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

[Alpha Kodiak]

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.

[LGM]

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.

[Alpha Kodiak]

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.

[Thermodyne]

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.

[Thermodyne]

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 ]

[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
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.

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.

[Axel]

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.

[tesco samoa]

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

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
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

BBC says this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/788180.stm

[Thermodyne]

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

Shakes head and thinks that these people are so stupid.