The Battle of Baghdad

[Gatekeeper]

Edited ... I just read MtG's warning on Page 2 of this thread.

[RGBVideo]

Edited ... I just read MtG's warning on Page 2 of this thread.

Notice : Not everybody uses the same cp-settings as you do. It's better to say, that how many posts approximately are there before it.

This is the first page for me.

Just a friendly hint for the possible future use

[Daz]

I told you we're gonna get burned!

Well. I have one question to the military experts: do you think that the coalition CAN and WILL take Baghdad?

Would the coalition risk probably thousands of lives to take the city?

Hmmm, thats two after all....

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Kramerman
do you come from a military background, outa curiosity? Or are you just very knowledgable on the subject?

I guess you didn't realise MtG is ex-Navy?


Aaarrgghh.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Two things I guarantee - right now, the locations are real fluid, because we're in a transitional phase, and there's a lot more unit locations the news agencies (and the Iraqis ) don't know **** about than there are that they do know about.

Well, three things. You can bet that every one of the engagements fought so far has been a screening or blocking action, with most forces moving on past, rather than the decisive engagements the Iraqis think.

apparently, nassaria battle was more than screening and blocking. there are reports, mainly in russian media, that they tried to take the city in a go, were repelled, tried to get it from the west and just ran into deep iraqi defense and were then sliced through the flank with two mech batalions. apparently they (us) had to withdraw two tank batalions from column heading to najaf and get it back and it took 6 hrs to get the line of defense in order

[TheStinger]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the coalition forces were actually overplayin the amount of resistance they are encountering. It may make the Iraqi's think they are doing better than they are. I would assume that Iraqi commanders in the field are a liitle optomistic in their reporting to their bosses.

In any war you can hold up and advance temporarily with a dug in position. If this though encourages the Iraqis to commit more troops to hardpoints and other defensive points such as bridges and river crosings then so much the better. The Germans proved very adept at this. If you can't knock out a position quickly and its not going to threaten the overall stratergy then ignore it and come back latter.

There is talk about putting a Para battallion into Bassra instead of an armoured brigade, to me that is a good swap for the coalition, not a sign that things are going badly.

[ravagon]

One thing I'm a little curious about is why they didn't move the whole campaign a lot more slowly ... let the Iraqis see exactly how the ring will close around Baghdad.
Few things make soldiers more nervous than staying put in the face of an obviously closing encirclement.
It might have spooked a whole lot of the defending forces into getting out of dodge so to speak ... in spite of having few places left to run.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by ravagon
I guess you didn't realise MtG is ex-Navy?


Aaarrgghh.

Ex-army, IIRC.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LaRusso


apparently, nassaria battle was more than screening and blocking. there are reports, mainly in russian media, that they tried to take the city in a go, were repelled, tried to get it from the west and just ran into deep iraqi defense and were then sliced through the flank with two mech batalions. apparently they (us) had to withdraw two tank batalions from column heading to najaf and get it back and it took 6 hrs to get the line of defense in order

Trouble is, that makes no sense in the context of a rapid advance to the north. The city of an Nasariyah is meaningless, except to have a security zone extend to the western limits of it to control a set of bridges and a few km of road.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Daz
I told you we're gonna get burned!

Well. I have one question to the military experts: do you think that the coalition CAN and WILL take Baghdad?

Would the coalition risk probably thousands of lives to take the city?

Hmmm, thats two after all....

We simply have to. The entire center of gravity of the Hussein regime is there - political, military and economic. The largest portion of the civilian population is there also, so a protracted siege is extremely problematic in terms of civilian casualties and world opinion, and the sort of feeling we induce in the Iraqi population that will carry into a post-Hussein Iraq.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ravagon
One thing I'm a little curious about is why they didn't move the whole campaign a lot more slowly ... let the Iraqis see exactly how the ring will close around Baghdad.
Few things make soldiers more nervous than staying put in the face of an obviously closing encirclement.
It might have spooked a whole lot of the defending forces into getting out of dodge so to speak ... in spite of having few places left to run.

Baghdad has two rings of defenses - a smaller one in the city itself, and a larger, with three IRG divisions, extended out from the city. One of the goals has to be to penetrate the outer line of defense and get astride the routes those units would use to retreat into Baghdad itself. They can inflict a hundred times the casualties on us if they retreat intact into Baghdad, or else force us to destroy a lot more of the city, than they can if they are caught and destroyed in the outer layer of defenses.

[TheStinger]

This thread should be renamed ask MTG

[Ned]

What I've seen is the V Corps moving up the left bank of the Euphrates following the main pipeline there. As they go North, they secure the bridges across the Euphrates to protect their right flank against Iraqi counter-attack.

The Marines have been moving up the west bank of the Tigris, as far as I can tell.

MtG has mentioned the 1st Armored division in a private post to me. Is this attached to V Corps?

The 4th ID should be able to join the battle some time next week. They probably will be joined by the 1st Cav. The forces deployed at Baghdad will then become overwhelming.

What I see shaping up from this is pretty much as MtG has described. They are encircling the Medina division and will destroy it with armor.

They then will do the same with the other Republican guard divisions, one at a time, until they are all eliminated. Airpower will prevent any retreat with heavy weapons into Baghdad or manuever to support each other with counter-attacks.

Once the Republican Guard divisions are defeated, Baghdad may surrender. However, I also see a combined special forces/Iraqi coalition forces revolting inside Baghdad and going after the Saddam government.

[DanS]

Airpower will prevent any retreat with heavy weapons into Baghdad or manuever to support each other with counter-attacks.

Is the airpower sufficient to do this?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Allies Risk 3000 Casualties in Baghdad - Ex-General

LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S.-led force in Iraq risks as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad and Washington has underestimated the number of troops needed, a top former commander from the 1991 Gulf War said on Monday.

Retired U.S. Army General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, said the U.S.-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" as it pushes north toward the Iraqi capital.

"We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday.

"In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war.

"So if they (the Americans and British) are unwilling to face up to that, we may have a difficult time of it taking down Baghdad and Tikrit up to the north west."

McCaffrey said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had misjudged the nature of the conflict. Asked if Rumsfeld made a mistake by not sending more troops to start the offensive, McCaffrey replied: "Yes, sure. I think everybody told him that."

"I think he thought these were U.S. generals with their feet planted in World War II that didn't understand the new way of warfare," he added.

U.S. forces have advanced more than 200 miles into Iraqi territory since the start of the war and are beginning to confront an elite division of the Republican Guards deployed to defend the capital.

"So it ought to be a very dicey two to three day battle out there." McCaffrey said of the confrontation with the Republican Guards.

He said his personal view was that the invading troops would "take them (the Iraqis) apart."

"But we've never done something like this with this modest a force at such a distance from its bases," he warned.

McCaffrey, a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Latin America, served overseas for 13 years and took part in four combat tours.

He twice received the Distinguished Service Cross, the second highest medal for valor in the United States.