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

There is a lot of discussion of the politics of the war, but little of the strategy/tactics/hardware that are in play from both sides. The only discussions I have seen so far tend to be either opponents of the war claiming the US is in terrible trouble, or supporters painting an extremely rosey picture of things.

I am hoping that there can be a dispassionate discussion of the execution of the war that is separate from the political arguments one way or another.

My own thoughts:

Things seem to have gone pretty well for the coalition. I did not understand their approach entirely at first, but it appears that the plan to this point was to grab as much ground as possible until they encountered substantial resistance, isolating pockets of resistance along the way.

Once major contact was made, they stopped to allow the supply train to catch up and allow air power to beat up the enemy positions. When they were satisfied that the enemy was softened up significantly, they basically ran over what was left and moved in close to Baghdad. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

I don't think they were expecting the level of resistance they received from paramilitary units along the supply line, but they have adapted well. I have seen nothing to indicate that the purported shortage of troops is causing them significant problems so far.

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

I found a nice terrian map or Iraq a couple weeks ago in my Newsweek magazine. It appears, the Coalition forces used the basically uninhabited areas south and south weest of the Euphrates to bypass the more heavily populated areas between the Euphrates and the Tigris rives. This open desert area allowed them to advance quickly toward Bagdad. This would explain why they used light forces like Marines, 3rd Infantry, and Airborne units. It was natural to use all U.S forces with this manuever so they would not have to coordinate with the UK forces as much. That is probably why the UK forces got the hard role of attacking the port city on the Gulf.

As the US forces spread out south of the Euphrates, they appear to have been seizing key bridges in varous places. They have some units now between the Tigris and Euphrtaes, but most of those units appear to have gotten where they are by pushing north at one of the Euphrates crossing points.

Between the Tigris and Euphrates is agriculuture and marsh land. Moving through that terrain is not as easy as Desert, even though the Desert sand tends to cause problems of its own. In the desert there are no good places for Iraqis to hide and few towns.

Amazing is the fact that they launched this attack ahead of schedule, to prevent the burning of Oil fields, which Iraq started torching before the troops crossed over from Kuwait. They are attacking with about a fourth or fifth of the forces they used for Desert Storm. Iraq probably thought they would have several more weeks before the US/UK would launched a ground attack. Using fewer forces, coalition forces probably caught them off guard a bit. Iraq expected them to build up to many more troops before they came in.

Catching them off guard is the only way I can explain that they did not blow all the Euphrates bridges to make crossing more difficult or they were really deluded on how well they could keep the US/UK out of their country.

The checkpoint suicide attacks make nice news stories, but acheive little militarily. The fact is their military stands up to coalition forces about as well as Persion light cavalry and infantry did against Alexander's Heavy Cavalry and Phananx units.

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

This evening CNN was interviewing a captain in the 7th Cavalry. They had engaged a dug in Iraqi defensive position consisting of T-72s and other armored vehicles. They apparently killed approximately 20 vehicles with no losses. The point that was most interesting to me was that apparently the two Bradley AFVs involved got kills against T-72s using their 25mm chain guns. If that is true, I find that amazing. I never considered the Bradley's 25mm gun to be a tank killer.

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

I’m not sure that all 25mm’s are chain guns. But it is a tank buster so long as the range is short
and it has access to the less armored areas of the T-72. Depleted Uranium cuts steel armor like
butter. And T-72’s are fire traps. The shell storage is problematic, and most units have had the interior bLast doors removed to improve loading reliability. The Soviets had trouble maintaining this system, so I doubt the Iraqi’s were able to keep them functioning. Also, many marks have die cast road wheels, which are susceptible to .5” fire. That has to be one of those “what where they thinking of” engineering blunders.

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

Anyone else notice the poor condition of the Iraqi personal equipment? It’s a good thing that
they use AK’s. Most weapons would not function with that level of care. And in that gritty
environment, one would have to wonder at the level of functionality they retain. Also, their
storage activities are awful. I wonder how many duds they have with their RPG’s and mortars.
A dud in a mortar is a real ***** when it hangs in the tube, and I would think that a hang fire with an RPG could be an issue too. That thing lights off while you are removing it from the tube, and I bet you don’t count to ten with your fingers any more.

[ April 05, 2003, 07:14: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting info on the T-72. I found this LINK for some information on the Bradley's gun system. It is the M242 Bushmaster 25mm chain gun. Apparently, they have developed some pretty potent ammo for it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

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

I am reminded of the historical scenario of the battle of Smolensk (a battle memorialized in the wonderful Avalon Hill game, Panzergruppe Guderian). The crux of the German strategy against the Russians was Enkesselment (encirclement) in which the rapidly moving panzer columns would outpace their own slower infantry divisions, and to some degree their own supply lines, in order to outflank the enemy dug into and around cities and towns. The Infantry would slowly come up and close the net, but for a time the panzers would be vulnerable as the irregular, "untried" Russian units that were bypassed would harrass and cut their supply lines.

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

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t72tank.htm

Great web site.

The t-72 is out classed in this war.

Now if the American's do attack Sryia...

What weapons do they have.

I assume t-72 's , variations of the t-55 , and modern artie..

Most likely on par with IDN

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">BBC says this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/788180.stm

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

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/syrscud.htm

Shakes head and thinks that these people are so stupid.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand your comment.
Who are the stupid ones, the institute or the Syrians ?

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't understand your comment.
Who are the stupid ones, the institute or the Syrians ?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Anyone that thinks these weapons are worth having. They really only work on civies, and often strike the side that set them loose. They are not WMD, they are terror weapons.

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

Thermo:
From your link:
"From a strategic perspective, long-range missiles such as the Scud could offer a means to deliver chemical weapons in response to Israel’s nuclear threat."

They are designed to be terror weapons. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do. That's sad, but it's not stupid.

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

The AK's are popular in the Middle East(along with the Isralie Galil, which has some similiarities) BECAUSE they're simple, easy-to-maintain designs which withstand temperature extremes well.

No, it's not up with the latest rifles, but it's pretty much ideal for light infantry forces in desert conditions where techical expertise is scarce.

The (mainly ex-russian) RPG launchers they use are fairly tough and robust as well.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don’t see it that way. Israel has never invaded Syria, they have kicked them in the pants on
several occasions, but the ground wars were defensive as far as Israel was concerned. Israel
can not use their nukes as a first strike weapon, the world would not stand for it. And Israel has
no territorial designs on Syria, they already captured the high ground many years ago. So why
does Syria need the WMD if not to use them for a first strike attack on Israel? And in so doing,
they would kill some Israelis that were in the general area of the targets. But then, Israel would have enough support in the rest of the world to actually get away with nuking Damascus. It would be a measured response. And one that I think Israel is capable of undertaking.
Personally, I think that is what makes it stupid, why have weapons of limited use that also make
you a target for weapons that will utterly destroy your own country. The Israelis WMD vastly
trumps Syria’s WMD.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">&lt;empathy&gt;Better a rubbish deterrant than no deterrant at all&lt;/empathy&gt;

Remember - the more terrifying the weapon, the greater the deterrance.

Re: gratutious discussion of weapons

The AK-47 may not be the greatest rifle in the world, but I bet its easier to maintain and use in the desert than the bLasted SA-80 the British troops are lumped with. The SAS refuse to use it, which tells you something about it's capabilities.

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

Apologies to Alpha Kodiak for ruining his fine non-political thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thermo:
The good ol' double standards again ? "WMD's are all right as long as they are mine (Or Israel's)"

The Syrian Scuds:
As a first strike weapon they are useless, but they still work reasonable well as a deterrent.
The very fact that the US is in Iraq right now is proof enough (for any unallied nation) of the need for a Last ditch "F.. them all" weapon.

Can't make yourself a nuke, make the best weapon you can!

North Korea is going to find a lot of new customers for their hardware over the next few years.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Double standard, what are you talking about? There is no standard here. No entitlement to
possess them. And I think the days of just going out and getting some, no mater what your history is, are just about over. These are WMD that we are talking about. Syria supports terrorism, Syria’s Armed forces are little more than a conscript reserve force. Syria is at this time occupying a neighbor, and has in the past invaded another neighbor. They are almost as bad a Saddam in control of Iraq. I can not imagine any standard that would allow them to have WMD. And I seriously doubt that they are capable of keeping their know how and actual product safely stored from outsiders, let alone the fanatics that are within their own military. Chem and Bio weapons are easily smuggled, and inherently hard to inventory.

I am not so keen on Israel having nukes either, but then I do see that they face extinction at the
hands of their neighbors every day. I also see that Israel has thrived where the Arab states have
stagnated. And when I look at Israelis armed forces, I see an organization that is able to
safeguard it’s WMD and prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists. It’s not really a
Jew vs. Arab thing, that is just used to incite the common man. It is western politics vs. Islamic politics thing.

As for the NK’s, I wouldn’t look for to much out of them any time soon. They aren’t willing to
risk everything that they are. This is a manufactured crises, manufactured by them. They know that it is not the 1950’s, and that the little damage that they could inflict out side of the peninsula would be returned to them a thousand fold. Also, their benefactor to the far north no longer cares what happens to them. And their benefactor to the near north is a very phobic nation and not likely to long tolerate a nuclear loose cannon within striking distance of their major cities.

The Indians and Packies are more of a worry to me, neither country is stable enough to
guarantee the security of their WMD. And neither country is above making a first strike upon
the other.

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?

[ April 06, 2003, 04:24: Message edited by: LGM ]

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

It would appear that American forces are going to try to pick off resistance targets in Baghdad one at a time. Their run through Baghdad with armor shows that they can pick their spots and go where they want, when they want. Doesn't mean that there isn't any resistance, just that if the Americans are careful, they can do what they want.

There does seem to be a story that we actually lost a tank inside Baghdad, but I haven't seen any real details. Doesn't make to much difference in the overall big picture, but it's an interesting event (bad for us, good for them) at any rate.

Finally, the attack on the house of "Chemical Ali" in Basra shhows we've got pretty good intelligence assets (Spec Ops) on the ground. I think we will see more operations like this as time goes on.

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.

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 ]

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

I will say this about the military plans, I think they should have had more preparation for law enforcement for when the regime collapsed. I understand that there is going to be a time of rough transition, but it seems like it would have been smart to have a significant number of MPs ready to bring in right behind the troops to provide a higher level of civil security. Maybe I will be proven wrong and they will have something in place quickly (I've sure been wrong before watching this campaign) but unitl I see it I am somewhat concerned.

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

On the issue of law enforcement, I think the coalition is doing the right thing. If they came in strong right after they drove the other guys out, it might seem that one oppressive organization was replaced by another.

By letting the truly inevitable happen (see _any_ real revolution (the American one does not count, as local authority was, for the most part, maintained)), and then bringing in law enforcement afterward, the people will not feel restrained as they are able to see the need for the light level of oppression inherent to law enforcement.

A question: who is being looted?

Who had all the 'stuff'?

Are people associated with the Ba'ath party, or their property, suffering the most?

It would be nice if it were that simple.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually watching as much as I do, the looting in Iraq is nothing compared to what happens here in the States when the so called fans decide to celebtate their team winning (GOD forbid loosing) by going out and trashing the town.

But then again, when them turds are looting, there aint other people ready to stone them to death (maybe if that happened, then the idiots wouldnt be stoopid).

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Excellent point, I hadn't thought of it that way. I knew I would get into trouble second guessing the military plan. Every time I have so far I have been proved wrong. It has worked amazingly well, and I would not be surprised if this part works well also.

It is true that the Ba'ath party people had most of the stuff, so they are the primary targets. The big problem is when hospitals and other infrastructure facilities are looted, preventing people from receiving vital services.

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

<still OT>

It certainly would be best to avoid the destruction of infrastructure. However if, and I'm not saying this is the way it is but if, some degree of destruction cannot be avoided, it would be best to let it happen easily.

Another thing to remember here is that Iraq is not a poor country. We are not talking about Guatemala or Somalia or Vietnam. This country is _rich_ in the most valuable resource since the dawn of the industrial era. This country will not remain broken and destitute for decades, a pitiful testimony to the destructive capacity of Science and Industry. This country will be rebuilt, it will be strong, it will support itself in a matter of years.

If the 'Coalition of the Willing' does half as good a job on Iraq as the Marshal Plan did on post-war Europe, there will be a new and powerful democracy where one would be most useful.

Of course, they could still screw it up.

</still OT>

That said, if the Bradleys are doing so well against tanks, and work with infantry so well, will there come a time within the next fifty years when we will no longer need pure tanks?

I mean, before we get tanks that walk on two legs.

(edit: this post has been formatted to fit your screen, and to have better spelling)

[ April 11, 2003, 23:12: Message edited by: Loser ]

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We'll need them, but I don't think we'll be building new ones, IMHO. I think the Abrams will go the way of the Stratofortress; Useful when you need it, but at other times, just a liability.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The B-52, the Battleship, SR-71 (you know they still use them, I mean come on, they're just to cool to scrap), and soon the tank?

I have trouble imagining a world where tanks are mothballed and only brought out for The Next Big War...

Anyone see it a different way?

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

I wouldn't want to take a Bradley against a determined tank-armed enemy that knew how to use their tanks. For that matter, it takes a much lighter infantry weapon to take out a Bradley than an M1. I would guess that an RPG could substantially damage a Bradley, while it would be unlikely that it could do much to an M1. Given all of that, I suspect MBTs will be around for a while yet.

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

We could force law and order on them, or we could let them ask for some law and order. I would think that letting them ask is the best course of action.

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

Bah... 'the tank is obsolete' is one of those cyclic idiocies that military doctrines go through. The gun was 'obsolete' on aircraft in the 1960s. Until US pilots got into some dogfights in Vietnam and discovered that missiles were not 100 percent effective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Big surprise there. They had to put external gun pods on the F4 Phantom to let our pilots keep fighting when the enemy closed in. At least they did learn from their mistake and put guns in the original design for the next generation, the F-14/F-15/F-16 series. Those simple (and cheap!) shaped charge weapons did make the battlefield dangerous for tanks for a while, but they came up with counter-measures in the next generation of armor. Despite this there was some resistance to building the M1 Abrams on the grounds that tanks were 'obsolete'. Well, OUR tanks sure didn't look 'obsolete' in Desert Storm... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif The tank will not be obsolete until, as already said, we have the SciFi type of tank that walks. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

The real observation to be made here is that the 'highly irregular warfare' of the future, where terrorists do their best to attack where our defenses ain't will not be won with heavy weapons. I suspect that the very dangerous merging of police and military that we've already begun to see will continue in the attempt to cope with this problem. We'll have 'SWAT' teams getting more and more heavy-duty and high-tech, and police legal powers getting more and more crazy - as already demonstrate with the 'Patriot' and 'Patriot II' acts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif