen slogged it out 

making slow but steady progress through the layers of German defenses.

(See Map 3.)

Due to the success of the diversionary attacks to the north by elements 

of the 29th Infantry Division, the Germans’ reaction to the assault was 

slow. The true nature and location of the American main effort became 

known only after several hours and by then the 49th Infantry Division had 

no forces available for a counterattack. The 183d Volksgrenadier Division

had only one infantry battalion. An ordered counterattack eventually came 

in the form of an assault gun battalion supported by an infantry company 

from the 183d Volksgrenadier Division. Due to Allied air supremacy, this 

small task force could not begin movement until after dark. When it did 

move, it came under highly effective interdiction fires from the massed 

American artillery. The German counterattack finally made contact about 

midnight, but was reduced to two assault guns with some infantry support. 

Heavy fire from the Americans, including bazookas, forced the Germans 

to retire.1
On the morning of 3 October, the tanks and half-tracks of the 2d 

Armored Division’s Combat Command B (CCB) were committed to the 

small bridgehead formed by the 30th Infantry Division. CCB was to help 

expand the bridgehead and free the infantrymen for the push to the south 

and subsequent link up with the 18th Infantry Regiment of the 1st Infantr

Division. Intense German shelling and heavy rains throughout the week 

hindered movement of vehicles in the small pocket, but the American 

armor pushed across. By nightfall, the infantry and armor had advanced to 

the northern and western edges of Übach.1

The Germans frantically scraped up units to throw at the Americans. To 

streamline the chain of command, the 49th Infantry and 183d Volksgrenadier 

Divisions were placed under General Wolfgang Lange, commander of 

the latter. Two assault gun brigades, the 183d Volksgrenadier Division’s

Map 3. Aachen and vicinity, 2 October 1944.

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

24

Herzogenrath 6

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III(+)

26

III

18

Eilendorf

Rimberg

III

16

III

116

III

119

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

24

Herzogenrath 6

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III(+)

26

III

18

Eilendorf

Rimberg

III

16

III

116

III

119

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

24

Herzogenrath 6

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

2 Miles

Scale

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III

1106

III(+)

26

III(+)

26

III

18

Eilendorf

Rimberg

III

16

III

116

III

116

III

119

III

119
organic engineer battalion, two infantry battalions from the 49th Infantry 

Division, and an infantry battalion from the 246th Volksgrenadier Division

previously located in Aachen were rushed toward the sector. Delays 

postponed the counterattack until the morning of 4 October. The heaviest 

blow from the Germans fell on the 119th Infantry Regiment, but masse

artillery fire from the Americans disrupted this and two other attacks in a 

matter of hours. To the south, the German 27th Infantry Division launched 

a strong counterattack supported by eight assault guns and an artillery 

barrage along the 1st Infantry Division sector. After heavy fighting, the

Germans withdrew, unable to push back the soldiers of the Big Red 

One. Instead, the Americans resumed their advance with the objective of 

encircling Aachen.1 (See Map 4.)

Map 4. Aachen, 4–7 October 1944.

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

246

2AD XX 30ID

Herzogenrath

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

Rimberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III

18

Eilendorf

III

116

III

16

Kohlscheid

Bardenberg

III(+)

26

III

119

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler

Herzogenrath

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

Rimberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III

18

Eilendorf

III

III

16

Kohlscheid

Bardenberg

26

III

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Euchen

Verlautenheide

Haaren

Aachen Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler

Herzogenrath

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

Rimberg

2 Miles

Scale

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III

1106

III

18

Eilendorf

III

III

16

Kohlscheid

Bardenberg

26

III
Encircling Aachen

The city of Aachen had a long and proud history dating from Roman 

times. It was the birthplace of Charlemagne and the capital of the Holy 

Roman Empire where over 32 emperors and kings were anointed. Prior 

to heavy Allied bombing, Aachen had 165,000 people, some industry, and

coal mining; but, by August 1944 the city had less than 20,000 of its prewar population. As the Allies moved closer, a mandatory evacuation order

removed all but about 7,000 of those remaining to safety. Although the 

city no longer significantly contributed to the war effort, for Hitler Aachen 

was the center of the First Reich and possessed great symbolic importance. 

Hitler vowed the city would not be taken, proclaimed it to be a fortress, 

and expected every soldier to fight to the last. After the war, Generaloberst

Alfred Jodl, Chief of the Wehrmacht Operations Staff, wrote that Aachen 

did not have any special operational significance, but it was important 

because it was the first German city attacked. To the troops, the people, 

and the opponent, its defense to the last was to serve as a shining example 

of the tenacity with which the Germans would fight for their homeland.1

Clearly, the city meant far more to the Germans than to the Americans. 

The situation the city found itself in was actually an accident of geography, as it was within the successive belts of the Westwall and in the path of 

the advancing American armies. Lying in a valley surrounded by hills, the 

city offered no strategic or tactical value. The road network was relatively 

unimportant as the American thrusts north and south of the city revealed 

adequate roads leading to the Rhein River. Although a rail line passed 

through the town, it was so badly damaged by bombing that it would take 

weeks or months to repair. In addition, massive bombing and shelling had 

reduced Aachen to rubble, leaving very little infrastructure intact. The only 

tactical value of Aachen to the Allies was its location on the shortest route 

to the key German industrial region along the Ruhr River.1

Colonel Gerhard Wilck, commander of the 246th Volksgrenadier 

Division, was the ranking German officer at Aachen. He established his 

headquarters in the Hotel Quellenhof, a luxurious facility in Farwick Park 

in the northern portion of the city. Most of the troops present came from 

the 246th Volksgrenadier Division, but there were other German troops 

there. The 34th Fortress-Machine Gun Battalion, augmented with elements of the 453d Infantry Training Battalion, was a scratch unit with limited combat value. There were approximately 125 Aachen policemen still

in the city and 80 more from Köln (Cologne) that were pressed into the 

line. Two Luftwaffe fortress battalions consisting of a myriad of specialists with no infantry training were also sent to the city. Wilck had no more 
1

than five Mark IV tanks with the 75mm high-velocity guns within the city. 

Within the city perimeter were 19 105mm howitzers of the 76th Motorize

Artillery Regiment, 8 75mm guns, and 6 150mm pieces from the 146th

Armored Artillery Regiment. Antiaircraft Group Aachen was formed from 

a variety of weapons and was deployed mostly as field artillery. As long as 

communications held, Wilck could also call substantial artillery fire from 

outside the American ring. The aircraft of the Luftwaffe only appeared at 

night and in small groups, so they were not a major factor in the fight.1

As the pincer movement of the 30th and 1st Infantry Divisions encircled Aachen, the 26th Infantry Regiment began its operation to seize the

city itself. This available force was numerically inferior to the German 

defenders. Two battalions were arrayed to assault with one infantry battalion in reserve. Two companies of M4 Shermans and a tank destroyer 

company were allocated to support the assault.

In the hope to avoid house-to-house fighting, on 10 October Lieutenant 

General Courtney H. Hodges sent an ultimatum to the German commander giving him 24 hours to surrender or face a massive bombardment. 

Although some of the few remaining civilians hoisted white flags from 

their windows, the German military made no offer of surrender. American 

bombers and artillery pounded Aachen on schedule, beginning at noon on 

11 October

The dire situation was not lost on the Germans, but their ability to 

respond to it was limited. With the supply routes to Aachen now restricted, 

it was imperative to launch a strong attack against the 18th and 119

Infantry Regiments blocking the roads. The 3d Panzergrenadier and 116th 

Panzer Divisions were sent to the threatened sector on 10 October, but

they were committed piecemeal as the separate elements arrived. The 

heavy American firepower and some savage close-in fighting repelled 

these small elements. The Germans continued to send units to relieve 

Aachen over the next several days, but the thin American line preventing 

this held. Without reinforcements and resupply, the garrison was isolated 

and doomed. It would not give up without a fight, and the Americans were 

preparing to storm the city.1 (See Map 5.)

Colonel John F.R. Seitz, commanding the 26th Infantry Regiment, prepared his 2,000-man outfit to take Aachen. For the past two days his men 

had inched into Aachen’s eastern suburb of Röthe Erde, getting into position for the main assault in the center of the city. Seitz placed a provisional 

company along the left of his line to maintain contact with the 1106t

Engineer Group, which was holding a defensive line to the west of the city. 

The 2d Infantry Battalion, under Lieutenant Colonel Derrill M. Daniel, 
was positioned to press up the Aachen-Köln (Cologne) railroad tracks and 

into the heart of the city with its narrow medieval streets and masonry 

buildings. The main effort was the 3d Infantry Battalion, under Lieutenant 

Colonel John T. Corley. It was to advance northwestward against the modern section of Aachen with its wide streets and factories, then swing northeast to seize three hills that dominated Aachen from the north. These hills 

were a big public park known collectively as the Lousberg to the Germans 

and Observatory Hill to the Americans, as there was an observation tower 

on the crest of the tallest summit.20 (See Map 6.)

Soon after the surrender deadline on 1 October, approximately 30

Allied planes began their bombing runs under perfect weather conditions. 

Primary targets were selected along the perimeter of the city by the infantry and marked with smoke by the artillery and mortars. Twelve battalions 

of artillery joined in the bombardment firing over 5,000 rounds. Although 

Map 5. Aachen encircled, 10–11 October 1944.

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Haaren

Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

246

30ID

XX

2AD

Herzogenrath

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

Rimberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106 III(+)

26

III

18

III

16

Eilendorf

III

119

III

116

III

120

III

117

Verlautenheide

Aachen

Counterattacks by

the 116th Pz and

3rd PzGren Divisions

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Haaren

Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

246

30ID

XX

2AD

Herzogenrath

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

Rimberg

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106 III(+)

26

III

18

III

16

Eilendorf

III

119

III

116

III

120

III

117

Verlautenheide

Aachen

Counterattacks by

the 116th Pz and

3rd PzGren Divisions

XIX

XXX

VII

30ID

XX

1ID

1ID

XX

3AD

Netherlands

Belgium

Germany

Netherlands

Germany

Übach

Kerkrade

Alsdorf

Oidtweiler

Buesweiler

Bardenberg

Kohlscheid

Euchen

Haaren

Röthe Erde

Laurensberg

Stolberg

Eschweiler 246

XX

12

49

XX

246

30ID

XX

2AD

Herzogenrath

Birk

Mariadorf

Würselen

Westwall

Schaufenberg

Rimberg

2 Miles

Scale

2 Miles

Scale

Mosel River

Wurm

River

III

1106

III

1106 III(+)

26

III(+)

26

III

18

III

16

Eilendorf

III

119

III

119

III

116

III

116

III

120

III

120

III

117

III

117

Verlautenheide

Aachen

Counterattacks by

the 116th Pz and

3 PzGren Divisions

Counterattacks by

the 116thPz and

3d PzGren Divisions

III
1

the air and ground spotters judged the bombing and shelling as accurate, 

the infantrymen saw no appreciable lessening of enemy fire.2

At 1100 on the morning of 12 October, the 26th Infantry Regime

began its attack on Aachen proper. Daniel had divided his 2d Battalion 

into small assault teams, and each infantry platoon had an attached tank or 

tank destroyer. The plan was for the armor to provide direct fire support 

by keeping a building under fire until the riflemen made the assault. As 

the assault was made, the tanks would shift fire to the next building or any 

source of enemy fire. Supported by the fire of each battalion’s light and 

heavy machine guns, the infantry would then enter and clear each room 

with small arms and grenades. If a particularly tenacious defense was 

encountered, the Americans were prepared to use bazookas, demolitions, 

and flamethrowers that were attached to each company headquarters, and 

two 57mm antitank guns attached from the regiment. The light artillery 

Map 6. Fight for the city center.

Hotel

Quellenhof

Kurhaus

Farwick

Park

Wingertberg

Salvatorberg

Lousberg

Aachen-Köln RR

Rail Station

Cathedral

Westpark

Station

II

3

II

2

III

1066

. 5 Mile

Scale

Hotel

Quellenhof

Kurhaus

Farwick

Park

Wingertberg

Salvatorberg

Lousberg

Aachen-Köln RR

Rail Station

Cathedral

Westpark

Station

II

3

II

2

III

1066

. 5 Mile

Scale

Hotel

Quellenhof

Kurhaus

Farwick

Park

Wingertberg

Salvatorberg

Lousberg

Aachen-Köln RR

Rail Station

Cathedral

Westpark

Station

II

3

II

2

III

1066

III

1066

III

1066

. 5 Mile

Scale

. 5 Mile

Scale
1

and mortars would lay a barrage a street or two in front of the advancing 

infantry, while the heavy artillery and aircraft would pound German positions further in the rear. To choreograph all of these elements, Daniel designated a series of checkpoints based on street intersections and prominent 

buildings. No unit was to advance beyond a checkpoint until it established 

contact with an adjacent unit. Additionally, units were assigned specific 

zones of advance down to platoon level. Units were to halt each night 

to prevent fratricide and to rest, resupply, and consolidate. To facilitate 

the movement of logistics and evacuate wounded, Daniel improvised a 

supply ammunition train using the tracked M29 cargo carriers known as 

Weasels.22

From a doctrinal standpoint, the organization for the attack was conventional as tanks and artillery were habitually attached to infantry formations for close fire support. The tactics employed in the use of armor was 

not much different than the fighting in the hedgerows during the previous 

summer. Tanks provided the heavy firepower while the infantry protected 

the armored vehicles from lurking German infantry armed with antitank 

weapons. In the drive across France, the riflemen and armor crewmen had 

fought together and all of these veteran outfits knew the capabilities and 

limitations of the other. 

The Fight for Aachen

The 2d Battalion had not advanced to the first checkpoint before the 

plan temporarily broke down. Within a matter of minutes of entering the 

outskirts of Aachen, over 20 Americans lay on the cobblestones shot in 

the back. Before their startled comrades could react, their attackers had 

disappeared the way they had come, scuttling into the cover of the sewers. 

These sewers posed a special problem, necessitating the locating and 

sealing of all manhole covers. The American infantrymen also learned 

that each house had to be thoroughly cleared of both enemy troops and 

civilians before passing on. Speed became less important than thoroughly 

checking each building for hidden Germans.23

The 3d Battalion launched its attack toward Observatory Hill/Lousberg 

but found the route blocked by heavily defended apartment buildings. 

Fighting became measured by the gains in buildings, floors, and rooms. 

Panzerfausts quickly knocked out two supporting Sherman tanks, but one 

was recovered. It was apparent that some of the buildings in this sector 

were impervious to tank fire. To break the tenacious defense, Corley called 

up a self-propelled 155mm artillery piece and employed it in the same

direct support role as the tanks. The big gun proved its worth as it practically leveled a sturdy building with one shot. Although it was unusual to 
1

use artillery in a direct-fire mode in a city, Seitz sent another big gun to 

support the 2d Battalion. Results trumped doctrine. By nightfall, the 3d 

Battalion had reached the base of the hills, but in some points in this sector the infantrymen were just holding on to their positions under heavy 

German fire.24

The fighting in Aachen settled into a routine for the Americans who 

learned the fine points of urban warfare along the way. Typically, a tank 

fired on the building just ahead of its supporting rifle platoon, suppressing enemy fire until the soldiers could enter and clear the structure with 

hand grenades and automatic fire. The Americans were rightfully concerned about the ever-present threat of panzerfausts. Infantrymen covered 

the vulnerable tanks, which in turn covered the infantry. In practice, the 

tanks and tank destroyers usually stayed one street back from the advancing infantry, creeping forward or around a corner to engage their targets. 

Once the block was cleared, the armored vehicles would dash forward to 

the newly cleared street. There was no attempt to avoid collateral damage, 

which was immense.25

One aspect of the fighting was unconventional. For several days prior 

to the attack on Aachen, a detachment of US Army Rangers was operating under the direction of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donning 

German uniforms with the correct papers and accoutrements, the Rangers 

were organized into small teams and were to penetrate enemy lines to 

conduct sabotage and raids. Every man spoke German fluently and each 

had spent months training for such operations. Working under the cover of 

darkness, one was successful in entering Aachen and succeeded in destroying a signals center. The Rangers then positioned two machine guns covering the barracks of a German quick-reaction force. Using signal flares and 

pre-arranged American artillery to rouse the enemy, the Rangers cut the 

Germans down as they emerged from the bunker.26

On 13 October, the 2d and 3d Battalions of the 26th Infantry Regiment

continued the attack, making slow but steady progress. During the fighting 

in the industrial section, a German 20mm antiaircraft gun dispersed the 

infantry covering two M4 Shermans. A panzerfaust destroyed one tank 

and damaged another. Three very brave infantrymen removed the dead and 

wounded and miraculously drove the tank back to safety. A juncture was 

formed between the two battalions within the city, but there was plenty of 

fighting still to come.27

Wilck and his men were making a determined resistance, but the 

German commander was alarmed at the American’s success in advancing 

toward Observatory Hill/Lousberg. He had expected the main American 
1

attack to come directly into the city from the south and deployed his forces 

accordingly. The enemy attack on the hills overlooking the city faced the 

weaker defenses on the west side of Aachen. Wilck immediately deployed 

about 150 men from his own 404th Infantry Regiment to the threatened

sector. Unable to send more troops to that endangered position and believing his headquarters was about to be overrun, the German commander 

appealed for more reinforcements. The small SS-Battalion Rink from 

Kampfgruppe Diefenthal was holding a section of the Westwall to the 

north and was busy containing one of the 30th Infantry Division’s supporting attacks. By nightfall on 14 October, this SS Battalion was disengaged

from the fighting to the north, reinforced with eight assault guns, and sent 

toward the city. It had lost nearly 50 percent of its personnel strength in 

recent fighting and would not have time to reorganize or replenish. This 

combined force would not arrive for 24 hours.28

Corley’s 3d Battalion renewed its attack on 15 October with the assistance of close support from 4.2-inch chemical mortars. By midday the

infantry had taken a number of key buildings, but the walls of the Hotel 

Quellenhof proved resilient. Corley was bringing up the 155mm gun and

a reserve company to deal with this obstacle when the Germans launched 

a battalion-size counterattack. The American infantry held for about an 

hour, but the Germans, supported by assault guns, applied the same tactics 

as used against them. The men of the 404th Regiment and SS-Battalion 

Rink forced one American company to withdraw then swept southward to 

hit the next in line. The Germans were successful in knocking out one tank 

destroyer, one antitank gun, and one heavy machine gun. The Americans 

held though and by 1700 the German attack was spent. Due to this attack

and the threatening German movements to break the ring around Aachen, 

Seitz was ordered to hold the 26th Infantry Regiment in place to see how 

the situation developed. The time was well used to consolidate, resupply, 

and reorganize.29

On 16 October, the 2d Battalion used the lull to take care of a large

pillbox sighted in its area. Daniel brought up his 155mm gun using tank

destroyers to cover its movement and infantry to cover the tank destroyers. 

One of the tank destroyers knocked holes in the foot of a building to create 

a clear field of fire for the big gun. Once in position, the heavy155mm gun 

made quick work of the enemy pillbox, which turned out to be a camouflaged panzer. In addition, the 1106th Engineer Combat Group, previously 

holding a line of containment to the west of Aachen, moved forward to 

gain contact with the 26th Infantry Regiment. This freed the infantry for 

the continued advance.30
1

The Germans clearly recognized that unless the 3d Panzergrenadier

and the 116th Panzer Divisions could break the ring around Aachen, the 

city was lost. Despite the German resistance, the American 119th Infantr

Regiment reached the juncture point with the 18th Infantry Regiment on

16 October. The 18th Infantry Regiment had been delayed by the Germa

attacks in the 1st Infantry Division’s sector, but was able to push some

three miles to Haaren and completely cut Aachen off. Three days of bitter 

fighting saw these units strike the Americans to the east of the city, but the 

attacks were poorly coordinated and no breakthrough occurred. Attempts 

by the Aachen garrison to support these efforts from inside the pocket 

were unsuccessful. Continuing to hold off fierce German attacks sealed 

the fate of the city. By the evening of 19 October, the senior German commanders in the sector decided to cease all efforts to relieve Aachen and

prepare to meet the next Allied blow. Wilck was faced with fighting to the 

last man or surrender.3

The Final Push

Once the threat of a German relief of Aachen was eliminated, General 

Joseph L. Collins, commander of VII (US) Corps, decided to employ a 

large force of armor to decide the issue quickly. One tank battalion and one 

armored infantry battalion from the 3d Armored Division were organized 

as Task Force Hogan and sent to join Corely’s 3d Battalion on its assault 

to take Observatory Hill/Lousberg. Once the hill was taken, Task Force 

Hogan was to proceed to the village of Laurensberg, two miles northwest of Aachen and a point in the Westwall still held by the Germans. 

Additionally, the 2d Battalion, 110th Infantry Regiment from the 28t

Infantry Division was attached to the 26th Infantry Regiment to be used 

in a defensive role, occupying buildings as the assault troops pushed forward.32 (See Map 7.)

The assault was renewed on 18 October. The 3d Battalion of the 26th

Infantry Regiment pushed forward, recapturing the ground lost three 

days earlier and seizing Hotel Quellenhof. The 2d Battalion continued 

its methodical advance into the heart of Aachen. Task Force Hogan 

maneuvered into position to attack and take Observatory Hill/Lousberg. 

This was done with great difficulty due to the soft ground and German 

resistance. The next day the Americans advanced relentlessly. The armor 

of Task Force Hogan pushed toward Laurensberg, but was diverted to the 

east because the 30th Infantry Division got there first. Daniel’s 2d Battalion 

seized the main railroad station in the heart of Aachen and pushed north. 

German resistance was crumbling.33

On 19 October, Wilck issued the order for the day that said, in part,
1

“The defenders of Aachen will prepare for their last battle. Constricted to 

the smallest possible space, we shall fight to the last man, the last shell, 

the last bullet in accordance with the Führer’s orders.” This was just part 

of a stream of such messages sent via radio out of Aachen, but it had no 

effect on the reality of the hopeless situation. In fact, Wilck had warned 

his corps commander that he expected the city to fall in the next day or so 

and asked for a decision for a breakout attempt. Permission was denied. 

Instead, both sides continued to fight, but hour by hour, Aachen was being 

lost to the Americans. Wilck was down to about 1,200 effective men and

one assault gun. Although artillery spotters were acquiring targets, there 

was no ammunition for the guns. Every cellar near the Hotel Quellenhof 

was packed with wounded, and medical supplies were nearly gone. So was 

the will to fight.34

Map 7. The final push, 18–21 October 1944.

II

2

III(-)

Hogan

Hotel

Quellenhof

Kurhaus

Farwick

Park

Wingertberg

Salvatorberg

Lousberg

Aachen-Köln RR

Rail Station

Cathedral

Westpark

Station

Hansemann Platz (Surrender site)

III

1066

II

3

. 5 Mile

Scale

II

2

III(-)

Hogan

Hotel

Quellenhof

Kurhaus

Farwick

Park

Wingertberg

Salvatorberg

Lousberg

Aachen-Köln RR

Rail Station

Cathedral

Westpark

Station

Hansemann Platz (Surrender site)

III

1066

II

3

. 5 Mile

Scale

II

2

III(-)

Hogan

III(-)

Hogan

Hotel

Quellenhof

Kurhaus

Farwick

Park

Wingertberg

Salvatorberg

Lousberg

Aachen-Köln RR

Rail Station

Cathedral

Westpark

Station

Hansemann Platz (Surrender site)

III

1066

III

1066

II

3

. 5 Mile

Scale

. 5 Mile

Scale
1

The end came rather suddenly after noon on 21 October as Corley’s 3d

Battalion prepared to engage what they thought was an air raid shelter with 

one of the 155mm self-propelled guns. It was in fact Wilck’s headquarters,

and he was finally ready to surrender. Using two captured Americans to 

get their comrades’ attention to cease firing, the Germans emerged from 

the structure and surrendered. The rest of the German garrison laid down 

their arms when they received word of the surrender. They and the civilians were evacuated and the war moved on to the east. Quite interesting 

is that no subversive group rose up to challenge the American occupation. 

The Germans had not prepared for such action and, in any case, the evacuation of all civilian personnel from the city made it impossible.35

American casualties in the final seven days of street fighting totaled 

75 killed, 414 wounded, and 9 missing in action. The Germans lost close

to 2,000 men killed or wounded and over 3,400 prisoners within the city. 

The 30th Infantry Division captured over 6,000 prisoners in the fighting in 

and around Aachen.36

In Retrospect

Overall, the American effort to reduce and take Aachen went very 

well, but it took aggressive fighting and a high degree of adaptation and 

flexibility. The soldiers and armored vehicle crewmen were not specifically trained for city fighting, but were able to apply the principles of 

firepower and teamwork to full effect. Innovative use of the 155mm selfpropelled guns and tanks to reduce enemy positions is an example. Another 

example is Daniel’s tactical control measures to ensure the destruction 

of each German strongpoint and prevent fratricide. But the battle for the 

city itself was quite conventional, even linear, when analyzed. The tactics 

employed emphasized fire and maneuver, the standard for the day, and 

closely resembled the procedures used in the hedgerows and through the 

numerous towns and villages in the drive across France. The tanks and 

tank destroyers were used as mobile platforms to bring heavy ordnance to 

where it was needed by the infantrymen. Armor was in the supporting role, 

and not engaged in bold offensives leaving the infantry to catch up. The 

riflemen bore the brunt of the fight for Aachen, but counted on the armor 

to make their job possible. This operation just happened to be at a much 

larger scale.37

By this time the German army had experience in city fighting, but this 

experience did not necessarily transfer to the men fighting in Aachen. These 

men were from a relatively ad hoc unit, namely the 246th Volksgrenadier 

Division that was formed only a few weeks earlier. The SS-Battalion 

Rink was a veteran outfit, but was comparatively small in number. To 
1

their detriment, the Germans never massed a force large enough to break 

through to Aachen. With two exceptions, the counterattacks against the 

encircling ring of Americans were never more than two battalions and 

inside the city the largest was by a small battalion-size unit. These attacks 

were poorly coordinated and usually conducted piecemeal. Conspicuous 

too was the limited number of German mines and booby traps. Also, the 

location of Aachen ultimately doomed the city. Nestled in a bowl with 

overlooking hills, the town was actually indefensible against a strong and 

determined enemy.

Although the units involved in the fighting were predominately infantry formations, both sides failed to realize much success unless tank support 

was on hand. In spite of their technical shortcomings, the M4 Shermans 

and the M10 tank destroyers provided the vital heavy fire support needed 

to blast through the thick walls shielding the defenders. Although at a serious disadvantage against German panzers and panzerfausts, the armor of 

the American vehicles did offer sufficient protection against small arms 

fire. When sufficiently protected by the infantry, American armor proved 

very capable in urban fighting.

The battle for Aachen influenced Army doctrine for years to come. 

Commanders were warned to avoid committing forces to the attack in urban 

areas. Nevertheless, seriously outnumbered at Aachen, the Americans were 

able to take the city after only nine days, and three of those were used to 

rest and reorganize. In comparison to the fighting during the Battle of the 

Bulge and the Hürtgen Forest, the casualties suffered by the Americans 

in Aachen were very light. If anything, the battle for Aachen showed the 

Americans’ ability to adapt and continue to fight. In spite of being outnumbered and fighting in the streets of the enemy’s home city, the Americans 

won the day. 
20

Notes

1. Bryan Perrett, Iron Fist: Classic Armoured Warfare Case Studie

(London: Arms and Armour Press, 1995), 1

2. Christopher R. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down: The Reduction of Aachen, 

October 1944,” in Block by Block: The Challenges of Urban Operations, ed.

William G. Robertson (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General 

Staff College Press, 2003), 72–73. Dr. Gabel also wrote an excellent account of 

the battle of Aachen titled “Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain: The 2d 

Battalion, 26th Infantry at Aachen, October 1944,” in Combined Arms in Battle

Since 1939, ed. Roger J. Spiller (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command 

and General Staff College Press, 1992).

3. Belton Y. Cooper, Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored 

Division in World War II (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1998), 19–22. Cooper’s 

book describes the shortcomings of American armor design. He was commander 

of a tank recovery unit and saw the damage firsthand. Incidentally, the M26 

Pershing tank was equal to the German panzers, but did not see action until very 

late in the war and in very few numbers. See also Ian V. Hogg, Armour in Conflict: 

The Design and Tactics of Armored Fighting Vehicles (London: Jane’s Publishing 

Company, 1980), 165–167. Refer to R.P. Hunnicutt, Sherman: History of t

American Medium Battle Tank (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1978) for a detailed 

history of the M4 Sherman.

4. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 65. See also Roman J. Jarymowycz, 

Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Lorraine (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 

2001), 263

5. Ibid., l, 66. See also H.R. Knickerbocker, Danger Forward: The Story of 

the First Division in World War II (Washington, DC: Society of the First Division, 

1947), 279–280

6. Charles Whiting, Bloody Aachen (New York: PEI Books, Inc., 1976), 

29–30. Elbridge Colby, The First Army in Europe, US Senate Document 91–25

(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969), 105–106.

7. Knickerbocker, 261

8. Heinz G. Guderian, From Normandy to the Ruhr: With the 116th Panzer 

Division in World War II (Beford, PA: The Aberjona Press, 2001), 13

9. Charles B. MacDonald, US Army in WWI: The Siegfried Line Campaign 

(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1984), 253–254. Friendly 

bombs hit the 30th Infantry Division twice during the Normandy campaign. 

Hobbs wanted the bomb runs made on a parallel approach to avoid repeating the 

mistakes of the past, but was overruled. A total of 360 medium bombers and 72 

fighter-bombers were allocated to the Aachen operation.

10. Knickerbocker, 26

11. Irving Werstein, The Battle of Aachen (New York: Thomas Y. Crowel

Company, 1962), 34–36

12. Guderian, 208
2

13. Werstein, 10

14. MacDonald, 276–279. Guderian, 209–21

15. MacDonald, 307–308. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 66–67, 82.

Guderian, 133

16. Knickerbocker, 283. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 63

17. Guderian, 130. MaDonald, 308. Knickerbocker, 260. See also Gabel

“Knock ‘em All Down,” 71. The 246th Volksgrenadier Division at Aachen had

three of its seven authorized battalions and was made up largely of survivors from 

other divisions shattered in battle. Command of Aachen passed through at least 

two men prior to the battle. For brevity and clarity, Wilck is named here as the 

commander. He assumed this unlucky position on 12 October

18. Knickerbocker, 262. MacDonald, 307. Werstein, 114–116. Hod

ultimatum was brusque and simple: surrender or the city would be destroyed. 

This message was delivered through the lines and by leaflet drops on Aachen.

19. Knickerbocker, 262

20. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 67, 73. Whiting, 110

21. MacDonald, 309. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 68

22. MacDonald, 310. Knickerbocker, 263. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,”

75. Whiting, 136–13

23. Whiting, 138

24. MacDonald, 312. See also Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 77. Whiting,

138–139. The 155mm gun, called the Long Tom, fired a massive 95-pound armorpiercing projectile at a muzzle velocity of 2,800 feet per second.

25. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 77.

26. Whiting, 143–146. This attack knocked out most but not all Germa

communications within Aachen. Wilck still had a land-line system and radio 

communication to the outside.

27. Knickerbocker, 263. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 80.

28. Knickerbocker, 263. Guderian, 218. Whiting, 115. SS-Battalion R

was detached from the 1st SS Liebstandarte Division, which was preparing 

for the Ardennes offensive. There was friction between Colonel Wilck and 

Sturmbahnführer (Major) Herbert Rink, as the latter was reluctant to take orders 

from a Heer (Army) officer. As a member of the Waffen-SS and veteran of years 

in Russia, Rink felt his orders should come through the SS chain of command.

29. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 80.

30. MacDonald, 313. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 78. A 155mm gun wa

later used against a sniper position located in a church steeple.

31. MacDonald, 314, Guderian 217, 220–221. SS-Battalion Rink was initia

successful in pushing back the Americans in the vicinity of the Hotel Quellenhof, 

but heavy mortar and artillery fire finally repulsed the attack.

32. Knickerbocker, 264.

33. Ibid., 264. Colby, 107

34. Guderian, 225–226. MacDonald, 315. Whiting, 155, 177–178. R

ordered the surviving 40 men of his battalion to break up into small groups and 
22

attempt to infiltrate their way through the American lines. Few made it, but Rink 

did. He was promoted to Obersturmbahnführer (lieutenant colonel) and fought in 

the Ardennes a few weeks later. He survived the war.

35. MacDonald, 317. Wilck had sent two officers out of the bunker under 

a white flag, but both were shot by the Americans as they emerged. Staff 

Sergeant Ewart Padgett and Private First Class James Haswell, both from the 

1106th Engineers, volunteered for the job. Wilck survived the war. The 246t

Volksgrenadier Division was reconstituted and finished the war in Poland and 

Czechoslovakia. See also Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 82–83.

36. MacDonald, 317. Knickerbocker, 265

37. Gabel, “Knock ‘em All Down,” 84.
23

Chapter 2

Pattons to the Rescue: Hue, Vietnam, 1968

The climatic Tet Offensive of the Vietnam War began on 31 January 

1968. One of the most bitter and hard-fought battles occurred at the ancient 

city of Hue, lasting four weeks and costing 142 American lives. In the battle for Hue, the US Marines of the 1st and 5th Regiments fought alongside 

the 1st Infantry Division of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) 

and were supported by elements of the US Army 1st Cavalry Division 

(Airmobile). The armored forces employed in this fight provided relevant 

insights for the use of tanks in urban terrain.

The deployment of tanks to Vietnam was a bit of an accident. Troop 

units were sent to Vietnam incrementally over a period of years and without a long-range strategy. Military planners often did not examine the table 

of organization and equipment of these units and were sometimes surprised to see what equipment arrived in theater. When US Marine battalions were sent into country to guard airfields, the planners did not realize 

they had tanks as part of their organizational structure. Once in country the 

armored forces of the Marines, and the US Army for that matter, did not 

have doctrine established for using tanks in counterinsurgency operations 

or for combat in large cities. The doctrine for armor at the time envisioned 

open country fighting as in a war with the Soviet Union on the European 

plains. Marine armor doctrine was principled in the use of tanks for direct 

fire support of the riflemen, and virtually no urban training of any kind was 

conducted during the Vietnam era by any service.

On their arrival in Vietnam, the US military forces adapted to the situation and used units like the US Army’s 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment 

in search and sweep missions, where their mobility, protection, and heavy 

firepower were decisive. However, road and convoy security operations 

were the norm for the numerous tank units dispersed throughout the country. The South Vietnamese saw the value of armor and formed their own 

cavalry regiments.1 (See Map 8 for an overview of the I Corps zone of 

operations in Vietnam.)

The main battle tank of the Americans during the Vietnam War was 

the M48A3 Patton tank with a 90mm rifled gun. This tank was developed 

during the early 1950s to counter the Soviet threat in Europe. As an 

open-country tank, the 52-ton M48 had an advanced fire control system 

consisting of a stereoscope range finder, range indicator, and an early 

fire control computer system designed to engage targets at long range. 

In Vietnam, the M48 proved capable of operating in most terrains, and it 
24

was common practice to move the loader from his station in the turret to 

the back deck with a machine gun for close-in protection. As there were 

few actual tank-on-tank battles, the M48 provided adequate shelter for 

its crew from small arms, mines, and rocket propelled grenades, such as 

the commonly encountered Soviet-made B-40. Few antitank rounds were 

carried, so most main gun ammunition consisted of high explosive, white 

phosphorous, and flechette (beehive). A weakness of the M48 was its 

limited night-fighting ability. The M48 had to rely on illumination rounds 

fired by artillery and mortars or using the large xenon light mounted above 

the main gun. The latter method brilliantly illuminated a target, but also 

broadcasted the location of the tank to the enemy.2

In 1968, Hue was the third largest city in South Vietnam with more 

than 160,000 residents. Located about 60 miles south of the demilitarized 

Map 8. I Corps zone of operations, 1968.

I

XXX

II

Thua Thien

Quang Tri

Quang Nam

Quang Tin

Quang Ngai

Laos

Quang Ngai

Chu Lai

Tam Ky

Hoi An

Danang

Phu Bai

Hue

Quang Tri

50 Miles

Scale

North

Vietnam

I

XXX

II

Thua Thien

Quang Tri

Quang Nam

Quang Tin

Quang Ngai

Laos

Quang Ngai

Chu Lai

Tam Ky

Hoi An

Danang

Phu Bai

Hue

Quang Tri

50 Miles

Scale

North

Vietnam

I

XXX

II

Thua Thien

Quang Tri

Quang Nam

Quang Tin

Quang Ngai

Laos

Quang Ngai

Chu Lai

Tam Ky

Hoi An

Danang

Phu Bai

Hue

Quang Tri

50 Miles

Scale

50 Miles

Scale

North

Vietnam
25

zone and six miles west of the coast, the Perfume River bisects Hue, with 

the modern section on the south bank and the ancient district to the north. 

The old walled portion of the city, called the Citadel, was about three 

square kilometers of stone buildings and narrow streets, surrounded on 

three sides by the river. Built by Emperor Gia Linh in the early 19th century, the Citadel contained the Imperial Palace with its formal gardens and 

parks, private residences, and market places. A moat encircled most of the 

old city reinforced by two massive stone walls. South of the river was the 

modern city consisting of the university, stadium, government administration buildings, hospital, provincial prison, and a few radio stations. Hue 

was revered as the cultural center of the country, and all sides refrained 

from combat operations there. As a result, Hue became rather detached 

and aloof from the war, aside from the Buddhist uprisings in 1963 and 

1966. This complacency came to a sudden and bitter end.3 (See Map 9.)

Map 9. Hue, Vietnam, 1968.

1 Mile

Scale

Airfield

Tay Loc

1st ARVN

HQ

Palace

High

School

Hospital

MACV

Compound

Cathedral

Government

Building

Perfume River

Radio Station

Hwy 1

LCU Ramp

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge

Phu Cam Canal

An Cuu Bridge

1 Mile

Scale

Airfield

Tay Loc

1st ARVN

HQ

Palace

High

School

Hospital

MACV

Compound

Cathedral

Government

Building

Perfume River

Radio Station

Hwy 1

LCU Ramp

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge

Phu Cam Canal

An Cuu Bridge

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale

Airfield

Tay Loc

1st ARVN

HQ

Palace

High

School

Hospital

MACV

Compound

Cathedral

Government

Building

Perfume River

Radio Station

Hwy 1

LCU Ramp

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge

Phu Cam Canal Phu Cam Canal

An Cuu Bridge An Cuu Bridge
26

The Vietnamese in Hue and the surrounding countryside planned the 

traditional celebration of Tet in late January 1968. With the traditional 36-

hour Tet cease-fire in place on 29 January, many ARVN soldiers and most 

government officials were on leave or off duty and enjoying the holiday 

season with their families. Alerted by numerous indicators of enemy activity and truce violations, the US Military Assistance Command Vietnam 

(MACV) and the joint General Staff of the Republic of Vietnam officially 

terminated the cease-fire on 30 January. In the I Corps sector, Brigadier 

General Ngo Quang Truong, the commanding general of the 1st ARVN 

Infantry Division headquartered in Hue, initiated a heightened security 

posture and placed his units in a state of increased readiness. Truong canceled leaves; however, most of the troops were already gone and unable to 

rejoin their units. The only ARVN forces in the city itself were the division 

staff, the division headquarters company, the reconnaissance company, 

and a few support units. Additionally, there was Truong’s personal guard, 

the elite Black Panther Company, which he had positioned on the Tay Loc 

Airfield in the Citadel.4

The Attack on Hue

Truong’s precautions dampened the holiday mood in Hue, but they 

were not without merit. The Viet Cong was indeed preparing for a major 

offensive under cover of the Tet cease-fire. On the night of 30 January, Viet 

Cong forces heavily supported by North Vietnamese Army (NVA) units 

launched a massive assault throughout South Vietnam. They attacked all 

major cities, and although most assaults were repulsed, the enemy forces 

seized the American embassy in Saigon and the city of Hue.

The North Vietnamese communists had planned to take and hold Hue 

and use it as a rallying point for their sympathizers in the south. The Viet 

Cong had supplied the NVA planners with information on the defenses of 

the city, the deployment and routine of military and police patrols, and the 

identities and activities of political opponents, government officials, and 

foreigners. The NVA divided the city into four tactical areas, each with 

its own priority targets, special missions, and local political leaders. NVA

forces received an activity schedule for the first three days of occupation 

and specific instructions for handling prisoners in different categories. 

Important prisoners were to be evacuated as soon as possible, but they and 

others were to be executed if evacuation proved impossible.5

The 4th and the 6th NVA Regiments conducted the main attacks on Hue. 

The three primary objectives of the 6th NVA Regiment were the Mang Ca 

headquarters compound, the Tay Loc Airfield, and the Imperial Palace, all 

located in the Citadel. The 4th NVA Regiment’s objective was the modern 
27

sector south of the Perfume River, including the provincial capital building, the prison, and the MACV advisors compound. Additional objectives 

for this regiment included radio stations, the police station, the National 

Imperial Museum, homes of government officials, and recruiting offices. 

To achieve surprise, a number of assault teams and sappers infiltrated Hue 

disguised as farmers, with their weapons and uniforms hidden in baggage 

and under civilian clothing. The Viet Cong and NVA personnel were able 

to infiltrate the holiday crowds in the hours before the festivities and take 

up their predesignated positions. At 0233 on 31 January, a four-man North 

Vietnamese sapper team dressed in ARVN uniforms killed the guards and 

opened the west gate to the Citadel. The 6th NVA then entered the old city 

en masse. In similar scenes throughout the Citadel, the North Vietnamese 

regulars and Viet Cong poured into both halves of Hue using rockets and 

mortars in support. The surprise was complete. The enemy troops quickly 

captured all but a few buildings of the modern city on the south bank of the 

Perfume River and seized 90 percent of the Citadel including the Imperial 

Palace. The red and blue banner with the gold star of the Viet Cong was 

soon seen flying in the Citadel flag tower. Once the city was secured, the 

communists established their own civil government and rounded up known 

government officials, sympathizers, and foreigners including American 

civilians and military personnel. It was clear they intended to stay.6 (See 

Map 10.)

Just Holding On

Truong’s foresight had saved his command from total disaster. By 4 

a.m. the Black Panther (Hoc Bao) Company had successfully blocked the 

6th NVA at the Tay Loc Airfield. The Black Panthers, reinforced by the 

200-man division staff, were later successful in recapturing the medical 

company’s cantonment area. Most importantly, the 1st ARVN Infantry 

Division’s command and communications structure remained intact. 

Meanwhile, the attack by the 4th NVA in the south had isolated the MACV 

compound, but failed to take it in spite of repeated assaults. Except for 

these two small pockets and the retention of the Landing Craft Utility 

(LCU) ramp, the situation was bleak. However, the failure of the NVA

to capture these two strongholds and close the river traffic permitted the 

South Vietnamese and Americans to bring in reinforcements and eventually mount a counteroffensive.7

Although the situation was not clear to the senior American and ARVN 

commanders, they dispatched forces within hours to relieve the embattled 

defenders of Hue. The 1st US Marine Division committed units of the 1st 

Marine Regiment, including a platoon of M48 tanks from the 3d Battalion, 
28

to this effort. Truong ordered his 3d Regiment, 1st Airborne Task Force 

and elements of the 7th Armored Cavalry, equipped with light tanks and 

M113 armored personnel carriers, to the Citadel. The heavy armor of the 

Marine M48 tanks had been en route from Phu Bai to the LCU ramp at 

Hue for embarkation and transfer north to the 3d Marine Division at Dong 

Ha. Arriving rather piecemeal, these reaction forces met a stubborn resistance by the NVA outside the city, but managed to break through to the 

MACV compound. An attempt by the US Marines to cross into the Citadel 

on 31 January failed against the well-fortified NVA positions. The situation remained critical for three days as three more Marine companies, two 

Marine battalion command groups, and a Marine regimental command 

group under the command of Brigadier General Foster “Frosty” C. LaHue 

arrived in the compound.8

Map 10. North Vietnamese attack, 31 January 1968.

1 Mile

Scale

Airfield

Tay Loc

1st ARVN

HQ

Palace

High

School

Hospital

MACV

Compound

Cathedral

Government

Building

Perfume River

Radio Station

Hwy 1

K4A 4

800 6

II

K4B 4

K4C 4

II

802 6

II

806 6

II

12

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge

Phu Cam Canal

Sapper

II

II

II

1 Mile

Scale

Airfield

Tay Loc

1st ARVN

HQ

Palace

High

School

Hospital

MACV

Compound

Cathedral

Government

Building

Perfume River

Radio Station

Hwy 1

K4A 4

800 6

II

K4B 4

K4C 4

II

802 6

II

806 6

II

12

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge

Phu Cam Canal

Sapper

II

II

II

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale

Airfield

Tay Loc

1st ARVN

HQ

Palace

High

School

Hospital

MACV

Compound

Cathedral

Government

Building

Perfume River

Radio Station

Hwy 1

K4A 4

800 6

II

K4B 4

K4C 4

II

802 6

II

806 6

II

12

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge

Phu Cam Canal Phu Cam Canal

Sapper

II

II

II
29

The tale of the relief columns to reach the embattled defenders of Hue 

was a prelude to the tough fighting to come. The initial relief consisted of 

two battalions of the 3d ARVN Regiment moving east along the northern 

bank of the Perfume River, while the airborne battalions and a cavalry 

troop sought to fight their way into the 1st ARVN Division headquarters 

compound in the northeast corner of the Citadel. The 3d ARVN Regiment 

was forced to fall back under heavy fire, and two battalions were surrounded and held under heavy fire. The 1st ARVN Infantry Battalion was 

able to extract itself from its predicament and reach the Citadel the next 

day via motorized junks on the river. After fighting for several days, the 

4th ARVN Battalion was finally able to break free. Meanwhile, a squadron from the 7th ARVN Armored Cavalry Regiment attempted to break 

through, but came under heavy fire, including B-40 rocket grenades, forcing it to halt. Reinforced by US Marines and M48 tanks, the 7th ARVN 

armored column crossed the An Cuu Bridge into the new city. Pushing 

toward the central police headquarters in southern Hue, the ARVN cavalrymen attempted to relieve the besieged policemen. When a direct hit 

from a NVA B-40 rocket killed the squadron commander in his tank, the 

7th ARVN armor fell back.9

As the Marines of Company A, 1st Battalion approached the southern 

suburbs of the city, they came under sniper fire and B-40 rockets. The 

Marines dismounted from their trucks and cleared the houses on both 

sides of the main street before proceeding. The convoy crossed the An 

Cuu Bridge, but was immediately caught in a murderous crossfire, forcing 

them to dismount again. At this moment a B-40 rocket struck and killed 

the commander of the lead tank, causing the advance to falter. The only 

reinforcements available were the command group of the 1st Battalion 

and Company G from the 5th Marines. Under the command of Lieutenant 

Colonel Marcus J. Gravel, this ad hoc force reached Company A in the 

afternoon. The M48 tanks were kept on hand to provide direct fire support to the Marines, but the trucks were used to evacuate the dead and 

wounded. Once the Marines were consolidated and the few surviving 7th 

ARVN M41 Walker Bulldog tanks rounded up, the advance continued 

with the armor in the lead. To the great relief of the defenders, this force 

arrived at the MACV compound around 1500.10

While the rest of the Marine task force proceeded toward the Citadel, 

Company A stayed behind to regroup and guard the MACV compound. 

The M48 tanks were too heavy to cross the river bridge into the old city 

and were instead positioned to provide direct fire support. The accompanying ARVN M24 Chaffee tank crews refused to lead the assault across 
30

the bridge, leaving that dangerous task to the Marine riflemen. As the 

Marines started across in small groups, the NVA sprayed the bridge and 

its approaches with heavy automatic and recoilless rifle fire. Two platoons 

were successful in crossing, but were forced to withdraw. Nearly a third 

of the attacking Marines were dead or wounded in the effort. By 2000 the 

fighting halted as both sides consolidated their positions and prepared for 

the next day.11

Senior ARVN and American leaders conferred in Da Nang about 

the situation around Hue. Major General Hoang Xuan Lam, the I Corps 

Commander, and Lieutenant General Robert Cushman, Commanding 

General, III Marine Amphibious Force (MAF) set unit objectives in good 

faith but without knowledge of the actual situation. In deference to national 

pride, it was decided the South Vietnamese would be responsible for the 

liberation of the Citadel while the Americans would continue to clear the 

city south of the river and cut enemy communications to the west. In the 

hope of sparing the old city from massive damage, it was also decided 

not to employ heavy artillery or fixed-wing aircraft against targets in the 

Citadel. Hue was a far more difficult objective than these senior commanders expected.12

On 1 February, the South Vietnamese forces initiated their operations 

to clear the enemy from inside the Citadel. There was some success. The 

2d and 7th ARVN Airborne Battalions, supported by armored personnel 

carriers and the Black Panther Company, were successful in recapturing 

the Tay Loc Airfield inside the walls. By 1500 the 1st Battalion, 3d ARVN 

reached the 1st ARVN Infantry Division command post. However, the 2d 

and 3d Battalions of the 3d ARVN Regiment were unable to penetrate the 

enemy defenses.13

Meanwhile, at 0700 on 2 February the composite 1st Marine Battalion 

launched a two-company assault supported by tanks. The direction of 

the attack was toward the jail and the Thua Thien provincial headquarters building and prison, a distance of six blocks west, with the additional 

objective of fully securing the LCU ramp. The 4th NVA Regiment was 

positioned in force and waiting. The lead elements did not get a block 

away from the MACV compound before they came under heavy fire. One 

of the M48 tanks received a direct hit from a 57mm recoilless rifle that disabled the vehicle and wounded the crew. This stopped the attack, and the 

Marines withdrew to the MACV compound to regroup. The damaged tank 

was quickly repaired and the crew replaced by riflemen.14 (See Map 11.)

After receiving an update on the situation, LaHue realized the enemy 

strength in Hue was much greater than originally estimated. To streamline 
31

the chain of command, he gave Colonel Stanley S. Hughes of the 1st 

Marines full tactical control of the forces in the southern city. Hughes then 

promised Gravel of the 1st Battalion additional reinforcements. By late 

afternoon, Company F, 2d Battalion, 5th Marines arrived via helicopter at 

the MACV compound. Marine CH-46 helicopters also airlifted about half 

of the 4th Battalion, 4th ARVN Regiment onto the recently secured airfield 

in the Citadel. All of these reinforcements came in during poor weather 

conditions that deteriorated enough to cancel flights before the airlift was 

complete. Also, NVA forces attempted to disrupt the operation with mortar and sniper fire opposed the landings. Tasked to relieve an isolated US 

Army signal relay station in the Marine sector, the newly arrived Company 

F could not break through to it. The fighting again ended at nightfall with 

little to show for it. Ordered to hold their positions, the Marines prepared 

themselves for the next day.15

Map 11. Fight for southern Hue, 2–10 February 1968.

MACV Compound

Treasury

Admin

Complex

Power

Station

US Consulate

500 Meters

Scale

University

Hospital

Complex

Phu Cam Canal

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge LCU Ramp

II

2

II

1

MACV Compound

Treasury

Admin

Complex

Power

Station

US Consulate

500 Meters

Scale

University

Hospital

Complex

Phu Cam Canal

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge LCU Ramp

II

2

II

1

MACV Compound

Treasury

Admin

Complex

Power

Station

US Consulate

500 Meters

Scale

500 Meters

Scale

University

Hospital

Complex

Phu Cam Canal

Nguyen Hoang

Bridge LCU Ramp

II

2

II

1
32

Pushing Back

The weather conditions that inhibited airlift operations on 1 February 

declined the following day. A constant drizzle developed that occasionally 

increased to a cold drenching rain. Temperatures dropped into the 50s, 

which was quite cool for Vietnam. The low ceiling and poor visibility 

prohibited air support and airlift operations and inhibited fire support missions. Although artillery and naval fire support was in range, the forward 

observers had difficulty sighting targets and adjusting fires in the miserable weather. In spite of the weather, the Marines were able to make some 

gains on 2 February. They relieved the signal relay station and reached the 

university campus after a savage firefight. Unable to get further reinforcements to Hue by air, the Marines resorted to sending them in by ground. 

To get there, they had to run a gauntlet of NVA fire.

The US Army was also on the move toward Hue as the 3d Brigade, 1st 

Cavalry Division advanced from the west to establish blocking positions 

and to cut off the NVA forces in the city from outside support. Within two 

days, the 2d Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment established positions on the 

high ground with excellent observation of the main enemy routes in and out 

of Hue. From there it was in position to interdict all daylight movement of 

NVA forces by using artillery fires. The 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment 

conducted search operations along enemy routes further west. The success 

of these forces to restrict NVA forces from moving through the area was 

limited due to the poor weather conditions and low ceiling. The North 

Vietnamese continued to pour reinforcements and supplies into Hue.16

Although NVA sappers had blown the railroad bridge west of Hue, they 

had left the bridge over the Phu Cam Canal intact. It was a costly mistake.17

Company H of the 2d Marine Battalion used this key bridge to reach the 

MACV compound. Two US Army M55 trucks mounting four quad .50-

caliber machine guns, commonly called Dusters by the Marines, escorted 

the convoy. Additionally, there were two M50 Ontos light armored vehicles each mounting six 106mm recoilless rifles.18 Encountering stiff NVA

resistance as they approached the city, the convoy escort applied heavy 

firepower and made it safely to the compound. By the end of the day, the 

Marines had sustained 2 dead and 34 wounded and claimed to have killed 

l40 enemy.19

The commander and staff of both the 1st and 2d Battalions from the 

5th Marines arrived on 3 February. Another attack against nearby NVA

positions was ordered, this one composed of two companies supported 

by tanks with one company held in reserve. Company frontages were 

about a block in width, but there were not enough riflemen to do the job. 
33

The buildings in this area proved impervious to small arms fire and to the 

M72 Light Antitank Weapons (LAW) carried by the Marines. This assault 

soon stalled, but the forward positions gained were held. To the east of 

this action, Company A of the 1st Marines captured an abandoned South 

Vietnamese police station and a number of small arms. It avoided entering 

the International Control Commission (ICC) building under the terms of 

the 1954 Geneva Accords, containing and bypassing it instead.20

Fighting resumed the next morning with the Marines continuing their 

efforts to push forward and clear the city of NVA soldiers. The fighting 

was building-to-building, room-to- room against a determined enemy. The 

NVA fought from every crevice possible, and secreted themselves in the 

eaves and ceilings. The NVA soldiers put up a stiff resistance at the church, 

prompting a very reluctant Marine commander to authorize destruction of 

the structure. As the battle for Hue raged and the casualties mounted, the 

qualms against collateral damage almost disappeared.21

A twist in the nature of fighting became apparent as the battle in Hue 

developed. In the jungles of Vietnam, the Viet Cong and NVA typically 

employed hit-and-run tactics and ambushes and then melted away. Often, 

Marines and soldiers served their entire tours fighting an elusive enemy 

without clearly seeing him. At Hue it was different. There the NVA dug in 

and showed no signs of leaving. Many Marines reacted with enthusiasm 

for the opportunity to kill as many of their foe as possible.22

Trained to fight in the jungles of Vietnam, the young Americans began 

to adapt to the tempest of urban terrain. Marines initially used smoke grenades to cover their movements, but the NVA simply sprayed the streets 

with automatic weapons fire. Learning quickly, the Marines shifted tactics 

and used the smoke grenades to provoke their enemy into firing. Then 

tanks or Ontos vehicles engaged these targets. The riflemen then crossed 

the open zones using the armored vehicles, smoke, and the dust that was 

raised by the back-blast as cover. Additionally, Marines developed the 

method of using explosives or a 106mm recoilless rifle to breach a wall 

thus allowing a fire team to rush through the gap. In one instance, the 

Marines assembled a recoilless rifle inside a building to get at a particularly troublesome NVA position. To avoid the deadly overpressure, the 

Marines fired the weapon using a long lanyard that led outside. It was 

fortunate they did so because the building collapsed when the weapon 

discharged. It destroyed the target, but the gun was still operational once 

it was dug out of the rubble. Mortars were also used extensively to blow 

open buildings for the riflemen and to destroy targets in areas inaccessible 

to direct fire.23
34

These tactics proved effective; however, they did not always work. In 

the fight for the Treasury Building, the thick walls and steel door remained 

impervious to tank, recoilless rifle, and mortar fire. Again, the Americans 

turned to improvisation. To break the impasse the Marines scrounged 

a number of E8 rocket launchers designed to fire CS tear gas from the 

MACV compound. These weapons could lob 35mm gas grenades up to 

250 meters. Within minutes, a thick cloud of tear gas filled the Treasury 

Building. Donning their M17 protective masks, the Marines of Company 

F assaulted the facility under the covering fire of mortars and machine 

guns. The remaining NVA forces beat a hasty retreat.24

The M48 tanks were a welcome addition to the Marine arsenal, but 

they had severe limitations in Hue. The streets were very narrow and a B40 rocket could, and often did, appear from nowhere. The tanks drew fire 

from all NVA weapons, including small arms, mortars, and rockets. One of 

the M48 tanks reportedly was hit by rockets more than 120 times and went 

through at least six crews. In each case, the tanks were recovered, repaired, 

and put back on the line within hours. Incidentally, the Marines were much 

more enthusiastic about the M50 Ontos vehicle than the medium tank. The 

106mm recoilless rifle was an effective weapon, very familiar to the riflemen. The thin armor was sufficient only against small arms, but the small 

size of the M50 allowed it to maneuver down any street.25

The Marines also had to modify their command and control procedures as they adapted to fighting in the city. The standard 1:50,000 scale 

maps proved inadequate in scale and detail for the operation. The local 

government-made maps depicted all of the major buildings and assigned 

them a specific number in the map key. The Marines simply set up a control system corresponding to the building number system on the map, and 

procured and issued a small number of maps to unit leaders. This system 

had a serious drawback in that artillery spotting still required use of the 

1:50,000 scale tactical maps. Thus, a great deal of care was needed to avoid 

fratricide. As the poor weather precluded most artillery target acquisition 

missions, this liability was not fully manifested in the battle. The hasty 

issue of the 1:2,500 scale maps somewhat relieved this map situation, but 

there were only enough for the battalion staffs and one per company.26

While the Marines in the new city adjusting to urban warfare made 

slow progress, the ARVN attack in the Citadel ground to a halt. Although 

the northeast corner of the city and the airfield were secured, the 1st and 

4th ARVN Battalions were halted about halfway to their day’s objective. 

Another setback occurred as North Vietnamese sappers destroyed the 

Nguyen Hoang Bridge over the Perfume River and the An Cuu Bridge over 
35

the Phu Cam Canal. This closed the only land route to the southern half of 

the city. Now supplies and logistics could only be brought in by air or via 

the LCU ramp. With the deteriorating weather, the LCU ramp became an 

object of major importance and the narrow ship channel and proximity of 

NVA forces made it a very precarious line of communications. Fortunately 

for the Marines, a large amount of supplies were brought across the bridge 

prior to its demolition.27

Both Marine battalions continued to see heavy fighting over the course 

of the next several days. Continuing to use M48 tanks and M50 Ontos 

vehicles in support, the Marines were successful in capturing the hospital 

and the prison. The Marines were learning the tactics and value of entering 

a building from the top and working downward, and used this technique 

whenever possible. The high use of CS gas forced the use of M17 protective masks, which greatly restricted peripheral vision and depth perception. By using all weapons available and improvised tactics, the Americans 

were able to secure their objectives.28

In the Citadel, Truong adjusted the disposition of his troops. He shifted 

the 4th ARVN and temporarily relieved the three airborne battalions. The 

4th Battalion was sent to secure the airfield and push forward to the southwest wall. The 1st ARVN Battalion found success in recapturing the An 

Hao Gate, located in the northwest corner of the old city. The remaining 

three battalions of the 3d ARVN Regiment were committed to clearing the 

Citadel to the southeast wall. Fighting was tough, but the ARVN forces 

were at least making slow progress.29

An important milestone in the battle for Hue occurred on 6 February 

as the Marines captured the provincial headquarters in the new city. 

Expending over 100 mortar rounds and a large amount of other heavy ordnance, Company H overwhelmed the dogged defenders. Two M48 tanks 

supported this attack, one of which took multiple hits from B-40 rockets 

but continued to fire. The headquarters building had become a symbol for 

both sides, and the Marines lost no opportunity to magnify that image. 

Immediately after the capture, two Marines sprinted to the flagpole and ran 

up the American flag. As there was no South Vietnamese flag present, this 

act was in direct violation of protocol, but few if any Marines cared. As it 

turned out, the provincial headquarters was more than a symbolic victory. 

It had been used as the command post for the 4th NVA Regiment and with 

this loss the intensity of the fighting diminished in the modern city.

30

The fight was far from over though. Using the cover of darkness and 

poor weather, the North Vietnamese were able to evade the screen of the 

1st Cavalry Division and bring a large number of fresh troops into the 
36

Citadel. On the night of 6 February and into the next morning, the NVA

launched a savage counterattack against the 2d Battalion, 4th ARVN, forcing it to fall back to the airfield with heavy losses. The NVA was checked 

when a fortunate break in the weather allowed the South Vietnamese air 

force to strike targets in the old city. Truong then redeployed the three 

battalions of the 3d ARVN Regiment to the headquarters compound, moving them to the north side of the Citadel by employing motorized junks. 

By the end of 7 February, the ARVN forces in the Citadel consisted of 

two armored cavalry squadrons, the 3d ARVN Regiment, four airborne 

battalions, a battalion from the 4th ARVN Regiment, the Black Panther 

Company, and a company from the 1st ARVN Regiment. However, these 

forces were armed with rather antiquated infantry weapons and suffering 

from heavy casualties. They were up against a well-fortified, tough opponent who still controlled over half of the Citadel. The ARVN forces would 

make little headway over the next several days. The only good news was 

that the Black Panther Company was successful in retaking the airfield.31

On the following day, Truong revised his battle plans. The arrival of 

the lead elements of a South Vietnamese marine task force allowed him to 

plan for the relief of the battered airborne units, which were then to be redeployed to the fighting around Saigon. Unfortunately, weather conditions 

restricting helicopter operations delayed these South Vietnamese marines 

for three days. Desperate for men and firepower, Truong then requested a 

US Marine battalion to participate in the battle for the Citadel.32

Battle of the Citadel

The US Marines were successful in securing the southern half of Hue 

by 10 February. With that half of the city secured, the Marines could then 

focus on assisting the embattled ARVN forces in the Citadel. This task was 

difficult, as most of the bridges into the walled city had been destroyed. 

The newly arrived 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment was designated 

to operate within the northeast corner of the Citadel. By midday on 11 

February, the Marines arrived in force at the Citadel airfield using CH46 helicopters. Company A, with five M48 tanks attached from the 1st 

Marine Tank Battalion in support, arrived in a LCU and entered the old 

city from the south. These Marines relieved the ARVN airborne task force, 

which soon departed the city. Two 4.2-inch heavy mortars and a 105mm 

howitzer battery were positioned close to the city to provide indirect fire 

support for the coming battle.33

The buildup of ARVN and American forces was not lost on the NVA, 

which chose this time to redouble its efforts to hold Hue by sending in 

reinforcements and launching savage attacks. Characterized by the brutal 
37

and bloody street actions of urban warfare, the battle for the Citadel raged 

from 11 to 25 February. Again fighting was block-by-block, building-tobuilding, and room-to-room. Completely gone were the efforts to limit 

collateral damage as heavy artillery and naval gunfire were used to support 

the ground actions.

The US Marines began the offensive to clear their zone on the morning of 13 February, using the same techniques as the previous weeks. Two 

companies were to advance abreast clearing each building encountered, 

while one company was held in reserve. Tanks and Ontos vehicles were 

used as direct fire support. Unaware of the withdrawal of the ARVN paratroopers, the Marines found themselves up against a host of NVA soldiers. 

With tanks in the lead, the Americans moved forward but did not even 

reach their line of departure. The NVA had constructed spider holes along 

the old walls and occupied other positions covering the approaches. A 

hail of automatic fire, grenades, B-40 rockets, and mortars stopped the 

Marines. The best news of the day was the erection of a pontoon bridge 

across the Perfume River to replace the damaged An Cuu span, allowing 

the shipment of food and supplies into the old city.34 (See Map 12.)

The next day, 14 February, the Marines employed their artillery and 

naval fire support as a walking barrage ahead of their advance to soften up 

the NVA defenders. The generally flat trajectory of the guns limited their 

effectiveness in the urban environment though. An unexpected break in 

the weather during the afternoon allowed F-4 Phantoms and F-8 Crusader 

fighter-bombers to fly support missions, but their overall effect turned out 

to be minimal. The Marine attack stalled again under the withering fire 

from the NVA positions. The ARVN forces fighting in the southeast corner 

of the old city fared no better. In fact, an NVA counterattack managed to 

cut off the 1st Battalion of the 3d ARVN Regiment, requiring two days of 

hard fighting to relieve these men.35

On 15 February, the Marines showed some progress by capturing a 

tower along the wall in their sector. Aided by A-4 fighter-bombers during 

another break in the weather, the Americans took and held the structure 

after hand-to-hand fighting and heavy casualties. The battalion pushed forward the next day, gaining a few more buildings. It was generally felt that 

the NVA in this part of the city fought better and employed more sophisticated tactics than those encountered south of the river. The NVA in the 

Citadel had dug trenches and spider holes, used roadblocks, and did not 

hesitate to counterattack to regain key positions. With the end of fighting 

on 16 February, the Marines in the northeast corner of the Citadel paused 

to regroup, rearm, and resupply. All men were in need of rest and the 

armored vehicles required refueling and ammunition.36
38

With the poor weather and limited effect of heavy artillery against 

the stone structures, the Marines had to rely on their organic weapons, 

particularly the mortars and armor. The tanks and Ontos vehicles were 

attached down to platoon level to increase their responsiveness. While 

the riflemen provided cover, the armor engaged point targets as needed. 

Often, the vehicle commanders would dismount and go forward with the 

riflemen to reconnoiter. On engaging a target, the armored vehicles would 

quickly reverse to gain cover and the Marines would surge forward. The 

tank crewmen quickly discovered that the standard high-explosive rounds 

did little damage to the stone or masonry walls in the old city. The rounds 

often ricocheted back into friendly troops. The tank crewmen switched to 

high explosive antitank (HEAT) rounds, which usually could breach the 

ancient walls with four or five rounds. Casualties were high among the 

armor crewmen, but the M48 tanks generally stood up well against the 

Map 12. US Marines—ARVN fight for the Citadel.

1 Kilometer

Scale

2-7

II

3-7

II

1

I

4-2

II

2-5

II

2-3

II

3-3

II

4-3

II 2-1

II

7-1

II 9-1

II

1 Kilometer

Scale

2-7

II

3-7

II

1

I

4-2

II

2-5

II

2-3

II

3-3

II

4-3

II 2-1

II

7-1

II 9-1

II

1 Kilometer

Scale

1 Kilometer

Scale

1 Kilometer

Scale

2-7

II

3-7

II

1

I

4-2

II

2-5

II

2-3

II

3-3

II

4-3

II 2-1

II

7-1

II 9-1

II
39

B-40 rockets. The tanks were soon back in action with replacement crewmen. Another key weapon in the fight was the 4.2-inch mortar firing CS 

shells. The NVA was generally ill equipped to deal with tear gas and often 

abandoned their positions once the concentration became high.37

A noted success during the night of 16 February was the interception 

of a North Vietnamese transmission ordering a battalion to cross the canal 

into Hue from the west. Accordingly, the Marines and ARVN indirect fire 

systems massed their fire on the bridge. A later intercept revealed that a 

high-ranking NVA officer, possibly a general, and many men had been 

killed or wounded. The request by his successor to withdraw was denied; 

the new commander was directed to continue the fight. This incident and 

other indications confirmed that the NVA were reinforcing Hue by night. 

To tighten the screen, the 1st Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division was 

deployed to the west of Hue to augment the efforts of the 1st Cavalry 

Division. Over the next week, these forces pushed closer to Hue and 

became more successful in cutting the NVA lines of communication.38

At his headquarters, Truong made plans for the final battle for the 

Citadel. The Vietnamese marine task force, now consisting of three battalions, was to push forward and clear the southwestern wall. The 3d ARVN 

Regiment was tasked to drive through the center of the city south toward 

the Imperial Palace. The 1st Battalion of the 5th US Marines would continue its operations in the southeast sector of the old city, near where they 

had landed on the LCU ramp a few days earlier. The Marines in this sector 

had been relatively inactive since their arrival, having experienced shortages in food and ammunition. Rounds for the tanks and Ontos were in 

critically short supply due to the loss of an LCU by enemy fire.39

The pause in offensive operations ended the morning of 21 February 

as the 1st Battalion of the 5th Marines surged forth again. This time there 

was a variation in the tactics used. In a rare maneuver, three ten-man teams 

launched a night attack on a key two-story building and two other buildings that covered the flank of the NVA positions. The surprise was total, 

and the teams occupied the buildings almost unopposed. As the unaware 

NVA soldiers moved to reoccupy the buildings in the early morning, a 

hail of automatic fire from the Americans met them. Meanwhile, the rest 

of the 1st Battalion rushed forward to occupy the buildings. The stunned 

NVA fell back to their subsequent positions and defended with their usual 

tenacity. Unknown to the Americans, during an NVA counterattack several 

high-ranking officers and political leaders used the diversion to slip out of 

Hue. This marked the beginning of the end.40

At dawn on 22 February, the Marines of the 3d Battalion in the southeast 
40

corner of the city pushed forward. To their surprise, they encountered 

only an occasional sniper or mortar round, as their enemy had seemingly 

disappeared. The riflemen pushed to the southern wall where they hoisted 

an American flag and proceeded to the southern gate. Armored vehicles 

provided direct fire support as before, engaging known and suspected NVA

positions. The ARVN and South Vietnamese did not have an easy time of 

it in their sectors and still encountered fierce resistance. That evening all 

American and South Vietnamese forces shifted to the defense and prepared 

for another fight in the morning.41 (See Map 13.)

The next morning, the 1st Battalion of the 5th Marines was able to 

secure its sector in the southeast corner of the old city in what would be its 

last major action. The Marines had hoped to participate in the liberation of 

the Imperial Palace, but this task was reserved for the South Vietnamese 

Map 13. Tactical dispositions, 24 February 1968.

1 Mile

Scale

2-12

II

1-7

II

5-7

II

3

X

101

2-501

II

1

X

101

X-RAY

X

Marine

1

III(-)

ARVN

XX(-)

1

II

3

Marine

II

5

Marine

1 Mile

Scale

2-12

II

1-7

II

5-7

II

3

X

101

2-501

II

1

X

101

X-RAY

X

Marine

1

III(-)

ARVN

XX(-)

1

II

3

Marine

II

5

Marine

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale

2-12

II

2-12

II

1-7

II

5-7

II

3

X

101

2-501

II

2-501

II

1

X

101

X-RAY

X

X-RAY

X

Marine

1

III(-)

Marine

1

III(-)

ARVN

XX(-)

1

ARVN

XX(-)

1

II

3

Marine

II

3

Marine

II

5

Marine

II

5

Marine
41

as a matter of national pride; however, US Marine armor was positioned 

to provide direct fire support. The bulk of the 1st Battalion was relieved 

in the line by ARVN forces and moved to the north of the city to join the 

2d Battalion in securing that sector. That evening, determined NVA counterattacks were repulsed and the 3d ARVN Regiment mounted a surprise 

night attack that knocked their enemy off balance. The ARVN forces did 

not let up and were successful in capturing the Citadel flag tower in the 

morning of 24 February. There, the flag of South Vietnam finally replaced 

the Viet Cong banner. The Black Panther Company continued its attack 

and secured the Imperial Palace by the late afternoon. By early morning of 

25 February, the 4th Vietnamese Marine Battalion eliminated the last NVA

strongpoint in the southwest corner of the old city. Except for a week of 

mopping up operations outside the city, the battle for Hue was over.42

In Retrospect

The recapture of Hue was a particularly bitter fight involving house-tohouse fighting and heavy casualties, extensively damaging about 80 percent of the city, and leaving over 110,000 people homeless. Approximately 

5,000 civilians were killed, including about 3,000 who were executed by 

the Viet Cong and NVA and buried in mass graves. US assistance agencies helped the South Vietnamese authorities in restoring order to Hue and 

stopping the widespread looting.43

The losses for the combatants were high as well. The NVA and Viet 

Cong forces lost at least 2,000 to 5,000 dead. The South Vietnamese lost 

over 300 killed and about 2,000 wounded. In the fighting to cut off the NVA

forces to the west of the city, the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) lost 68 

killed and 453 wounded, while the 101st Airborne Division reported 6 

dead and 56 wounded. The three US Marine battalions fighting in Hue sustained total casualties of 142 dead and nearly 1,100 wounded, the losses 

being very high for unit leaders. Lieutenants were left in command of 

companies and corporals in charge of squads. Combined, the allied unit 

casualties totaled over 600 dead and 3,600 wounded.44

Armored forces were a key element in the hard-won victory at Hue. 

Tanks brought the traditional firepower and mobility to the battle with 

heavy enough armor to protect their crewmen from most of the NVA’s 

weapons. The M48 tanks in particular were able to absorb a huge amount 

of punishment and keep fighting. This ability to withstand damage allowed 

the M48 tanks to fight throughout the battle after makeshift repairs and 

rotating crews. Fortunately the fire control, loading, and driving were 

simple enough to allow inexperienced personnel to ride tanks into combat 

when no replacement armor crewmen were available.
42

The lighter M50 Ontos vehicles lacked suitable armor and were vulnerable to enemy fire. A hit from a B-40 rocket grenade would easily render the crew as casualties and disable the vehicle. The gunner and loader 

had no armor protection except the bulk of the vehicle in front of them. 

They were able to bring their weapons to bear only when used in very 

close cooperation with the accompanying riflemen. However, because the 

typical Marine was familiar with the 106mm recoilless rifle and the small 

Ontos could maneuver in the narrow streets, these vehicles were in high 

demand.

The importance of the armor protection of combat vehicles was clear in 

the narrow streets of Hue, particularly the Citadel, where the ability of the 

tanks and Ontos vehicles to maneuver and target effectively was restricted. 

The row-on-row of one-story, thick walled houses jammed together with 

narrow streets was a tanker’s nightmare, with unlimited opportunities for 

a B-40 gunner to fire from any angle. The Marine riflemen could not protect all the vehicles all the time in such an environment, and a hit on one 

was inevitable. It was vital that these vehicles could take a hit and keep 

fighting.

Procedurally, the use of armor in Hue was ad hoc in nature as there 

was no practiced urban doctrine in either the Marine or ARVN forces. 

Crews and accompanying riflemen learned as they went along. Armor 

was used primarily in the support role for the infantry, but on occasion 

it led limited advances with the Marines crouched behind. Resupply and 

maintenance was done by withdrawing the vehicles to the rear, and not 

by any set schedule or plan. Combat was done by day as night fighting 

by the Americans was rare in this era; the M48 tanks had a rudimentary 

night sight while the Ontos vehicles had none. For the riflemen, the few 

available night vision devices were heavy and cumbersome and the batteries had a short operating life. Artillery, mortars, flareships, and gunships 

usually provided illumination. This illumination was very much weatherdependent, and the weather during the battle for Hue was generally poor.

Although a long and bitter fight, the battle for Hue demonstrated 

the ability of armored forces to move under heavy fire and to bring even 

heavier firepower to their enemy, even in urban terrain.
43

Notes

1. Donn A. Starry, Armored Combat in Vietnam (New York: Arno Press, 

1980), 54–55, 66–77, 115. Bryan Perret, Iron Fist: Classic Armoured Warfare Case 

Studies (London: Arms and Armour Press, 1995), 189–190, 191. R.P. Hunnicutt, 

Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 

1984), 373, 381. The South Vietnamese adopted the M113 armored personnel carrier and M24 and M41 light tanks for their armored cavalry regiments.

2. Perret, 189–190. Hunnicutt, 225. The B-40 rocket propelled grenade, a 

variant of the Soviet-made RPG-2, was notorious for its inaccuracy, due to either 

the weapon or the operator. On average, only one in seven hit its intended target. It 

could penetrate just over seven inches of armor, but it needed to hit a flat surface at 

a nearly 90-degree angle to detonate. The sloped sides of the M48 tank made this 

very difficult. The range of the weapon was rated to 150 meters, but in the streets 

of Hue it was much less.

3. Keith W. Nolan, Battle for Hue: Tet, 1968 (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 

1983), xii–xiii, 3–4. The Perfume River is also known as the Huong River.

4. Eric M. Hammel, Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet 1968

(Chicago, IL: Contemporary Books, 1990), 7–8, 11, 16, 22. Nolan, 3–4, 121. 

Brigadier General Truong was the only senior field commander, ARVN or 

American, to prepare any sort of defense in the Hue area before the onset of the 

Tet Offensive. He was considered by many to be one of the best senior combat 

commanders in the ARVN. William C. Westmoreland, A Soldier Reports (New 

York: Da Capo Press, 1976), 310–311. The Tet holiday is the most important 

holiday for the Vietnamese. A rough comparison of the Tet holiday is rolling 

Christmas, Independence Day, and Labor Day into one.

5. Don Oberdorfer, Tet! (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 

1971), 121. This source primarily chronicles the suffering and death of the thousands of South Vietnamese during the battle. Mr. Oberdorfer was a journalist for 

the Washington Post during the battle.

6. Nolan, 9–10. Hammel, 29–31, 37–40, 43, 131.

7. Many LCUs were former LCTs (Landing Craft, Tanks) from World War 

II that were refurbished and employed in Vietnam as a logistical workhorse for the 

US Navy. Most were left behind during the American withdrawal and presumed 

to have been scrapped, but there may be one or two still around.

8. Hammel, 93–94. Brigadier General LaHue had just established his command post at Phu Bai on 13 January and had little time to become acquainted with 

his new area of operations.

9. Hammel, 93. Perret, 189. The ARVN forces were equipped with the M24 

Chaffee and M41 Walker Bulldog light tanks and M113 armored personnel carriers. The standard infantry weapon at the time for the ARVN was the M1 Garand 

rifle from World War II.

10. Hammel, 63, 96–98, 160. Nolan, 18–19.

11. Hammel, 83. Nolan, 19–20.

12. Nolan, 21, 46.
44

13. Ibid., 27–29.

14. Hammel, 104–106.

15. Hammel, 59, 113. Nolan, 31. The poor weather would last for three 

weeks.

16. Hammel, 190–193, 308–310. Nolan, 28. Westmoreland, 329. General 

William C. Westmoreland, Commander of US Forces in Vietnam, was formulating a broad plan to reinforce I Corps and prepare for mobile operations aimed at 

cutting off the NVA forces in Hue, Saigon, and Khe Sanh. Most of the fighting 

during the Tet Offensive ended by 11 February, but Hue lasted almost two weeks 

longer.

17. Hammel, 48, 77. Nolan, 29. Senior NVA field commanders candidly conceded that the seeds for eventual defeat were sown by the 4th NVA Regiment’s

inability to secure the southern half of the city and prevent reinforcement to the 

MACV compound and the embattled 1st ARVN Division headquarters in the 

Citadel.

18. Hammel, 141. The Ontos had many drawbacks. The recoilless rifles were 

mounted externally, requiring the crew to operate them in the open. The armor 

was not sufficient to defeat bullets of most calibers, and the engine was powered 

by volatile gasoline.

19. Hammel, 85–87, 116. These armed convoys were often called roughrider 

convoys. Not all of the armed trucks in the convoy were actually Dusters, which 

referred to the Army M42 tracked vehicle mounting dual 40mm antiaircraft guns. 

The Marines called both the M55s and M42s by that name. For a brief but comprehensive overview of convoy operations in Vietnam, see Richard E. Killblane, 

Circle the Wagons: The History of US Army Convoy Security (Fort Leavenworth, 

KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2005).

20. Hammel, 147–149. Nolan, 44.

21. Hammel, 139.

22. Nolan, 56–57, 88. An example of the high morale and desire to eliminate 

the enemy was conveyed in almost all of the wounded Marines, who expressed a 

desire to get back to their units.

23. Hammel, 264, 301. Nolan, 38, 141.

24. Hammel, 135–136. Nolan, 51.

25. Starry, 116. Hammel, 152, 301. Nolan, 108, 141, states that a flamethrowing tank variant was in Hue, but that its tanks were empty. No other account 

confirms this.

26. Each battalion received three maps, one for the commander and staff and 

one per company. The Army Map Service produced these.

27. Hammel, 187, 239. Nolan, 38. The Marines called the Nguyen Hoang 

Bridge the “silver bridge” because it was painted metallic silver.

28. Nolan, 43.

29. Hammel, 190.

30. Hammel, 236–237, 251. Nolan, 74–77, 81. A CBS news crew filmed the 

event, comparing it to the flag raising on Iwo Jima in World War II.

31. Hammel, 254–255, 261, 302. Allied intelligence services initially 
45

identified the 4th, 5th, and 6th NVA Regiments operating in and around Hue. Later 

these organizations confirmed the presence of elements of the 29th, 90th, and 

the 803d NVA Regiments. Intelligence estimates surmised approximately 18 NVA 

battalions fought in the city and surrounding areas, not including Viet Cong units. 

This represented 8,000 to 11,000 troops.

32. Hammel, 190–191, 261–263. Nolan, 118–119, 122–123. The ARVN 

cavalry units also took heavy casualties. Eight of 12 M113 APCs were lost in 

short order and the morale of the troops was low. The M113s were presumably 

used as mobile carriers for their .50-caliber machine guns, but their thin armor 

was no match for the B-40 rockets.

33. Hammel, 220–221, 262, 275. The initial positions of the Marine artillery 

to the south made firing into the Citadel a hazardous affair. If the rounds went 

long, as they often did in manual spotting, they would land on friendly positions. 

Shifting the artillery shortened the range and eliminated this hazard.

34. Hammel, 270.

35. Hammel, 271–273. Nolan, 140–141.

36. Hammel, 281.

37. Nolan, 51, 90. Some NVA officers and noncommissioned officers had 

protective masks, but the rank and file did not. The use of CS gas was very demoralizing to the NVA.

38. Hammel, 295. Nolan, 137.

39. Nolan, 122–123, 146, 149, 157.

40. Wilbur H. Morrison, The Elephant and the Tiger: The Full Story of the 

Vietnam War (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1990), 396.

41. Hammel, 304. The NVA was beginning a withdrawal from Hue, but was 

leaving substantial forces to fight a rear-guard action. Nolan, 171.

42. Hammel, 336, 340, 347. Nolan, 175.

43. Hammel, 283, 354. Nolan, 101–102, 183–185. Oberdorfer, 230–233. 

Communist death squads were hard at work alongside the retreating NVA. Civilian 

corpses bore execution-style gunshot wounds and disinterred graves showed many 

victims were buried alive.

44. Nolan, 184. The ferocity of the battle is reflected in the number of men 

awarded the nation’s highest honor for their actions. Marine Sergeant Alfredo 

Gonzalez was awarded the Medal of Honor for his gallantry at Hue. This award 

was also awarded to Army Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) Frederick E. Ferguson, 

Staff Sergeant (SSG) Clifford Chester Sims (posthumously), and SSG Joe Ronnie 

Hooper who fought to cut off the NVA lines of communication.

47

Chapter 3

Rock the Casbah: Beirut, 1984

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, Lebanon became home to more 

than 110,000 Palestinian refugees. From bases established in southern Lebanon, Palestinian groups, most notably the Palestine Liberation 

Organization (PLO), conducted raids into northern Israel and bombarded 

towns with artillery and Katyusha rockets. The situation was exacerbated 

after the Jordanian Civil War from 1971 to 1973, when a large number of 

Palestinian fighters and refugees fled into Lebanon. Palestinian refugees 

in Lebanon totaled over 300,000 by 1975, and became essentially a state 

within a state. Israel responded to the frequent attacks by bombing camps 

and conducting raids to disperse hostile forces along its northern border. 

The United Nations and the United States frequently brokered cease-fires, 

but they were seldom held by either side, and sporadic but deadly attacks 

recurred.1

The situation in Lebanon continued to fester over the years as the PLO

strengthened in number, established more training centers, and escalated 

attacks on northern Israel. By 1982, full-time PLO military personnel 

numbered around 15,000 in Lebanon, although only 6,000 were deployed 

in the south. These forces were equipped with 60 aging tanks, many of 

which were no longer mobile, and about 250 artillery pieces. Whatever its 

limitations in conventional war, Israel saw the PLO as a potential threat to 

its northern region and a destabilizing force in Lebanese politics. The PLO

bases were also believed to be staging points for international terrorism. 

As the violence escalated, Israel’s tolerance reached its breaking point.2

In the first half of 1982, attacks by the PLO against targets in Israel and 

abroad escalated. These events invariably triggered an Israeli response, 

most often in the form of bombing PLO camps. The Israeli government 

came under increasing internal pressure to end these attacks and the deadly 

cycle of ineffective retaliation. Four times the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) 

massed an invasion force near its northern border with Lebanon, but each 

time aborted a ground strike. Israeli patience finally ended with the 3 

June 1982 PLO assassination attempt on their ambassador to England. 

The Israeli cabinet quickly met and approved sending ground troops into 

Lebanon.3

This offensive, named Operation Peace for Galilee, was planned as a 

limited incursion of up to 40 kilometers (25 miles) into Lebanon to just 

short of the city of Beirut. The goal was to push the PLO out of southern 
48

Lebanon and create a security zone adequate enough to place northern 

Israel out of artillery and rocket range; however, Defense Minister Ariel 

Sharon and IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan had other plans. They envisioned the complete removal of PLO forces from Lebanon. They hoped to 

eradicate the PLO’s military, political, and economic hold over Lebanon. 

Sharon and Eitan also sought to establish a friendly Lebanese government 

and strengthen the Lebanese army, which would then maintain security 

in southern Lebanon. Syrian forces were expected to actively support the 

PLO, but both Israel and Syria seemed determined to isolate any fighting 

in Lebanon and to avoid an all-out war. The ambitious timeline established 

by Sharon and Eitan envisioned reaching Beirut within 96 hours. Several 

members of the Israeli cabinet, suspicious of such an escalation, closely 

monitored the operation and reserved the right to subject the conduct of 

the campaign to its approval.4 (See Map 14.)

Map 14. The Israeli plan.

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Shab’a Farms

15 Miles

Scale

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Limit of

Advance

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Shab’a Farms

15 Miles

Scale

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Limit of

Advance

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Shab’a Farms

15 Miles

Scale

15 Miles

Scale

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Limit of

Advance
49

The Israeli Defense Forces

This war would be a challenge for the IDF and a direct challenge to its 

doctrine and history. In past wars, the IDF had fought mainly in the deserts and open country where the strengths of its mobility and long-range 

firepower were prominent. In Lebanon, it would have to fight in rugged 

mountains and in confined and congested urban centers. Nevertheless, the 

IDF had experience in urban operations, most notably in Suez City during the 1973 War. This operation, however, was to confront a major city 

with over a million inhabitants. Allocating 75,000 troops, 1,250 tanks, and 

1,500 armored personnel carriers organized into four independent divisions, an amphibious brigade, a two-division corps, and a reserve division 

was a formidable task.5

Israeli doctrine for urban warfare was typical for the day, calling for 

the encirclement and bypassing of cities when possible. If necessary, tanks 

supported by infantry would lead assaults into urban areas. If that proved 

too difficult, the infantry would lead the tanks. Artillery provided indirect 

fire support and, in some cases, entered the city to conduct direct fire on 

stubborn targets. The historic Israeli emphasis on armored units premeditated these tactics, which resulted in a shortage of infantry in their order of 

battle. In practice, regular armor and infantry units received urban warfare 

training, but the large number of reservists generally gained only limited 

urban training in their refresher courses.6

For the urban fight, armor units by doctrine were task organized 

under infantry command as a supporting arm. Command and control and 

combined arms were emphasized by placing the commanders with forward observers and air liaison officers. Tactical officers at all levels were 

expected to exercise a substantial level of independence and discretion, 

a hallmark of Israeli warfighting. Standard Israeli rules of engagement 

allowed for the application of heavy ordnance to buildings housing hostile 

forces, but the need to minimize civilian casualties was stressed.7

Although artillery and tanks were relied on for their heavy firepower, 

the IDF also planned to use nonlethal means to secure urban areas. As 

the situation permitted, the Israelis hoped to use loudspeakers and leaflets to urge civilians to leave the battle area. Friendly civilians were to be 

employed as guides through the narrow streets or to provide information 

on enemy forces.

The IDF was equipped with modern, almost state of the art, equipment 

for that era. The infantrymen carried either the M16A1 rifle or the Galil 

assault rifle, which were very effective at close range. Additionally for the 

close-in fight, the infantrymen received hand grenades, radios, grenade 
50

launchers, light antitank rockets, and ballistic vests. Heavy support weapons included the M163 Vulcan antiaircraft gun and various models of the 

155mm self-propelled artillery piece. The Vulcan, mounted on an M113 

armored personnel carrier (APC), and its 20mm cannon proved effective 

with its ability for high angle and 360-degree fire. Engineer units were 

equipped with the Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer to clear obstacles and barricades and to create alternate routes. The two primary models of main 

battle tanks used in the operation were the American-made M60 and the 

indigenous Merkava (Chariot), although some British-made Centurians 

and captured Soviet models were still in service. A weakness in the IDF 

armor was the shortage of night vision optics. The limited night operations 

relied on illumination rounds fired from artillery and mortars and the tankmounted searchlights.8

The M60 tank series had seen action in limited numbers in the IDF 

during the 1973 War in both the hills of the Golan Heights and the deserts 

of the Sinai. A Continental V-12 750-horsepower engine of proven and 

reliable design powered the M60. The cast hull and turret were of conventional design and layout. The four-man crew consisted of the driver in the 

hull and the commander, gunner, and loader in the turret. Its main armament was a 105mm rifled cannon, with a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and 

a .50-caliber heavy machine gun mounted in the commander’s cupola. The 

Israelis had heavily modified the M60s, improving their fire control and 

installing Blazer reactive armor. In many cases, the commander’s cupola 

was removed or replaced with a superior one. In its final form the Israelis 

referred to the vehicle as the Magach 6.9

The Merkava, designed and built to Israeli needs after the 1973 War, 

was the other principal Israeli tank used in the campaign. The first vehicles 

of the series entered IDF service in 1979. The displacement of armor and 

locating the 900 horsepower engine to the front were done for maximum 

crew protection. The main armament of this variant was the venerable 

105mm gun, and there were three machine guns as secondary armament. 

The basic load for the main gun was 85 rounds. The Merkava was unique in 

design in that the rear doors opened to allow access to a series of ammunition racks holding an additional 200 rounds to facilitate rapid resupply. By 

removing these racks, the Merkava could carry a ten-man infantry squad 

under full armor protection. Many contemporary analysts considered the 

Merkava one of the best tanks in the world.10

The dominant number of armored personnel carriers was the Americanmade M113. Although a reliable vehicle, the aluminum armor made it 

extremely vulnerable to tank fire and the countless number of RPG-7 rocket 
51

grenades held by the Palestinians. Some M113s were retrofitted with additional armor, but not enough to compensate. Not wanting to expose the 

infantrymen to such danger, the Israelis refrained from committing M113s 

to close-in fighting, instead using them as transports to ferry men and supplies just short of the battle area and to evacuate the wounded.11

The Israeli navy’s primary mission was to block the coast of Lebanon 

and prevent resupply of PLO forces. The Israelis had a number of small 

crafts and a few submarines available, but the Reshef-class patrol boats 

were the backbone of the effort. These crafts carried six Gabriel missile 

launchers and two 76mm guns and could operate for extended periods. 

Another mission given to the Israeli navy was to support amphibious landings and to carry on a deception that more landings were planned with the 

hope of diverting PLO forces sent to guard the coastline. The third mission 

was to support the ground offensive with naval gunfire.12

The Israeli air force was considered one of the world’s finest at the time, 

featuring modern aircraft and highly proficient pilots. The Israelis allocated 

missions to specific types of aircraft to maximize their capabilities and 

minimize their limitations and vulnerabilities. For instance, the F-15 Eagles 

and F-16 Falcons generally provided aerial cover while the F-4 Phantoms, 

A-4 Skyhawks, French-built Mirages, and Israeli-made Kfirs conducted 

close air support missions. Ordnance included smart munitions, cluster 

bombs, missiles, and unguided rockets. Because Arab air defense weapons 

were historically ineffective, Israeli fighter-bomber pilots were usually able 

to casually drop their ordnance at 3,000 to 4,000 feet. The Arab antiaircraft 

guns were generally effective against helicopters, so the Israelis primarily 

used helicopters to transport supplies and evacuate wounded.13

The Christian inhabitants of southern Lebanon deeply resented 

the PLO conversion of their region to a battlefield and formed militias 

to secure their local areas. The militias in southern Lebanon numbered 

approximately 23,000 regular fighters organized in small detachments. 

They were armed and equipped with a myriad of arms and equipment, 

including antiquated tanks, APCs, and some artillery. Often the Israelis 

provided this materiel and the training to use it. Most of the militias remained 

neutral in the campaign and played no significant role. The Israelis hoped 

the Phalange militia forces in east Beirut, under the command of Bashir 

Gemayel, would cooperate around Beirut, but their hopes were misplaced. 

Gemayel’s Lebanese Forces (LF), some 8,000 fighters, were organized 

into companies and battalions and employed by platoons and squads. 

They were armed primarily with M16A1 and AK-47 rifles, but did have a 

handful of T-55 tanks, rockets, and artillery pieces.14
52

The Palestine Liberation Organization

In 1982, the 20,000-man PLO fighting force was loosely organized 

and poorly trained by Western standards. In the refugee camps and within 

the large concentrations of Palestinians in the urban centers, three brigadesize units formed and were often supplied with Soviet-made and Syrian 

supplied weaponry. The PLO, in theory, was ideally suited for urban fighting as its forces were not capable of standing up to the superior Israeli 

firepower and mobility in open terrain. Factions within the PLO prevented 

any coordinated effort, even at the tactical level. In reality, organization 

and leadership above the squad level was very poor. Events showed that 

while under attack the major refugee camps improvised more effective 

attacks than the PLO created during the war. Those forces fought fiercely 

and tenaciously with limited regard for their own lives. Indeed, many PLO

forces thought the best they could hope for was an honorable death against 

the heavy armor of the IDF.15

The PLO’s two primary weapons were the AK-47 assault rifle and 

the RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenade. Three-to-six-man squads formed 

around the large number of RPG-7s available. Covered by supporting fires 

from the rifles and machine guns, the RPG-7s ambushed and destroyed as 

many Israeli vehicles as possible in the hope of inflicting heavy casualties. Additionally, there were a large number of hand grenades and mines 

available, although the PLO made little use of the latter. In the streets of 

southern Lebanon, the roving bands of PLO fighters were a deadly menace 

to any attacker. The Palestinian forces had heavy weapons, including some 

antiquated and often immobile tanks. They also used the Soviet-made 

ZPU 14.5mm-heavy machine guns and ZU-23 23mm automatic cannons 

mounted on light commercial trucks. Highly mobile and effective against 

soft targets and infantry, these vehicles would suddenly appear, fire, and 

scatter to safety under the cover of RPGs and small arms fire.16

Syrian Forces

Syria had an estimated 30,000 occupation troops in Lebanon under 

an Arab League mandate issued following the 1975–76 civil war. These 

troops were in the form of six divisions deployed mainly in the Bekaa 

Valley and along the main highway between Damascus and Beirut. There 

were some 600 tanks, mostly the older T-55s and T-62s, and just over 

300 artillery and antitank guns. The most formidable units were the 1st 

Armored Division with two tank brigades and one infantry brigade and the 

1st Mechanized Infantry Division organized with two infantry brigades 

and one tank brigade. The 91st Tank Brigade was also on hand. Syrian 

doctrine mirrored that of the Soviets, favoring combat in open terrain and 
53

avoiding protracted fighting in the cities. Training and equipment of their 

ground forces were considered somewhat low, and the Israeli invasion 

caught them by surprise. A major weakness was the Syrian tendency to 

commit their forces piecemeal by brigade.17

The Syrian air force committed over 500 planes to operations in 

Lebanon. Most of these aircraft were the venerable MiG-21s, MiG-23s, 

and Sukhoi-22 fighters. The air force’s primary mission was to act as an air 

defense umbrella over the ground forces in the Bekaa Valley, augmented 

by large concentrations of air defense missile systems. A formidable array 

of SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 antiaircraft missile batteries was clustered around 

the Syrian forces in the valley.18

When comparing the forces, the IDF clearly possessed numerical and 

technological superiority over its foe. This is particularly true as there 

were few Syrian forces within 40 kilometers of the border. With many of 

the militia groups remaining neutral in the fight, only the scattered PLO

forces presented an obstacle to the advance. Few Israeli leaders and planners saw any difficulty in being able to reach the stated objectives.19

The First Phase

Israel committed five IDF divisions and two reinforced brigades to 

the offensive that was planned along three axes of attack. These divisions 

were aimed against the three major PLO concentrations defended by 

1,500 to 2,500 fighters. The main effort was in the west and called for 

two infantry-heavy divisions to converge on Tyre and drive north along 

the coast to Sidon to link up with an amphibious assault force and drive 

toward Beirut. Supporting this endeavor was the 162d Armored Division, 

which was assigned to the center sector to secure the Beaufort Castle, a 

PLO command center held by a brigade-size element, and then proceed 

to the northwest to Sidon to support the units operating along the coast. 

To the east, the 252d Armored Division and the 90th Reserve Division, 

supported by an airborne brigade and an infantry brigade, were to drive 

northward to destroy the PLO forces, push back any Syrian units, and 

cut the key Beirut-Damascus Highway to prevent further reinforcement or 

intervention from Syria. If successful, it was hoped the main Syrian forces 

in the Bekaa Valley would be forced to withdraw from Lebanon.20

On the morning of 6 June 1982, IDF began their advance into southern Lebanon. As expected, the PLO was the only group to resist the IDF 

advance. Although many of their leaders fled, the Palestinian fighters 

proved tenacious. When overrun and scattered, many of them went to refugee camps or into the hills to do battle as small guerrilla units. Already 

facing international rebuke for launching the invasion, Israel also faced 
54

another challenge with the possibility of the small number of United 

Nations (UN) peacekeepers in Lebanon attempting to block the routes of 

advance. The IDF was under orders not to engage UN soldiers, and the 

UN soldiers were instructed to maintain their positions unless their safety 

was imperiled. This was a dangerous situation for both sides, and any confrontation could have very serious international repercussions. As it turned 

out, most UN contingents gave the Israeli columns wide berth. However, a 

Nepalese detachment set up a roadblock on the Khardala Bridge over the 

Litani River and other UN troops tried to block the coastal road. In each 

case, the Israeli tanks or bulldozers simply plowed ahead. Fortunately, neither side fired at the other and bloodshed was avoided, but these incidents 

caused short delays.21

The first day of the offensive went fairly well for the Israelis as their 

columns rolled steadily north into Lebanon. In the east, the Israelis pushed 

into the hilly country. In the center the air forces heavily bombed the town 

of Nabatiyah to soften up the defenses for the approaching column. Along 

the coast, the armored drive closed in on the port of Tyre as a heliborne 

assault landed troops and even some light tanks as far north as the Zahrani 

River, some 30 miles north of the border. PLO fighters took to ambushing the IDF columns with mines and RPG-7s, but were unable to halt 

them. Nevertheless, they did cause further delays and casualties.22 (See 

Map 15.)

The initial phase of Operation Peace for Galilee was conventional in 

concept and execution and fitted well with Israeli’s equipment and doctrine. The plan to combine armored forces driving deep into enemy territory with support from massed firepower from artillery and aircraft was a 

replay of many past battles and campaigns. The stated goal remained to 

reach the 40-kilometer line of advance and close the escape and reinforcement routes of the PLO as quickly as possible. In this, the IDF was in its 

element and the disparity between it and its enemy was clearly apparent as 

the PLO lacked mobility and firepower. But like so many wars in history, 

easy victory can be elusive because the enemy has a say in the matter.

23

The first major obstacle in this rapid advance to the final objective 

was the city of Tyre and the sprawling refugee camps surrounding it. The 

IDF had prepared for the worst in urban combat in this sector and had 

given units refresher training and additional equipment. To minimize 

civilian casualties, the Israelis dropped leaflets instructing the residents to 

avoid ground and air attacks by assembling on the beaches. The Israelis 

employed all branches of its services in this well-planned and executed 

operation. An amphibious landing to the north of the city blocked the main 
55

route of egress or reinforcement while naval gunfire rendered support. The 

city was essentially isolated and under seige.24

After artillery and air support missions blasted the camps and PLO

positions in the city, the IDF ground forces then entered the camps with 

tanks in the lead and APCs close behind. The tents and ramshackle 

buildings of the refugee camps presented a maze to the attacker and a 

multitude of firing points for the numerous RPG-7 gunners. Beyond the 

camps, the city of Tyre was formidable with its substantial construction. 

The coming house-to-house fight appeared to be the tank crewman’s 

nightmare. Much to the surprise of the senior Palestinian leadership and 

the Israelis themselves, the battle for Tyre was bitter but not the bloodbath 

the armor units feared. Tanks fired point-blank at street-level bunkers, 

while the paratroopers and infantry engaged upper level positions with 

small arms and mortars. The speed and shock of the assault dazed the 

Map 15. 6 June 1982.

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

162

XX

XX

62

XX 1

XX

X

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

Limit of Advance 15 Miles

Scale

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

162

XX

XX

62

XX 1

XX

X

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

Limit of Advance 15 Miles

Scale

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

162

XX

XX

62

XX 1

XX

X

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

Limit of Advance 15 Miles

Scale

15 Miles

Scale
56

Palestinian leadership who were unable to coordinate an effective defense. 

Unexpectedly, the heaviest fighting was over in a day, although it took 

another four or five days to clear Tyre completely of resistance. Here the 

high explosive antitank (HEAT) and sabot rounds often failed to penetrate 

the concrete structures in the city. In response, the IDF employed 155mm 

self-propelled guns in a direct-fire mode. These proved very effective in 

reducing strongpoints and in some cases collapsed entire buildings.25

The Israeli timetable was now out of synch because of the battle for 

Tyre, but the armored thrust up the coast continued. The city of Sidon was 

similar to Tyre for the attackers, including a brigade amphibious assault, 

but as the southern headquarters for the PLO it was expected to have more 

determined defenders. When the IDF tanks and infantry stormed into the 

camps and city, the light resistance astonished them. The Israelis did not 

know it at the time, but the Palestinians had largely abandoned the city 

and withdrawn north into Beirut. Determined PLO fighters, however, continued to conduct sporadic hit-and-run attacks until the very end of the 

conflict.26

The Israeli columns in the center and the west were tank-heavy and 

faced sporadic resistance that generally was far less than expected; even 

so, it was not a simple walkover. Ambushes were common on the tortuous 

dirt roads in the hills and in the villages. At times, the infantry had to 

dismount and lead the tanks through the streets, thus slowing the speed 

of the advance. As the IDF pushed northward, it encountered increasing 

numbers of Syrian troops. Sporadic skirmishes became pitched battles. To 

bypass a particularly strong Syrian position, the IDF engineers gouged a 

20-kilometer track in the rugged hills to allow an armored task force to 

proceed. Massed armor and firepower dominated these fights, and Israeli 

armored units continued to push to the north. The net effect of these battles 

with the Palestinians and the Syrians was to throw off the ambitious 

timetable in the center and eastern sectors.27

On 7 June, the Israelis conducted a rare night attack on the Beaufort 

Castle in the center sector. The castle was an imposing structure rising 

some 700 meters from the Litani River Valley and dominated the terrain 

for miles. For years, the PLO had used it as a headquarters and for directing artillery and rocket fire into northern Israel. Defending this redoubt 

were 1,500 PLO fighters armed with a wide assortment of light and heavy 

weapons supported by some artillery and a few tanks. Using the headlights of APCs and illumination rounds, the Golani Brigade took the position by storm and, although there were heavy casualties, eliminated this 

troublesome obstacle. Although successful here, a fight near the town of 
57

Ayn Zhaltah was another matter. On 8 June, the Syrians were able to stop 

the Israelis using heavy artillery fire and antitank rockets and missiles. 

This action prevented the 162d Armored Division from cutting the BeirutDamascus Highway in this sector and outflanking the Syrian defenses in 

the Bekaa Valley.28 (See Map 16.)

A key event occurred on 9 June with the decimation of the Syrian 

air force and the virtual elimination of the surface-to-air missile sites that 

were deployed to the Bekaa Valley two years earlier. More than 90 Israeli 

fighters engaged initially 60 of their Syrian counterparts in supersonic 

dogfights. Meanwhile, two massive air strikes hit the Syrian missile sites 

and armor units in the valley. The number of planes reported lost vary 

greatly between both sides, but apparently nearly 80 Syrian planes were 

destroyed while Israel lost none. With this action, Israel won air supremacy 

over southern Lebanon. Except for the threat of the man-portable SA-7 

Map 16. 7–8 June 1982.

Beirut

Damascus

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Advance Limit of

Ayn Zhaltah Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

15 Miles

Scale

Beirut

Damascus

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Advance Limit of

Ayn Zhaltah Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

15 Miles

Scale

Beirut

Damascus

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Advance Limit of

Ayn Zhaltah Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

15 Miles

Scale

15 Miles

Scale
58

missiles and antiaircraft guns, Israel could conduct interdiction and ground 

support missions with virtual impunity, as long as the aircraft remained at 

altitude beyond the effectiveness of these weapons. With control of the 

skies guaranteed, the IDF launched a strong attack against the Syrian 1st 

Armored Division, which was positioned south of the Beirut-Damascus 

Highway to protect this vital supply link to the estimated 30,000 Syrian 

soldiers in Lebanon. Massive air strikes pounded the Syrians, and two 

Israeli divisions launched a frontal attack on the entrenched positions. 

These coordinated attacks severely mauled the Syrian division, but 

casualties were heavy for the Israelis too. Their attack in this sector halted 

just short of severing the highway. The Syrians hurriedly sent the 3d 

Armored Division, equipped with a number of T-72 tanks, into Lebanon to 

help stem the Israeli tide.29 (See Map 17.)

Although stalled in the east just short of the Beirut-Damascus Highway, 

the Israelis had made steady if not rapid progress along the coast. After a 

Map 17. 10–11 June 1982.

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Advance Limit of

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

15 Miles

Scale

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Advance Limit of

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

15 Miles

Scale

Beirut

Damascus

Beaufort

Castle

Damour

Sidon

Tyre

Mediterranean Sea

Lebanon

Israel

Golan Heights

Syria

Bekaa

Valley

Naqoura

Jazzin

Zahib

Advance Limit of

Beirut-Damascus Highway

Shouf (Lebanon)

Mountains

15 Miles

Scale

15 Miles

Scale
59

brief fight in Damour, the IDF pushed on toward Beirut. As the Israelis got 

closer to the capital, the PLO resistance became more efficient and determined. By 13 June, the IDF entered the fringes of west Beirut and made 

contact with the Phalange militia under Bashir Gemayel. The Israelis had 

hoped the Lebanese militia would enter the streets of west Beirut and clear 

the PLO forces from the city; instead, it remained neutral in the fight. If 

the IDF wanted to take Beirut, it would have to do so on its own. Although 

such an operation needed cabinet approval as the city lay beyond the stated 

goals of the offensive, Sharon told the IDF to occupy and strengthen its 

positions around west Beirut.30

Even though the timetable was not followed and there were heavier 

casualties than originally planned, the Israelis were close to meeting the 

stated objectives of the offensive. The PLO in southern Lebanon was 

shattered. The Syrians were contained, yet fighting, in the Bekaa Valley. 

Facing a humiliating defeat, the Syrians asked the Soviet Union for direct 

intervention. The Soviet Union rejected that option, but accelerated the 

delivery of weapons, equipment, and advisors. For Israel, the delay and 

casualties meant political trouble. Sharon came under increasing pressure 

to answer to the public on the war effort and to justify its cost. At the 

same time, he did whatever he could to gain cabinet approval to extend the 

campaign’s objectives to include the encirclement of Beirut. His argument 

was that if the PLO was simply pushed out of southern Lebanon, it was 

free to return once Israeli forces were withdrawn. Sharon believed a lasting peace was possible only if the Palestinians were driven out completely. 

PLO Chairman Yassar Arafat did not find this good news and expressed 

his desire for a cease-fire, if only to gain time to negotiate or strengthen 

his military position. He knew Israel lacked the will to accept the heavy 

casualties associated with urban warfare and that time and attrition would 

work to his advantage. Naturally, the international media would expose 

the suffering of the civilian populace, bringing further pressure on Israel. 

Under urging from the United States, Israel relented to a temporary ceasefire, but Arafat rejected calls for removal of the PLO from Beirut and 

Lebanon. Frustrated with the stalemate, Sharon ordered the IDF to move 

into Beirut.31

Battle of Beirut

Once considered the “Paris of the Middle East,” by 1982 Beirut was 

but a shell of its former glory. Gone were the days when the city attracted 

tourist and businessmen from Europe and Asia who frequented the market 

places and beaches. The Lebanese Civil War, begun in 1975, was primarily responsible for the state of economic depression. Political and cultural 
60

division resulted in the Christians controlling the eastern half while the 

Muslims and PLO occupied the city in the west. A narrow growth of trees 

and bushes stretching for ten miles through the heart of Beirut, called the 

Green Line, physically manifested this division. This terrain feature had 

three crossing points and served as a stark and real divide between the 

city’s east and west halves. West Beirut was about ten square miles in size 

and had seen the most visible damage over the years, leaving few buildings intact. Electricity, water, and municipal services were sporadic; food 

and fuel were in short supply for the 600,000 residents.32

The PLO, occupying the southwest quarter of the city, had turned 

west Beirut into a Palestinian capital in exile. Its headquarters was established in the Fakhani district where a few buildings rose to 14 stories, but 

the construction was generally of lower quality than that along the prime 

beachfront property. The headquarters building had been modified for 

eventual hostilities with the addition of three underground levels. Nearby 

was a sports stadium that was converted into a major ammunition depot 

and a recruiting and training center. Bunkers and logistics caches dotted 

the city. Streets in this district were often too narrow for large military 

vehicles like tanks. Located at the southern edge of the city were the Beirut 

International Airport and several refugee camps. The terrain was flat and 

sandy, and the camps, housing about 200,000 Palestinian refugees, could 

pose a very serious problem. (See Map 18.)

The Palestinian fighters planned to concentrate on protecting the PLO

headquarters and the three refugee camps of Sabra, Shatilla, and Burj alBarajinah; but the Palestinians were short of heavy weapons. There were 

approximately 40 T-34 tanks, 30 DM-2 scout cars, 70 obsolete antiaircraft 

guns, and 24 BM-21 rocket launchers. The 16,000 Palestinians vowing 

to fight to the death would shoulder the bulk of any fighting. Armed with 

AK-47 rifles or RPG-7s and holed up in thousands of apartments in west 

Beirut, they had taken advantage of the short-lived cease-fire by frantically 

fortifying their positions, mining the approaches to the city, and emplacing 

booby traps.33

The Palestinians had fewer than 2,000 Lebanese Muslim militiamen 

as allies. They were the leftist groups Sunni Murabitun and Shiite Amal. 

The Murabitun defended the port area and National Museum crossing, 

while Amal concentrated its forces on protecting the Shiite slum areas. 

Additionally, Syria had posted the 85th Mechanized Brigade composed 

of some 2,300 men equipped with about 40 T-54/55 tanks and APCs, two 

artillery battalions, and a battery of 57mm antiaircraft guns. This brigade 

had suffered heavy damage in the fighting south of Beirut and the nearly 
61

constant bombing by the Israeli air force. The Syrians were deployed to 

the southern parts of west Beirut, in the relatively open areas that were best 

suited for their armor, and they had a position near the Soviet embassy. 

The Syrians also controlled many of the Palestinian and militia forces 

within their grasp. The splinter groups within the PLO, the militias, and 

the Syrians acting in their own interests formed a command and control 

nightmare. Each group would fight its own battle, in its own way, for its 

own purpose.34

The Israelis knew of the PLO’s command and control problems and 

other woes, but the sheer number of combatants and the urban setting 

gave them pause. Fortunately, the terrain gave the Israelis two distinct 

advantages. First, there was a series of mountains ringing the south and 

east of Beirut rising to over 6,000 feet. Artillery and heavy weapons had 

an excellent view of the city below. Second, the bulk of the Palestinian 

fighters were deployed to cover the camps, which were located on more 

Map 18. Beirut, 1982.

2 Miles

Scale

Airport

Presidential G

Palace reen

Line

Port

Burj al- Barajinah

PLO HQ

Sabra

Shatilla

Stadium

University

West Beirut

East Beirut

2 Miles

Scale

Airport

Presidential G

Palace reen

Line

Port

Burj al- Barajinah

PLO HQ

Sabra

Shatilla

Stadium

University

West Beirut

East Beirut

2 Miles

Scale

2 Miles

Scale

Airport

Presidential G

Palace reen

Line

Port

Burj al- Barajinah

PLO HQ

Sabra

Shatilla

Stadium

University

West Beirut

East Beirut
62

open terrain away from the city proper. The IDF could thus concentrate its 

bombing on the Fakhani district with the PLO headquarters and the three 

refugee camps while minimizing the risk to the majority of the Lebanese 

inhabitants. (See Map 19.)

With the PLO rejecting the call to leave Lebanon, Sharon set out to 

force the issue. To do that the IDF had to occupy the dominating terrain 

around Beirut and cut the strategic Beirut-Damascus Highway. The Syrian 

brigade, who put up a stubborn resistance, occupied those heights. For 

13 days, the IDF and Syrians battled for their possession, but by 26 June 

Israel controlled the high ground and 13 miles of the highway. Also, even 

though the Lebanese Forces under Bashir Gemayel were officially neutral, they firmly held the north and east sectors of Beirut. Under these 

conditions, the bulk of the PLO forces and the Syrian 85th Brigade were 

trapped in the capital. To keep up the pressure, the Israelis periodically 

Map 19. Attack into Beirut, 1982.

2 Miles

Scale

Airport

Presidential G

Palace reen Line

Port

Burj al- Barajinah

PLO HQ

University

Stadium

Shatilla

Sabra East Beirut

West Beirut

2 Miles

Scale

Airport

Presidential G

Palace reen Line

Port

Burj al- Barajinah

PLO HQ

University

Stadium

Shatilla

Sabra East Beirut

West Beirut

2 Miles

Scale

2 Miles

Scale

Airport

Presidential G

Palace reen Line

Port

Burj al- Barajinah

PLO HQ

University

Stadium

Shatilla

Sabra East Beirut

West Beirut
63

lobbed artillery shells into the Palestinian camps and city districts. Sharon 

renewed his demand that the PLO leave Lebanon and offered the Syrians 

clear passage to leave with their weapons and equipment. The Lebanese 

army would enter west Beirut to disarm the PLO. These demands and 

offers were rejected, and Israel continued to tighten its grip around Beirut 

militarily and through an economic blockade. On 1 July, Israeli aircraft 

thundered over the city in mock bombing runs. Leaflets and radio broadcasts urged civilians to leave the city before the coming battle. The battle 

for Beirut was to begin in earnest.35

On 3 July, an IDF column of armor and infantry advanced toward the 

Burj al-Barajinah refugee camp in the southern part of the city. This force 

managed to gain a shallow penetration into the camp after heavy fighting. 

The success of this action was limited, but the Israeli government publicly announced its willingness to continue the siege through the winter if 

necessary.

The attack on the Burj al-Barajinah camp did have an effect on the 

Israeli use of armor in urban warfare for the rest of the siege. Unlike in 

the cities along the coast, here the Palestinians had put up a stiff resistance and the RPG-7s had proven effective against the Israeli tanks. With 

increasing losses in tanks and crews, the IDF became reluctant to use tanks 

in another massed assault. Believing time was on their side, the Israelis 

settled on using periodic artillery strikes while continuing to tighten the 

blockade around the city. This trend continued for the next two weeks, 

then escalated after the PLO launched several raids into Israeli positions. 

The response on 21 July was a massive aerial bombardment augmented by 

naval gunfire, heavy artillery, and tank fire. These attacks were maintained 

until the end of the month.

Faced with growing discontent in the cabinet, Sharon was more determined than ever to force a resolution. In the early morning of 1 August, 

an Israeli task force of tanks, infantry, and paratroopers attacked and took 

control of the Beirut International Airport. During the next three days, air 

and artillery incessantly pounded west Beirut. This was a prelude to something much bigger.36

Into the City

The war’s largest ground operation against Beirut commenced on 4 

August under massive air bombardments, artillery shelling, and heavy 

fire along the shoreline. Collateral damage was significant, including the 

American University Hospital, the prime minister’s building, the Central 

Bank, the offices of Newsweek and United Press International, and the 

two luxury hotels. Residential areas also experienced widespread damage. 
64

From east Beirut, Israeli Defense Forces crossed into west Beirut at the 

three checkpoints on the Green Line with the main effort aimed in the 

direction of the PLO headquarters. Engineers and bulldozers led the way 

for the tanks, infantry, and paratroopers. Bitter street fighting occurred and 

the Israelis managed to capture the National Museum and the Hippodrome; 

nevertheless, they failed to break through to the PLO headquarters.37

The supporting attacks were launched from the south of Beirut, capitalizing on the area near the airport seized earlier. One thrust proceeded 

up the coast for just half a mile before being stopped by heavy PLO resistance. The other attack began at the airport and struck toward the northeast 

with the aim of driving a wedge between the refugee camps. The camps 

had been largely abandoned, but the heavy fire from PLO machine guns, 

RPG-7s, and artillery stopped these supporting attacks.

Although the attacks were halted short of their objectives, the Israelis 

demonstrated they were willing to commit ground forces to the systematic destruction of the Palestinian forces in an urban environment. Pressed 

militarily and economically, and increasingly isolated on the diplomatic 

front, time was running out for Arafat and the PLO. Arafat finally agreed 

to withdraw from Beirut with several conditions. To maintain pressure 

on the Palestinian leadership, on 12 August Sharon ordered the heaviest 

bombardment of Beirut to date. The aerial and artillery assault lasted for 

12 hours and focused on the PLO headquarters and the refugee camps. It 

is estimated that over 130 people were killed and over 400 were wounded, 

mostly civilians. The heavy civilian casualties shocked the Israeli people, 

and this unilateral action by Sharon prompted the cabinet to strip him of 

all military authority. As a result, all future military operations needed 

the approval of the cabinet or prime minister. On 19 August, the cabinet 

approved the PLO evacuation plan and under the watchful eye and protection of a UN multinational force, the PLO began its departure on 21 

August. The last of the 14,000 Palestinian fighters in Lebanon left on 3 

September. The siege of Beirut was over.38

The total IDF losses for Operation Peace for Galilee were 344 killed 

and over 2,000 wounded, almost half of which were sustained during 

the fight for Beirut. The PLO lost over 4,500 in Beirut, and the various 

Lebanese militias and the Syrians lost about 3,500. The civilians of the 

city fared poorly with figures estimating 6,000 killed and wounded.39

The direct result of the Israeli offensive was the withdrawal of most 

of the Palestinian military forces from Lebanon and their establishment in 

Tunisia. This ended the most serious threat of attacks to northern Israel, 

but tensions remained high with Syria and their closely allied government 
65

of Lebanon. The conflict proved disastrous for Syria militarily, losing 

large numbers of armored vehicles and aircraft, but it retained control of 

over a third of Lebanon. An accord was reached in 1983 to set conditions 

for an Israeli withdrawal, but it was never enacted and peace and stability remained elusive in the troubled region. Nonetheless, Israel began a 

phased withdrawal from Lebanon in 1985, leaving behind a number of 

Lebanese militias, known collectively as the South Lebanese Army, to 

operate a security zone. The last IDF units withdrew from this zone in 

2000.40

In Retrospect

The IDF launched Operation Peace for Galilee with the expectation 

of fighting in an urban environment and had prepared by issuing specialized equipment and conducting training. It had an established doctrine 

and experience from previous wars and from previous security operations 

within Israel and the occupied territories. The casualty-adverse IDF was 

fully aware that armor attacks in urban areas without sufficient infantry 

support were costly and task organized to compensate for the tank-heavy 

force structure. In urban fights, tanks and tank units were generally placed 

under infantry command, which was quite a departure from the norm.

The Israelis lost relatively few tanks in the operation considering the 

widespread use of man-portable antitank weapons used by the PLO. It is 

not clear whether this was due to the poor marksmanship of the RPG-7 

operators or the inability of the weapon to cause major damage to the 

vehicles. It was probably a combination of both. Measured in a controlled 

environment against a flat surface, the RPG-7 was capable of penetrating ten inches of rolled homogeneous armor. By design, the M60 and 

Merkava tanks have sloped sides, and the Israelis had modified many of 

their vehicles with reactive armor. Many IDF tanks sustained multiple hits 

and continued to fight, but the Merkava’s performance was outstanding. 

It proved to be the safest tank in action, as no single crewman was killed 

in the operation. In addition, the add-on reactive armor on the M60s and 

Centurians proved their worth in protecting their crews.41

Intended to fight in the open and not in urban areas, both the M60 and 

Merkava tanks were of contemporary design. These tanks were unable to 

maneuver down many of the narrow roads and alleys, and the long cannon 

barrels were extremely restricted in their ability to traverse. Their machine 

guns lacked sufficient elevation to provide suppressive fire or engage targets in the upper stories of buildings. Palestinian snipers forced the Israeli 

tank commanders to abandon temporarily their habit of directing their fire 

and units from an open hatch. In spite of their shortcomings in design, the 
66

Israeli tanks served well by providing direct fire support to their accompanying infantry and stunning the PLO defenders with the speed and shock 

of their attacks.

As expected, supporting vehicles such as the M113 APC proved 

especially vulnerable in the cities as a hit from an RPG-7 meant certain 

casualties. Designed solely to carry infantrymen to the battlefield where 

they would fight dismounted, buttoning up the hatches made the situation worse as the crew and infantry could not fire their weapons. The IDF 

infantrymen quickly learned to dismount and fight on foot. The Merkava 

tanks that had their ammunition racks removed compensated somewhat 

for the lack of a capable infantry carrier, but they could not carry all of the 

supporting infantry and were further limited in the number of rounds they 

could shoot. Some Merkavas served as makeshift ambulances, but this 

practice removed the powerful weapon from the front line. Another makeshift solution was to employ armored engineer vehicles to carry infantry, 

with a corresponding loss of engineer capability. 

The IDF made considerable use of smoke in the battle for Tyre and 

Sidon, but used it sparingly in the siege of Beirut. It had proved useful 

in preventing effective targeting by RPG-7 gunners, but apparently this 

caused more problems than it prevented. The smoke often interfered 

with the hand and arm signals used by small unit leaders and blinded 

the tank drivers, thus slowing the pace of an advance or attack. To compensate for the lack of smoke, the Israelis used mortars for suppressive 

fires. Mortars were favored for their psychological effect and high angle 

of fire that allowed their use in built-up areas. However, the 60mm and 

the 81mm weapons, common in infantry formations, could not penetrate 

the upper roofs of the modern buildings. Conversely, the heavier Sovietmade 120mm in the hands of the Syrians and Palestinians could penetrate 

Israeli-held buildings with ease.42

All combatants used their antiaircraft guns in ground support roles as 

well. They all had a sufficient elevation and traverse to target upper stories 

of buildings and a high rate of fire to suppress enemy forces. Particularly 

fearsome was the Vulcan 20mm cannon, which was able to penetrate most 

buildings with a rate of fire of over 2,000 rounds per minute. The Syrians 

employed the venerable ZU-23 gun of 23mm, and the Palestinians had a 

few of these as well.

In summary, the IDF proved adept at using tanks and armor in an urban 

environment. Equipped with capable armored vehicles manned by highly 

trained crews and led by capable leaders, they produced decisive results in 

the fights for Tyre and Sidon. Faced with the more daunting challenge of 
67

the major city of Beirut, they performed well but suffered heavy damage 

and casualties inherent in such warfare and against an enemy in possession 

of effective weapons and the will to fight. In this case, overwhelming 

firepower often made up for the shortcomings in organizations and in 

vehicle design. If this operation had any lasting effect on Israeli doctrine 

remains to be seen, as there has been no subsequent operation of such size 

and scope. Since they did not radically changed their order of battle after 

the war, it appears the Israelis were generally satisfied with their doctrine. 

Happening during the Cold War and preparing to fight on the German 

plains, the United States did not fully scrutinize its own doctrine using the 

lessons of the fight for Beirut.43
68

Notes

1. Chaim Herzog, The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle 

East (New York: Vintage Books, 1984), 339–340. The term Katyusha rockets 

includes a wide range of unguided rockets, generally of Soviet origin. The most 

common is the 122mm version, often associated with the BM-21 rocket launcher. 

The maximum range of most weapons was about 45 kilometers. Not known for 

their accuracy, these were purely area weapons.

2. Kenneth M. Pollack, Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948–1991

(Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 524. See also Yazid Sayigh, 

Arab Military Industry: Capability, Performance, and Impact (London: Brassey’s 

Defense Publishers, 1992), 524.

3. Herzog, 342.

4. Ibid., 345.

5. David Eshel, Chariots of the Desert: The Story of the Israeli Armoured 

Corps (London: Brassey’s Defense Publishers, 1989), 162. Anthony H. Cordesman 

and Patrick Baetjer, The Lessons of Modern War, Volume I: The Arab-Israeli 

Conflicts, 1973–1989 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), 165–166, 169. Few 

would rate the operation in Suez City an Israeli success.

6. Eshel, 156. George W. Gawrych, “The Siege of Beirut,” in Block by 

Block: The Challenges of Urban Operations, ed. William G. Robertson (Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Press, 2003), 

213–214. This is an excellent source for further reading.

7. Gawrych, 214. It was observed that concern about civilian casualties and 

property damage naturally declined as casualties rose.

8. Pollack, 525. Cordesman, 171, 173, 184. Some sources name the M60 

tank series the Patton. Although technically correct, few people called the M60 

the Patton, reserving that name for the M48 series. The Israelis did have a number 

of M48s in service, but these were not used in large numbers in this operation.

9. Cordesman, 87–88, 173. R.P. Hunnicutt, Patton: A History of the 

American Main Battle Tank (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1984), 210, 225. 

Author’s note: The M60A2 was an engineering disaster. Designed to fire the 

152mm Shillelagh missile, this variant never overcame “teething” problems and 

was eventually scrapped. In the author’s opinion, the original M60 cupola was 

abysmal. The vision blocks were poor, the ammunition storage was small, and 

the M85 machine gun was difficult to operate and prone to jamming. The small 

hand cranks were inadequate to traverse and elevate the machine gun quickly. The 

common trait of all M60 tank commanders was the scar across the knuckles that 

resulted from clearing jams during gunnery qualifications.

10. Eshel, 157–161. Cordesman, 172–173. The Merkava was simply a rolling arsenal.

11. Cordesman, 171, 174–175.

12. Cordesman, 216. Gawrych, 225.

13. Cordesman, 193, 195–196.

14. Herzog, 339.
69

15. Cordesman, 119–121. The three PLO brigades were called Karameh, 

Yarmuk, and Castel.

16. Cordesman, 119, 171, 183. The US Army in Somalia in the 1990s often 

called the trucks mounting heavy weapons “technical vehicles.”

17. Pollack, 523–524. Herzog, 344, 346. Syria mechanized many of its 

infantry organizations and increased the number and mobility of its air defenses 

after the disastrous 1973 War. It also greatly expanded its commando forces, but 

stripped many of the best personnel from its infantry forces to do so. Cordesman, 

122, 173. The new T-72 tanks were a special concern to the Israelis as there was 

some doubt whether the 105mm gun would penetrate the armor. As it turned out, 

it did.

18. Herzog, 344, 347. Cordesman 194–195.

19. Pollack, 525.

20. Eshel, 162–163. Pollack, 525–527. Although the main effort was along 

the coast, the heaviest and most powerful units were deployed to the east to confront the more capable Syrians.

21. Cordesman, 136–137, 149.

22. Pollack, 528. Cordesman, 137.

23. Herzog, 345.

24. Cordesman, 138–139.

25. Eshel, 163. Cordesman, 139. Gawrych, 226. The 155mm SP guns were 

later used in Beirut in the direct fire mode.

26. Cordesman, 139, 141–142.

27. Eshel, 163–164.

28. Herzog, 343, 346. Pollack, 530–531. This was one of the most important 

factors in preventing the complete destruction of the Syrian army in Lebanon.

29. Eshel, 166. Herzog, 347–348. Pollack, 538–540. Cordesman, 200–201. 

The losses represented over 15 percent of the Syrian air force and many of its 

best pilots. The air battles did divert most of the Israeli air force from the critical 

ground support mission and was one factor in the failure to cut the highway at this 

point. See also Pollack, 532–534, 536–537. The Syrian 1st Armored Division lost 

over 150 tanks, and an entire brigade was destroyed. This was the combat debut 

of the vaunted T-72 tank. It did not prove to be as good as some analysts had 

predicted.

30. Herzog, 349–350. Pollack, 541–542. Some analysts, such as Dr. Gawrych 

(214–215), contend that the IDF could have taken Beirut “on the run” at this point 

with a good chance of success. They contend the PLO was stunned and shocked 

by the speed and power of the Israeli advance and could not offer much as a 

defense. On 13 June Jerusalem announced the death of Major General Yekutiel 

Adam, the highest-ranking Israeli officer ever killed in battle. Up to this point, 

Israel had suffered 214 killed, 1,176 wounded, and 23 missing in action.

31. Herzog, 35–37. Gawrych, 217. Cordesman, 148–149. Sharon’s objectives were clearly open-ended and might have dragged Israel into an all-out war 

with Syria that it was not prepared to fight and with no predictable end. If the 

IDF were able to plan for these final objectives at the outset and driven faster 
70

and harder in southern Lebanon, it is likely Israel would have achieved its major 

military goals by 20 June.

32. Gawrych, 209–210.

33. Cordesman, 144, 151. Gawrych, 210–211, 219.

34. Cordesman, 120–121. Pollack, 543–545. Pollack asserts that the Syrian 

armor forces in particular were inept at combined arms warfare and incapable of 

maneuvering and adjusting artillery. Reconnaissance was almost nonexistent, and 

soldiers and crews were not disposed to clean and maintain their weapons and 

equipment. He marvels that the Syrians were not destroyed outright and faults the 

Israelis “start and stop” pace of the offensive for this. See Steven J. Zaloga, T-54, 

T-55, T-62 (New Territories, Hong Kong: Concord Publishing, 1992) for technical 

details of this older Soviet armor.

35. Gawrych, 219–221. The IDF and LF established checkpoints that stopped 

all traffic into western Beirut. Only medical personnel, police, and firemen could 

pass. Most of the Syrian forces managed to slip out of western Beirut before the 

noose was fully tightened.

36. Dissent against the war emerged throughout Israel and even within the 

ranks of the IDF. Gawrych, 228. In late July a brigade commander, Colonel Eli 

Geva, refused an order to fire his artillery into areas of western Beirut arguing 

such bombardment would cause numerous civilian casualties. He was relieved 

of his command, but such dissent within the military was unprecedented in the 

annals of the IDF and a shock to society.

37. Herzog, 352. Gawrych, 221.

38. Gawrych, 222–223. Herzog, 352.

39. Cordesman, 152. Gawrych, 223.

40. Herzog, 352–354. Saad Haddad was the founder and commander of the 

South Lebanon Army, and had commanded a militia battalion during Operation 

Peace for Galilee. Israel armed and supplied his forces. He died of cancer in late 

1984.

41. Eshel, 167. Cordesman, 155–156. The PLO was essentially an occupation force, neither trained nor equipped for the task at hand. If it had fought as 

well as the Syrian commandos, for instance, the Israeli losses would have been far 

worse.

42. Eshel, 167. Israeli tank commanders had traditionally stood upright in 

their turrets during battle to facilitate rapid target acquisition and command and 

control.

43. Cordesman, 221. Cordesman contends that many analysts in the West 

learned the wrong lessons from the war, focusing almost exclusively on the technological aspects and not on the employment of the weapons themselves.
71

Chapter 4

Headlong into Hell: Grozny, 1995

Russia’s invasion of Chechnya in January 1995 ranks among the worst 

military engagements of the 20th century. The fighting centered on the 

city of Grozny where a hastily assembled and unprepared Russian force 

squared off against a Chechen force of regulars and guerrillas equipped 

with Russian weapons and a belief in their cause. Although the Chechens 

held their own for three weeks, they eventually lost the city to the Russians. 

The city changed hands again in 1996 and yet again in 2000. Each Russian 

offensive used tanks and armor in the urban fight. Consequently, the battles for Grozny had a deep impact on the major world powers’ opinions of 

using armor in cities.

The battles for Grozny are an important example of large-scale operations using armor in urban combat. For many contemporary analysts, the 

battles for Grozny represented the future of modern warfare. In Grozny, a 

technologically advanced army battled for control of a large city held by 

a small irregular force. High casualties, massive collateral damage, and 

heavy losses in vehicles and equipment all point to the apparent folly of 

using tanks in the urban fight. This chapter will discuss the 1995 battle for 

Grozny and examine why the Russian armor did not achieve the desired 

results. 

For students of Russian history, the conflict was no surprise as the 

region of Chechnya has long suffered. Chechnya, located in southeastern 

Russia in the Caspian Sea region, was a major producer of oil. Fiercely 

independent, the people of Chechnya traditionally resisted all authority by 

those they consider foreigners and paid the price often by enduring military occupations and pogroms. Perhaps the most brutal was in 1944 when 

Joseph Stalin deported the entire population to Central Asia. Thousands 

died as a result and this nurtured an increased long-standing hatred toward 

Russia. Soviet ruler Nikita Khrushchev allowed the people of Chechnya 

to return to their homeland 13 years later, but their attitude toward Russia 

remained unchanged. Over the years, the Chechens waited impatiently for 

a chance to gain their independence.1 (See Map 20.)

Taking advantage of Russian political chaos, Chechen President 

Jokhar Dudayev declared the republic’s independence in October 1991. 

Friction and competition between Russian President Boris Yeltsin, Soviet 

President Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Russian Supreme Soviet prevented a 

swift reaction to the breakaway republic. Half-hearted economic sanctions 

and political isolation were imposed, but there was no significant military 
72

action. Pro-Russian factions were provided with money and weapons, but 

they failed to bring Chechnya back into the Russian fold. Humiliated with 

the repeated failures, in December 1994 President Yeltsin used his newly 

consolidated power to call for a full-scale military intervention to reestablish Russian dominion over the republic by disarming the “criminal elements in control.” A confrontation was inevitable, as Chechens remained 

defiant and continued toward their goal of full autonomy.2

The Russians made plans to invade Chechnya to reestablish control 

and to set an example for other republics that entertained similar notions. 

The plan had four major components and was not particularly complicated. The first phase was to isolate Grozny by sealing the border and 

deploying a combination of army and interior ministry troops to form a 

cordon around the city from the north, west, and east. A route from the city 

to the south was to remain open to allow Chechen forces to leave the city. 

This opening phase was expected to take about three days.3

Map 20. The Republic of Chechnya.

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Chervlennaya

Kamyshev

Nadterechnaya

Gudermas

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Kizlyar

Dagestan

North

Ossetia

Mozdok

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Chervlennaya

Kamyshev

Nadterechnaya

Gudermas

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Kizlyar

Dagestan

North

Ossetia

Mozdok

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Chervlennaya

Kamyshev

Nadterechnaya

Gudermas

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Kizlyar

Dagestan

North

Ossetia

Mozdok
73

The second phase of this operation was committing powerful armored 

forces into the city itself, with the objective of rapidly securing the 

Presidential Palace and government buildings. Other objectives included 

radio and television stations and the utilities that provided water, electricity, and sewage removal. The Russian planners envisioned this phase to 

take approximately four days and expected the Chechen rebels to avail 

themselves of the opportunity to flee the massive armored columns by 

using the aforementioned open corridor.4

Phase three would be the pursuit of the Chechen forces into the mountains and establishing a government friendly to Russia. This was to take 

about ten days. Eliminating small pockets of resistance that held out in the 

mountains, a process that was expected to take a few weeks or months, 

was the fourth and final phase. The Russians expected light resistance 

throughout the operation due to their overwhelming firepower capability.5

Grozny was the capital of the Chechen Republic and in 1994 had a 

population of nearly 490,000 people. Being a major industrial and petroleum center, Grozny had many multistory buildings and covered some 100 

square miles. It was truly a modern city with electricity, a sewer system, 

and the other needed infrastructure for a city of its size. In the 1980s, it 

was widely regarded as one of the most beautiful cities in the region, with 

modern architecture, plazas, parks, and wide thoroughfares. The people 

of Grozny, and indeed the region, were fiercely independent and prepared 

to give any invader a hostile reception. This was a society where the clan 

was dominant and possessed a strict moral code and high motivation. This 

was the great strength of the Chechen fighters—each knew why they were 

fighting. They were prepared to give their lives for a cause they believed in 

and hoped to take many Russian lives with them in the process.6

Russian Order of Battle and Planning

It is extremely difficult to ascertain the Russian order of battle during the 1994–95 conflict in Chechnya. Most units were of a composite 

nature, and manning was usually far below the norm. A rough estimate is 

that the original force used in Chechnya was composed of 19,000 from 

the Russian army and 4,700 from the Ministry of the Interior. There were 

approximately 80 tanks, 208 armored infantry vehicles, and over 180 

artillery pieces. Reinforcements were sent into the republic in the following weeks and months until the total number of troops was about 58,000. 

Large numbers of aircraft were committed to the invasion, coming mostly 

from the 4th Air Army stationed in the North Caucasian Military District. 

Although impressive on paper, from the start there were problems with 

coordinating the troops from the different ministries. The Ministries of 
74

Defense, Internal Affairs, and Internal Security also committed forces to 

the operation; however, they did not integrate their efforts to achieve a 

common goal.7

The Russians deployed the T-80 main battle tank for the intervention in 

Chechnya. In production since the late 1970s, the T-80 was a fully modern 

vehicle and, at the time, the most advanced tank variant in Russia’s arsenal. Its main armament was a 125mm main gun capable of firing a variety of antitank and antipersonnel rounds. Secondary armament included 

a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun and a 12.7mm heavy machine gun in the 

commander’s cupola. The T-80’s armor was considered excellent and was 

often further augmented by explosive reactive armor blocks. A three-man 

crew was possible due to the use of an automatic loader, and when issued, 

thermal sights allowed the crew to engage targets in limited light. The 

Russians also used an earlier version of this tank, the T-72. The T-72 had 

many of the same features but its armor was not as effective and it used a 

diesel engine instead of a gas turbine. Most Western analysts rated these 

tanks as among the world’s best.8

The BTR-80 APC was the standard infantry vehicle for the campaign 

in Chechnya and Grozny. This eight-wheeled APC had a crew of three 

and could carry seven infantrymen, and the 14.5mm heavy machine gun 

and 7.62mm coaxial gun provided direct fire support. The BTR-80 was a 

refinement over the BTR-60/70 series, with improvements in the power 

plant, gun elevation, and crew egress being the primary differences. The 

older variants did see service in Chechnya as well. The other infantryfighting vehicle to see service was the tracked BMP series. Fielded in the 

early 1980s as an improved version of the BMP-1, the BMP-2 was the 

most numerous model. The main armament was the 30mm automatic gun 

and the AT-5 Spandrel antitank missile launcher. With a crew of three, the 

BMP-2 could carry seven infantrymen. All BMP variants had relatively 

thin armor, and due to the compactness of the vehicle, any round penetrating it resulted in a personnel, mobility, or firepower kill.9

On 29 November, Yeltsin ordered Chechnya to disarm and surrender to 

Russian rule. Infuriated by their refusal, he gave the military two weeks to 

prepare for the invasion of Chechnya. The haste in planning the operation 

was evident, and in the process the Russians made some very questionable assumptions. First was the assumption that the Chechens would not 

resist the overwhelming firepower of such a large force. Another assumption was that the military was as capable and ready as it was during the 

Cold War era. It was not. Training, discipline, logistics, and equipment 

readiness rates were low in comparison to that bygone era. Units were 
75

often composite organizations, with some ad hoc battalions made up of 

elements from five to seven different formations. Often crews hardly knew 

one another. Many soldiers went into battle with only rudimentary training 

with their weapons and no knowledge of fighting in urban terrain.10

If there were some bad planning assumptions made, the Russians also 

made some serious mistakes and omissions prior to the campaign. Perhaps 

foremost was the treatment of communications. Due to a shortage and 

unreliability of encryption devices, the decision was made to transmit all 

messages in the clear. This allowed the Chechens to monitor the Russian 

communications and to insert bogus traffic over the net. There was no 

preparation in the use of relays or antennas to overcome the interference 

of high-rise buildings and power lines common in an urban environment. 

Additionally, the Russians did not have enough maps for the tactical commanders, and the standard 1:100,000 scale maps were not adequate for the 

urban fight.11 Detailed intelligence was also missing during the planning 

and preparation phases. The situation inside Grozny was almost unknown, 

and there is little evidence the Russians had fully analyzed the urban terrain or surrounding areas. There was little or no knowledge of Grozny’s 

underground sewer and tram systems, as well as the back alleys and streets 

where enemy forces were bound to be waiting. Another key factor in the 

coming fight was that Russia’s military doctrine was based on an offensive 

across northern Europe and against North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) forces. The intervention in Chechnya called for a far more flexible operation and specialty training. The Russians were woefully unprepared, and many field officers questioned their units’ ability to carry out 

such an operation.12

Chechen Order of Battle and Planning

Similarly, the Chechen order of battle is virtually impossible to 

calculate because these forces were loosely organized and fluctuated in 

strength. Propaganda on both sides inflated the numbers. Apparently, there 

were 15,000 to 35,000 armed Chechens in the republic, many of whom 

received military training in the old Soviet army. The typical Chechen 

fighting group was a three-or-four-man cell, and three or four cells 

would often combine temporarily against a specific target. Probably the 

largest group was the Abkhasian Battalion led by Shamil Basayev, one of 

President Dudayev’s most trusted associates. Basayev’s battle-hardened 

force consisted of some 500 men who had fought in Abkhazia against 

Georgians in 1992–93. This force occasionally moved in a group as large 

as 200 while conducting an ambush or staging a raid. A number of foreign 

fighters also rallied to the cause. What these forces lacked in organization 
76

and training they more than made up for in tenacity and improvisation, 

including mobilizing entire villages to engage and harass the Russian 

armored columns.13

For heavy weapons, the Chechens had about 12 to 15 working tanks 

of the T-54 and T-62 models. These tanks, inferior to the Russian T-72s 

and T-80s, were used primarily as pillboxes in Grozny to cover key intersections and facilities. There were also approximately 40 BTR and BMP 

series vehicles in the city and about 30 artillery pieces scattered about. The 

Chechen air force was destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the war 

and was not a factor in the fight.14

If the Chechens lacked heavy weaponry, they had an abundance of 

light arms and rocket propelled grenades. The large inventory of weapons and the stockpiles of ammunition were the result of the chaotic withdrawal of Russian forces from the republic two years earlier. Essentially, 

the Russians had armed and supplied their enemy well. The AK-47 assault 

rifle was the basic arm of the Chechens, but the powerhouse in their arsenal was the RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launcher. A skilled user could 

operate the RPG-7 like a mortar to shoot over buildings, as an area weapon 

against troop formations, or as a precision weapon when fired directly at 

armored vehicles.15

The Chechens employed a novel approach in preparing their defenses 

in Grozny. Instead of the traditional use of strongpoints, Dudayev and his 

allies decided to focus almost exclusively on mobile hit-and-run tactics. 

Using their intimate knowledge of the city, each district leader sent out 

small teams seeking targets of opportunity and preparing ambushes. The 

plan was to let the Russian forces move into the city, then surround and isolate individual units. Antitank weapons would attack the tanks and infantry 

vehicles in quick hit-and-run actions. An extensive number of booby traps 

were employed to make operations by Russian infantry extremely hazardous. The Chechens positioned the few tanks and armored vehicles they 

possessed to cover main avenues of approach or as bait to draw attacking 

Russians into kill zones.16

Another tactic the Chechens planned to use was to pose as friendly 

civilians only to lead Russian patrols or convoys into ambush. Many of 

the Chechens spoke Russian and donned Russian uniforms for a number 

of clandestine and deceptive actions. Facing a massive amount of artillery, the Chechens planned to “hug” Russian units, remaining so close 

that supporting fires would be limited or equally deadly to both sides. The 

Chechens also planned to vacate positions quickly before massed fires 

fell, and capitalize on the public relations fiasco when schools, hospitals, 
77

and churches were leveled in the process. Mobility was achieved by using 

civilian vehicles and trucks to transport personnel and logistics. To the 

Russians, the Chechens would appear as deadly phantoms, difficult to 

locate and harder to hit. To coordinate all of this activity, the Chechens 

established an impressive communications network using cellular phones 

and off-the-shelf radios that also allowed extensive monitoring and manipulation of Russian transmissions.17

The Invasion

The Russian intervention in Chechnya began with an air campaign on 

20 November 1994. The Russian air force attacked the airfields around 

Grozny, destroying the Chechen aircraft on the ground. Across the republic airfields, bridges, key roads, and towns were bombed in preparation for 

the coming ground invasion. With complete domination of the air, Russian 

planes were able to attack at will.18

Yeltsin ordered the ground offensive to commence on 11 December 

in spite of the deteriorating weather that would hamper movement in the 

rough terrain. In column formation, three groups made their way into 

Chechnya with the goal of reaching Grozny in the shortest time possible. The northern group advanced from Mozdok, the western group from 

Vladikavkaz and Beslan through Ingusjetia, and the eastern group moved 

in from Dagestan. The columns advanced with the airborne troops in the 

lead, the other army units following, and the Ministry of the Interior units 

in the rear. Mi-24 helicopters and SU-25 ground attack aircraft loitered 

overhead for support, but the winter weather limited their availability and 

effectiveness.19 (See Map 21.)

To their surprise, heavy resistance met the Russians. There were no 

set-piece battles in the open. Instead, the Chechens used their large numbers of antitank weaponry to ambush Russian columns in the forests and 

hills along the route to Grozny. Favorite targets were the rear echelon and 

Ministry of the Interior troops. The purpose of these attacks was to delay 

the Russians in reaching Grozny to give the Chechen fighters time to prepare the defenses in the city. It was there that Dudajev planned to fight 

the Russians in earnest. The resistance was successful for it was not until 

the last days of December that the Russian forces reached the outskirts of 

Grozny. By 31 December, the Russians finally surrounded the city on the 

west, north, and east. Stepping up the aerial and artillery strikes, the next 

phase of the operation was at hand. With reinforcements arriving from 

neighboring districts, the total Russian strength was approximately 38,000 

men, 230 tanks, 353 APCs, and 388 artillery pieces. A hastily composed 

plan dictated the attack would take place along four axes converging on 
78

the city center. Meanwhile, two Spetsnaz groups deployed by helicopters 

to monitor the Chechen rear areas south of the city.20

New Year’s Day marked the beginning of the Russian ground assault 

on the city; immediately, the plan and the attack became a catastrophe. 

To seize the key points of the city quickly, the Russians committed their 

armored forces in column hoping the size and speed of the movement 

would shock the defenders into submission or flight. Dismounted infantry were not used to protect the tanks and vehicles as this would slow 

the rate of advance. This intended show of strength would prove just the 

opposite.

The Chechen defensive strategy and tactics worked beyond expectations. The small teams used RPG-7s and grenades to destroy the columns’ 

lead and trail vehicles. Once trapped, the vehicles in the column were 

attacked and destroyed one by one. The poor communications and lack 

Map 21. The Russian invasion, 1994–95.

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Kamyshev

Gudermas

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan Shali

Vladikavkaz

Dagestan

Mozdok

Kizlyar

Nadterechnaya

Chindarov

Chilindin

Rokhlin

Chervlennaya

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Kamyshev

Gudermas

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan Shali

Vladikavkaz

Dagestan

Mozdok

Kizlyar

Nadterechnaya

Chindarov

Chilindin

Rokhlin

Chervlennaya

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Kamyshev

Gudermas

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Dagestan

Mozdok

Kizlyar

Nadterechnaya

Chindarov

Chilindin

Rokhlin

Chervlennaya
79

of urban training doomed the Russian soldiers. All but one of the Russian 

columns were quickly stopped in their tracks. (See Map 22.)

Only the northeast group under Lieutenant General Lev Rokhlin 

reached the city center near the Presidential Palace and the Chechens’ 

headquarters. The 131st Independent Motorized Infantry Brigade (also 

known as the Maikop Brigade) made it through the city virtually unopposed and seized the railway station. Heartened by their apparent easy success and unaware of the Russian disasters elsewhere, the soldiers parked 

their tanks and BMPs in the open city center and milled about. Other 

elements of the brigade remained parked along a side street as a reserve 

force. After halting the Russian advances in other parts of the city, the 

Chechens converged on the train station and surrounded it. As before, they 

destroyed the Russian lead and rear vehicles on the side streets, trapping 

the remaining armor in the narrow confines. Caught in a shooting gallery, 

Map 22. The Russian advance into Grozny, 31 December 1995.

Presidential

Palace

Pervomayskaya St

St

Staropromyslovskoys Blvd

Train Station

GLt Rokhlin

North- east

GM Pulikovsky

North

GM Staskov

East

GM Petruk

West

1 Mile

Scale

GLt Rokhlin

-

GM Pulikovsky

North

GM Staskov

East

West

1 Mile

Scale

GLt Rokhlin

-

GLt Rokhlin

-

GM Pulikovsky

North

GM Pulikovsky

North

GM Staskov

East

GM Staskov

East

West

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale

Mayakovskaya

Stadium
80

the tanks were unable to respond effectively because their main guns could 

not depress low enough to engage targets in the basements or high enough 

for targets on the rooftops. The complete loss of Russian mobility enabled 

the Chechens to destroy systematically the column from above and below 

with RPGs and grenades. The brigade commander, Colonel Ivan Savin, 

called frantically for reinforcements that never came. Over the next two 

days, the Maikop Brigade lost 20 of its 26 tanks and 102 of its 120 infantry 

vehicles. Of its 1,000 men, over 800 were killed, including Savin, and 74 

were taken prisoner. The remnants of the brigade withdrew by 3 January, 

leaving behind the bodies of the dead and the hulks of burned-out tanks 

and vehicles. Total Russian casualties for the first days of battle were well 

over 2,000.21

The horrific losses forced the Russians to withdraw from the city 

proper and regroup. It was time to assess and modify their tactics. One 

basic fact was clear: the taking of Grozny would involve fighting for every 

building and room. To do this the Russian’s configured their formations in 

battalion-size assault detachments with dismounted infantry as their core. 

Tanks and APCs were still in the fight, but in a supporting role. Tanks 

were positioned to provide direct fire support against enemy strongholds, 

to help seal off areas, and to repel counterattacks. While moving, tanks 

would remain behind infantry at a distance beyond the effective range 

of enemy antitank weapons. To improve the vehicles’ survivability, metal 

nets and screens were mounted on armored vehicles. Since Russian tanks 

could not elevate or depress their main gun tubes and coaxial machine guns 

adequately, ZSU-23-4 self-propelled, multibarreled, antiaircraft machine 

guns moved forward in columns to engage targets on the rooftops and in 

basements.22

The Russians began their new offensive on 3 January and for the next 

20 days the Russians and Chechens battled for the streets. Under cover of 

massed artillery and aerial bombardment, the Russian ground forces moved 

forward. The onslaught did not have the desired effect, as the Chechens 

dug in deeper. Casualties on both sides were high, and the collateral damage to the city was massive. This heavy fire was often counterproductive as the shelling turned the local population against the Russians. The 

fight illustrated the shortcomings of the initial Russian plan, for instead of 

retreating through the open corridor to the south, the Chechens were using 

it to bring reinforcements and logistics into Grozny. With inadequate or 

nonexistent maps and shoddy communications, Russian units had poor 

situational awareness. Unit boundaries were unclear and formations often 

did not know the whereabouts of other friendly units. Fratricide was common, and when a unit advanced it often exposed a flank or was attacked 
81

from above or below because the adjoining unit was not in position to support. The Chechens compounded this by targeting and eliminating a large 

number of Russian radio operators.23

The bloody conflict shocked and frustrated the Russian soldiers leaving many on the brink of mutiny. Instead of simply disarming rebellious 

formations, the Russians found themselves in a war with the total population of Chechnya. Reports from Russian journalists often contradicted 

the official statements from Moscow, and public support for the endeavor 

crumbled. Western journalists reported from the scene and international 

condemnation followed. Russian soldiers, facing an enemy they often 

could not see and a civilian population who opposed them with equal zeal, 

became even more demoralized.24

As in all urban conflicts, the fighting was three-dimensional and 

the choice of weaponry and tactics was vital. During the initial Russian 

thrust into the city, the RPG-7 was the dominant weapon in destroying 

the armored columns. Although it continued to play a key role for both 

sides, the sniper eclipsed it in this stage of the war. Both the Russians 

and Chechens used snipers widely and praised their success, although the 

Chechens were generally more effective. Snipers were apt to cause panic 

in the ranks, eliminate leaders and key personnel, stop or slow Russian 

convoys, or force convoys to different routes altogether. Often those alternate routes led to an ambush. Because many of the Chechens wore civilian 

clothing, the Russian checkpoints were reduced to searching for snipers by 

looking for signs of bruising caused by weapon recoil and powder burns 

on the face and forearms.25

An effective weapon the Russians possessed was the man-portable 

Shmel incendiary rocket launcher. Its fuel-air explosive warhead was devastating in close confines and was often rated on par with a 122mm artillery 

shell. With a 600-meter range, it was capable of quickly engaging almost 

any target of opportunity in Grozny. The Russians also made wide use of 

the Mukha grenade fired from a variant of the RPG-7. The thermobaric 

warhead for this weapon was deadly efficient against personnel sheltered 

in confined spaces. Both of these weapons were used as a substitute for 

supporting artillery, which was difficult to arrange due to poor communications and the Chechen tactic of remaining close to Russian units.26

The Chechens continued to execute a defiant and impressive resistance, 

but could not hold on indefinitely. The onslaught of heavy Russian firepower 

eventually pushed the Chechens to the south. On the night of 18 January, 

the Presidential Palace was hit by two bunker-busting bombs, collapsing 

several floors and forcing Aslan Maskhadov, the tactical commander of 
82

Grozny, and his staff to move the headquarters to a hospital on the south 

side of the Sunzha River. On 19 January, the Russian forces stormed and 

took the Presidential Palace. On 20 January, Yeltsin declared the military 

phase of the operation in Chechnya almost complete and the Ministry of 

the Interior responsible for establishing law and order.27 The fighting was 

not quite over, but on 23 January Russian forces managed to cordon off the 

southern approaches to the city and cut off the remaining Chechen fighters 

in Grozny. The Chechens still held the southeast corner of the city, but 

not for long. As heavy air and artillery ordnance rained down on the city, 

Shamil Basayev was forced to withdraw most of his men from Grozny. 

On 7 March, the Russians could finally declare full control over the city.28

(See Map 23.)

After Grozny

The battle for Grozny was exceptionally costly, with the civilian 

population taking the majority of the casualties. The Chechen losses are 

Map 23. Situation, 20 January–13 March 1995.

Presidential

Palace

Pervomayskaya St

Stadium

Mayakovskaya

St

Staropromyslovskoys Blvd

Train Station

Russian

Chechen

1 Mile

Scale

Presidential

Palace

Pervomayskaya St

Stadium

Mayakovskaya

St

Staropromyslovskoys Blvd

Train Station

Russian

Chechen

1 Mile

Scale

Presidential

Palace

Pervomayskaya St

Stadium

Mayakovskaya

St

Staropromyslovskoys Blvd

Train Station

Presidential

Palace

Pervomayskaya St

Stadium

Mayakovskaya

St

Staropromyslovskoys Blvd

Train Station

Russian

Chechen

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale
83

not known, but the official Russian figures for casualties in the battle of 

Grozny were 1,376 killed and 408 missing. Over 200 tanks and armored 

vehicles were lost, as well as the prestige and pride of the Russian armed 

services. Nevertheless, law and order did not come easily or quickly to 

Grozny. Terror attacks continued, particularly under the cover of night. 

The citizenry did not readily accept the installed pro-Russian government. The government operated almost under siege, only surviving due 

to the presence of the Russian military and by taking refuge in military 

facilities.29

The Russian high command continued with the third and fourth phases 

of their plan, which were to push the hostile Chechens into the countryside and then beyond the mountains to the south. Hoping to recreate their 

success in Grozny, the Chechens employed the strategy of fighting to 

successive cities, such as Shali and Argun, all the way to the base of the 

mountains. This strategy hoped to negate the Russian advantage of air 

and ground firepower and to allow the Chechen fighters to blend in with 

the local population, thus forcing the Russians into the tight urban terrain where it was difficult to distinguish combatants from civilians. Again, 

the heavy collateral damage incurred usually helped the Chechen fighters 

secure the support of the local population. By the end of May 1995, after 

weeks of heavy fighting the Russians controlled about two-thirds of the 

republic. However, the Russians were unable to crush fully the rebellion. 

In March 1996, some 2,000 Chechen fighters infiltrated into Grozny and 

seized large sections of the city. Their intent was not to hold Grozny indefinitely, but to demonstrate that neither the pro-Russian government nor its 

masters were in control. Facing eroding support at home, Yeltsin offered 

peace to secure his reelection in the summer. In August 1996, the Russians 

signed a humiliating cease-fire ending the conflict for the moment.30 (See 

Map 24.)

Chechens once again struck Grozny on 6 August 1996, three days 

before Yeltsins’ inauguration. Led by Shamil Basayev, more that 1,500 

fighters infiltrated the city, secured key areas, laid seize to the 12,000 

Russian troops holed up in garrisons posted throughout the city, and surrounded Russian garrisons in Argun and Gudermes. The Russians immediately reacted to this threat with a massive and indiscriminate application 

of firepower. Two days later, armored columns were organized to move 

to the relief of the beleaguered garrisons. In a replay of 1 January 1995, 

these columns ran headlong into Chechen ambushes and were decimated 

by RPG-7 fire. On 9 August, talks began between the opposing sides that 

led to another cease-fire. Later talks produced the Khasavjurt Agreement 

and the withdrawal of all Russian forces from the republic.31
84

In Retrospect

The debacle of the Russian intervention in Grozny has been fodder 

for the analysts and military leaders who have maintained that tanks and 

armor are not suited for combat in urban areas. In spite of an overwhelming superiority in personnel, weaponry, and firepower, the Russians needed 

nearly three months to secure Grozny and several months more to make 

the same claim with the rest of the small republic of Chechnya. The determined Chechen defense and high Russian losses had a substantial impact 

on military planning for the next decade. Only a bold commander would 

commit his armor to battle in the streets.

The Russian planning for the operation was obviously inadequate 

and based on a number of false assumptions. The planners were far too 

optimistic in assessing the ability and readiness of the Russian military to intimidate the Chechens into disarming or fighting. In giving the 

Russian military only two weeks to plan an operation of such magnitude, 

Map 24. The battle of successive cities, 1995.

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Chervlennaya

Kamyshev

Nadterechnaya

Gudermes

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Kizlyar

Dagestan

North

Ossetia

Mozdok

Chechen-Controlled

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Chervlennaya

Kamyshev

Nadterechnaya

Gudermes

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Kizlyar

Dagestan

North

Ossetia

Mozdok

Chechen-Controlled

Kirovauya

Chechen-Controlled

Grozny

Kargalinskaya

Chervlennaya

Kamyshev

Nadterechnaya

Gudermes

Sovetskoye

Khasav Yurt

Stavropoĺ Krav

Georgia

Argun

Chechnya

25 Miles

Scale

25 Miles

Scale

Ingushetia

Urus-Martan

Kirovauya

Shali

Vladikavkaz

Kizlyar

Dagestan

North

Ossetia

Mozdok

Chechen-Controlled
85

Yeltsin perhaps doomed the operation from the start. There was simply not 

enough time for a proper staff analysis and dissemination of information. 

Russian units had little time to prepare equipment, train, and assemble. 

Considering the distances many of these units traveled to participate in the 

opening battles, it is probable their entire time was spent in transit. This 

was certainly a “come as you are” war. Whatever readiness condition and 

training a unit had prior to hostilities, that is what it was on commitment, 

oftentimes less due to mechanical breakdowns.32

In 1994, the Russian military was but a shadow of the old Red Army 

of the Cold War era. There were chronic manpower shortages, and morale 

was low due to deteriorating living conditions and low and irregular pay. 

Many formations were simply cadre units. The Russians had a doctrine for 

urban warfare based on its World War II experience, but there had been 

little or no training in city fighting for years. Funding shortages inhibited unit training, and there had been no exercises above division-level in 

two years. There was also a chronic lack of spare parts for vehicles and 

equipment.33

This malaise percolated down and affected all ranks. Many of the 

poorly trained conscripts had not fired their weapons beyond their basic 

training. In fact, some soldiers had not even finished their introductory 

training. Many tank and armored vehicle crews were unfamiliar with their 

equipment and all were unprepared for the complex combined arms fighting in urban terrain. The composite nature of the units as they were thrown 

into battle guaranteed that the men had not trained together as a team. As 

fighting in cities is usually at platoon-level and below, this was a recipe for 

disaster, especially up against a wily and determined foe. The rank and file 

of the Russian military was told they were sent into Chechnya to simply 

disarm illegal formations and establish law and order. It was quite a shock 

for them to encounter the tenacity and lethality of the Chechens. Morale 

further plummeted and despondency set in quickly as Russian public opinion turned against the war.34

Although lighter than Western designs, most analysts gave high marks 

to the assortment of infantry fighting vehicles possessed by the Russians. 

The T-80 and T-72 tanks were assessed to be on par with their Western 

counterparts; with their advanced armor, they were expected to take a 

great deal of punishment. But, the battle for Grozny exposed some of the 

flaws of Russian armor. The tanks could not depress or elevate their main 

guns adequately to engage targets in basements or high in the buildings or 

rooftops. The armor protection on the top and rear was relatively thin, and 

the RPG-7s and antitank mines stood a good chance of penetrating these 
86

areas. The long tubes of the 125mm cannon had a very narrow traverse 

radius in the narrow streets that limited firing generally to the frontal arc. 

Clearly, the Russian tanks were designed to fight in the open country and 

not in the confines of a large city. To their credit, many tanks took multiple 

hits by RPG fire before their destruction. However, when the lead and trail 

vehicles in the column were disabled, even the best tank and crew found 

they were stationary targets with little ability to return fire. Much the same 

can be said for the infantry fighting vehicles, but their armor could not take 

the same amount of punishment.35

With the failure to take Grozny quickly, the Russians returned to their 

traditional means of taking an urban area. Unconcerned with collateral 

damage or civilian casualties, they used massed artillery and aerial strikes 

systematically and literally to pulverize the city into rubble. This application of firepower eventually overcame the difficulties in communications, 

intelligence, unit coordination, and a host of other problems the Russian 

units faced.

The lessons of Grozny are sobering for anyone who contemplates 

using armor in an urban environment. Yet it was not a fair test of the tanks’ 

ability to fight in the city streets. Had the Russians followed the basic 

tenets of using combined arms with adequate communications and control, the results could have been far different. This fight emphasized the 

need to train completely the crews and troops in their weapons, tactics, and 

doctrine to employ them effectively. The battle for Grozny was actually 

a historical aberration in the use of armor in the urban fight. Far different results were possible had the Russians employed and supported their 

armor correctly.
87

Notes

1. Timothy L. Thomas, “The 31 December 1994–8 February 1995 Battle 

for Grozny,” in Block by Block: The Challenges of Urban Operations, ed. William 

G. Robertson (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff 

College Press, 2003), 161. See also Pontus Siŕen, “The Battle for Grozny,” in 

Russia and Chechnia: The Permanent Crisis, ed. Ben Fowkes (New York: St. 

Martin’s Press, Inc., 1998), 90–92.

2. Thomas, 163–164. General Jokhar Dudayev came to power as a result of 

an uprising in 1991 that expelled the Chechen communist leader Doku Zavgayev. 

Dudayev was elected in October 1991. He was killed by a Russian missile in 

1996. Siŕen, 100–101, 116.

3. Olga Oliker, Russia’s Chechen Wars, 1994–2000: Lessons from Urban 

Combat (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), 9–10. Thomas, 167.

4. Oliker, 9.

5. Ibid., 10–11.

6. Thomas, 162.

7. Thomas, 165. Thomas has listed some of the various units in this excellent 

piece on the battles for Grozny. Oliker, 23. Anatol Lieven, Chechnya: Tombstone 

of Russian Power (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 1998), 102–103. The 

acronym MVD stands for Ministerstvo Vnutrennikh Del.

8. Richard Simpkin. Red Armour: An Examination of the Soviet Mobile 

Concept (Washington, DC: Brassey’s Defense Publisher, 1984), 37, 51–52. Steven 

J. Zaloga and James W. Loop, Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles, 1946 to Present

(Dorset, England: Arms and Armour Press, 1987), 65–69.

9. Zaloga, 97–103. The BMP had a crew of three and could carry eight 

infantrymen. Both the BTR and BMP series were amphibious, but that characteristic was not used in this campaign.

10. Siŕen, 118, 122. Thomas, 173. Oliker, 6–9. The Soviets had used overwhelming force to successfully subjugate people in the past without large numbers of casualties. Unrest in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and even 

the riots in Moscow in the 1980s were quickly ended by a show of force. Perhaps 

the Russians thought they could repeat the performance.

11. Lieven, 100. During the upcoming battles, Russians would resort to 

hand-drawn maps or use no maps at all.

12. Oliker, 11–12, 16. Siŕen, 120–121. The military leadership was divided 

and many officers were skeptical at best. The commander of the North Caucasian 

Military District, Colonel General Aleksej Mityukin, and the second in command 

of the land forces, Colonel General Eduard Vorobev, refused to take command of 

the operation. Neither fully believed in the cause or was confident of success.

13. Oliker, 16–17. Lieven, 109. Adding difficulty to the computations was 

a considerable number of Chechen men who took up arms when Russian troops 

moved into their local area but resumed their normal routine when the Russians 

left. The Russians claimed that thousands of Muhajeddins from Afghanistan joined 

the fray. Utterly fantastic reports tell of female snipers in white tights from the 
88

Baltic states. See also Carlotta Gall and Thomas de Waal, Chechnya: Calamity in 

the Caucasus (New York: New York University Press, 1998), 188, 205–206. This 

source claims some 1,000 Chechen fighters participated in the fight for Grozny.

14. Thomas, 165. Oliker, 17. Gall, 173–174. Some accounts report there 

were some 40 to 50 T-62 and T-72 tanks. These numbers may reflect tanks captured after the initial assault or vehicles in the countryside and mountains. The 

Russians too appeared to inflate the numbers in their estimates, which is common in assessing an elusive enemy. The Chechen tanks played no significant part 

in the war. They were either knocked out, disabled by falling rubble, or simply 

abandoned.

15. W. Scott Thompson and Donald D. Frizzell, The Lessons of Vietnam

(New York: Crane, Russak & Company, 1977), 176. Thomas, 187–188. The AK47 rifle is rather ineffective at 300 meters, but at 100 meters, it is a very good 

weapon. It is a simple, idiot-proof rifle that is very effective in close combat.

16. Lieven, 109. Thomas, 171.

17. Oliker, 18–19, 20. Thomas 190–191. Chechen Chief of Staff Aslan 

Maskhadov, from the basement of the Presidential Palace, led the defense of 

Grozny. The Internet was also widely used to solicit funds and assistance outside 

Chechnya. Dudayev and other leaders used mobile television stations to override 

the Russian broadcasts and deliver messages.

18. Oliker, 15.

19. Ibid., 15–16. The airborne troops were mounted in BMDs, a variant of 

the BMP, and trucks. Some estimates show that one in five Russian vehicles suffered mechanical breakdowns during the overland trek. Russian helicopters had 

limited night-vision capabilities and only rudimentary navigation equipment. 

Most pilots had less than 30 flying hours per year.

20. Gall, 173–174. Lieven, 103. The new reinforcements included army 

forces; naval infantry (marines) from the Pacific, the Northern, and the Baltic 

fleets; as well as Ministry of the Interior units. Spetsnaz were the Russian Special 

Forces troops.

21. Thomas, 169–170. Oliker, 13–14. Lieven, 109–111. Meanwhile, the two 

Spetsnaz groups south of the city surrendered to the Chechens after having tried to 

survive without food for several days. President Dudajev moved his headquarters 

to Shali, 16 miles south of Grozny at this time as well.

22. Oliker, 24–26. Thomas, 177. Lieven, 111. The Russians emulated their 

World War II experience by forming assault groups. This proved a disappointment, primarily because the hastily assembled units were unable to work effectively together.

23. Gall, 207. Lieven, 111–112. The Chechens scored a major victory at this 

time when Major General Viktor Vorobyov was killed by a mortar shell. Sergej 

Kovalev, the Russian Duma’s commissioner for human rights and President 

Yeltsin’s adviser on human rights, estimated the number of civilian dead at about 

27,000. The Federal Migration Service put the number of displaced persons at 

268,000.
89

24. Thomas, 173, 176–177. Siŕen, 126, 132. Gall, 174–175, 177. There 

were anecdotes where Russian soldiers took to selling their arms to the rebels in 

exchange for alcohol. Looting was rampant.

25. Oliker, 20–21, 23. Lieven, 114. Thomas, 178.

26. Thomas, 190. Oliker, 26.

27. Oliker, 27. Lieven, 120.

28. Thomas, 180, 182–183. Gall, 213–214, 217, 225. Deputy Minister of 

the Interior Colonel General Anatolij Kulikov was appointed commander of the 

combined federal forces in Chechnya.

29. Siŕen, 130. Oliker, 28.

30. Gall, 242, 249. Oliker, 28. Lieven, 123.

31. Oliker, 29. Gall, 265, 271, 276–277.

32. Thomas, 173.

33. Oliker, 14. Siŕen, 123–124. No combat units were above 75 percent of 

their nominal strength. About 70 divisions were less than 50 percent of their nominal strength. 

34. Thomas, 173–174, 188. Oliker, 8. Siŕen, 123–124. The average Russian 

soldier possessed neither the cultural savvy nor the initiative for urban operations. 

Most of the Russian conscripts were in the army because they had to be and were 

anxiously awaiting a return to civilian life. Also, there were an enormous number 

of combat stress-related casualties during the conflict. See also Lester W. Grau 

and Timothy Thomas, Russian Lessons Learned from the Battles for Grozny (Fort 

Leavenworth, KS: Foreign Military Studies Office, 2000). This source details the 

post-combat stress issue in detail.

35. Lester W. Grau, Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability 

in Combat: The Chechnya Experience (Fort Leavenworth, KS: Foreign Military 

Studies Office, 1997). This short work examines the placement of hits and highlights the vulnerabilities of Russian armor used in Chechnya. Some destroyed 

Russian tanks were hit more than 20 times by RPGs.

91

Chapter 5

Into the Maelstrom: Fallujah, November 2004

After the fall of Baghdad to the American military in 2003, Fallujah 

remained one of the most violent areas of the country and the heart of 

the Sunni Triangle. Violent riots, murders, and bombings became a daily 

occurrence targeting the occupation forces and the Iraqis collaborating with 

the interim government or Coalition forces. For months, the local Iraqi 

police and city leaders proved unable to defuse the situation, but based on 

their assurances of an improving situation the Americans only ventured 

into the city occasionally. Meanwhile, the resistance grew stronger taking 

advantage of a weak government as imams and sheiks incited further 

violence.1

Fallujah dates back to the ancient times of Babylonia as a stop along a 

primary desert road leading west from Baghdad. Situated on the Euphrates 

River 43 miles west of Baghdad, Fallujah was part of the modern Anbar 

Province. A small and unimportant town prior to 1947, increased commerce 

and the introduction of industry caused its population to gradually swell to 

about 350,000 by 2003. Fallujah measured about three kilometers square 

and consisted of over 2,000 city blocks with courtyard walls, tenements, 

and two-story concrete houses separated by squalid alleyways. Laid out 

in a grid with a few wide boulevards, the six lanes of Highway 10 ran for 

two miles straight through the center of the city. South of this highway 

were decrepit factories while to the north were more spacious homes. As 

in many cities in Iraq at the time, half-completed homes, heaps of garbage, 

and wrecks of old cars graced every neighborhood. Ironically, the new 

highway system sponsored by Saddam Hussein had bypassed Fallujah, 

and the city’s importance and population was on the decline.2 (See Map 

25.)

With over 200 mosques, Fallujah was an important center of Sunni 

Islam in the region and the population showed a great deal of support for 

the Ba’athists during the era of Saddam Hussein. Most of the inhabitants 

practiced extreme Wahhabism and were traditionally hostile to all 

foreigners, meaning anyone not from Fallujah. The city had a well-earned 

reputation across Iraq as a very rough town, still firmly entrenched in the 

tradition of the clan. After the fall of Saddam Hussein and the disintegration 

of the Iraqi army, there were over 70,000 unemployed men in the streets. 

With no jobs and an uncertain future, many were highly susceptible to the 

call for active resistance against the American occupiers. Later estimates 

showed that over 15,000 Iraqi men did just that.3
92

The American 82d Airborne Division was the first unit assigned 

responsibility for Fallujah and the surrounding area. Stretched thin over 

a wide area, the paratroopers were unable to make substantial progress 

in quelling the unrest. This division was replaced briefly by a 200-man 

contingent from the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment in May 2003, but more 

force was needed. This force was the 2d Brigade of the 3d Infantry Division 

(Mechanized). Using a carrot and stick approach, there was a noticeable 

drop in incidents, but Fallujah remained a volatile and dangerous place. 

Unfortunately, the carrot, in the form of lucrative contracts and lifting of 

curfews, was often responded to with further attacks by the resistance. The 

stick was often more effective as the 2d Brigade conducted large-scale 

sweeps looking for weapons and wanted individuals. The heavy armor of 

the brigade intimidated the populace, and acts of violence declined a bit 

more. Meanwhile, efforts to pacify the people of Fallujah by rebuilding 

infrastructure continued with varying degrees of success.4

Map 25. The Republic of Iraq.

Baghdad

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Iran

Jo

rda

n

100 Miles

Scale

Kuwait

Fallujah

Najaf

Nasiriyah

Basra

Karkisk

Mosul

Tikrit

Baghdad

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Iran

Jo

rda

n

100 Miles

Scale

Kuwait

Fallujah

Najaf

Nasiriyah

Basra

Karkisk

Mosul

Tikrit

Baghdad

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Iran

Jo

rda

n

100 Miles

Scale

100 Miles

Scale

Kuwait

Fallujah

Najaf

Nasiriyah

Basra

Karkisk

Mosul

Tikrit
93

The resistance fighters in Fallujah were unlike any the American 

Army had encountered since the Vietnam War. They wore no uniforms and 

therefore blended in almost perfectly with the population. Operating from 

their own homes, there was no conventional infrastructure to target such as 

training camps or bases. Command and control was so loose that there was 

usually no perceptible chain of command or communications to readily 

intercept or exploit. Huge stockpiles of weapons and explosive material 

remained from the war and were readily available for arming new recruits 

and in the manufacture of improvised roadside bombs. The Wahhabi 

imams urged members of the resistance to drive out what they saw as the 

infidel invaders and any Iraqis who collaborated with them. Many mosques 

became arsenals to stockpile weapons and explosives and safe havens for 

the resistance. The combination of religious zeal, idleness caused by high 

unemployment, and hatred for the occupation made recruitment an easy 

job. The resourcefulness and daring of the fighters made them a deadly 

foe.5 (See Map 26.)

Map 26. The city and sections of Fallujah, 2004.

Railroad

Station

Jotan

Jeghaifi

Muallimin Shurta Askari

Muhandisin

Resala

Hospital

Industrial Park

Quaries

1 Kilometer

Scale

Nazali

(Old City)

Shurhada

Sinai

Railroad

Station

Jotan

Jeghaifi

Muallimin Shurta Askari

Muhandisin

Resala

Hospital

Industrial Park

Quaries

1 Kilometer

Scale

Nazali

(Old City)

Shurhada

Sinai

Railroad

Station

Jotan

Jeghaifi

Muallimin Shurta Askari

Muhandisin

Resala

Hospital

Industrial ParkIndustrial Park

Quaries

1 Kilometer

Scale

1 Kilometer

Scale

Nazali

(Old City)

Nazali

(Old City)

Shurhada

Sinai
94

The 2d Brigade rotated out of Fallujah in August 2003 and was 

replaced by the 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment from 

the 82d Airborne Division. The situation in the city remained virtually 

unchanged in spite of the capture of some notable resistance leaders and 

large numbers of weapons and explosives. Particularly disappointing was 

the failure of two Iraqi National Guard battalions, arriving in February 

2004, to subdue the resistance. Two days after their arrival, a massive 

attack by the resistance destroyed the central police station as well as the 

reputation of the guardsmen. The Iraqi battalions were quickly withdrawn 

in disgrace. There was little significant progress in pacifying the insurgency 

in Fallujah by the 82d Airborne forces during this rotation. Even the capture 

of Saddam Hussein on 13 December did not offer a respite; instead, it 

appeared the resistance grew stronger.6

In early March 2004, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force relieved the 

82d Airborne Division in Anbar Province. Instead of focusing on heavy 

search and sweep operations as the Army units had done, the Marines 

attempted to shift the focus to emulate their own experience in nation 

building and winning the hearts and minds of the populace. The Marines 

hoped the situation would improve by interacting with the people of 

Fallujah.

The resistance was not impressed. Insurgent leaflets nicknamed the 

Marines “awat,” a sugary soft cake. Attacks escalated. A defining moment 

came on 31 March 2004 when four contractors were ambushed in Fallujah 

and their charred corpses were strung up on a nearby bridge. Televised 

around the world, the scene prompted a heavy response.7

In reaction to the murder and mutilation of the four contractors, the 

Marines and Coalition forces launched Operation VIGILANT RESOLVE 

on 4 April 2004. The objective of the operation was to pacify and intimidate 

the violent elements inside Anbar Province, specifically in Fallujah. Four 

battalions were poised to assault into the city while two more formed a 

cordon around it. After conducting precision air and artillery strikes, the 

Marines were prepared to sweep through the city. Senior Marine officers 

wanted to take a far less drastic approach fearing the heavy damage and 

Iraqi casualties would be counterproductive to the long-range goal of 

pacifying the city, however, they were overruled. The Marines began an 

assault on Fallujah.

On 9 April, after only five days of heavy fighting, the Marines and 

Coalition forces were ordered to suspend offensive operations in Fallujah 

to conduct talks with the Governing Council, the city leaders of Fallujah, 

and representatives of the insurgency. These talks resulted in the delivery 
95

of additional supplies to the city by the Iraqi government and the reopening 

of the Fallujah General Hospital, previously closed because of the siege 

by the US Marines. The Marines withdrew from the city handing over 

security responsibilities to the Fallujah Brigade. This light force was 

composed of former Iraqi soldiers and commanded by Major General 

Jassim Mohammed Saleh, an officer from the defunct Republican Guards. 

This cobbled-together unit failed miserably and once again the situation in 

Fallujah disintegrated. The US Marines maintained a strong ring around 

the city over the next several months in an effort to contain it.8

Over the course of the summer and autumn, the insurgency took 

the opportunity to recruit personnel and stockpile supplies. Fallujah had 

become a symbol of resistance and an embarrassment to the Iraqi interim 

government; at the same time, Coalition forces seemed powerless to do 

anything about it. Patience was wearing out. City leaders and residents 

were warned continuously that they were provoking a major assault on 

the city, but the warning went unheeded. It was generally believed the 

assault would come soon after the general elections in the United States 

on 6 November. Those who thought so were right. Beginning in earnest 

on 30 October, air and artillery attacks pounded select targets in the city 

as an ominous warning. Near Baghdad, the British Black Watch Regiment 

relieved American forces preparing for the operation. Power was cut off 

to Fallujah on 5 November, and leaflets were dropped advising the people 

who remained in the city to stay inside their homes and not use their cars. 

On 7 November, the Iraqi government declared a 60-day state of emergency 

throughout most of the country. Heeding these warnings, between 75 and 

90 percent of the civilian population fled the city.9

Coalition Forces

The forces surrounding Fallujah and preparing to assault into it were 

composed of units from the US Army and Marines, supported by aviation 

assets from the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force. Additionally, Iraqi 

ground forces were to be used in a limited role. In overall command of 

the operation was Lieutenant General John F. Satter of the US Marines. 

Satter organized the assault forces into two regimental combat teams, each 

augmented by two Iraqi army battalions. Total numbers for the operation 

called for approximately 10,000 Americans and 2,000 Iraqis.10

Regimental Combat Team 1 (RCT-1) was assigned to the western half 

of Fallujah and was composed of three battalions, the 3-1 and 3-5 of the 

Marines and the 2-7 Armored Cavalry Squadron. Regimental Combat Team 

7 (RCT-7) was assigned to the eastern half of the city and was composed 

of the 1-8 and 1-3 Marines and the 2-2 Mechanized Infantry. In addition 
96

to the Army battalions, one Marine tank company augmented each combat 

team. These M1A2 tanks were widely dispersed down to company level to 

follow and provide direct support to the Marine riflemen. The 2d Brigade 

Combat Team (2 BCT) of the 1st Cavalry Division was deployed around 

the city to block all movement into and out of Fallujah. An Iraqi battalion 

supported that effort as well.11

The officers and soldiers of the units assigned to the operation were 

composed mainly of veterans of the Iraq War of 2003 and had accumulated 

a great deal of experience in urban operations. Prior to the operation, these 

units had the opportunity to train, rehearse, and hone their skills to a sharp 

edge. The American military forces had up-to-date equipment, including 

advanced night vision goggles and sights and communications gear. The 

heavy hitters of the coming operation were the M1A2 Abrams tank and 

the M2A3 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The Marines also employed 

AAV-7A1 Amphibious Assault Vehicles, but relegated them generally to a 

heavy weapons platform.

The backbone of the American military’s armored forces during this 

period was the M1A2 Abrams tank. Initially designed in the 1970s, this 

tank went through a series of refinements and emerged as one of the world’s 

premier armored vehicles. By the time of this operation, the M1A2 had 

seen combat in the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and was the centerpiece for 

the Iraq War of 2003 in the drive to Baghdad. In both wars, it far outclassed 

the Soviet-made T-55 and T-72 tanks. It had a fearsome reputation for its 

lethality and its ability to take an enormous amount of battle damage and 

still keep fighting. The M1A2 Abrams weighed over 60 tons, but its gas 

turbine engine gave it a phenomenal ability to accelerate quickly to its 

cross-country speed of over 30 miles per hour. Its main armament was a 

120mm-smoothbore cannon capable of engaging and destroying targets 

beyond 3,000 meters. Secondary armaments included a 7.62mm coaxial 

machine gun and another above the loader’s hatch. The commander’s 

cupola was armed with a .50-caliber heavy machine gun. The tank featured 

a stabilization system to allow the gun to fire while on the move, and 

the advanced fire control systems were precise enough to engage targets 

beyond 3,000 meters. A thermal sight allowed for firing at night, through 

smoke, and during periods of low visibility. Some of the M1A2 Abrams had 

been further modified with a systems enhancement package, which refined 

the fire control system and added digital components for communications 

and a computer map display.12

The primary purpose of the M2A3 Bradley, a tracked infantryfighting vehicle, was to transport infantrymen into battle and then provide 
97

supporting and covering fires with an array of on-board weapons. It had 

a crew of three and could carry six fully equipped infantrymen. A reliable 

and capable vehicle during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the M2A3 had 

received a number of upgrades in armor, fire control, and communications 

since that time. The main armament of the Bradley IFV was a 25mm chain 

gun mounted in the turret, capable of firing armor piercing or high explosive 

rounds at a rate of over 200 rounds per minute. Coaxially mounted to 

the chain gun was a 7.62mm machine gun, and mounted on the side of 

the turret was a two-round reloadable tube-launched, optically tracked, 

wire guided (TOW) missile launcher. The original hull of the Bradley was 

welded aluminum, but later upgrades included additional steel armor and 

provisions for reactive armor plates.13

The operation also included six small battalions from the growing Iraqi 

army and security forces. These uniformed forces were armed with AK47 rifles and Soviet-made machine guns, which were standard in the old 

Iraqi army. Their training in complex urban operations was rudimentary, 

so they were to play a supporting role, sweeping through and securing 

buildings after the Americans had passed through. The Iraqi forces were 

also ideal to battle insurgents holed up in mosques, because widespread 

civilian hostility was expected if American forces were to do so. Use of 

Iraqi forces would also serve to reinforce the perception that Iraqis were 

able and willing to secure and run their own country.14

The Plan of Attack

Originally called Operation PHANTOM FURY by the Americans, the 

attack on Fallujah was renamed Operation al-Fajr (DAWN) by Iraqi Prime 

Minister Ayad Allawi. This was a means for the interim Iraqi government 

to establish control over the city, to bolster its flagging prestige, and to 

create enough security to hold the national elections scheduled for January 

2005 as planned. A secondary but very important objective was to destroy 

the resistance, killing as many insurgents as possible with a minimum 

amount of casualties to Coalition forces and civilians. The operation did 

not receive full support within the Iraqi government and posed a serious 

risk of alienating large segments of the population, particularly those of 

the Sunni sect.15

The tactical plan was simple. With the cordon in place, the assault 

forces would assemble to the north of Fallujah and would attack due south 

within assigned sectors. Boldly breaking with tradition, the US Army’s 

heavy armor would lead the assault into the city with the infantry and 

Marines closely following to provide cover and to clear each building. 

Trailing Iraqi forces would conduct further searches for insurgents and 
98

logistics caches and assault mosques as needed. The massing of such a 

force was difficult to accomplish unnoticed, so surprise was achieved by 

a 12-hour bombardment and activity to the south to draw attention to that 

sector. The units participating in the operation were to be methodical in 

their operation, clearing their zone entirely of insurgents. A high level of 

collateral damage was expected, but civilian casualties were to be avoided 

if possible. Blocking positions around the city would prevent the escape 

of hostile combatants. The initial objective was Phase Line Fran, Highway 

10, running through the heart of the city. Once the city was secured north 

of that line, the Coalition forces would fight on to Phase Line Jena to the 

south. Once that objective was reached, the attacking forces would turn 

about and sweep through the city in a northerly direction. The attack was 

scheduled to begin on 7 November.16

Over the preceding months, intelligence efforts collected a large amount 

of information on the insurgent forces in Fallujah. Using every conceivable 

asset, including Special Forces, human intelligence, unmanned aerial 

vehicles (UAVs), and satellites, a clear picture of the situation became 

known. Safe houses, weapons caches, and the routines of key leaders 

were identified, as well as an approximate number of insurgents active 

in the city. This information, detailed maps, and overhead imagery were 

disseminated down to the lowest commander. The commanders and troops 

at all levels felt confident they knew where the enemy was and could plan 

their operation in detail. During the operation, these intelligence assets 

quickly switched to target acquisitions and were instrumental in bringing 

effective supporting fires on target.

The intelligence picture in November showed the resistance had used 

the preceding months to turn Fallujah into a fortress. In the city there were 

approximately 3,000 insurgents, of which about 20 percent were foreign 

Islamic militants armed with AK-47 rifles, RPG-7s, and a large amount 

of grenades, mines, and explosives. Attackers could expect a fanatical 

defense from every building and crevice and from any angle. The dreaded 

improvised explosives and booby traps were no doubt in place. For 

movement, the insurgents had dug tunnels between buildings and used the 

existing sewer system. Believed to be in the city was Jordanian terrorist 

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a high-ranking member of the al-Qaeda terrorist 

organization. His capture or death was a high priority.17

The Assault

Operation DAWN commenced on 7 November as the planned aerial 

and artillery bombardment began and the ground forces quickly moved 

to their assault positions. At 1900, the Iraqi 36th Commando Battalion 
99

quickly captured the Fallujah General Hospital to the west of the city, 

while the Marine 3d Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion secured the 

two bridges south of the hospital. This mission succeeded in blocking the 

routes of egress to the west and secured the hospital for use in treating 

civilian casualties. The major ground assault was now set to begin.18 (See 

Map 27.)

The four Marine and two Army battalions began their assault along 

a broad front in the early hours of 8 November. The heavy armor of the 

2-7 Cavalry and the 2-2 Mechanized Infantry led the way into the city. 

The tanks and IFVs stayed close to either side of the street when possible 

to provide cover for the vehicles on the other side. Dismounted soldiers 

provided cover against insurgents attempting to ambush the vehicles by 

using copious amounts of automatic fire and snipers and by sweeping 

through the buildings. Often the infantrymen identified strongpoints for 

Map 27. In position to assault, 8 November 2004.

Hospital

Industrial Park

1 Mile

Scale

II

Marine

3-5 II

2-7

II

2-2

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

3-1

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

1

Marine

3

II

II

CDO

36

Hospital

Industrial Park

1 Mile

Scale

II

Marine

3-5 II

2-7

II

2-2

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

3-1

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

1

Marine

3

II

II

CDO

36

Hospital

Industrial Park

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-5 II

2-7

II

2-2

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-1

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

IIF

4

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

1

Marine

3

II

Marine

3

II

II

CDO

36

II

CDO

36
100

the armor, which then used heavy ordnance against the target. Because 

the tanks’ main guns had a limited elevation, armored vehicles were also 

located in the rear to cover the advance, as their increased distance from 

targets allowed them to shoot higher than the forward armor. Artillery, 

mortars, and air strikes eliminated the more stubborn pockets of resistance. 

Engineers and armored vehicles rammed through the many obstacles and 

roadblocks. Soldiers and Marines generally entered houses only after tanks 

blasted through walls or specialists used explosives to create openings. 

The advance was steady, almost rapid, as the well-trained and equipped 

Americans ripped through the city. By the afternoon, they had secured the 

train station and had entered the Dubat and Naziza districts in the west 

and the Askari and Jolan districts in the east. A seized apartment complex 

in the northwest looked down on the city, and weapons emplaced there 

provided excellent fire cover to assaulting forces. The Iraqi forces joined 

in the attack and aggressively conducted their operations.19 (See Map 28.)

Map 28. Initial assault on Fallujah, 9 November 2004.

Hospital

Industrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

Marine

3-1

II

2-7 II

Marine

3-5

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

1-3 II

2-2

II

IIF

1

1 Mile

Scale

Marine

3

II

Hospital

Industrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

Marine

3-1

II

2-7 II

Marine

3-5

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

1-3 II

2-2

II

IIF

1

1 Mile

Scale

3

II

Hospital

Industrial ParkIndustrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran Phase Line Fran

Phase Line JenaPhase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

CDO

36

II

IIF

4

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-1

II

2-7 II

Marine

3-5

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-5

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-3 II

2-2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

1

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale

3

II
101

The insurgents were clearly overwhelmed from the onset by the speed 

and shock of the massed armor and firepower. For example, the resistance 

in the Jolan district in the western edge of Fallujah was expected to be 

particularly intense. Intelligence reports indicated the most hard line units 

were located there, and the area consisted of densely packed buildings and 

narrow streets. Although there was stiff fighting, it was below expectations 

encountering only small bands of less than 20 insurgents each who were 

quickly destroyed or forced to fall back under heavy fire. Some analysts 

believe it was indicative that many insurgents chose to flee the city when 

they had the chance, or that the deception operation to the south was 

successful.20

In the early morning of 9 November, the Marines conducted a passage 

of lines through the sectors of the 2-7 Cavalry and 2-2 Mechanized Infantry, 

placing the armor to the rear of the advance but ready to respond when 

needed. The Marine tanks remained close behind the advancing riflemen 

to provide direct fire support. The fighting was so intense, the Army tanks 

and IFVs could not respond to all the calls for assistance. In those cases, 

the Marine riflemen had to rely on their organic systems, such as the AT5 antitank rocket, indirect fires, or air strikes. However, at one point the 

air strikes and artillery were halted. So many troops were engaged in the 

densely packed city that a pause was needed to ascertain precise friendly 

positions to prevent fratricide. By the end of the day, the Army and Marine 

forces were deep into Fallujah. The greatest gains were in the northeast 

part of the city, where the 2-2 Mechanized Infantry reached Phase Line 

Fran, thus cutting the highway, blocking an insurgent escape route, and 

securing a shorter supply route for Coalition forces.21

Heavy fighting continued on 10 November and featured the capture of 

two large mosques by Iraqi forces. Each of these had been used as insurgent 

command posts, supply depots, ammunition dumps, and improvised 

explosive device factories. They had also been insurgent safe houses and 

fortresses from which to attack Coalition forces. The Iraqi forces found 

remnants of the black outfits and masks routinely worn by the resistance, 

as well as banners of the insurgency and videos of the executions of foreign 

hostages. In addition, many weapons and large amounts of ammunitions 

and supplies were uncovered. By the end of the day, the Americans could 

claim that over half of Fallujah was taken, including many key civic and 

military buildings. Mop-up operations continued in each zone and the 

Jolan district was turned over to the Iraqis. The fight for the rest of the city 

lay ahead.22

By 11 November, the strategy of attacking and clearing in zone had 
102

driven most insurgent forces into the southern part of the city. Coalition 

forces paused the advance briefly to consolidate and resupply, but 

the clearing operations continued. By the end of the day, the offensive 

continued across Phase Line Fran with the armor of the 2-7 Cavalry and 

2-2 Infantry again in the lead. The assault was a repeat of the previous 

days. Full control of Fallujah was expected within 48 hours with an 

additional week or so to fully clear the city. By 11 November, at least 18 

Americans and 5 Iraqi soldiers were killed and about 164 were wounded. 

An estimated 600 insurgents were killed. 23 (See Map 29.)

The intense street fighting continued for three more days until 

Coalition forces reached Phase Line Jena in the south. Over 300 insurgents 

surrendered, many having been surrounded in a mosque. Thousands of 

AK-47s, RPGs, mortar rounds, and improvised explosive devices were 

Map 29. Fallujah, 11 November 2004.

Hospital

Industrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

2

II

2-7

II

Marine

3-5 II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

1-3

II

2-2

1 Mile

Scale

Hospital

Industrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

2

II

2-7

II

Marine

3-5 II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

1-3

II

2-2

1 Mile

Scale

Hospital

Industrial ParkIndustrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran Phase Line Fran

Phase Line JenaPhase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

CDO

36

II

IIF

4

II

IIF

4

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

2

II

IIF

2

II

2-7

II

Marine

3-5

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-5 II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-3

II

2-2

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale
103

found in houses and mosques. There were still fears though that sleeper 

cells would rise up once the assault had passed through an area.24

When Coalition forces reached Phase Line Jena on 15 November, they 

turned about and began re-clearing buildings as they moved northward. 

The Army and Marine battalions broke down into company, platoon, and 

squad-size elements to thoroughly search for hiding insurgents and caches. 

The progress was methodical with a great concern for booby traps laid by 

roving bands of the resistance. The efforts were not in vain as additional 

weapons and explosives were found. By 16 November, the city of Fallujah 

was declared secured by Coalition forces, although the search and sweep 

operations continued for several weeks. (See Map 30.)

Operation DAWN resulted in the death of 38 US troops, 6 Iraqi soldiers, 

and between 1,200 and 2,000 insurgents. Three of the American fatalities 

Map 30. Fallujah, 15 November 2004.

Hospital

Industrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

4

II

Marine

3-5

II

2-7

II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

1-8

II

2-2

1 Mile

Scale

Hospital

Industrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran

Phase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

4

II

Marine

3-5

II

2-7

II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

1-8

II

2-2

1 Mile

Scale

Hospital

Industrial ParkIndustrial Park

Railroad

Station

Phase Line Fran Phase Line Fran

Phase Line JenaPhase Line Jena

II

CDO

36

II

CDO

36

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

5

II

IAF

6

II

IAF

6 X

2

II

IIF

2

II

IIF

2

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

1

II

IIF

4

II

IIF

4

II

Marine

3-5

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-5

II

2-7

II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

II

Marine

3-1

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-3

II

Marine

1-8

II

Marine

II

Marine

1-8

II

2-2

1 Mile

Scale

1 Mile

Scale
104

were nonbattle related injuries. At least 275 Americans were wounded. 

Between 1,000 and 1,500 insurgents were captured.25

The Dust Settles

The operation heavily gutted much of the city. Many reports indicate 

that over 60 percent of Fallujah’s buildings were damaged, 20 were 

destroyed outright, and 60 of the mosques were heavily damaged. In 

response to the operation and damage, the Sunni minority in Iraq was 

enraged. Insurgent activity surged across the country and demonstrations 

were widespread. Sunni turnout was indeed low in the January elections, 

but they were held. However, subsequent elections in June and December 

2005 saw increased Sunni participation.26

The Iraqi government sent medical and reconstruction teams to 

the area with 14 trucks loaded with medical supplies and humanitarian 

goods. Unable to enter the city because of the military operations, they 

were diverted to villages surrounding Fallujah where tens of thousands 

of displaced civilians had fled to escape the conflict. Meanwhile, Iraqi 

and American forces sought out civilians in need of medical care using 

loudspeakers, leaflets, and word of mouth. The Fallujah General Hospital 

was available and ready for use.27

Residents of Fallujah were allowed to return in mid-December 

and the slow process of reconstruction began. It remained an enclave 

of the resistance, but its strength was greatly weakened and Operation 

DAWN served as an example for cities in open defiance of the Iraqi 

government.28

In Retrospect

By November 2004, the American military were highly proficiency in 

the tactics and techniques of urban warfare. Many if not most of the officers 

and troops were veterans of the Iraq War of 2003 and the subsequent 

occupation of the country. The US Army and Marines had standing 

urban operations doctrines, which they applied and modified to meet the 

situation. Soldiers and Marines had individual styles. The Army troops 

were inclined to be more methodical in tactics but liberal in the use of 

heavy ordnance, and the Marines, by tradition, tended to rely on the shock 

and audacity of their small unit attacks and called on heavy support only 

after an attack stalled. However, both services overcame organizational 

friction and worked well together toward a common goal.

Heavy ordnance delivered from aircraft and artillery was used 

effectively as a rolling barrage to cover the movement of ground forces 

and to obliterate insurgent strongpoints. Key buildings and mosques were 
105

spared when possible, but they were engaged aggressively when insurgents 

used these structures in their operations. Precision munitions and excellent 

communications ensured quick, accurate, and deadly fires.

Considering the complexities of the situation, the intelligence support 

for Operation DAWN was superb. Using the prior weeks and months to 

great effect, the various intelligence agencies and platforms were able to 

paint an accurate picture of the situation and disseminate that information 

down to the lowest echelons. When the battle began, these assets quickly 

shifted to acquiring targets and assessing the capabilities and intentions of 

the insurgents.

Iraqi forces proved capable of cooperating within the coalition for 

this operation. Although they played a limited role, they did attack key 

targets, like mosques, thus avoiding widespread consternation had an 

American unit done so. The light Iraqi units fought effectively within their 

capabilities.29

If the insurgents were hoping for a replay of the Russian debacle in 

Grozny in 1994, they were disappointed. The strategy of “defenseless 

defense” used so effectively there did not work in Fallujah. The American 

and Iraqi forces were successful in countering this tactic by not rushing to 

the center of the city to be surrounded and eliminated piecemeal. Instead, 

they cleared and secured each building and the routes of ingress before 

moving on to the next. Additionally, some American and Iraqi forces 

remained behind the advance to keep the insurgents from reoccupying 

previously cleared areas. Establishing clear zones of operation and 

excellent communications facilitated this.

A key element in the success of the coalition in Fallujah was the 

application of American armor, namely the M1A2 Abrams tank. The 

Abrams was able to take enormous punishment and continue operating. 

In many instances, these tanks received multiple hits from RPG-7s, which 

failed to penetrate the heavy armor; even large improvised explosives failed 

to knock tanks out. Although the actual number is not currently released to 

the public, contemporary media reports show only two Abrams tanks were 

destroyed during this bitter battle. The tactics used by the Americans offset 

the inherent design weaknesses of tanks in the cities. Operating in pairs, 

tanks covered each other while others remained a short distance behind 

lending support. The same can be said about the Bradley vehicles, although 

their armor was far less capable. The Marines had dispersed their tanks to 

provide direct support to the riflemen, and this time-honored tactic worked 

to destroy systematically tough enemy positions. Conversely, the Army 

battalions assigned to this operation used a different approach. Instead, 
106

they led their assault with the heavy armor, which blasted through the city 

and unhinged the enemy defenses. This allowed for the rapid advance of 

the infantry and the clearing of their zone and ensured a swift victory.30

The battle for Fallujah was a stunning victory with a historically low 

casualty rate for an urban fight of this size. It reaffirmed the capabilities of 

heavy armor in cities.
107

Notes

1. A stream of information available to the public was just beginning at 

the time of this writing. The text and analysis were compiled using various unit 

briefings, media reports, and the few published works available. No classified 

material was used in the writing of this work.

2. Mike Tucker, Among Warriors in Iraq: True Grit, Special Ops, and 

Raiding in Mosul and Fallujah (Guilford, CN: The Lyon’s Press, 2005), 89–90. 

Bing West, No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah (New 

York: Bantam Books, 2005), 13. Anbar Province, the largest province in Iraq, 

borders Syria and Jordan to the west and Saudi Arabia to the south. Anbar is largely 

a combination of desert and steppe and is generally an inhospitable environment. 

Temperatures can get as high as 115 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer.

3. West, 13–14. Fallujah was known as the “city of mosques” due to the 

large number of them.

4. West, 14–16.

5. Anthony H. Cordesman and Patrick Baetjer, The Lessons of Modern 

War, Volume I: The Arab-Israeli Conflicts, 1973–1989 (Boulder, CO: Westview 

Press, 1990), 30–31, 40, 46. The common term for these bombs was improvised 

explosive devices (IEDs).

6. West 26, 47–49. Cordesman, 72.

7. West, 3–4, 51, 58.

8. Cordesman, 52, 72, 356–357. See also West, 258. This operation 

was controversial from concept to execution. The US media portrayed it as a 

humiliating loss and some Iraqi battalions refused to fight. The Fallujah Brigade, 

a hastily raised and equipped force, was disbanded within four months. Many of 

its soldiers joined the insurgency. Across the country, the number of significant 

attacks did decline for a month or so but rose again.

9. Fallujah residents were without running water and were worried about 

food shortages. Faced by a hostile press and strong Democratic Party opposition, 

it is no surprise the Bush Administration waited until after the general elections to 

launch an attack. The timing also avoided the hot summer temperatures.

10. West, 258.

11. West, 258–260. The tactic of establishing a tight cordon around Fallujah 

had not been employed back in April. For brevity and clarity, the Army and Marine 

battalions are known by their official designations. They were, in fact, task forces 

with infantry or armor attached for the mission at hand.

12. R.P. Hunnicutt, Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, 

Volume 2 (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1990), 210, 224–225, 229, 274. Only 18 

Abrams tanks were lost to enemy action during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, 

about half by mines. Not a single Abrams crewmember was lost in that conflict. 

Only a few M1A2s were lost in 1993, and mines again were their deadliest enemy. 

After 1992 many analysts declared the Abrams tank a legacy system in line for 

retirement or replacement. Their assessment proved premature.

13. Steven J. Zaloga, The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle (London: 
108

Osprey Publishing, 1986), 22–24, 33. William B. Haworth, Jr., “The Bradley and 

How it Got That Way: Mechanized Infantry Organization and Equipment in the 

US Army” (Ph.D. diss., Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1998), 205–

207, 213. Of over 2,000 Bradley IFVs participating in the Iraq War, only three 

were lost to enemy action. The TOW missile required the Bradley to stop in order 

to fire this weapon. The TOW had an effective range of over 3,000 meters.

14. It was expected that over 2,000 Iraqi troops would participate in the 

operation, but an unknown number of them deserted prior to D-Day.

15. Cordesman, 51, 85, 97. The Industry Minister, Hajim Al-Hassani of 

the mainly Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, quit the government in protest over this 

operation.

16. West, 258. Under international law, mosques are granted protected status 

but loose that status if used for military purposes. The attack in April had come 

from the south and the Americans had hinted to the media and Iraqis that this time 

it would come from that direction as well.

17. West, 257. Improvised explosive devices were the most-feared threat to 

the coalition planners.

18. Cordesman, 104, 359–360. West, 260.

19. West, 263, 268–269.

20. West, 270.

21. West, 284–285, 315. It is believed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of 

the insurgent faction in Fallujah, fled the city on this day. Meanwhile, the leading 

Sunni political party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, announced it was withdrawing 

from the interim government and called for a boycott of the upcoming national 

elections.

22. Cordesman, 104, 359–360. West, 275. The Iraqi 5th Battalion, 3d Brigade 

seized Al Tawfiq Mosque and the Iraqi Police Service’s Emergency Response 

Unit and elements of the 1st Brigade of the Iraqi Intervention Force captured the 

Hydra Mosque. A number of insurgents were captured and transferred to the Abu 

Ghraib Prison for further questioning. Some armed women and children took part 

in the fighting throughout the city.

23. West, 282.

24. Cordesman, 360. On 13 November Prime Minister Alawi declared 

Fallujah liberated. West, 293, 305. During the fight a Marine lieutenant was 

accused of shooting a wounded insurgent he believed to be feigning death. A 

media circus ensued, but the young officer was later acquitted of all charges. The 

court-martial ruling stated he was acting in self-defense.

25. West, 316. Cordesman, 360. Tucker, 94.

26. West, 315–317. These numbers indicate that over a quarter of the 

buildings and mosques had heavy damage.

27. David L. Phillips, Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco

(New York: Westview Press, 2005), 216.

28. Cordesman, 103. Phillips, 222. The loss of Fallujah deprived the Sunni 

insurgents and terrorist groups of their major sanctuary in Iraq.

29. Cordesman, 103.
109

30. Jason Conroy and Ron Martz, Heavy Metal: A Tank Company’s Battle 

to Baghdad (Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, Inc., 2005), 169, 267–268. The US 

Army’s M1127 Stryker vehicle was not used in this fight. It is the author’s opinion 

that the Stryker’s armor would have proven too thin, the wheels too vulnerable to 

enemy fire and debris, and its maneuverability too limited to be effective in such 

a scenario. A number of reports from Iraq praised this vehicle and its capabilities, 

but I remain skeptical. There were Stryker units able to participate, but did not. 

Instead, they were used to maintain the cordon around the city, a role for which 

they were better suited.

111

Chapter 6

Conclusion

Urban warfare is a deadly business and a growing prospect for future 

conflicts as global urbanization trends continue. Furthermore, fighting in 

the streets is a lucrative tactic for nations and factions who are incapable of fighting more conventionally against a large opponent armed with 

advanced weaponry. 

The previous case studies outline a few of the historical examples of 

armored forces in urban warfare. A common trait is that all were eventually successful, although to varying degrees. Even the Russian debacle in 

Grozny was successful at the tactical level, although the entire operation 

failed in its objective of subduing the resistance. Any battlefield shortcomings found within these historical examples came not from the armor 

forces but from the planners and leaders at the strategic level. In each case 

it was the armor forces’ firepower that allowed the accompanying infantrymen to close with their opponent and win the day. If one were to remove 

the armor from these scenarios, the outcomes would have been far more 

costly in casualties and time.

The doctrine of modern armies had long emphasized the avoidance of 

tank employment in large urban areas, and after World War II the emphasis of the tank as an infantry support weapon shifted. Instead, the major 

nations of the world built tanks designed to operate on the battlefield primarily against enemy armor. This is shown in the placement of its armor 

toward the front of the vehicle, the long-range optics, and a high-velocity 

main gun designed to defeat opposing tanks. Tanks were also to avoid 

costly engagements using fire and maneuver techniques against weak 

points in the enemy defenses. Doubters of this assessment need look no 

further than the ammunition racks. During the years 1945 to 2003, the 

vast majority of rounds routinely carried by American tanks were of the 

hypervelocity sabot or high explosive antitank (HEAT) variety. The sabot 

round has limited use in the cities. The HEAT rounds are useful against 

walls and masonry, but do not have the area blast effect of high explosive (HE) rounds or the devastation of a flechette (beehive) round against 

personnel. 

Generally, tanks have a number of characteristics that limit their use in 

confined areas. Their weaponry is not situated for a close-in fight, particularly to the sides and rear where they cannot engage targets. The main guns 

are often too long to traverse fully in narrow streets, and the small vision 

blocks severely restrict target acquisition. Armor is often very thin on the 
112

top, flanks, and rear, and extremely thin on the undersides. The latter makes 

tanks exceptionally vulnerable to mines and improvised explosive devices 

so common in a city fight. Therefore, the very design that makes a tank a 

feared weapon on the open battlefield renders it extremely vulnerable in 

the close confines of a city. It is no wonder leaders and planners want to 

avoid committing large armor forces to urban battles. Nevertheless, armies 

have employed armor in cities over the years because despite their potential shortcomings the tank is the most effective all-weather system to bring 

precision heavy ordnance to the target.

The battle of Aachen was a fine example of using armor to support the 

infantry in the urban fight. By 1944, the Americans were veteran troops, 

and although not specifically trained for urban operations, these forces 

had developed the necessary tactics and skills to attack the fortifications 

of the German Westwall. Armor forces were also adept at cooperating with 

supporting infantry and fire support at that stage of the war. These combined experiences were quickly and successfully adapted to the city fight. 

The command and control displayed by the Americans was methodical, 

but effective in coordinating the battle. The vulnerable M4 Sherman tanks 

and M10 tank destroyers were effective as long as their infantry support 

shielded them from the dreaded panzerfausts. The isolation of the German 

defenders and the rapid movements of Task Force Hogan disrupted the 

German defense and speeded the conclusion of the fight for Aachen.

The employment of armor in the fight for Hue was a result of the fortunate proximity of Marine M48 tanks at the onset of the Tet Offensive. 

Able to withstand enemy B-40 rockets, the heavy armor was able to bring 

its firepower to bear in support of the Marines’ efforts to retake the city. 

Untrained for an urban fight, the Marines adapted quickly to overcome 

poor weather, political constraints, and a determined enemy. They also 

worked closely with the ARVN forces, which were badly shaken in the initial assault and slower to recover. The US and ARVN armor proved decisive in supporting the riflemen’s efforts to retake Hue. Unable to destroy 

the heavy armor with the B-40s, the Marines and ARVN troops closed in 

for the kill and subjected the NVA forces to heavy fire.

The campaign for Beirut saw a slight shift in the tradition of armor 

in the supporting role of the infantry in urban terrain. Possessing an order 

of battle designed to fight in the open desert, the Israelis proved adept at 

reorganizing their forces and modifying their command and control procedures in this operation. Assigning infantry officers to command the armorheavy units was one dramatic example. In the drive up the coast and into 

Beirut, it was often the tanks leading the assault with the infantry closely 
113

following in support. The Israeli tanks blasted through the PLO strongpoints and refugee camps and quickly reduced the cities of Tyre and Sidon 

using massed firepower and speed. Bold daring and the extensive use of 

engineer assets to build bridges and to clear mines and debris maintained 

this momentum. The capable Merkava and M60 tanks were far superior to 

their opposite number and were generally able to withstand multiple hits 

from the venerable RPG-7. Political concerns beyond the tactical commanders’ control blunted this armored drive.

The initial assault into Grozny is probably the definitive example of 

a poorly executed armored assault into a large urban area. Untrained and 

poorly led, the Russian armor crews were easy prey to the Chechen RPG-7 

gunners. Dozens of Russian tanks and APCs were quickly destroyed in the 

narrow streets after they were immobilized and unable to fight back due 

to the technical limitations of the vehicle design. The massive application 

of heavy firepower ultimately achieved success, but reduced the city of 

Grozny to rubble in the process.

The November 2004 battle for Fallujah is perhaps the most successful 

use of heavy armor in an urban environment. Well-led veteran forces were 

able to crush quickly their opposition by boldly using tanks and APCs to 

spearhead the assault. The shock and speed proved great enough to disrupt 

the enemy defense, which was never able to recover to make a coordinated 

stand.

The preceding chapters show the success of the tank in urban warfare; 

even the Russians in Grozny were ultimately successful once they adapted 

to the unexpected situation. The units participating in the initial operations 

did not practice the established Russian urban warfare doctrine in 1994. 

The malaise of the post-Cold War was acute in the Russian Army, and units 

were not prepared for what awaited them. The results were disastrous. The 

Americans in 1944 and 1968 did not have an established doctrine for fighting in large cities, but the use of veteran troops in the operations negated 

this deficiency. Learned in the hedgerows and jungles in previous fights 

were the small unit teamwork and tactical skills needed for the city fight. 

With a bit of ingenuity and drive, these attacking units prevailed.

Ideally, the preparation for urban combat begins during peacetime. 

Various scenarios, options, constraints and limitations, legal factors, and 

city characteristics must be studied and understood. Leaders and planners must remember that each urban operation will be unique and there 

is simply no standard urban operation as no two cities are alike. There is 

just too much variance with physical layouts, enemy forces, and civilian 

demographics. Doctrine and unit training require addressing specific skills 
114

to fight in the cities, but must remain flexible enough to adapt quickly to a 

host of possible situations. Considering historical trends, the fight for the 

streets is often decided at the crew and platoon level. Yet there exist political considerations, legal limitations, infrastructure, and evolving enemy 

methods that are beyond the ability of the junior leaders to research and 

incorporate into their training and operations. Understanding the nature 

of urban warfare is a difficult task for any army, and the tasks required 

to sufficiently sustain or support urban combat are enormous. With one 

possible exception, all of the examples in this book show armies attacking 

cities without extensive training in urban operations. Each was ultimately 

successful, either because of a high degree of skill or experience in small 

unit tactics or a large application of heavy firepower. To bridge the gap 

between peacetime training and commitment to the battle on the street, the 

US Army must fully embrace the concept of using armor in urban warfare 

and prepare accordingly.

This historical narrative shows that the mobility of tanks and armored 

vehicles, along with their protective armor, allowed the delivery of their 

heavy firepower into the fight for the cities. Maintaining mobility is vital to 

the effectiveness of tanks and to their survival. The obvious tactic is to provide a robust engineer effort to clear debris, rubble, and armor hulks, and 

to eliminate mines and improvised explosives from the paths of advancing 

armor. The most graphic example of the failure to do so was the Russians 

in Grozny. Once trapped in the narrow streets, even the advanced T-80 

tanks were vulnerable to the simple RPG-7. If stationary, even the most 

capable tank becomes a pillbox with limited angles of fire in narrow streets 

and alleys. The fight for Fallujah is a dramatic example of a rapid armored 

advance that unhinged the enemy’s defense and allowed a rapid victory.

An effective means to maintain mobility is to disrupt the enemy’s 

fire plan by the application of maneuver, firepower, or obscurants. A high 

tempo operation would also challenge an enemy’s ability to react and 

engage. These methods require an intimate knowledge of the capabilities 

of units and weapons on urban terrain. Commanders and staffs must understand the advantages and disadvantages urbanization offers and its effects 

on tactical operations. An operation based on maneuver could avoid one 

based on an attrition strategy and prevent heavy friendly losses.

Conducting a high tempo operation over a sustained period will require 

a massive logistical effort, particularly in the resupply of ammunition. 

Fuel is also of great concern, as the consumption rate of the gas turbine 

engines found in many modern tanks is notoriously high. In the battle for 

Hue, the Marines had no such plan and were forced to withdraw their tanks 
115

from the front lines to refuel and rearm. The riflemen fighting their way to 

the Citadel keenly felt the temporary loss of this combat power. Flexible 

command and control and an effective intelligence operation are also vital 

elements in a highly fluid battle for the streets.

Vehicle design for tanks and armored vehicles have traditionally 

focused on the conventional fight in open terrain. Armor protection on 

the top, rear, and underside is very thin in comparison to the frontal arc, 

and vulnerable to the short-range rocket grenades and mines so common 

in urban battles. Armor plate must be able to absorb or deflect the damage caused by the enemy’s weapons. If unable to do so, armored vehicles 

become death traps for crewmembers and their heavy weapons neutralized. The RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade is legion throughout the world 

and US tank crews will encounter it for years to come. Countries producing this weapon have taken note of the effectiveness of laminate armor 

and are undoubtedly searching for a more potent warhead for the RPG-7 

or an even more advanced hand-held weapon. The recent tactic of boldly 

leading urban assaults with tanks, as in Fallujah, may come to an abrupt 

end and require returning armor to the infantry support roles as was seen 

in Aachen and Hue.

Since a new tank or armored vehicle designed specifically for the city 

fight will not arrive any time soon, the US Army must rely on its current 

inventory. Whether a new vehicle arrives on the scene or a legacy system 

is used, there is one unshakable principle in their employment in urban terrain. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, tanks and armored 

vehicles must be closely supported by sufficient infantry or massed firepower to protect them from a wide variety of hand-held antitank weapons 

common on the modern battlefield. Vehicles cut off from their infantry 

support will quickly fall victim to their enemy. The battle for Aachen is 

perhaps the best example of this. The M4 Sherman was a good infantry support vehicle, but the German antitank weapons were devastating 

against its inadequate armor. To compensate, the Americans made great 

efforts to screen them with infantry. The Russian operation in Grozny was 

the other extreme of this discussion point. The initial sortie into the heart 

of the city was decimated as the accompanying infantry remained mounted 

and unable to shield the tanks from the rain of RPG-7 fire. In Operation 

Peace for Galilee, the Israelis realized the organization of their forces was 

not suitable for the fight and rearranged their units and command structure 

beforehand.

Military operations in large cities will continue to be more common as 

the world urbanizes and more deadly with the introduction of new weapons. 
116

The US Army’s basic urban warfare doctrine is sound; nevertheless, it is 

being refined by the experiences learned in Iraq. Currently these lessons are 

ingrained through the ranks as personnel serve on multiple deployments 

and as training centers and service schools incorporate these lessons into 

their curriculums. For the short term, the United States possesses the 

premier fighting force for the task of taking large urban centers.

At the time of this writing, there is a general worldwide stagnation in 

new tank design and fielding. The major powers of the world are focused 

on extending the service life of their existing fleets with various upgrades 

in firepower, mobility, and armor protection. For the United States, the next 

generation tank is very much a work in progress as new technologies are 

developed. Until that time, US planners will need to “make do” with the 

Abrams series tanks, as there is nothing more effective to bring precision 

heavy fire into the cities. It is unlikely that a single technology or system 

will emerge in the near future that will swing the balance to the attacker 

in the cities. Instead, an effective solution to the urban fight will only be 

attained through the integration of strategic concepts, doctrine, operational 

needs, technological advances, system design, and the appropriate organization of command, control, training, and education. No doubt tanks and 

armored vehicles will play a vital role.
117

About the Author

Kendall D. Gott retired from the US Army in 2000 after serving as an 

armor, cavalry, and military intelligence officer. His combat experience 

consists of the Persian Gulf War and two subsequent bombing campaigns 

against Iraq. A native of Peoria, Illinois, Mr. Gott received a B.A. in history 

from Western Illinois University in 1983 and a Masters of Military Art and 

Science degree from the US Army Command and General Staff College. 

Before returning to Kansas in 2002, he was an adjunct professor of history 

at Augusta State University and the Georgia Military College. In October 

2002 he joined the Combat Studies Institute where he researches and writes 

articles and studies on topics of military history. His book-length works 

include In Glory’s Shadow: The 2d Armored Cavalry Regiment During 

the Persian Gulf War, 1990-1991, and Where the South Lost the War: An 

Analysis of the Fort Henry–Fort Donelson Campaign, February 1862. Mr. 

Gott is a frequent speaker at Civil War roundtables and appeared on a 

recent History Channel documentary on the Battle of Mine Creek, Kansas, 

and the documentary Three Forts in Tennessee by Aperture Films.

119

Bibliography

Government and Doctrinal Publications

Colby, Elbridge. The First Army in Europe. US Senate Document 91–25. 

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1969.

Department of the Army. FM 3-06, Urban Operations. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, June 2003.

Department of the Army. FM 3-06.11, Combined Arms Operations in Urban 

Terrain. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 28 February 

2002.

Department of the Army. FM 90-10, Military Operations in Urban Terrain 

(MOUT). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979.

Department of the Army. FM 90-10-1, An Infantryman’s Guide to Combat in Builtup Areas. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1993.

General Service Schools. The Employment of Tanks in Combat. Fort Leavenworth, 

KS: General Service Schools Press, 1925.

Grau, Lester W. and Timothy Thomas. Russian Lessons Learned from the Battles 

for Grozny. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Foreign Military Studies Office, 

2000.

Grau, Lester W. Russian-Manufactured Armored Vehicle Vulnerability in Combat: 

The Chechnya Experience. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Foreign Military 

Studies Office, 1997.

Killblane, Richard E. Circle the Wagons: The History of US Army Convoy Security. 

Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, 2005.

MacDonald, Charles B. US Army in WWI: The Siegfried Line Campaign.

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1984.

Department of Defense. Handbook for Joint Operations. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 17 May 2000.

United States War Department. Infantry Field Manual. Washington, DC: US 

Government Printing Office, 1931.

Books and Secondary Sources

Anderson, Jon L. The Fall of Baghdad. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004.

Bodansky, Yossef. The Secret History of the Iraq War. New York: Harper Collins 

Publishers, 2004.

Butler, William and William Strode, eds. Chariots of Iron: 50 Years of American 

Armor. Louisville, KY: Near Fine Harmony House, 1990.

Conroy, Jason and Ron Martz. Heavy Metal: A Tank Company’s Battle to Baghdad. 

Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, Inc., 2005.

Cordesman, Anthony H. Iraqi Security Forces: A Strategy for Success. Westport, 

CN: Praeger Specialty International, 2006.

Cordesman, Anthony H. and Patrick Baetjer. The Lessons of Modern War, Volume 

I: The Arab-Israeli Conflicts, 1973–1989. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 

1990.
120

Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in 

World War II. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1998.

Dewar, Michael. War in the Streets: The Story of Urban Combat from Calais to 

Khafji. Newton Abbot, UK: David & Charles, 1992.

Dupuy, Trevor N. The Evolution of Weapons and Warfare. Fairfax, VA: Hero 

Books, 1984.

Eshel, David. Chariots of the Desert: The Story of the Israeli Armoured Corps.

London: Brassey’s Defense Publishers, 1989.

________. Mid-East Wars: Israel’s Armor in Action. Hod Hashron, Israel: EshelDramit, 1978.

Evangelista, Matthew. The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet 

Union? Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2002.

Fowkes, Ben, ed. Russian and Chechnya: The Permanent Crisis. New York: St. 

Martin’s Press, Inc., 1998.

Fuller, John F.C. Armored Warfare. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1994.

Gall, Carlotta and Thomas de Waal. Chechnya: Calamity in the Caucasus. New 

York: New York University Press, 1998.

Guderian, Heinz G. From Normandy to the Ruhr: With the 116th Panzer Division 

in World War II. Bedford, PA: The Aberjona Press, 2001.

Hammel, Eric M. Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet 1968. Chicago, IL: 

Contemporary Books, 1990.

Haworth, William B., Jr. “The Bradley and How it Got That Way: Mechanized 

Infantry Organization and Equipment in the US Army.” Ph.D. diss, Ann 

Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1998.

Herzog, Chaim. The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East. New 

York: Vintage Books, 1984.

Himes, Rolf. Main Battle Tanks: Development in Design Since 1945. Washington, 

DC: Brassey’s Defense Publishers, 1987.

Hunnicutt, R.P. Abrams: A History of the American Main Battle Tank, Volume 2. 

Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1990.

________. Patton: A History of the American Main Battle Tank. Novato, CA: 

Presidio Press, 1984.

________. Sherman: History of the American Medium Battle Tank, Volume 2. 

Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1978.

Hogg, Ian V. Armour in Conflict: The Design and Tactics of Armoured Fighting 

Vehicles. London: Jane’s Publishing Company, 1980.

________. Tank Killing: Anti-Tank Warfare by Men and Machines. New York: 

SARPEDON, 1996.

Jarymowycz, Roman J. Tank Tactics: From Normandy to Lorraine. London: 

Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001.

Kaplan, Philip. Chariots of Fire: Tanks and Their Crews. London: Aurum Press 

Ltd., 2003.

Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. New York: Penguin Books, 1983.

Knickerbocker, H.R. Danger Forward: The Story of the First Division in World 

War II. Washington, DC: Society of the First Division, 1947.
121

Lieven, Anatol. Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power. New Haven, CN: Yale 

Univeristy Press, 1998.

Morrison, Wilbur H. The Elephant and the Tiger: The Full Story of the Vietnam 

War. New York: Hippocrene Books, 1990.

Nolan, Keith W. Battle for Hue: Tet, 1968. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1983.

Oberdorfer, Don. Tet! Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971.

Ogorkiewicz, Richard M. Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles. Garden 

City, NY: Doubleday, 1968.

________. Technology of Tanks. Surrey, England: Jane’s Information Group, 1991.

Oliker, Olga. Russia’s Chechen Wars, 1994–2000: Lessons from Urban Combat. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001.

Perrett, Bryan. Iron Fist: Classic Armoured Warfare Case Studies. London: Arms 

and Armour Press, 1995.

Phillips, David L. Losing Iraq: Inside the Postwar Reconstruction Fiasco. New 

York: Westview Press, 2005.

Pollack, Kenneth M. Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948–1991. Lincoln, 

NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

Rabinovich, Itamar. The War for Lebanon, 1970–1985. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press, 1985.

Robertson, William G., ed. Block by Block: The Challenges of Urban Operations. 

Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College 

Press, 2003.

Robinett, Paul M. Armor Command: The Personal Story of a Commander of 

the 13th Armored Regiment, of CCB, 1st Armored Division, and of the 

Armored School During World War II. Washington, DC: McGregor & 

Werner, Inc., 1958.

Rogers, Hugh C.B. Tanks in Battle. London: Seeley Publishing, 1965.

Ross, G. MacLeod. The Business of Tanks, 1933 to 1945. Ilfracombe, England: 

Arthur H. Stockwell, 1976.

Schreier, Konrad F., Jr. Standard Guide to US World War II Tanks & Artillery.

Iola, WI: Krause Publishing, 1994.

Simpkin, Richard. Red Armour: An Examination of the Soviet Mobile Concept. 

Washington, DC: Brassey’s Defense Publisher, 1984.

________. Tank Warfare: An Analysis of Soviet and NATO Tank Philosophy.

London: Brassey’s Publishers, Ltd., 1979.

Smith, George W. The Siege of Hue. New York: Ballantine Books, 2000.

Spiller, Roger J., ed. Combined Arms in Battle Since 1939. Fort Leavenworth, KS: 

U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Press, 1992.

Starry, Donn A. Armored Combat in Vietnam. New York: Arno Press, 1980.

Stone, John. The Tank Debate: Armour and the Anglo-American Military 

Tradition. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 2000.

Sun Tzu. Art of War, trans. Samuel B. Griffith. New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1963.

Thompson, W. Scott and Donald D. Frizzell. The Lessons of Vietnam. New York: 

Crane, Russak & Company, 1977.
122

Tucker, Mike. Among Warriors in Iraq: True Grit, Special Ops, and Raiding in 

Mosul and Fallujah. Guilford, CN: The Lyon’s Press, 2005.

Warr, Nicholas. Phase Line Green: The Battle for Hue, 1968. Annapolis, MD: 

Naval Institute Press, 1997.

Werstein, Irvin. The Battle of Aachen. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 

1962.

West, Bing. No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah. New 

York: Bantam Books, 2005.

Westmoreland, William C. A Soldier Reports. New York: Da Capo Press, 1976.

Whiting, Charles. Bloody Aachen. New York: PEI Books, Inc., 1976.

________. Siegfried: The Nazis’ Last Stand. New York: Stein and Day Publishing, 

1982.

________. West Wall: The Battle for Hitler’s Siegfried Line, September 1944–

March 1945. Conshohocken, PA: Combined Publishing, 2000.

Wright, Patrick. Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine. New York: 

Penguin Putnam, Inc., 2002.

Yazid Sayigh. Arab Military Industry: Capability, Performance, and Impact. 

London: Brassey’s Defense Publishers, 1992.

Zaloga, Steven J. and James W. Loop. Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles, 1946 to 

Present. Dorset, England: Arms and Armour Press, 1987.

Zaloga, Steven J. T-54, T-55, T-62. New Territories, Hong Kong: Concord 

Publishing, 1992.

________. T-64 and T-80. New Territories, Hong Kong: Concord Publishing, 

1992.

________. The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. London, Osprey Publishing, 

1986

Periodicals

Antal, John F. “Glimpse of Wars to Come: The Battle for Grozny.” Army 49, no. 

6 (June 1999): 28–34.

Betson, William R. “Tanks in Urban Combat.” Armor, no. 4 (July–August 1992): 

22–25.

Blank, Stephen. “Russia’s Invasion of Chechnya: A Preliminary Assessment.” 

Strategic Studies Institute, 1994.

Celestan, Major Gregory J. “Red Storm: The Russian Artillery in Chechnya,” 

Field Artillery (January–February 1997): 42–45.

Chiarelli, Peter W. “Armor in Urban Terrain: the Critical Enabler.” Armor, no. 2 

(March–April 2005): 14–17.

Gabriel, Richard A. “Lessons of War: The IDF in Lebanon.” Military Review

(August 1984): 47–65.

Geibel, Adam. “Lessons of Urban Combat: Grozny 1994.” Infantry 85, no. 6. 

(November–December 1995): 21–23.

Groves, Brigadier General John R. “Operations in Urban Environments.” Military 

Review (July–August 1998): 7–12.
123

Milton, T.R. “Urban Operations: Future War.” Military Review (February 1994): 

37–46.

Mizrachi, Arie. “Israeli Artillery Tactics and Weapons: Lessons Learned in 

Combat.” Field Artillery, no. 1 (February 1990): 7–10.

Peters, Ralph. “The Future of Armored Warfare.” Parameters (Autumn 1997): 

50–59.

Showalter, Dennis. “America’s Armored Might.” World War II Magazine 20, no. 

1 (April 2005): 50–56.

Thomas, Timothy L. “Grozny 2000: Urban Combat Lessons Learned.” Military 

Review (July–August 2000).

________. “The Battle of Grozny: Deadly Classroom for Urban Combat.” 

Parameters (Summer 1999): 87–102.

Tiron, Roxana. “Heavy Armor Gains Clout in Urban Combat.” National Defense 

Magazine (July 2004): 34–41.
125

Index

Aachen, iii, vii, viii, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33

Abrams Tank, 96, 105, 107, 116, 120

Abu Ghraib Prison, 108

Adam, Yekutiel, 69

AK-47 Rifle, 51, 52, 60, 76, 88, 97, 98, 102

al-Qaeda, 98

Anbar Province, 91, 94, 107

An Cuu Bridge, 29, 34, 37

An Hao Gate, 35

Arab-Israeli War, 1948, 47

Arafat, Yassir, 59, 64

Argun, 83

AT-5 Antitank Rocket, 74, 101

Ayn Zhaltah, 57

B-40 rocket, 24, 29, 34, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45, 112

Baghdad, 91, 95, 96, 109, 119

Basayev, Shamil, 75, 82, 83

Beaufort Castle, 53, 56

Beirut, vii, viii, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 112

Beirut-Damascus Highway, 53, 57, 58, 62

Beirut International Airport, 60, 63

Bekaa Valley, 52, 53, 57, 59

Beslan, 77

BM-21 rocket launcher, 60, 68

BMP Infantry Fighting Vehicle, 74, 76, 79, 87, 88

Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, 96, 97, 105, 107, 108, 120, 122

BTR, 76, 87

BTR-60 Armored Personnel Carrier, 74

BTR-70 Armored Personnel Carrier, 74

BTR-80 Armored Personnel Carrier, 74

Burj al-Barajinah Refugee Camp, 60, 63

CH-46 helicopter, 31, 36

Chechnya, viii, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 119, 120, 121, 122

Citadel, vii, viii, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 115

Coalition forces, vii, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 103

Collins, Joseph L., 28

Combat Maneuver Training Center, Hohenfels, Germany, xi

Corley, John T., 23, 25, 27, 30

Cushman, Lieutenant General Robert, 30

Daniel, Lieutenant Colonel Derrill M., 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30

DM-2 scout car, 60
126

Dong Ha, 28

Dudayev, Jokhar, 71, 75, 76, 87, 88

E8 rocket launcher, 34

Eitan, Rafael, 48

Euphrates River, 91

F-4 Phantom, 37, 51

F-8 Crusader, 37

F-15 Eagle, 51

F-16 Falcon, 51

Fakhani district, 60, 62 

Fallujah, iii, vi, vii, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 

106, 107, 108, 113, 114, 115, 122

Fallujah General Hospital, 95, 99, 104

Ferguson, Frederick E., 45

Fuller, John F.C., ix, xii, 120

Fratricide, 13, 17, 25, 30, 34, 80, 101

Gabriel Missile Launcher, 51

Galil Assault Rifle, 49

Geilenkirchen, 16

Gemayel, Bashir, 51, 59, 62

Geva, Eli, 70

Golan Heights, 50

Gonzalez, Alfredo, 45

Gorbachev, Mikhail, 71

Gravel, Lieutenant Colonel Marcus J., 29, 31

Green Line, The, 60, 64

Grozny, iii, vii, viii, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 

88, 89, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 119, 122, 123

Haddad, Saad, 70

Haswell, James, 34

Highway 10, 91, 98

Hobbs, Major General Leland S., 16, 32

Hooper, Staff Sergeant Joe Ronnie, 45

Hotel Quellenhof, 21, 27, 28, 29, 33

Hue, vii, viii, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 

44, 45, 112, 114, 115, 120, 121, 122

Hürtgen Forest, 31

Hughes, Colonel Stanley S., 31

Huong River (Perfume River), 25, 27, 29, 34, 37, 43

Hussein, Saddam, 91, 94

Imperial Palace, 25, 26, 27, 39, 40, 41

Ingusjetia, 77

Iraqi interim government, 91, 95, 97, 104, 108
127

Iraqi Islamic Party, 98, 108

Israeli Defense Force, vii, 47, 49, 64

Jodl, Alfred, 21

Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana, x

Jolan district, 100, 101

Jordanian Civil War, 1971–73, 47

Khardala Bridge, 54

Khasavjurt Agreement, 83

Kovalev, Sergej, 88

Khrushchev, Nikita, 71

Kulikov, Anatolij, 89

LaHue, Foster (Frosty), 28, 30, 43

Lam, Major General Hoang Xuan, 30

Landing Craft, Utility, 27, 43

Lange, General Wolfgang, 19

Laurensberg, 28

Lebanese Civil War, 59

Litani River, 54, 56

Lousberg (Observatory Hill), 23, 25, 26, 28

Luftwaffe, 21, 22

M4 Sherman Tank, vii, 13, 14, 22, 25, 26, 31, 32, 112, 115, 120

M10 tank destroyer, 14, 31, 112

M16A1 rifle, 49, 51

M17 protective mask, 34, 35

M24 Chaffee, 29, 43

M26 Pershing Tank, 32

M29 “Weasel” Tracked Carrier, 25

M41 Walker Bulldog Tank, 29, 43

M42 “Duster” Antiaircraft Vehicle, 44

M48 Patton Tank, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 68, 112

M50 Ontos Recoilless Rifle System, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 42, 44

M55 “Duster” Antiaircraft Vehicle, 32, 44

M60 Patton Tank, v, 50, 65, 68, 113

M72 Light Antitank Weapon (LAW), 33

M113 Armored Personnel Carrier, 28, 43, 45, 50, 51, 66

M163 Vulcan Antiaircraft Gun, 50, 66

M1127 Stryker Infantry Vehicle, xii, 109

Mark IV Panzer, 22

Maskhadov, Aslan, 81, 88

Merkava (Chariot) Tank, 50, 65, 66, 68, 113

MiG-21 Fighter, 53

MiG-23 Fighter, 53

Mi-24 Helicopter, 77
128

Ministry of the Interior (MVD), 73, 77, 82, 87, 88

Mirage Fighter, 51

Mityukin, Aleksej, 87

Mozdok, 77

Mounted Urban Combat Training Site, Fort Knox, Kentucky, xi

Muhajeddin, 87

Mukha grenade, 81 

Nabatiyah, 54

North Caucasian Military District, 73, 87

Nguyen Hoang Bridge (Silver Bridge), 34, 44

Observatory Hill (Lousberg), 23, 25, 26, 28

Operation al-Fajr (DAWN), 97, 98, 103, 104, 105

Operation Peace for Galilee, 47, 54, 64, 65, 70, 115

Operation VIGILANT RESOLVE, 94

Padgett, Ewart, 34

Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), vii, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 

60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70

Panzer, 13, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32, 120

Panzerfaust, 14, 25, 26, 31, 112

Perfume River (Huong River), 25, 27, 29, 34, 37, 43

Phase Line Fran, 98, 101, 102, 103

Phase Line Jena, 98, 102, 103

Phu Bai, 28, 43

Phu Cam Canal, 32, 35

Recoilless Rifle, 14, 30, 32, 33, 34, 42, 44

Reshef-class Patrol Boat, 51

Rhein River, 16, 21

Rimburg, 16

Rokhlin, Lev, 79

RPG-7 Rocket Propelled Grenade, xii, 50, 52, 54, 55, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 76, 78, 

81, 83, 85, 98, 105, 113, 114, 115

SA-2 Missile, 53

SA-3 Missile, 53

SA-6 Missile, 53

SA-7 Missile, 57

Sabra Refugee Camp, 60

Saigon, 26, 36, 44

Saleh, Jassim Mohammed, 95

Satter, Lieutenant General John F., 95

Savin, Colonel Ivan, 80

Shali, 83, 88

Sidon, 53, 56, 66, 113

Siegfried Line (Westwall), 2, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, 32, 112, 119, 122
129

Seitz, Colonel John F.R., 22, 26, 27

Sharon, Ariel, 48, 59, 62, 63, 64, 69

Shiite Amal, 60

Shmel Rocket Launcher, 81

Sims, Staff Sergeant Clifford Chester, 45

Sniper, 29, 31, 33, 40, 65, 81, 87, 99

Soviet Union, 23, 59, 120

Stalin, Joseph, 71

Stalingrad, x

SU-25 Fighter, 77

Suez City, v, 49, 68

Sunni Murabitun, 60

Sun Tzu, ix, xii, 121

Sunni Triangle, 91

Sunzha River, 82

Syria, vii, 48, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 107

T-34 Tank, 60

T-55 Tank, 51, 52, 70, 96, 122

T-62 Tank, 52, 70, 76, 88, 122

T-72 Tank, 58, 69, 74, 76, 85, 88, 96

T-80 Tank, 74, 76, 85, 114, 122

Tay Loc Airfield, 26, 27, 30

Tet, 23, 26, 43, 44, 112, 120, 121

Thua Thien, 30

TOW Missile, 97, 108

Truong, Brigadier General Ngo Quang, 26, 27, 28, 35, 36, 39, 43

Tyre, 53, 54, 55, 56, 66, 113

United Nations (UN), 47, 54, 64

Units,

Chechen,

 Chechen air force, 76

 Abkhasian Battalion, 75

Germany,

 1st SS Liebstandarte, 33 

 3d Panzergrenadier Division, 22, 28

 27th Infantry Division, 20

 49th Infantry Division, 16, 18, 19, 20

 116th Panzer Division, 16, 22, 28, 32, 120

 183d Volksgrenadier Division, 16, 18, 19 

 246th Volksgrenadier Division, 20, 21, 30, 33, 34

 76th Motorized Artillery Regiment, 22

 146th Armored Artillery Regiment, 22

 330th Infantry Regiment, 16

 404th Infantry Regiment, 27
130

 Kampfgruppe Diefenthal, 27

 34th Fortress-Machine Gun Battalion, 21 

 SS-Battalion Rink, 27, 30, 33 

 Antiaircraft Group Aachen, 22

Great Britain, 

 Black Watch Regiment, 95

Iraq (Coalition), 

 Fallujah Brigade, 95, 107

 National Guard, 94

 Police Emergency Response Unit, 108 

 36th Commando Battalion, 98

Israel, 

 Israeli air force, 51, 61, 69 

 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), vii, 49, 64 

 90th Reserve Division, 53

 162d Armored Division, 53, 57 

 252d Armored Division, 53

 Golani Brigade, 56

 Israeli navy, 51 

Lebanon, 

 Lebanese Forces (LF), 51, 62 

 South Lebanese Army, 65

 Phalange militia, 51, 59 

North Vietnamese Army (NVA), 

 4th Regiment, 26, 27, 30, 35, 44, 45

 6th Regiment, 26, 27, 45

 29th Regiment, 45

 90th Regiment, 45

 803d Regiment, 45 

Palestine Liberation Organization, 

 Castel Brigade, 69

 Karameh Brigade, 69 

 Yarmuk Brigade, 69

Russia, 

 4th Air Army, 73

 131st Independent Motorized Infantry Brigade (Maikop Brigade), 79, 80 

 Spetsnaz, 78, 88

South Vietnam (ARVN), 

 1st Infantry Division, 26, 27, 29, 30, 44 

 3d Regiment, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41

 3d Regiment, 1st Airborne, 28

 4th Regiment, 31, 36

 7th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 29 

 1st Battalion, 35

 2d Airborne Battalion, 30 
131

 4th Battalion, 29, 34

 7th Airborne Battalion, 30 

 Black Panther Company (Hoc Bao), 26, 27, 30, 36, 41 

 South Vietnamese marines, 36 

 South Vietnamese air force, 36

Syria, 

 Syrian air force, 53, 57, 69 

 1st Armored Division, 52, 58, 69

 1st Mechanized Infantry Division, 52

 3d Armored Division, 58

 85th Mechanized Brigade, 60 

 91st Tank Brigade, 52

United States, 

 Army, 

 I Corps, viii, 23, 24, 26, 30, 44

 VII Corps, 15, 16

 XIX Corps Artillery, 17 

 1st Armored Division, 13, 121

 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), 23, 41 

 1st Infantry Division, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 28

 2d Armored Division, 15, 17, 19

 3d Armored Division, 18, 28

 28th Infantry Division, 28

 29th Infantry Division, 16, 18

 30th Infantry Division, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 28, 30, 32

 82d Airborne Division, 92, 94

 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, 35, 39 

 2d Brigade, 3d Infantry Division (Mechanized), 96 

 3d Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, 32, 35, 39

 Regimental Combat Team 1 (RCT-1), 45

 Regimental Combat Team 7 (RCT-7), 95

 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, 92

 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 23

 18th Infantry Regiment, 18, 19, 28

 26th Infantry Regiment, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32

 110th Infantry Regiment, 28

 117th Infantry Regiment, 18

 119th Infantry Regiment, 18, 20, 22, 28

 1106th Engineer Group, 22, 27, 34

 Task Force Hogan, 28, 112

 1st Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 94

 2d Battalion, 2d Mechanized Infantry Regiment, 22, 24, 25, 26, 95

 2d Squadron, 7th Armored Cavalry Regiment, 95

 5th Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 32

 Rangers, 26
132

 Marines, 

 III Marine Amphibious Force (MAF), 30

 1st Division, 27, 31, 33 

 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, 94 

 1st Regiment, 23, 27

 3d Regiment, 28

 5th Regiment, 23, 29, 32, 36, 39, 40, 41

 1st Tank Battalion, 29, 31, 36

 1st Battalion, 3d Regiment, 95

 1st Battalion, 8th Regiment, 95

 3d Battalion, 1st Regiment, 95

 3d Battalion, 5th Regiment, 95

 3d Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 99 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), 98

US Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV), 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 

34, 44

Viet Cong (VC), 26, 27, 33, 41, 45

Vietnam, vii, viii, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 

45, 88, 93, 120, 121 

Vladikavkaz, 77 

Vorobev, Eduard, 77 

Vorobyov, Viktor, 88 

Wahhabism, 91

Westwall (Siegfreid Line), vii, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, 112 

Wilck, Colonel Gerhard, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34 

Wurm River, 15, 16, 18

Würselen, 15

Yeltsin, Boris, 71, 72, 74, 77, 82, 83, 85, 88 

Zahrani River, 54

Zarqawi, Abu Musab al, 98, 108

Zavgayev, Doku, 87

ZPU Heavy Machinegun, 52

ZSU-23-4 Antiaircraft System, 80

ZU-23 Antiaircraft Gun, 52, 66