question on military tactics

[Erwin Rommel]

I dont think Iraq will have the capability to use Chem/Bio weapons on his own people even if he wanted to.It would take a large artillery contingent and or missles to deliver enough to do any real damage.His other option would be to use the existing helicopters and gunships as sprayers as he has done in the past.

I believe the united States first priority would be to lauch a massive air campaign as was done in the first war and also in Afghanistan before any ground forces would be sent in.So Iraqs artillery,Aircraft,Missles would be main targets hopefully making Husseins use of them as platforms for Chem/Bio weapons a non factor.

As for his tactics against the US.I see no possibility of a toe to toe engagement as his Army is ill trained in the full use of what they have.The T-72's and such that he has are deadly weapons but only if used by a well trained crew.Still no match for our M1's and such but if properly used could still cause numerous casualties.His only hope would be to hole up in the cities and wait.But I dont think his Army will be willing to face a second war against us.The Republican Guard may put up a fight as they did in the frst war but the average sodier I feel will not want to fight after what they went through against us before.However this is just my humble opinion and two cents worth.

[laxx]

['nzn]:

care to clarify repeated attempts to compare soviet-german situation in the 40s to todays us-iraq situation ?

if you re-read my initial post, i am asking about military tactics to in built-up areas anf not implying that "stalin was doin some bad thing to the world trying to fend off hitlers invasion in russia".

sheesh....lighten up.

[murpes]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

this is the page link:

*** ews/Opinio n

sorry for the long link I can't fix it :confused:

Courtesy of Make a Shorter Link:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z23A12DF2

[laxx]

interesting article. iraq has 6 elite division and 10 regular divison, making it a total of about 100,000 men for the defense of baghdad.

----

Two-layer defense for Baghdad

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Iraqi military forces are setting up a two-layer defense ring around Baghdad in preparation for U.S. military action, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Planning of the defense perimeters has been under way since November and involves the deployment of units from the regular Iraqi army and the Republican Guard in an outer ring around the Iraqi capital.

A closer defense ring is being set up using troops and forces belonging to the Special Republican Guard. Those units are assigned with leadership protection, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The Iraqi military believes that U.S. and allied forces will break through the first ring but be held back by the inner ring's better-trained and better-equipped Special Republican Guard, the officials said.

Baghdad's deployments indicate that a key element of the Iraqi war strategy is to draw U.S. and allied forces toward the capital, where urban fighting could prove difficult and lead to high military and civilian casualties, the officials said.

Disclosure of the Iraqi defense preparations coincided with Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's Army Day speech in which he declared that his country was prepared for war and said U.N. arms inspectors are U.S. spies.

"The enemy will be defeated disgracefully," Saddam said in a taped speech broadcast on Iraqi television. "When the enemy comes as an aggressor, the victory will go to the people of right when they are inside their homeland."

President Bush responded by saying that it doesn't look like Saddam wants to comply with the U.N. Security Council's demand to surrender any weapons of mass destruction, "but he's got time."

The U.N. inspectors' first report is due Jan. 27. Administration officials have said Mr. Bush will review the report before deciding whether to pursue war with Iraq.

The establishment of two defense perimeters is one of several recent signs of Iraqi military preparations. In September, two Republican Guard units were moved from bases to less vulnerable sites in Iraq.

Other signs include construction of earthen barriers, the dispersal of ammunition and the movement of surface-to-air missile batteries. Military experts said the Iraqis plan to trap U.S. and allied forces, which under current plans would begin a ground invasion after extended bombing raids. The double perimeter may be designed to draw U.S. and allied forces toward Baghdad and then conduct artillery attacks on them using shells filled with chemical and biological weapons.

The attacks would make it difficult for the United States to retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons without causing large-scale civilian casualties.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis said the dual defense rings would serve two purposes: keep foreign troops from reaching the capital and prevent defecting Iraqi forces from attacking the city.

"If there is penetration of the outer ring, that will be overcome to a certain degree by better defenses dug by the Golden Division," a Special Republican Guard unit that has orders to protect Saddam and high-value targets such as chemical and biological weapons, Col. Maginnis said.

"I don't put a lot of credence to the outer ring," Col. Maginnis aid. "But it's the inner ring and the paramilitary forces scattered around the city that are going to be the real problem."

Col. Maginnis said he believes that the Iraqi military's loyalty is questionable.

"I believe that given the right circumstances, most Iraqi forces will collapse," he said. "We have to get behind the scene and contact the commanders covertly."

Anthony Cordesman, a military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said urban warfare in Iraq would be a dangerous trap for U.S. forces.

"Extended urban warfare would create major military and civilian casualties on both sides, and greatly increase civilian casualties and collateral damage," Mr. Cordesman said in a recent report.

"The situation would be particularly serious if Iraqi forces throughout the country maintained control of all urban areas and rallied to Saddam for nationalistic or other reasons."

Col. Maginnis said Iraq's military has been working on defensive positions for years and skillfully uses decoy forces that are designed to make U.S. air power waste limited precision-guided bombs and missiles on wooden

silhouettes of tanks or other weapons.

"Unless we have up-to-the-minute data and are watching very closely the movement of decoys, we're not going to know where his guns are," Col. Maginnis said of the Iraqi leader.

Mr. Cordesman estimated that Iraq has six Republican Guard divisions, each with 6,400 to 8,000 troops. They include four Special Republican Guard brigades of several thousand troops each.

The regular army has about 10 divisions with 5,600 to 7,000 troops each, including three armored divisions and three mechanized infantry divisions, Mr. Cordesman said.

Former U.N. arms inspector Scott Ritter said the battle for "Greater Baghdad" would begin as U.S. ground forces approach the cities of Baiji in the north, Ramadi in the west and Suweira-Kut to the south of the city. All are fortified with Iraqi forces.

"These positions represent the geographic reach of Greater Baghdad, and it is here that Saddam's plan of urban-oriented defense would probably begin," Mr. Ritter said.

At Baiji, about 800 Iraqi Special Republican Guard forces have been building up ground and air defenses at an underground complex in the Jabal Makhul mountains. One of Saddam's presidential palaces is located in the complex.

According to Mr. Ritter, any military operation against Baghdad will require knocking out the Baiji defenses.

"As long as the Iraqis hold Jabal Makhul, any invasion force coming from the north will have to move westward, into the desert, to bypass the defenders, thus extending lines of communication and complicating logistical support,"

Mr. Ritter wrote in a recent journal article.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030107-205279.htm

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by Erwin Rommel:

I dont think Iraq will have the capability to use Chem/Bio weapons on his own people even if he wanted to.It would take a large artillery contingent and or missles to deliver enough to do any real damage.His other option would be to use the existing helicopters and gunships as sprayers as he has done in the past.

I believe the united States first priority would be to lauch a massive air campaign as was done in the first war and also in Afghanistan before any ground forces would be sent in.So Iraqs artillery,Aircraft,Missles would be main targets hopefully making Husseins use of them as platforms for Chem/Bio weapons a non factor.

large landmines? since 91 Iraq has developed a mobile MRL cluster rocket launcher....such a mobile (small) wpn system may be hard to locate and destroy (scud mobile launchers where hard to locate but we have moved on a decade).... chem warheads "may" have been developed for this sysytem (unlikley)..artillery operating from urban aras using civilian population as sheild is more likley...... but yes delivery is the Iraqi's big problem..most tenable delivery systems are highly targetable by US airpower......

again Iraqi threat over blown?

the real question is not how the US/UK coalition wins the war but what happens after they do?....is such a "victory" desirable or benefical?

Boris

London

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by laxx:

"The situation would be particularly serious if Iraqi forces throughout the country maintained control of all urban areas and rallied to Saddam for nationalistic or other reasons."

It has parallels...German invasion of Soviet Union /Ukranine was welcomed as liberation..yet mistreatment of civilian population played into Stalins hands...will Iraqi population consider the last 10 yrs of sanctions and betrayal by BUSH snr in 91 (when he called for an uprising) in a similar way...or does access to more sophisticated media make the Iraqi population less prone to Nationalistic urges/manipulation?

my hunch is that Iraqi forces will colapse except for a few pockets and defeat of Saddam may be easirer than worst case scenario.

....post conflict...we may find we are policing a new palestian still issue with the Kurds and find ourselves embroiled in something far worse...?

Boris

London

[mididoctors]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Nidan1,

As to who will take part in the war:

America and Britain will send ground troops. Saudi Arabia, British puppet states in the Gulf region and Turkey will lend support whilst Israel will pass on Intel ( it would be very important for Israeli contributions to be kept as secret as possible so I don't think a direct military contribution from them would be desirable). All will help for their own selfish reasons... Turkey will gain support for future attempts to join the EU, Saudi will gain support for its regime, British puppet states will show loyalty to their master and continue to receive the support that garners and Israel will rid itself of one of the most dangerous threats to its very existence in the region).

All very cynical etc of course but then looking at the world through the prism of realpolitik does tend to cant it that way.

.

I broadly agree that debate should be impartial and cynical, as arguing from a point of moral superiority in this affair is looking somewhat suspect and more importantly self-delusional......if you take a moral stance and thru a painful process of self-discovery make the relisation half way thru that you are somewhat "off track" then you have lost before you have even started....

As for Turkey...hmmm big fly in the ointment...a de facto creation of a Kurdish state is a nightmare scenario for them.. such a situation may in fact be undesirable and counter-intuitivily a break between US and Europe may be forming with a anti-war German sponsoring turkish EU entry only to be blocked by UK under US influence..

Turkey may look to European ties without US help as Kurdish question is one of National Stability!

UK sabotaging Turkish entry may further undermine European solidarity with continental European states getting increasing alarmed at US influence vai UK!

The US in effect will be able to VETO EU policies..this may not be tolerated by nations such as France and Germany.

Political blowback of Iraqi war may include destabilisation of US european relations , NATO and Turkey....this has projections into peace building efforts in Balkans...

Further issues over Kurds including shared intrests between Iran and Turkey will further require "adjustment" of Turkeys position with the US as it is forced closer to a member of the "AXIS of EVIL".

This war on terrorism is basicly a series of deals brokered by all particapants for maximum advantage......I can not see how the US can come clean on any promises it may have to make as the partys involved are at cross purposes.....

A basic grasp of this state of affairs is how Saddam (and his like) manage to stay in power......

dealing with such men requires the sacrifice of self-intrest ..has this ever happened?

Britain cashing in its Empire during WW II rather than brokering a peace with Hitler in 1940 is a possable example but a degree of scepticism about Hitlers deals may have been a greater factor (ie survival).

the house of Saudi may ironicaly be a big loser in Iraqi regime change as a "democratic" Iraq may undermine its position especialy as US forces could base from Iraq and be less reliant on Saudi Oil......this is of intrest to the US who wish to tear up the Al quedda network in Saudi... Iraq may be a political stepping stone for US policy aimed at applying pressure back on Saudi!

As for Russia and China...do not get me started.......

What will history record of this period we live in?

Bizzrare situation we find ourselves in..Exactly why are we attacking Iraqi ?

We(human race) have not learnt how to deal with men like Saddam and our current predicament is a reflection of this..perhaps it is becuse our own leaders are not to removed?

Boris

London