Live firefight on CNN

[notyoueither]

How soon did they call down support, Asher? Of any type?

[Asher]

I don't have a timeline. I do know they took their time though, which is the main reason why when they decided they needed additional support (if you'll recall, the 120mm tank guns fired several times on the building too), they opted to use a bomb rather than many minutes of sustained arty fire.

Time was not a real factor, they literally had all day. And seeing as a bomb is more effective, I don't see why it's hard to believe that they'd use a bomb over 30 shells.

[notyoueither]

Or a white Bronco?

[Asher]

What's up with you and the white Bronco? I don't think it really was a Bronco btw, it looked more like a Rover to me.

And the hummers that followed it didn't have any mounted machine guns, which tells me something about if they're primarily used for battle.

[Alexander's Horse]

I'm really wondering if some of you can separate reality from entertainment.

[Drake Tungsten]

Is this argument really happening? You Canucks can fight about anything...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm really wondering if some of you can separate reality from entertainment.

Somebody missed out on the reality TV craze.

[Alexander's Horse]

For those Iraqis to take on tanks with small arms should put to bed the idea that they don't have brave soldiers prepared to fight it out against all the odds.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
For those Iraqis to take on tanks with small arms should put to bed the idea that they don't have brave soldiers prepared to fight it out against all the odds.

The question is how many? And they didn't fight it out all that long - a couple of 2,000 pounders seems to have done the trick.

[Alexander's Horse]

Still they were brave. And I don't find it entertaining to watch brave men die. My hat's off to them.

This isn't a bunch of criminals getting shot up on COPS.

[Odin]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And wth is driving that white Bronco?

O. J.?

Seriously, it's probably the reporters, ummm, right?

[Joseph]

Have you guys consider that our people do not want to kill every Iraqi soldier? Those 4 tanks could have blasted the foundation of the bldg. away and allow the building to come down on top of the Iraqi's, but chose to hit mostly with machine gun fire, trying to make them surrender instead. I went to bed at midnight pacific time and miss the air attack.
Keep this in mine. Picture of elements of the Republica Guard surrendering is a big plus when talking to the elite Guard, guarding Baghdad. Plus it must really piss off Saddam and his leadership, and maybe make him accomplish stupid moves.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Still they were brave. And I don't find it entertaining to watch brave men die. My hat's off to them.

I don't find it entertaining to watch cowards die either, for that matter, but the brave won't give up without a fight. They didn't put up a fanatic resistance though, so what it reminded me of is some professionals who feel that honor and their professionalism demands that they at least put up a reasonable fight.

Hopefully there were relatively few casualties.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
A battery is six guns, rapid firing at 20 seconds once dialed in, so to get the same blast effect in total, you'd need 2-3 minutes with all six guns firing.

The difference is that the overpressure and blast energy of the 2000 pounder is concentrated in a fraction of a second, and the mass of the explosive and air gives you a higher total overpressure and a shockwave that's much stronger. Sound effects will be 20-30 dBa higher at a minimum, etc.

WW2 is an invalid comparison - the relative expense, tactical control and ground coordination, and time to target of close air support was much higher. The USMC also relies heavily on close in air support - that's why they have their own independent aviation branch, whereas the US Army is limited to rotary aviation, and has to call the Air Force for it's close support.

Isnt it typical tho for several batteries to open up on a target at once? And yes, the 2000 pounder does do more in less time, but when you only have one or two, you have expended all the firepower in seconds. To some this may be more psyochologically intimidating. But to me, a continuous barage of arty that just relentlessly keeps going and going would be more so.

I dunno what NYE and Asher are argueing about, Im just saying that an artillery strike can be more devestating than an air strike, especially from one or two JDAM 2000 pounders which have a terminal effect.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Isnt it typical tho for several batteries to open up on a target at once?

Not really - you have limited arty assets, they have to shoot and scoot to avoid CB fire, you have to worry about overheating the barrels and using your ready ammo (meaning you have to move up ammo vehicles and manually transfer them, taking the guns out of action for some time. The Marines are pretty light on arty compared to the army, since they have organic CAS. With the unit on the move, a good portion of the total arty would be moving forward, so I doubt the rifle battalion around Umm Qasr had more than a battery available - if they had that.

And yes, the 2000 pounder does do more in less time, but when you only have one or two, you have expended all the firepower in seconds. To some this may be more psychologically intimidating. But to me, a continuous barage of arty that just relentlessly keeps going and going would be more so.

Arty always runs the risk of stray rounds - a sustained bombardment increases the risk of a short or long hitting friendlies or civilians, plus, you can't presume the entire area is secure, so you have to shoot and scoot, with takes a lot more time with the Marines' towed arty

Devastation isn't necessarily the effect you want - you want to just get the message across, get these guys to surrender, and secure the area. The quickest, cleanest approach to that is the best, not the most prolonged and devastating. These guys originally wanted to bypass the area, and were taking harassing fire from the area sporadically - that's a sort of relatively light resistance that isn't worth tying up an arty asset, or much of anything else.

I dunno what NYE and Asher are argueing about, Im just saying that an artillery strike can be more devestating than an air strike, especially from one or two JDAM 2000 pounders which have a terminal effect.

It can be, if the Soviet style hub to hub thing is what you're looking for. It's really slow moving war though, not what we want to be doing.