How Long Will Gulf War II Last? - Page 5

Flubber · March 31, 2003, 13:21

I also don't get the panic over the supposed "slow" pace of the war.

If the coalition had sat in Kuwait and bombed Iraq for for a few weeks to soften them up, no one would have questioned this slow pace. Instead thay marched in and took a sizeable chunk of Iraq in days. THis action may have prevented major ecological damage in the south

I presume that the forces in north west and south Iraq are growing and that Iraqi forces are being lessened through bombings. A slowdown in the offensive is not only to be expected but it is probably a necessity for maintenance, resupply and rest. I figure it gives the fist a greater punch when it gets going again.

My question is what will the war planners do when the forces reach Bagdad. How do you fight in an urban environment against a foe that relishes using trickery while avoiding civilian casualties. I expect Iraqi emplacements in every hospital, apartment building, seniors home . . . .

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Well, Paiktis is posting so the war must be over. Did we win?

No, Mark the Merciful decided to intervene.

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Flubber
I also don't get the panic over the supposed "slow" pace of the war.

If the coalition had sat in Kuwait and bombed Iraq for for a few weeks to soften them up, no one would have questioned this slow pace. Instead thay marched in and took a sizeable chunk of Iraq in days. THis action may have prevented major ecological damage in the south.

Ecological, economic, and humanitarian. That was a good move, but we should have written off Turkey earlier and repositions 4 ID so that they were ready to move up the road as soon as 3 ID cleared it.

Quote:

I presume that the forces in north west and south Iraq are growing and that Iraqi forces are being lessened through bombings. A slowdown in the offensive is not only to be expected but it is probably a necessity for maintenance, resupply and rest. I figure it gives the fist a greater punch when it gets going again.

The problem is that people equate the pace of the offensive with the amount of noise, or reports of body count. The maneuver aspect of offensive operations is even more important - if you can maneuver a defender out of ground of his choosing, it's as good if not better than blasting him out of it.

The latest is that US forces took a bridge over the Euphrates at al Hindiyah, which is directly astride the line from Karbala to al Hillah that was being held by IRG Medina. So the Medina *******s have either been forced to retreat with the nearest bridges some 20 miles north, or they're cut in half, with neither half having the ability to link up with the other.

Quote:

My question is what will the war planners do when the forces reach Bagdad. How do you fight in an urban environment against a foe that relishes using trickery while avoiding civilian casualties. I expect Iraqi emplacements in every hospital, apartment building, seniors home . . . .

The difficult question will be the reaction of the Iraqi populace outside Baghdad. Most of the "resistance" is inspired by force and fear of the Baath/SRG/ISSS elements, so when Baghdad is encircled, those elements have to make a choice whether to try to get back to Baghdad, or try to operate on their own. The perception of the Iraqis outside Baghdad that Saddam really will be gone this time should make a huge difference in how coalition forces choose to operate in Baghdad itself. This is one case where, like it or not, the plan has to be developed on the fly.

DanS · March 31, 2003, 14:03

Yes, this is an interesting phase. It looks to me like it's a methodical push. A lot of repositioning. Allowing IRG units into the blast zones. Keeping the IRG out of areas where they aren't welcome.

Interestingly, the IRG captured in Hindiyah were said to be from the Nebuchadnezzar Division normally stationed in Tikrit.

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Yes, this is an interesting phase. It looks to me like it's a methodical push. A lot of repositioning. Allowing IRG units into the blast zones. Keeping the IRG out of areas where they aren't welcome.

Interestingly, the IRG captured in Hindiyah were said to be from the Nebuchadnezzar Division normally stationed in Tikrit.

Undoubtedly when the Saddamites realized we weren't coming in force from Turkey, they repositioned units.

Another question is what is the real strength of the IRQ divisions? IRG Al Nida and IRG Baghdad have been composited, since one was TO&E'd as all armor, and the other all infantry, but it's an open question what is their real combat effective strength? We don't have hard data on the maintenance state of their equipment, we can only surmise from indirect means.

If IRG Nebuchadnazzer is down south, that leaves IRG Adnan as the only real force in the north. The more of them that come down in front of Baghdad, the better for us.

Ned · March 31, 2003, 15:52

On one of the all-news channel's, a retired Army colonel said that what we saw in the opening phase of the current campaign was standard Army doctrine. He said that it was doctrine for the the armored and mechanized infantry division's two strike deep into enemy territory -- bypassing pockets of resistance. The light infantry would follow the armored divisions and clean up those pockets of resistance -- insuring the supply lines.

The next phase of the war should see the Army destroying the Republican Guard divisions before Baghdad. A primary objective of this phase would be to assure that none of these divisions retreats into Baghdad itself.

I presume that V Corps is now in a position to destory the Medina and the Nebuchadnezzar divisions around Karbala. I assume that this can be done in three or four days. However, I also have heard talk that Franks may delay until the 4th ID arrives in the area. We shall see.

I was wondering if the 1st Marine division has sufficient power to attack the Republican Guard divisions between it and Baghdad. Have the Marines ever taken on armored divisions before?

MichaeltheGreat · March 31, 2003, 17:00

In GW 1, there was a major engagement between Marine armor (M60A3's) and regular Iraqi armor (T-55 + T72) at the Kuwait airport, however that was a meeting engagement.

The Marines are too light in armor and arty to really want to have a go at dug in armor. They can do it, but with unnecessarily high casualties, and it's a poor utilization of the USMC's capabilities.

So far, Karbala is still XVIII AC country, since 3 ID is a part of XVIII AC, not V Corps.

With 82 ABD fighting around Najaf at last report, V Corps is essentially not accounted for at this point.

china444 · March 31, 2003, 17:16

I think possibly 1 month to 1 and a half months.

Once we get to Baghdad, all hell will break loose!

Ned · March 31, 2003, 17:32

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In GW 1, there was a major engagement between Marine armor (M60A3's) and regular Iraqi armor (T-55 + T72) at the Kuwait airport, however that was a meeting engagement.

The Marines are too light in armor and arty to really want to have a go at dug in armor. They can do it, but with unnecessarily high casualties, and it's a poor utilization of the USMC's capabilities.

So far, Karbala is still XVIII AC country, since 3 ID is a part of XVIII AC, not V Corps.

With 82 ABD fighting around Najaf at last report, V Corps is essentially not accounted for at this point.

I think the plan was to have the Brits armor spearhead the right flank. Since they are tied up at Basra, the 4th ID may be necessary. The Marine will advance only to open the route and secure the supply lines allowing for a rapid 4th ID advance on the right.

MattyBoy · March 31, 2003, 18:41

It will be the beginning of a new conflict to rival the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Hence more than 2 months and more than 50 years, on and off.

DanS · April 8, 2003, 21:58

Well, we've got to be getting pretty close to the end of this thing. Does anybody disagree that March 19 was the beginning date?

General Ludd · April 8, 2003, 22:03

I'd like to know who voted 1-3 days.

Aside from Faded Glory, of course.

Alexander's Horse · April 8, 2003, 22:07

I'm not sure the end is nigh.

DanS · April 8, 2003, 22:09

AH: Well, Tikrit will be the end of it all, I guess. But Baghdad is descending into chaos...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr8.html

Alexander's Horse · April 8, 2003, 22:11

I mean after the bang bang war is over, which should be soon, it won't be over for a loong time.

DanS · April 8, 2003, 22:16

You're probably right. But we'll just use the end of the bang bang war date for our purposes.

Alexander's Horse · April 8, 2003, 22:19

Oh well on that I said 2-3 weeks

DanS · April 8, 2003, 22:28

There isn't even a 2-3 weeks option.

Alexander's Horse · April 8, 2003, 22:31

I voted 2 weeks to a month - based purely on how long it takes armour to roll the distances involved

Kramerman · April 8, 2003, 22:31

I said the one that had a month as the maximum... i believe it was 2 weeks to a month...

I was actually anticipating it to be 2 weeks tho, perhaps a little more, to be honest

... but as other s have said, it aint over yet

Vandal-1 · April 8, 2003, 23:27

I beleive based on the case history of the Arabs that there will always be militant factions that organize guerilla cadres in the middle east. I don't refer to them as terrorist since they are actually covert agencies popularly supported by the majority(the silent majority) of their population.Their cause will not die in the streets of Bagdad but it will wear the cloak of thier clerics and princes ' till it sees and siezes the oportunity to..... Tele Aviv 76.Tehran 80.Kadaffi 85ish GwI,Somolia,GwII....?It would require some research but I think a little probing would reveal a bigger picture of which this is merely one image.