Oligo 1 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 25 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Due to his size the soldier in the middle is 20% less likely to get a head-shot!!!! Right or wrong?? Â <span id='postcolor'> Wrong, since it depends on how small a grouping the shooter can make on a given distance. Specify the grouping size and I'll tell you whether it pays to be 20% shorter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 25 2003,14:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Due to his size the soldier in the middle is 20% less likely to get a head-shot!!!! Right or wrong??<span id='postcolor'> Depends. What if Iraqi soldiers are on the average 20% taller than coalition forces? Their look-down angle would be that much greater. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 Baghdad residents want out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turms 0 Posted March 25, 2003 I have been wondering what is the condition of Iraq's airforces? I havent heard anything about Us/Uk bombing Iraqi airfields,alltough 2 airfields have been captured...Ãny ideas what could be the reason for not bombing the airfields? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 A mine-clearing dolphin belonging to the US Commander Task Unit, based in the Arabian Gulf, leaps out of the water during training in front of Sergeant Andrew Garrett. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 Suspected Iraqi troops are searched by a British soldier at a checkpoint in southern Iraq. Interesting. Notice how all the prisoner's faces have been pixeled to comply with the GC. Don't know if Sky did this or the pic's wire service owners and whether they received instructions about doing this from now on by coalition press directives or if this is a voluntary self-imposed effort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted March 25, 2003 '....and the worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative...The General, unable to control his impatience, will order his troops to swarm up the wall like ants, with the result that one-third of them will be killed without taking the city. Â Such is the calamity of attacking cities.' -Sun Tzu The Coalition is in danger of becoming heavily engaged in guerilla fighting in built up areas in a situation in which they cannot bring their full force of arms (or anything close) to bear on the enemy for fear of civilian casualties. The coalition are keen to be seen as liberators as opposed to aggressors, and so they are not (or have not been) engaging fully with conventional enemy forces within their ability to do so. I have heard from an interview with an RAF pilot that they are not (or were not 48 hrs ago) even engaging targets of opportunity before it proves necessary (that is to say before the targets show signs of resistance or are given a chance to surrender). This obviously hands a good deal of initiative to the enemy. The enemy can engage in battle on his terms and on his chosen ground. The coaltion are left fighting a reactive war of attrition in which the Iraqis attempt to pull them into urban areas where they can defend in depth.In addition the Iraqi fighters can employ 'maskirovka' (deception) techniques and use the coalitions 'moral high ground' against it by- -*hiding in civilian areas and within the civilian population -*using human sheilds -*requisitioning civilian properties as bases for hit and run attacks or indirect defensive fire -*using the civilian populations suffering as a propaganda ploy (arguably used by both sides) -*using fake surrenders as an offensive tactic and thus creating a climate of distrust in which the coalition will be wary of even genuine surrenders (undermining the trust between the 'liberators' and the 'liberated' ) -and generally breaking as many rules of conduct in war as they think they can get away with. In this situation in which the Iraqi irregular fighters are unwilling to leave the urban areas and the Coalition are unwilling to go in with decisive force for fear of civilian casualties then a kind of guerilla stalemate could emerge. The Iraqis aim amongst other things to make the war as ugly and protracted as possible and so far they have had reasonable success in this. If you factor in -even the remote possibility- of Iraqi use of NBC weapons in or around Baghdad then taking Baghdad with the current restrictions becomes a total nightmare for coalition planners. I am still thinking of ways the coalition might be looking at going into Baghdad ,but given the great emphasis placed on the regimes command and control capabilities i expect they will first attempt a top down take down. They may approach the outskirts of Baghdad (without total encirclement) engaging any Iraqi elements on said outskirts and attacking from the air targets of opportunity within Baghdad itself. They will however be very reluctant to go into a largely hostile Baghdad on the ground. They will attempt to get surrenders and defections until the last minute, they may try to penetrate Baghdad with relatively small numbers of agents and special forces with heavy air support tasked with destroying the Iraqi command infrastructure or creating resistance to Saddam(a dangerous task). Eventually if all that does not get the required result, if it comes down to it all they can do is lay seige or go in in force. It is important for the coaltion to be the winners of the hearts and minds campaign. They may not immediatly be outright winners but they need a large number of the Iraqi population to be at worst ambivalent or at best supportive. I have witnessed some individual instances of substantive support in the media (locals reporting Ba'ath party militants holed up in their local HQ to the royal marines) but that has yet to become as regular or widespread as the coalition would like. It is possible that some of the political interference in target selection may have to cease if it makes fighting the Iraqis effectively too difficult. This could of course in turn impact the hearts and minds campaign so it is really a fraught situation for the coalition. If they have a large number of ordinary Iraqi people on their side then things become significantly easier for the coalition. This is not as impossible as one might think within Bagdad itself as a city containing over 60% shia muslims (who by all reports have no great love for Saddam) The coaltion will attempt to foster revolution in these groups using Psy-ops and also possibly inserting special operations agents. All of the fighting is permeated (and complicated) by the vital importance for the coaltion to win the trust of the Iraqi population after the main conflict is over. ------------------------------------------------- better news for Blair at least....... A Guardian poll (hardly a pro-war newspaper) has suggested a large shift of public opinion from 38% public support for the war to over 50% public support....i think in fact this is a conservative estimate of a very large shift upwards in public support. Its will probably go up for a little longer to the high 60s and then start to slip down(my guess). There has been some quite astute analysis of the war (some of which i will now go and read) in the British papers and some consistantly good presentations by Mark Urban on the BBCs Newsnight ( i dont know if this reaches foreign audiences ).. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 25, 2003 The pixled faces must be new. I saw video footage yesterday showing Iraqi POWs lying on the desert ground or sitting there with only a blanket at night. There were closeups of their faces. I also saw a lot of them filmed behind barbed wire and crowded like cattle. Not nice to watch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 25 2003,15:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The pixled faces must be new.<span id='postcolor'> Yes. First time I saw this done. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I also saw a lot of them filmed behind barbed wire and crowded like cattle. Not nice to watch.<span id='postcolor'> I bet they're happier there than back out on the battlefield. Just ask em'! Oh, sorry, you're not allowed to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On the topic of WMD:s British-American forces have so far not found any traces of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destriction said general Stanley McChrystal at Pentagon. The claims that the factory found in Najaf was used to produce chemical weapons has been withdrawn. -DPA/DN <span id='postcolor'> Hmmmm... I thought the whole point of this action was because Iraq was meant to have WOMD. Not regieme change, but wa sthat the plan all along (sic) ? Press speculation this afternoon that the Iraq soldiers have been ordered to use chem weapons when coalition forces cross a specific line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 25 2003,14:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, sorry, you're not allowed to. <span id='postcolor'> What about hand signals? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 25 2003,15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">....and the worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative...<span id='postcolor'> Well that's definitely the case here. I would hope that they'll drop flyers, telling everyone that Saddam's hour has come and, for the safety of all non-militant men, women and children, should leave Baghdad via specific routes of scrutinized safety. They flyers would also present a deadline for their safety. The flyers should also say something to the effect of the sooner Saddam & Co. are gone the less dammage done. Anyone able to help their fellow Baghdadians (Baghdadios? No, that can't be right.) by informing what they know to maximize target accuracy will be generously rewarded. Well, you get the idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 25 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 25 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Colation convoy going through Nassiriya.<span id='postcolor'> I guess the Iraqi generals have something to learn yet. They have fought, what, three days or so in Nassiriya, but the Iraqis have not blown the two bridges across Euphrates. The german commanders that fought in Operation Market Garden are surely turning in their graves.<span id='postcolor'> Yes indeed. I don't know what their problem is! The first thing that I've would have done would be to blow all the bridges over Euphrat. It would both slow down the coalition progress and it would force more vulnerable logistics and engineering troops up front. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">would hope that they'll drop flyers, telling everyone that Saddam's hour has come and, for the safety of all non-militant men, women and children, should leave Baghdad via specific routes of scrutinized safety. They flyers would also present a deadline for their safety. The flyers should also say something to the effect of the sooner Saddam & Co. are gone the less dammage done. Anyone able to help their fellow Baghdadians (Baghdadios? No, that can't be right.) by informing what they know to maximize target accuracy will be generously rewarded. Well, you get the idea<span id='postcolor'> 35 years of Saddam propaganda vs some dropped flyers? I wouldn't bet any money on the flyers. Plus, who would you believe: The guy defending your home or the guy trying to occupy it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 25, 2003 Denoir, their problem is they are not willing to destroy everything that's theirs and they think will be theirs soon again. They are 100% confident they will defeat the coalition in Baghdad, which by current examination they probably will. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted March 25, 2003 regarding WMD, Saddam is not stupid. It is likely he has hidden underground labs with entrances through inconspicuous doors in regular Iraqi residences. These will not be tripped over during the war phase. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 25 2003,15:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, their problem is they are not willing to destroy everything that's theirs and they think will be theirs soon again.  They are 100% confident they will defeat the coalition in Baghdad, which by  current examination they probably will.  <span id='postcolor'> That can perhaps explain the oil wells but it can't explain the bridges. They could have been rebuilt and blowing them up would have been a significant pain in the ass for the coalition troops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 25, 2003 Maybe they are also worried about not pissing off the civilians. After all they are counting on getting support from them. Besides that it looks like a trust in a greater power if you know what I mean... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,16:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">35 years of Saddam propaganda vs some dropped flyers? I wouldn't bet any money on the flyers. Plus, who would you believe: The guy defending your home or the guy trying to occupy it?<span id='postcolor'> After decades of dictatorial rule, when the opportunity arose, how long did it take for Romania to hang Nicolae Ceausescu. No, the circumstances are not the same but you can bet that the Iraqis all know very well what happened to all of their missing friends and relatives over the years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 Possibly, but I'm not at all sure that the average Iraqi citizen has the same view on Saddam that we have. While Saddam is known for his brutality against political dissidents he never displayed the forms of irrational paranoia that was evident in Romania and some other commuinist countries. If you are Iraqi and are not interested in politics then you have nothing to fear from Saddam. His rule is by no means worse then most other dictatorships in the Mid East. Also, your home country is your home country and you will defend it even if you disagree with the guy in charge. I think that the military planning got deluded by political wishful thinking and that we are now seeing differences between what we want to see and what the reality is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 25, 2003 We will soon know, I mean the civilian population has access to Kalishnikovs left right and center... so. You know supposidly a farmer shot down a longbow, if so, then he cartainly will not love the invaders even if Saddam is killed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 I wouldn't put too much faith in Iraqi propaganda bn880. The Apaches were engaged by elements of the Republican Guard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PFC_Mike 2 Posted March 25, 2003 The AH-64 seemed very intact, and looked like it had landed, not crashed. I don't think some chump with a rifle shot it down. It's ridiculous to believe that the coalition can't win. You're the kind of people who would have advocated a US surrender 24 hours after Pearl Harbor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 25, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC_Mike @ Mar. 25 2003,15:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's ridiculous to believe that the coalition can't win.<span id='postcolor'> So tell me, what grand strategy would you use for Baghdad? Remeber the boundary conditions: you are not allowed to kill lots of civilians and you can't accept too high coalition casualties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted March 25, 2003 Denoir, believe me I don't trust that, look at the wording of my message. It is a possibility that it is shot from the bottom, just in the right place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Die Alive 0 Posted March 25, 2003 Maybe the farmers are the ones who captured the pilots when they landed, and they're the ones given credit for the "kill"... But then again, so far I only see the chopper from one side, we don't see any pics or video footage from the other side of the chopper. -=Die Alive=- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
