Iraqi Military Problems

[Seeker]

We should be grateful that this phase of the US invasion is so quick and easy...

But in this thread I'm trying to understand how it's so easy. How can one division facing another not actually have a battle with casualties on both sides? The Iraqi divisions just seem to disintegrate.

1. Morale:

a. they're fighting to defend Saddam Hussein, who has probably intimidated, tortured, or killed a relative of most people in Iraq. Naturally Saddam is not exactly Ho Chi Min to the Iraqi people.

b. they've been fighting the US AF for 10 years, with a total lack of success, and they know it. They can't get pilots or hope to build up an airforce to match some 600 attack and air superiority aircraft in the area. They can't **** with out it being tracked and analyzed by multiple satellites, drones, etc. let alone put up radar.

They've had a remarkable lack of success in developing better radar or targeting technologies to avoid HAARM missiles, and particular they have been unable to import or make SAM that would worry US planes.

2. Technological isolation: The Iraqi generals know that when Saddam is on TV talking about how carriers are not a problem that he's entered fantasyland.

tanks

On the ground, Iraqi tanks are outdated still, they fire a round which will not even penetrate the US side armour, let alone the frontal plate. They must stop to fire, while the US fires and moves. They are outranged. They have no laser guided targeting computers or divisional available night vision. In actual war, they also don't have much resupply or reinforcement hope, all they can do is dig in and wait to die or surrender.

infantry

this is the 'big advantage' the Iraqis have in that close infantry combat still depends a lot on courage and viciousness, not computers. The Iraqis have AKs, RPGs, 12.7 mm machine guns, all old Soviet crap whose main virtue is that is cheap, easy to fix, and tough.

The have a 'levy en masse' (all citizens called to fight, the grannies and kids), but history has shown that the kids and grannies tend not to do very good in combat, (Franco-Prussian War, end of WWII) in fact they tend to surrender once they realize the bullets are in fact real.

The Americans on the other hand have a couple of tricks their sleeves for the big bad 'Stalingrad' (which Baghdad won't be; there is no relief force coming and the people are not on Saddams side). They have excellent snipers with good equipment. They have a bunch of fancy new guns that can lay down a lot of fire. They have new body armour that, although i would want to walk very far in it, would be a big help in creeping house to house. They have sensors for body heat and vibration which will make it more difficult for enemies to hide out and attack an exposes flank later. They even have a couple goddamned robots that can go up stairs and launch grenades. They've also had a few special groups of soldiers training (fairly) hard in a 'simulated urban environment' for a few years now, with doodads the Iraqis never seen.

In other words, as long as I'm right about the people not supporting Saddam, this should be the easy part, even in Baghdad.

The hard part will be the US occupation, how they handle it, will it be like Afghanistan with tiny US backed puppet government in control of the capital and the oil pipeline, and the rest warlords paying lip service to it? Will the Kurds get a home? What will be the relationship between Iran and the Shiite majority? What the heck will Syria/Hezbollah do with a US occupation force between them and Iran? The next few years will curse us with interesting times.

BTW, off-topic, on Dave's ESL cafe there is a job posting for Jenin, Palestine to teach English......pretty good danger pay if you don't mind the occasional shelling....

[Ted Striker]

Ya, the technology is light years ahead from 12 years ago. The information systems alone are putting eyes everywhere.

Those shoulder mounted Swedish tank busters that hit the top of the tanks are also BRUTAL.

I'd be interested to hear the details about body armor. I thought that it was wasn't legal to use in combat situations.

[Seeker]

anti-tank missiles....

that's something I've been wondering about, one of the only ways I see the Iraqis blunting an advance is using some kind of TOW missile like thing, like you're describing, like on jeeps or desert vehicles, or dug into a firing pit like the anti-tank missile the Brits use.

Do they have anything like that?

I have no clue about the body armour, but I imagine if I was an officer in charge of men in an urban combat situation I would use any means necessary to give them an edge, maybe keep a couple hidden in case a tough nut to crack came up....

[notyoueither]

Why would body armour be illegal?

[DarthVeda]

I don't think kevlar works very well against assault rifles.

[Ted Striker]

I thought the idea was that if soldiers had body armor, then there would have to be more devastating technology developed to defeat that armor.

I thought they were just allowed flak jackets to protect against shrapnel.

Maybe that has recently changed.

For example in the 1800s, the Russians developed exploding bullets, but they proved to be inhumane (bullets blowing up on the operating table), so they were banned.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
I don't think kevlar works very well against assault rifles.

You just have to design the thickness, fiber spin and weave and other attributes. The Iraqis use 7.62 x 39 stuff, which is relatively easier to design armor against that NATO 5.56 or WP 5.45

[Seeker]

There is a lot of powder behind the bullet in an AK-47 or M-16. Just compare rifle cartridges to pistol cartridges and you'll see.

But, even though the cartidge is more powerful, it's otherwise just a normal bullet (EDIT as opposed to special armour piercing type).

I think this is something under development, not being used right now, or otherwise that poor guy who was shot in the gut yesterday would still be alive (unless he was shot with something heavier, like a machine gun).

Possibly protypes have gone out to special urban combat dudes, but like I said I imagine they'd be heavy and wouldn't protect against 12.7 mm rounds or the obvious shot by anything in the face.

[Ted Striker]

Hey MTG do you know anything about the body armor?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Seeker
anti-tank missiles....

that's something I've been wondering about, one of the only ways I see the Iraqis blunting an advance is using some kind of TOW missile like thing, like you're describing, like on jeeps or desert vehicles, or dug into a firing pit like the anti-tank missile the Brits use.

Do they have anything like that?

I have no clue about the body armour, but I imagine if I was an officer in charge of men in an urban combat situation I would use any means necessary to give them an edge, maybe keep a couple hidden in case a tough nut to crack came up....

Nothing indicates they've gotten upgraded equipment since sanctions, since all the good stuff is traceable. In theory, if they had the balls to attempt flying them, they have a few AT-6 Spirals for what's left of their operable Mi-24D's and E's. Ground forces have AT-3 and AT-4 Soviet export ****.

Infantry matchups are a misnomer - even the USMC units have much heavier support firepower from armor and IFVs. Iraqi Army infantry units are pretty close to true rifle divisions, with only a few mechanized infantry divisions, and those are armor light - a lot of the mechanized infantry relies on BMP-1 and BTR transport, so even those are firepower light, poorly armored, and vulnerable to ignition since the gas tanks are poorly placed and protected.

US Army infantry units are fully mechanized and have strong scout and attack helo assets, plus MLRS and the M109A6 Paladin, both of which can act as offensive artillery, move with front line forces, and dial in on targets much more quickly than Iraqi artillery, if it's even still alive.

Division on division, a US Army ID has about 20 times the firepower of an Iraqi Army ID, and about 5-6 times the firepower of an IRG Mechanized ID. That's why most of the poor bastards surrender (or will) - they simply realize that they have no chance at all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Hey MTG do you know anything about the body armor?

There's nothing prohibiting it. There are some pretty sci-fi full body armor toys that are in R&D, but nothing deployed that I know of beyond Kevlar. One of the big issues is mobility and heat fatigue (it doesn't have to be hot outside). There's a definite tradeoff between combat effectiveness and protection, so I think it's more practical problems than anything that prevent it's being used more.

Even in urban warfare, you have more of a need for speed, situational awareness, overwatch and firepower, than you have need for armor.

[Ted Striker]

Thanks, I guess that makes more sense.

[Proteus_MST]

I agree about the morally and technologically superiority of the US-Troops.

But I doubt that it will be easy for the british and american troops as they get nearer to Baghdad.
Why?
On one Hand you will have to face his Elite "Republican Guards".
Yes, their equipment, although better than the Equipment of the regular military units, is still outdated in Comparison to the equipment the american and british troops possess.
But they will be more fanatic and therefore more eager to fight and die for Saddam.

On the other hand, because the current rapid successes of the allied Troops could also mean, that Saddam has massed a lot of his divisions around Baghdad, so the resistance will grow fiercer the nearer you get to Baghdad.

It was said in the news yesterday that allied forces haven´t even taken Basrah fully, just the outskirts and the Airport and that they won´t march further into the town, because they fear bloody street-fightings and that they just will leave some troops surrounding of the city whilst the Main force advances further towards Baghdad.

In Baghdad this probably won´t be an option.

(Of course I don´t hope for prolonged street-fightings in Baghdad, where also the civilians suffer, but I still fear that it may be the case. Maybe the cleanest way to win the war would still be if you succeed in taking Saddam and the hardliners within his government out with one chirurgical strike, the difficulty though is to find him)

[HershOstropoler]

Just compare the spending levels. 300-400 billion US, maybe 2 billion Iraq. The mighty Iraqi military is based on a spending level comparable to that for Austria's joke of a military.

Also, Saddam has concentrated his better units in the sunnite center, around Baghdad and Tikrit, where his power base is. So even if there won't be much resistance in say Basra, that doesn't tell much yet.

[Dis]

things are getting worse though. I fear what lies ahead.

Saddam now says he has prisoners of war and is planning on showing them on Iraqi television.

A small group of Iraq troops hold out a large group of marines for nearly 4 hours. The U.S. is afraid to do anything with the cameras showing.

And I still think Saddam has something up his sleeve when we get to Bagdhad. I have a feeling something is going to go horribly wrong.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
On the other hand, because the current rapid successes of the allied Troops could also mean, that Saddam has massed a lot of his divisions around Baghdad, so the resistance will grow fiercer the nearer you get to Baghdad.

His quality units, relatively speaking, are concentrated in two rings around Baghdad. Keep in mind though, that most American units aren't even in the fight yet.

It was said in the news yesterday that allied forces haven´t even taken Basrah fully, just the outskirts and the Airport and that they won´t march further into the town, because they fear bloody street-fightings and that they just will leave some troops surrounding of the city whilst the Main force advances further towards Baghdad.

There's no need. In France in 1944, Hitler stupidly ordered a number of garissons to stay in place and defend the U-Boat bases in four port cities. The allies simply blocked them with much smaller forces, and many thousands of German troops effectively sat out the war with no further resistance or initiative to move out of their garissons. The allies had no need for the ports, and it wasn't worth the time to root out those garrison forces. Once Basra is isolated by a blocking force from interfering with any allied advance, then it's useless from the Iraqi perspective. Not attacking immediately gives the US the time to work on the Iraqi commanders, and persuade them to surrender their forces. If they don't, then US and British follow-on forces can deal with the problem at our leisure.

[CerberusIV]

Anti-tank missiles rely on shaped charge warheads so they aren't particularly effective against the armour of M1 and Challenger tanks.

I suspect a cunning Iraqi plan. They know that most of their conscript infantry divisions are useless and are allowing them to surrender so that US/UK resources are strretched by dealing with tens of thousands of prisoners. Don't forget these are uniformed combatants of a recognised state so the Geneva convention applies, no Camp X-Ray here.

[Pekka]

They have huge problems. I think they can't be categorized as a decent army to begin with.

They have crappy weaponry, training, tactics, leadership, morale.. and if that's not enough, they are fighting powerfull coalition and they have to defend Mr poopypants Hussein. Also they know, that if they lose, the US is not going to rape all the women, kill the men and children and conquer.. So they're not fighting for their existence.

THe only way smaller and weaker army can win, is to infict severe damages to the opponent, therefore making their morale low and them not getting anymore support from back home etc. To accomplish that, they must have master strategists, superior tactics in defending (which is easier than attacking), and HIGH morale. High morale is absolutely essential for weaker army. Without that, they're toast. Weaker army must pick up their fights, not engage into every battle and lose massively.
This I know.

I can't see any tactics in their defense. None what so ever. It's basically just desperate lines trying to hold on.
They MUST stop doing that and start doing damage to the coalition. That's the only way. Or how are they planning on winning this taking it up the butt?
Damage, damage, damage. You do damage where you think you can do it, not where the enemy is strong. Trash support routes, kill reporters and do propaganda, take hostages, torture hostages, show them on national tv with their head cut off and molested, start looking for those allies, try to establish communication with pockets that are fighting desperately and supply routes in able to do some rotation and reinforcments, use lots of moveable firepower and forget all the heavy artillery. What they NOW NEED is first victory in ground battle. HOw hard that can be? Just one! Even small one. And make sure reporters report it. Kidnap few and make them report it. Report it back home, boost morale. Torture and kill every single soldier captured in first victory. Say it was Allah who did it. Take out small groups. Ambush those choppers, how hard can it be? Not THAT hard. Just small victories. Move the balance of fighting. Be absolutely brutal and nasty. Build fake camps and fake artillery and ambush attackers if it's that hard to win. What ever it takes. Mine and boobytrap everything. And while doing all this, create that big plan which would give some small momentum and then build on that.

But what ever they're doing now is not working.

[Pekka]

All I'm saying is that they are able to get small victories and they're not doing it, so even when they have crappy army, they are not even using it to their full potential.
They can't stick into trenches and trying to defend them. It's not going to work, they should have realized it way earlier and now we're seeing it not working.

[Traianvs]

Also they know, that if they lose, the US is not going to rape all the women, kill the men and children and conquer

Due to extensive propaganda by Saddam they actually do believe they are going to rape their women etc... They just surrender because it's either that or massively get blown up to pieces by a bomber they won't even see coming


Btw this isn't vietnam, as this is a desert, not a jungle, boobytrapping quite hard here, minefields could prove well if you can guess the routes the Americans will use, and then an ambush could make the US forces disperse into the minefield, but that's hard as you don't know what the US is going to do next, you can't mine every inch of Iraq as it is quite big

Also the American is very mobile, It can get air support in just 5-10 minute maximum, while the Iraqi is not mobile at all, they don't have enough transportation etc to be able to move positions that quickly anyway. Also the Americans have radar and satellite so they can see every Iraqi army movement, the Iraqi troops on the other hand don't know and have to sit out and wait for the enemy.. It's not as easy as it seems.

Also what saddam needs to prevent is torturing captives etc because he will lose massive support from anti war protestors for example, and if more people back up Bush the better for him

The only means of success for them is urban warfare... even with superior arms you can still lose, as the Iraqi have terrain knowledge, probably have superior numbers in there, and I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam actually has his own specialized urban warfare units specifically trained for that purpose

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Those shoulder mounted Swedish tank busters that hit the top of the tanks are also BRUTAL.

If the AT4 has been used to kill Iraqi soldiers, that will raise some domestic debate in Sweden, mainly by leftists. I know a lot of American grunts carry them on there backs but is there any info saying they were actually used in lethal action?

Basically, exporting weapons to a part in a conflict is against Swedish law. USA aquired 600 000 ot the AT4 in the 80's. The recent days there has been a debate in the Swedish parliament to stop weapons export to the US and UK. The government and a majority of the parliament decided the export should go on, since an embargo would deprive us of the missiles and other stuff we need for our fighter/bomber planes.

[Az]

AT-4 ? isn't that a NATO designation of a SOVIET ATGM?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Pekka
All I'm saying is that they are able to get small victories and they're not doing it, so even when they have crappy army, they are not even using it to their full potential.
They can't stick into trenches and trying to defend them. It's not going to work, they should have realized it way earlier and now we're seeing it not working.

Do you really belive that everything is so easy for anti-Iraq coalition as CNN shows?
Come on Pekka, what did we heard- heavy firefight there and there and after the fight 4 wounded.
As for me it could mean only two things: a) those fights weren't so heavy b) Data about casualities are false.

Last time I heard news US military lost 16 armored vehicles during Iraqis counter-attack. As for me, such casulity rate is more or less could be a result of HEAVY fighting, not two injuried marines.

[Pekka]

No to everything. I bet they're putting up helluva fight of course. But they can't inflict any real damage. They could, but they aren't. I was just in the roof trying to put my dish working so I could see CNN, so as for now I haven't even seen any feed from the field. And they are lying their asses off with casualties anyway. Making them down that is.

What I'm talking about is general tactics. They are not having any winning tactics right now. They are on weird survivor mode, and even that's not working.

And if we compare like few marines KIA or injured and one division surrendering? Uh oh..

And I didn't mention about fighting in the desert. Or mining every inch. That is what intel and reckon are for, they also figure out supply routes etc. That is not such a big deal, they don't need satellites etc fancy stuff for that. Also I wouldn't praise satellites too much, they're good, but there are ways.

They must attack too, not just counter attack, which is important too. They must stop being butty boys and do some fighting, this doesn't look like fighting to me. THey must drive hard to be able to dictate the pace and fights, which they are definitely not doing. You can all talk about how cool the satellites are, how stealthy the planes are and how big engines the humvees have, but I'm telling you Iraqis can do a LOT better than this. Basically their plans suck ass.

I do not want to sound like master strategists, that I am not. But I know decent fighting and Iraqis are not doing it right now. They should have dropped many planes already. I can't see any excuses that bombers etc can fly in Baghdad, bombing away and not taking any casualties? Yeah teah they are super stealthy and all that. BS!!!

But! I am glad, otherwise coalition would take more casualties, and that we don't want. So in a way it's good that they fight like retards. Their leaders that is. Maybe Saddam shoudl have thought about this before he was building more houses for himself.

[Jaakko]

What seems suspect to me is that no Bradleys or M-113s are ever reported lost. Those things aren't exactly heavily armoured.

Another discrepancy is the way the US supply never seemingly falters, despite the Abrams being a major gas hog.

Then there are the constant reports of US columns being halted because the advance elements have met "tough Iraqi resistance". Yet there are no casualties or even materiel losses reported by the US.

[Urban Ranger]

Me sentiment is the same. There is no one single report of any US losses whatsoever. Not even a single injured man.

This is pretty god-like.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Jaakko
What seems suspect to me is that no Bradleys or M-113s are ever reported lost. Those things aren't exactly heavily armoured.

M113's aren't used in front line service. They're obsolescent, but the chassis is used in some specialty vehicles - armored ambulance, command vehicles, etc.

The Bradley is fairly heavily armored, and isn't used as a point vehicle. US Cavalry doctrine has aviation out in front, then a mix of M1s plus M2/M3 Bradleys deployed in a fairly wide front, intermixed, but with the point and lead vehicles being Abrams. In a composite company, typically you have the command section and one platoon being M1s, and the other two platoons being Bradleys, in either the IFV or CFV variant, for a total of six Abrams and eight Bradleys.

Iraqis have a problem fighting at range - the sites on their AFV's and IFV's are optical stadiametric sights calibrated for the height of the M60 tank, so they have to remember to compensate manually. Experience in GW1 showed that the Iraqis tend to shoot late, slow and high, and that hasn't gotten better in the sanctions era, since they don't have the luxury of giving guys lots of range time.

Another discrepancy is the way the US supply never seemingly falters, despite the Abrams being a major gas hog.

There's a reason, although I rag on REMFs as a rule, that the majority of US forces are Combat Support Services. Fuel is transported by helo, by wheeled fuel transporter, etc. - vehicles are refueled on the move pretty rapidly, and the US supply lines aren't stretched now, because not all US units have been deployed.

Then there are the constant reports of US columns being halted because the advance elements have met "tough Iraqi resistance". Yet there are no casualties or even materiel losses reported by the US.

That's because they halt and let their advantage in long range firepower and support do the job, instead of just charging like ****ing Rambo. The crucial difference is with the scout helos and their overwatch techniques, we detect defenders and are able to form a plan of attack that will minimize casualties. The US isn't in that much of a hurry - the goal here was to go as far as you can, as fast as you can, consistent with minimization of casualties.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Me sentiment is the same. There is no one single report of any US losses whatsoever. Not even a single injured man.

This is pretty god-like.

Apparently you haven't been listening to the news. USMC WIA and possible KIA in Nasiriyah, US Army KIA and MIA along the 7th Cav axis of advance, USMC KIA and WIA securing oilfields outside Umm Qasr.

The difference is that we don't take many casualties, and we kick the ass of any other armed forces in the world. Nobody expected Iraq to fall without a fight, but in the end, it'll fall without much of a fight, with the possible, but by no means certain exception of Baghdad, where the *******s of the regime might actually put up some hard resistance.

[Jaakko]

Thanks MtG, scout helicopters was what was missing from my mental picture.

Now, what do you think, will the US forces go through the main roads and face the Iraqi concentrations head-on, or will they take the lower risk route through the desert and bypass the defenders between them and Baghdad?

[MichaeltheGreat]

They'll do both - you have to have the main roads to maintain traffic density and speed for your supply convoys, but you also have to push out laterally and create a security zone around those main roads.

With this advance as fast as it has been, there's undoubtedly been a few Iraqi troops that have lain low and been bypassed. The security zone is to make sure they're accounted for, and nobody else gets close enough to ruin your day. That will mostly be established by follow-on forces.