The Battle of Baghdad - Page 7

MichaeltheGreat · April 6, 2003, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
It takes time and coordination to wire enough explosives on a bridge and to bury enough anti-armor mines on high-ways. Because we are attacking so fast and their command control system was completely shut down, the Iraqi army simply had no time to employ such tricks.

Had we waited with the invasion, they might actually have the time to do those things.

They had time - just because you preset and prewire, doesn't mean you arm or blow.

And I'm not talking anti-armor mines in the highways, I'm talking about conventional explosives in the storm sewer lines underneath. All of which could have been pre-wired, or done from day 1, but it's typical Saddamite arrogance that nobody would dare suggest coalition forces would reach Baghdad.

GePap · April 6, 2003, 13:57

I have to agree with Olaf that the Iraqis have not been up to speed even with what they have.

Given their situation, they should have wired all major bridges (which hy certainly had time for) and blown them. They should have kept more troops inside Baghdad and not stationed them so far out, and no, i don't think a coup threat would have been immenet. If the Iraqis have been able to keep regular army units in line through terror, they could the RG. They have wasted many many men in technicals: as i said, have them on foot. You have the same firepower but are a more difficult target to hit.

The Iraqis dont have the resources for a "doctrine" right now, What they could have been doing is taking common sense aproaches to thier significant inferiority. And, honetly, they could have been far more destructive towards thier own people in search of coolition casualties. For example, sned soem guy as a "fake" infomant, leading some coolition fighters (who woundn;t know better) to search some house which you rigged to blow. There, coolition casualties.

The tactics of teh iraqis have been subpar on all levels.

DanS · April 6, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
The tactics of teh iraqis have been subpar on all levels.

Hey, but at least they've got the pregnant suicide bomber tactic down cold!

GePap · April 6, 2003, 14:04

That is one fo the things they could be doing more of, yes.

Kramerman · April 6, 2003, 15:28

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

They had time - just because you preset and prewire, doesn't mean you arm or blow.

And I'm not talking anti-armor mines in the highways, I'm talking about conventional explosives in the storm sewer lines underneath. All of which could have been pre-wired, or done from day 1, but it's typical Saddamite arrogance that nobody would dare suggest coalition forces would reach Baghdad.

That is a rather good idea... but i dunno if arrogance is the reason why he didnt do it, as he did prepare other defenses for Baghdad. Im thinking perhaps he just didnt think of this idea, or maybe he did, and we have just been fortunate that we have not run into it yet.... if the former is the case, i sure hope none of those Iraqi officers roam the forums as they may find some good ideas from here

Kman

Kramerman · April 6, 2003, 15:32

Quote:

The tactics of teh iraqis have been subpar on all levels.

I think Saddam is not looking into these totally dishonorable venues of defense for PR and propaganda purposes. If it got out what he was doing, adn with lal the media there it probably would, world opinion about him would fall even lower, adn lead some nay-sayers of the war to become yay-sayers. And the possibilty of angering his own people and the potential popular uprising or military coup thereafter are also disinsentives of doing these things, as we all know how paranoid (and rightfully so) Hussein is.

MichaeltheGreat · April 6, 2003, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

That is a rather good idea... but i dunno if arrogance is the reason why he didnt do it, as he did prepare other defenses for Baghdad. Im thinking perhaps he just didnt think of this idea, or maybe he did, and we have just been fortunate that we have not run into it yet.... if the former is the case, i sure hope none of those Iraqi officers roam the forums as they may find some good ideas from here

Kman

Revolutions and guerilla warfare R us.

Drake Tungsten · April 7, 2003, 00:58

CNN is again claiming that US forces are attacking central Baghdad. It looks like it's for real this time. A-10's are flying over the city and you can hear gunfire on the TV.

Quote:

NEAR BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. tanks and armored vehicles have launched an attack on central Baghdad, a U.S. officer told Reuters on Monday.

"We're attacking right down in the center of the city right now," Maj. Michael Birmingham, chief public affairs officer for the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division, told the Reuters news service.

"The other day was just an incursion. This is for real," Birmingham added, referring to an earlier foray of U.S. armored forces into southwest Baghdad.

CNN broadcast images from Al-Arabiya and Al-Jazeera television that showed at least two A-10 Thunderbolt warplanes and a Hunter drone circling the city, said retired Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, a CNN military analyst.

Drake Tungsten · April 7, 2003, 01:28

65 tanks, 40 Bradleys enter Baghdad according to Reuters. US troops have seized a presidential palace and other buildings. Another palace is under attack.

You can see the Bradleys on TV.

Ted Striker · April 7, 2003, 01:38

Confirmed. It's even on ABC right now.

Drake Tungsten · April 7, 2003, 02:35

Wow. American vehicles are just sitting under those big crossed sabres in Baghdad.

Kramerman · April 7, 2003, 02:52

grrr! i wish i had cable...

Ben Kenobi · April 7, 2003, 02:56

GRUMBLER

Don't use a quote box in your sig.

It's much easier if you just use quotation marks.

Rogan Josh · April 7, 2003, 03:05

Remember, the war's not over 'til the fat dictator croaks.

Drake Tungsten · April 7, 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Remember, the war's not over 'til the fat dictator croaks.

His cousin is dead. The British military and AP just confirmed that Chemical Ali was killed in Basra.

GeneralTacticus · April 7, 2003, 03:24

Quote:

His cousin is dead. The British military and AP just confirmed that Chemical Ali was killed in Basra.

Good riddance

Kramerman · April 7, 2003, 03:48

From what im gathering, it seems saddam's regime is crumbling... losing Basra... invasion of Baghdad... chemical weapons have been found (cant wait to see the world reaction to that... undoubtedly there will be amny who will say the US planted them there and poisoned our own troops...). The end is near, i hope.

Ned · April 7, 2003, 16:25

All I can say is that I am glad they chose to boldly move downtown. In retrospect, they could have done this two days ago. The Iraqi's are clearly finished militarily.

We need next to work on capturing Saddam. Hopefully, if we get him, the resistance throughout Iraq will all but end.

This victory will have to rank among the most overwhelming in history, not so because we won, but because we did it so quickly with such economy of force, while minimizing friendly and civilian casualities.

Will the name Tommy Franks rank up their with George Patton?

GePap · April 7, 2003, 16:28

No, cause the enemy here has been so inept and is so overwhlemingly inferior to begin with, that victory was never in doubt. Patton fought enemy soldiers that were trained and generally equiped as well as his men.

MichaeltheGreat · April 7, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
All I can say is that I am glad they chose to boldly move downtown. In retrospect, they could have done this two days ago. The Iraqi's are clearly finished militarily.

All sorts of things can be done in retrospect.

We can't govern an occupied country from AFVs, so there has to be a lot greater extent of passification and disarmament before we can transition from warfighting mode to occupation mode.

The Iraqis have put up even less of a fight (far less of a fight) than they did in GW1. Not a single air sortie, not a single fixed wing aircraft downed by air defenses, so it's a bit hard to sell the idea that this was an imminent threat that needed the 80 billion cleaning treatment.

The Iraqi resistance has been about on a par of what we could expect from Nigeria.

General Ludd · April 7, 2003, 16:39

Quote:

Will the name Tommy Franks rank up their with George Patton?

It'd be more like the next Hernando Cortes.

EDIT: Thought it might be a good idea to change it to a conquistador that's a bit better known.

Andrew1999 · April 7, 2003, 16:49

Military Advisor: Commander, our troops have captured Sun Tzu's Art of War!

GePap · April 7, 2003, 16:55

I think resistance would be worse in nigeria. Maybe as easy in niger, but Nigeria.

And No, Francks won't be anything more than a footnote in history. I mean, look at Schwarzkopff. 12 years later and they have to tell you on TV who he is. Don't expect any movies either.

Chemical Ollie · April 7, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Andrew1999
Military Advisor: Commander, our troops have captured Sun Tzu's Art of War!

Commander, our troops have destroyed the Colossus!

Ned · April 7, 2003, 18:30

The British commander has lavished high praise on Tommy Franks and his war plan, saying it was "brilliant."

Kontiki · April 7, 2003, 19:11

Which part of the war plan in particular was "brilliant", I wonder. Was it the at least 20-to-1 superiority in equipment and training? A decimated country from decades of mismanagement followed by crippling sanctions? Complete air dominance before a shot was fired? Troops that were actually fed?

I think I could come up with an equally "brilliant" plan of attack if I went to the nearest public school and beat the crap out of a second-grader.

GePap · April 7, 2003, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
The British commander has lavished high praise on Tommy Franks and his war plan, saying it was "brilliant."

So was Scwarzkopff's plan, and he won;t be getting a movie either.

How many times do you see Franks on TV? If this war is made into a movie, the guy playing Franks would get second billing.

As I said, the enemy is too inferior, the goal inherently political, not military, and it is all about the Bush, all of which makes for a rather forgatable theater commander, no matter how much currentl priase he gets. What people will be talking about in a few years is how new US weapons, not this plan, made this possible.

Frogman · April 7, 2003, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki
Which part of the war plan in particular was "brilliant", I wonder. Was it the at least 20-to-1 superiority in equipment and training? A decimated country from decades of mismanagement followed by crippling sanctions? Complete air dominance before a shot was fired? Troops that were actually fed?

I think I could come up with an equally "brilliant" plan of attack if I went to the nearest public school and beat the crap out of a second-grader.

Part of being brilliant is how easy you make it look. We took a risk with the early movement of what some said were not enough ground troops. The bee line to Baghdad, securing the oil fields, the targeted attacks, all were well planned and exectued. Sure we kicked them around like second graders, but only because we did a good job.

There is plenty of tough fighting ahead and there will be pockets of resistance for years. This is the part of the plan I'm worried about.

spiritof1202 · April 7, 2003, 21:15

true... anyone can make an opposing force look good. The likelihood was low, but thats a function of 'pre-planning' of the construction of the force, including C3 assets.

Alexander's Horse · April 7, 2003, 21:23