US Stingers

[Sublime]

Uh. Saddam and his forces did do an attack into Saudi Arabia. A limited attack along the coast. Actually its pretty famous.  And they got beaten back pretty badly. They occupied the city and some Marines holed up and hid iirc and then the airpower came up along with Saudi ground forces.

As far as ships my father was the USAF NATO liason officer in Norfolk in the late 90s. So he somehow finagled us officers passes for a family day cruise on the Enterprise which was mind boggling huge. Really cool stuff. A6s dropping dummy bombs on a buoy.  An F14 did a sonic boom right past the carrier at about 500 ft ASL was one of the most impressive things I ever have seen. Of course my father was full of derision having started his career in USAF F4Ds

[Sublime]

Uh. Saddam and his forces did do an attack into Saudi Arabia. A limited attack along the coast. Actually its pretty famous.  And they got beaten back pretty badly. They occupied the city and some Marines holed up and hid iirc and then the airpower came up along with Saudi ground forces. Just look up the Battle of Khafji. Geez Lucas I didnt even finish my history degree and I know this.  I have to say almost all your references such as Varus and the 19th century Indian War references are well.. silly. And making this so personal instead of simply saying I was wrong or declining comment just looks silly on your part.  I mean if we were to draw analogies it.d be akin to you in the Fuhrer bunker in late April 1945 insisting on the Russian naval spectre while a coalition who agrees you.re wrong shells bombs and overruns your nation.

As far as ships my father was the USAF NATO liason officer in Norfolk in the late 90s. So he somehow finagled us officers passes for a family day cruise on the Enterprise which was mind boggling huge. Really cool stuff. A6s dropping dummy bombs on a buoy.  An F14 did a sonic boom right past the carrier at about 500 ft ASL was one of the most impressive things I ever have seen. Of course my father was full of derision having started his career in USAF F4Ds

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Anyone here play World of Warships? 

Nah.  I got burned out on WOT and War Thunder.  Also Xcom 2 and Fallout 4 are still recent enough that my game playing preferences are pretty fixated on those two.  Looks cool, but I don't know if I'll ever get into it.

Re: Lucas

 

Our resident Quintus Varus speaks again You arrogant, arrogant man. You think that a well read and somewhat informed civilian avoid acknowledging that I do, in fact have a fair point cannot have a valid opinion - just because he is a civilian, not a trained military professional. You completely miss the point yet again or choose to do so. And you twist my words and statements in order to support your own arguments rather than admitting that I actually have a fair case on the matter of possible Russian strategy.  A wiser man would know that under estimating the enemy is ne of the cardinal sins of warfare. I may be over estimating the Russians but it is far better to respect the enemy and thus avoid falling into a trap through your own arrogant hubris. 

I am entirely capable of agreeing with well read informed civilian opinions, and have done so several times on this thread.  I am entirely trying to pull a punch here and be polite, but I am unsure if you have stated a well read or informed opinion for some pages.  

Failing to understand your enemy is the actual sin you're trying to accuse me of.  It's not that I doubt the Russians are capable, but strictly placing them side by side with what they'd be facing, coming to the conclusion they would not engage in suicide tactics (effectively your words, not mine) to accomplish modest goals such as a delay or a mere five cargo ships of dozens if not hundreds sunk seems to be giving the Russians less a rational actor status, and more than of an implacable video game villain who only exists to fight with all of his assets right now because the player has arrived and it is time for total fight of final destruction.

You don't understand a long game.  Putin is not going for broke on the Ukraine, it's a limited objective that might lead to a limited war.  He still has other wars to fight down the road, or at least a credible threat to pose.  Defanging that threat, even with a victory does not make any reasonable amount of sense, and simply repeating Putin is a moron for not fighting how you would expect him to should not be mistaken for persuasive reasoning.

Also just because I'm me:

 

General Lloyd Fredendall of whom one of his contemapories General Truscott said "Small in stature, loud and rough in speech, he was outspoken in his opinions and critical of superiors and subordinates alike. He was inclined to jump to conclusions which were not always well founded. Fredendall rarely left his command post for personal visits and reconnaissance, yet he was impatient with the recommendations of subordinates more familiar with the terrain and other conditions than he.[2]" Underestimated Rommel and indeed considered incompetent by some of the British generals he worked qwith. Including General Anderson. Did not listen to the advice given him by those who had fought the Germans and Irwin Rommel before Walked into the well known disaster at Kasserine Pass

I generally hung out in my CP for paperwork purposes, or to give the troops some breathing room.  No one likes it when their boss hovers (on the other hand if you want to put emphasis that this job is important, showing up and hanging out for three hours sends the message "THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT" which can be useful).  I also liked to think of myself as a first peer, or someone who's job was to lead than a position innately superior to my subordinates because inspite of being awesome (because I am) my senior NCOs had several times my time in service and I respected their opinions (I still had to tell them to go pound sand a few times, but I wanted to at least have them understand why they had to pound sand).  Even my new LTs might see something I didn't or have a good idea (infrequently, but it happens, and it also let me better educate them on why their overtly good idea might not be so).

This is because I understand the importance of the Hegelian Dialectic (it is the only thing that gives my time in Poli Sci 333 meaning).  Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  Input, challenge to input, input revised after challenge.  I have received your antithesis.  There is nothing to show that the Russians posses the numbers, training, or readiness to overwhelm a CAP without incurring crippling losses.  There is nothing to show the Russians will sacrifice having an air force to accomplish a limited objective war.  I researched the disparity between forces, and observing the commitment of Russian forces to Georgia it indicates a conservative long game minded sort of warfare.  The Russian hybrid form of warfare also indicates an unwillingness to commit strategic, high value assets to a fight unless they would be decisive, instead relying on cheaper alternatives or mitigation measures over direct combat.  

You have instead replied with Red Storm Rising and how the Soviets would fight, despite there being a 20+ year absence of Soviet Union.  Simply pointing out military cases of hubris does not negate that, or negate the fact I am not a single voice in thinking you are off base, but instead one of several, some professional military, some well educated civilians. Unless there's a specific reason why you're a superior civilian, I have to question why your opinion is more valid than theirs.  Perhaps some proof besides calling Saddam a moron would be in order?

 

And regarding Desert Storm I was, as any history buff would know, referring to the period immediately after the invasion of Kuwait (August/September 1990)when, as we knew at the time and as the historical accounts tell us there were grave concerns in regard off a possible Iraqi attack into Saudi Arabia.  In the case of the Kuwait War Saddam could have at least attempted to attack into Saudi Arabia between August and early October to at least disrupt the buildup. He might have lost militarily but it is possible he could have won politically by inflicting such heavy losses as to sap will on the US home front to a such an extent that anti war demonstrations forced the government to quit. That is how you win wars against the US. Jeez I kind of expected you to KNOW this - it is part of US military history and you probably studied it at West Point - so I should not need to tell you this! Jeez!

Saddam did attempt a disrupting attack in early 1991 that failed rather miserably largely due to forces already in region, learning a classic lesson about attacking without air superiority and the limits of LAAD.   And he lost two divisions for it.

But that isn't what we're talking about.  We're discussing why Saddam chose to fly his planes, or bury them in future conflicts instead of destroying them inflicting delays or even tactical reverses on US forces.  The ADA situation wasn't much better than it is now in 1991, the Vulcan* and Chaparral were crappy stop gap systems and wouldn't have done much in the event of a total Iraqi commitment to attacking the various cantonments.  Chemical weapons in an opening attack certainly would have delivered the results that you think would have knocked the US out of the war.  

It is the analysis of a lazy man to call someone a moron.  Virtually everyone has an internal logic, and leads, even marginal leaders rarely make choices that are "stupid" and more frequently choices that are misinformed or follow an internal logic divorced from reality.  However in conducting an analysis worthy of being taken serious, you simply must start from "this was an idea that makes sense" and work towards "actually that idea was rubbish."  There's reasons why Saddam's flying his air force and attempting to send his navy to Iran were not good ideas, but why would someone savvy enough to rule over an entire country not see the obvious Lucas endorsed choice to instead sortie all of those assets either in a strike to delay a build up, or use them later to conduct CAS?

*Rumor has it however, it was a great anti-sniper platform


Addendum:

I am envious in regards to F-14 and A-6 watching.  Beautiful birds.  There was a boy scout camp I used to go to that was under whatever military approved low flight corridor there was for Whidby Island (EA-6Bs) and the Oregon Air Guard (I think it was F-16s, might have been F-15s though) on their way to whatever exercises they did on their way to the East side of Washington state.  You'd just be minding your own business, then sorta hear a jet noise and before you knew it some black blur was on its way to do something awesome with all the heavy metal thunder jets are capable of.

It was pretty awesome.

Edited February 9, 2016 by panzersaurkrautwerfer
F-14s are sexy.

[Doc844]

In regards to Iraq 1990-91 Saddam was kind of knackered all round, not because he was stupid, far from it, he was a very clever man.  His main gambit for winning was for a political resolution, as in we are here now in Kuwait what u gonna do about it.  Except he misread the entire political fallout from his actions and so was left in a predicament.  Withdraw and be toppled from the inside, attack during US build up and get wiped out in a battle of manoeuvre or do as he did and sit still in fixed defensive positions and hope for the best.

 

As it turned it, his was probably the best option.  He managed to save his best divisions and using state controlled propaganda he was able to spin it for the vast majority of Iraqis as a victory, without American ground troops the Kurds took a kicking and he stayed in power for another 12 years until we went back in and finished the job.

 

So in regards to Putin/Atlantic foray what does he do surge the fleet and 100% loose it for minimal gains or keep it close and hope for the best.  People are still people no matter what position they hold.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Doc844

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Uh. Saddam and his forces did do an attack into Saudi Arabia. A limited attack along the coast. Actually its pretty famous.  And they got beaten back pretty badly. They occupied the city and some Marines holed up and hid iirc and then the airpower came up along with Saudi ground forces. Just look up the Battle of Khafji. Geez Lucas I didnt even finish my history degree and I know this.  I have to say almost all your references such as Varus and the 19th century Indian War references are well.. silly. And making this so personal instead of simply saying I was wrong or declining comment just looks silly on your part.  I mean if we were to draw analogies it.d be akin to you in the Fuhrer bunker in late April 1945 insisting on the Russian naval spectre while a coalition who agrees you.re wrong shells bombs and overruns your nation.

As far as ships my father was the USAF NATO liason officer in Norfolk in the late 90s. So he somehow finagled us officers passes for a family day cruise on the Enterprise which was mind boggling huge. Really cool stuff. A6s dropping dummy bombs on a buoy.  An F14 did a sonic boom right past the carrier at about 500 ft ASL was one of the most impressive things I ever have seen. Of course my father was full of derision having started his career in USAF F4Ds

Did you not read my post??? i specifically stated the period August and September 1990at which time it was greatly feared an attack would take place but it never did.Read for example Certain VictoryBrig Gen Robert E Scales, XVIII Airborne Corps in Desert Storm : from Planning to Victory Charles Lane Tooney, With particular reference to the EARLY phase of the crisis AUGUST - OCTOBER 1990 Nothing to do with the spoiling attack at Khafji or those elsewhere along the Saudi i=and Kuwaiti border  which took place during the active Operations of Desert Storm

Jeez I was actually completing my History degree while the Gulf War was actually being fought. As it happens I was on vacation in Lucerne Switzerland  in early August 1990 when the news of the Iraqi invasion actually broke

And regarding Varus, Fetterman, Custer etc you are again deliberately missing my point which is this. Military history is replete with examples of arrogant soldiers who ignored the opinions of others and consequently led the men under their commands to famous (or infamous military disasters. A point only a bloody fool would ignore.I might have added the very obvious point that very often commanders have badly underestimated the Russians and that has caused some of the most famous disasters in military history.

Now, all you gentlemen have to do is acknowledge that I do in fact have a valid point in regard of possible Russian strategy even if you don't agree and even if that strategy probably would not work. I don't think it would either, t least not for very long. Any Russian surface elements out and about in the ~Mediterranean have had it anyway. So they might as well either surrender and be interned or they can have a go at a US Carrier, hope they can do some serious damage and go down fighting

[AttorneyAtWar]

Now, all you gentlemen have to do is acknowledge that I do in fact have a valid point in regard of possible Russian strategy even if you don't agree and even if that strategy probably would not work. I don't think it would either, t least not for very long. Any Russian surface elements out and about in the ~Mediterranean have had it anyway. So they might as well either surrender and be interned or they can have a go at a US Carrier, hope they can do some serious damage and go down fighting

Your idea of a "strategy" is simply suicide for Russian forces, they know it better than you don't worry.

There is no conceivable way that Russia would want to escalate the conflict any further than they have to because they know those assets won't last long and as much as a jerk Putin is he definitely doesn't want World War 3 2016 edition.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

 

Nah.  I got burned out on WOT and War Thunder.  Also Xcom 2 and Fallout 4 are still recent enough that my game playing preferences are pretty fixated on those two.  Looks cool, but I don't know if I'll ever get into it.

Re: Lucas

 

I am entirely capable of agreeing with well read informed civilian opinions, and have done so several times on this thread.  I am entirely trying to pull a punch here and be polite, but I am unsure if you have stated a well read or informed opinion for some pages.  

Failing to understand your enemy is the actual sin you're trying to accuse me of.  It's not that I doubt the Russians are capable, but strictly placing them side by side with what they'd be facing, coming to the conclusion they would not engage in suicide tactics (effectively your words, not mine) to accomplish modest goals such as a delay or a mere five cargo ships of dozens if not hundreds sunk seems to be giving the Russians less a rational actor status, and more than of an implacable video game villain who only exists to fight with all of his assets right now because the player has arrived and it is time for total fight of final destruction.

You don't understand a long game.  Putin is not going for broke on the Ukraine, it's a limited objective that might lead to a limited war.  He still has other wars to fight down the road, or at least a credible threat to pose.  Defanging that threat, even with a victory does not make any reasonable amount of sense, and simply repeating Putin is a moron for not fighting how you would expect him to should not be mistaken for persuasive reasoning.

Also just because I'm me:

 

I generally hung out in my CP for paperwork purposes, or to give the troops some breathing room.  No one likes it when their boss hovers (on the other hand if you want to put emphasis that this job is important, showing up and hanging out for three hours sends the message "THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT" which can be useful).  I also liked to think of myself as a first peer, or someone who's job was to lead than a position innately superior to my subordinates because inspite of being awesome (because I am) my senior NCOs had several times my time in service and I respected their opinions (I still had to tell them to go pound sand a few times, but I wanted to at least have them understand why they had to pound sand).  Even my new LTs might see something I didn't or have a good idea (infrequently, but it happens, and it also let me better educate them on why their overtly good idea might not be so).

This is because I understand the importance of the Hegelian Dialectic (it is the only thing that gives my time in Poli Sci 333 meaning).  Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  Input, challenge to input, input revised after challenge.  I have received your antithesis.  There is nothing to show that the Russians posses the numbers, training, or readiness to overwhelm a CAP without incurring crippling losses.  There is nothing to show the Russians will sacrifice having an air force to accomplish a limited objective war.  I researched the disparity between forces, and observing the commitment of Russian forces to Georgia it indicates a conservative long game minded sort of warfare.  The Russian hybrid form of warfare also indicates an unwillingness to commit strategic, high value assets to a fight unless they would be decisive, instead relying on cheaper alternatives or mitigation measures over direct combat.  

You have instead replied with Red Storm Rising and how the Soviets would fight, despite there being a 20+ year absence of Soviet Union.  Simply pointing out military cases of hubris does not negate that, or negate the fact I am not a single voice in thinking you are off base, but instead one of several, some professional military, some well educated civilians. Unless there's a specific reason why you're a superior civilian, I have to question why your opinion is more valid than theirs.  Perhaps some proof besides calling Saddam a moron would be in order?

 

Saddam did attempt a disrupting attack in early 1991 that failed rather miserably largely due to forces already in region, learning a classic lesson about attacking without air superiority and the limits of LAAD.   And he lost two divisions for it.

But that isn't what we're talking about.  We're discussing why Saddam chose to fly his planes, or bury them in future conflicts instead of destroying them inflicting delays or even tactical reverses on US forces.  The ADA situation wasn't much better than it is now in 1991, the Vulcan* and Chaparral were crappy stop gap systems and wouldn't have done much in the event of a total Iraqi commitment to attacking the various cantonments.  Chemical weapons in an opening attack certainly would have delivered the results that you think would have knocked the US out of the war.  

It is the analysis of a lazy man to call someone a moron.  Virtually everyone has an internal logic, and leads, even marginal leaders rarely make choices that are "stupid" and more frequently choices that are misinformed or follow an internal logic divorced from reality.  However in conducting an analysis worthy of being taken serious, you simply must start from "this was an idea that makes sense" and work towards "actually that idea was rubbish."  There's reasons why Saddam's flying his air force and attempting to send his navy to Iran were not good ideas, but why would someone savvy enough to rule over an entire country not see the obvious Lucas endorsed choice to instead sortie all of those assets either in a strike to delay a build up, or use them later to conduct CAS?

*Rumor has it however, it was a great anti-sniper platform


Addendum:

I am envious in regards to F-14 and A-6 watching.  Beautiful birds.  There was a boy scout camp I used to go to that was under whatever military approved low flight corridor there was for Whidby Island (EA-6Bs) and the Oregon Air Guard (I think it was F-16s, might have been F-15s though) on their way to whatever exercises they did on their way to the East side of Washington state.  You'd just be minding your own business, then sorta hear a jet noise and before you knew it some black blur was on its way to do something awesome with all the heavy metal thunder jets are capable of.

It was pretty awesome.

Again not reading my post which specifically stated the period August to September 1990. At that point, as every history f the Gulf War I have read agrees Saddam had he best chance of unleashing an attack that would have been very hard for 18th Airborne Corps and the Marines to deal with As you know there was very little thee at that time to oppose Iraqi armoured attacks Have you read either Certain Victory or XVIII Airborne Corps in Desert Storm,? An early Iraqi attack could have done serious damage . I know there were probably good political and military reasons such an attack never came but, at the time, it was widely feared by the media and, according to the histories of the war, by the US military as well

And I was in fact referring to Saddam Hussein as a "strategic moron" Something many people have said, not just me. Including a certain General Norman Schwartzkopf of whom I am sure you have heard.

Now as regards Putin's options. essentially in this scenario he has once he has started the war

1 The Bastion Strategy. Essentially this means the Russian navy sits back defensively in the Black Sea and in its bases i the Russian arctic. There like the Kaiser's navy 1914 - 1918 it will contribute little o nothing of vlue. Worse, the failure or inability to prevent he flow of US reinforcements over the Atlantic wlll only hasten Russian defeat. In fact it will likely make that defeat all the more certain

2 A more offensive strategy. Let's face it any Russian surface fleet elements out in the Atlantic o in the Mediterranean have had it anyway. They are going to be unceremoniously sunk or they will have to surrender and be interned, So they might as have a go at something like a US Carrier Group. If they manage to get the first short it is just possible tat they could do some damage, Even severe damage or a "mission kill" on a US Carrier, though very hard to achieve would be a significant contribution and would be of significant use to Moscow's plans. A lot more could be accomplished with naval mines at critical choke points like the Dardanelles and by the use of submarines. Plus of course air attack employing long range ASMs

Option 2 is the option I suggest is best for the Russians. It is at least a more active approach that has same possibility of damaging and delaying US reinforcements. Maybe only for a few days but a few days might be all the Russian land forces need to accomplish their mission. Then Moscow can try to get their ceasefire and end the war fast on their terms which, as we all agree is Putin's best chance of winning 

[Sublime]

And regarding arrogant you have the benefit of hindsight. Saddam did try to draw coalition forces into fighting by shelling positions etc. Khafji happened before the ground war had started only the air campaign was happening.

Also Saddam did some clever moves like almost forcing Israel to retaliate which would have destroyed the Arab part of the coalition against him. Not that moronic.

And also given at the time perceptions of the US - how it handled Vietnam and the Iranian hostage crisis especially - one could easily see Saddam thinking we.d endlessly negotiate or do ineffectual Rolling Thunder esque bombing. If you.re not American you wont remember the absolute patriotic bonanza that followed the first Gulf War partially because an almost subtle feeling that the US military had decisively won a war and regained prestige lost in SE Asia.

Its easy to monday morning quarterback Saddam now, the situation wasnt so cut and dried back then. Now the refusal in the last 48 hrs to take his money and get asylum in Switzerland with his sons seems dumb in Gulf War 2 and he certainly should have done it. However you dont account for the insane loss of face which would be unthinkable to a dictator who.d reigned so long.

Finally its proven fact Iraq had chemical weapons before during and after GW1. After GW2 itt becomes murky however I do remember reports of small stocks of chem weapons being found and I also recall an IED in Iraq went off that had sarin in it. However the chemicals ti make it lethal needed to spiral in flight from being shot out of a cannon so it didnt instantly kill the US troops hit who were treated and survived. However the poison gas indicators definitaly went off. However by GW2 these were only odds n sods of stuff apmost certainly tje majority was destroyed or given to Iran or buried somewhere and the people who buried it got killed somewhere along the line.

I also certainly am not and do not think that anyone is underestimating Russia or its abilities to cause a lot of US casualties. The capabilities you.ve named really dont exist however and I think ordering the Russian navy into a suicide mission may be met with mutiny. To this day theres reportedly a huge amount of bitterness in tge Russian Navy over the Kursk disaster and Russian refusal to accept Western help which Russian sailors see as only done out of pride and spite and that their comrades could have been saved.

Finally Im sorry but if you had just argued your point  Id still disagree but probably be more inclined to listen but when you actually cited Harpoon the computer game as a source of your 'expertise' along with your dogged refusal to really accept anything but your view and finally your labelling of one of our communities' most knowledgeable people as Varus just makes you hard to take seriously. At all. Anyways yes I read your posts or I wouldnt be able to respond thusly and I suggest instead of working on repeating yourself you open your mind up a little. Any expansion of the war outside of the Ukraine would definitly 100 percent escalate the conflict. Legitimate military targets or not.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Sublime

[LUCASWILLEN05]

In regards to Iraq 1990-91 Saddam was kind of knackered all round, not because he was stupid, far from it, he was a very clever man.  His main gambit for winning was for a political resolution, as in we are here now in Kuwait what u gonna do about it.  Except he misread the entire political fallout from his actions and so was left in a predicament.  Withdraw and be toppled from the inside, attack during US build up and get wiped out in a battle of manoeuvre or do as he did and sit still in fixed defensive positions and hope for the best.

 

As it turned it, his was probably the best option.  He managed to save his best divisions and using state controlled propaganda he was able to spin it for the vast majority of Iraqis as a victory, without American ground troops the Kurds took a kicking and he stayed in power for another 12 years until we went back in and finished the job.

 

So in regards to Putin/Atlantic foray what does he do surge the fleet and 100% loose it for minimal gains or keep it close and hope for the best.  People are still people no matter what position they hold.

His skills as a military strategist have been severely criticized by even his own former military commanders including Hamdani. He also had a bad habit of, as you say, misreading he political situation. In short the man was neither a general nor was he a statesman. His decision to go to war against Iran in 1980 was a serious misjudgement resulting in an 8 year blood bath. The decision  to invade Kuwait was a strategic blunder.

My point however was that Vladimir Putin, a trained and experienced KGB officer and clearly a highly educated man is a very different leader and far more strategically savvy than Saddam ever was. Just look at he way Putin opeates. I don't like him and personally I would consider him, like Bismarck, as essentially evil. And the assessment of Bismarck as evil has been made by historians such as Ascoli in his book A Day of Battle.Certainly there are  lot of people who have compared Putin with both Bismarck and with Hitler. I tend to go more for the Bismarck comparison myseld

[Sublime]

I actually got to see and remember a lot of really cool stuff especially living on and off base in germany in the mid to late 80s pz. I was extremely young but remember some of it very very well. The Norfolk thing was awesome as were some of my dads stories about Roger Lauchert gettn shot down in Vietnam and hiding out in the bush for weeks before getting rescued.

Edit

* and other stories basically about the NVA 72 offensive that the US bombed the bejesus out of.  Also interesting were his opinions on other services and customs, and stories about how in the late 70s stationed at Torrejone *sp?) In Spain he would have been tasked to fly what all his pilots and himself considered a WW3 suicide mission which was basically to fly their F4s nap of the earth to drop tactical nukes on Soviet buildups and staging areas. He remembered well a visceral fear all the pilots had of the shilka and its ability to literally chew an airplane apart in seconds.  He said they always assumed theyd get killed on the one mission and were basically told that even if they made it back the fuel would be a problem and friendly air defenses as well.  I also remember his shocking revelation that for much of that period the US actually only had enough air to air missile stocks in Europe to last about 3 days of combat. *

 Unfortunately Vietnam also destroyed my father psychologically.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Sublime

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I actually got to see and remember a lot of really cool stuff especially living on and off base in germany in the mid to late 80s pz. I was extremely young but remember some of it very very well. The Norfolk thing was awesome as were some of my dads stories about Roger Lauchert gettn shot down in Vietnam and hiding out in the bush for weeks before getting rescued. Unfortunately Vietnam also destroyed my father psychologically.

Sadly war often does that to people. One of my late Aunts from Switzerland married an ex German soldier who fought on he Russian Front. I asked him about it once when I was too young to know better. He only told me a very little and refused to answer most of my questions. Took me years to understand why. And the closest, thankfully, that I have ever come to th real thing is seeing the destruction of the WTC live on the TV news. I never want to see anything like that again. And, compared to what your father and others see or have seen on the battlefield my experience is nothing at all.

I hope your father was able to come to terms with what he experienced to a least some degree. All of us, even civvies like myself, and perhaps civvies in particular must try to be more understanding of the problems our veterans experience thrugh having done the job they did for us. I think we can all agree on that.

[Sublime]

He didnt/hasnt. Hes an alcoholic with some real bad ptsd issues that ineviteably were taken out on those closest to him.

He retired in 06 eternally bitter he never made full bird colonel instead on Lt Col.

We.re no longer in touch for personal reasons.

[Baneman]

Wait, why was Bismarck evil ?

I mean, compared with other Nationalists of that period.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Baneman

[Currahee150]

The Bastion Strategy. Essentially this means the Russian navy sits back defensively in the Black Sea and in its bases i the Russian arctic. There like the Kaiser's navy 1914 - 1918 it will contribute little o nothing of vlue. Worse, the failure or inability to prevent he flow of US reinforcements over the Atlantic wlll only hasten Russian defeat. In fact it will likely make that defeat all the more certain

I don't think you understand what the bastion strategy completely means. It doesn't mean that the Russian navy decides to sit the war out. It means it deploys defensively around its bases  to protect them its boomers from NATO forces. Russian SSGNs are one of the - if not the most - vital assets Russia has. Leaving them vulnerable is unthinkable. And by deploying the entirety of the Russian navy on a suicide mission, you are by default leaving Russia's nuclear trump card vulnerable to eager NATO and US SSNs.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Currahee150

[AttorneyAtWar]

 

My point however was that Vladimir Putin, a trained and experienced KGB officer and clearly a highly educated man is a very different leader and far more strategically savvy than Saddam ever was. Just look at he way Putin opeates. I don't like him and personally I would consider him, like Bismarck, as essentially evil. And the assessment of Bismarck as evil has been made by historians such as Ascoli in his book A Day of Battle.Certainly there are  lot of people who have compared Putin with both Bismarck and with Hitler. I tend to go more for the Bismarck comparison myseld

You don't see the contradiction in what you just wrote?

If you think Putin is a highly educated man who is very smart strategically, why on earth do you think he would engage outside the Ukraine or Baltics to hit NATO at home when all that will bring is destruction/defeat.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Raptorx7

[LUCASWILLEN05]

He didnt/hasnt. Hes an alcoholic with some real bad ptsd issues that ineviteably were taken out on those closest to him.

He retired in 06 eternally bitter he never made full bird colonel instead on Lt Col.

We.re no longer in touch for personal reasons.

That is really sad  :-(

 

[sburke]

lucas, calm down man, it is just a theoretical forum discussion. You do have to wonder why not a single person is agreeing with you unless I missed a post somewhere.  Just agree to disagree. 

Warspite, see there is another fantastic name for a warship. Man just think of the movie line 

oh my god sir, we spotted Warspite and she is bearing down on us!

oh my god sir, we spotted Gerald R Ford and she is bearing down on us!  Hopefully he'll trip - okay yeah I know, that was a cheap spot, but those were the days I watched SNL   

Just not the same  

 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Wait, why was Bismarck evil ?

I mean, compared with other Nationalists of that period.

Read David Ascoli's A Day of Battle. Ascoli argues that the way Bismarck manipulated France into war using the Ems Telegram was an evil act. He just changed a few words and put a whole different spin to get a war that hw wanted at least according to Ascoli's analysis

As for as Bismarck is concerned I studied him 20 years ago when doing my History degree prt of which included Nationalism in 19th Century Europe. Suffice to say I never liked him  but, though I think he was essentially evil the man was nevertheless also a genius as a statesman. It probably required someone like him to complete the unification of Germany. Putin somehow always reminds me of Bismarck. Certainly more so than he does of Hitler.. Having said that some of Putin's methods are reminiscence of those employed by Hitler for example he annexation of Crimea may compare with te Anschluss with Austria and the Sudetenland Crisis.

I suspect future historians will be debating this one long after we are all dead and gone.

[sburke]

And just to totally go off topic, Putin is not that smart. He is just real good at the kind of thug politics it takes to run a criminal enterprise. If he was all that smart, he'd have done something with the Russian economy while Oil was high. Russians will look back on his tenure as the lost years of opportunity. He has cost the Russian people so much it is hard to know just how bad the long term impact will be. It is truly heartbreaking to see the entire future of a country mortgaged for so little. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

You don't see the contradiction in what you just wrote?

If you think Putin is a highly educated man who is very smart strategically, why on earth do you think he would engage outside the Ukraine or Baltics to hit NATO at home when all that will bring is destruction?

Putin is for one thing human and thus can make mistakes.

Secondly and more importantly you need to consider Putin's aims and objectives such as the Eurasian project, rebuilding the Soviet Union/Russian Empire etc.

The point I have been trying to make to people here fr days is that, in the CMBS scenario Russia has already got into a war with NATO and will therefore take steps to win that war. Look a the way the US acts when it has gone to war against Iraq, Serbia or Islamic State. Why can Putin not take the same kinds of actions when he goes to war. In fact he does. Just look at what h Russian airstrikes conducted n behalf of Russia's client/ally in Damascus. f Russia in our hypothetical war reasonably restricts targeting to military/military related targets NATO will do the same. Do you seriously think that in this scenario NATO will not be hitting Russian air bases, ports, command centers, perhaps even power supplies and infrastructure - as has been done in previous campaigns such as Iraq, Kossovo or the current action against IS

Why can't intelligent people like you understand that or are you simply refusing to do so for the sake of prolongijng the argument?

[AttorneyAtWar]

 

Why can't intelligent people like you understand that or are you simply refusing to do so for the sake of prolongijng the argument?

Irony.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

And just to totally go off topic, Putin is not that smart. He is just real good at the kind of thug politics it takes to run a criminal enterprise. If he was all that smart, he'd have done something with the Russian economy while Oil was high. Russians will look back on his tenure as the lost years of opportunity. He has cost the Russian people so much it is hard to know just how bad the long term impact will be. It is truly heartbreaking to see the entire future of a country mortgaged for so little. 

Like Bismarck. In terms of what he is trying to do and the methods the chooses to do it the man is smart. In the same way that Al Capone can b seen as a smart gangster. I agree the ma is a deeply unpleasant thug but that does not make him a fool. Were he to achieve his aims however historians would remember him as they do Bismarck. Should he fail he will be seen in an entirely different light as you say. The History books on this one are yet to be written but I think we can safely say that our time wil l be a highly controversial period of study for future history students. There will be many views and controversies about Vladimir Putin

[LUCASWILLEN05]

lucas, calm down man, it is just a theoretical forum discussion. You do have to wonder why not a single person is agreeing with you unless I missed a post somewhere.  Just agree to disagree. 

Warspite, see there is another fantastic name for a warship. Man just think of the movie line 

oh my god sir, we spotted Warspite and she is bearing down on us!

oh my god sir, we spotted Gerald R Ford and she is bearing down on us!  Hopefully he'll trip - okay yeah I know, that was a cheap spot, but those were the days I watched SNL   

Just not the same  

 

Ever heard of Groupthink????

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

As it turned it, his was probably the best option.  He managed to save his best divisions and using state controlled propaganda he was able to spin it for the vast majority of Iraqis as a victory, without American ground troops the Kurds took a kicking and he stayed in power for another 12 years until we went back in and finished the job.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.  Offer void outside of my immediate area.

High value, high cost equipment is rarely well spent on suicide missions, and Putin has the next few decades of his rule to worry about.  Losing the Russian Air Force, and Navy for the Ukraine is not a good trade, especially considering a major escalation all but ensures it's the Ukrainian campaign of the Third World War, instead of the Ukrainian conflict.


And now onto your regular Lucas stuff:

 

With particular reference to the EARLY phase of the crisis AUGUST - OCTOBER 1990

Would have been interesting, but looking at the outcome of the battle, it was the sort of forces on hand for August-October 1990.  And would have ensured a rematch while totally precluding the diplomatic outcome Saddam believed (not without reason) was distinctly possible.  Again, brush up on Clausewitz.  War is a continuation of politics by other means.  Which is to ignore the political element of war at your own peril.  If your key goal is to make war unattractive, and costly enough to quit, you have to make quitting viable.  Launching a new push into Saudi Arabia in August-October alienates a lot of Arab states Saddam was trying to court, and destroying the Arab element of the Coalition would have been devastating to the allied war effort (as Saddam astutely observed, and tried to do so by getting Israel to intervene).

Again one dimensional counting of divisions misses the point.  Limited wars especially demand a higher level of attention to the "soft" or "long" consequences, of which I would expect someone with a history background to understand.  

 

And regarding Varus, Fetterman, Custer etc you are again deliberately missing my point which is this. 

I just didn't find it held water.  I've firmly established that I do listen to other opinions, and went to elaborate I value outside opinions.  Arrogant is likely the most unlikely of adjectives my peers would apply to me.  I am not alone in my beliefs in regards to air defense given the whole US military, including the air defense insitution itself displays a disinterest in LAAD or SHORAD type weapons systems, and again I challenge you to show where a few small missiles or some automatic cannons would make a difference in a battle where the largest most powerful air force, and amazingly capable ABM level air defense systems have failed.  A new ADA platform is silly and rightly was canned with ADATS at the end of the cold war.  You have not demonstrated where LAAD was an effective piece of a defensive system, while instead showing lots of times where the more decisive and relevant piece of IADS was larger PATRIOT type systems backed by air intercept.  


Re: Russian Navy

They are going to be unceremoniously sunk or they will have to surrender and be interned, So they might as have a go at something like a US Carrier Group.

Wat?  In a localized regional conflict, there is precisely zero chance that NATO is going on an offensive and will dictate such terms.  Also effectively to accomplish mission, NATO just has to not have any sort of threat from the Russian fleet.  If the Russian fleet stays home, it is not an objective worth braving some very major ADA over Russian soil for.  The only way the Russians actually lose their Navy is if they do exactly as you seem to think they MUST do.  Which is silly.

Re: Saddam

 

His skills as a military strategist have been severely criticized by even his own former military commanders including Hamdani. He also had a bad habit of, as you say, misreading he political situation. In short the man was neither a general nor was he a statesman. His decision to go to war against Iran in 1980 was a serious misjudgement resulting in an 8 year blood bath. The decision  to invade Kuwait was a strategic blunder.

Only if you're monday morning quarterbacking.  Also Hamdani is a poor source, you see the same thing with the Egyptian Army in defeat, it wasn't the military failing it was the political leader's fault.  

If you're Saddam and you're sitting in the Saddam seat, you'd likely have made the same choices.  Iran was weak in 1980.  Saddam failed to appreciate the fact his attack would be the one thing to unify Iran, but so too did Putin fail to understand that while the Ukraine was disjointed and weak, the one thing it needed to turn around, unify and defend itself was Russians showing up in green suits and parking BTR's with "peacekeeper!" painted on it on the border.  Saddam's judgement on Kuwait was done from an understanding bolstered by interactions with other Sunni states, and again, it's really easy to look back now and say he was a dumby, but hard to do if you're in Saddam shoes in 1991.

Also in regards to his being a moron, he seriously underestimated the lethality of US forces.  So did the USSR, China, and other regional forces, which led to a collective mind losing in those nations.  He made a lot of the same choices, and assumptions other world leaders did at the time.  It just happened his led to an output worse than others.  

Which is not to claim Saddam is a master genius of all things, he made some pretty major mistakes.  But for someone who harps about underestimating people, Lucas sure is good at it.  

[sburke]

Lol Lucas stop already man. There are a lot of reasons we disagree with you and you don't seem to hear those either. 

One item I think fundamentally we disagree on is the definition of winning. No way, no how is Putin winning a military victory. His goal to win is survival and an ability to still influence events. The core I think of disagreement is where escalation becomes a matter of diminishing returns. Saddam and Putin had/have the same issue. They simply do not have the resources to match an escalation so the process of escalation is one they have to studiously avoid. Your strategy at all phases is a constant escalation far beyond the point of diminishing returns in the view of most other participants in this discussion.  The back story we have is a situation where we have to theorize, Putin feels an opportunity to destabilize and forestall the Ukrainian gov't developing a closer relationship to the west. Period. The limited objectives of that war make taking any risky steps to directly attack any NATO forces outside Ukraine counter to keeping the conflict localized and therefore completely counter to the goals of the offensive. That is why I personally think there is no case for your strategy and your comparison to Saddam is flawed. Saddam was facing invasion, Putin is only facing the failure of an offensive on Ukrainian territory. There is absolutely no reason to go all in and every reason not to. 

Damn okay I got drawn back in. Oh well talking ship names was not really going to last much longer anyway.