ale2999 0 Posted March 24, 2003 VG dont teach stuff FS, as soon as I read ur post I knew you got ur sams knowledge from flight simulators lol. Do you guys think that ff will be a big issue in this war, if it already isnt (beside the 2 accindets)? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 24, 2003 I don`t think FF will be an issue. It`s bad, but it happens. And the brits should already be used to getting killed by the US troops Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Predators on the prowl (Jerusalem Post): </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First Predator strike of war hits anti-aircraft gun By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The first strike of the U.S. war with Iraq using a pilotless Predator drone was used to hit an Iraqi anti-aircraft gun, military officials said. The strike Friday used a Hellfire missile fired from a Predator drone to hit the artillery gun outside the Iraqi town of Amarah, which is on the Tigris River north of Basra. The gun, which is guided by its own radar system, was a "significant threat" to coalition aircraft, said Lt. Col. Brian Pierson, chief of reconnaissance operations at the command center which runs the air war over Iraq. Predators armed with Hellfire missiles were first used by the CIA in Afghanistan, where they were credited with airstrikes that killed al-Qaida members including Mohammed Atef, the terror network's military chief. The military also used Predators for subsequent strikes in Afghanistan. A Predator strike in Yemen in November killed another top al-Qaida operative, and the military used Predators frequently to patrol the no-fly zone over southern Iraq before the war started.<span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Yesterday I reported from local news that the US suspected Russia of assisting Iraq in interfering with military satellite tarnsmissions and communications. The AP is now detailing what this is referring to. See this Jerusalem Post article. Sorry but I'll only post links from now on to the JP. You'll have to subscribe. (No, I'm not a JP affiliate and the links are not affiliate related, ICYA). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Local reports quoting NBC reporters as saying yet another chemical plant has been found in Iraq. Also, Sky says Iraq has said that Saddam will be broadcasting an important TV address soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 24 2003,08:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yesterday I reported from local news that the US suspected Russia of assisting Iraq in interfering with military satellite tarnsmissions and communications.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah, I saw a TV segment about it yesterday. Bloody cool one such jammer can alter the radiowaves from the GPS satellites within a radius of 10 km. Iraq has reportedly purchased 50. Within the unit's range the signal can be transformed into anything you like. You could for instance redirect all GPS guided bombs and cruise missiles into the Tigris. They could for instance set a transmitter on Saddam and make the system deflect all missiles and bombs that are coming towards him. Well, that's in theory anyway - they obviouly havn't had time to install the system. It does give however an interesting glance at modern Russian technology. In other news: Two US missiles hit eastern Turkey. -Reuters Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 "Benedict Arnold" is passe. Maybe it's time for a new nick-name for traitors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Good morning ladies and gentleman. I am back from our little excursion. Things are running in no way for the US as it seems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 24 2003,09:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Things are running in no way for the US as it seems.<span id='postcolor'> I've been trying to explain it to some of them, but I'm afraid that there are many that refuse to accept my analysis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 US military officials report that Umm Qasr is now in coalition hands while there are still "pockets of resistance" - Reuters Lol. Wasn't that three days ago? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tydium 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> US military officials report that Umm Qasr is now in coalition hands while there are still "pockets of resistance" - Reuters Lol. Wasn't that three days ago? <span id='postcolor'> Yes, this is actually tenth time that Umm Qasr is reported to be under coalition control. And because there still are "pockets of resistance" it probably won't be the last time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 LOL! The war is a whopping 100 hours old and coalition forces are 100 km away from Baghdad. LOL! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MLF 0 Posted March 24, 2003 if there positions are anything to go by they are doing well, although meeting stiffer resistence than was expected in the best case scenario, they have mannaged to capture the southern oil fields, while out of the 500 only 7 where set alight, captured 2 Airfields on the western front, US armour is only 100 miles from Baghdad and they have encircled Basra with the UK armour and are slowly tightening the noose, just because there has been a few accidents, POW and soem casualties it does not mean its not going well for the US and UK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MLF 0 Posted March 24, 2003 US apaches Attack Elite Gaurd South of Baghdad, </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the Apache helicopter attack, CNN's Karl Penhaul reported that U.S. forces encountered stiff anti-aircraft fire about 60 miles south of Baghdad. Pilots from the U.S. Army's 11th Helicopter attack force appeared "somewhat dazed, somewhat stunned" as they began a rudimentary assessment of their aircraft following a firefight with Iraqi forces, Penhaul said. The attack started after midnight (4 p.m. EST) and lasted about three hours, said Penhaul, who was aboard a Black Hawk helicopter that served as the command-and-control craft of the Apache unit. The Apaches fought the 2nd Armored Brigade of the elite Medina Division of the Republican Guard, Penhaul said. The attack intensified around Karbala, near the Euphrates River south of Baghdad <span id='postcolor'>(Full story) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 Some highlights from Saddam's speech this morning: "The enemy have underestimated the resolve of the Iraqi people. The invading forces have met heroic resistance. USA and UK have come to occupy Iraq, but they will fail." "The courage of the Iraqi people will prevail and we will with God's help defeat the agressors." "The American and British campaigns are on the verge of failing. Iraq's victory will come soon and the following days will be decisive for the Iraqi people" "The coalition betwen USA and UK will increase their bombings because of the setbacks that they have experienced. The Iraqi people must be patient until our victory is secured." ------------------------------------- In other news, US forces are moving out of Umm Qasr to be replaced by British commandos who have more experience in urban combat (from northern Irland fighting) -BBC The oilfields in the south are again in control of Iraqi forces. Coalition forces have declared the area "no-go". -BBC Two British soldiers are missing, presumed captured or dead. - BBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 They're showing a downed Apache chopper on Iraqi TV (on BBC). It looks pretty intact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Umm Qasr HQ captured last night. Iraqi Lt. Colonel captured. Tough battles but enemy vanquished and advance continues from North and South (subscribers only). Coalition hesistant about what to do at Nassiriya. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Apart from Um Qasr, I can't see an immediate military need to take towns at this stage of fighting. Wouldn't it be more wise to encircle but not enter them, thus free up troups that can go into the north and surround the northern cities as well, then once you get the reinforcements that are on their way through the Suez canal at the moment, they can complete the surrounding of Baghdad and enter it. It will be tough fighting, but I doubt Saddam will make it out alive, and the remaining towns can then be entered with much less fighting once he is dead, no? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Mar. 24 2003,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apart from Um Qasr, I can't see an immediate military need to take towns at this stage of fighting. Wouldn't it be more wise to encircle but not enter them, thus free up troups that can go into the north and surround the northern cities as well, then once you get the reinforcements that are on their way through the Suez canal at the moment, they can complete the surrounding of Baghdad and enter it.<span id='postcolor'> Ex-Ronin for Commander In Chief! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Mar. 24 2003,10:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apart from Um Qasr, I can't see an immediate military need to take towns at this stage of fighting. Wouldn't it be more wise to encircle but not enter them, thus free up troups that can go into the north and surround the northern cities as well, then once you get the reinforcements that are on their way through the Suez canal at the moment, they can complete the surrounding of Baghdad and enter it. It will be tough fighting, but I doubt Saddam will make it out alive, and the remaining towns can then be entered with much less fighting once he is dead, no?<span id='postcolor'> The problem is that if you leave enemy troops behind your lines then your less defended supply lines will be hit. And Iraq has shown that guerilla warfare is the tactics of their choice. The coalition forces are right now risking to get into the same situation as the Soviets had in Afghanistan in 1979. They took Kabul within a week but they had not secured the territory they had taken and they paid a heavy price for that. Second problem is Baghdad, who nobody has a solution for right now. Colition forces are very limited by their strategy to avoid civilian casualties. It allows Iraq to move it's troops into civilian urban areas, protecting them. The Iraqi command and control structure seems to be very intact and there are really no signs of any break-up in the lines. The resistance in the smaller town is indicative of what is to come in Baghdad, and things are not looking too bright right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 More on the Rumaila oil fields. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 Iraqi minister of information say that the prisoners will be treated according to the Geneva conventions. He continued that it's laughable that USA is talking about that video footage was a violation of the Geneva convention when they have shown themselves Iraqi POWs at gunpoint on TV. He continued that it's hypocritical that USA talks about violations of international agreement when this whole war is a violation of all possible international treaties. Further, he said that some "peasents" have shot down a few Apache helicopters and that Iraq maybe, just maybe will show them on TV and that then USA will accuse them again of violating the Geneva conventions. ..etc..etc.. Lot's of political shite... you get the sentiment anyhow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 24, 2003 I disagree (btw: my 'guestimations' are not so far off, according to this report and globalsecurity.org) I don't see that they free up troops by encircling cities, but they bind fighting forces. A conquered city can be controlled by MP units, the surrounding must usually done by real fighting forces. Basra might be important to get in the area between the rivers Euphrat and Tigris and maybe east of Baghdad, other then via Nassiriya. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Strangely enough, the Apache being shown on the Iraqi TV still retains the unit markings. As far as I can tell, it's from the 1-227th Aviation Battalion of the 1st Cavalry divison. 1st CavDiv was only partially deployed, so I guess that means at least the aviation brigade is in the theatre. ...At the Iraqi press conference going on now they claim that both pilots were captured. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MLF 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,10:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're showing a downed Apache chopper on Iraqi TV (on BBC). It looks pretty intact.<span id='postcolor'> is that the one form the start of the war? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
