The Battle of Baghdad

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Personally, I prefer Ridgway, Lee, and O.P. Smith.

Oh, I forgot, Stonewall Jackson. Damn good general.

My Dad served under MacArthur. He said the troops really appreciated the way he fought the war. He wanted to win with minimum casualties on both sides. And he did.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Tell that to Wendell Fertig, Skinny Wainwright or O.P.Smith.

And Jackson wasn't one for headlong charges into the face of the enemy - he preferred to outmaneuver the enemy, deceive him as to disposition of forces and intentions, and then attack decisively if and when he had the advantage in doing so.

[Ned]

MTG: I think you are ignoring the fact that the Iraqi's are not putting up an effective resistance anywhere. We are able to defeat everything they can throw at us with ease. All the troops at the front are saying the same thing.

Why not send in three columns in from different directions and see how far they get before they are forced to stop. I think they will take the center of Baghdad within hours. Saddam's regime will then collapse.

[Ned]

Besides, with power and water out, we have to move fast to avoid a humanitarian disaster.

(Just a thought, did the Iraqi's turn off the power and water to force us to attack?)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MTG: I think you are ignoring the fact that the Iraqi's are not putting up an effective resistance anywhere. We are able to defeat everything they can throw at us with ease. All the troops at the front are saying the same thing.

We're able to blast everything that they set up in the open. Putting forces out in the open to hold the ****ing airport was total stupidity, but that doesn't apply in a heavily urbanized environment, where visibility and overwatch are seriously constrained, cover for enemy infantry is excellent, and the attacking units have to maintain situational awareness in three dimensions.

Why not send in three columns in from different directions and see how far they get before they are forced to stop. I think they will take the center of Baghdad within hours.

So how many men's lives do you propose to gamble on what you think will happen? And what happens to a unit if it's forced to stop? We tried the mad dash into the city routine about nine and a half years ago.

And what's the issue with humanitarian disasters? Fighting your way into a FUBAR will create a worse one, and if people are able to move out of the area, they can be fed and given water. If they can't move out of the area, there's a reason. Tanks are not designed for urban fighting. That's an infantry job, and moving infantry into a hostile area without recon is the most fundamental violation of mobile warfare doctrine there is.

Saddam's regime will then collapse.

Control of the country will collapse, but the regime won't go until it's leadership is dead or captured.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
(Just a thought, did the Iraqi's turn off the power and water to force us to attack?)

If they did, they might have a reason.

[Drake Tungsten]

And so it begins...

The 3rd Infantry has entered Baghdad...

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. soldiers and tanks are operating inside Baghdad, 17 days after the war in Iraq began, Army sources said early Saturday.

Several tank units from the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division rolled into the Iraqi capital on what was described as a reconnaissance mission, CNN correspondent Walter Rodgers reported.

"It does appear very clearly from the maps we've seen that what the army is striving to do at this point is carve out chunks of the city," Rodgers said. "Bite off a chunk of Baghdad and then take that chunk and literally dismember the city zone by zone so that each of these zones falls under the control of the U.S. Army."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/05/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

[The Mad Monk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/afp/20030405/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_war_baghdad_inside_030405072720&e=1

BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, Baghdad (AFP) - A battalion of some 30 US tanks rolled into downtown Baghdad marking a new step in the advance on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s seat of power, a commander said.

The tank battalion task force from the 3rd Infantry Division punched their way into the heart of Baghdad on a road which loops from the capital's main airport.


"It's called 'let me poke you in the eye because we can and you can't do anything about it'," said Colonel Will Grimsley, commander of the First Brigade of the US army's 3rd Infantry Division.


The raid "started at first light," Grimsley added.

Looks like Ned may have called this one...

[Kramerman]

Man, i thought they would have at least waited for large elements of the 4th ID to come in as reinforcements before going into that maw. Hope this turns out well

[Drake Tungsten]

Centcom has said that this isn't a recon mission. The troops "are in" and "are staying put"...

[Chemical Ollie]

Wow, that's a gutsy move! The Abrams is not completely invulnerable, is it? Wouldn't a well-aimed RPG into the side tracks at least stop it? The militia has a lot of those. Then the crew have to run for it, unprotected.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Olaf HÃ¥rfagre
Wow, that's a gutsy move! The Abrams is not completely invulnerable, is it? Wouldn't a well-aimed RPG into the side tracks at least stop it? The militia has a lot of those. Then the crew have to run for it, unprotected.

Ive heard of RPG fire having 'destroyed' abrahms before, but i heard no details, so i dunno the extent of the damage. I dont know how an RPG could actually destroy an Abrhams, tho, i could imagine and M1 being disabled by a blown out track or somethn. all i do know is that cobholm (sp?) armor is some tough ****. They are not invulnerable tho, if what i heard was accurate.

[Kramerman]

I also heard that the Iraqis obtained some kind of shaped charge antitank missile launchers from russia. From what I know of the HEAT warheads, shaped charges are pretty mean, and could conceivablely defeat M1 armor head on, i would think. Where's MtG?

[Seeker]

The rear engine compartment is vulnerable....

However, it also has a nifty anti-fire system and is in a kind of armoured compartment, so that unlike previous tanks having the engine hit (by something relatively 'small' like an RPG) there shouldn't be a fire causing the tanks ammo to explode.

So even in the best case (for Iraqis), a guy pops up from a hole behind and fires his RPG right into the rear engine compartment, the crew should mostly survive, and the tank will only be 'mission killed', they can come back and repair it later.

Whilst the guy in the fox hole with the RPG is now a sitting duck for anyone armed with anything.

[Chemical Ollie]

They only need to stop one tank to create a "Blackhawk Down"-like situation.