Iraqis Learning From Last go-Around

[MKSheppard]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Mar26.html

washingtonpost.com

Tactics Show Iraqis Learned Lessons of War

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 27, 2003; Page A27

Relying on harassing tactics never exhibited during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi military has inflicted heavy damage this week on two of the U.S. Army's most fearsome weapons, the Abrams tank and the Apache Longbow helicopter gunship.

Defense officials and analysts were quick to note that no U.S. troops were killed in the Iraqi attacks that badly damaged about 30 Apache Longbows and disabled two Abrams tanks and a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Hundreds of Iraqis died, and dozens of Iraqi armored vehicles were destroyed in the process, they noted.

Nonetheless, they were impressed by the Iraqis' adaptive tactics and their willingness to fight -- both of which may have been underestimated by some in the Pentagon on the basis of the Iraqis' performance 12 years ago. At that time, their armor formations were destroyed in the open desert, and tens of thousands of troops surrendered.

"This is not a stupid force," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who is an expert on the Iraqi military. "It's been studying U.S., Russian, Chinese and Yugoslavian literature on asymmetric warfare for 12 years. The elite units have fought well in the past. And this is not a group of cowards."

The Abrams tanks and the Bradley fighting vehicle were disabled Tuesday after Iraqi soldiers repeatedly fired upon the 7th Cavalry Regiment's 500-vehicle convoy moving north as part of the 3rd Infantry Division's advance on Baghdad.

Taking advantage of sandstorms that grounded Apache attack helicopters that would otherwise have provided air cover for the convoy, Iraqi forces believed to be a Republican Guard commando battalion repeatedly attacked with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and small-arms fire. Some of the engagements were hit-and-run. Some involved troops dug in several hundred yards on either side of the road.

During a climactic encounter late Tuesday, the convoy was attacked by hundreds of soldiers. U.S. forces called in airstrikes, and counterattacked and killed most of the attackers.

But when the smoke cleared, two Abrams tanks -- virtually impregnable, 70-ton behemoths -- had been shot in their soft spot, a rear grille covering the engine. Miraculously, the tanks' four-man crews escaped in both cases, a testament to the Abrams's design, which puts a premium on protecting crew members.

"A lot of this is just good war fighting," one retired Army colonel said. "But we haven't encountered it for a long time, and we didn't expect it from the Iraqis. And as they have success, it breeds success."

Some Pentagon officials said yesterday that the attack marked the first time Abrams tanks had been destroyed on the battlefield. An Army official disputed this, saying the tanks "were not blown to bits -- they were rendered immobile. They're going to be evacuated and repaired."

On the battlefield, it was not immediately clear what weapon the Iraqis used to knock out the tanks. A senior defense official said yesterday that it was a French- made Coronet antitank missile.

As the Iraqis demonstrate tactical flexibility and tenacity on the battlefield, foreign technology has become an increasing concern for U.S. commanders. According to the Bush administration, the Iraqis also acquired night-vision goggles, antitank missiles and Global Positioning System jammers this year from three Russian companies.

In attacking a formation of about 40 Apache Longbows on Monday, the Iraqis staged a classic helicopter ambush first perfected by the North Vietnamese in the 1960s. As the lethal, tank-killing aircraft approached on a mission to destroy the Medina Division's dispersed armor, troops dispersed throughout a palm-lined residential area and opened fire with antiaircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenades and a wall of fire from rifles and other small arms.

While the Longbow is equipped with a $3 million millimeter-wave radar that can target tanks and air defenses on the battlefield from five miles away, the $25 million aircraft is most vulnerable to troops who pop out from behind an obstruction as the helicopter is flying low overhead and open fire.

The Iraqi fire was so intense that the Apaches had to break off their mission and return to base. With about 30 helicopters heavily damaged, only one went down in enemy territory. Its two-man crew was unharmed but was taken prisoner.

"Iraqi tactics for using [antiaircraft] guns and short-range defenses reflect a good adaptation of Soviet methods," Cordesman said. "They are evidently using forward spotters to alert troops to oncoming helicopters, and possibly low-flyers like the A-10. The Iraqi [antiaircraft] guns and other automatic weapons then send up a sudden curtain of fire from concealed positions as the helicopters flies into or over the position."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[RogueIce]

Well, the Bush Administration and the military have said, over and over, that this wasn't going to be easy.

I feel bad for the Apache guys though in that instance. Not like they can fire back in a civvie area. They just have to take it, or risk collateral damage.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

Oh, it wont be easy for awhile, but remember that Iraq, being a client state, has virtually no native infrastructure for either the production or maintenance of most of the toys theyve bought from the russians, french, and at one time, the USA. eventually their more serious assets (tanks etc) will just wear down from lack of parts -- this is a country that doesnt even make its' own cars IIRC.

as an example, their air force has wisely chosen to sit the war out -- no Iraqi warplane has flown since the war started, and the pentagon has admitted that we havent even been bothering to target them because of this fact.

[Darth Wong]

In an urban setting, AK-47's and RPG-7's is pretty much all you need to wreak havoc.

[Rubberanvil]

In an urban setting, AK-47's and RPG-7's is pretty much all you need to wreak havoc.

And almost everything else is just gravy.

[Stuart Mackey]

This is true. However the Iraqi's cannot win, as they cannot make their own kit nor can they easily maintain their current kit without aid from outside sources. Sure Iraq may well have knocked out some US armour, but how many tanks in a US division? and how many losses must a US division take to be combat ineffective? Yes the Iraqi's are being more innovative, to a degree, but they will lose for more or less the same reasons they lost the last time.
There is some confusion in US ranks about Iraqi subborness this time. That, I suspect, is because the US armed forces are, to a degree, somewhat green when it comes to the pycological impact of real live 'I may get killed here' warfare. They will adapt, and do so well though, just as the US army adapted and learned after the defeat at Kasserine Pass in WW2.

The big question, what Nations are also watching this war and learning lessons on fighting the US as well?

[Vympel]

French-made Coronet? WTF? Never heard of it- the dumbass reporter obviously heard the false rumors of new Russian Kornet-E ATGMs being used (false- the missiles were wire-guided, not laser, and if it had been Kornet-E the tanks WOULD have been blown to bits) and then had a massive brain malfunction ...

I should also point out that two Abrams were knocked out in 1991, by smart-ass T-62s, and that one of the Abrams crew in the most recent incident has died from his wounds.

[K. A. Pital]

Vympel

and if it had been Kornet-E the tanks WOULD have been blown to bits

Probably the guys watched the video and thought - oh, this is enough destruction to claim it for a Kornet. Actually I've seen the video, too, there's nothing near to what the missile can actually do.

[RogueIce]

I should also point out that two Abrams were knocked out in 1991, by smart-ass T-62s, and that one of the Abrams crew in the most recent incident has died from his wounds.

This is the first I ever heard of this...from anywhere.

Source please? I'm curious about it...

[Shaka[Zulu]]

well, as to the individual kits for the soldiers (clothing, small arms up to the AK etc), I do think the Iraqi infrastructure can manage that... but anything beyond basic steelworking -- forget it... electronics? youve got to be joking! (they barely know how to use what they have, let alone make the stuff).

of course, this is actually part of the problem the 'first world' countries have made for themselves regarding developing nations -- we are more than happy to sell finished products, but when it comes to actually helping nations to truly advance their people, by teaching them, we fail utterly -- or would it be better described as 'ignore them utterly'.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why we're insisting on envisioning this as a conventional war, instead of a guerilla war. They don't need to maintain sophisticated equipment in order to fight the way I'm talking about. AK-47's and RPG-7's do not require a technologically sophisticated infrastructure. I'm talking about making occupation hellish, not defeating the American army on the open plains.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't see why we're insisting on envisioning this as a conventional war, instead of a guerilla war. They don't need to maintain sophisticated equipment in order to fight the way I'm talking about. AK-47's and RPG-7's do not require a technologically sophisticated infrastructure. I'm talking about making occupation hellish, not defeating the American army on the open plains.

If they don't have popular support they can't succeed in doing that. These aren't genuine guerrillas - They're light-armed troops behaving like skirmishers behind enemy lines.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see why we're insisting on envisioning this as a conventional war, instead of a guerilla war. They don't need to maintain sophisticated equipment in order to fight the way I'm talking about. AK-47's and RPG-7's do not require a technologically sophisticated infrastructure. I'm talking about making occupation hellish, not defeating the American army on the open plains.

If they don't have popular support they can't succeed in doing that. These aren't genuine guerrillas - They're light-armed troops behaving like skirmishers behind enemy lines.

Once again, I reiterate that American optimism about the Iraqi people "throwing off the shackles of oppression" or whatever lofty rhetoric you prefer today may very well turn out to be just as inaccurate as their projections of showing the flag and then watching the country surrender. Hitler was wrong when he said you just have to kick in the door and watch Stalin's regime crumble; how do you know you aren't wrong too?

[Shaka[Zulu]]

I have to agree with you Mike... Frankly, the vast majority of the Iraqi people have done ok under his... leadership, barring the wars. Among those few times he's used large-scale violence against the populace has been vs the shi'a uprising post GW1 and against the Kurds, who really arent considered by anybody in the region to be a citizen of any nation -- and who fervently dream of carving out a state for themselves from parts of both Turkey and Iraq (something BOTH the Iraqis AND the Turks vehemently oppose... why else would turkey be threatening to send in troops against coalition wishes?). Alot of the baghdad footage I am seeing on NWI seems to suggest that the people are either indifferent or still supportive of the regime -- they certainly dont seem to be flocking out like our own media suggests, except in Um Qasr, where we 'turned off' their utilities for awhile...

all this though doesnt take into account the possibility of fear keeping the people in line. from what the coalition media outlets have been reporting, it may be the dominant factor in all this.