Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on March 22, 2003, 08:33:33 AM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Colin Powell said it best: "We had it all well planned out. All of those plans changed the second it started."
MiniD
-
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.
-
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.
-
how many message boards did you post this one on ?
-
me thinks Tommy will turn out to be a better General than General H. Norman Schwarzkopf ...
-
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
-
Strategy?
Hell... I think Ripsnort knows enough about strategy to win a war with forces this lopsided.
-
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 ;)
-
Tare bellybutton to Bagdad and defeat the Republican Guard.
-
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.
-
Good analysis Toad.
-
"Shock and Awe" Seems to me to be a war fighting philosophy based on the result of GW1 with out the stimuli.
I think that they are being unnessasarily reckless and that the loss of Turkey was a huge diplomatic fuddle to go along with many others.
A plan that seems to require the total collaps of the Iraqi military as if they had a 1991 scale air assault on them, without that assault is very very risky.
My big concerns, Infantry heavy forces attacking against a concentrated force of armour that can remain largly hidden till the mother of all sand storms removes the US long range missle advantage, the air advantage and the Thermal optics advantages in one fell swoop. These changes dont make the Iraqs equal to the US forces. But they even the odds along way from the big advantage the US units hold with those in place.
I think the Iraqis would love the shot at 1 to 2 loss ratios vs the US.
That is where the light composition of the US forces would really hurt. M1s can take a hit from a T72 and return fire..Hummers and Bradleys can not.
I would say this war is going as well as it could for the Iraqis right now. They are getting hammered...but thier units are intact and they are waiting for the right circumstance to spring a big counter attack probebley of short range under cover or weather that evens the playing field or favours their concentrated armour.
"Shock and Awe" "Hearts and Minds" Smoke and Mirrors" "Flash and Bang"
Wageing a war that predisposes the enemies lack of will to fight is silly silly strategy. The Iraqi militarys natural state is not collapse. It was collapsed very delliberately in GW1 as Toad has said. I said on these boards a month or more ago. I hope that the US military isnt so silly as to suppose they will be able to get the Iraqis to defeat themselves. Looks like they might have that hope.
Most of this was inflicted on Franks by Brumsfeld. I would imagine the intitial missle attack was as well. It looks very much like a real war..and will have real war casualties. Something that we westerners have grown unaccustomed too.
-
So far we've seen US troops marching through desert and making impressive gains. The troops seemed to avoid cities and raced to Bagdad.
Now, how do they plan to take Bagdad ? It is 5,000,000 people city. Won't be quick and easy.
-
for too many reasons to list here , i don't like general tommys tactics, some that have already been mentioned.
it seems like his "shock & awe" has turned into "poke & probe".
i don't like out running my supply train
-
we control the key airfields in the west.
we control the oil fields in the south,
we control the only seaport iraq has.
we own the sky.
no formation of iraqi armor can survive an engagement with coalition armor.
control of iraq as a country by saddam has already ceased. he can export no oil, do no buisness, recieve any material support from abroad.
final choices are this:
how do we take baghdad?
seige, house to house, MOAB, or iraqi capitulation.
answer depends on saddam or his succesor.
-
Hang, not to pee in yer Wheaties, but if reports of "bumper to bumper" traffic in the supply train are true and the heavy stuff is way off up front and we're bypassing towns known to hold enemy forces.....
what does that suggest to you? Does it raise any caution flags?
-
The real war hasn't started yet. I would bet that we will manuever forces into position around Baghdad, then stay put while the Air Force pummels the defenses for quite a while.
-
my weaties have been pissed in before. ;)
you figure they got enough armor in those burgs to break through the air, arty and armor supported containment forces in place to keep 'em there??
remember.. jstars is watching. anything big enough to be a threat force-wize has to not only get past detection by j-stars, but be able to defeat our anti-armor air strikes and arty once they engage..
the supply line is temporaily vulnerable to small unit strikes.. but any sortie in brigade or larger force will be destroyed rather quickly. if small unit attacks develop as factor threatening the real integrity of road supply, then road supply can be re-instituted for the baghdad envelopment from the western airbases we now control.
i think tommys got a pretty good plan..
-
Professionals talk logistics.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
So far we've seen US troops marching through desert and making impressive gains. The troops seemed to avoid cities and raced to Bagdad.
Now, how do they plan to take Bagdad ? It is 5,000,000 people city. Won't be quick and easy.
Of course... it's easy to make impressive gains in the vast empty desert.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
i think tommys got a pretty good plan..
I agree, and I can't believe some of the pissing and moaning I've been hearing in here after the unfortunate loss of a small number of American lives yesterday. I wish the war could be prosecuted without any loss of life on any side, but that's just not war.
As to some of the comments in here suggesting that the main attack force has outpaced the support... what of these reports that Toad cites saying that the traffic is bumper to bumper? So which is it?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
before we get to involved in secong guessing the mans prosecution of the war, might be a good idea to look at what his experience with war is.
General Franks was commissioned a second lieutenant in 1967 as a distinguished graduate of the Artillery Officer Candidate School, Fort Sill, Okla. After an initial tour as a battery Assistant Executive Officer at Fort Sill, he was assigned to the 9th Infantry Division, Republic of Vietnam, where he served as Forward Observer, Aerial Observer, and Assistant S-3 with 2nd Battalion, 4th Field Artillery. He also served as Fire Support Officer with 5th Battalion (mechanized), 60th Infantry during this tour.
In 1968, General Franks returned to Fort Sill, where he commanded a cannon battery in the Artillery Training Center. In 1969, he was selected to participate in the Army's "Boot Strap Degree Completion Program," and subsequently attended the University of Texas, Arlington, where he graduated with a degree in Business Administration in 1971. Following attendance at the Artillery Advance Course, he was assigned to the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in West Germany in 1973 where he commanded 1st Squadron Howitzer Battery, and served as Squadron S-3. He also commanded the 84th Armored Engineer Company, and served as Regimental Assistant S-3 during this tour.
General Franks, after graduation from Armed Forces Staff College, was posted to the Pentagon in 1976 where he served as an Army Inspector General in the Investigations Division. In 1977 he was assigned to the Office of the Chief of Staff, Army where he served on the Congressional Activities Team, and subsequently as an Executive Assistant.
In 1981, General Franks returned to West Germany where he commanded 2nd Battalion, 78th Field Artillery for three years. He returned to the United States in 1984 to attend the Army War College at Carlisle, Penn., where he also completed graduate studies and received a Master of Science Degree in Public Administration at Shippensburg University. He was next assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, as III Corps Deputy Assistant G3, a position he held until 1987 when he assumed command of Division Artillery, First Cavalry Division. He also served as Chief of Staff, First Cavalry Division during this tour.
His initial general officer assignment was Assistant Division Commander (Maneuver), First Cavalry Division during Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. During 1991-92, he was assigned as Assistant Commandant of the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill. In 1992, he was assigned to Fort Monroe, Va. as the first Director, Louisiana Maneuvers Task Force, Office of Chief of Staff of the Army, a position held until 1994 when he was reassigned to Korea as the CJG3 of Combined Forces Command and U.S. Forces Korea.
From 1995-97, General Franks commanded the Second Infantry (Warrior) Division, Korea. He assumed command of Third (U.S.) Army/Army Forces Central Command in Atlanta, Ga. in May 1997, a post he held until June 2000 when he was selected for promotion to general and assignment as Commander in Chief, United States Central Command.
General Franks' awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Distinguished Service Medal (two awards); Legion of Merit (four awards); Bronze Star Medal with "V" (three awards); Purple Heart (three awards); Air Medal with "V"; Army Commendation Medal with "V"; and a number of U.S. and foreign service awards. He wears the Army General Staff Identification Badge and the Aircraft Crewmember's Badge.
whats not mentioned is his first combat tour in vietnam.. as an enlisted man, doorgunner and crew chief in a huey. this man came up to field grade rank through the ranks.. one of very few men still in uniform to do so.
this man knows logistics, combat, communications, integration of forces and the diffrence between inept command structures and effective ones... and how to project force worldwide.
-
Start a thread about the guys resume then if thats what your interested in.
I bet the overwhelming issue is that he does what he is told. And he was told to attack Iraq with the forces he had. Promised the northern front right up to and one day into the war he was told to prosecute anyway with the forces he had. Now he is to create a northern front with the 101st apperently.
He is doing what he is told. Largly the way he was told to do it I would imagine.
Shock and Awe isnt his policy its the Pentagons policy.
If everything goes perfectly you are right and US techology will make it largley imune to Iraqi counter attack. If things go a little wrong they will still be fine with some serios casualties.
If they get some real bad weather luck...they could have a serios bloody nose.
Watch that footage of the Brith section takeing that one isolated building at night and imagine a city with 250000 Iraqi defenders.
-
I'll hold my peace. That long a logistics trail with "bypassed" enemy forces all along the way makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck though.
And I've have felt a WHOLE lot better if those Republican Guard units had been getting 2000 pound "leaflets" for six weeks before we drove up to see if they'd like to just surrender.
OK. I'm out.
We'll see.
-
Start a thread about the guys resume then if thats what your interested in.
now, now.. lets not get testy because there's homework required.
;)
point i'm trying to make is the guy in charge of this circle jerk is not us.. and there's nobody on this board that has 1/100th the qualifications franks has.
it's certainly apparent that amongst us armchair generals (and in part thanks to the under-informed talking heads on T.V.) some doubts are surfacing as to the effacy of stringing out 400 miles worth of road supply.
my 30 year outta date tactical sense scares the **** outta me too when i see a 400 mile long supply line... but this ain't vietnam, and it sure as hell ain't stalingrad.
-
Toad's right in many ways.
This version of the Allied army is much smaller than the last one and it's smaller than the one they wanted.
Troops there as of 18 Mar 03: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_toe.htm
Now look at the units still en route: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_030127-alert.htm
Units scheduled to have been deployed include the 2nd and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiments, 1st Cavalry Div and the 4th Inf Div, amoung others. Most of these are units that were scheduled to come in through Turkey and open a northern front. These are also armor-heavy units.
In other words, at least 1/3 of the planned Allied force (and some of its heaviest) are still on a boat somewhere. What they are not doing is coming down through Kurd (ie, friendly natives) controlled territory and putting presure on Baghdad with armour and air cover. The distance from Turkey to Baghdad is also much shorter.
So, instead of the Marines and UK troops taking the ports and cities on the coast and having time to pacify them, they are now trying to push on Baghdad. The Marines are doing it in ARMORED LANDING CRAFT!! Those are the ones getting the hell shot out of them by RPG's. And the 3rd Inf Div is being forced to go hell for leather to Baghdad to end the war. I believe it would've probably been used to take the countryside originally.
-
The Turks really really put a wrench in this thing.
The CNN blurb I just heard about a battlion of Apaches wading into a built up area south of Bagdad sounded like black hawk down.
Hard to believe that an apache can take an RPG round in an engine and make it back. Tough birds.
Like I said before.
First likely outcome is US takes the gloves off on colateral damage.
Second is they accept they are embracing a war or attrition although one they have huge advantages in waging.
Third is they re assess any born again muslims in their units.
(preferebly back stateside)
and 400 mile logistics is nothing. Its going to be about 850 miles to set up a base in the north.
-
Wow.
Bunch of guys with impressive resumes on the tube now see this issue as well.
Small force to begin with. NO PRESTRIKE SOFTENING OF THE ENEMY. Huge part of US orbat including the most armour heavy unit out of the war for a week or more.
Longbow radar seems to have serios issues with built up areas.
Now they are stalled in the suberbs of Bagdad with 100s of Iraqi tanks and a two day sand storm
Bush has handed Sadam the best possible shot he could have asked for at the US military.
Unbelievable arrogance.
Real patriots blood will spill to make up for Georges grand stratagy and diplomatic skill.
Strike and Awe **** what have we gotten into.
It reminds me of a Clancy book where he inflicts some crippling weakness on the US military like they lose 4 carriers on page one. Just to make the book interesting.
GWB II may have cemented his legacy as a US president.
Reminds me of how my unit won the Presidential Unit Citation at Kapyong Korea. That little blue bar costs some real lives.
-
me thinks Tommy will turn out to be a better General than General H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Me thinks you'r silly!!!
-
Reuters
Monday, March 24, 2003; 10:17 PM
LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S.-led force in Iraq risks as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad and Washington has underestimated the number of troops needed, a top former commander from the 1991 Gulf War said on Monday.
Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital.
"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday.
"In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war.
"So if they (the Americans and British) are unwilling to face up to that, we may have a difficult time of it taking down Baghdad and Tikrit up to the north west."
McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that."
"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.
U.S. forces have advanced more than 200 miles into Iraqi territory since the start of the war and are beginning to confront an elite division of the Republican Guards deployed to defend the capital.
"So it ought to be a very dicey two to three day battle out there." McCaffrey said of the confrontation with the Republican Guards.
He said his personal view was that the invading troops would "take them (the Iraqis) apart."
"But we've never done something like this with this modest a force at such a distance from its bases," he warned.
McCaffrey, a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Latin America, served overseas for 13 years and took part in four combat tours.
He twice received the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal for valor in the United States.
-
I sure do love rampant speculation, whether from decorated talking heads who've been out of military life for years or uninformed journalists.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
My big concerns, Infantry heavy forces attacking against a concentrated force of armour that can remain largly hidden till the mother of all sand storms removes the US long range missle advantage, the air advantage and the Thermal optics advantages in one fell swoop. These changes dont make the Iraqs equal to the US forces. But they even the odds along way from the big advantage the US units hold with those in place.
-
They tried that last night. B52's cleaned them up.