Basic rules of war neglected?

[Stuart Mackey]

See, this is the problem with the American military right now:

snip

Lets not forget Napoleon.
"A general must ask himself constantly, 'what would I do if the enemy appeared to my front? or to my left or in the rear?', if he is unable to answer this, then his dispositions are in error and he must make amends"

[MKSheppard]

Leaving aside specific tactical issues such as the decision to rush to Baghdad rather than moving in and securing territory gradually,

*beats Wong to death with the bloody corpses of dead people who died
needlessly whenever the tactics of Blitzkrieg were forgotten*

You do not sieze every last bit of territory or watch your flanks with Blitzkreig.

Heinz Guderian didn't watch his flanks or worry about securing territory
as he raced towards the Channel coast in May 1940.

The Iraqis now have to deal with a mobile fast moving armored force
that now controls a very significant fraction of their country
south of the Euphrates river...The Iraqi High Command has been eating
a shit-sammich ever since this war started.

[Vympel]

The advance has been halted for at least four, and up to six, days. Guderian wasn't dealing with harassment along his lines of supply in France-incidentally, the Germans were in Barbarossa.

As for the speed of advance, I am totally unimpressed. The Iraqis never fought for the open desert- and every single major town has been an absolute bitch to take.

[Nathan F]

Remember that battle a couple days ago where the ragheads tried to counterattack, and we wasted about 150 of theirs for 0 of ours?

But no, the Iraqis downed a helicopter, and sent a couple of tanks out for repairs.... Ooh.....

Not even sure if they were the cause of the downed 'copter.

Still possible it was just engine trouble, and it really doesn't look like it was shot down, to me...

[Vympel]

Not even sure if they were the cause of the downed 'copter.

Still possible it was just engine trouble, and it really doesn't look like it was shot down, to me...

All it takes is a relatively minor hit in the right place for an attack helicopter - could have been a hydraulics or oil hit, for example, or the control system could've been fucked up- in all liklihood, the pilots autorotated to the ground and ran- too bad they got caught though.

[Darth Wong]

Within fifty miles of Baghdad and 15 (I think) total combat deaths. Eat it.

Yes, the advance has successfully seized vast stretches of empty desert. Let us all hoot for joy. Face facts; the objective is not to seize control of empty desert. And whenever they hit a city of more than a couple of thousand people, they bog down hard.

An entire squadron of Apaches was forced to retreat from battle, heavily damaged, because the enemy adapted his tactics after the last war and for some reason, no one thought they might do this. The coalition forces have been unable to take any major city. And the justification for the war leaned heavily on the claim that it would be short and decisive, not long and drawn-out (which inevitably means more civilian casualties).

[Vympel]

I feel so prescient- I voted that the war would last for months in the relevant poll

[Sokar]

To my amazement I agree with both Shep AND Lord Wong. So far our adoption of blitzkrieg style tactics has let us advance along a wide front, however I also agree with Lord Wong in that our vaunted commanders went in to this one light. Add in to that an Iraqi enemy that has so far refused to roll over and play dead, and we have a conundrum that no one seemes to have fully planned for. Now even I was confident that the Iraqis would surrender en masse ala Desert Storm, however Im just an ameture soilder afficiando, I expect better of our field commanders.

We've commited to this offensive with to few troops and as a result our supply lines and rear areas security forces are thin. Even in Blitz , you still need flank screening units to secure your supply corridors and to warn of flanking manuvers, these seem to be absent, or streched to thin to be fully effective. What happened to that Texas Mantinence Company is a prime example.

Also , I agree that we have failed to take almost any key urban areas, and taking open desert dosent really hurt Saddam in any meaningful way, hes got more sand than he knows what to do with. IMHO , American commanders were traumatized by the Vietnam legacy even worse than the American public at large. Taking casualties is something to be avoided at all costs, even at the cost of victory it seems... Now, dont get me wrong, Im not in favor of stupid headlong human wave assaults, but at some point the commander has to take the bull by the horns and order his troops to assault an enemy held objective, wether its a bunker complex, airfield or town. This by definition mean casualties, victory means sacrificing some of your troops in order to achieve victory in the most expidient manner possible. US Commanders it seems want the victory, but not the nightmares and ghosts that accompany victory. Veteran commanders don't have grey hair and premature age lines around their eyes from pushing buttons and firing missiles from 20,000 feet, they come from sending young men to their deaths, sometimes in job lots, but winning the battle.
Patton understood this, so did Guderian, Kliest, Hoth Bradley, Zhukov, Rokossovskii and all the other Comamnders who won fame , but also a litany of painful memories and lost lives that haunted their dreams.

It seems to me that Gen. Franks, and this could be eiether praiseful or damning depending on your POV, is unwilling to join this august company.I support the war , but I also know and accept that suport means Im supporting the deaths of US service men and women, but I have to console myself in that belief by knowing that its a good and right thing we are doing.(My opinion, Im not going to debate it) The ends justifies the cost, if not the means.

Whats the answer, for me its get on with it, every minute we delay will just adds to the butchers bill. Send the forces that we need , and get the hell on with it. With luck Gen Franks dithering hasn't cost us the iniative, and we can still win this with only light casualties.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Whose for Starting a fund on Amazon, for sending the PoUS copies of The Art of War, The Prince, The complete works of Clauswitz, & Book of the Five Rings, as he has obviously never read any of them, and should have before assuming office.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Also while we are at it, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by Theodore Edward Lawrence should be sent to Colin Powell post haste because of his comments on Gays in the Military, and the impossibility of fighting Guerilla actions in a desert. He obviously has never heard of the guy.

[Sokar]

Also while we are at it, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by Theodore Edward Lawrence should be sent to Colin Powell post haste because of his comments on Gays in the Military, and the impossibility of fighting Guerilla actions in a desert. He obviously has never heard of the guy.

Score! Some one should have definatly added T.E. Lawrence to their required reading list.

[MKSheppard]

Also while we are at it, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by Theodore Edward Lawrence should be sent to Colin Powell post haste because of his comments on Gays in the Military, and the impossibility of fighting Guerilla actions in a desert. He obviously has never heard of the guy.

Keep in mind that these so-called "guerillas" are really city boys from
Baghdad. Our Army is better trained in living in the desert than these
people who have lived in Iraq their whole life now in the Iraqi Army!

[Knife]

Is it just me, or does it appear as if the American military's leaders have been woefully negligent of extremely basic rules of war? Their overwhelming technological superiority will presumably win the day regardless, but as time passes, it appears that the people in charge planned this war on 4 assumptions:

1. The Iraqis will not fight.
2. The Iraqis will change sides readily.
3. Saddam's regime and his military organization will not change their tactics in any way after the 1991 defeat.
4. There is no need to conceal any of our troop movements from the enemy (hell, we'll broadcast them and announce them in advance; there will be no repeat of Schwarzkopf's feint and "left hook").

Leaving aside specific tactical issues such as the decision to rush to Baghdad rather than moving in and securing territory gradually, their general mindset is disturbing. Since when has anyone ever been successful by relying on the assumption of stupidity, passivity, and disloyalty on the part of his enemy, or by making no attempt whatsoever to conceal his movements and plans?

Ok, first disclaimer is that I have not read the tread past this point. I am now currently reading it, so don't worry. However I want to adress the points that origanly started the tread.

Every thing that you just said, Oh mighty Wong, is standard infantry tactics. While is would seem that our troops were blind sided by the Iraqi tactics of a week ago, the fact that we lost ONE convoy to an ambush, is small and not crusial (loss of life is always crusial, but the covoy itself is really not). Yes, some highers, might have been too cocky, but to say in any respect that the events of the last week has in any way set back allied troops in their mission is abusred. The troops on the ground are too much aware of standard military tactics that say the best bet is to not hit the forward elements but to disrupt the rear echelon troops. After all, an Army marches on its stomach.

Baghdad is the only stategic target. If Baghdad falls (and its leadership) so does the rest of the country. All of the enforcers get their orders from the people in Baghdad. The whole regiem is dependent on orders from the fucknuts in the headshed. We know (the military) that to rush ahead and kill the head of the snake, is the best bet to cut the time in half of controling the situation. There are slower ways to do it, but to decapitate the leadership is the best way. Too bad we missed on the outset of the campaign.

Current military leaders have lost what? Less than 100 troopers in covering 300 miles of Iraqi territory. While I lament the deaths of the troopers on the allied side (and even the thousands on the Iraqi side), the losses so far for the allied side, is so small as compared to other campaigns that is almost laughable (if it wasn't war). We are in no way losing this war, nor are we even remotely close to being on the negitive side of this war. We are winning this war in every respect. The only possible way we are in the negitive, is that we have lost less than 100 people.

Are we subject to critism to the fact that some of our rear echelon troops need more security? Yes, the school that I taught at, emphisied that this in necessary. We constantly need to reinforce this and it seems that the nitch that my school provided, is still needed. But the fact that the realitively small number of people that have become KIA or POW has reveled that this is not as big as a problem as some news agencies have made it out to be.

[Stuart Mackey]

Also while we are at it, "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by Theodore Edward Lawrence should be sent to Colin Powell post haste because of his comments on Gays in the Military, and the impossibility of fighting Guerilla actions in a desert. He obviously has never heard of the guy.

Keep in mind that these so-called "guerillas" are really city boys from
Baghdad. Our Army is better trained in living in the desert than these
people who have lived in Iraq their whole life now in the Iraqi Army!

Actualy, that one of the funny things people dont realise.
Just because you are native to an area does not mean you are an instant natural born soldier who can 'dissapear' in your 'natural' environment.
Just look at how many wsterners get lost in their own country to see why, you need proper training to survive in any environment without easy access to food, water and shelter.

[Knife]

The advance has been halted for at least four, and up to six, days. Guderian wasn't dealing with harassment along his lines of supply in France-incidentally, the Germans were in Barbarossa.

As for the speed of advance, I am totally unimpressed. The Iraqis never fought for the open desert- and every single major town has been an absolute bitch to take.

Yes, historacly, all cities fall with in one week on siege. Give em some time man. We just started this thing.

[Stuart Mackey]

The advance has been halted for at least four, and up to six, days. Guderian wasn't dealing with harassment along his lines of supply in France-incidentally, the Germans were in Barbarossa.

As for the speed of advance, I am totally unimpressed. The Iraqis never fought for the open desert- and every single major town has been an absolute bitch to take.

Yes, historacly, all cities fall with in one week on siege. Give em some time man. We just started this thing.

Well I hope the American logistics improve, cause I saw report that some of your chaps are down to a days rations.

[MKSheppard]

Well I hope the American logistics improve, cause I saw report that some of your chaps are down to a days rations.

So? You can survive for 30~ days with no food. It's water that's the killer.

[Rubberanvil]

As for the speed of advance, I am totally unimpressed. The Iraqis never fought for the open desert- and every single major town has been an absolute bitch to take.

Considering the Coalition forces are fighting with kid gloves on to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties of course taking cities is going to be a problem.

[Stuart Mackey]

Well I hope the American logistics improve, cause I saw report that some of your chaps are down to a days rations.

So? You can survive for 30~ days with no food. It's water that's the killer.

And you can function effectivly ,without food for 15 days, in a battle?
Granted, things dont always go to plan in war.

[Knife]

The advance has been halted for at least four, and up to six, days. Guderian wasn't dealing with harassment along his lines of supply in France-incidentally, the Germans were in Barbarossa.

As for the speed of advance, I am totally unimpressed. The Iraqis never fought for the open desert- and every single major town has been an absolute bitch to take.

Yes, historacly, all cities fall with in one week on siege. Give em some time man. We just started this thing.

Well I hope the American logistics improve, cause I saw report that some of your chaps are down to a days rations.

Curent logistical support, would in likelyhood, be in the order of a few days. You can only carry so many MRE's, to expect that the standard trooper can carry a weeks worth of food is dumb. You only carry about one or two days with you and maybe a days worth of water on you body at any given time. Constant resupply is necessary and it is that reason that the resupply lines are a target.

[Stuart Mackey]

Yes, historacly, all cities fall with in one week on siege. Give em some time man. We just started this thing.

Well I hope the American logistics improve, cause I saw report that some of your chaps are down to a days rations.

Curent logistical support, would in likelyhood, be in the order of a few days. You can only carry so many MRE's, to expect that the standard trooper can carry a weeks worth of food is dumb. You only carry about one or two days with you and maybe a days worth of water on you body at any given time. Constant resupply is necessary and it is that reason that the resupply lines are a target.

??? NZ army soldiers carry a weeks worth of rations with them, but the same amount of water. Whats with your rations then?

[Stuart Mackey]

Well I hope the American logistics improve, cause I saw report that some of your chaps are down to a days rations.

Curent logistical support, would in likelyhood, be in the order of a few days. You can only carry so many MRE's, to expect that the standard trooper can carry a weeks worth of food is dumb. You only carry about one or two days with you and maybe a days worth of water on you body at any given time. Constant resupply is necessary and it is that reason that the resupply lines are a target.

??? NZ army soldiers carry a weeks worth of rations with them, but the same amount of water. Whats with your rations then?

*Edit* A NZ soldier will carry three 24 hour rat packs and further rats at battlion level, IIRC

[Rubberanvil]

??? NZ army soldiers carry a weeks worth of rations with them, but the same amount of water. Whats with your rations then?

IIRC US troops would carrying more ammunition, and other combat necessities instead of carrying additional rations. There is a weight limit to how much a soldier can phyisically carry.

[Stuart Mackey]

??? NZ army soldiers carry a weeks worth of rations with them, but the same amount of water. Whats with your rations then?

IIRC US troops would carrying more ammunition, and other combat necessities instead of carrying additional rations. There is a weight limit to how much a soldier can phyisically carry.

Read my edit.
Our soldiers do not sacrafice ammo for rations, I assure you.

[Darth Wong]

Every thing that you just said, Oh mighty Wong, is standard infantry tactics. While is would seem that our troops were blind sided by the Iraqi tactics of a week ago, the fact that we lost ONE convoy to an ambush, is small and not crusial (loss of life is always crusial, but the covoy itself is really not). Yes, some highers, might have been too cocky, but to say in any respect that the events of the last week has in any way set back allied troops in their mission is abusred.

Why? They've publicly admitted that they've had to set their schedule back. Are they being absurd?

Current military leaders have lost what? Less than 100 troopers in covering 300 miles of Iraqi territory. While I lament the deaths of the troopers on the allied side (and even the thousands on the Iraqi side), the losses so far for the allied side, is so small as compared to other campaigns that is almost laughable (if it wasn't war). We are in no way losing this war, nor are we even remotely close to being on the negitive side of this war. We are winning this war in every respect. The only possible way we are in the negitive, is that we have lost less than 100 people.

No one's saying that you're LOSING. You're missing the point, which is that a victory which takes too long and costs too many Iraqi lives will undermine the justification for the war in the first place (that it's OK to inflict a small amount of damage to remove the larger evil), thus creating all of the lingering regional resentment, anger, and hatred that the naysayers feared and that the cheerleaders said would not happen.