[bogie]

I mean, during Gulf War I, we bombed the bejeezus outta stuff before sending in the troopies...

I suspect that in the interest of "good public relations," we're gonna sacrifice troops rather than allow collateral damage.

Bummer.

[Leatherneck]

we're gonna sacrifice troops Never. Don't criticize tactics you don't understand. Ever think there might be other things going on? Wait and see.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Blackcloud6]

I agree with Leatherneck. Never fight the current war with tactics of the last one. (The French had a hard time with that one!)

[El Tejon]

bogie, oh, we will.

There are several force multipliers in place now other than dropping dumb iron all over them as in `91. Move, shoot, communicate--we've got to get around them first. While the ground pounders move to get to B and to get them to move, the air will chew them to pieces and keep them out of hedgehogs.

[D_Burchfield]

Why the invasion now?

We need people in place on the ground to accept all of those surrenders!:neener:

[KMKeller]

Let's not forget the need to secure the WMDs. It's a race to see if we can get to them before they are moved, destroyed, etc.

[Ebbtide]

Bogie,

I've been thru that train of thought before. War aparently brings a lot of anxiety, doubt, and second guessing. I have faith in our military leaders and feel they have more to fear from our public opinion than the rest of the worlds.

I would not be surprised if the Iraqis just give up before the ground troops enter or even fire a shot. If you believe what you hear in the news (bomb the heck out of them with more munitions in the first few hours than we used in the whole last war, then send in the ground troops) the plan is simular, but faster with better technology.

I hope I'm right.

I suspect we will have our answers by next week.

ehenz

[M1911]

Bogie: First, our technology has changed rather significantly since the Gulf War. During the Gulf War we had few aircraft capable of dropping precision munitions and the only type of precision munitions we had were laser-guided. Now, virtually all of our aircraft can drop precision-guided munitions and we have GPS-guided munitions that can be dropped from high altitude, through cloud cover.

Second, Iraq learned some lessons from the Gulf War too, so they aren't arrayed out in the desert as easy targets, the way they were in the Gulf War. And third, when our ground forces move in, that will force the Iraqi ground forces to expose themselves, thus making them better targets for air attack.

[Blackhawk]

I suspect that in the interest of "good public relations," we're gonna sacrifice troops rather than allow collateral damage.
Not to worry, bogie. There's never been another country in history as good at getting the other SOB to die for his country in war. We do NOT sacrifice troops.

[cheygriz]

Pholks,

With all due respect to those that (rightfully) question our military leaders, consider this for a moment.

In our country, there's usually a good reason why a soldier gets to be a general. In most cases, its because he knows what he's doing, and has experience doing it.

I will trust them until such time as they prove unworthy of that trust.

[Mike Irwin]

Well, I think one of the main reasons is that the United States killed a LOT of what could easily be killed, or what absolutely needed to be killed, with bombs in 1991.

The Iraqis have no armor or air force of which to speak, and their artillery assets are greatly reduced from 1991.

A prolonged bombing campaign simply may not be necessary.

[bogie]

Well, the Iraqis may be kinda dumb stubborn, but they ain't stupid...

I'm _very_ worried that they've got something really nasty up their sleeve...

[El Tejon]

bogie, we all are.

[Russ]

I have heard they are going to bomb and cruise missle the snot out of them for a few days. I assume most of this will take place before ground forces are fully in position. To protect the oil wells from sabotage, I'm guessing some Special Forces are already in there. My nephew is there and flies an F-18 for the Navy. He will see action real soon.

[Leatherneck]

My nephew is there and flies an F-18 for the Navy
Russ, Godspeed to him. Which boat?

TC
TFL Survivor

[Sean Smith]

My understanding of how it is going to go down (and I've been out of the Army for over 2 years, so I don't know cool stuff I can't tell people anymore :D ), is that we are going to hit them from the air twice as hard in a fraction of the time with 10x the precision we did in 1991.

Remember, back in 1991,about 20% of the bombs were "smart" weapons. That means that 80% were dumb iron bombs that, on average, missed the target by a pretty wide margin. So you had to expend about 10 tons of bombs to hit with 1 ton. Now, the ratio is reversed... about 80% of the bombs will probably be precision-guided munitions. PGMs have gotten better, and interestingly enough alot cheaper than they were over a decade ago.

Accuracy lets you accomplish the same effect, or greater, with less explosives.

Furthermore, in tactics there is a long-standing concept known as "shock effect." In a nutshell, the more sudden and violent the attack, the greater its psychological effect, and the longer and more drawn out the attack is (as in the case of long artillery bombardments in World War I, or long air campaigns in World War II and later), the weaker its psychological effect is... even though the delivered weight of explosive may be greater in the latter than the former. The temptation is to just keep using explosives(artillery in the old days, bombs in more modern times) until the enemy is "wiped off the face of the Earth," and the infantry can just walk to glory. But it doesn't really work out that way.

Short, but intense, delivery of firepower, followed up by an immediate ground assault, can often totally break down a defensive system. On the other hand, protracted bombardments often reach a point of diminishing returns in terms of physical damage, and give the enemy time to physically and mentally prepare for the impending ground attack.

People have an exaggerated idea of what air power did in 1991. Like every war before it, people thought air power was totally decisive, but when you picked through the ashes you realized that the ground forces did almost all of the killing with infantry, artillery and tanks. The main killer of Iraqi tanks in 1991 was not the A-10 Warthog, or AH-64 Apache, but... the M1A1 tank.

Victories predicated on shock effect, instead of pure throw-weight of explosive over long periods of time, are numerous. On the other hand, many offensives predicated on sheer sustained explosive firepower failed miserably (the Somme battles being a classic example). There is alot more to strategy than just bombing 'em into the stone age.

[bogie]

Well, it'll be REAL interesting to see how some of the new toys work - I'd like to see a few B-52s loitering at high altitude, waiting on a call to drop on x-coordinates where a tank or something else was spotted via satellite...

[Ol' Badger]

I got my Bro and a friend over there now. I'm not going to get any sleep for awhile I suspect! Please GOD let it be quick.

[Ebbtide]

FWIW: I think in 91' the stealth "fighter" flew 2% of the missions but accounted for 80% of the destroyed targets. Don't quote me, this came from C. Powell in an interview I saw on the tube a few weeks ago.

[TallPine]

Remember in this case we are planning to rebuild everything that we blow up. Might be wise to be a little bit careful what we break. :)

[TallPine]

We need people in place on the ground to accept all of those surrenders!

Actually, in this case that might not be a joke.

If we are reasonably expecting mass surrenders, then it doesn't make sense to bomb those guys into the sand first.

Remember we have to live with the aftermath - better to have live friends than dead enemies (in which case we would still have plenty of live enemies, too).

[JohnBT]

I like the statement that turned up in the Washington Post recently.

"...General John Jumper, the air force chief of staff, declined to discuss the highly classified technical advances, except to say, "We're approaching the point where we can tell the SA-10 radar it is a Maytag washer and not a radar and put it in the rinse cycle instead of the firing cycle." "

John

[voilsb]

I've heard we're going to engage in a massive air campaign for about a week, then jump the 82nd in the north and truck the 101 about 350 miles into iraq in the south, with marines being placed even farther north than the 82nd.

this was, of course, what I saw on PBS last night. can't say 100% how accurate it is, though. unfortunately, I don't remember the names of the cities they were after. but the marines and 82nd were going after oil fields, I think, to keep the iraqis from taking them out

[twoblink]

I've got a college buddy in the army..

We don't worry about our boyz doing the right thing, or question the actions of the military leaders; what we worry about is Saddam..

Despite the fact that france says that they do'nt think Saddam has anything nasty (but of course they will join if there is... what double talk from the french:rolleyes:) I would be gravely concerned if bio/chem stuff started getting used.

Godspeed...

[Russ]

Leatherneck,

I know my brother told me which carrier his son (my nephew) was on but it's been about 3 months ago and for the life of my I can't remember now. They live out in Seattle and I don't talk to them all that often. I haven't seen him since my father's funeral 10 years ago. At that time he told me he was going into the Navy to fly jets. I thought I would call my brother tonight and find out which carrier my nephew is stationed on. I do know he's been over in the region for awhile. I'm praying for his safe return.

When my brother told me he was flying F-18's, I pictured an A-6 Intruder in my head. I thought those were kind of second rate jets but then I looked up the F-18 on the web and I see that these are some first rate machines.

He's a sharp kid. He's not the kid I remember anymore either. He's probably pushing 30 now. Amazing how time goes by so fast.

Anyway, thanks for your kind thoughts.

Russ

[Shooter973]

Why invade now? Nearly full moon, night attacks are to our advantage. Night vision tech better than anything they have.

[Bruce H]

I suspect that the attack on the bunker with Saddam and his kids was very successful. Those in the right place know it and want to move as quickly as possible to gain control before they have a chance to regroup. You don't hold terrirory with planes, it takes people with rifles looking at you.