Street Fighting

[jumppilot]

I recently read an article that mentioned the allied forces would have to fight for Baghdad "street by street" and that by going into the city, "it will be their grave" (allied).

I personally support the war and the actions of our administration, but it brings up an interesting point...Is the American public ready for something of this magnitude? We will see many casulties if this happens, and I fear it will..

The idea of a quick, technology-driven war will have no meaning if urban warfare is waged.

What are your thoughts?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not sure whether this really answers your question or not, but I think that there is a core of people that truly support the Bush War and a core of people that truly oppose it.

Beyond that, there is an amorphous segment of public opinion that, at least unconsciously, goes through a mental calculation balancing belief in the Administrations's principles, a sense of obligation to support our troops, and the cost in time, economic terms and human life. I call that "soft" support, and it exists on both the pro and anti war sides.

So, we saw a jump in "soft" support when the war started and we can expect a drop in that support if the war becomes more costly and the "is it worth it" calculation moves the other way. (of course actual use of chemical weapons by Saddam would tend to move the soft support toward the pro-war side)

 

[chawbein]

Put the Rangers in there just like Mogadishu, except this time give them all the armor and air support they want.

Here's a story that hasn't gotten much press:

"First Woman Soldier Lost" look on drudgereport.com

This young woman was a POW (I don't even want to think about what those f*cking b@stards did to her) and had no business being over there in the first place IMHO. I find this unacceptable.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Turn off CNN for a little while.

Leave the fighting up to the professionals, I personally think they are doing a KICK A$$ job and I thank all them for it.

Just a little F'n sick of all the "war experts" on the news channels worrying about the 1000's of tanks (??) closing in on our troops who are stuck ina violent sandstorm like they are sitting ducks........
funny the sky cleared and those 1000's of tanks were a few Iraqi pick up trucks with some piece of $hit machine gun mounted in back...
at least it was disposed of quickly...

Lets all just rest assure that our troops are the most skilled, most equipped, and most dedicated soldiers ever assembled. Now lets all just do our part and show them SUPPORT!!!! - oh, and if any gotee wearin pu$$ies lie down in front of you in the street and play "die in" ...lets all do our troops a favor and run thier a$$es over!!!

 

[bigD]

You make an interesting point, chawbein. I've been internally fighting with myself over the issue of women in combat roles for awhile.

I've always been a big proponent of complete equality - if a woman wants to fight, and risk being killed, captured, or whatever - who am I to tell her that she can't die for her country?

But on the other hand, I'd be lying if imagining a woman getting beaten and killed doesn't strike a more disturbing chord in me than if the same were to happen to a man.

 

[jumppilot]

Turn off CNN for a little while.

Agreed. While it is important to let the public in on the actions of the military, I do feel the coverage is a little excessive...especiallyl from a media that is obviously liberal.

On their website, my local news channel has links you can access to get more information on their stories. In the links section there is a "Find a Peace Vigil" option. Great, but there is not a SINGLE LINK of "Support our Troops" or ANYTHING along those lines.

Where is Fox News when you need them.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Laws of combat

Yes, MOUT warfare is the most difficult. MOUT stands for Movement On Urban Terrain.

One of the rules says that to reach "parity" you must attack with a 9 to 1 ratio. That is, for every ONE soldier dug into a fighting position you will need 9 to break even. You will need a platoon to go up against a dug-in squad.

There are other items to be considered in urban warfare. They follow:

1. Parity rule (9 to 1)
2. There will be obstacles
3. Those obstacles will most likely be covered by fire, direct or indirect - or should be!
4. Those obstacles will probably be used to "channel" our forces into a "kill zone". I doublt that they will be built and then left behind.
5. Out guys will have orders to either breach the obstacles or go around them - while trying to avoid the "channeling effect".
6. Our armor will be attacked from the rear - they may allow them to enter the city and then attack them from the rear. The reason for this is that the turret will most likely be facing forward - therefore, they will need to fire at it from the rear to give the wire-guided gunner time to hit the tank before the turret spins around. The tanks can and will lock onto the enemy gunner when he fires - it can be a suicide mission if they are not careful.
7. The destroyed tanks will then be used to "block" out own forces in the "alley".....
8. Logistics is a night mare, Rooms and buildings will have to be marked as "clear"... then not left unsecured for the enemy to retake them.
9. There isn't much cover in the city while bounding in the streets.
10. The list goes on.....

As far as women in combat - I have served next to some women that I would rather have beside me that some of the men I've served with. HOWEVER, there is a phsychological horror/terror that goes with "worrying" about the women - it can be distracting. After all, we are raised to protect our women and kids.

I don't know who the idiots executed today, but I would guyess that it is one of the following: 1) the two pilots - because they are direct combatants, 2) the female soldier along with the youngest soldier - this would REALLY tear at our hearts...

Well, enuff said on that. My goose-bumps and adrenalin are eating at my gut now.

 

[RightPedal]

Hey Guys/Gal's
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this thing is going to take a little longer, and cost a little more than what most of us bargained for. But that's ok. We must support our leader's, and our military, and back them however long it takes, and whatever the cost.

I am so proud of our President and how he has handled himself through all this. And I have no problem with government cutting the proposed tax bill to support this thing either. That is as long as government pay raises and all these giveaway programs to these lazy won't work deadbeat's is cut back at the same time. Way I see it, you don't want to work, you want someone to hand out to you, then here, take this M16 and go make restitution.

I'm so sorry any of our people are being captured, but it will happen. The terrible thing is I'm afraid they have all been exicuted by now. I think this alone shows us what we are dealing with, and what we need to do.

America has been daddy moneybags and a dart board for this world long enough. We have followed the rules set forth by people that have no intention of abiding by them themselves. I was raised under the old southern way, and I think it's time America learns it. We will give you the shirt off our back to help you any way we can, But, you screw with us, we will kick yo butt!

I know, I'm no writer like you people. You may say, man what a redneck, But I'm ready and willing to fight for our right to be free from fear of things like 9/11 and those who perpetrated it. Enough is enough!

And yeah, Here it comes;
GOD BLESS AMERICA AND ALL WHO STAND BESIDE HER

 

[low-n-slow]

It's a shame that we were as civil as were back in '91...if we would have had the same mindset regarding the Saddam regime I believe we could have saved ourselves a lot of lives and grief now.
Hindsight is 20/20.

I applaud our President and his decision with the Iraq situation, I back and support our troops 100 per cent and I detest the spineless celebs that think because they are in front of the camera's eye they can talk crap about the U.S. and our leaders and EXPECT to be listened to. I do love being an American in the land that provides everybody the constitutional right to free speach!

'Embedded Celebrities'...sounds like a plan to me.

 

[SpiderMan]

Absolutely correct, urban combat eats up infantry and armor. I would hope by the time it comes to go in some iraqis will become enlightened enough to put a bullet in saddams/sons heads and save alot of lives on both sides. Well except for the fedahyan. They should all be summarily executed.

 

[Chas]

Armor!! Good point

Les Aspin did not allow Heavy Armor in the Mog( Mogadishu) and we lost fine young men Different war different Commander in Chief . We may lose some but I know we are better prepared this time . Thanks to all the fine men and woman of the coalition
"Gladiators I salute you" Chas

 

[Birdstrike]

I like the Israeli approach to urban warfare; tanks and bulldozers, forward march and provide only one rear exit. Enough of this politically correct bullshid way of fighting. Take off the gloves and level any city that resists.

 

[flywithastick]

Women in combat - we're talking about it and worrying about them... this makes my point. No women in combat zones, IMO. And what's with this soldier (not sure of the branch) not wanting to deploy because she has a nursing baby?! another good reason to not use women in combat.

Urban fighting - I'm not experienced in combat but it sounds difficult. Not that we won't revail, just a difficult job. What about this discussion of waiting them out? Might take months or years. Lots of kids starving. Thoughts on this plan?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Enough of this politically correct bullshid way of fighting. Take off the gloves and level any city that resists.

Now I'm completely confused. Bush keeps telling us we are "liberating" those cities.

Maybe it's just me, but I thought that "liberation" had something to do with "rescue."


Don't you agree with our President?

________________
If you always assume that there are morons on both sides of every issue, you will never be disappointed.

 

[Rick1128]

Urban

Birdstrike mentioned the right idea. But IMHO the Russian method works even better. Shell the town for a day or two (depending in the size) the line up the tanks abreast on one side of town and drive to the other side of town. Followed up by the infantry to shot whoever is still moving. Worked in Leningrad, Stalingard, Warsaw and Berlin. It is truely effective. Everyone was scared of the Russians, but also repected them. The world like the US but kept stabbing us in the back. Something to think about.

Next time you see the Generals that are running this operation, check out their salad bars. (Their decorations and awards) Notice that none of them on the Army side seem to have the Combat Infantry Badge. They have the Expert Infantry Badge, which means they have had the training, but no real life combat experience. In GW-1 (Gulf War 1) Powell and Norman had the CIB. Real life experience makes the difference.

As for women in combat, Isreal and Russia have had previous experience in this area. Personally I believe there should be a third sex as far as combat is concerned. Soldier. If and when we capture anyone who had anything to do with the execution of our POWs, they need to be tried by tribunal and then hung. We did this after WW2 to the Germans that executed the POWs during the Battle of the Bulge. In some areas the US has a long memory.

 

[Birdstrike]

We Are Going To Liberate The Cities

Posted by midlife......"Now I'm completely confused. Bush keeps telling us we are "liberating" those cities. Maybe it's just me, but I thought that "liberation" had something to do with "rescue."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescue. That's what tanks and bulldozers will accomplish. Because the Iraqi Army has chosen to seek refuge in civilian homes, hospitals, and other urban locations, this course of action may be what is required to "liberate" them from their hideouts. Many of these areas are going to have to be rebuilt anyway. If the Iraqi army will not come out and fight (and they won't) we will have to go in and get them.

The only way to get rid of these guys is to flat out kill them. Not negotiate, not wait them out, not anything except overwhelming violence with extreme prejudice to exterminate them. Sooner or later we will have to begin leveling the cities from the outside-in to ferret out where these fighters are hiding. Believe this is certainly preferable to kicking in every door and absorbing the high casualty levels that would entail.

I am sorry for the innocent Iraqi civilians. They are going to be caught in the crossfire as civilians always are in war. But that is this regime's fault, not ours. It was their decision to hide in the cities in civilian clothes, pretending to noncombatants while they hide their tanks, artillery, and missiles in and around civilian houses. Once they decided to do that, they sealed the fate of those cities.

IMO the priorities should be (1) kill resisting Iraqi soldiers (2) Minimize American casualties (3) Minimize civilian casualties.

In that order.

 

[Andy Neill]

Toy Solidier said:

Yes, MOUT warfare is the most difficult. MOUT stands for Movement On Urban Terrain.

Actually its Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain as in:

http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/90-10/toc.htm

Ugly stuff, and God bless the folks that may be called on to do it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Re: We Are Going To Liberate The Cities

IMO the priorities should be (1) kill resisting Iraqi soldiers (2) Minimize American casualties (3) Minimize civilian casualties.

In that order.

If liberation is truly the reason, then the priorities should be (1) kill resisting Iraqi soldiers (2) Minimize civilian casualties. (3) Minimize American casualties.

After all, by having a primary purpose of liberation, the policy decision has already been made that we are willing to lay down our soldiers lives for them.

On the other hand, if liberation is secondary to some other purpose, such as that Saddam is a direct threat to the US or the desire to grab Iraqi oil (which I do not subscribe to, BTW) then your priorities make sense.

But then the Administration loses some cool spin.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Re: We Are Going To Liberate The Cities

On the other hand, if liberation is secondary to some other purpose, such as that Saddam is a direct threat to the US or the desire to grab Iraqi oil (which I do not subscribe to, BTW) then your priorities make sense.

But then the Administration loses some cool spin. [/B]

help me understand your thinking, midlife. Obviously, you don't subscribe to the pretty basic US premise that US lives trump all others (which I do subscribe to, BTW). Just why do you think the US and others have invaded Iraq. no bull$hit, let it all hang out. Why do you think we're there?

Also, in relation to this answer, do you believe (wrt US citizens) the US Constution trumps all international law?

BTW, the primary mission in Iraq, whether the Admin feels like they can admit it or not, is to remove SH and his WMD's. Freeing the people, and all else is secondary. Playing the perception game is a fact of life in this world of instant news and weak resolve. Oil supply was fine before this invasion. Oil supply was fine before '91. If we're seizing oil, then why'd we give the Kuwaiti fields back in '91? But this isn't to say oil isn't a legitimate reason to invade.

 

[Birdstrike]

Posted by Midlife:

"...If liberation is truly the reason, then the priorities should be (1) kill resisting Iraqi soldiers (2) Minimize civilian casualties. (3) Minimize American casualties...."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's quite noble-sounding but if the allies are sacrificing their lives in order to minimize civilian casualties, they aren't going to be around long enough to accomplish #