Live firefight on CNN - Page 5

Kramerman · March 23, 2003, 06:04

it really is incredible. anyone see the press conference with teh Iraqi information minister?

Dis · March 23, 2003, 06:06

I saw parts of it earlier. You missed when we were talking about it. the same ole anti-U.S. stuff.

Drake Tungsten · March 23, 2003, 06:06

Thanks for the info, MtG.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:09

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Far more shells for the artty than bombs for the fly boys though.

And btw, I think that most victims of shelling would dispute you.

Airplanes go quickly. The shells never stop if you are in the way.

In a building, the blast effects of the 155's are limited. A 2000 pounder will do two things: Let the bastards know we're not short of ammo and resources, so we can hit them with whatever we want; and the blast inside the building will do a lot more internal structural damage, plus stun anyone inside, so that their motivation to stay in that building while dug in are a lot less.

If you're caught in the open, you'll be screwed silly by arty, but dug in forces have amazing survival rates, although it still leaves an impression. If you're in a fighting hole and arty comes by, you're generally safe unless it's practically on top of you. With heavy bombs, the earthshake is enough to lift you out of the hole, where the shrapnel and debris can work you pretty well.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well, actually Drake, I have real doubts about what we saw tonight.

How so? Looked like standard desert infantry tactics to me.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 06:19

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

In a building, the blast effects of the 155's are limited. A 2000 pounder will do two things: Let the bastards know we're not short of ammo and resources, so we can hit them with whatever we want; and the blast inside the building will do a lot more internal structural damage, plus stun anyone inside, so that their motivation to stay in that building while dug in are a lot less.

If you're caught in the open, you'll be screwed silly by arty, but dug in forces have amazing survival rates, although it still leaves an impression. If you're in a fighting hole and arty comes by, you're generally safe unless it's practically on top of you. With heavy bombs, the earthshake is enough to lift you out of the hole, where the shrapnel and debris can work you pretty well.

What would 1 2K bomb do that 10 or 20 155 shells did not?

Look to any WWII battle site to see what arty can do. Stalingrad was not reduced to rubble by Stukas. It was guns.

How much of an end to Vietnam was brought by blowing the hell out of HCM city from the air?

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:22

I'm pretty sure if they had precision 2000lbs bounds in WWII they'd use them over arty any day when possible.

We may as well talk about how useful horses are and refer to the mongols.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

How so? Looked like standard desert infantry tactics to me.

Did not to me. Starting with the SUV out in front of the Humvees.

Continuing with soldiers lying down on hard deck in the open through the course of the 'production'.

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:24

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Did not to me. Starting with the SUV out in front of the Humvees.

Continuing with soldiers lying down on hard deck in the open through the course of the 'production'.

Why wouldn't you have an SUV?

I don't understand -- the Hummers aren't any more armoured than an SUV is.

Non-combat troops may well drive in SUVs, big deal. You do realize a hummer is an SUV anyway, right...

This is a port town -- there's lots of civilians around, either as press or as humanitarian aide coordinators. The convoy was led by an SUV, probably directing where the convoys were to go.

If you'll remember, the area was thought to be "secure"...

Dis · March 23, 2003, 06:26

but it looks cooler

and can go into deep water

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 06:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Why wouldn't you have an SUV?

I don't understand -- the Hummers aren't any more armoured than an SUV is.

Non-combat troops may well drive in SUVs, big deal. You do realize a hummer is an SUV anyway, right...

Ahh, thanks for that Asher. I am corrected now. NOT.

Kramerman · March 23, 2003, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I'm pretty sure if they had precision 2000lbs bounds in WWII they'd use them over arty any day when possible.

We may as well talk about how useful horses are and refer to the mongols.

hmm perhaps i caught the tail end of this discussion out of context, but I would have to agree with NYE. Arty can be brutally effective, if used well. And it is devestating to pretty much anything that isn't dug in or hardened, ie buildings (non-fortified), vehicles (non cobholm or explosive reactive armor

), people out in the open, or in vehicles or buildings...

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:28

I think it's rather sad that someone could think this is propaganda and organized.

The US set up remote guns in a building to simulate enemy troops firing on them (while at the same time, actually firing on their own troops!), only to blow it all up. And what would it accomplish?

Is it some huge victory that it took over 4 hours for so much incredible power to take out a dozen or so inadequately equipped Iraqi soldiers?

Or perhaps that the US army is capable of taking out a dozen inadquately equipped Iraqi soldiers?

I ask you to think about this hard for a while before you continue to embarass yourself.

Dis · March 23, 2003, 06:30

I'm just trying to save money

but that's not the best way to wage a war obviously. That's why I'm no general.

But I just couldn't see the threat such a small group had. I still think arty could have taken care of them.

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman
hmm perhaps i caught the tail end of this discussion out of context, but I would have to agree with NYE. Arty can be brutally effective, if used well. And it is devestating to pretty much anything that isn't dug in or hardened, ie buildings (non-fortified), vehicles (non cobholm or explosive reactive armor

), people out in the open, or in vehicles or buildings...

A 45lbs warhead in arty shells are considerably less effective (psychologically and physically) than a 2000lbs bomb. An arty shell is also less accurate (although that apparently didn't really matter here).

Let's be honest: There's no shortage of precision bombs. Rather than wasting even more time continually peppering a building with lots of small weak warheads, and hoping you cover enough of the building fast enough to be effective -- it'd be better to drop one big mofo on the thing and flush it out in one bomb rather than 20+ shells.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:31

A battery is six guns, rapid firing at 20 seconds once dialed in, so to get the same blast effect in total, you'd need 2-3 minutes with all six guns firing.

The difference is that the overpressure and blast energy of the 2000 pounder is concentrated in a fraction of a second, and the mass of the explosive and air gives you a higher total overpressure and a shockwave that's much stronger. Sound effects will be 20-30 dBa higher at a minimum, etc.

WW2 is an invalid comparison - the relative expense, tactical control and ground coordination, and time to target of close air support was much higher. The USMC also relies heavily on close in air support - that's why they have their own independent aviation branch, whereas the US Army is limited to rotary aviation, and has to call the Air Force for it's close support.

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:32

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ahh, thanks for that Asher. I am corrected now. NOT.

Apply that massive brain power from that arts degree and maybe it'll come to you that it simply doesn't make sense to set this up for show. It was hardly an awesome display of power, it took them forever to do it, and it showed a dozen Iraqi troops can delay a much larger US military machine.

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:35

If I were setting something up for show, I'd perhaps blow up, say, 1000 Iraqi tanks with 25 US tanks in 5 minutes, infront of cameras.

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

hmm perhaps i caught the tail end of this discussion out of context, but I would have to agree with NYE. Arty can be brutally effective, if used well. And it is devestating to pretty much anything that isn't dug in or hardened, ie buildings (non-fortified), vehicles (non cobholm or explosive reactive armor

), people out in the open, or in vehicles or buildings...

Arty against AFV's or IFV's is also real effective - the roof armor is nothing, and mobility kills are mission kills. The simple answer is that time on target may have been less for air than for arty. Even though the arty knows it's own position via GPS, the position of the enemy-held building would have to be estimated, unless an FO team with GPS and a laser designator was attached to that Marine company. Even with GPS on firer and target, accuracy with 155's is on the order of 50 meters, since wind and air density conditions aren't known. That can be improved with corrections given in the course of the fire mission, but if you've got air available, why **** with all of that?

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 06:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A battery is six guns, rapid firing at 20 seconds once dialed in, so to get the same blast effect in total, you'd need 2-3 minutes with all six guns firing.

The difference is that the overpressure and blast energy of the 2000 pounder is concentrated in a fraction of a second, and the mass of the explosive and air gives you a higher total overpressure and a shockwave that's much stronger. Sound effects will be 20-30 dBa higher at a minimum, etc.

WW2 is an invalid comparison - the relative expense, tactical control and ground coordination, and time to target of close air support was much higher. The USMC also relies heavily on close in air support - that's why they have their own independent aviation branch, whereas the US Army is limited to rotary aviation, and has to call the Air Force for it's close support.

Assuming the guys in the air hit the right target.

And, no, it's not invalid. The same problems apply today that applied then. It is awefully difficult to tell wth is going on down there, from the air.

Or maybe 4 more PPCLI troopers would be alive today...

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
If I were setting something up for show, I'd perhaps blow up, say, 1000 Iraqi tanks with 25 US tanks in 5 minutes, infront of cameras.

73 Easting or 24th ID reams Tawakalna would do much better for that.

Actually, this is nice for show, but not in the regular sense. These guys took there time, no major stress, no question as to who was in charge or what the result was going to be - you can come out now, or we can ruin your day and then you can come out, but you're going to die or surrender, and we'll move on without casualties or significant delay. Your choice.

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:42

Quote:

Or maybe 4 more PPCLI troopers would be alive today...

Ah, so that's what this is about.

I'm gonna go to bed now. But for future reference, I'm the kind of guy who won SMAC games by building only planet-busters and wiping everyone out but me on the map in 1-2 turns if possible.

And in Civ I attack and raze cities as I go.

Drake Tungsten · March 23, 2003, 06:44

Quote:

PPCLI

Prince Philip's Canadian Light Infantry?

MichaeltheGreat · March 23, 2003, 06:44

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Assuming the guys in the air hit the right target.

And, no, it's not invalid. The same problems apply today that applied then. It is awefully difficult to tell wth is going on down there, from the air.

Or maybe 4 more PPCLI troopers would be alive today...

In broad daylight, it's pretty hard to miss a multistory building.

notyoueither · March 23, 2003, 06:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Apply that massive brain power from that arts degree and maybe it'll come to you that it simply doesn't make sense to set this up for show. It was hardly an awesome display of power, it took them forever to do it, and it showed a dozen Iraqi troops can delay a much larger US military machine.

Maybe that massive compusci brain power will make it come to you that propaganda comes as you get it.

And it seldom makes any sense to people later.

And who the hell leads into battle in a Bronco?

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Prince Philip's Canadian Light Infantry?

Very close. Patricia instead of Philips.

They're based in Edmonton, Alberta -- it's who was bombed by US pilots last year.

Drake Tungsten · March 23, 2003, 06:46

Damn. I knew the PP was going to get me...

Quote:

it's who was bombed by US pilots last year.

I figured as much.

Asher · March 23, 2003, 06:46

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Maybe that massive compusci brain power will make it come to you that propaganda comes as you get it.

But it wouldn't make sense. It's not propaganda because it hasn't SAID anything, it was just something cool to watch for the first time on TV.

I think you need to snap back to the real world.

Quote:

And who the hell leads into battle in a Bronco?

They weren't heading into battle, it was a convoy of vehicles in an area that was assumed to be secure. Not only any area, a port area that needs to be coordinated (maybe by people in SUVs...)