How would you organise Iraq's defences?

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What the **** would you know, moron?

Oh it wasn't a fairytale?
Great, just great. The world can relax, because if this movie is true, we shouldn't fear American military threat.
Let's see. An elite regiment of Texas rangers have soldiers who have epilepsy!!! COOL, Just cool beggining of the movie. Another soldiers have asthma and constantly breath from small baloon.
Great!!! Just great If such soldiers serve in your elite regiments, what type of people serve in your regular regiments?
Next, the team lost its first member during landing. Great too! Very professional.
And later this brave sergant walking under heavy gunfire like "highlander", endless ammo, silly enemies who dance before hit the ground in best traditions of "commando" and my favorite- a black hawk dodging a missile launched from RPG aproximatly from distance of 30-50 meters after (just notice!!!) ONE OF THE SOLDIERS SHOUT- "Missile attack" How could pilot evade a launched missile after he heard warning, if missile speed is much greater then speed of sound?
This movie is total propagandistic crap full of silly situations. If this is not a fairy tale, I'm absolutely happy.

[MRT144]

and serb missed the whole concept of artistic liscense when he was growing up...

BHD WAS NOT A FREAKING DOCUMENTARY!!!

and for a brief amount of time my dad thought he was teddy roosevelt and said bully often...sadly

[Seeker]

Option A:

1. Make a lot of speeches.

2. Shoot my pistol bravely in the air.

3. Put on my coolest looking dictator-outfit and say to my generals 'look at my chestful of medals and fear'

4. Get out of the country and retire in Nassau.

Option B:

1. Give in. Give in to total UN inspections, whatever.

2. Wait for CNN to start covering something else.

3. Gradually reign in the inspectors, and try to modernize my conventional army (buy American from the Egyptians, covertly)

4. Try to build an alliance.

Option C (forced to fight):

1. False everything
2. Mines everywhere
3. Humanitarian disasters, basically clog the roads with wounded civilians like the Germans did in france.
4. A few suicide rear guards, also a some suicide 'manned torpedos' might be a good idea.
5. Dump everything in Baghdad, blow it up, it is a huge city, turn it into one giant tank trap, everyfloor is a bunker, multiple RPGs around every corner, snipers on every elevation, mines everywhere, massive TNT piles in natural 'channels'.
6. The Republican Guards job will be to shoot those who wish to surrender.
7. Wait, hope to inflict big casualties, then make a contrite offer for peace 'on behalf of the people and to avoid bloodshed'.
8.Accept a peace that is essentially Option B

[Verto]

Bah... my plan was the best.

[Kull]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Iraqis have a lot of potential to win this one. Yes, win. Not because they'll ever kick our ass, but because the definition of winning this time hinges off of regime change and occupation.

Everything you say is theoretically possible, but I just don't see it happening. First and foremost, Saddam's rule is based upon iron-clad control of his nation. He is able to move easily and often from place to place, and it's difficult to target him on that basis. All that will end when the siege begins. He'll be restricted to a relatively small area, his communications will be disrupted, and most important - all his non-family member subordinates will know that the game is up and they'll have no incentive to support him any longer. Quite the contrary - their post-Saddam future will be guaranteed if they play a role in ending his rule. During the siege, Saddam will be faced with a huge conundrum. The strategy you outlined requires a heavy dose of local command and control, but that significantly enhances the chance of his being discovered. Conversely if he goes into hiding, the noticeable lack of his iron hand will just hasten the revolt. It's a no win situation for him.

Although everyone focuses on Baghdad, I'm betting that Tikrit is the harder nut to crack. It's full of his relatives, and the entire city knows that all of Iraq has no sympathy toward them. We could nuke the place and nary a tear would be shed. There's no question that the bunker mentality will be strongest here. Saddam would actually last longer if he took refuge in Tikrit, but losing Baghdad would make him irrelevant and would result in defacto regime change - i.e. a win for Bush. (Just as taking Afghanistan without getting Osama was less than optimal, but "good enough")

One other comment. If the US has learned anything, it's that video images of dead babies are a BAD thing. That's the only real weapon Saddam has, and it would be irresponsible to allow him to use it. Not the creation of dead kids - because I agree with you, there will be many (and most of his making) - but the resulting media exposure. Expect the US military to clamp down tight on all broadcasts in and out of the besiged cities, to forbid entry of journalists into them, and to confiscate all video and pictures that come out. The press will scream, but the military will come up with an explanation and ignore them. If we're smart, a huge screening center will be established to process all folks who leave the cities - to include a full strip search and check of belongings (under the guise of "suicide bomber" prevention).

None of this will be easy, but the US can play the game for several months - although I think the end will come swiftly. Saddam's ability to communicate, repress dissent, and inspire fear are the first things we'll take from him, and after that it won't be long until internal revolt finishes him for us.

[GePap]

I think MtG has writen by far the best plan:

1) Saddam's aim is first, to live, 2nd, to keep power. Unless we actively seek to deprive him of his life and make his death a very high riority target, he has nothing to gain from WMD use. I doubt he has any effective delivery methods for biologicals, so Chemicals are his only good weapon vs. troops on the field.

Kull: the US military is not doctrinally open to the idea of sieges, including its type of forces and so forth.They are too slow and allow for lots of Collateral damage.To besiege a city of 3 million takes a huge amount of troops, with a huge amount of logistics for munitions, water, food. The US has to win quick (a few weeks). The longer a siege last, the more expensive the war, just for the upkeep, and the more likely serious political consequences in neighboring regions. The longer the war, the greater the possiblity of agitation by Kurds and Shiates for greater autonomy, undermining long-term US aims. A long sieeg also increase the cost the US must pay after the war fr the occupiation, but in materials and political costs.
On what iraqi troops will do: his Republican guard will probably stay loyal. Disloyal troops can be placed outside to slow the US and force them to handle the logistics of prisoners.

As for controls of the press. satellite pictures will get out, and the US can't stop press from entering Iraq from Iran and Turkey, syria and elsewere, plus all the journalist that will be in Baghdad waiting for the war to start.

As for internal revolt: Saddam has been no more repressive than Stalin. Hitler counted on internal revolt to bring down the Soviet union once it begun to fail on the battlefield. Did it?

[Chris 62]

Reb, all of that isn't going to work, your forgetting something.

Iraq is a desert surrounding a flood plain, the easest and cheapest way to win is to surround them and starve them out.

If Saddam is dumb enough to opt for a city fight, let him starve in Baghdad, use airpower to interdict resupply, and watch em starve. The place has 5 million people, how long will they last cut off from food?
The argument will be that anti-war "humanitarians" would object, but we both know the media can only go where the Army let's em, and what they don't know won't hurt em.

Iraq's ONLY chance is to comply with disarming.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Reb, all of that isn't going to work, your forgetting something.

Iraq is a desert surrounding a flood plain, the easest and cheapest way to win is to surround them and starve them out.

If Saddam is dumb enough to opt for a city fight, let him starve in Baghdad, use airpower to interdict resupply, and watch em starve. The place has 5 million people, how long will they last cut off from food?
The argument will be that anti-war "humanitarians" would object, but we both know the media can only go where the Army let's em, and what they don't know won't hurt em.

Iraq's ONLY chance is to comply with disarming.

You utterly ignore the aftermath. The US has to occupy the place and try to create a new government in baghdad and try to avoid a collapse of the country. To do what you advocate creates an endless amount of problems for the future.

Winning the war is not the hard part, putting back Iraq together is, and anything that makes the latter harder is a poor and dangerous strategy.

[DanS]

I agree with Chris about his only option.

However, a siege would be too expensive for the US and why would the US want one anyway? Hussein relies on the typical modern dictator's instruments of power to portray that he is in charge--a loyal military, an effective secret police, propaganda machine. Separate him from those tools, create an alternative reality through good use of our own propaganda, and Hussein is toast.

[Chris 62]

I don't believe a seige would take more then a week, tops.

As for rebuilding Iraq Gepap, that's another thread, and has NOTHING to do with this topic.

[DanS]

A week? How do you figure?

If it's only that, then it would be tempting.

[Chris 62]

Easy, take 5 million peolpe, add to it maybe 200,000 soldiers, confine them in a city, and use tatical airpower combined with drones and airmoblie forces to surround and enforce a blockade, and they will use up food, and fast.

Consider your own household, how often do you shop?
I do usually weekly, but I often have to pick up perishables like milk a few times a week.
Now multiply that kind of consumption by 5 million.

The only way besiged people hold on is if there is hope of relief, what hope does Saddam have?

[Sandman]

I agree with others that using biological and chemical weapons on Israel is a waste of time. There's no effective delivery system for germs, and gases have no more killing power than conventional explosives.

What gases are good for is tactical use, creating a headache for US forces, which is as good as Iraq can expect.

Bioweapons would probably be more trouble than they're worth, consuming valuable medical personnel and probably infecting his own army.

No-one has commented on my more wacky ideas, such as using floodlights to spot stealth aircraft. I mean, would that actually work? And what about using burning oil slicks to prevent marine landings?

And finally, what defences does a US carrier group have against frogmen with limpet mines? The Italians scored a rare victory in WW2 with them.

[DanS]

Interesting scenario, Chris. When was the last siege that the military has performed?

[Chris 62]

Most people don't understand logistics, Dan.

For example, Stalingrad in WWII, the Germans consumed 200,000 tons PER DAY of supplies while encircled, and were only 300,000 men, they wern't feeding hungry civilians.
They recieved by air on average 60 tons per day, a HUGE shortfall, and they lasted less then 3 months while encircled.

When you add in all those hungry civilians, things get worse.
Of course, you allow ANY civilian who wants to leave the encirclement to do so, it looks good in the press and will make SADDAM look bad if he tries to prevent them, and you work on the besiged psychologically.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Serb



Oh it wasn't a fairytale?
Great, just great. The world can relax, because if this movie is true, we shouldn't fear American military threat.
Let's see. An elite regiment of Texas rangers have soldiers who have epilepsy!!! COOL, Just cool beggining of the movie. Another soldiers have asthma and constantly breath from small baloon.

Let's talk about the quality of your FNG's as demonstrated in Afghanistan and elsewhere, shall we?

(a) The incident with the epilepsy attack is true. The soldier in question was himself a newly arrived replacement of another soldier wounded in action two days prior. He had no prior diagnosis or history of epilepsy, or he would not have been qualified for military service in the first place. He was subsequently medically discharged. He was replaced as chalk leader by SSGT Eversmann.

(b) Asthma is not in itself medically disqualifying, AFAIK, if the soldier in question passes the required PT and profile for his MOS. Hyperventilating in 100 degree heat and dust when under fire and carrying a 50 lb load isn't that surprising. Russian troops don't get out of their ****ing BMPs unless for chow, payday every six months, or boomboom time back in camp.

Great!!! Just great If such soldiers serve in your elite regiments, what type of people serve in your regular regiments?

3rd Ranger Battalion was fairly recently created, and at that time, IIRC was manned under a different selection process than 1st and 2nd Ranger Battalions, which had more senior personnel. 3rd Ranger battalion was deployed to TF Ranger as a security and covering force for the Delta troops, who were the real operators there. As for the type of people who serve in our units, they're a lot higher quality than the pukes who serve in yours.

Next, the team lost its first member during landing. Great too! Very professional.

Ever fast roped? Didn't think so. Now try it from 70 feet (necessary due to the height of the buildings and the narrowness of the street. Due to high temperature, very erratic rotor wash due to the buildings, and the inherent instability of out of ground effect hover, the -60's danced all over the ****ing place. It's actually more amazing that only one casualty occured due to fast roping under those conditions.

And later this brave sergant walking under heavy gunfire like "highlander", endless ammo,

Skinnies couldn't shoot for ****, walls and the ground in urban fighting are bullet traps, so you learn to move in the middle, and SAWs were equipped with 200 round drums.

silly enemies who dance before hit the ground in best traditions of "commando" and my favorite

(a) It's Hollywood

(b) Skinnies were stoned on khat most of the time, and a lot of the US forces had been issued M855 ammo for their 5.56 mm weapons. The M855 has superior penetration of body armor, masonry, and light metal like sheds and vehicles, but the steel penetrator under the copper jacket tends to not break on contact with bone, and soft tissue hits penetrate through and through without tumbling at normal tactical engagement ranges. Thus the ****ers dance from the impact and it takes 10-12 rounds to finish them unless you get a critical hit like the heart, head, or aorta or vena cava.

- a black hawk dodging a missile launched from RPG aproximatly from distance of 30-50 meters after (just notice!!!) ONE OF THE SOLDIERS SHOUT- "Missile attack" How could pilot evade a launched missile after he heard warning, if missile speed is much greater then speed of sound?

(a) Five -60's were hit by RPG fire. At least 50 RPG's were fired at 60's and -6's.

(b) It's Hollywood. The exact details of evading RPG fire are pretty irrelevant, most inbound were detected and evaded. So WTF?

This movie is total propagandistic crap full of silly situations. If this is not a fairy tale, I'm absolutely happy.

Mogadishu was a FUBAR, with objectives set by Washington politicians and mission constraints which compromised the ability to achieve those objectives set by those same politicians. In that sense, our politicians (Clinton and Aspin) ****ed up almost as badly as yours did in Afghanistan. We only did it for a day, though, you FUBARd for years, and our troops operated at a fire higher level of profiency than yours could even dream of.

[GePap]

The question of the thread is what iraq can do to win:
as MtG said, a political victory, not a military one, is possible.

How long would it take to get 200,000 American troops to surround Baghdad efficently? At least 1 week if not more, assuming resistance by Iraq forces to keep lines of supply open. How in the hell would we stop Iraqi leadership from getting out during that time? How many troops do we plan to use? if 200,000 are stuck besieging Bagdhad, were is evryone else? Who's going fro kirkut and all these other areas?

The soldiers in bagdhad would be able to supply themselves, as they have time to store supplies.After all, the German lasted a month or more after they were surrounded. You say keep the civilians in, but how can we do that? If we ever started to kill Iraqi civilians trying to get out, to get to food, not only would it start a poltical firestorm back home, but one in all the Arab states were our aircraft are based. you think that just keeping cameras out will keep the news out on Al jazeera? Having our embassy in Jordan go up in flames, and regimes frinedly to us in other places collapse does not count as 'victory'. The US message is that we are doing this for the good of the world and the Iraqi people. Using the starvation of these same people as our basic strategy for the war invalidates the political argument for it.

And the issue of aftereffects is not out of the question: Ones military strategy should be based on what outcome they wish to achieve, not only on winning. Winning the battle but loosing the war is a loosing strategy, not a victorious one. We won the battle in vietnam, we lost the war.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Most people don't understand logistics, Dan.

For example, Stalingrad in WWII, the Germans consumed 200,000 tons PER DAY of supplies while encircled, and were only 300,000 men, they wern't feeding hungry civilians.
They recieved by air on average 60 tons per day, a HUGE shortfall, and they lasted less then 3 months while encircled.

Got your units of measurement mixed, yank. It was 200,000 lbs per day (200,000 tons per day would be 2/3 of a ton per man per day), or 100 tons, which was the typical Göring express delivery when 500 tons per day was considered minimal supply for the army. Most of that by weight, however, was ammunition and fuel.

I'll work on the rest in my reply to your other post.

[Lincoln]

The best battle plan for Iraq is to issue about 50 million white flags real quick. But seriously this war can take a wrong turn real quick. Hiding his stuff is too obvious now. He could strap a bomb onto Azise (or whatever his name is) and see if he could pull of a suicide bombing at the UN. That would be a first...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Reb, all of that isn't going to work, your forgetting something.

Iraq is a desert surrounding a flood plain, the easest and cheapest way to win is to surround them and starve them out.

If Saddam is dumb enough to opt for a city fight, let him starve in Baghdad, use airpower to interdict resupply, and watch em starve. The place has 5 million people, how long will they last cut off from food?
The argument will be that anti-war "humanitarians" would object, but we both know the media can only go where the Army let's em, and what they don't know won't hurt em.

Iraq's ONLY chance is to comply with disarming.

Not forgetting anything Yank - I'm counting on it, in fact.

That desert immediately surrounding the flood plain gets pretty soft this time of year. The US is real limited in available airmobile transport capacity, because we've got a lot of it committed in Afghanistan, SOF ops elsewhere, and we're just too damn short of it anyway due to the cuts under our favorite Arkansas chickenchoker. We will have to commit heavy forces, particularly in winter weather conditions.

As far as reporters go, yeah, we control the ones dumb enough to be our pool reporters, or those in the security zones of our units, and we can regulate US citizens (the court issues about First Amendment restrictions on reporters outside US military control will take too long), but there isn't **** we can do about neutral and Iraqi reporters in areas we don't physically control. That's why it's important for Saddam to get them back in country ASAP, after the dirty work preparations are done.

As far as food supplies, there's two points. One, there's lots of food storage in Baghdad. The harvest season is over, Baghdad is the central distribution point for the rest of the country, so writing off the north and south will keep existing food supplies right where they need to be.

Point two is this: Are you seriously telling me the US has the balls to block unarmed shipments of humanitarian aid delivered by non-comabatants from neutral countries under pre-existing UN authority as part of the authorized food for oil program? How about food relief from internationally recognized humanitarian groups. In full coverage of the press. The US would **** into the ground its image in the Islamic world, and most of the rest of the world, for the next century.

As for letting them leave - cool. Awfully white of us, as the invaders of a third world country, invading with minimal international support, telling civilians if they don't want to starve, they can leave in the dead of winter with what they can carry, to go to non-existent refugee camps, and then later on when the war is done they may be able to return to whatever is left of their homes. That'll play well in the international press. And the Iraqis can stall on any such offer and milk it for propaganda purposes - make an issue of shelter, sanitation, medical care, refugee centers. It would take the US months to set up facilities to guard, shelter, and provide minimum care consistent with international law for the full civilian refugee population of the Baghdad area.

Like most people, you also underestimate Iraqi determination to resist. Conscripts with no stake in invading a fellow arab nation are not a good basis of comparison for IRG troops and many other Iraqis who would resist a foreign invader bent on conquest and occupation of their homeland. Despite the bullshit, Saddam has significant popularity among Sunni arabs in and out of Iraq precisely because he has defied the west.

Hanging on for hope of relief? Not a problem. The Iraqis know there would never be military relief, but the hope of political relief from the Arab league, US allies in the Islamic world, the UN and Europe is very real.

Saddam is more likely to be dumb and try to push his balls around in a wheelbarrow, and give us a victory, but if he played strictly for a political victory, manufactured atrocities and confrontations over humanitarian aid, and worked the neutral press in areas he controls, he could very well outmaneuver the US if the US proceeds as it is now, with minimal international support, especially from key arab "allies."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Your scenario Michael, would require a highly professional and well trained force to carry out. I do not think the Iraqi forces could ever dream to attempt such a widely dispursed defence. That would require a high level of training and a degree of initiative on the part of officers and NCOs I doubt Saddam's army could ever come near. This is Saddam's army, remember?

It is real common to write off Saddam's forces because of the overall press picture of the gulf war. If you read after-action reports of many US units (1st Armored Div. and 1st Inf. Div. come to mind), you will find numerous examples cited of determined Iraqi resistance under rather hopeless conditions in the field.

Several Iraqi units fought well, all were concentrated and exposed in a way that maximized US airpower advantages, and the motivation level as invaders of a brother arab nation was a lot less than it would be as homeland defenders.

3 or 4 existing Iraqi divisions, not counting IRG units, could be counted on to provide a reasonable defense. The real issue on troop initiative in a situation like that isn't in the initiative of NCO's, it's in senior commanders turning loose their NCO's to operate once the basic mission objectives are known.

Mad Monk - be my guest.

[DanS]

MtG: Aren't you skeptical that he will let those NCOs loose? It would be directly opposed to his MO.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The question was how would I organize Iraq's defenses.

How Saddam will do it is another question, but Saddam will lose control of those NCO's pretty fast - simply because he won't be able to maintain communications.
Hung out to dry in the middle of the KTO without orders is one thing, defending in your home turf is another.

Ultimately, Saddam will be our ally, or at least his own worst enemy, if we invade. I think that's still an open question. I'm just saying the capability to win in a propaganda/political sense is there, and could be executed. Saddam probably still has visions that he can kick our ass in a stand up fight. It's not at all clear that he's ever been made aware of how badly he was whooped last time.

What may be more likely is that IRG leadership will keep him out of the loop. They're too dirty to ever survive in a post Saddam Iraq (as are a lot of folks), but it really doesn't take much C&C to get people to fire RPG's down at the roofs of vehicles.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The question was how would I organize Iraq's defenses.

There probably would be Iraqi puppet states in Saudia Arabia and Kuwait if you were running the Iraqi army at the begining of the Gulf War, wouldn't there?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the UAE would be my *****es, too.

[Chris 62]

I disagree Reb.

First, you put WAY to much faith in the world doing anything, and your glossing over some points.

First, a massive food shipment from say, the UN, who will organize it?
How will it be sent?
By whom?

Whenever the UN needs help moving large blocks of chow, they come a runnin to Uncle Sugar, only the US can move the tonnage needed quickly.
Have YOU EVER seen the UN move quickly anyway?
Second, a huge humanitarian effort REQUIRES security council approval to get UN backing, what are the chances of such a resolution being passed, let alone drafted, and who would write it?
The French?


Next, we have unused airmobile assets, in two places, the MAUs aern't commited to Afghanistan and they have the choppers to do the job.

Next, you SERIOUSLY think ANYBODY is going to throw his life away for Saddam?
He would try to bully them, threaten them, but it won't work.
I'm not underestimating them, the Iraqis are crap at war, their record going back to the 60s is a continous failure, you think they will sudenly see the light for Saddam?
I have seen the reports, and spoken to a number vets who faced them, they remember scarred sh1tless men running for their lives, squeezing off a few hardly constitutes "serious resistance".

Next, your WAY over-stating the arab world reaction, which is always the same.
Loud rhetoric followed by calculated inaction.

Your correct on the tonnage, I meant 200 tons per day at Stalingrad, of which the max ever achived was 60, proving yet again that I never proof read, I always leave that to the editor.

From a military standpoint, there is no possible way for Saddam to put up a fight, he would need politically reliable forces that have high moral and high levels of training, and we both know that ain't the case.

Best guess is his own forces will bump him off as US forces cross the border.

[DanS]

200 tons a day? That's only like 10 railroad car loads at full. Got to me more than that.

Chris: Any of your buddies engage Republican Guard units?

"The question was how would I organize Iraq's defenses."

[DanS]

Yeh, just think about that 200 tons number some more. Doesn't make any sense. Google says the Berlin airlift did 6,000 tons a day.

[Chris 62]

Yep, my old unit also helped cut off their candy-assed retreat, namely the 505 PIR, on the Left flank of the armored thrust.

From the reports, the Iraqis seemed to have no clue on how to deploy their own armor, they seemded to view tanks as mobile pill-boxes.

There is an excellent example of their ineptness, during the build-up, they staged a raid using several armored brigades from the Iraqi 5th Motorized Divsion near the Saudi town of Khafji.
I spoke with a Marine captain about this, he was attached to HQ of Task Force Taro, gaurding this piece of Saudi Arabia at the time.
The Saudi border gaurds took off, and a marine unit (a recon platoon) also fell back, but a squad was cut off in the town.
The problem was this area was under Saudi military and it's allies control, so US forces could not engage without permission of SA.
What was decided on was an night A-10 strike (the ol warthog had no fancy detection gear for this night attack), so off went TWO A-10s in support of the Marine LAV-25s (Light armor).
The fire control officer made an error, and an A-10 blew apart a Lav, killing 11 marines, however, by day break, the Iraqis were in full retreat, leaving behind at least a dozen burnt out T-55s and several APCs.
By dawn, the sky was full of F-15s cutting up what was left of the retreating force.
NOT ONE MARINE WAS KILLED FROM IRAQI FIRE.
600 Iraqi troops, backed by 50+ AFVs, and they inflicted ZERO loss on US forces, and this was at a time when the US forces were just arriving.

This is just one example, most are the same.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, just think about that 200 tons number some more. Doesn't make any sense. Google says the Berlin airlift did 6,000 tons a day.

Seems like my day for errors, a little search reveals the Germans on their best day delivered 230 tons (which is why the 200 was stuck in my head it seems), when the bare esential needed was at first 750 tons, later changed to 500 tons.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...c/vaughan.html