Discussion about Gen.Franks Strategy

[Ripsnort]

Please, no politics in this thread, this is simply a discussion of tactics used by USCC

First off it seems obvious that intel collected on this offensive was some of the best the world has seen in any conflict and that loss to unnecessary life has been the primary objective in this offensive by using precision munitions combined with intel in order to achieve goals.

The goals they have achieved in just less than 3 days using
S-G-A  is astounding to say the least.

What I'd like to discuss or ask is:
-Is this a pre-scripted, multi-scenario flexible plan they are using with various "What if?" scenarios that they can interchange, swap in or out, depending at the immediate situation at hand?  Or is this a pre-scripted offensive with strict goals, basically no back up plan except flexible plans that are necessary and doctrine to protect the flanks (with the use of airpower)?

Seems to me Scharzcoft had a more descriptive, percise battle plan though not on a scale that Franks has..and it appears to be the former mentioned above, flexible, but pre-scripted.

Last question:
How do you think they will reach their final destination on the ground?
WIll the bridges be intact on the Tigris and Euphates(sp) while meeting light resistence and/or mass surrenders?
Or will the bridges be blown and heavy resistence met around or in Bagdad?

[OZkansas]

It seems to me that this war is targeting government sites only.  Franks is conducting the war in the most civilized manner.  At all costs Franks is avoiding hitting anything outside of government targets.  I couldn't believe he let the "blitz" characterization get by him in the new conference.  If this type of charaterization isn't stopped now soon he will be charged with creating a firestorm in Baghdad.  Franks gets a "C" for his conduct in the news conference.

[Stringer]

To be honest, the way this action is being pursued, we actually expose our troops to more danger.  I think this is the right way to pursue it though.  We are there to liberate the Iraqi people, not injure them.

**Edit...I also think the beginning of that press conference, where they showed pictures of the mining tugboats and captured terminal facilities and oil fields was not solely intended for us.  I think the Coalition was sending a message to Saddam, via CNN , that your sabotage teams were stopped from carrying out their mission, and we've captured those facilities intact, have a nice day.

[Kick]

The plan,while doctrinally sound, will be continually changing due to political considerations.The turks are bound to f**k things up in the North causing some reshuffling of plans. The CIA's "decapitation strike" while all those ground forces were fixed in position in Kuwait,was in my opinion nothing short of reckless.It caused command to move their assault plan forward  ahead of schedule to avoid a possible nasty counter attack. Just another example of politicians getting in the way of sound military judgement.

I'd bet the military leadership is not too happy with applying force in little bits hoping the enemy will fold. That kind of goes against sound military judgement.

Anyways...its obvious the planning is very flexable,having to shape itself not only around changing battle conditions,but political considerations also. It seems they have alot of flexability with timing. The bulk of the enemy is just waiting in fixed positions. Our forces can maneuver at this point wherever they want. Right now they are securing bridges ,dams,roads,and oil fields.Cant wait to see how and when they commit the 101st

We havent really seen the actual "plan" yet. I think the real "plan"is how they maneuver and commit the forces for the final assault on Baghdad. And I do think there will be a fight.
Tommy Franks is promising a real treat...lets hope so.

[Mini D]

Colin Powell said it best:  "We had it all well planned out.  All of those plans changed the second it started."

MiniD

[Fishu]

I believe the CIA's "decapitation strike" did work out..
Saddam was US's worst enemy in the upcoming war and they wanted to rid him..  a success.

From seeing Iraqi generals on TV, watching their speeches and emotions, I do believe Saddam has been badly injured or died in the strike.
They're obviously confused in a way.

[Batz]

I dont think we know the whole plan but by the rapid deployment of mobile ground troops before any prolonged preparatory artillery and or air strikes allowed his troops to secure the oil fields mostly in tact.

From what I see it reminds me of what the Germans did on the east front.

Rapid movement backed back tactical airpower, bypassing areas of complication with his mobile forces. The later areas will be mopped up by following forces.

But we dont really know the extent of special ops, and operations in the north and western desert.

Now the airwar seems to focus on command control. This will help confuse any Iraqi battlefield commanders if they cant predict where the coalition forces are and where they will turn up.

Ofcourse the counter to this is to pull back your troops to keep from being encircled as you recognize what the enemy is doing. You have to trade large areas of ground but  you pull your troops back in to more concentrated position while the enemy over extends his. In modern war "concentrating" your troops may not be a good thing.

The Iraqi Army is obviously in no position to take advantage of this given their weapons and troops capabilities compared to the US. But if they withdraw a good portion of their troops into Baghdad then we will be in a tough spot due to the likelyhood of civilian casualties.

But who knows.

[lord dolf vader]

how many message boards did you post this one on ?

[Eagler]

me thinks Tommy will turn out to be a better General than General H. Norman Schwarzkopf ...

[Shuckins]

It appears that U.S. strike aircraft are being held largely in reserve for later strikes against Republican Guard units surrounding Baghdad.  "Awe and Shock" was pretty impressive but I believe "you aint seen nothin' yet!"

Some of the bridges may be blown, but coalition forces undoubtedly have plans to capture and hold some of them for the crossing.

Regards, Shuckins

[Sandman]

Strategy?

Hell... I think Ripsnort knows enough about strategy to win a war with forces this lopsided.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Please, no politics in this thread, this is simply a discussion of tactics used by USCC

First off it seems obvious that intel collected on this offensive was some of the best the world has seen in any conflict and that loss to unnecessary life has been the primary objective in this offensive by using precision munitions combined with intel in order to achieve goals.

The goals they have achieved in just less than 3 days using
S-G-A  is astounding to say the least.

What I'd like to discuss or ask is:
-Is this a pre-scripted, multi-scenario flexible plan they are using with various "What if?" scenarios that they can interchange, swap in or out, depending at the immediate situation at hand?  Or is this a pre-scripted offensive with strict goals, basically no back up plan except flexible plans that are necessary and doctrine to protect the flanks (with the use of airpower)?

Seems to me Scharzcoft had a more descriptive, percise battle plan though not on a scale that Franks has..and it appears to be the former mentioned above, flexible, but pre-scripted.

Last question:
How do you think they will reach their final destination on the ground?
WIll the bridges be intact on the Tigris and Euphates(sp) while meeting light resistence and/or mass surrenders?
Or will the bridges be blown and heavy resistence met around or in Bagdad?

.....no comment

[Otto]

Tare bellybutton to Bagdad and defeat the Republican Guard.

[Toad]

Let me say right off I'm an Air Force and "airpower" guy. Just so you know where I'm coming from.

I didn't mind the "decaptiation strike"; I think it was smart to take that shot if it was offered and it looks like the intel was pretty good.

I didn't mind the move into the lower part of Iraq to get the port and the oil fields before they were blown up.

But I've had my doubts about this mad race to Baghdad since it became evident they were "going for it".

Remember GW1? Remember that much bandied phrase about "preparing the battlefield"? Six weeks of airwar before the troopers jumped off and when they did.... not too many Iraqis interested in fighting and not much true resistance.

Why have we suddenly abandoned the strategy that was the direct cause of the most successful, low casulty "war" in US history?

I think it's the old Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine rivalry thing. Airpower fought and won Gulf War 1 and as a result we got the F-22. The Army lost it's self-propelled "new" howitzer and the Marines face the loss of their Osprey.
 
So this time the ground forces got "featured".
 
But IMO it's simply stupid. Do you remember the emphasis they placed last time on "preparing the battlefield" which was done from the air? It was a top priority.
 
Well, this time, they're just diving in. The Marines are shock troops; they take the beach and then the Army comes ashore and passes through. Marine units are not built to drive 400 miles and attack. They are Light Units. The Army has also bought into the "light" philosophy and there's much less armor and "heavy" artillery and such, especially compared to GW1.
 
To top it off, they're stringing out their supply train 400 miles while bypassing enemy strongholds. This when their MBT's are burning 6 gallons a mile each. What's it going to take to sortie a bypassed Iraqi division right into the middle of that supply train? What happens when your spearhead runs out of gas in the face of the enemy? Shoot on the fly? Fire and maneuver? Takes gas, doesn't it?
 
As I said, we're now in the phase where we have to be lucky to avoid serious losses or a disaster. I hate depending on luck. The old way was to leave NOTHING to chance; destroy every enemy within range and destroy him in detail before moving on.
 
This thing turned stupid the moment they relegated the air war to a support role. This battlefield has not been prepped and we're going to pay for it.

Street fighting in Baghdad is the height of idiocy. You lay siege and use "cats and rats". When they run out of cats and rats to eat, they'll be out in 2 weeks or less. I've got tons of time... but I don't want to lose a single soldier more than necessary. And street fighting in Baghdad isn't necessary.

IMO.
 
There's my two cents.
 
But, I'm an AF guy.

[weazel]

Good analysis Toad.