Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Don't make me report a hijacking to Homeland Security! You don't want to see the Spec Ops boys outside your house with a laser designator.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Actually, it is impossible to completely divorce the military discussion from the political discussion since military action is really an extension of the political process. I just wanted a thread where discussion of the military aspects wasn't dictated by a persons feelings about whether or not we should be there. It should be possible for a war supporter to point out problems in the campaign without giving up their support for the war. Conversely, it should be possible for an opponent of the war to acknowledge a military success in the war without compromising their belief that the war is wrong.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope you meant that phrase as a metaphor, not as a statement; Damascus is one of world's oldest cities, and it has historical ties with Christianity and Islam. Whoever nukes Damascus is in for a holy war that will haunt them for years to come.

[ April 06, 2003, 06:06: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You think China and the USA will let North Korea complete development of Nuclear weapons. The Last thing China wants is for South Korea and Japan to start building nukes. Where do you think the lay over is on the way home from Iraq?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Last thing china wants is more US support on Taiwan, Japan getting a US-manufactured Missile shield, and a US-Friendly unified Korean Peninsula, rather than them having nukes. To the chinese, all of those listed above must not happen anytime soon, as it will severly damage Chinese geopolitical influence in the region, and give the US leverage.

Getting rid of North Korea by militaristic means accomplishes 2 of those 3 goals, so that's a no-no. Letting North Korea live accomplishes 1 out of 3 goals (or 1/2 out of 3, if you really believe the japanese will build their own missile shield). Therefore, the only way for china to proceed is to persue diplomacy, and eventually crack North Korea's Mao-Stalinist communism apart and get it to reconciliate with the south later.

[ April 06, 2003, 06:14: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

Alpha:
You are right of course.
Allthough I was/am very much against the war, now that it is started, I wish for it to have a speedy conclusion. The fact that US forces can drive tanks through the suburbs of Bagdad is encoraging, but they stll have to get out of the tanks to apprehend Saddam (or whoever is in charge). It will all come down to how many Iraqis will be willing to fight in that Last battle.

The pictures shown on BBC yesterday of (British) special forces apprehending suspected supporters of Saddam, and giving them the Al Queada treatment (masks over their heads, hands bound on their back, and generally kicking them around), was a major propaganda blunder. It will only increase the fear of what to come and therefore the willingness to fight off those who have supported Saddam (Republican guard, Bath party members, people of his tribe).

North Korea:
I was not talking about nukes. I was talking about missiles with the potential to deliver chemichal and biological payloads. Of course the west will not accept that every 3rd rate nation is getting such weapons, and we will use our "foreign aid" money to buy them off. Current policy have just created a big new opportunity for ****headed dictators (plenty of them still around) to blackmail us. The winners here will be the companies producing such necessities as private jets and luxury cars, the loosers will be the ordinary people who should have benefitted from those grants.

Thermo:
If you can't see the double standards in your posting, then there are no use in discussing with you.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Its not a double standard, it a lack of any standard at all. That is the whole problem. If we aregoing to have standards, we need to establish basic human rights first. And this begins with self determination and freely elected governments. Something that is with one exception, totally lacking in the region. And the exception has been tiptoeing on the line for years. Not that anyone went out of their way to give them the opportunity to moderate their position.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

Looks like the Americans have decided they like some of Saddam's real estate. They are currently holding on to a couple of his palaces. Our ability to move through the city as well as we can is surprising to me, and heartening.

It also sounds like there may be a civilian uprising against the regime in the making. Hopefully, things can stabilize in Baghdad quickly and we can get electricity and other utilities going in the city again before the situation for the civilians in the city gets drastically worse.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

T-72
Its not that hopeless. It can penetrate the Abrams composite armor at 1000 meters, so if those punks in the Iraki army had learn basic tank warfare tactics instead of wasting their time in rethorics, they could have put some rather powerful defense in a city eviroment.
Amazing stupidity by default. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually it is that hopeless. The T-72 could puncture the Abrams armor from that range, but it can't effectivly hit a moving target the speed that an M1A1 can go. And the Abrams can hit and knockout the T-72 from around 2000 meters with it's better fire control. That's not to mention the Bradley TOW missle which has a range of 4 miles. In Gulf War I the Bradley's took out more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams did.

The only way a T-72 is gonna get an Abrams is if the US crew gets sloppy or falls asleep and runs right up to them and then sits and waits for the Iraqi's to shoot. Not very likely. I'd be very suprised to hear we lost any tanks to Iraqi tanks. More likely any losses will be to RPG's, mines or lucky artillary.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Obviously you didn't read my post to the end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
I said city enviroment, where the short ranges and inside houses cover would practically nulified the Abrams range advantage.
City enviroment would allow the defending army to pre-range killing pits lasing the entry locations.
.
.
.

Re: [OT] Military (non-political) discussion of Iraq war
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually it is that hopeless. The T-72 could puncture the Abrams armor from that range, but it can't effectivly hit a moving target the speed that an M1A1 can go. And the Abrams can hit and knockout the T-72 from around 2000 meters with it's better fire control. That's not to mention the Bradley TOW missle which has a range of 4 miles. In Gulf War I the Bradley's took out more Iraqi tanks than the Abrams did.

The only way a T-72 is gonna get an Abrams is if the US crew gets sloppy or falls asleep and runs right up to them and then sits and waits for the Iraqi's to shoot. Not very likely. I'd be very suprised to hear we lost any tanks to Iraqi tanks. More likely any losses will be to RPG's, mines or lucky artillary.

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Abrams definitely outclasses the T-72. The item that shows how poor the Iraqi's are fighting is that Bradleys can get close enough for gun kills on dug-in T-72s. Although, I suppose that perhaps the fact that the Bradleys can move fast and fire on the move might explain some of it.