The Dogs of War

[theavonlady 2]

I cannot fathom how war photographers have to composure to grab pics like this:

As 40 Commando Royal Marines move into Abu al Khasib, a

suberb of Basra, a booby trapped Iraq sentry post is blown up near a challenger tank, March 30, 2003. President Saddam Hussein's grip on Iraq's second largest city, Basra, remains as tight as ever over a week into a virtual siege there by U.S. and British troops, residents said on Sunday. REUTERS/Terry Richards/POOL

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,05:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is 10-20 times more of them, they have the support/can coherce the local population. It's their terrain. They don't have long supply lines to worry about, they're in their home country where they have food and water storages. The situation is not comparable.<span id='postcolor'>

10-20 times more?

I wish CNN kept all of their old graphs up.

They had a graph a few weeks ago that showed a rough comparison of Coalitoon/Iraqi forces in the first Gulf War, compared to in the present encounter.

According to that graph, the Coalition was much, much more heavily outnumbered in the first conflict.

Trying desperately to find the graph, apologies...

[WhoCares 0]

About the turret-turning feature - they foster this myst in Germany as well. They say, you get the answer within 3secs from a Leo 2. I just hope, that the driver has his hatch closed...  

Edit: About the numbers: the coalition had ~700000men in GW1 => ~2.3x the todays strength.

Iraq is supposed to have less then 1/3 of its strenght before GW1.

So yes, according to this estimations the numbers were more in favor to Iraq back then. But back then the coalition had not to fight in each and every iraqi city.

[Guest]

Ah, yes, but in Kuwait Iraq had only 3 or 4 divisions. The GW1 followed the 'Powell doctrine' which dictates that you should attack with at least 5 times larger force then the enemy.

Right now it seems to be the 'Rumsfeld doctrine': one should attack with at least 5 times smaller force then the enemy.

Way to go Rummy!

[PFC Mongoose 0]

Ah, thanks for posting that, Denoir.

I don't really like reading about grizly death, but it was very informative about what the city fighting is like, and how on-edge the troops are.

Avon: I STILL get Gateway Timeouts, can't connect to it at all. DNS lookup error, or something.

WhoCares/Denoir: I still can't find that chart; though I believe it said during the ffrist war, the Iraq military had about 1 million men, and the Coalition had around 300,000. It said in this conflict that the Iraq Military was down to about 350,000, and the Coalition had deployed about 275,000. IT didn't say anything about how many tropps IRaq actually had in Kuwzait, or anything, though. Based just on the chart, it appeared the Coalition was far less outnumbered than they were, but I can see now how that isn't really in context.

[Oligo 1]

Nice story you posted, Denoir. This liberation war fought by the U.S. begins to sound more and more like the liberation wars the soviets fought against us finns.

War is hell.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 01 2003,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We trained evading that threat as well. It's just that I have read this huge pile of military reference material (western material like Jane's but also russian, since Blaegis has a nice pile of russian literature on the subject) and nowhere have I seen a mention of this turret-turning feature. It's a real mystery.  <span id='postcolor'>

I dunno, I just scoured my "Mother of All Russian Tank Books" plus the net and have found no mention of such system, in either the Soviet/Russian tanks from T-54 onwards or in Leo2. Of course, such system would be quite simple to implement from the engineering standpoint and might have been installed as default for so long that nobody bothers to document it. Still, if someone can substatiate its existance with a reference, it would be nice.

Another tank-related issue: now there have been a couple a videos from the current Iraq conflict showing M1A1/2s firing their main gun at Iraqi buildings, strongpoints etc. But the only types of ammunition available for American M256(Rheinmetall) are APFSDS and HEAT, neither of which are terribly effective against such targets. Now I know that the Swedes have developed an indigenous HE-FRAG round for their Strv-121/122s, my question is: have the Americans adopted it as well? Or are they just using HEATs and hoping for the best?

[Genesis 0]

Half an year ago I read an article about the same matter. At that time US Army didn't have any kind of dedicated anti-personnel round for the M256 main gun of Abrams. And there were no mention about introduction of such round, no canister rounds or HE rounds being developed. That is some serious flaw in a MBT that is otherwise a very good one.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 01 2003,14:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice story you posted, Denoir. This liberation war fought by the U.S. begins to sound more and more like the liberation wars the soviets fought against us finns.<span id='postcolor'>

Anyone have any statistics about how many friendly nation civilian casualties there were in WWII for the Allies liberating Europe?

[theavonlady 2]

Another coalition claim of a captured Iraqi general from the Karbala region. (local radio)

Iraqi Information Minister says that coalition forces attacked two busloads of US and UK anti-war activists that entered via Jordan, on the road to Baghdad. (Reuters)

[theavonlady 2]

Anyone here missing a Pinkie?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 01 2003,13:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 01 2003,14:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice story you posted, Denoir. This liberation war fought by the U.S. begins to sound more and more like the liberation wars the soviets fought against us finns.<span id='postcolor'>

Anyone have any statistics about how many friendly nation civilian casualties there were in WWII for the Allies liberating Europe?<span id='postcolor'>

Not all wars of liberation were the same in WWII. Soviets tried to liberate Finnish workers, since we had an evil capitalistic regime in charge, which had repetitively used weapons of localized destruction against civilians in our civil war. However, it turned out that nobody in Finland wanted to get liberated (not even the workers whose brethren had been slaughtered by the regime in charge) and soviet liberators were met with bullets instead of flowers.

The lesson here boys and girl is that people prefer to take care of their problems in-house and generally tend to see external liberators as invaders.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 01 2003,16:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The lesson here boys and girl is that people prefer to take care of their problems in-house and generally tend to see external liberators as invaders.<span id='postcolor'>

Just pointing out a few bumps in your lesson:

1. What makes you think that Iraqis are capable of caring for their in-house problems on their own.

2. Have you asked the Iraqi people what they want in a legitimate referendum? Are you sure that they want to see another 500,000 babies die of starvation while Saddam continues to build oppulent palaces and lavish wealth on his underlings?

3. While liberation of Iraq will hopefully be a beneficial outcome of this war, it is not the cause for which the coalition countries decided to go to war for.

[Guest]

Save the politics for the other thread please.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Save the politics for the other thread please.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL at your body count sig.

Anyone seen one that says something like:

Iraq Regime body count: [1,700,000]

Oh .......................... here it is:

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 01 2003,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Save the politics for the other thread please.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL at your body count sig.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a joke. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. Look at the "methodology" link to see how the data is collected.

These are cross checked verified numbers. The actual number of casualties is probably higher.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 01 2003,17:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Save the politics for the other thread please.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL at your body count sig.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not a joke. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/. Look at the "methodology" link to see how the data is collected.

These are cross checked verified numbers. The actual number of casualties is probably higher.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm laughing (sarcastically) at the fact that no one bother counting how many Iranians, Kurds and Iraqis Saddam Hussein has killed, tortured and crippled in all the years up to now.

It's as if you cry for the dead but never gave a damn for the living.

[Guest]

What are you trying to say? That because Saddam killed a lot of people it's ok for the US to do the same?

[Ludovico Technique 0]

The difference is that when a regime kills its own people our governments don't care.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the conspicuous absence of military or even political interventions we are making to assist the people of Zimbabwe, Syria, Israel, Chechnya, Congo, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia, China, Nepal, North Korea or Colombia.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,18:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What are you trying to say? That because Saddam killed a lot of people it's ok for the US to do the same?  <span id='postcolor'>

Never said such a thing. And I certainly don't hold the opinion that the US is doing the same, neither numerically (your counter attests to that) nor methodically.

BTW, your counter's sponser site had the Iraqi dead count set at 15 after the first minutes of the war, just after Iraq officially declared that only one Iraqi was killed. Just FYI. Not saying that the current number is way out of whack - just that it's no more reliable than the press or Pentagon reports you yourself grumble about.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ludovico Technique @ April 01 2003,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't believe me? Take a look at the conspicuous absence of military or even political interventions we are making to assist the people of Zimbabwe, Syria, Israel, Chechnya, Congo, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Somalia, China, Nepal, North Korea or Colombia.<span id='postcolor'>

So are you saying governments should intervene more often or even all the time?

Keep in mind that the main reason the coalition is claiming to go to war is because of Iraq's threat to other countries with WMDs. So it is claimed.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 01 2003,17:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW, your counter's sponser site had the Iraqi dead count set at 15 after the first minutes of the war, just after Iraq officially declared that only one Iraqi was killed. Just FYI.<span id='postcolor'>

The counter was activated in January 2003. Just FYI.

And please people, keep politics out of this thread.

[Ludovico Technique 0]

So politics aside is it my imagination or is this whole war going to turn into a gigantic clusterfuck? If the Russians couldn't capture Grozny without a care for the civilian population how on earth are the Americans supposed to capture Baghdad, a city the size of London, with kid gloves on and a hand behind its back?

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Genesis @ April 01 2003,13:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Half an year ago I read an article about the same matter. At that time US Army didn't have any kind of dedicated anti-personnel round for the M256 main gun of Abrams. And there were no mention about introduction of such round, no canister rounds or HE rounds being developed. That is some serious flaw in a MBT that is otherwise a very good one.<span id='postcolor'>

True.

Actually US is thinking about buying an Israeli round, wich is composed of submunition extracted with a delay fuse.

The laser range finder is used combined with secondary system to calculate time of flight, shell is fired, and then sub munitions extracts to explode above entrenched soldiers.

But still no HE round to spot at buildings.

And Bradleys 25mm guns or TOW missiles aren't adapted as well.

This is a severe lack in US ammo loads.

Originaly, the doctrin for US tanks, from cold war, is to just hunt MBT's, and let strongpoints for air raids, artillery calls.  

No HE or barimetric manportables recoilless guns or rockets launchers for infantry.

40mm grenades from M203, well, useless if alone.

Only the marines uses a rocket launcher derivated from the Israeli B300, 82mm with a warhead for use against stroingpoints.

During last GW US Army took some from Marines depots, but they are not that strong firepower and not available in great number.

Worse, Officers and NCO's are not sensible to use and tactics with those weapons.

Problem is that US army, Marines and grunts are not ready at all for that sort of urban and infantry fights in general.

Too young soldiers, unapropried tactics, soon severe lack of motivation.

You need to be mad as hell and got " a rage ", along a very deep military experience and patience, be able to practice cynic thoughts to yourself about own life and die, to be effective in urban warfare, and survive.

I also saw videos on TV with British Royal Marines using Milan ATGMs against buildings.

Too costly to be used often.

Bad situation for coalition forces.

So would say the urban Chechnian wars experienced Russian military.

They used heavy HE and barimetric rockets from RPGs and RPOs, HE tank rounds, 152mm self propelled artillery at point blank ranges, 122mm multi rockets launchers inside the town of Grozny, snipers at squad level.... and it was hard and long fight, high human cost, to pull out determinate Checnians.

Guess what the future will desserve in Iraq...

Massive arty and air strikes.

And civilians dies, civilians dies.....just the very beginning.

       

[Die Alive 0]

Iraqi National Olympic Committee is Bombed

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Allied aircraft bombed a complex that serves as the office of the Iraqi National Olympic Committee and, according to Iraqi dissidents, a torture center run by Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Odai. Washington Post <span id='postcolor'>

-=Die Alive=-