theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 24 2003,11:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the Apache being shown on the Iraqi TV<span id='postcolor'> Also on Reuters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></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.<span id='postcolor'> They never listened... They just have to read the Iraq thread and our thoughts about what would happen if the USA under Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Bush attacks the Iraq. I even think the Gulf War 2.5 Animation becomes quiet real in the last days... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 24, 2003 The problem is that the coalition has not enough manpower to defeat any resistance in Iraq. They couldn`t do it in many years. Supressed people fight rather hard, e.g. Ireland, Palestina,... So there will ever be some hotspots and terror and so on. Rushing north and letting the enemy close in behind you is pretty dangerous. Tank rushs only work in C&C. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 24, 2003 I am surprised that the chopper is still pretty intact. Why don't they direct some artillery, rockets or bombs down on it?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MLF @ Mar. 24 2003,114)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></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?<span id='postcolor'> I don't think so since Pentagon has confirmed (according to CNN) that they lost an Apache. While the bird looks pretty intact, the tail seems to be shot up. Could be the reason for the crash. A mechanical failure could be responsible for it as well. Pentagon has not said directly but hinted that the pilots had already been rescued. Iraq has claimed that they have been captured. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am surprised that the chopper is still pretty intact. Why don't they direct some artillery, rockets or bombs down on it?! <span id='postcolor'> I find that surpirising too, especially since it's a Longbow one would presume that the would not want it falling into enemy hands. Perhaps they don't know it's location. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 An attempt by coalition special forces of landing near Kirkuk in northern Iraq has failed this morning after encountering heavy Iraqi resistance. Coalition aircraft have later been directing heavy air strikes in the area. - AFX Interesting CNN report on Apache strikes on Republican Guard units: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CNN's Karl Penhaul who was with helicopter regiment involved in the attack said the helicopters encountered a "heavy, heavy barrage" of anti-aircraft fire in the battle. He could not immediately say whether all of the U.S. helicopters returned safely to their base at an airfield in northern Kuwait. Most pilots said they were unable to achieve the objectives of the mission -- to hit the Republican Guard armored brigade, knock out its tanks and pierce its artillery. They spent a few hours in the air defending themselves and trying to get out of the area. The attack force did not expect such strong resistance from what they thought were mostly civilian areas, Penhaul reported. He added that pilots were "somewhat dazed, somewhat stunned" by the level of Iraqi resistance they encountered. Some of the elements the Apaches tried to strike were Iraqi T-72 battle tanks, the most advanced tank used by the Iraqi forces. The Republican Guard was estimated to have at least 90 of those tanks, along with "multiple" pieces of field artillery and armored personnel carriers, Penhaul said. The attack started after midnight (4 p.m. ET) and lasted about three hours, said Penhaul, who was aboard a Black Hawk helicopter that served as the command and control craft of a unit of Apache attack helicopters. The helicopter in which Penhaul was riding was about 15-20 miles from the scene of the strike. The Apache unit went up against the 2nd Armored Brigade of the Medina Division, which is part of the Republican Guard, the troops most loyal to Saddam Hussein, Penhaul said. They also attacked positions between Karbala and Hillah, which straddle the Euphrates River south of Baghdad. Narrow escape Some of the U.S. aircraft flying in the mission reported taking fire. One pilot described the situation as "a hornet's nest," as small arms fire and anti-aircraft fire came from "all sides." Most pilots said they sustained 15 to 20 rounds. One pilot said his helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, which took out one of the engines, Penhaul reported. He managed to fly back to the air base in Northern Kuwait, with one engine intact. At one stage, the pilot said, his aircraft dropped down 15-20 feet above an urban area before he could regain control. Penhaul is embedded with the U.S. Army's V Corps, 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment. <span id='postcolor'> (CNN article) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I find that surpirising too, especially since it's a Longbow one would presume that the would not want it falling into enemy hands. Perhaps they don't know it's location.<span id='postcolor'> My guess is more in the direction that they don't have the pilots yet. I doubt that they don't know where it is with all the transponders, JSTAR/AWACS, wingmen,... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 AP reports coalition forces had begun targeting Replican Guard units around Baghdad Sunday night, including helicopter attacks. Who knows? Maybe that chopper took part and went down in the dark. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Take the chemical plant stories with a grain of salt. 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 (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 24 2003,11:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem is that the coalition has not enough manpower to defeat any resistance in Iraq. They couldn`t do it in many years. Supressed people fight rather hard, e.g. Ireland, Palestina,... So there will ever be some hotspots and terror and so on.<span id='postcolor'> The concensus seems to be that if you kill Saddam the rest will crumble. So how can we be certain that he isn't dead already? Saddam has during his 35 years in power constructed a power apparatus where no civilian or military component can work without his direct authorization. There is a on purpose built in rivality between the countless military and intelligence organizations designed to prevent them ganging up on Saddam. In his absence they would be at each other throats. Such a rivality has not been seen so far. On the contrary they seem to be vary attuned, repeating the same shite propagand messages. Also the TV coverage of Baghdad gives the impression of good order and discipline in the society. The traffic is flowing, ambulances and firetrucks are dipatched quickly after the cruise missiles strike down. The population in Baghdad seem to be more curious then afraid of the bombing of the government buildings. Iraq is in full control of its air waves and their message is sent to the Iraqi citizens by TV and radio. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stgn 39 Posted March 24, 2003 Does M16 beat M4 in the dessert I am thinking on the range. STGN 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 2003,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take the chemical plant stories with a grain of salt.<span id='postcolor'> To make an Avonesque post: 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 (theavonlady @ Mar. 24 2003,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AP reports coalition forces had begun targeting Replican Guard units around Baghdad Sunday night, including helicopter attacks. Who knows? Maybe that chopper took part and went down in the dark.<span id='postcolor'> More details on Debka: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">DEBKAfile reports hundreds of US Apache and Black Hawks went into battle Sunday night against T-72 tanks of Republican Guards of Medina Division 2nd Armored Brigade at al Kut south of Baghdad. Helicopters encountered heavy ground fire.<span id='postcolor'> 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 (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,13:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 24 2003,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take the chemical plant stories with a grain of salt.<span id='postcolor'> To make an Avonesque post: <span id='postcolor'> No. An Avonesque post would have looked like this: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Seems as though this campaign has not been thought through properly, some observations in the last 48 hours: 1) No decision to halt the advance and secure towns properly. 2) This leading to pockets of resistance and urban warfare, Iraq troops retreating then coming back. 3) It seems the armour barrages a town, goes around it continues north, then waits for troops to mop up behind, not working. 4) As we can see from Um Qasr this morning, the Americans have given up, and having to get the Paras and Royal Marines to do the real work in successfully clearing out towns of resistance. 5) The war planners having a naive view of the population not fighting back. 6) See potential problems taking Baghdad, especially its size, seeing as they have decided to fight a politically correct war, where the use of air stikes and heavy bombardment of towns and enemy held villages is not happening. This allows troops to entrench their positions in civilian buildings, or to flee to the safety of civilian areas (in some ways similar to Vietnam). What they should have done is advanced methodically and professionally, not get carried away and advance on and on, but seeing as America is running the show, this is the way that will continue. Lastly, the contrasting media footage of American and British troops - Americans jumping about going yahoo, woohoo when they blow an enemy installation up. British - professional, subued approach. Seeign as I'm British, I may be a bit biased? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STS_SolidSnake 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Why dont they paradrop special units over baghdad at night do a stealth mission to destroy all DCA, and then send in alot of troops by chinook etc.. And not securing towns is a bad decision, what if they do that all the time then when the coalition arrives at baghdad the other resistance in towns decided to follow and surround them in baghdad 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 (STS_SolidSnake @ Mar. 24 2003,13:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why dont they paradrop special units over baghdad at night do a stealth mission to destroy all DCA, and then send in alot of troops by chinook etc..<span id='postcolor'> If this was a well scripted OFP mission, then perhaps. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 24, 2003 The Chinooks or whatever they would use would get shot to shit most likely, if the Iraqis have some adequate air defences. Also, Bagdhad is a big city, lets not underestimate its scale and complexity of passages and streets. What would the recon info be like for these troops to get about in the city, reaction from the civilain popukation is they were spotted plays a part as well. They would never do an air dop too ricky for the Coalition forces, too many casulaties potentially. If they were fighting a proper war, unlike this illegal political exericse they are carrying out, where they flatten areas of resistance ruthlessly, then things would have gone more smoothly than they have. For me, war is war, no point trying to run it like a charity event! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If they were fighting a proper war, unlike this illegal political exericse they are carrying out, where they flatten areas of resistance ruthlessly, then things would have gone more smoothly than they have. For me, war is war, no point trying to run it like a charity event!<span id='postcolor'> Military history would indicate otherwise. Bombing or shelling large urban areas into ruins actually makes them EASIER to defend (Stalingrad, Monte Cassino, Grozny anyone?), at the same time resulting in heavy civilian casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,05:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Â A lot of nations are pissed about us developing this because it virtually renders their ICBM force useless.<span id='postcolor'> Except that a lot of nations have enough ICBMs to kill the world ten times over. No way you're going to stop them all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 Iraqi footage of a downed Comanche helicopter! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 24, 2003 I don't mean intentionally shell civilian areas, I mean shell areas with a bit more gusto than they have now. Make sure that they have taken control of cities like Um Qasr rather than going around them and continuing north. But I do stand by my earlier point, war is a bloody business, and why people are so surprised that British and American troops are being killed is beyond me. Maybe the population and meia have lulled themselves into a childish naivety? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 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">Iraqi footage of a downed Comanche helicopter! <span id='postcolor'> OFP photography I think you'll find, though good try!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,11:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am surprised that the chopper is still pretty intact. Why don't they direct some artillery, rockets or bombs down on it?! <span id='postcolor'> I find that surpirising too, especially since it's a Longbow one would presume that the would not want it falling into enemy hands. Perhaps they don't know it's location.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe their are contemplating a salvage-plan. The aircraft looks pretty much intact with no visible damage. Who knows? Maybe a dozen Longbows and a chinook is not far away About the pilots: I'm not so sure the iraqis really have the crew. All they show is two helmets and some papers. They said they "are thinking" about showing the pilots faces on TV, but after seeing everyones reactions the first time they did, I don't think they dare to do it a second time. If they do, I think they just signed their death warrants (it's against the Geneva-convention to "humiliate" POWs in public). 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 (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi footage of a downed Comanche helicopter! Â <span id='postcolor'> More Iraqi footage. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
