The Dogs of War

[Akira 0]

Thought this was interesting in light of the media arguement going about.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BBC war correspondent Paul Adams, based at coalition headquarters in Qatar, has chastised the network for what he maintained was biased and misleading information about military operations in Iraq. In a memo to his bosses (that was leaked to the London Daily Sun), Adams said that a BBC report that the coalition had suffered "significant casualties" was "simply not true." At another point in the memo he asked, "Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected." A BBC spokeswoman commented: "This seems to have been an internal memo and we can't confirm its content, but this is the kind of debate about editorial tone that's going on in newsrooms all over the world about this particular story." In an interview not related to the memo, BBC Director of News Richard Sambrook told today's (Wednesday) Guardian newspaper: "Reporting the war is about putting together fragments of information. We're all trying to work out this jigsaw and what the overall picture is." <span id='postcolor'>

[Akira 0]

Article

Eyewitness accounts? *shrug*

[ralphwiggum 6]

<span style='font-size:19pt;line-height:100%'>For the second time, keep this thread out of politics and shove that in to the other Iraq thread!</span>

[Badgerboy 0]

I agree that most Iraqi's dislike Saddam, but they also hate the US (and the Westf or that matter), and for that you really can't blame them.

Militarily, although their equipment is most obsolete, and outdated, it's still reasonably effective up close. A T55 parked in a garage could whack a Abrams close up if it drove past.

And as people like comparing the Republican Guard to the SS, remember how those guys fought. No order was unreasonable, and their tenacity was unbelievable.

The Coalition has far too little in the way of manpower for this kind of combat. It was designed and planned for a swift, sharp strike. Don't be surprised if they ship in another division just to keep bypassed pockets of resistance tied up.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 27 2003,05:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I agree that most Iraqi's dislike Saddam, but they also hate the US (and the Westf or that matter), and for that you really can't blame them.

Militarily, although their equipment is most obsolete, and outdated, it's still reasonably effective up close. A T55 parked in a garage could whack a Abrams close up if it drove past.

And as people like comparing the Republican Guard to the SS, remember how those guys fought. No order was unreasonable, and their tenacity was unbelievable.

The Coalition has far too little in the way of manpower for this kind of combat. It was designed and planned for a swift, sharp strike. Don't be surprised if they ship in another division just to keep bypassed pockets of resistance tied up.<span id='postcolor'>

They've already called up another 30000 troops to be deployed.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They've already called up another 30000 troops to be deployed.<span id='postcolor'>

From Germany, or reserves?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 27 2003,05:10)</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">They've already called up another 30000 troops to be deployed.<span id='postcolor'>

From Germany, or reserves?<span id='postcolor'>

More Than 30000 Called Up

[Schoeler 0]

The troops may be fighting, but they aren't being resupplied. Its only a matter of time before they are either defeated, demoralized or out of ammo.

[Badgerboy 0]

Surely they would have planned for a logistics shortfall? Or were the blokes in the Pentagon that short sighted? Christ, wouldn't be surprised if Bush drew up the war plans himself....

[ralphwiggum 6]

I think Schoeler meant Iraqi troops that are surrounded.

[Schoeler 0]

I surely did. The allies control Iraq's only port. The Iranians certainly aren't going to resupply them (no love lost there, and Iran is trying to incite Shi'ite rebellions in Iraq right now), the Jordanians won't, and there is a lot of open desert to cross from Syria to get weapons and ammo to the fighting areas, that open desert is dominated by coalition airpower. This isn't Vietnam, there's no Ho Chi Minh trail in Iraq. Eventually they are going to run out of ammo.

[brgnorway 0]

Well, the iraqi soldiers running out of amunition is not a likely scenario. After all, they have had 10 years to make sure of that - and I bet the effort has been accelerated the last months.

Defeated - yes, that could be!

[Badgerboy 0]

Ah. I pounced on that after reading a snippet about the logisitics nightmare they are having at the moment. Seems not enough is getting to the front fast enough, and is still at risk from Iraqi troops.

As for the Republican Guard in Baghdad, they can sit it out. They will have plenty of food and water after the civilian supplies run out, so we either lay seige and kill thousands, go in and suffer heavy casulaties, or resupply the population (and the troops at the same time).

Not to sound callous, but I'm glad UK forces are stuck in Basra, I wouldn't wish the 'Baghdad adventure' on anyone.

All this underlines is that you can't have a war without trading civilian lives for military. Technology may have advanced, but its still the same as ever.

Edit - Gin and Tonic drenched keyboard has almost had it.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 27 2003,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, the iraqi soldiers running out of amunition is not a likely scenario. After all, they have had 10 years to make sure of that - and I bet the effort has been accelerated the last months.

Defeated - yes, that could be!<span id='postcolor'>

I'm sure you are right, they have had ten years to stockpile it, but do you think they dragged those stockpiles along with them? Tank, APC, machinegun ammo and mortars are HEAVY. They occupy a lot of SPACE. Nothing is getting in to those forces isolated in towns, so all they have is their basic combat loads and maybe a little extra. They aren't going to get resupplied any time soon, so they eventually will run out of ammo. Baghdad is another story. They may have large ammo dumps within the city, but I'd bet my next paycheck, that those sites are on an air targeting list. We've already hit a lot of their fuel dumps, so eventually, they are going to run out of gas as well. Again, this isn't Vietnam. There is no Haiphong harbor full of Russian freighters resupplying the enemy. They can't hold out forever, though they can still do a lot of damage to coalition forces.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 27 2003,05:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the Republican Guard in Baghdad, they can sit it out. They will have plenty of food and water after the civilian supplies run out, so we either lay seige and kill thousands, go in and suffer heavy casulaties, or resupply the population (and the troops at the same time).

Not to sound callous, but I'm glad UK forces are stuck in Basra, I wouldn't wish the 'Baghdad adventure' on anyone.

All this underlines is that you can't have a war without trading civilian lives for military. Technology may have advanced, but its still the same as ever.

Edit - Gin and Tonic drenched keyboard has almost had it.<span id='postcolor'>

Baghdad is going to be the deciding factor in this war, and its going to be nasty.

Damn, Gin and Tonic would be excellent right now, I have a bottle of Sapphire in the freezer, but no tonic water or limes!

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ Mar. 27 2003,05:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Coalition has far too little in the way of manpower for this kind of combat. It was designed and planned for a swift, sharp strike. Don't be surprised if they ship in another division just to keep bypassed pockets of resistance tied up.<span id='postcolor'>

There was a graph on CNN.com that, for the life of me, I cannot find now, that compared the amount of forces each side deplayed in the Gulf War, to the amount each side deployed in Iraqi Freedom.

Coalition Forces were much, much more heavily outnumbered in the Gulf War. There may be some setbacks, and they might have to call up another division or two, but I'm still certain the Coaliton forces will win, one way or another, and I still doubt this war will take years to resolve. The diplomacy might, the armed conflict, I don't think will.

[Guest]

US officials think Iraq war could last months -Reuters/Washington Post

*starts humming Rolling Stones' "fade to black"*

[Akira 0]

Women As Shields? Marines Firing At Children?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 27 2003,11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Women As Shields? Marines Firing At Children?<span id='postcolor'>

Uhh, you mean children firing at marines? The marines, according to that article, are defending themselves.

[ralphwiggum 6]

No wonder it's getting slower to move

[Schoeler 0]

ABC News is saying those M1A1's were knocked out by Kornets. The blow out panels saved the life of the crews. It seems the missiles are quite effective if fired at the rear of the tank.

[theavonlady 2]

I know it's been discussed by we need Kevlar helmets in OFP.

[Guest]

That's the lucky one. Where are the reports on the not-so-lucky ones?  

Anybody notice that there has been a complete silence on coalition casualties the last 48h?

The only thing I've heard are the pictures from Iraqi TV that showed some dead UK soldiers.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,08:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anybody notice that there has been a complete silence on coalition casualties the last 48h?<span id='postcolor'>

Look here.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 27 2003,07:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 27 2003,08:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anybody notice that there has been a complete silence on coalition casualties the last 48h?<span id='postcolor'>

Look here.<span id='postcolor'>

Those are old official pentagon numbers. As I said, they have not been updated for 48h and I doubt that they were correct in the first place.