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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I read your post. I just think that for your scenario to play out would require more than just good tactics on the part of the Iraqis. It would also require a monumental level of stupidity from the US tank to blunder blindly into such a "kill-zone". But strager things have happened I suppose. On balance though I think our tanks have more to fear from our aircraft then they do from the enemy tanks.

Geoschmo

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

The Bradleys performed fantastic.

Now that it is proven they can take on a t-72 , this really opens up some interesting senero's for the US forces.

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

And I also must say that the logistics train should be proud of their work. A lot of ground was covered quickly and effectively and supplied. Very good planning and very good men and woman who completed the jobs to keep the machine running smoothly.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I read your post. I just think that for your scenario to play out would require more than just good tactics on the part of the Iraqis. It would also require a monumental level of stupidity from the US tank to blunder blindly into such a "kill-zone". But strager things have happened I suppose. On balance though I think our tanks have more to fear from our aircraft then they do from the enemy tanks.

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This argument leads to a question I have. Air power not with standing - If the Iraqis had had better training could they have put up more of a fight or was the technology so overpowering that training was a moot question?

I was listening to a report were a Marine was "thanking the lord" that the Iraqis could not shoot straight.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That doesn't necessarily mean the Iraqi's would have fared much better if they could have shot straight. I would take it to mean that he was relieved they had so relatively few casualties, not that he was worried about being outclassed.

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

Rex, better training would have cetainly enabled them to put up more of a fight. Beyond just training though they appear to have lacked a will to fight in many cases. Whether this was a realization that defeat was inevitable, or just an unwillingness to die for the regime is not known. Most likely it's a little of both.

Geoschmo

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

I would certainly agree that lack of training/lack of will to fight amongst the Iraqis had to have a significant impact. Determined resistance, even with a serious technological inferiority, should have been able to do more damage than we saw. One other factor may have been that the Iraqi military does not encourage initiative amongst its lower lever troops, even lower level officers. If command and control were disrupted then they might have had no clue how to set up a reasonable defense. I don't think that was all of it, but it may have added to their problems.

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

The Air power can not be removed from the equation, it was an integral part of the combined
arms operation. With out air power, it would have been a different war. The Iraqi Army
officers were its weak point. Officers were posted because of bloodline and loyalty, not their
ability to lead troops. Also, given their poor performance with the equipment they had, I doubt
the Iraqi army could have found skilled operators in the numbers that would have been needed
to field up to date equipment. The T 72 was built to kill M 60’s, which are medium tanks that
had their roots in the late days of WW II. It was also designed to be crewed and maintained by
unskilled conscripts. The T-8X series of tanks were built to counter the M-1, but never came
close in performance. Also, the Soviets had a very hard time keeping the 8X series of tanks
serviceable, which is probably why they were not popular in the third world. Both 8X's and M1's were very unreliable in their early years. The T 72 is still the MBT of China and NK, although both countries have claimed to have modernized the design. And they can be found everywhere the
Soviets sought influence, along with the ever present AK and RPG. I find it strange that these
weapons that we all link to the Soviets and communism were developed in Germany during the
war. RPGs in 43-44, assault rifles in 43, including the short cycle cartridge. And Scuds are just V2’s with out the nice German machine work. England has a first rate MBT in the Challenger, and while untested, Germany may still field the best tank in the world.

To prevent this from happening, Iraq would have needed the ability to maintain ACO over the
gulf , and AS over Iraq proper. Then they would have needed to hit the staging areas as we
unloaded the ships. There was no chance of this taking place, so Saddam should have spared
his country and fled with his billions. Bet he had a lot of second thoughts on that decision.

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

In the not-so-distant future, we will have so much data, such powerful computers, such cleverly designed simulator interfaces, and so much free time that will be possible to simulate, in detail, the entire scope of any modern conflict.

Challenges will be issued: successfully defend the Falklands against Britain; Iraq/Iran conflict, fully invade and overthrow your opponent; as the US, avoid supporting France in Southeast Asia without loosing face; as the USSR, survive the Cold War; stabilize (with any political alignment) South and Central America by 1980; prevent 9/11; defend Iraq and its conquests against either the 'Allied Coalition' or the 'Coalition of the Willing'. Countless other engagements are possible, large and small, political and economic, won and lost.

Surely one of the most daunting challenges would be the land invasion of the United States (or really any portion of North America) as a conclusion to the Cold War.

When we have these devices at our disposal, the discussion of Hardware vs. Tactics will, I believe, boil down to "If they, then, had tactics that we have since developed..."

Back on topic:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2842.htm

What the heck happened to US Intelligence? "Did IQs suddenly drop while I was away?" I don't mind deception, that's downright human and natural, but it will be very hard to earn respect as a superpower if the US keeps making stupid mistakes like this.

At least, I think that was on topic...

(edit: edited for apostraphe abuse)

[ April 11, 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: Loser ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Funny, they neglected to mention a few things when they wrote this story. One of the things that I noticed while watching this event was that men, women and children were freely coming and going during the two hours or so that I was watching. Also, the size of the crowd in the wide angle shots changed dramatically over time. At first, there were very few people there, given that word had not spread that it was safe to come out. After a while a much larger crowd (yes, in the wide angle pictures) was there. Then things began to wind down after the statue had been down for a while. I can't tell if the statue is down in those pictures or not, so I'm not sure when they were taken, but I know for the fact that the crowd at its peak was larger than shown in them. In short, there was a great deception going on, not on the ground in Iraq, but in this article.

As for the supposed same milita member in the two lower pictures: there are several possibilities. It could indeed be the same person and the military did bring in some people. They could be people that look similar and the whole thing is a coincidence. Or, the picture could be doctored. I have no evidence one way or another to know which it was, but given the total lack of integrity shown by this site in the upper picture, I see no reason to draw any significant conclusions from the lower pictures.

Edit-On closer looking at the picture, I see the M88 in the picture, so it could be after the statue went down. Regardless, the picture is misleading as to the size of the crowd at its peak.

[ April 11, 2003, 20:42: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]