The Battle of Baghdad

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Ardennes offensive didn't make any sense, either.

right, when the skies cleared and a massive eastern offensive was launched by the red army.
IIRC, churchill said 'wow, we can still lose this war' or something....or was it dwight?

[Daz]

Why "mini" Stanilgrad? Baghdad has over 5 million inhabitants. Lets say a million flee (unlikely, but just for the sake of the argument), that leaves 4 million, with hundreds of thousands of armed defenders.
I, and any military expert, will tell you that there is no way such a city can be taken by a military force without:

1. Levelling the city, including the civilians.

2. Treason or mass desertion.

Someone mentioned Stalingrad. How many casualties did the germans have? How many civilians got killed? Can the Bush gov take any of that?

I personally know of a city of about 30.000 ppl that was reduced to rubble by a overwhelming force and it still took out about 100 tanks and APCs, and thousands of attackers. But 4 mil!!!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LaRusso


right, when the skies cleared and a massive eastern offensive was launched by the red army.
IIRC, churchill said 'wow, we can still lose this war' or something....or was it dwight?

Patton reportedly said it (in the movie ), but I don't know if anyone actually did say it. It was typical in that time to have very little knowledge of the actual state of the enemy's forces and capabilities, so once it became clear what the Germans had to work with, even under the worst of circumstances it wouldn't have been enough to knock either western ally out of the war.

The net result was to make the Soviet offensive more effective by stripping defenders from the east to be able to attack west.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Daz
Why "mini" Stanilgrad? Baghdad has over 5 million inhabitants. Lets say a million flee (unlikely, but just for the sake of the argument), that leaves 4 million, with hundreds of thousands of armed defenders.

Hundreds of thousands? Definitely not that many, and at this point, people's loyalty will be questionable. Baghdad is also a very wide and spread out city, so the hardcore who want to die with this regime will mostly be in small pockets here and there.

I, and any military expert, will tell you that there is no way such a city can be taken by a military force without:

1. Levelling the city, including the civilians.

2. Treason or mass desertion.

There's a few more options, but your list would apply only if there was a well supplied, well disciplined force in the size you assume, ready to fight it out. In any case, the Iraqis are good at mass desertion - most don't want to fight for this regime.

[Ned]

Unless I miss my bet, I think there is no Iraqi armor now between our divisions and downtown Baghdad. I think our armor could drive right downtown if it wanted to. So the question is

Do we stop?

Or do we drive downtown?

I know which one Patton would have taken and which one Monty would have taken. But what will Franks do?

Delay could allow Saddam to reqroup and organize a hasty defense. I say, full speed ahead!

[Ned]

Actually, with sufficient boldness, the war could be over in a day - assuming an Iraqi surrender if we take Baghdad in a bold move.

[spiritof1202]

I'm uncertain if Saddam/whoever is left in charge will allow the regular Republican Guard into Baghdad. It has obvious advantages and risks.

Saddam hasn't allowed them in before... will he risk it now?

[Ned]

Spiritof1202, if we move fast enough, Saddam won't even have time to move armored Republican guard divisions into Baghdad. Besides, the reason they are not in Baghdad is that Saddam does not trust them.

All he's got in Baghdad is the Special Republican Guards who do not have armor, according to news reports.

[Drake Tungsten]

All he's got in Baghdad is the Special Republican Guards who do not have armor, according to news reports.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the news reports. They don't have a clue most of the time...

[Pekka]

You guys have any estimates when this starts? I want to tune in to watch it, but we have different time zones, and I'd predict that they start it when it's prime time.. any guesses?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, with sufficient boldness, the war could be over in a day - assuming an Iraqi surrender if we take Baghdad in a bold move.

Tanks don't do well driving between tall buildings with RPG teams everywhere. Not to mention command detonated mines hidden in the storm sewers, little details like that.

Patton's era of warfighting is over, and if you want to get an idea of how he handled situations that weren't in his favor, look into his conduct of the campaign around Metz in the fall of 1944.

[DanS]

What I want to know is where are the prisoners of war? Did we just "destroy" phantom divisions?

[GePap]

Well, as far as I understood it, we destroyed so much of their heavy equipment and vehicles that even if a few thousand RG troops are sitting in some town, they can;t really fire at the US, or move in any way, and thus are meaningless. That is what i think they mean when they say we 'destroyed" these divisions.

On the issue of troop levels: we have what, 3-4 divisions moving on Baghdad? What is the average size per division? 15Kk, 20k, 25k?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
From an airlift standpoint, it's about the same. A full scale divisional airlift can be made in around 1400 C5B sorties, which takes a while because there's not that many of them, they have traffic limits on airfields, and you have to figure in maintenance hours for the aircraft. With C17s, it's about 2300 sorties for the full division.

As far as equipment goes, M1's are a pain in the ass - you can move one and a little extra stuff in a C17, or you can move two in a C5B with a little extra mid-air refueling, since two M1's are very close to the operational weight limit of the C5. M2's and M109's are lighter, but they take up a lot of space, so efficient loading and palletizing of supplies takes time, so you can reduce the total number of airlift sorties.

Are you sure that C5s and C17s can carry a M1 tank? During the staging of the last Gulf War wasn't the US forced to ship its armor by sea because the planes couldn't carry the heavy tanks?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Tanks don't do well driving between tall buildings with RPG teams everywhere. Not to mention command detonated mines hidden in the storm sewers, little details like that.

Patton's era of warfighting is over, and if you want to get an idea of how he handled situations that weren't in his favor, look into his conduct of the campaign around Metz in the fall of 1944.

It is my impression that Baghdad has freeways and broad streets all the way downtown. This should not present a major problem to tank battalions.

I just read a brief account of the battle of Metz. The 95th feinted a frontal attack on the forts while the main force attacked from the rear. The tanks and infrantry charged into downtown Metz.

What was the problem with this? It seems just like what I proposed - a swift strike to take the city center. The rest of the Baghdad campaign would be taking out isolated pockets of resistance. This could be made vastly easier if the government centers of power were in Allied hands.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Are you sure that C5s and C17s can carry a M1 tank? During the staging of the last Gulf War wasn't the US forced to ship its armor by sea because the planes couldn't carry the heavy tanks?

They can carry one apiece, IIRC (an amazing feat, considering the M1 weighs 70 tons ). Its much, much more economical to ship them in bulk by ship, i believe

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
What I want to know is where are the prisoners of war? Did we just "destroy" phantom divisions?

"Destroy" means render combat ineffective.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, as far as I understood it, we destroyed so much of their heavy equipment and vehicles that even if a few thousand RG troops are sitting in some town, they can;t really fire at the US, or move in any way, and thus are meaningless. That is what i think they mean when they say we 'destroyed" these divisions.

On the issue of troop levels: we have what, 3-4 divisions moving on Baghdad? What is the average size per division? 15Kk, 20k, 25k?

The US has aggregated other units on to most divisions.

Typical size is about 15,000 and change, actual size in theater is more like 20-25,000.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


It is my impression that Baghdad has freeways and broad streets all the way downtown. This should not present a major problem to tank battalions.

Not at all. Until they're killed. Buttoned down, the accessible MG's have a maximum elevation of around 20 degrees or so, but visibility is almost non-existent at that elevation, so the tanks would have to be unbuttoned. A few rounds from snipers to button 'em up, then RPG's out hastily broken windows with close range shots at roof armor, and you've got a lot of hurt coming. You have to have dismounted infantry support, and a lot of it.

I just read a brief account of the battle of Metz. The 95th feinted a frontal attack on the forts while the main force attacked from the rear. The tanks and infrantry charged into downtown Metz.

I might be mixing Metz and Sedan, but Patton first hung up on the forts themselves, for a good long time, then wouldn't let go because "Third Army had never been defeated" Casualties around the forts ended up being somewhere in the 2000-3000 range, with no good result. Patton then decided to skip the forts.

A mad dash puts a huge degree of unnecessary risk into the operation. This is not a breakthrough and exploitation, or a pursuit. This is the final phase of the war, and we have all the advantages and no clock running. There are times when maneuver and methodical application of force are superior tactics.

What we have to worry about now is the politics in the entire region and in the US. Excessive casualties (among any group - ours, their military or their civilians) will complicate the long term political situation, for getting Saddam's boys a few days earlier, if things work out as hoped.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kramerman


They can carry one apiece, IIRC (an amazing feat, considering the M1 weighs 70 tons ). Its much, much more economical to ship them in bulk by ship, i believe

C5's can carry two, by reducing their fuel load and refueling in midair more often.

It's not only a matter of cost (must be 50 times higher or more to move them by air) but airlift priority. There needs to be a burning urgent need to move heavy equipment en masse by air.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


A mad dash puts a huge degree of unnecessary risk into the operation. This is not a breakthrough and exploitation, or a pursuit. This is the final phase of the war, and we have all the advantages and no clock running. There are times when maneuver and methodical application of force are superior tactics.

What we have to worry about now is the politics in the entire region and in the US. Excessive casualties (among any group - ours, their military or their civilians) will complicate the long term political situation, for getting Saddam's boys a few days earlier, if things work out as hoped.

I see a methodical reduction of Baghdad as potentially being very bloody and time consuming. On recent broadcasts, almost every military commander said that the civilian casualties can best be reduced by shortening the time of the campaign. We need to take Baghdad quickly.

Just reviewing those threads on Patton in France, the commentators noted that the key to his advance was always keeping the Germans off balance - never letting them have the opportunity to regroup. That is what I see now in Iraq. We have punched through the Republican Guard divisions to the Southwest and Southeast. There are no Guard divisions in the city itself - yet. We should not give Saddam time to regroup and form defenses. We should go in hard and fast, now.

However, I have a feeling that we just might pause and go into an effete siege mode ala the Brits in Basra.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
There are no Guard divisions in the city itself - yet.

D'oh! They've already been bypassed and eliminated as combat effective. Are they gonna fight through the rear of the US forces to break in to Baghdad?

We should not give Saddam time to regroup and form defenses. We should go in hard and fast, now.

Who's we? You and I aren't going. Charging blind into a city of millions without any real intel on the situation there is a good way to seriously piss away the major advantage we have, which are the ability to dictate the time, place and nature of any moves we make.

Whatever defenses he has in Baghdad he's had a couple of decades to prepare. Fedayin, SRG, ISSS, Baath irregs, etc.

However, I have a feeling that we just might pause and go into an effete siege mode ala the Brits in Basra.

Sorry the war's taken two weeks so far, and we don't have enough body count on both sides to please you. Have you ever been under fire? It might really surprise you, but this isn't Civ II.

[Ned]

MTG, I understand this very issue is debated in the mornings Wash. Post: whether to pause or to charge.

You might also recall that the NVA drove right into Saigon as the army and the regime collapesed. Most of Germany went down easy. The only city that held out was Berlin. I suppose they were hoping that the city could be surrendered to the US forces that were nearby.

Stalingrad and Leningrad are major examples of stiff resistence. Somehow, I simply do not believe this will be a Stalingrad or a Berlin.

As to me, I think Patton, MacArthur and Nimitz are my kind of Generals. McClellan certainly would pause and dally if he was in command.

[Kramerman]

I simply do not believe this will be a Stalingrad or a Berlin.

I dont think it will be that bad either, but i definately dont think it will be easy... I dunno how we are going to do it. Either way (blitz or gradual) will bring many casualties, but I feel the slower approach would be more effective. If we could somehow effectively and systematically sweep and clear the city of resistance, minimizing casualties on all sides (i dont think civilians are gonna like seeing fellow Iraqis, Saddam's hardcore enforcers or not, blown to bits) that would be ideal... but how?

[Lord Merciless]

We know the locations of 3rd Infantry, 101 Air Assault, elements of 82nd Airborne Divisions, and 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. But where are the 1st Cavalry and 1st Armored Divisions?

[Ned]

LM, They haven't deployed yet.

[GePap]

You know, where is V corp, and honestly, were are the RG divisions?

We are told they have become combat ineffective, but even if that is totally true, why haven't we seen the impact of the bombing? We are being told 20,000 troops have been rendered ineffective. were they all killed outrigth by the bombing? That would be unprecedented, even more devastating than what we got from massive B-52 attacks in GW1.

Also, supposedly the Coolition has 9000 POW's, out of an army of 230,000 men. How many deo we think are dead, and how many went home, and how many just moved into Baghdad?

The other interesting thing is about the power. The Us states they did not take it out, which would leave the government. Now, I can see some reasons why they would want cut power..but could they be planning something? I mean, is it only 3 ID and the Marines moving into Baghdad?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GePap
You know, where is V corp, and honestly, were are the RG divisions?

We are told they have become combat ineffective, but even if that is totally true, why haven't we seen the impact of the bombing? We are being told 20,000 troops have been rendered ineffective. were they all killed outrigth by the bombing? That would be unprecedented, even more devastating than what we got from massive B-52 attacks in GW1.

Also, supposedly the Coolition has 9000 POW's, out of an army of 230,000 men. How many deo we think are dead, and how many went home, and how many just moved into Baghdad?

The other interesting thing is about the power. The Us states they did not take it out, which would leave the government. Now, I can see some reasons why they would want cut power..but could they be planning something? I mean, is it only 3 ID and the Marines moving into Baghdad?

I have thought about some of these same questions.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
You might also recall that the NVA drove right into Saigon as the army and the regime collapesed.

Like it or not, this is (like most) a political war. What we do here, and especially what can be spun out of what we do here, is going to effect the future stability of Baghdad, and the perception of the US and the war in the entire middle east. Unless you want to do the "raghead rumble" for the next 50,000 years or so, emulaing the NVA move into Saigon is really not the way to go.

The NVA had different issues - they didn't really give a **** if they killed civilians going into the city, or after they had to round them up and put them against a wall later, or in "reeducation camps."

Most of Germany went down easy. The only city that held out was Berlin.

So has most of Iraq. That's irrelevant to the level of resistance to be faced from those who simply can't surrender.

Stalingrad and Leningrad are major examples of stiff resistence. Somehow, I simply do not believe this will be a Stalingrad or a Berlin.

Not even close, but it doesn't have to be close for us to lose a lot politically, within Iraq, within the Islamic world as a whole, or domestically.

As to me, I think Patton, MacArthur and Nimitz are my kind of Generals. McClellan certainly would pause and dally if he was in command.

Patton and MacArthur were egomaniacs looking for their place in history, although Patton was at least effective, albeit at the cost of his own troops casualties.

Personally, I prefer Ridgway, Lee, and O.P. Smith.

[Ned]

GePap, I think they are dead. Here is a quote from a story about the Kurds that reports that "attrit" means dead.

Barham Saleh, a member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's and prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government, said the Kurds are ready to play a major role in the effort.

"The stakes are very high," Saleh said. "We're telling our American friends: 'We can do it together. We can do Baghdad together. We can do Iraq together. We, the Iraqi people together with the American liberators and the British liberators, we can achieve the task of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies.' "

Some Kurds said they believe coalition airstrikes have so degraded Iraqi forces that only terrorist elements are left to defend Saddam's regime.

In recent days, these intensive strikes bombarding front-line positions have pushed Iraqi troops back to perimeter locations around Mosul and Kirkuk, key cities near Iraq's northern oil fields.