StarDestroyer.Net BBS

While there is no dubt that the US can thump Iraq, the question is how and with what will the US do it.
US forces suffred a large reduction during the 90's, as such what time frame do people think the US will need to get decent forces in position to topple Saddam, if they deside to do that, and how will tose forces be supported {Ie the logistics of the operation}

Well we got alot of nukes left.... Not so many tanks, Lots of Bombers, Few Ground Troops(US Army was 37% under what they wanted for recruitment last year, A huge amount also chose not to re-enlist)

To be fair the best way would be a three week bombing strike on all Saddam's Military hard-ware and arrange it so you have enough Bombs and Bombers over there that, there is somthing always on its way to a strike or conducting one.(Hard I know but the Pyschological Advantage is HUGE)

Move in a Tank Force hmm who do we have in SA right now? Along with all avaible Attack Helecopters, Bring the Flat-tops to either the Gulf or the Sea then move the Crusiers up, Nothing beats good old fasion 21 Gun salute aginst some Iraq targests

Mr Bean wrote:Well we got alot of nukes left.... Not so many tanks, Lots of Bombers, Few Ground Troops(US Army was 37% under what they wanted for recruitment last year, A huge amount also chose not to re-enlist)

Cripes, thats not good. but I dont think any one will use nukes..

Mr Bean wrote:To be fair the best way would be a three week bombing strike on all Saddam's Military hard-ware and arrange it so you have enough Bombs and Bombers over there that, there is somthing always on its way to a strike or conducting one.(Hard I know but the Pyschological Advantage is HUGE)

The bombers are unlikly to get all the Iraqi armour etc, plus there is a possibility that the Iraqies will put a loot of their army in cities.
Then you have baseing issues.

Mr Bean wrote:Move in a Tank Force hmm who do we have in SA right now? Along with all avaible Attack Helecopters, Bring the Flat-tops to either the Gulf or the Sea then move the Crusiers up, Nothing beats good old fasion 21 Gun salute aginst some Iraq targests

You have a base issue in the gulf. America can not base any attack out of Saudi, Jordan and possibly Turkey. You may get to do it out of Kuwait. but this severly restricts your ability distract the enemys attention. Also you dont have good sea based firesupport now the BB's are gone, and most of the A6 squadrons are gone.
Inshort, while combat against the Iraqis will be short and deadly for the Iraqui's, I am concerned that you are not going to have the comprativly free ride you had in 90-91. and your logistics chain is very long if you have to actually want to go to Baghdad.

Hit Baghdad with everything. In the Gulf War, IIRC, thousands of Iraqi soldier just threw down their weapons. If we can nail Baghdad and get Saddam, or force him underground, in the opening rounds, it's Game Over.

Actually, invading Iraq will be more difficult a proposition that planned. Saddam is placing the majority of his army within his cities to force any invaders into urban combat rather than let us beat the crap out of him in the field like last time. At least that's what CNN said about the Iraqi press conference.

That and Saddam's Army is still pretty much road limited, He still does not have GPSs in his tanks yet I belive, forcing him to be road bound. On the upside with going into Citys is you have some many nice buildings to drop onto Tanks and whatnot, and those in the streets are pretty targets for GPS bombs and we still have half a dozen *Bunker Busters ready to go and far as we can tell he only has nine bunkers left

Cyril wrote:Hit Baghdad with everything. In the Gulf War, IIRC, thousands of Iraqi soldier just threw down their weapons. If we can nail Baghdad and get Saddam, or force him underground, in the opening rounds, it's Game Over.

Every thing of what? the amount of troops you can support is detrimined entirly by your logistics train, POL, Ammunition, spare part, food and water.
Given the reduction during the 90's what can America support in a full blown invation with out a large build up {last one took a year to get ready and with a more capable support system}?
And this is not the last gulf war, you cannot just say "in the last match they gave up quicker than a frenchie at the first whiff of the Boche", you must assume that they will fight, and fight hard.
You dont have the luxury of baseing out of Saudi, Jordan, Syria and posibly Turkey {not sure on that one though) which limits your axis of advance somewhat, not to mention if you have less than 100 000 troops you theoreticaly risk defeat in detail on a two axis advance from differnt ends of the country. Last time you did not go to Baghdad, so you will have a longer distance to travell, with all that that entails..
So I wouldnt risk lives on assumptions of the enemy giving up at the fisrt shot.

Mr Bean wrote:That and Saddam's Army is still pretty much road limited, He still does not have GPSs in his tanks yet I belive, forcing him to be road bound.

Unless his troops have learned to navigate properly...

Mr Bean wrote: On the upside with going into Citys is you have some many nice buildings to drop onto Tanks and whatnot, and those in the streets are pretty targets for GPS bombs and we still have half a dozen *Bunker Busters ready to go and far as we can tell he only has nine bunkers left

Lots of civvies in cities to drop bombs on too....

Gil Hamilton wrote:Actually, invading Iraq will be more difficult a proposition that planned. Saddam is placing the majority of his army within his cities to force any invaders into urban combat rather than let us beat the crap out of him in the field like last time. At least that's what CNN said about the Iraqi press conference.

Which makes the distance and logistics issues even more important. FUBA fighting eats men and equipment in a horrible way.

They've been learning MOUT and they can deploy from the beaches right
away, no need to fuck with Saudi Arabia or anyone else, if we use the
amphibs along with the CVBGs

Just what will the U.S decide to bomb? Will they target cities and go after innocent civilians or will they target the much speculated 'weapons of mass destruction' plants that Iraq supposedly has?

It does not look like anyone will give us a staging point for the attack, so unlike last time, we wont be able to slowly build up our forces while Iraq watches and waits.

Probably, Army Airborne or Rangers will have to seize an airfield and/or Marines will have to seize a port. M-1 tanks are too heavy to fly in, they need to be brought by ship. Has the Navy learned its lesson about mines? Probably not.

I think the Marines have the best chance bringing in larger integrated units from the get go ( infantry, armor, air ). The Army like I said will probably secure airheads, so fighters can be brought in. Remember, I dont think anyone is gonna let us use their airspace either.

Which leads me to ask? Are any of Iraq's ports in good condition? Enough so that the Army can unload large amounts of equipement?

Navy air will play a signifigant role to be sure.

This time we are not fighting an army of conscripts stuck in a Kuwait. We would be fighting Iraqis on their own turf, in their own cities. I think it comes down to how each individual Iraqi perceives that situation. ie ( Are the Americans here to free me, or to attack my homeland )

I dont think an American victory is in doubt, I do expect there to be more casulties than last time. As others have mentioned the fighting will probably be more concentrated in the cities.

Oh yeah, expect that Iraq afterward will host a US military base for many decades to come.

Oh yeah, expect that Iraq afterward will host a US military base for many decades to come.

But of course TPJ, the U.S. can't simply invade, install a new regime and then get the hell out dodge and expect everything to be fine. I can anticipate the U.S. being in Iraq for a good 10-15 years or until the region stabilizes.

BTW, what numbers of troops are we looking at for an invasion of Iraq? 70,000 plus troops? Does anyone have a better estimate?

BTW, what numbers of troops are we looking at for an invasion of Iraq? 70,000 plus troops? Does anyone have a better estimate?

Fri Aug 09, 2002 11:05 am

At least 70,000. Probably higher. Were'nt some of the numbers being discussed like 250,000?

Unless his troops have learned to navigate properly...

This is not Southern Georga boy(Either one, Russia OR American)
Your talking about a FEATURELESS enviroment, The best they had to navigate before with was a map, a compass and a stop-watch, NOT the most effective thing to use, Thus the fact they needed GPSs because frankly

You can't say turn left at the Sand-Dune, Go ten miles, Then right at the other sand-dune, then left at the third sand dune
Your talking about a featurless enviorment with shifting terrian and you think they could navigate a fifty tank unit through it without GPS?
(They did bad enough just sticking to roads)


*Edited in lter

Lots of civvies in cities to drop bombs on too....

Not like Saddam is Duck Tapping people to the tops of Tanks if your idiot enough to be standing next to the Target with the big Red X painted on it by all means you deserved to die...

You know I heard a report recently, that the US military has just developed a new class of weapons, and are putting them into production.

They might be waiting to produce a few of those to see how effective they are in battlefeild conditions.

They are suppoed to be some sort of High Frequency Microwave bombs, that destroy electronics in a given area, quite like an EMP weapon. I would be fasci9nated to the see the results on a somewhat modern battlefield. It might finnally give us an alternative to dropiong a 2000 lb bomb to disable a command and control facility in a highly populated areas, there by saving needless civilian casualties.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:It does not look like anyone will give us a staging point for the attack, so unlike last time, we wont be able to slowly build up our forces while Iraq watches and waits.

Probably, Army Airborne or Rangers will have to seize an airfield and/or Marines will have to seize a port. M-1 tanks are too heavy to fly in, they need to be brought by ship. Has the Navy learned its lesson about mines? Probably not.

Yeah this is much how I see it.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I think the Marines have the best chance bringing in larger integrated units from the get go ( infantry, armor, air ). The Army like I said will probably secure airheads, so fighters can be brought in. Remember, I dont think anyone is gonna let us use their airspace either.

Which leads me to ask? Are any of Iraq's ports in good condition? Enough so that the Army can unload large amounts of equipement?

Navy air will play a signifigant role to be sure.

As I see it you will have a situation like we {NZ and Australia] had in East Timor. Port facilities can handle RO-RO type ships etc {Iraqi ports can handle medium sized container ships at least, perhaps larger ones, but I am not sure] once you secure the port and immediate area you gradually expand from there but you have to have a continuous resupply which limits how fast you can expand your beach head. Proper mobile operations, as the US Army trains for, will be limited by this fact. The thing is not to be impatiant.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:This time we are not fighting an army of conscripts stuck in a Kuwait. We would be fighting Iraqis on their own turf, in their own cities. I think it comes down to how each individual Iraqi perceives that situation. ie ( Are the Americans here to free me, or to attack my homeland )

I dont think an American victory is in doubt, I do expect there to be more casulties than last time. As others have mentioned the fighting will probably be more concentrated in the cities.

Oh yeah, expect that Iraq afterward will host a US military base for many decades to come.

I agree, but I think that putting American base on Iraqi soil will just cause unnesar hassle. Better to install a desent government and help it get the economy to get going. American troops should only stay ther a couple of years to a) reform the Iraqi millitary b} make freinds with the locals. Above all remember that the best way to make a country like Iraq freindly is to respect the local customs and do not humilliate them, for to humiliate a nation cause the strife you see today.

Mr Bean wrote:

Unless his troops have learned to navigate properly...

This is not Southern Georga boy(Either one, Russia OR American)
Your talking about a FEATURELESS enviroment, The best they had to navigate before with was a map, a compass and a stop-watch, NOT the most effective thing to use, Thus the fact they needed GPSs because frankly

You can't say turn left at the Sand-Dune, Go ten miles, Then right at the other sand-dune, then left at the third sand dune
Your talking about a featurless enviorment with shifting terrian and you think they could navigate a fifty tank unit through it without GPS?
(They did bad enough just sticking to roads)

Good point..but please I am from New Zealand. I was thinking of North Africa, which was a somewhat different situation.

Mr Bean wrote: *Edited in lter

Lots of civvies in cities to drop bombs on too....

Not like Saddam is Duck Tapping people to the tops of Tanks if your idiot enough to be standing next to the Target with the big Red X painted on it by all means you deserved to die...

People will not leave there homes, they never do, and in Iraq where are they going to go where there is shelter/food and above all, water?
Remember that I raq is a dictatorship as well, freedom of movement is not exactly a constituational right over there

Azeron wrote:You know I heard a report recently, that the US military has just developed a new class of weapons, and are putting them into production.

They might be waiting to produce a few of those to see how effective they are in battlefeild conditions.

They are suppoed to be some sort of High Frequency Microwave bombs, that destroy electronics in a given area, quite like an EMP weapon. I would be fasci9nated to the see the results on a somewhat modern battlefield. It might finnally give us an alternative to dropiong a 2000 lb bomb to disable a command and control facility in a highly populated areas, there by saving needless civilian casualties.

Would this be anything like Adolf's miraculous warwinning weapons of 1944-45? That the US will win is a given, what is at issue is the time it takes to do this given logistical constraints. You can EMP the entire middle east, but you still need petrol, lubricants, oil, spare parts, watrer, ammunition etc. All of these items must be brought by sea and air. If your logistics capabilities is limited then this effect the amount of troops you can deploy and therefor the amount of territory you can controll.

The US has three times the fast sea lift, and about the same slow sea lift as it did 1991. Fewer transport aircraft are on hand, but that wont matter. Air lines have pleanty of surplus aircraft, and most donth ave a choice about leaseing to the US goverment anyway.

8 SL-7 30 knot Ro-Ro cargo ships brought in 11% of all tonnage the US shipped to the gullf in 1990 and 1991, though one broke down a few months into the buildup.

Today we have 19 of them, plus alot more forward deployed equipment. Logistics wont be a problume, even without Kuwait, these ships can unload at Umm Qasr or the Al faw oil terminal without diffacultly. neither of these ports could be defened by Iraq for more then an hour against Marine assualt.

Container ships and bulk cargo vessle would be slightly more diffacult, Basra is still a wreck from the Iran-Iraq war and none of there other portsh ave much in the way of facilities.

However the Military sea lift command has a lot of crane ships on hand, I wont be suprised if some of these are mobilized if Kuwait wont go along with an invasion.


In the end, two compleate armored divisions could be brought in, able to roll right off the ships and into action given a pier, and we can sustain a force greater then that of the first gulf war in action.

Logistics will not be a problume.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The US has three times the fast sea lift, and about the same slow sea lift as it did 1991. Fewer transport aircraft are on hand, but that wont matter. Air lines have pleanty of surplus aircraft, and most donth ave a choice about leaseing to the US goverment anyway.

8 SL-7 30 knot Ro-Ro cargo ships brought in 11% of all tonnage the US shipped to the gullf in 1990 and 1991, though one broke down a few months into the buildup.

Today we have 19 of them, plus alot more forward deployed equipment. Logistics wont be a problume, even without Kuwait, these ships can unload at Umm Qasr or the Al faw oil

Hmm, I was given to understand that sea lift was a problem, or is it manpower?.
In any case, I wouldnt expect such a quick ground war as the last punch up.

Sea Skimmer wrote:snip
8 SL-7 30 knot Ro-Ro cargo ships brought in 11% of all tonnage the US shipped to the gullf in 1990 and 1991, though one broke down a few months into the buildup.

Today we have 19 of them, plus alot more forward deployed equipment. Logistics wont be a problume, even without Kuwait, these ships can unload at Umm Qasr or the Al faw oil terminal without diffacultly. neither of these ports could be defened by Iraq for more then an hour against Marine assualt.
snip
.

I just looked up the SL-7 ships and there are onlt 8, not 19. this is according to Hazegrey.org. Also, how much is forwared deployed in the gulf area?

The problem is that most of the sealift is reserve, and depending on ship needs anywhere from a week to four months to get into service. Things like the SL-7's would be ready to go before the Tanks could get to the ports of embarkation. But the Crane ship and Barge Transports, which would be very important to a Kuwait-less buildup, would take months since no one is currently trained to man them.

More then enough ground forces are on hand to crush Iraq, In 1991 we could have won with only one heavy corps and the same losses, The First Armored, First Calvary and Third Infantry divisions should be able to do the same to a force with ¼ the heavy equipment. And those divisions only represent about ½-1/3 of the United State's heavy ground forces.

Luckily, Iraq can likely be defeated with Airborne and Marine forces for the most part, with perhaps and Armored Calvary regiment for armor support. That would greatly shorten the prep time, and is more likely then an all out armor attack.


But if we need a gulf war repeat, we can support an invasion of that scale, and easily have the forces to carry it out. The real problem is preparation time. The plans are going to have to be finalized and orders issued many months before the attack is launched if Kuwait wont provides basing.

The ship that are needed have to be reactivated and crewed. The Army units to be embarked have to meld with there NG components, then they all have to be move ports, and the US only has a few hundred railcars that can take Tank or SP guns. They need to be combat loaded, and there stores embarked on Container ships or Barge transports, then be moved and assembled in the Persian Gulf.

The troops them selves need to be flown into a forward base within C-130 range of southern Iraq, or possibly be loaded onto the transports, but that could only be done for a couple days.

Basically, the plan can't be changed once preparation begins, not without a nice big chunk of land to sort out any changes on. Diego Garcia could be used to an extent to shift around the loading of ships, but only to a point.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The problem is that most of the sealift is reserve, and depending on ship needs anywhere from a week to four months to get into service. Things like the SL-7's would be ready to go before the Tanks could get to the ports of embarkation. But the Crane ship and Barge Transports, which would be very important to a Kuwait-less buildup, would take months since no one is currently trained to man them.
snip

So you have a logistics problem if rapid action is called for. I would also suggest that dependig on light forces may not be enough, depending on Iraqie actions.
Aside from this, and American commentators have not delved into it, That I have seen in NZ,is the attitude of the whole ME resulting from US action.

People will not leave there homes, they never do, and in Iraq where are they going to go where there is shelter/food and above all, water?
Remember that Iraq is a dictatorship as well, freedom of movement is not exactly a constituational right over there

Yes but Mr Hussan happen to build bomb-shetlers in his city's so when the bombs start droping your own fault

Just like you can't blaim Civ casutlies on Hitler in England after a week of bombing and 2/3 of the Popluation of Britian where in *Bomb proof shelters