It's war. Part III

[Saras]

Originally posted by GePap


1. What about the 1 month of preliminary aeral bombardment? Why doesn't that count.

"On 17 January, I started with 39 tanks. After 38 days of aerial attacks, I had 32, but in less than 20 minutes with the M1A1,1 had zero." - an Iraqi battalion commander, after being captured by the 2nd Armored Cav Regiment, speaking to Col Don Holder.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Saras



"On 17 January, I started with 39 tanks. After 38 days of aerial attacks, I had 32, but in less than 20 minutes with the M1A1,1 had zero." - an Iraqi battalion commander, after being captured by the 2nd Armored Cav Regiment, speaking to Col Don Holder.

Sorry, but one random quote means diddly.

It also doesn't address the degration of Iraqi air defenses, Command and Control capabilities, the disruption of supply movements, plus the decimation of certain prepared lines of defense manned by infantry (yeah. no quotes from Iraq conscripts about how fun it was to have B-52 dropping bombs on their heads) that the relentless air campaign achieved.

Had it taken 48 hours without that month of pre-liminary attacks, yeah, that would have been more "impressive."

[Saras]

It's not a random quote, but a very good illustration of the overall kill ratio air vs ground, Mr. Knowitall.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Saras
It's not a random quote, but a very good illustration of the overall kill ratio air vs ground, Mr. Knowitall.

Winning wars is not all about kill ratios - even after the ground war the Iraqis had significant forces left, which had limped out of theater and where then used to crush the Shiite rebellion.

The point is that that one month of preliminary bombing played havoc with the ability of Iraqis to move, to be resupplied, to get timely orders, so forth and so on (and again, your quote is relevant to one single Iraqi unit) so if the ground war took only 48 hours it is because a lot of the job of setting up a victory was done long before that 48 hours started.

[Saras]

I don't say you're wrong, I'm saying you're a bit arrogant

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap

Given that the US has outspent Russia by at least a factor of 40 over the last 10 years, our military better be damned better than theirs, otherwise we should all demand our money back.

A very good point...and one that helps make mine.

1. What about the 1 month of preliminary aeral bombardment? Why doesn't that count.

Of course it does. However, we are talking about attacking over 550,000 personel. The Russians had complete air dominance as well and were attacking less than 37,000.

Regardless of the air bombardment, breaking a ground force of that size in the length of time they did is impressive by any measure.

2. Please don't repeat the outright lie that Iraq in 1991 had anything remotely close to state of the art Soviet hardware. The Soviets never sold their best weapons to clients, anymore than the F-15 and F-16s the US has supplied to KSA and Egypt are equal to ours.

Accepted...Consider my statement altered to "the most state of the art sold outside Russia"

Your point equally applies to the equipment we sold Georgia, no doubt?

3. Also, hitting guys in trenches in a freaking desert is a lot easier than any urban or mountain fighting.

While true, we are also talking about huge differences in magnitudes of both people and area.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


Winning wars is not all about kill ratios - even after the ground war the Iraqis had significant forces left, which had limped out of theater and where then used to crush the Shiite rebellion.

The point is that that one month of preliminary bombing played havoc with the ability of Iraqis to move, to be resupplied, to get timely orders, so forth and so on (and again, your quote is relevant to one single Iraqi unit) so if the ground war took only 48 hours it is because a lot of the job of setting up a victory was done long before that 48 hours started.

I would think that his quote was quite applicable...unless your contention is that this engagement was significantly different from any other in Iraq. If it was, then I believe we would have seen analysis of that on some of the military websites. The fact is that this was quite normal. Iraqi tanks were well dug in and the Iraqis went to lengths to protect them. When they were forced to maneuver by encroaching forces was when they became exposed. Further, it was not the training or night vision that was the main discrepency (although they were certainly factors). It was the range of US weapons and manueverability of US equipment combined with superior command and control functions.

Now, there is no doubt that a prepared battlefield is an easier target for ground forces, but once again, the Russians were facing a very small number of troops in a very small area and had them vastly outgunned.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap

Can you back this up with anything other than conjecture or prejudice?

Oh ..forgot this one. Look to the posts in the Russian Armour thread. When you see that Russia has less top of the line tanks than France does (or Britian...or Saudi Arabia for that matter(although your post on sales is relevant there)), then you will begin to see why Russia is an extremely powerful 2nd rate force. When you see that the US has over 4000 top of the line tanks with another 3000+ that are still ahead of anything Russia has, then you will see why Russia would not stand a chance in a war with the West (conventional of course).

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO
Of course it does. However, we are talking about attacking over 550,000 personel. The Russians had complete air dominance as well and were attacking less than 37,000.

So? The coolition attacked with 500,000 troops, while the Russians likely used less than 37,000. Though I doubt they actually faced 37,000, since not all Georgian forces were in theater. The point is irrelevant though - why compare things to the GUlf War 1 and not Gulf War 2, where the US also had complete air control, and it took around 3 weeks to get to Baghdad?

No campaign is ever trully comparable to another. Hell, why not compare Russia's thumping of Georgia to the US's invasion of Panama? An equally lopsided war, hell, even worse since Panama unlike Georgia had no air defenses and nothing even remotely close to heavy artillery or armor, yet it took the US at least a week to secure that small country, and they couldn;t even get the one man they were looking for until about two weeks after their invasion cause he hid from them.

Regardless of the air bombardment, breaking a ground force of that size in the length of time they did is impressive by any measure.

Yes, it was impressive.

While true, we are also talking about huge differences in magnitudes of both people and area.

Yes we are, so why use the 1991 Gulf War as the comparison you guys decide to use, given that it is on such a vastly greater scale than anything that happened in Georgia? Why not compare the Georgian war to Operation Barbarrosa, or Bagration, or Blue, or Citadel? Why not Overlord?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


Oh ..forgot this one. Look to the posts in the Russian Armour thread. When you see that Russia has less top of the line tanks than France does (or Britian...or Saudi Arabia for that matter(although your post on sales is relevant there)), then you will begin to see why Russia is an extremely powerful 2nd rate force. When you see that the US has over 4000 top of the line tanks with another 3000+ that are still ahead of anything Russia has, then you will see why Russia would not stand a chance in a war with the West (conventional of course).

1. Again, the US has paid ridiculous amounts of money to have those tanks. The Russian's haven't.

2. Are we going to have one of these silly "tank" discussions? Do we have to point out that the Soviets beat technically superior German tanks or that the Germans bean technically superior and more numerous French tanks?

Tank warfare is not all about size of gun (thought the Russians have bigger ones) or armor thickness, but training of crews, armor doctrine, ability to bring force to bear, so forth and so on.

No other country in the world has the same ability to move forces globally as the US because (AGAIN) no one spends even remotely close to what we do to have that ability. The problems with the Russian army aren't equipment ones (a T-80 in good hands will beat an M1A1 in bad hands) but supply and training ones, that and air and sea lift, or lack thereoff. And then of course there is the question of mission. The Germans may have fancier tanks, but they aren't going to get any use, because they are simply there to stop that non-existant Soviet push towards the Fulda Gap. So that they have fancy tanks really makes no difference. Russia has sufficient military force to project power in its immidiate zone of interest. They don't need anything else - their vast nuclear arsenal makes all that "superior" western hardware sort of irrelevant in most cases.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO

Now, there is no doubt that a prepared battlefield is an easier target for ground forces, but once again, the Russians were facing a very small number of troops in a very small area and had them vastly outgunned.

And they beat the snot out of the Georgians and have left them completely defenseless, unless you were looking at a different war than I did.

[GePap]

Also, I would like to pose the question of why anyone here thinks that Turkey would be willing to risk direct confrontation with Russian forces over Georgia, because someone pointed to the fact that the Turks have a nice big army that is well trained, and they do, but I serious doubt much enthusiam on the part of the Turks to at any point in the future run to save the Georgians.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat


What do you mean with invade ? It's georgoian terroritory that the georgian army entered.

South Ossetia's been independent for 16 years.

[Naked Gents Rut]

South Ossetia is not independent. It's internationally recognized as Georgian territory.

[siron]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
South Ossetia is not independent. It's internationally recognized as Georgian territory.

Yes. Similar as Taiwan, my Chinese friend.