Basic rules of war neglected?

[Knife]

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

While I will not imply that I am the all knowing dude in all sevices. The USMC will carry about one days of food and one day of water on the idividual Marine. Extra chow in the form of MRE will be stowed as part of the Co. assests, but these will consist of only about one or two days of rations. Granted that one MRE will contain about 2000 calories, but in combat, 2000 calories does not last long. Constant resupply is always needed to extend the advance. One can last longer than the explisted range of days the MRE's are intended to last, but other factors come into play, such as ammo and sleep, and wear and tear on vehicles, ect....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I have an analysis of this conflict in comparison with a prior one which was written after some commentary elsewhere; I'll post it here after I have the desired reference to the author to go with it.

P.S. Publicly setting the schedule back does let us get to Baghdad ahead of schedule.

[Sokar]

US trooper usually carries two to three days worth of MRE's plus around a days worth of water, on his person. The rest of his kit is ammo, grenades, M-203 rounds(if equipped) and his toilteries kit. Heavier gear is stowed aboard their APC , but can be added to their ALICE rig if needed.

[Knife]

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

Some generals have stated as much, and most were retierd so take from that as you wish, but to say the some leaks to the media represent the position or the attitude to the higherarchy is not the position of the imformed is not entirely honest. Lets face it, the media expected the war to last about two days, while I have heard the offical statments of the US goverment to expect a long campaign. Yes, some payed talking heads expected less and I will agree with you that that was both bad and dumb. I have also just learned, just getting off work in the last couple of hours, that we are setting back for a couple of days. Probably to let other units to catch up with forward units.

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.

Which would be losing. By some accounts both forigne and domestic, we are losing now. The fact that we are in fact setting president for military campaigns, is withstanding. We are hampered by the media and the expectations that this war should be deathless in the allied terms, but in all honestly, we are exceeding all expectations in tactical and stategic means.

[Knife]

US trooper usually carries two to three days worth of MRE's plus around a days worth of water, on his person. The rest of his kit is ammo, grenades, M-203 rounds(if equipped) and his toilteries kit. Heavier gear is stowed aboard their APC , but can be added to their ALICE rig if needed.

Depends on what you call standard. I have gone on missions with ONE MRE in my asspack and two quarts of water. While I assume that the troopers in the desert have more than two quarts of water, the Co will have only two to three days of MRE's in its possesion and the idividual trooper will have only one day worth of chow if that. The Infantry can only carry so much, the rest is carried by logistical companies. Constant resupply is necessary for food, water, and ammo.

[Sokar]

US trooper usually carries two to three days worth of MRE's plus around a days worth of water, on his person. The rest of his kit is ammo, grenades, M-203 rounds(if equipped) and his toilteries kit. Heavier gear is stowed aboard their APC , but can be added to their ALICE rig if needed.

Depends on what you call standard. I have gone on missions with ONE MRE in my asspack and two quarts of water. While I assume that the troopers in the desert have more than two quarts of water, the Co will have only two to three days of MRE's in its possesion and the idividual trooper will have only one day worth of chow if that. The Infantry can only carry so much, the rest is carried by logistical companies. Constant resupply is necessary for food, water, and ammo.

Oh I agree, I was countering to the NZ fellows question about the averge kit a US trooper carries. It all varies by mission profile.

[Stuart Mackey]

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

While I will not imply that I am the all knowing dude in all sevices. The USMC will carry about one days of food and one day of water on the idividual Marine. Extra chow in the form of MRE will be stowed as part of the Co. assests, but these will consist of only about one or two days of rations. Granted that one MRE will contain about 2000 calories, but in combat, 2000 calories does not last long. Constant resupply is always needed to extend the advance. One can last longer than the explisted range of days the MRE's are intended to last, but other factors come into play, such as ammo and sleep, and wear and tear on vehicles, ect....

Indeed, I guess its the resupply that counts for a lot.

[Knife]

To reiterate, carring three MRE's in your ALICE pack is about right or standard. To carry more is to deny space for other assets such as extra socks and extra ammo. Three MRE's is enough for one to two days of food for the standard combat Marine. Extra food stores is carried by Comapany assests and can extend the basic Marine's food and water supply to two to three days. Constant resupply on the Company, BN, RG, and DIV levels is necessary to continue the fighting on the front lines. So is it with the military.

[Stuart Mackey]

To reiterate, carring three MRE's in your ALICE pack is about right or standard. To carry more is to deny space for other assets such as extra socks and extra ammo. Three MRE's is enough for one to two days of food for the standard combat Marine. Extra food stores is carried by Comapany assests and can extend the basic Marine's food and water supply to two to three days. Constant resupply on the Company, BN, RG, and DIV levels is necessary to continue the fighting on the front lines. So is it with the military.

Yah, I just did a quick bit o research, seems our army will do something similar, depends on mission. I do know that our guys have carried a weeks worth of rats without detriment to combat loads.
Of course, the USMC, British, Aussie, NZ armies are espected to do a lot more than the US army does

[The Yosemite Bear]

Once again Napoleon and Clauswitz are proved right.

Supply is Crucial

[The_Nice_Guy]

I think the US planners forgot one thing. Sun-Tzu also mentioned this, I think.

Corner an enemy, leave him with nowhere to run, and he will fight like a tiger, because that's all he has left to do. Leave him a way out though, odds are he'll take it, and fight less viciously in the process.

Has Bush and Co left Saddam a possible way out? Remember, while taking him out is nice, the overall strategic objective is to remove his regime from power in Iraq, so that they cannot continue on their WMD programs.

If Saddam doesn't surrender, but escapes Baghdad anyway, I would consider that a victory. He'll be a fugitive like Osama, living a day-to-day existence.

The Nice Guy

[Knife]

I think the US planners forgot one thing. Sun-Tzu also mentioned this, I think.

Corner an enemy, leave him with nowhere to run, and he will fight like a tiger, because that's all he has left to do. Leave him a way out though, odds are he'll take it, and fight less viciously in the process.

Has Bush and Co left Saddam a possible way out? Remember, while taking him out is nice, the overall strategic objective is to remove his regime from power in Iraq, so that they cannot continue on their WMD programs.

If Saddam doesn't surrender, but escapes Baghdad anyway, I would consider that a victory. He'll be a fugitive like Osama, living a day-to-day existence.

The Nice Guy

Not really, which is why I believe they went with the BlitzKrieg method. By bypassing all of the cities and racing for the center city, the coalition forces are saying that we are after the main dude and not the average joe. By letting Saddam engage his irregular forces in the southern cities, the US and UK forces are depleteing his ability to maintain control in all of the other cities let alone the central city of Baghdad. He will still have adaquate forces for initial operations in Baghdad, but for a sustained campaign, he will have to split his forces, irregular and regular, to maintain control of all cruisial cities.


Damn rum and no edit button. Sorry for spelling errors.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Want me to run it through Spell Check and edit it for You?

[Knife]

Want me to run it through Spell Check and edit it for You?

In my current state, I'm not sure how to take that.

[Iceberg]

Okay, so who wants to be first to smack Shrubby in the head with a copy of Sun-Tzu's "The Art of War"?

That and "The Prince."

[Ender]

Personally, I wouldn't blame the military commanders, but the politicians. The troops were suppossed to go in with alot more firepower, alot more support, and a heavy bombing campaing and what not before hand. But the administration kicked this off when they were still a whole carrier group short, before all the reserves where ready to go, before they had sufficiently moved everything around since the admin pissed off turkey preventing a 2 front push, and then the admin is allowing the press far too much a free hand in an attempt to show how good they are doing and ignorign the fact that this screws over troop movements.

I think the fact that we are winning regardless says alot.

[Patrick Degan]

I am constrained to point out that, at this stage, it is far too early to be speaking of the Coalition winning or losing this war. Nothing decisive has happened to determine the overall course of events as of yet. The conflict is still only in its very early opening phase and we're nowhere near the middle game.

[David]

I think it is rather cute to watch reporters question whether a group of generals with decades of experience under their belts really know what they are doing or not.

[Stuart Mackey]

I think it is rather cute to watch reporters question whether a group of generals with decades of experience under their belts really know what they are doing or not.

Hmm, So if a bridge collapsed do you think the guy who built it would say "Oh but I am an engineer with decades of experience" to excuse his fuckup?

[David]

I believe that the military commanders in the region are having to make decisions based, at least partially, on ther politics involved.


BTW, you imply by your analogy that the military commanders in the region have fucked up somehow. While they might have underestimated the enemy in some ways, I fail to see how they have fucked up, considering that this war is only a week old, and they have yet to lose any kind of battle.

[Stuart Mackey]

I believe that the military commanders in the region are having to make decisions based, at least partially, on ther politics involved.

This is true

BTW, you imply by your analogy that the military commanders in the region have fucked up somehow. While they might have underestimated the enemy in some ways, I fail to see how they have fucked up, considering that this war is only a week old, and they have yet to lose any kind of battle.

And you imply that journo's should not question things when they appear wrong. A reporters job is to question, to play devils advocate, it is also true that it is incumbent on a reporter to educate themselves on the subject at hand. As such what you said above is something of a red herring given this

I think it is rather cute to watch reporters question whether a group of generals with decades of experience under their belts really know what they are doing or not.

Perhaps you think that reporters should just report whatever politicains and Generals say they should?
Dont you think that if, for example, the Americans lost a major engagement that the public have a right to know why it was lost? did someone fuck up, was incompetnece involved? or was the enemy just better on the day?
If a reporter does think there is a case to answer then they ae required to ask, it is the Generals who must defend their actions, just as people here must defend a proposition.

[David]

And you imply that journo's should not question things when they appear wrong. A reporters job is to question, to play devils advocate, it is also true that it is incumbent on a reporter to educate themselves on the subject at hand. As such what you said above is something of a red herring given this

I imply no such thing. The reporters in this case are beating a dead horse, and they show their own ignorance with their questions. I made the comment which you call a red herring because I am tired of hearing the reporters at Centcom in Qatar and Florida ask the same questions at every meeting every time something insignifigant but new occurs. Everytime somethings happens the reporters bring in they're analysts and try to figure out if this has put the shedule ahead or behind of what the generals planned, and then procede to predict dire consequinces once they have it figured out. Of course it never occurs to them to announce that the generals in charge of this war have never announced what this shedule is, or even if they have one.

Perhaps you think that reporters should just report whatever politicains and Generals say they should?

Excellent strawman, couldn't have made a better one if I tried.

Dont you think that if, for example, the Americans lost a major engagement that the public have a right to know why it was lost? did someone fuck up, was incompetnece involved? or was the enemy just better on the day?

Again, a strawman, but I will answer anyway. Of course I think we have the right to know these things, however, as I pointed out before, there have been no major engages up to this point, and until there is the point is moot.

If a reporter does think there is a case to answer then they ae required to ask, it is the Generals who must defend their actions, just as people here must defend a proposition.

Obviously

[Sam Or I]

To make a point, people here are saying empty desert does not mean anything, but it plays a major role. Yes the US is getting ambushed every now and then through supplylines, which is an annoyance. At the sametime Iraqs supply lines are almost completely cut-off in this "empty" desert that the US has taken. Everyone knows logistics wins wars. So these empty deserts are meaningful. Easy to take, yes, but also important to take.

[Darth Wong]

To make a point, people here are saying empty desert does not mean anything, but it plays a major role. Yes the US is getting ambushed every now and then through supplylines, which is an annoyance. At the sametime Iraqs supply lines are almost completely cut-off in this "empty" desert that the US has taken. Everyone knows logistics wins wars. So these empty deserts are meaningful. Easy to take, yes, but also important to take.

Fair enough, but Iraqis running around in apartment buildings carrying AK-47's do not require the same sort of logistical support as armoured columns, and prolonged difficulties in taking cities will cause the civilian body count to rise, which is crucial in a war fought with low casualties as a justification.

The Americans will blame the Iraqis for the civilian casualties because they fought rather than laying down and giving up peacefully, but when you invade someone else's country, people are perfectly justified in saying that these casualties wouldn't have happened if you stayed home.

[Sam Or I]

Very true.