Russian reports on the War, paint different picture

[Urban Ranger]

al-Jazeera is also sanctioned by the Iraqis to provide a different view. IIRC, they are the ones who broke the news about US POW's.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Joseph
Well I stop reading after the tank statement. We have to many reporter in the field with our troops for them to lie to us. Now I was at work all day but yet to hear that we lost any tanks. To my knowledge either one or two AH-64 in combat. Between 7 and 12 POWs, and some 26 dead to all causes.

To some extent this may be true but don't forget that the only reason the story about the RPG hit on a Bradley came to the surface was due to the casualties sustained as a result. If a number of US M1's were disabled due to tread hits or somesuch, without casualties, then it might not actually make the news.

Of course the idea of large numbers of US tanks actually being lost in armoured engagements against Iraqi tanks, as "reported" by Iraqi leaders, is rather laughable.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Dissident
but why would they focus so much on what has gone wrong in the war? There has been a lot of focus on U.S. failures and POW's.

This is always the case and probably always will be. A combination of journalists inherent suspicion about information "volunteered" and the "negative news sells" aspect.
Unfortunately they aren't nearly as discriminating wrt the "other" side, but then, any discretion there would probably get them banned, thrown in jail or worse.
ie: They operate under strict principles when reporting from the western POV but when on the other side and under threat they're prepared to ... compromise a bit.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all, I don't think the Russians are completely off-base. I am not a SIGINT expert, but even I know there are a whole lot of methods/processes/etc. that can be used to extract information. Secondly, there are good reasons to believe that the "embeddeds" are own and controlled by the military, i.e., coalition command. They rely on the information given to them by the military, and they can't go everywhere they feel like. That's why Qatar's al-Jazeera televison has been such a success in the Arab world, since it provides a counterbalance to Western media, esp. in a wartime situation like this.

The Russian site is off base. The short range comm nets used by the allies all rely on encrypted communications, and timely intercept and decryption is very difficult - they'd have to have people with the technical means right there, close in to a fluid fight, or simply scattered all up and down the probable line of advance, AND they'd have to have totally compromised our systems, which rely on both time values and bitstrength. They could record signals and decrypt them - in days or weeks, depending on the computing power applied, so that isn't the ticket.

The bit about having satellite info is dodgy as well - the transit times of Russian military satellites is known, so if they have that source of info, they have static data a couple of times a day, in only a few areas - they can't photograph everything, so they have to pick and choose. That makes their claim as to their sources suspect in the extreme.

The factual inaccuracies alone make the site suspect - if you understand US movement doctrine and unit training, plus nomenclature, plus Iraqi capabilities, you get the idea that they really have no idea what's going on. The Iraqis have yet to demonstrate that they can take out an allied "tank" at all. Misidentifying IFVs as tanks is an amateur mistake, (something the Iraqis would do), and getting 13 IFV's in a day would be a miraculous occurence, for one simple reason - US doctrine.

The Iraqis are the ones who like to pack things in tightly - at 73 Easting, along their main line of resistance for the 7th Armored and 50th divisions, with IRG Medina, Hammurabi and Tawakalna - just about everywhere you saw Iraqi AFVs, you saw them packed closely. The US does the opposite, dispersing vehicles and relying on depth and overwatch, except in road movement in secure areas. 200 meter separation between IFV's on the move is common, and when hostiles are expect, the dispersal in width and depth gets wider, not narrower, with point vehicles up front.

Based on the way Army and Marine forces move and deploy, the CNN and other US media accounts at An Nasiriyah are more realistic - once a vehicle gets taken out by an RPG, there is wide dispersal, infantry dismounts, etc. - so taking out 13 is impossible for the Iraqis, because we won't have 13 in their range, ever.

[Kirnwaffen]

Regarding the apparent emphasis on our own casualties, mistakes, etc,; it's natural for such reporting trends to emerge simply because we have much more reliable information on our own casualties than Iraqi casualties. Both the military and the media are reluctant to report on sketchy information because they fear the consequences of being wrong (ratings for the media, loss of confidence for the military). Hence, they keep quiet until they're sure. As time goes on and information solidifies, I think we'll begin to see a shift in this trend.

[Spiffor]

The media seem prone to spread rumors and hearsay though : The fate of Tariq Aziz shortly before the war, and the chemical weapons plant that turned out to be abandoned both are examples. Maybe they calmed down (I don't watch CNN and have no access to Faux), but I wouldn't be surprised if rumormongering and wild speculations were still a part of the journalist's job when he's waiting for another news item.

[Sikander]

A lot of things to touch upon. Firstly, I tend to doubt reports of surrenders and collaberations by Iraqi command personnel such as the Tariq Azziz story that broke at the beginning of the war. While some of it is perhaps true, it seems obvious that the Coalition is trying to foment as much distrust between various members of the regime as possible, especially when the coalition's first move was an attempt to eliminate the top figures in the regime. This attempt almost certainly includes a bit of disinformation, so caveat emptor.

MtG and Kirnwaffen are both absolutely correct about the limitations of SIGINT. I find it hard to believe that they are getting all that much from it even if they have complete access to everything the Iraqis could provide. The U.S. is as far ahead of the Russians in communications and communications intercept technology as they are ahead of the Iraqis in tank capability. While there may be some signals sent in the clear, there aren't going to be very many, and the amount of information gleaned from these signals is likely to be very limited.

Again I agree with MtG about the information stated in the report. Much of it is plainly implausable, and it does sound like the sort of thing that the Iraqis would put out. This information seems to contradict reports we have had from western reporters on the scene. While they aren't everywhere, it seems like it would be hard for them to miss regimental scale operations, even if these ever managed to do more than assemble before they were rapidly dispatched by coalition air assets.

[MichaeltheGreat]

OK, now for "embedded" journalists and US "propaganda."

The military does own and control the embedded journalists, in a particular way, but not what anti-US types and conspiracy theorists expect. They don't tell the journalists what to report, but they can, under the embedding agreement, tell them that they can't report anything. A good example over the weekend was Bob Woodruff from CNN, embedded with 1 MEF, talking about how the unit he was with had passed through a graveyard of Iraqi armor. Without saying it, although a CNN analyst picked up on it, he was referring to where IRG Tawakalna and other units were slaughtered trying to withdraw their heavy equipment to Basra - what he said gave anyone who had a clue about the old war an exact location that Marine unit had passed through.

Certain units have embedded reporters, and certain units don't. That tells you something, because units with highly sensitive movement orders won't have them.

There are reports from all over about troop movements north, west and south of Baghdad. Is there a direction we're not talking about? Just how much of 1 MEF and the Brits have gone past an Nasariyah? Gee, we haven't heard from 3 ID for a couple of days, with only a very limited exception.

What we do is control what info we don't give out. The info we do give out is accurate, as far as what we actually give out, but that's done with awareness of the fact that the Saddamites watch the news as well. If they want to think they're kicking our asses in Basra and an Nasiriyah, we don't really mind them thinking that. If they expect us to attack IRG Medina head on with V Corps, we don't really mind them thinking that either. We're not responsible for flawed conclusions other people draw.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The Russian site is off base. The short range comm nets used by the allies all rely on encrypted communications, and timely intercept and decryption is very difficult - they'd have to have people with the technical means right there, close in to a fluid fight, or simply scattered all up and down the probable line of advance, AND they'd have to have totally compromised our systems, which rely on both time values and bitstrength. They could record signals and decrypt them - in days or weeks, depending on the computing power applied, so that isn't the ticket.

Since all communications will eventually make its way back to the Command Centre in Kuwait, there is no need to be right at the front - they just have to be somewhere along the line. Besides, don't forget this information goes back to Washington D.C. and probably a few other places. In this process, the information will be deciphered and enciphered many times. The Russians just have to be somewhere in this net.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The bit about having satellite info is dodgy as well - the transit times of Russian military satellites is known, so if they have that source of info, they have static data a couple of times a day, in only a few areas - they can't photograph everything, so they have to pick and choose. That makes their claim as to their sources suspect in the extreme.

I found this assertion suspicious in itself. Clearly, the Russians will also try to hide such information from outsiders, it's a game of hide and seek. It seems reasonable that Russian sats can relay between themselves. It is also reasonable that perhaps they do have spy sats somewhere that haven't been found - or at least not known to the general public.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The factual inaccuracies alone make the site suspect - if you understand US movement doctrine and unit training, plus nomenclature, plus Iraqi capabilities, you get the idea that they really have no idea what's going on. The Iraqis have yet to demonstrate that they can take out an allied "tank" at all. Misidentifying IFVs as tanks is an amateur mistake, (something the Iraqis would do), and getting 13 IFV's in a day would be a miraculous occurence, for one simple reason - US doctrine.

The Iraqis are the ones who like to pack things in tightly - at 73 Easting, along their main line of resistance for the 7th Armored and 50th divisions, with IRG Medina, Hammurabi and Tawakalna - just about everywhere you saw Iraqi AFVs, you saw them packed closely. The US does the opposite, dispersing vehicles and relying on depth and overwatch, except in road movement in secure areas. 200 meter separation between IFV's on the move is common, and when hostiles are expect, the dispersal in width and depth gets wider, not narrower, with point vehicles up front.

Based on the way Army and Marine forces move and deploy, the CNN and other US media accounts at An Nasiriyah are more realistic - once a vehicle gets taken out by an RPG, there is wide dispersal, infantry dismounts, etc. - so taking out 13 is impossible for the Iraqis, because we won't have 13 in their range, ever.

You are assuming that the Iraqi haven't adapted to the US modus operandi. This clearly isn't the case from what I have seen on the news. It seems that the coalition forces have been bogged down at various strategically locations such as Basra. I don't find it so unreasonable that tanks were lost when they were used to assist in attacking strongpoints.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Since all communications will eventually make its way back to the Command Centre in Kuwait, there is no need to be right at the front - they just have to be somewhere along the line. Besides, don't forget this information goes back to Washington D.C. and probably a few other places. In this process, the information will be deciphered and enciphered many times. The Russians just have to be somewhere in this net.

All communication are not passed up the net. What are you thinking? What the hell are the relatively few people at HQ going to do with the thousands of lateral communications generated every hour?

Of course the higher up the ladder you climb, the harder it becomes to intercept communications. Let's assume that you are correct about the Russians though, and let's say that they have some bugs and / or good sources in Wahington or elsewhere. Why would they risk these assets in order to formulate news stories? That one is a non-starter, especially when the Head Honcho in Moscow is a KGB man.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I found this assertion suspicious in itself. Clearly, the Russians will also try to hide such information from outsiders, it's a game of hide and seek. It seems reasonable that Russian sats can relay between themselves. It is also reasonable that perhaps they do have spy sats somewhere that haven't been found - or at least not known to the general public.

Lateral communication between satelites would avail the Russians nothing in the collection process. In order to image the area the satelite has to be above it. The same is true of any satelites that intercept radio communications. As for the Russians having secret satelites, that too is fiction. Everything in orbit is tracked in order to protect satelites from space junk. Anyone who launches a satelite (including private companies) is aware of at least the locations of the objects in orbit, if not their capabilities.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You are assuming that the Iraqi haven't adapted to the US modus operandi. This clearly isn't the case from what I have seen on the news. It seems that the coalition forces have been bogged down at various strategically locations such as Basra. I don't find it so unreasonable that tanks were lost when they were used to assist in attacking strongpoints.

I would like to know how the Iraqis could knock out so many tanks. There are few enough weapons capable of this in their inventory as it is, and many of these weapons aren't that easy to employ against the Americans. Artillery is the most numerous, but it has to get a direct hit using very slow targeting methods against U.S. doctrine that doesn't let anyone in range get too comfy in one place. Take a look at that firefight on CNN. If ever there was a good case for the Iraqis using artillery the Marines sure provided one. But nothing at all was fired aside from direct fire weapons in two hours.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Since all communications will eventually make its way back to the Command Centre in Kuwait, there is no need to be right at the front - they just have to be somewhere along the line. Besides, don't forget this information goes back to Washington D.C. and probably a few other places. In this process, the information will be deciphered and enciphered many times. The Russians just have to be somewhere in this net.

Unit tactical comm nets don't go back to Washington, or even up to Division level. There's a lot of time delay and filtration up the chain of command, and only very summary, critical information important to the chain of command's decision making processes goes up quickly. Nothing that anyone's reported anywhere has touched on this kind of sensitive info.

A lot of detailed reportage won't make it up the chain of command until after the war is over, or at least well along in it, and it'll go into the form of formal after-action reports.

I found this assertion suspicious in itself. Clearly, the Russians will also try to hide such information from outsiders, it's a game of hide and seek. It seems reasonable that Russian sats can relay between themselves. It is also reasonable that perhaps they do have spy sats somewhere that haven't been found - or at least not known to the general public.

I don't know the intercommunication ability of current Russian sats, but everybody's orbital hardware is known to everybody. If you get Starry Night Pro or The Sky (Level III or Level 4) you can get updated track info. There's too many amateur and professional astronomers and tracking ground stations around the world, and international concern about collisions. What somebody won't know for a short while (minutes to a few hours) is about track changes right as they're initiated, and where the satellite is actually looking at high magnification within it's total field of view.

You are assuming that the Iraqi haven't adapted to the US modus operandi. This clearly isn't the case from what I have seen on the news. It seems that the coalition forces have been bogged down at various strategically locations such as Basra. I don't find it so unreasonable that tanks were lost when they were used to assist in attacking strongpoints.

Well, I do know a little bit about how the Iraqis fight. US doctrine has evolved far more than the Iraqi's has. The nature of the Iraqi political leadership is such that frank self-examination of one's faults and weaknesses is not encouraged.

Basra isn't strategic, it's an operational detail, in that we need to keep the Iraqis thinking about it, and we need to block any recon force or interdiction force coming out of it, but by and large, it's irrelevant to the outcome of this war.

Same with an Nasariyah - we need to push the *******s away from the road and bridges, but our emphasis there is tying them up, blinding them, and shoving as much hardware up that road as fast as we can while they are in that blinded state.

The problems with losing tanks is that the Iraqis don't have anything that can frontally kill tanks at the ranges we'll use them to engage targets. Strongpoints have to be taken with HE munitions, which are equally effective regardless of range. We don't need to close with any target, and will have dismounted infantry out around any tanks to secure them from possible ATGM or sapper teams that may be concealed. Simple fact is that last war, the Iraqis didn't take out a single M1 or M60 tank, although we took out a few of our own in night fighting FUBARs.

We did lose that LAV-25, but the next one to it was probably more than 100 meters away (I see them train at Camp Pendleton almost every other time I go up to the Los Angeles-Orange County area. Once RPG's or ATGM teams are out, we redeploy our armor, dismount infantry and put up a hell of a lot of suppression fire, to get control of the tactical situation. Losing two wouldn't be out of the question, but more than that becomes improbable in the extreme, because we simply retire the vulnerable vehicles out of range and bring in heavy firepower.

Believe me, if they were there in enough force to even engage 13 armored vehicles at the same time, there'd be nothing but smoking rubble there - we'd flatten the place with every aircraft the coalition owns, then work it with arty, then clean it out with about 10,000 infantry. If we have a large, aggressive enemy force in plain contact like that, we will take the opportunity to wipe it off the planet, because you can't contain a force like that with a security zone. The intensity of fighting would be far higher than what any side has reported.

[Fidel]

okay here is the deal about the russian site
1) my guess is that they are relying on their liman spy ship, whatever it may do. it was in adriatics during kosovo war
2) during kosovo war a similar type of site provided very accurate information regarding the war
3) news on this site appear usually 12 -24 hrs earlier than they appear on western media. they reported clash in nassiriya the minute it was reported it was taken with no resistance on skynews, etc
4) a lad there did a piece a couple of days ago on interception capabilities. perhaps gru can pull it out
5) i am really surprised that so many american posters actually believe that pentagon would not lie to them. every military lies in every war and americans are no exception

p.s. correct me if i am wrong, but i think russians also have a base in syria, dont they?

[Fidel]

oh and one more bit
our main daily paper correspondent who is with US/UK army and who is real fan of the American military (dunno why), reported that 4 Abrams were destroyed yesterday in the south and that the penetrations were at the front sides of the vehicles. He said it was surprising and showed that Iraqis imported new weapons. In that light the loss of couple of more BMPs and tanks in the north looks kinda believable.
But then of course, one can believe that even tanks start burning because of the 'mechanical failures' like helicopters...

[The Mad Monk]

My own problem with the idea of this site getting its data from our intercepts is simple.

If the Russians did indeed have the ability to intercept and decode our transmissions with the speed and accuracy the you imply, would they advertise the fact by putting it out on a website, for all the world to see?

[Az]

As a person who actually watches Russian TV, I must say that the two main TV news reports make FOX news sound as the most credible and unbiased reporting ever.