Heavy casualties in Muhamalai battle
Both the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the Sri Lanka Army (SLA) have suffered heavy casualties in the fighting that raged along Muhamalai and Kilali defence lines since yesterday (23rd) dawn.
Nearly 120 SLA soldiers have either been killed or gone missing in the operation that lasted for 10 hours. 370 soldiers are reported to be wounded. Around 250 of the wounded are in P1 (Seriously wounded) and P2 (Less seriously wounded) categories. In addition to these casualties, 4 main battle tanks (excluding the T-55 that was lost on the 22nd) of the army have also sustained damage. LTTE casualties stand at 52 killed and an unknown number injured.
SLA soldiers who valiantly battled it out on a terrain which the enemy had the advantage, even managed to storm the first LTTE defence line on two fronts. The LTTE, employing a similar tactic it used back in 2006, withdrew to secondary lines and brought a large volume of artillery fire on the troops consolidating newly captured positions. It was this rain of artillery shells that caused most of SLA casualties.
Extracted from,
http://defencenet.blogspot.com/2008/04/
Nearly 120 SLA soldiers have either been killed or gone missing in the operation that lasted for 10 hours. 370 soldiers are reported to be wounded. Around 250 of the wounded are in P1 (Seriously wounded) and P2 (Less seriously wounded) categories. In addition to these casualties, 4 main battle tanks (excluding the T-55 that was lost on the 22nd) of the army have also sustained damage. LTTE casualties stand at 52 killed and an unknown number injured.
SLA soldiers who valiantly battled it out on a terrain which the enemy had the advantage, even managed to storm the first LTTE defence line on two fronts. The LTTE, employing a similar tactic it used back in 2006, withdrew to secondary lines and brought a large volume of artillery fire on the troops consolidating newly captured positions. It was this rain of artillery shells that caused most of SLA casualties.
Extracted from,
http://defencenet.blogspot.com/2008/04/
No comments:
Post a Comment