Iraqi Military Problems - Page 2

Urban Ranger · March 23, 2003, 13:35

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
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.

Local news didn't have it, and I don't look up news websites this time at night.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Local news didn't have it, and I don't look up news websites this time at night.

Fair enough, but yeah, there have been pretty current reports of casualties as they've happened.

HershOstropoler · March 23, 2003, 14:34

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

...and we kick the ass of any other armed forces in the world.

At least of the 3rd world forces the US actually engages.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 14:40

actually this war is going a lot worse than I thought. If that news on the news thread is to be believed.

We may actually lose this war

But this war is not going easy by any means.

Lonestar · March 23, 2003, 14:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

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.

...And if the Swedes decide to block the sale of weapons to the US, I imagine the liscense Volvo has for thoe Pratt & Whitney engines and parts for the Swedish Airforce will rapidly end.

That said, Bofors excels at small arms anti-tank, bunker stuff. I also know we used Bofors deck guns for the Navy for the longest time...

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

At least of the 3rd world forces the US actually engages.

Prior to GWI, all the chickens were talking about the fourth largest army in the world (them, not us, we were smaller), about the tough, seasoned Iraqi veterans, about the US incurring thousands of casualties, blah blah blah.

Iraq became a third world army after we shredded it - before, they were supposed to be the tough guys.

Besides, who else but stupid third world thugs have the combination of balls and lack of brainpower to actually fight us?

Gangerolf · March 23, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre

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?

"we'll sell you these tank busters, but please promise you won't kill anybody with them"

Jaakko · March 23, 2003, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Besides, who else but stupid third world thugs have the combination of balls and lack of brainpower to actually fight us?

I don't think you guys gave them any choice this time around...

HershOstropoler · March 23, 2003, 14:59

MichaeltheGreat:

"Prior to GWI, all the chickens were talking about the fourth largest army in the world"

There was a huge difference between the US media who bought this US gov propaganda wholesale, and experts on european media who pointed out all the weaknesses of Iraq's army, namely that troop strength alone is a poor indicator. Hell, if our mountain navy clowns can figure that out...

"Iraq became a third world army after we shredded it - before, they were supposed to be the tough guys."

Supposed.

"Besides, who else but stupid third world thugs have the combination of balls and lack of brainpower to actually fight us?"

Sure. On the other side, who else would your chickenhawks attack but 3rd world thugs who lack the hardware and brainpower to be a challange?

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
MichaeltheGreat:

"Prior to GWI, all the chickens were talking about the fourth largest army in the world"

There was a huge difference between the US media who bought this US gov propaganda wholesale, and experts on european media who pointed out all the weaknesses of Iraq's army, namely that troop strength alone is a poor indicator. Hell, if our mountain navy clowns can figure that out...

I didn't know European media had any military experts. I thought you all were civilized, peace-loving types.

The deal on the Iraqi army wasn't in manpower, but heavy equipment - armor, arty, fighters, etc.

Quote:

"Besides, who else but stupid third world thugs have the combination of balls and lack of brainpower to actually fight us?"

Sure. On the other side, who else would your chickenhawks attack but 3rd world thugs who lack the hardware and brainpower to be a challange?

They're not my chickenhawks.

You'll have to take that one up with someone who doesn't want to export them to Borneo or someplace where they can't do any harm.

Besides, most of the rest of the world knows who their masters are.

HershOstropoler · March 23, 2003, 15:28

"I didn't know European media had any military experts. I thought you all were civilized, peace-loving types.

"

Imagine my shock and dismay upon realising that.

"The deal on the Iraqi army wasn't in manpower, but heavy equipment - armor, arty, fighters, etc."

Exactly. There were people talking about the T-72s vs Abrams, and the experience from the Israeli-Syrian proxy wars. I guess our mountain navy had its eyes already on getting some Leo II.

"They're not my chickenhawks."

Until you renounce your citizenship, I'm afraid they are.

"You'll have to take that one up with someone who doesn't want to export them to Borneo or someplace where they can't do any harm."

Couldn't you just drop them on Baghdad?

"Besides, most of the rest of the world knows who their masters are."

I am fully aware of the powers of the Zurich Underpant Gnomes.

Lonestar · March 23, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"They're not my chickenhawks."

Until you renounce your citizenship, I'm afraid they are.

MtG is a Mexican.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 15:49

perhaps the U.S. is going too fast.

We are getting islated convoys ambushed. 12 more missing.

The U.S. may be screwing this up I'm afraid to admit. I can't believe how many mistakes we are making.

This is so terrible

DanS · March 23, 2003, 15:54

Diss: What did you expect? No US casualties?

Dis · March 23, 2003, 15:58

we could have had no casualties is we weren't going so fast.

We are leaving pockets of resistance.

I think those special troops were sent down from bagdhad went around our invading forces. They are outflanking us. We need to protect the west side better.

Pekka · March 23, 2003, 16:00

Well.. US is not doing bad. I think it's doing excellent. Casualties are low. At least for now. It's war, it cannot be planned 100%. I'm surprised they're doing so good, and Iraqis so bad, well.. I wasn't expecting heavy resistance but little more casualties by now. Make no mistake, I'm not waiting for US casualties and wishing for it.

I'm not surprised people get killed in wars?

Dis · March 23, 2003, 16:02

well getting killed is one thing.

But POW's is terrible. The only POW's I expected were from downed pilots.

We shouldn't let them get around behind us.

Pekka · March 23, 2003, 16:07

POW business is tough sure. But.. it's war.. good thing is though that they showed some POWs and their names, and they were in OK condition. Now they can't hurt them too much. Well if they don't just say they were killed in US air raid or something. But at least they have little life insurance with them now. I'd worry about the POWs we don't know.

DanS · March 23, 2003, 16:11

Diss: Weren't you in the military, once upon a time?

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
perhaps the U.S. is going too fast.

We are getting islated convoys ambushed. 12 more missing.

The U.S. may be screwing this up I'm afraid to admit. I can't believe how many mistakes we are making.

This is so terrible

The fact that we're having to take and inflict casualties sucks. The cynic in me believes that these are essentially "programmed" casualties - not intentional, of course, but part of the goal was to move as far and as fast as you could, for as long as you could - how long is that? until you find you don't have effective security zones for your supply movements.

The way this is shaping up, the Turks did us the biggest favor on the planet by not letting another isolated front and extended supply line get formed. As soon as 4ID and it's supporting troops can transit the Red Sea and the gulf, and get untracked, they'll add a lot of firepower and a lot of density to consolidate what we have, and to break through the Iraqis.

There are two parts of the chickenhawk plan that have been ****ed up from the beginning - the reliance on simultaneity and unrealist timelines, and the relative isolation of flanking forces and forces on opposite sides of the rivers. We tore off a big chunk of Iraq, we have a lot more space to operate from, but now is the time to slow down, solidify, and let events in the field dictate timing, not someone's concept from Washington of when things should be happening.

For what we've accomplished so far, casualties have been acceptable - unfortunate, tragic for the families, but in view of the speed and distance and forces engaged, they've been within the limits we were prepared to tolerate.

But Diss is right here, in the sense that we need to slow it down, consolidate it, and secure our lines of supply. The Iraqis have had years to dig in, extra hours or days won't mean anything here.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 16:15

you are right about that. In fact I believe they are already slowing down. We are getting close to bagdhad as well, so we have to slow down.

I just hope in the future they watch for attacks from the west.

Pekka · March 23, 2003, 16:15

btw everyone, what do you think is acceptable casualties? Casualties you think still would go as far as the goal is important.

100? 1000? 10 000? 50 000? more?

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
well getting killed is one thing.

But POW's is terrible. The only POW's I expected were from downed pilots.

We shouldn't let them get around behind us.

107th Panzerbrigade demonstrated how much that can hurt you, back on Hell's Highway.

Having supply lines penetrated and supply and follow-on vehicles engaged is going to **** up the timeline for any advance no matter what you do, so you may as well secure your flanks and liquidate or isolate that resistance.

HershOstropoler · March 23, 2003, 16:19

I think something around 1000 would create a serious, 5000 a big political problem for Bush. And I think that is Saddam's only hope.

Casualties acceptable for this war? 0.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
you are right about that. In fact I believe they are already slowing down. We are getting close to bagdhad as well, so we have to slow down.

I just hope in the future they watch for attacks from the west.

We have forces out there making flank moves to approach Baghdad from the W and WNW. Most of it's pretty open country too - the tough part is the river crossings between east side and west side, because there's good concealment in there, and isolation of forces on one side or another, or in between the rivers, can be real problematic.

Pekka - when it's all done, I wouldn't be surprised if US KIA's got as high as 500, although more than 1000 would surprise me. About 10-15 times that many wounded. As far as what's acceptable, well, like it or not, we're committed, and the only way to move is forward. Backing off is unthinkable, so if the Iraqis really decide to tough it out, which I still doubt (once we get all our forces engaged), the only choice will be to pile it on them and kill the bastards.

Roland - Saddam has no hope. The only thing worse than a high casualty count for Bush would be backing off and letting Saddam and this regime survive. Bush painted us all into a corner, and the only way out is forward.

HershOstropoler · March 23, 2003, 16:34

"Saddam has no hope."

I know. What I meant was that is his hope, not a realistic hope.

"Bush painted us all into a corner, and the only way out is forward."

A dismal failure of America's political system.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 16:35

appantly the POW's in question took a wrong turn. So that is partially the reason they were taken.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 16:37

Different POW's - those were the Army maintenance people from 3 ID. We also have some, and some probable KIA's, plus a bunch of WIA, from 1 MEF around Nasiriyah.

DanS · March 23, 2003, 16:37

Here's a map that shows (presumably) where the bridge is West of an Nasariya.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl..._full_2003.jpg

Chemical Ollie · March 23, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf

"we'll sell you these tank busters, but please promise you won't kill anybody with them"

That's the idea. Civilized countries have weapons to show their teeth, not to actually use them in battle. But as the Swedish prime minister pointed out in a TV interview one hour ago, the weapons export to US and UK will go on. Our defence industry is too much integrated with these countries to stop the cooperation. I don't mind, but the leftist will outrage.