Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pongo on March 23, 2003, 03:20:38 PM
-
I think the final refusal of Turkey to allow a second front via thier country is the biggest news of the war so far.
While it is not dire, it definalty throws a major wrench in both the stratagy and tactics of the US operation.
CNN of course is barely mentioning the issue. But look at what happens.
1/3 of the US troops, the ones intended to push south from Turkey and secure the Kurdish area and those oil fields and then pressure Bagdad from the north are still in ships on the third day of the war and will not begin to disembark till probably 4 more days.
When they do disembark they will be as far from thier original objectives as is possible and still be in Iraq. The logistical support for them will have to pore through the same ports as the other units instead of coming through the turkish ports.
Taken in its total. This is a phenominal change forced on the US war effort by Turkey. How late in the war the US still tried to get Turkey to allow the troops passage shows how serios this change is. Now those units will be part of the second week of the war. Instead of the first hour.
The only way to trump this is if the Egyptians denied the US use of the Canal.
Anyway. I think the Turkish denial of access will be the everwhelming issue identified in the history books in the first few days of this war.
-
I thought Turkey gave us the ok?
-
Just watch, turks will allow the tresspassing of US troops.
I believe it is just a bluff.
-
too late for the turks, the ships with the 4th div equipment have been moving south for some days now.
some euro nations have hinted turkey may lose it's bid to join the EU because of this
turkey can now join the ranks of former allies along with france.
-
I don't think it's that big of a deal. The 101st could air assault pretty much anywhere in Iraq they want to. They might be a "light" division, but they have 70-some AH64s. That's more firepower than most countries. Throw in complete air supremacy and I'd say it's no biggie.
-
They were silly to wait so long for the turks to come along then.
-
the kurds are much better allies in this than turks in any issue having to do with disposing of saddams regime and eliminating regular iraqi troops from northern iraq.
you might be shocked to discover that we've been coordinating airstrikes with the kurds who ARE now actively engaging iraqi positions, and that we are providing the kurds with VERY effective air support in their attacks both on iraqi positions and on that terrorist groups camp and surviving effectives in NE iraq.
i'd be willing to bet the US won't hesitate to support the kurds against the turks overtly if the turks violate kurd territory AND fire on kurdish troops or positions.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
CNN of course is barely mentioning the issue.
I hope nobody is confusing CNN with legit news. The stories they choose to cover is just as biased as Iraqi news.
-
I dont' watch a whole lotta news regularly but you are exactly right about CNN..
as always get your news from many sources within and from outside the US
Originally posted by AtmkRstr
I hope nobody is confusing CNN with legit news. The stories they choose to cover is just as biased as Iraqi news.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
the kurds are much better allies in this than turks in any issue having to do with disposing of saddams regime and eliminating regular iraqi troops from northern iraq.
you might be shocked to discover that we've been coordinating airstrikes with the kurds who ARE now actively engaging iraqi positions, and that we are providing the kurds with VERY effective air support in their attacks both on iraqi positions and on that terrorist groups camp and surviving effectives in NE iraq.
i'd be willing to bet the US won't hesitate to support the kurds against the turks overtly if the turks violate kurd territory AND fire on kurdish troops or positions.
Ive worked with Turks.. I agree and wasnt sugesting they are militarily worthwhile allies. But they a have a port in the med and the Kurds dont. The whole strat for this war was based on using that port to postition those 65000 men to invade from the north. The absense of that will force the US to delay a northern push or try a norther grab instead with Air mobile units.
The US was trying for the Push cause it was the best move they had. Discounting its loss takes a pretty narrow view of the situation.
-
Discounting its loss takes a pretty narrow view of the situation..
Remember.. we're sitting on two massive airbases in western iraq. fields we've held since the first day. in areas we've heard absolutely NO news out of since the first day.
THAT is significant.
my assumption is thats were we'll stage in the next phase, and it'll be a big 'surprise' when it happens.
;)
-
I dont think its much of a supprise.
I dont think its much of an alternative to the original plan. And I dont think they would have gone ahead with this invasion if they knew they would be forced to resort to that.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
THAT is significant.
Exactly!
Every day with no-news from Israel is a very good day. Every day with no-news about usage of wmd's is a very good day.
Now people/media are starting to rant about how fierce the Iraqi resistance is and how much they were underestimated...well, as long as there are no news from Israel or regarding wmd's, I'd say this war is going better than anyone dared to hope.
-
Well.
MSNBC agrees with me. Took them 20 hours and some retired generals and such to catch up though.
-
Debka is now saying 4th ID will land at Saudi Red Sea ports and cut across SA into Iraq to get into the fight faster.
If Debka is right about that, then those guys really do have some good moles.
I can't say I'm really impressed by their overall accuracy because they get some stuff really wrong but every once in a while they break some real "insider" type stuff.
-
Whats Debka?
-
nice sig Pongo.. too bad no one in power listens...
-
http://www.debka.com
An Israeli site, rumored to have ties to their government as in "mouthpiece" for things they want to say without it being attributable to them.
They're far from 100% accurate but sometimes they do "scoop" the others.
Just another thing I read to get a view from a different angle.
-
thx for the link Toad
-
That's why not having the 4th Inf Div and 1st Arm Div is hampering the efforts. These two div's were supposed to enter through Turkey and open a 2nd front in the north. Also included were the 2nd and 3rd Armored Cav Rgt's. Our main tank-heavy units are still on the boat.
This is a list of the units who are supposed to deploy: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_030127-alert.htm
There is a hell of a lot of armor trying to find a place to come ashore right now. Units that are, IMO, needed. The 3rd ID and the 1st MEF should be passing these units forward for the push on Baghdad and pacifying their own rear areas.
-
Yeah, Dune. I agree.
But in another thread about tactics I said I'd hold my peace and I will.
That does not exclude me posting a "told ya" when it appears appropriate.
So, I'm reading, watching and waiting, like everyone else. And trying to keep my lip zipped. ;)
-
I think you folks are forgetting about what a force multiplier our technology and weapons are. I think we have more than enough force in place to do the job.
-
Raub, even you have to admit that the Longbow strike didn't go at all the way it should have. That's our technological leading edge in the helo department. Of course, it could have been tactics and not technology.
Latest BDA I heard was 4-5 tanks and a similar number of light armored vehicles knocked out by 3 dozen Apaches.
-
Yep. Look at a basic list of the units involved with the 1st Gulf War (over 550,000 troops):
The XVIII Airborne Corps, under Lt. Gen. Gary E. Luck, held the left, or western, flank and consisted of the 82d Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), the 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), the French 6th Light Armored Division, the 3d Armored Cavalry, and the 12th and 18th Aviation Brigades.
The Vll Corps, under Lt. Gen. Frederick M. Franks, Jr., was deployed to the right of the XVIII Airborne Corps and consisted of the 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized), the 1st Cavalry Division (Armored), the 1st and 3d Armored Divisions, the British 1st Armored Division, the 2d Armored Cavalry, and the 11th Aviation Brigade.
Three commands held the eastern one-third of the front.
Joint Forces Command North, made up of formations from Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia and led by His Royal Highness Lt. Gen. Prince Khalid ibn Sultan, held the portion of the line east of Vll Corps.
To the right of these allied forces stood Lt. Gen. Walter E. Boomer's I Marine Expeditionary Force, which had the 1st (or Tiger) Brigade of the Army's 2d Armored Division as well as the 1st and 2d Marine Divisions.
Joint Forces Command East on the extreme right, or eastern, flank anchored the line at the Persian Gulf. This organization consisted of units from all six member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Like Joint Forces Command North, it was under General Khalid's command.
Here is a map of the Coalition advances, it just shows the huge difference: http://www.3ad.org/ds_2bde/images/dsopmap.jpg
-
Toad, I chalk that up to poor tactics. Mostly to poor scouting. There should have been a scout team checking out **** like that before the main force ran into that ****storm.
-
I do think the Apache tactics were piss poor.
However, I think you can chalk it up to a high degree of overconfidence that has been a characteristic of this mission from the jump-off and from the very highest level of command right on down to the actual fighters.
I have no doubt we will win. None whatsover.
There's a trade-off between blood and gold. Given the way this country spends gold, I'm not opposed to spending whatever gold it takes to absolutely minimize the cost in blood. We spend it like we had it even when we don't. So no biggie there.
We took 6 weeks to beat the doo-dah out of them from the air before we uncerimoniously threw them out of Kuwait.
I see no reason, now that this has started, to be in some big hurry.
But, nobody called me to ask for tips and I'm trying to keep my lip zipped.
And not doing very well at it, am I? ;)
-
I think you folks are forgetting about what a force multiplier our technology and weapons are. I think we have more than enough force in place to do the job.
I think you're counting too much on this, like many US planners did. Too much TV, Rambo etc
technology doesn't win wars that last longer than a few weeks.
simplicity, numbers, training.. that wins long wars.
although , much like Toad, I think we'll win this hands down.. just depends on how many lives are lost in the process
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
I think you're counting too much on this, like many US planners did. Too much TV, Rambo etc
technology doesn't win wars that last longer than a few weeks.
simplicity, numbers, training.. that wins long wars.
This is why we have the National Training Center and the Joint Readiness Training Center, along with the training areas in Europe. We train in these areas regularly, and they battle plan regularly. They know what to expect. Technology DOES win wars that last longer than a few weeks. Even more importantly, logistics win wars that last more than a few weeks. How long before the Iraqis are unable to get food and water to their troops? Hell, 90% of the ones that surrendered in the Gulf War were like little kids at Xmas when we handed them an MRE and a bottle of water. (Actually had one ask me for a certain MRE by name, funny story;))
-
I don't keep up on Army force structure, so excuse my stupidity. I was always more of an Air Force guy.
I read somewhere that the US army has approximately 10 full sized divisions now since the cutbacks during the Clinton Administration.
How many heavy armored divisions do we still keep active? I noticed that the 1st Armored Division is listed, so what other ones do we still have.
And do our mechanized infantry units (ie like the 3rd ID) contain the same basic force structure of the early 90's, or have they beefed them up with more pure armor, or scaled back the armor contingent?
I'm all for "light" units, rapid reaction forces, and special Ops, but when push comes to shove (like now) nothing beats heavy armor.
-
MRE's aren't high-tech
-
Amazing the blinders some people have on.
the Iraqi military in 91 had been hammered for 6 weeks by the most increadble air campaign in history.
To think they would be as frail now without any bombardment at all is absolute lunacy.
But that is what the US stratagy required.
How do you dehydrate units that stradle the largest rivers in that area of the world?
You cant starve those units without starving the people of Bagdad first.
The Iraqi boys that were 6-12 years old in 1991 have had 12 years of reason to hate the US and be indoctrinated to want to risk it all to strike back at the country they felt was starving them.
Now they are 18 to 24. And their are 100s of thousands of them.
CNN is showing them that it is possible to blow up Amtracks. Shoot down Apaches, ambush logistical vehicles.
scary.
-
Originally posted by Vermillion
I don't keep up on Army force structure, so excuse my stupidity. I was always more of an Air Force guy.
I read somewhere that the US army has approximately 10 full sized divisions now since the cutbacks during the Clinton Administration.
How many heavy armored divisions do we still keep active? I noticed that the 1st Armored Division is listed, so what other ones do we still have.
And do our mechanized infantry units (ie like the 3rd ID) contain the same basic force structure of the early 90's, or have they beefed them up with more pure armor, or scaled back the armor contingent?
For a full listing all the entire US Army's OOB: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...ency/index.html
For a more direct answer to your question:
There are only 10 divisions; 1st Cav, 1st AD, 1st Inf (Mech), 2nd Inf, 3rd Inf (Mech), 4th Inf(Mech), 10th Inf (Light), 25th Inf, 82nd AB, 101st AA. There are, of course, other units such as the 2nd and 3rd Armored Cav Rgts.
The 1st AD is the only active US armored division, although there is one in the USANG, the 49th AD.
A mechanized infantry division's main force is its three manuever brigades. Two of the brigades contain 2 inf battalions and 1 armor battalion. The heavy brigade is 2 armor battalions and 1 inf. bat. Each battalion has around 55 M1's or M2's, depending on what it is.
3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) "Rock of the Marne" ~ 18,000 troops
1st BDE, 3rd Infantry Div 58 M1's 116 M2's
2nd BN, 7th Infantry Rgt
3rd BN, 7th Infantry Rgt
3rd BN, 69th Armor Rgt
C Troop, 1st Cav Rgt
2nd BDE, 3rd Infantry Div 116 M1's 58 M2's
3rd BN, 15th Infantry Rgt
1st BN, 64th Armor Rgt
4th BN, 64th Armor Rgt
E Trp, 9th Cavalry Rgt
3rd BDE, 3rd Infantry Div 58 M1's 116 M2's
1st BN, 30th Infantry Rgt
1st BN, 15th Infantry Rgt
2nd BN, 69th Armor Rgt
D Troop, 10th Cavalry Rgt
An armored division is set up with 2 brigades consisting of 2 armor bat's and 1 inf bat and 1 brigade with 2 inf bat's and 1 armor bat. Basically the opposite of the mech inf div.
-
It's time for me to sit back and let time prove me right.
I think I have a bit better knowledge of the US Army's workings and capabilities than the average internet general.
-
Right about what though?
That the US/Allies has much better equipment? No argument at all.
That the US/Allies is much better trained in how to use it? Same
That the US/Allies is much better led? Same again.
That the US/Allies will win this war through air superiority, better mobility, better logistics, greater firepower, better troops, better CO's, etc. Once again, no argument.
However, I do have an argument. And it's this:
In the 1st Gulf War, we (and our allies) deployed almost 600,000 troops. We have around 250,000 this time. In the 1st GW we deployed 2 armored divisions, 2 airborne divisions, 2 mech inf divisions, 1 cavalry divsion, 2 armored cav regiments, 3 aviation brigades, 1 UK armored divsion, 2 Marine divisions and a French lt armored div. Now we have, in the field; 1 mech inf div, 1 Marine div., 1 UK armored div, 1 airborne div, 1 aviation brigade, 1 airborne brigade and small parts of 3 other divisions.
We are trying to go farther and leaving longer lines of communication. We should have waited. Not for inspections, but for more troops to arrive.
Even if we utilize the northern airfields, we are still talking about a division and a half of airborne troops (101st AA and 175th AB). No armor. Light arty. The Marines have already found out what happens when you use AAPV's for tanks. RPG's go through the front.
I'll say it again. The 1st MEF/1st AD (UK) and 3rd ID should be passing other units through for the final push on Baghdad. That would allow them to pacify their rear areas. Instead they are being stretched out and run ragged. They have been either on the move or in combat for almost 6 days. They will start to make more mistakes because of fatigue and equipment will begin to fail. Especially in this weather. And now is when they will be facing the best the enemy has. As good as us? Nope.
Will we win? Yes. Without a doubt. Our troops and equipment is just too good. But, will it cost more than it should? Yes.