[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[kalthalior]

RE: Supply lines/warplans

As someone with almost 10 years military experience (Army/NG), & someone who has run many a LOGPAC (logistics package), I guess I'll comment on the warplan and logistics. The plan was, and is, an excellent one -- multi-pronged assault over a wide front, using Coalition advantages of maneuver & air superiority to the maximum. Bypass centers of resistance (urban areas) to continue to advance on the main objective -- Saddam & Baghdad.
As far as the supplies go, we were victims of our own success, advancing far faster & further than probably anyone thought we would. At no point did I ever hear about anyone that didn't get SOME supplies -- even 1 MRE a day provides more than enough calories for the average soldier to keep fighting, and while tanks/apcs may have been low on fuel, but were never out of gas as they were in Patton's advance across France.
More than likely, the main holdup was getting a forward supply point organized, secured and getting inventory to that location (inside Iraq). It would be from that point that the divisional/brigade support units would get the supplies to distribute the beans and bullets to the trigger pullers.
While the sandstorm was a nuisance, it was probably a blessing in disguise as it let us rest up, redeploy, secure our lines, and modify the operation to continue the advance more successfully.
BTW, my brother-in-law is in country supporting the 101st.

[ April 03, 2003, 16:09: Message edited by: kalthalior ]

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
Thermo, I hate to say this, but:

Link, please?

I haven't heard any of this (not that I've caught any news since ~noon Wed.); and I'd like the opportunity to read it for myself.

That said, it does indeed appear much of the press had a predetermined idea of what would happen. Many of them cut their journalistic teeth on Vietnam, and would love to have that power and notoriety back. Unfortunately for them, it's not going to happen while ~75%+ of the Americans are for finishing what we started, which I think they're aware of.

The events at the LA Times is straight from CNN and the Washington Post. The Emails I was
allowed to read were not addressed to me, so I will not post them. But I am told that Fox
featured one of them on their cable channel Last night. I will see the tape of it later tonight. If I got to see the emails, that means that they are pretty much in open circulation now, my contacts are pretty poor these days. The emails were from people in the 3rdInf at the front lines. I am also told that Fox interviewed a gentleman Last night who said that the New York Times had requested an article that was biased
against the administration, he turned them down.

[Crazy_Dog]

another cluster of links....

Russian military intel update: War in Iraq, April 2
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1494&lang=en

From the West Bank to Baghdad
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1612&lang=en

Arabs See Israel's Hand Behind U.S. War in Iraq
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1613&lang=en

Key developments concerning Iraq
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1535&lang=en

US troops 'within six miles' of Baghdad
http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1565&lang=en

As usual, i only provide the links for anybody interested to read.
They are not from US nor from Iraq.
I don't say they are the 'real thing' but on this war everibody lie......

[Crazy_Dog]

An M1-Abrams f****d

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_i...Id=347&lang=en

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
An M1-Abrams f****d

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&so rt_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en

The fun part is that the hull sustained no damage, the crew survived, and after repairs to the damaged carriage, it will be going back into action. It ain't that easy to take out an M1.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Crazy_Dog:
An M1-Abrams f****d

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-browse_image.php?galleryId=3&so rt_mode=created_desc&desp=0&offset=0&imageId=347&lang=en

Not really hurt that bad. It had a track fire to be sure, but the blow-off panels are in place so the interior did not burn. M1 are very resistant to fire, unlike the T 72's. T 72 will go off like fireworks at the first spark of a fire. And the anti-wgm packs they carry often stop the missile only to then cook the crew in the resulting fire.

[Baron Munchausen]

It is interesting how much has been learned by the US about tank design. US tanks used to be sh*t. (Germans always designed good tanks, of course... ). The Sherman in WW II, for example, was a bathtub with treads and a turret on it. The reason the US armored divisions managed to defeat the Germans was sheer numbers, and air support.

It's hard to tell just from that photo how bad the damage to the rest of the M1 was, but it is entirely possible that the main body of the tank was not touched. There are all sorts of safety features and 'firewalls' in the design of the Abrams tank. But that's still quite an eye opener. As far as I have heard, the Iraqi resistors (uniformed or not) do not have 'anti-tank' missiles. They are using RPGs. What does an Abrams cost? Aren't they getting to be something like fighter planes, costing close to $100 million each? The 'special' armor is very expensive, I know that much. Yet a cruddy little RPG, designed in the 1970s and costing a few hundred dollars, can disable it. And they are so simple that many 'third world' nations manufacture them (under license) instead of buying them directly from the Russians.

You can see why they don't want to go into close-in 'urban' combat from images like this. The Abrams has normal steel armor on top, NOT the 'special' armor that can resist shaped charges. It was too expensive, and too heavy, to use on all surfaces. If you can do this to the tough side armor at reasonable ranges with a mere RPG, then you could certainly destroy one if you could get a shot from above (in the upper stories of building, for example). I think they designed these tanks with US air power in mind. Every war we've fought since aircraft were invented, we've had air superiority. So they felt they could presume the tank was safe from above and save weight. If some clever person figures out how to make armor-piercing mortars, or how to use RPGs in that fashion (shoot up and then come down) our super-duper tanks will be in deep doodoo.

[ April 04, 2003, 22:01: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

From what I understand, their were two M1s damaged by WGMs similar in class to TOWs mounted on the back of flat bed trucks. I assume this is one of them. I don't think the trucks survived the return fire nearly as well....

[Krsqk]

I don't think an armor-piercing mortar round is possible (although I could well be wrong). The ballistic use of RPGs is even more unlikely. You'd either have to fire at a high angle to hit your target, giving your round a high probability of being misdirected by wind; and/or you'd have to cut the burn time down for the rounds so they wouldn't go so high first.

If someone does come out with an effective means of attacking the top armor of the tanks, I'm sure the defense industry will find some way to stop it. It's the old "Make a bullet to pierce this armor" "Okay, now make some armor to stop this bullet" routine.

[Baron Munchausen]

Oh, an armor piercing mortar round is certainly possible. At least the shaped-charge variety. I guess I should have been clearer. It would have to be reasonably accurate to be worthwhile. Mortars are highly inaccurate, and so they are almost always anti-personal (fragmentation) or plain high explosive warheads that can be made to explode above the target and cover a wide area. A shaped charge mortar round would just punch holes in the dirt 95 percent of the time. If you could make a 'smart' shaped-charge mortar that would 'look down' and guide itself to hit a tank it would be well worthwhile to produce and deploy because the Abrams is not the only tank with less armor on top. But this sort of technology is the hallmark of Western, especially US, military methods, not third-world militaries.

In fact, there is a weapon of this type in the works with the US military. A special artillery shell that would deploy a parachute and scan for tanks before firing a special weapon down on them. Not sure how far along that is.

Same for the RPG round. If you could make a 'smart' RPG that would seek out a tank you'd have something. As it is, yes, you'd just be firing off flares for the enemy to follow back to your position. The chance of hitting anything by shooting up and hoping it comes down at the right place would be pretty small.

That level of damage on the M1 does make more sense from a real 'anti-tank' missile, though.

[ April 05, 2003, 01:17: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]