Russian reports on the War, paint different picture

[Fidel]

and you never did

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, it's 3 am now. I had to get up to check on my son.

Now that it's bumped though, it shouldn't drop to page 4 by the time I have some time to avoid work tomorrow.

[Fidel]

it did

[Fidel]

edit: there has been quite a discussion and analysis of those 'ramzaj' reports in russian mainstream media. ramzaj was the pseudonim of r. zorge, by the way. anyway, they all concur that the level of accuracy so far is really good and that those leaks are definitely from russian ministry of armed forces...

[spiritof1202]

If the Iraqi's really are attriting the coalition in any meaningful way, why aren't there more visible signs of it?

The 7th cav is the tip of the spear, and has 200 M1A1's, so would have been first to contact with defenders. If the Iraqi's really have been putting up meaningful defenses, and sent the coalition packing, why haven't we seen pictures of multiple pieces of coalition armor destroyed.

All we've seen from Iraqi TV are a couple of dubious AFV's (look like BMP's not Coalition AFV's,) a couple of downed Predator drones (and isn't the point that some of these *can* be shot down,) and an Apache that they liked so much, that they showed it twice, claiming it was two different helicopters.

The Iraqi's sure haven't been shy showing what they could... where are the other destroyed units?

Secondly... if the Iraqi's really are able to operate in any meaningful way, and that the Coalition have just avoided any contact, why haven't the Iraqi's trapped the Coalition troops by blowing up the bridges?

This would trap them in the valley, and allow them to pick them off.

All the stories we've read of coalition losses, ignore prior stories, and move innevitably towards Baghdad.

If you are winning a war, then you push the opposition back, and the stories of victory move further away from your capital, not closer and closer.

I can understand that its in the interests of both Russia, and Iraq, for the coalition to be viewed in a losing position, since the only way for them to gain victory, is for the US public to view this as a Vietnam.

The US public are seeing an inevitable trend towards Baghdad, and insignificant numbers of body bags.

Those who claim that the numbers of reported combat deaths are underreported need to provide some actual proof of such. The Pentagon has never been shy of notifying the press of combat casualties.... they've done so in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Somalia and Gulfwar I, and I see zero physical evidence that they are failing to do so here.

[Myrddin]

But the 'GRU' link you provided shows more insight into the mind of the Russian military than the actual situation in Iraq

The incursions into Baghdad and Basra show that the coalition military can go into the cities if and when they want to. They are not being held out by the Iraqis.

The artillery attacks are not flattening city blocks - Basra will not look like Grozny

However I am sure that coalition intelligence on the Iraqis is probably as flawed

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It is amazing what sources the left wing terms as being biased. It used to be conservatives who would bash the media, now it seems to be the left and those who are anti-US. But the left has gone to unimaginable lengths in attacking the media. Going beyong attacking Fox News, they have painted CNN as just as bad.

You write as if this is something new. We've been complaining about the media forever.

[Victor Galis]

I don't recall CNN or anyother American news source I've watched report a friendly fire incident earlier in the campaign where 37 people were injured and 6 trucks/non-armored vehicles were destroyed by US artillery accidentally firing at a US camp. (This was maybe a week ago or so). I remember the footage of the aftermath from a French channel and wondering how long it would take CNN to report it, and that was back when they were in their "Oh no, the Iraqis haven't surrendered in two days, we must be losing mode."

[Victor Galis]

Say, has anyone been reading http://www.pravda.ru? (Now, there's a site with a left-wing bias)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by LaRusso
okay, here's the piece someone wrote on interception. me, i do not have a clue, i am just a lawyer, so the only thing i can assure you of is that this is a war of agression and in violation of many principles of international law i expect mtg to say that all of this is BS....anyway as i promised...

How military radio communications are intercepted?
21.03.2003 [17:57]

Actually, it's not all BS, just a little of it, and a little of it is a bit "fuzzy," shall we say...

The US military is using SINCGARS (Single Channel Ground And Airborne Radio System) frequency-hopping radios in the field. These radio sets are categorized as Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) transceivers. The FHSS method is not new: it originated from the Second World War and, simply stated, it employs a narrow band carrier, shifting frequency in a pattern known only to the transmitter and the receiver. The frequency can be changed several hundred times per second.

The FHSS military radios are synchronized daily to use the same frequency modulation algorithm. The synchronization process occurs either through a direct physical connection of the radio sets to each other or to a special device known as the programmer. Some radios can also synchronize frequency modulation algorithms via an encrypted transmission of the frequency modulation algorithm in a non-frequency-hopping mode, although this method is generally considered to be less secure.

The military radios in the US armed forces commonly use encryption and the frequency hopping methods provide an additional layer of security during transmission of the encrypted signal. An example of a frequency-hopping field VHF/FM transceiver used by US Special Forces would be the Caracal RPM 4740 manufactured by Thales Communications of France.

The Caracal covers the 30 to 87.975 MHz frequency range. It also has 10 programmable simplex or half-duplex channels out of its repertoire of 2,320. Hopping in narrowband (6.4 MHz) and wideband (30 to 87.975 MHz) orthogonal modes, Caracal contains high-grade internal digital encryption and has an output of 1 W. Insertion of frequency and security codes is accomplished using the MA 4073B programmer or MA 4083B fill gun. A reset switch on each radio is used to erase codes rapidly. The synchronization function is broadcast, requiring about 6 seconds. Other features include receive-only selective calling, frequency barring and `hailing' by fixed-frequency radios when in the hopping mode.

This part is correct, although I'm not familiar with the model Caracal transeiver listed, so I don't know if that's in current use or with who. The general description of SINGCARS is correct, though.

However, security afforded by frequency-hopping methods is very dependant on the strict adherence to protocols for operating such radios.

Correct.

The US troops and other operators of frequency-hopping radio sets frequently disregard these protocols. An example would be an artillery unit passing digital traffic in the frequency-hopping mode, which would enable an unauthorized listener to determine the frequency-hopping algorithm and eavesdrop on the transmission.

Here's where there's a few problems.

1): In order to "effectively" disregard the protocols, it has to be done essentially endemically throughout the unit. i.e. for comms to work laterally or in a particular command net (say arty FO to arty battery, scout platoon to battalion HQ, lateral comms within a given battalion, etc.), everyone has to do the same things, either following or disregarding procedures.

When battalions go through their rotations at the National Training Center at Ft. Irwin, or inspections / exercises from brigade or divisional level, that sort of practice stands out, and battalion commanders who tolerate that sort of **** won't be around long in today's army and USMC. It's very competitive. A typical US Army "heavy" division TO&E has 80 Majors (O4) in it. There's less than 20 battalion (O5) command slots available, and a few O5 staff or educational postings outside the division, but the weeding out process from O4 to O5, and then from O5 to O6 (regimental or brigade commands, senior divisional or corps staff, Pentagon staff, etc.) are the two most brutal steps in the career ladder. About one in six O4's make it to O6, so the tolerance for O5's who don't follow procedures and enforce the following of procedures within their battalions is about zero. There's a ****load of equally qualified replacements waiting for that promotion and battalion CO's slot.

(2) Passing digital traffic isn't a good example, since all traffic passed will be encrypted separately from the frequency hopping.

Even when proper protocols for using frequency-hopping radios are being adhered to interception and decryption of these signals is still possible. The frequency-hopping interceptors are special advanced reconnaissance wideband receivers capable of simultaneously tracking a large number of frequency-hopping encrypted transmissions even in high background noise environments. An example of such a reconnaissance device would be the FH-1 frequency-hopping interceptor manufactured by VIDEOTON-MECHLABOR Manufacturing and Development Ltd of Hungary. The FH-1 frequency-hopping interceptor is a modern reconnaissance system based on parallel signal processing technology.

The equipment has 160 independent receiving channels covering a 4 MHz wide IF band with 25 kHz channel spacing, 60 dB channel selection and 60 dB intermodulation suppression. The 4 MHz wide IF band is the IF output of a special high-speed front-end receiver which has a 20 to 1,000 MHz frequency range. The digitized output signals of the channels are multiplexed and fed as 1 Mbits/s data to a fast dedicated signal-processing computer. As the processing time of the 160 channels is 200 µs with the front-end receiver 4 MHz frequency setting time, the processing speed of this interceptor is 4 MHz/200 µs or 20 GHz/s. This high speed makes it possible to process the complete 30 to 80 MHz ground-to-ground VHF band within a 2.5 ms time slot.

The system's processing algorithm filters out noise spikes and stationary transmissions and in this way hopping transmissions can be classified either in the traditional frequency versus amplitude mode or in a waterfall-like frequency versus time display mode. Optional software modules are available for direction-finding the FH transmission and for controlling a remote follower/jammer.

This is also correct, but problematic. These aren't portable units - Videoton / Mechlabor are well known in the shortwave and digital comms field. The FH1 is a pig, and it needs a fairly robust power supply. Depending on the signal strength of the comms you're trying to intercept, you also need to be reasonably close to the transceivers you're listening to.

The Iraqis don't have this capability, and it would be pretty politically risky (not to mention the risk of getting popped by US forces) for Russia or anyone else to put specialty vehicles in the field to grab this stuff.

Another point is that even if you get the FH algorithm (actually a multistep process, because the algorithm relies on input seeds to vary it's output), that takes time, because you originally get the hops based on particular input seeds, so you have to get a lot of those, using different seeds, and apply some fairly serious computational power to back into the base algorithm.

Then, after you've done all that, you get to match up the recorded signals, sort them out by transmitting unit, and you've got the encrypted crap to work on. Yes, it can be done, but not in the sort of near-real-time mode suggested by the website's claim that they're getting their info from signals intercepts.

[Fidel]

thanx, mtg!
still, i read those reports with great interest every day. i kinda like my information and desinformation spread out evenly

[Fidel]

Originally posted by spiritof1202
Those who claim that the numbers of reported combat deaths are underreported need to provide some actual proof of such. The Pentagon has never been shy of notifying the press of combat casualties.... they've done so in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Somalia and Gulfwar I, and I see zero physical evidence that they are failing to do so here.

Compare casualties reported at the end of GW1 and GW1 casualties reported now 8/174
example. today a rocket slammed into american command post in south bagdad. 6 soldiers reported injured, 6 missed in action. MIA??? cmon....you do not get missing when a rocket slams into your tent

[Sava]

I think "MISSING" applies when the remains have yet to be identified.

[Az]

I like the way you're not gloating.

[Fidel]

oh...that? right!