The Dogs of War

[bn880 5]

Spec Ops missions, you are basically talking urban warfare. I want to see these Spec Ops...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are intermittant and sketchy reports coming in that a large number of Republican Guard forces are massing near Baghdad Inertnational for a possible massive suicide or human wave attack.  3/7 better have it's shit wired tight or we might be calling it Saddam International again soon.

edit: This might be the unconventional attack we were promised.<span id='postcolor'>

5000 iraqi running in line towards a row of .50 caliber heavy machine guns. Unconventional indeed

No but seriously, if the supply lines are working (which we don't know) then I don't think the coalition's presence by the airport is threatened. The Iraqis are not too good with big open areas.

[Schoeler 0]

True, it is urban warfare, but in isolated locations instead of on a block by block basis, and conducted by small highly trained teams like Delta force and SEALs who specifically train for such missions. Then again, thats what we were trying to do in Mogadishu back in '93 and we all know how that turned out! This time however, we have effective armor and air support.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are intermittant and sketchy reports coming in that a large number of Republican Guard forces are massing near Baghdad Inertnational for a possible massive suicide or human wave attack.  3/7 better have it's shit wired tight or we might be calling it Saddam International again soon.

edit: This might be the unconventional attack we were promised.<span id='postcolor'>

5000 iraqi running in line towards a row of .50 caliber heavy machine guns. Unconventional indeed <span id='postcolor'>

I don't doubt they would try it. It would result in abnormally high KIA totals for the Iraqis, but that has never seemd to deter Saddam. Remember the Iran-Iraq war. He doesn't give a shit about using up his own men. The Japanese did this back in WWII and also the Koreans back in '51-'53 and it can be a very effective tactic. Marines became unnerved by seeing hundreds of bodies piling up with thousands more screaming infantrymen charging right over the top of the piles right at them. There are several instances in history where units have broken and been overrun in this type of attack. It could be a way for Saddam to inflict a psychological blow to Coalition forces and also double or triple our casualty count in one attack.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One important point for those questioning the suicide attacks:

Situation: 80% of the world get's pissed at the U.S.

14 days into the war the Coalition is at the door step of all major U.S. cities

power has been cut off

water distribution is knocked out

communications are hit hard, even CNN,ABC,NBC etc stations

all government buildings are wiped out

1/3 if U.S. forces have been annihilated with superior weaponry

due to 12 years of sanctions many people are getting close to starving

U.S. forces armament doesn't stand a chance against the Coalition

Response:

U.S. special forces dress as civilians and drive their vehicles to Coalition checkpoints and blow them to smitherines

do you still question the tactic?  if you do, your imagination is not working or you have some strange moral values I don't agree with.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes I do because U.S. men and women value life a whole lot more than some of the Iraqis seem to. I see you point, and what I meant in my original statement is i'm half and half on it because of how unconvetnional it is.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are intermittant and sketchy reports coming in that a large number of Republican Guard forces are massing near Baghdad Inertnational for a possible massive suicide or human wave attack.  3/7 better have it's shit wired tight or we might be calling it Saddam International again soon.

edit: This might be the unconventional attack we were promised.<span id='postcolor'>

5000 iraqi running in line towards a row of .50 caliber heavy machine guns. Unconventional indeed <span id='postcolor'>

I don't doubt they would try it.  It would result in abnormally high KIA totals for the Iraqis, but that has never seemd to deter Saddam.  Remember the Iran-Iraq war.  He doesn't give a shit about using up his own men.  The Japanese did this back in WWII and also the Koreans back in '51-'53 and it can be a very effective tactic.  Marines became unnerved by seeing hundreds of bodies piling up with thousands more screaming infantrymen charging right over the top of the piles right at them.  There are several instances in history where units have broken and been overrun in this type of attack.  It could be a way for Saddam to inflict a psychological blow to Coalition forces and also double or triple our casualty count in one attack.<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose it's possible. Hell, whole WWI was based on that principle. I'll guess we'll see.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ April 05 2003,01:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One important point for those questioning the suicide attacks:

Situation: 80% of the world get's pissed at the U.S.

14 days into the war the Coalition is at the door step of all major U.S. cities

power has been cut off

water distribution is knocked out

communications are hit hard, even CNN,ABC,NBC etc stations

all government buildings are wiped out

1/3 if U.S. forces have been annihilated with superior weaponry

due to 12 years of sanctions many people are getting close to starving

U.S. forces armament doesn't stand a chance against the Coalition

Response:

U.S. special forces dress as civilians and drive their vehicles to Coalition checkpoints and blow them to smitherines

do you still question the tactic?  if you do, your imagination is not working or you have some strange moral values I don't agree with.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yes I do because U.S. men and women value life a whole lot more than some of the Iraqis seem to.  I see you point, and what I meant in my original statement is i'm half and half on it because of how unconvetnional it is.<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly, if that happened here, I would have no problem catching a pub full of soldiers with a car bomb, or sniping at soldiers sitting at an outdoor cafe. Its war, when you are outmanned and outgunned, you resort to the most effective tactics available, no matter how unconventional. Guerilla and partisan warfare are a very legitimate part of war. soldiers don't have to wear a uniform to make the war legitimate, all they have to do is kill enemy soldiers. Stay away from intentionally targetting and endangering civilians and its justifiable. I have moral concerns with this tactic only for that reason, it endangers the civilians, and is conducted expressly for that purpose. Psychologically and militarily effective, but from my western perspective, morally wrong.

[Necromancer- 0]

The idea of a suicide attack is the same as a cruise missile.

The only difference is it takes 1 man to blow himself up and big guts to do it.

Heck... If I was desperate in a war situation where resources are scarse. I'd even drag a unfueled Tomahawk missile and pound it into enemy lines.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One important point for those questioning the suicide attacks:

Situation: 80% of the world get's pissed at the U.S.

14 days into the war the Coalition is at the door step of all major U.S. cities

power has been cut off

water distribution is knocked out

communications are hit hard, even CNN,ABC,NBC etc stations

all government buildings are wiped out

1/3 if U.S. forces have been annihilated with superior weaponry

due to 12 years of sanctions many people are getting close to starving

U.S. forces armament doesn't stand a chance against the Coalition

Response:

U.S. special forces dress as civilians and drive their vehicles to Coalition checkpoints and blow them to smitherines

do you still question the tactic?  if you do, your imagination is not working or you have some strange moral values I don't agree with.  <span id='postcolor'>

If someone invaded this country, I am fairly sure that neither our troops nor are civilians would blow themselves up as a form of resistance. Those who did fight would do it the western way; grabbing a rifle and dying in a pile of brass shell casings. Although currently, my low opinion of the average American makes me wonder how many of my fellow countrymen would have the balls to walk the patriotic walk.

I guess my main problem with a suicide bombing is that the idea of deliberately killing oneself is fundamentally foreign to me. It just seems a bit of a waste: you will definitely die, and there's no guarantee you will bag your limit of the enemy. I can't help but think of watching an Islamic fundamentalist bloopers and outtakes show when I hear about a suicide bomber who blows himself up but doesn't take anyone with him. I can see it now...

Play-by-play commentator: "Here comes Muhhammad, he's heading for the infidels and is about to send them to the seat of Allah for judgement- Oooh! It seems that the bomb misfired 100 yards from the infidel emplacement."

Color commentator: "Ouch, He must be kicking himself over that rookie mistake."

Play-by-play commentator: "He's dead, Bob."

[FallenPaladin 0]

Yes, we western raised people would fight in a different way. I`d grab me a few weapons and would go out into the woods or streets and try to fight as hard and long as possible, until I am killed. But I`m also in a different state of mind and belief, I`m not religious and try to see any conflict objective or at least without too much emotions if it is pointed directly towards me so that I make less mistakes.

But the Iraqis think in other ways. They are muslims and they have a very old culture. Iraq is the birthplace of the civilisation. And now there is the USA invading them. That`s hell for the Iraqis because a) the US soldier are infidels b) the US way of life is equal to sin and hell in the eyes of the muslims c) the Iraqis are outmanned and outgunned d) the US gov. tries to force them to change their minds e) and so on, and so on...

For them the suicide attacks are their last resort, because they believe they get to Allah immediately and a person who doesn`t care about dying can do the worst damage (e.g. 911) . See in Israel, the palestinians have nothing to lose in their eyes, so they continue with that suicide bombing. And it seems like it will never stop. Same could happen in Iraq because of the similar state of mind of the people living there. They are totally different from us, not better or worse, just different. And it`s a horrible mistake trying to force them to be/are like we are. Because of that the Coalition can`t win finally. The resistance towards the Coalition won`t stop.  

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If someone invaded this country, I am fairly sure that neither our troops nor are civilians would blow themselves up as a form of resistance. Those who did fight would do it the western way; grabbing a rifle and dying in a pile of brass shell casings. Although currently, my low opinion of the average American makes me wonder how many of my fellow countrymen would have the balls to walk the patriotic walk.

I guess my main problem with a suicide bombing is that the idea of deliberately killing oneself is fundamentally foreign to me. It just seems a bit of a waste: you will definitely die, and there's no guarantee you will bag your limit of the enemy. I can't help but think of watching an Islamic fundamentalist bloopers and outtakes show when I hear about a suicide bomber who blows himself up but doesn't take anyone with him. I can see it now...

Play-by-play commentator: "Here comes Muhhammad, he's heading for the infidels and is about to send them to the seat of Allah for judgement- Oooh! It seems that the bomb misfired 100 yards from the infidel emplacement."

Color commentator: "Ouch, He must be kicking himself over that rookie mistake."

Play-by-play commentator: "He's dead, Bob." <span id='postcolor'>

Because you are still thinking of war in a personal manner, if for instance you took that further you would refuse to serve or follow any order because you would rather judge everything for yourself.

2 people might blow themselves and take no one, next guy takes 4 US soldiers. Thats great odds for Iraqis now. If the 2 that died were looking for a frag count, they wouldn't do it, and neither would the 3rd guy who "scored".

[foxer 0]

I disagree on how they do it.Screaming for help,and troops coming to your aid,then blowing yourself up.That's kinda wrong.If they seen troops and sped off to them to blow them and yourself ,ok, i can understand that.I can't stand people asking for help and then killed themself and people trying to help them.Their taking the goodwill of the soldiers and costing them their lifes.

[bn880 5]

Like I said, partisan operation (hehhe, that's the English word). It's a combination of psyop/guerrilla.

Anyway

Red Cross horrified by number of dead civilians

EDIT: And no I don't write those comments in www.iraqwar.ru

[PFC_Mike 2]

In the end, I don't think many starving Iraqis will blow up the hand that intends to feed them because of an order from the claw that starved them and killed their friends, families, and neighbors.

What have the Israelis given the Palestinians? Nothing but wholesale, and often wanton destruction. (Although they have offered pretty significant concessions, but Yasser's refusal to accept is another matter)

What have the Russians given the Chechens? Raped women, dead men, shattered families, and ruined cities. Suicide bombings aren't as common, but suicide missions are.

Accorsing to Denoir, maybe 800 Iraqi civillians were killed. That's NOTHING compared to the civillian casualties in the Soviet-Afghan war, Vietnam, any of the French incursions into Africa, or even Mogadishu!

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,19:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> SNIP (Iraqi human wave attack)<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose it's possible. Hell, whole WWI was based on that principle. I'll guess we'll see.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm thinking that's the most likely thing now, I really don't want to see anything like that, it's damn horrible if this is yet another tragedy that takes place in this century.

Personally I would not recommend a pure human wave attack against tanks with HE rounds and artillery. I don't know if it will work at all. Hopefully the Russians that were helping Saddam with his battle plans discussed this with him.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> SNIP (Iraqi human wave attack)<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose it's possible. Hell, whole WWI was based on that principle. I'll guess we'll see.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm thinking that's the most likely thing now, I really don't want to see anything like that, it's damn horrible if this is yet another tragedy that takes place in this century.

Personally I would not recommend a pure human wave attack against tanks with HE rounds and artillery.  I don't know if it will work at all.  Hopefully the Russians that were helping Saddam with his battle plans discussed this with him.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Rather, wouldn't be one of the first tragedies of the new century? It is 2003, ya know.

A human wave attack would result in one thing: a whole lot of dead Iraqis. American doctrine and armament are designed almost precisely for that sort of engagement. And really, the tanks wouldn't even need to fire their main guns- their coax and commander's .50 cal are just fine for large numbers of humans, who have the nasty attribute of being frighteningly thin-skinned. The Bradley's Bushmaster is deadly enough for light armored vehicles; when turned against humans, you can predict the results easily enough. Plus, you have our advantage in artillery and air power, both of which are capable of dealing out heavy punishment against massed infantry. Ever heard of ICM artillery rounds? Think artillery deployed cluster munitions- brutal stuff. The only thing that will limit the casualties is the amount of ammo the defenders have on hand.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 05 2003,02:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree on how they do it.Screaming for help,and troops coming to your aid,then blowing yourself up.That's kinda wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

nah its just funny plus it opens the doo for blwoing up more ppl without a backlash from the dopey public.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm thinking that's the most likely thing now, I really don't want to see anything like that, it's damn horrible if this is yet another tragedy that takes place in this century.

Personally I would not recommend a pure human wave attack against tanks with HE rounds and artillery. I don't know if it will work at all. Hopefully the Russians that were helping Saddam with his battle plans discussed this with him. <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Rather, wouldn't be one of the first tragedies of the new century? It is 2003, ya know.<span id='postcolor'>

No really... read that again.

I say the tanks would have to fire their main guns, shall we bet?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I said they probably wouldn't have to- not that they wouldn't. I know if I had several thousand Iraqi's doing the Arab version of a banzai charge toward my position, I'd be inclined to use every bit of firepower I have available.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say the tanks would have to fire their main guns, shall we bet?  <span id='postcolor'>

I always thought that the US had an ROE against using main battle tank cannons against infantry...

But ya know, for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that or why I thought that...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 04 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say the tanks would have to fire their main guns, shall we bet? <span id='postcolor'>

I always thought that the US had an ROE against using main battle tank cannons against infantry...

But ya know, for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that or why I thought that...

<span id='postcolor'>

I remember something like that, maybe it's from a movie. I can't imagine why as well. It's not normally efficient that's for sure.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,06:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 04 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say the tanks would have to fire their main guns, shall we bet?  <span id='postcolor'>

I always thought that the US had an ROE against using main battle tank cannons against infantry...

But ya know, for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that or why I thought that...

<span id='postcolor'>

I remember something like that, maybe it's from a movie.    I can't imagine why as well.  It's not normally efficient that's for sure.<span id='postcolor'>

Probably true...

See little difference in artillary and an MBT cannon...why I always thought it was rather a waste of firepower.

I know if a tank singled me out with that cannon I'd be outta there.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 05 2003,06:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,060)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 04 2003,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say the tanks would have to fire their main guns, shall we bet?  <span id='postcolor'>

I always thought that the US had an ROE against using main battle tank cannons against infantry...

But ya know, for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that or why I thought that...

<span id='postcolor'>

I remember something like that, maybe it's from a movie.    I can't imagine why as well.  It's not normally efficient that's for sure.<span id='postcolor'>

Probably true...

See little difference in artillary and an MBT cannon...why I always thought it was rather a waste of firepower.

I know if a tank singled me out with that cannon I'd be outta there.<span id='postcolor'>

Sabot would be of almost no use against infantry. No area effect to speak of.

I think this was bantered about earlier in this thread...but I am too lazt to look. The M1 series doesnt have anti-personel rounds available for it's main gun, like canister or some such thing.

For a human wave with no armour, I suspect the MG would be your best friend.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ April 05 2003,05:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I say the tanks would have to fire their main guns, shall we bet?  <span id='postcolor'>

I always thought that the US had an ROE against using main battle tank cannons against infantry...

But ya know, for the life of me I can't remember where I heard that or why I thought that...

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL, the rules kida go to shit when you have thousands of screaming maniacal people charging towards your position. Thats how human wave attacks succeed. They come out of nowhere and very suddenly you are enveloped in suicidal charging killers. They lose a lot of men, but the tradeoff if they can overrun the position before air and arty support is called in, is a big bodycount for their enemy as well.

CNN just announced that the 3rd ID has entered South central Baghdad with its tanks on a reconaissance in force. And so it begins, they are surmising the objective is to devide the city up into zones. I would have thought they'd have waited for the 4th to arrive, but I guess not.

[bn880 5]

AH-1W crashes/ kills 2 Saturday

Short article