Jump to content

SC and Tommy Franks.


Recommended Posts

Please Note: This posting is not intended to in any way trivialize what the fighting troops are going through nor is it meant to make light of the inherent suffering always brought about by warfare. This War perhaps more than most others because the Iraqi citizens have already suffered -- and in many instances continue to suffer -- under their own regime. The taking of families as hostiges and the use of women and children as human shields can't be made light of. No War is good and I hope this one ends quickly (with Saddam's regime ousted, of course.) Nor is it meant as an armchair general opinion of the strategies and tactics being employed, none of which are viewed in an opinionated sense. It is intended only as an observation regarding reality as perceived in the most abstract of forms.


Watching a retired general on television outlining the Iraq war on a large map, usinging a pointer to indicate land areas in fifty mile parcels located West, South West and South of Baghdad, looking almost like hexes, made me think of how it would be done in game terms.

Hit 'em hard off the Gulf with Aircraft Carriers, secure the ports, isolate the main objective and reduce it gradually with further carrier strikes.

Move inland quickly, approach the strong point/capital with caution, pound it from the air, surround it, keep reducing the defenders with bombardment and air strikes, only attacking when their entrenchments and fortifications have been negated and their stregnth / readiness have been brought down below half stregnth . . . ..

Does any of this sound familiar?

In an abstract way the War's strategy is very similar the SC game appraoch.

Though many of us, myself included, have questioned whether the air force and aircraft carrier components are too strong in WW II terms, this tragic event (please remember opening note) demonstrates in theoretical military terms the basic soundness of Hubert's strategic game system.

[ April 01, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think that American's do a good job when their interests are involved<having lived around Army and Airforce bases for 26 years> I know more than most about what people joining up think what their lives are like. They tend to believe it's just a form of income sometimes, that no war or loss is tied up into it. We've had so few Wars since Nam that it kinda seems that way almost and even the Gulf with such low losses...Though realize these people are really concerned about their loved ones, I was and my father served in Desert Storm so I remeber it wasn't a comfortable feeling. We expected a lot more chemical explosions and death then we got...

Now even it's proven that the American military is such a high tech fighting machine vs these 1946-like tanks and conventional armies that they can't even really get a shot off unless it's a sucker shot... So carriers are really of no consequence, if we had airfields we could do just as much damage. They're kind of like modern floating HeadQuarters. Also since countries over seas are very unfriendly towards us we need them even still. Despite the increasing range of fighter, bomber aircraft...

I like the fact that America is freeing the poor oppressed Iraqis. Their leaders are borderline Stalinists. They're are many other countries that need a hand from their Dictatorships and Tolitarian regimes. We should be at the forefront of freeing the world. Our awesome AirPower and high tech units are a perfect striking force. Here in SC we combine the power of #s vs tech...Even though in history you can be beyond, but not that far beyond...You can't use bow and arrows to defeat file quality rifles. As in this modern time and during WW2... It made a huge difference, when Germany plowed through Poland and although people might think that German Armor was superior it was not! French and British Armor was the equivelant if not better and their fighters were even match for the 109... They merely lacked the #s, and or proper leadership to defend against a German onslaught. They didn't believe they needed to rush into service so many of these modern weapons though they had them. Their modern weapons were better aside from artillery...

Carriers weren't as important in European battles from what I've heard, the Brits were godo at modifying recon planes as anti-sub planes and I don't recall many incidences in history of Brit Carrier engaging a home fleet of German fighters<as Carriers have less yeild> it would be very costly for them!

I think that America should continue to police the World, it's obvious the Other countries after Yugoslavia are lacking<and hypocrits> Although it will probably not extend past our sphere of interest<money>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...