tracy_t 0 Posted April 5, 2003 Hold on a minute. A tank commander was SHOT? Don't tell me the Americans went into Central Baghdad, "turned out" so to speak? If that's the case, I've heard it all. You should put this story in the Military Stupidity thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Potatoman 0 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ April 05 2003,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hold on a minute. A tank commander was SHOT? Â Don't tell me the Americans went into Central Baghdad, "turned out" so to speak? If that's the case, I've heard it all. You should put this story in the Military Stupidity thread.<span id='postcolor'> Most of them seemed to be turned out firing their machine guns. I'm not sure if the commander who was killed was in the M1 that was disabled. Apparently the engine was on fire and the crew got out and tried to put the fire out while the commander shot at iraqi infantry with his handgun Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PFC_Mike 2 Posted April 5, 2003 So how much do we know about the fighiting in Baghdad? There is no way in hell that the US could be pushed out of the airport unless the Iraqis took more than 10,000 cauaslties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted April 5, 2003 I wouldn't be suprised by significant casualties, this is a street to street battle. I don't care how much technology we have, its all nullified by a Republican Guardsman in a window with an RPG-7 and an AK. All he has to do is wait until an M1 starts moving down the street. Nail it with an RPG and shoot up the infantry around it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ April 05 2003,11:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how much do we know about the fighiting in Baghdad? There is no way in hell that the US could be pushed out of the airport unless the Iraqis took more than 10,000 cauaslties.<span id='postcolor'> There is always a way... US having 1500 troops at the airport, if the RG got organized they would wipe the ass of the coalition with under 1500 losses oftheir own. we know about the fighting in Baghdad that 4 armored vehicles were destroyed, the 30 vehicles cut across Baghdad suburbs to get to the Airport. And there is more info. Anyway, I just watched the birefing by the Iraqi info minister, it's got some amazing claims, but it's still a must see for the AH part. Hillarious, he's got his finger on the truth about the chopper for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,17:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">6--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ April 05 2003,116)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So how much do we know about the fighiting in Baghdad? There is no way in hell that the US could be pushed out of the airport unless the Iraqis took more than 10,000 cauaslties.<span id='postcolor'> There is always a way... US having 1500 troops at the airport, if the RG got organized they would wipe the ass of the coalition with under 1500 losses oftheir own. we know about the fighting in Baghdad that 4 armored vehicles were destroyed, the 30 vehicles cut across Baghdad suburbs to get to the Airport. Â And there is more info. Anyway, I just watched the birefing by the Iraqi info minister, it's got some amazing claims, but it's still a must see for the AH part. Â Hillarious, he's got his finger on the truth about the chopper for sure.<span id='postcolor'> ROFL! I'd like to see them get organized so we have some decent targets for our bombs. Jesus thats funny, we have air superiority and those guys at the airport probably have more planes and artillery on call then any of the soldiers in Iraq. Heh, I'd more than love to see the Republican Guard come out and try to fight us toe to toe. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 I'd like to see them get organized as well. You have problems interpreting IF statements. You can tell they aren't doing so well since htey only got 4 armored vehicles in the suburbs, they should have knocked out 15. But maybe their more potent anti tank weapons are in the heart of Baghdad, rather than the outskirts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 05 2003,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IF Statements?<span id='postcolor'> Exactly </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is always a way... US having 1500 troops at the airport, if the RG got organized they would wipe the ass of the coalition with under 1500 losses oftheir own. <span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 05 2003,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IF Statements?<span id='postcolor'> Exactly </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is always a way... US having 1500 troops at the airport, if the RG got organized they would wipe the ass of the coalition with under 1500 losses oftheir own. <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> Hey, I didn't understand what you meant. No need to be a dick about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 05 2003,11:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 05 2003,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">IF Statements?<span id='postcolor'> Exactly </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is always a way... US having 1500 troops at the airport, if the RG got organized they would wipe the ass of the coalition with under 1500 losses oftheir own. <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> Hey, I didn't understand what you meant. No need to be a dick about it.<span id='postcolor'> Stop insulting me. What kind of answer could I give you? I answered your question just like I answer all other questions, you'd better bring the tone down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 5, 2003 9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 05 2003,179)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't be suprised by significant casualties, this is a street to street battle. I don't care how much technology we have, its all nullified by a Republican Guardsman in a window with an RPG-7 and an AK. All he has to do is wait until an M1 starts moving down the street. Nail it with an RPG and shoot up the infantry around it.<span id='postcolor'> Urban warfare is always nasty. The defenders have an advantage at a cost of civilian life. Let's hope that Baghdad does not turn into a modern Stalingrad. There are three possible outcomes here as I see it: 1) The Iraqis realize that they are fucked in the long run and decide not to fight. 2)The  coalition realizes that it cannot achieve it's objective without massive own and civilian casualties and withdraws. 3) Both sides decide to battle it out and we have casualties of epic proportions. Number 2 is not realistic at this point but may follow after number 3. Although I know that some of you would condemn it as "policy of appeasement", being the Euroweenie that I am, I hope for number 1. The later political ramifications can wait. I'm perfectly aware that the consequence can be that the Bush administration sees a success as a go-ahead of attacking other countries. My concern now however are the Iraqi civilians, and the sooner this ends the better. A quick end also minimizes the possibility of Iran and Turkey getting involved in the fight. Edit: Calm down boys, let's not fight Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 05 2003,17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't be suprised by significant casualties, this is a street to street battle. I don't care how much technology we have, its all nullified by a Republican Guardsman in a window with an RPG-7 and an AK. All he has to do is wait until an M1 starts moving down the street. Nail it with an RPG and shoot up the infantry around it.<span id='postcolor'> Urban warfare is always nasty. The defenders have an advantage at a cost of civilian life. Let's hope that Baghdad does not turn into a modern Stalingrad. There are three possible outcomes here as I see it: 1) The Iraqis realize that they are fucked in the long run and decide not to fight. 2)The  coalition realizes that it cannot achieve it's objective without massive own and civilian casualties and withdraws. 3) Both sides decide to battle it out and we have casualties of epic proportions. Number 2 is not realistic at this point but may follow after number 3. Although I know that some of you would condemn it as "policy of appeasement", being the Euroweenie that I am, I hope for number 1. The later political ramifications can wait. I'm perfectly aware that the consequence can be that the Bush administration sees a success as a go-ahead of attacking other countries. My concern now however are the Iraqi civilians, and the sooner this ends the better. A quick end also minimizes the possibility of Iran and Turkey getting involved in the fight. Edit: Calm down boys, let's not fight <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> For once I agree with the Swedish Uber-Mod! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,11:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Edit: Calm down boys, let's not fight <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> Sorry Denoir, but everywhere I turn I get insulted on the Iraq threads. I may have to make weaker points so I don't upset them. EDIT: For the record I hope for #1 or #2 without #3 in the middle. lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Potatoman 0 Posted April 5, 2003 According to the commander of the 3rd Infantry 1 dead and 1 critically injured in this mornings excursion into Baghdad. Hundreds of Iraqi casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Potatoman @ ,)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">According to the commander of the 3rd Infantry 1 dead and 1 critically injured in this mornings excursion into Baghdad. Hundreds of Iraqi casualties.<span id='postcolor'> But how only one dead one critical? 3 Bradleys or M113's were destroyed, I don't really understand how no one died in those. And as for Iraqi casualties, it's a problem because Iraq is not reporting any numbers at all, and we all know how well one side gives news in war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 5, 2003 Ah, the beauty of media. On Swedish news they were talking about today's Baghdad excursion while showing pictures of British Scimitars.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,12:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ah, the beauty of media. On Swedish news they were talking about today's Baghdad excursion while showing pictures of British Scimitars..<span id='postcolor'> Yep, and you know if you call them and bitch, they have perfectly good answers: "We never said that the pictures being shown had anything to do with the story" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Potatoman 0 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,17:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But how only one dead one critical? Â 3 Bradleys or M113's were destroyed, I don't really understand how no one died in those. Â Â <span id='postcolor'> Where are those reports from? What I'm hearing (sky news & bbc news 24) is one M1 disabled but towed out and one other abandoned due to mechanical failure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tracy_t 0 Posted April 5, 2003 Don't tell me the coalition are using the same Word processor as azzam.net and qoqaz! You know, M$ Word For Propaganda! "the <insert name of your army here> attacked <insert name of enemy> and inflicted 100000 casualties. Only <random number between 1 and 5> of our men were killed." Strange that how the US said they killed 1000 Iraqis, yet only sustained 1 or 2 casualties? I smell shit. PS: FWIW, if an RPG can open an M1A1 up (was it by top attack?) then the war's not over by a long shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 I heard it in a bunch of places that I can't pinpoint specifically which said that. I'v looked at reuters, cnn, bbc, iraqwar, ctv, and a whole lot of others. EDIT: It adds up very well, 20 Abrams and 10 "APC"s went in, 3 APC's lost 1 Abrams. The Iraqi intel minister said the same thing I heard on the news sources so it adds up so far. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ April 05 2003,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And PS: If an RPG can open an M1A1 up (was it by top attack I wonder?) then the war's not over by a long shot.<span id='postcolor'> Engine was on fire I think, they must have clued in to the back of the tank being weak... I agree, if an RPG(s) can harm an M1, you've got huge problems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 5, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 05 2003,18:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ April 05 2003,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And PS: If an RPG can open an M1A1 up (was it by top attack I wonder?) then the war's not over by a long shot.<span id='postcolor'> Engine was on fire I think, they must have clued in to the back of the tank being weak... Â I agree, if an RPG(s) can harm an M1, you've got huge problems.<span id='postcolor'> It all depends on range and where you hit it. If you get a lucky shot in the right place you can disable the tank. Generally it's however suicidal to attack MBTs with LAWs. This is especially true with Russian tanks that use ERA which makes them virtually immune to HEAT warheads. Kontakt-5 ERA makes tanks invulnerable even to 120 mm DU sabots After you hit it, you have a very pissed tank looking for you, which is not a desirable position to be in. In urban situations however tanks have limited movement and can be effectivly stopped by RPG crossfire. Lighter vehicles like IFVs and APCs are sitting ducks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted April 5, 2003 You are absolutely right. Finally they updated that counter to keep up! sheesh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 5, 2003 U.S. Air Power Ready for Urban Combat in Baghdad Notice the picture of a B-52! I really hope it's just a stupid media illustration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
