Al Khalid Main Gun Target Range

[Officer of Engineers]

My apologies, Sigatoka, for the delay. Did not recognized this thread until I saw Sword9's name. Need to get use to this new layout.

What I meant was that the U.S. military which was meant to take on and destroy 3 Soviet Armies

LMAO!!!! We were to take them straight on. Destroy? That's asking a bit too much. At best, we might have taken out 2 armies and stopped the 3rd.

is struggling to impose order in front of 20, 000 sandal wearing 3rd world rebels armed only with small arms.

Not impose order but keep order. The good Captain would be the one to tell you about insurgency. He has vastly more experience in that area than I.

Digging a little trench and filling it with soldiers is not going to stop any advance, after all the tank was invented in world war 1. Pulling those soldiers back into the city gives force density. This force density is important for the reason that an army of 1,000 is more than 1,000 times more powerful than an army of 1. Due to the 3 Dimensional nature of an Urban battle field like Kuwait city, a higher density of soldiers can be accomodated before overcrowding occurs than for example in a trench or open desert. By overcrowding I mean soldiers starting to get in each others way.

Ok, back up several steps here. These were anti-tank trenches. They will stopped tanks. The only reason why they were breached was because Coalition engineers had bulldozers to fill them up.

Next, the 2nd line was Kuwait City. There were more than sufficent force density in that city for a fight (provided that the Iraqis did not lose nerve). Stuffing another division or two would just get into everybody's way (ie, you're trying to rush ammo forward but ten guys are blocking your way ... and might just take your ammo instead of the intended force).

Lastly, the Iraqis were not MOUT experts. In fact, the entire Middle East should not be considered a place for MOUT expertise. Part of it is climate. Vis-a-vi WWII European cities, Middle East cities lacked the natural LOCs and barriers in snow belt Europe. Houses and sewers don't have to be big
enough and deep enough to survive the winter frost which forms ready made bunkers and bomb resistent tunnels.

Secondly deploying in Urban environment gives greater protection because the opponent is forced to inflict greater collateral damage. This reduces the effectivness of the bombing camapaign.

An invalid assumption. Remember the last war the Americans fought before this one was Vietnam and they levelled entire cities; even friendly cities (ie, Huey).

Kuwait City was the prize, without freeing Kuwait City U.S. could not have claimed to "liberated" Kuwait. Yet Kuwait City was not well defended by the Iraqis. Instead they had deployed their troops so thinly and widely that the U.S. was going thru them, over them and around them.

VII Corps was not going to fight the way the Iraqis wanted them to fight. They were going to fight the VII Corps fight which was the destruction of the Republican Guard Forward Command. The Liberation of Kuwait City was considered a mop up operation; not the decisive action in VII Corps plan.

I dont see how the Marines advancing was anything suprising, what else is an oppoenent to do? If pakistan and India went to war and Indian troops advanced would analysts sit there and say "that was suprising"

You've misunderstood. The Marines advance was the feint.

Hmmmmm, I think you have a serious misunderstanding here. There were two actions. The 1st Marine Division was the one who drove the Kuwait-Saudi border to Kuwait City. The 1st Marine Division was the feinting force.

The other action, the decisive action was done by the USArmy VII Corps (these were not the Marines) who flanked the Iraqis at the west and drove towards Basra. They were aiming to destroy the Republican Guard Forward Command.

Do you now understand that there were two actions?

250000 didnt have the guts then yet 20,000 now do against an opponent which is better armed and trained?

Night and day comparisons here. The 20,000 didn't suffer 30 days of body numbing bombardment.

 

[sigatoka]

However, here too your figures are flawed. Characteristics of urban guerilla warfare does not permit the deployment of 20,000 insurgents at any level. Such high numbers cannot be fielded even in mountainous and jungle terrain of J&K without being exposed and picked off by the security forces. If one goes by the type of attacks (i.e bomb attacks) in Iraq currently, this only indicates that small terror capsules of 10-20 men, totally approx 100-200 in each major city/ town.

Well 20,000 is the figure in the media and has been acknologded by the Pentagon. Some figures are as low as 5,000 and some as high as 100,000.

 

[sigatoka]

Next, the 2nd line was Kuwait City. There were more than sufficent force density in that city for a fight Stuffing another division or two would just get into everybody's way

Lastly, the Iraqis were not MOUT experts.

An invalid assumption. Remember the last war the Americans fought before this one was Vietnam and they levelled entire cities.


Night and day comparisons here. The 20,000 didn't suffer 30 days of body numbing bombardment.

Trenches allowed the U.S. to exploit its comparative advantages in long range targetting and it suffers from overcrowding more quickly than Cities which are three dimensional.

A city the size of Kuwait city could easily handle up to 40,000 troops in the city proper and another 60,000 deployed on the outskirts. At least 500 T-72 could have been deployed to the outskirts and within the city proper. Most of the Anti-Aircraft Assets could have been moved to Kuwait city from Bagdad. The list goes on and on. Kuwait city wasn't decently defended, Fallujah was defended by only 5,000 insurgents who repelled a troop assault of the U.S. backed by Artillery and Aircraft and Helicopters.

Then the U.S. is not an MOUT expert either having had trouble flushing out 5,000 insurgents from Fallujah who were very lightly armed. I guess the MOUT expertness of the U.S. dissappears as soon as the opponent actually starts shooting and is led by half decent people.

Yes, and they lost in Vietnam because public support eroded when the public saw the devastating effects on the population of their bombing. In the current conflict the opponents of U.S. are milking the bombings and associated civilan deaths it causes.

The U.S. capability in bombing has greatly improved since the gulf war. The U.S. isnt hesitating to U.S. F-16's and and helicopter gunships against the insurgents.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Trenches allowed the U.S. to exploit its comparative advantages in long range targetting and it suffers from overcrowding more quickly than Cities which are three dimensional.

What advantages? What over-crowding? There were over 75,000 EPWs. Hardly a physical reduction of any force effectiveness.

A city the size of Kuwait city could easily handle up to 40,000 troops in the city proper and another 60,000 deployed on the outskirts. At least 500 T-72 could have been deployed to the outskirts and within the city proper. Most of the Anti-Aircraft Assets could have been moved to Kuwait city from Bagdad. The list goes on and on. Kuwait city wasn't decently defended, Fallujah was defended by only 5,000 insurgents who repelled a troop assault of the U.S. backed by Artillery and Aircraft and Helicopters.

You're making snap decisions without understanding the context. Kuwait City was not the OPOBJ. The RGFC was. With the RGFC destroyed; there was no chance any force left behind could have won. All any surrounding force have to do is to cut off the water.

Then the U.S. is not an MOUT expert either having had trouble flushing out 5,000 insurgents from Fallujah who were very lightly armed. I guess the MOUT expertness of the U.S. dissappears as soon as the opponent actually starts shooting and is led by half decent people.

The US made the mistake for Fallujah I for not massing sufficent force. They did not make the same mistakle for Fallujah II. Fallujah is coalition hands today.

Yes, and they lost in Vietnam because public support eroded when the public saw the devastating effects on the population of their bombing. In the current conflict the opponents of U.S. are milking the bombings and associated civilan deaths it causes.

Would you make the mistake that the US would not bomb cities; especially when they did bomb Baghdad ... and killed civilians already (the bomb shelter incident) and did not stop the bombing afterwards?

The U.S. capability in bombing has greatly improved since the gulf war. The U.S. isnt hesitating to U.S. F-16's and and helicopter gunships against the insurgents.

What's your point here?

 

[sigatoka]

The US made the mistake for Fallujah I for not massing sufficent force. They did not make the same mistakle for Fallujah II. Fallujah is coalition hands today.

What's your point here?

Fallujah is in the Anglo-Saxon hands but the U.S. is still bleeding every day. Fallujah was a massive propaganda victory for the Insurgents, whether in resisting the overwhelming U.S. firepower or when the U.S. had to resort to obliberating masjids and 1/4 of the entire city.

The point was in relation to your point that the current bombing is not as numbing as the one in Gulf War.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Fallujah is in the Anglo-Saxon hands but the U.S. is still bleeding every day. Fallujah was a massive propaganda victory for the Insurgents, whether in resisting the overwhelming U.S. firepower or when the U.S. had to resort to obliberating masjids and 1/4 of the entire city.

You're over-exergerating. And far more insurgents died than American casualties.

The point was in relation to your point that the current bombing is not as numbing as the one in Gulf War.

1) It doesn't need to be
2) There is insufficent mass for carpet bombing.

 

[sigatoka]

You're over-exergerating. And far more insurgents died than American casualties.



1) It doesn't need to be
2) There is insufficent mass for carpet bombing.

Of course, as they should being massively outgunned. My point being, while the U.S. military is good, it got caught in its own hubris post-1991 gulf war. This Iraq war has brought them down to Earth. This time they cant even blame the Soviet Union.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

You mean the insurgency?

I guess you didn't hear that 10 former US generals, including Collin Powell, had come out opennly predicted this course of events.

There were two more Generals who got fired for voicing this opinion while in uniform.

The insurgency could have been handled alot better but none of this detracts from the unequal combat power of the US military.

 

[sigatoka]

You mean the insurgency?

None of this detracts from the unequal combat power of the US military.

Unequaled for now but not for long with the rapidly rising economy and defense budget of China.

Russia has enough ICBM's to send U.S. back to the pre-historic ages.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Unequaled for now but not for long with the rapidly rising economy and defense budget of China.

Largest estimate of the Chinese defence budget is $75bil US. Current US defence budget is $400bil+.

A long, long, long time.

Russia has enough ICBM's to send U.S. back to the pre-historic ages.

You're getting off topic. However, the numbers are still but the operational status has declined dramatically, especially since they've re-intergrated the Strategic Rocket Forces back into the Air Force.

 

[ChinaWall65]

Largest estimate of the Chinese defence budget is $75bil US. Current US defence budget is $400bil+.

That doesn't say anything beside that US spends a lot of money on defense...spending a lot of money on defense doesn't mean you have a good defense. Before 9/11, US thought it was invincible, and now look where it is at. China could be more efficient with resources than US. In addition, chinese money worth a lot more than you think. For example, if you convert the salary of average engineer's wages in US to Chinese currency, it would still be several times higher than the salary of average engineer's wages in China. Chinese currency doesn't worth as much as US currency, however, things in China doesn't worth as much as things in US either if you convert both to the same currency. so the 75 bil vs. 400 bil arguement doesn't say much.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

PPP again.

It doesn't work.

Look, I don't care how much you pay your soldiers or engineers, machines and fuels costs the same no matter if it's in China or the US. You may pay your people less but that does not mean you have more money to spend.

And it's not just this year. It's accumlative. During the Cold War, Deng Xia Peng starved the PLA, reducing its budget to an offical $15bil a year. The US in the mean time was spending $600bil+. Year after year, that adds up and the result is pretty obvious. The US just conquered a country half way across the globe. China is just firming up its defences in China.

 

[ChinaWall65]

PPP again.

It doesn't work.

Look, I don't care how much you pay your soldiers or engineers, machines and fuels costs the same no matter if it's in China or the US. You may pay your people less but that does not mean you have more money to spend.

And it's not just this year. It's accumlative. During the Cold War, Deng Xia Peng starved the PLA, reducing its budget to an offical $15bil a year. The US in the mean time was spending $600bil+. Year after year, that adds up and the result is pretty obvious. The US just conquered a country half way across the globe. China is just firming up its defences in China.

Fuel costs and resources doesn't count towards PPP or nominal...but the point is, like you said, if PPP doesn't work, then it means there is a serious flaw with the $ 75 billiion conversion since it is converted from Chinese currency to US currency using PPP. My point about people getting paid less in China is saying that the Chinese currency worth a lot more than the current conversion to US dollars. If you read my previous post carefully, I never said cutting soldier's salary would mean more money to spend. I simply said that Chinese currency worth less than US currency, but things in China are also worth a lot less than things in US. For example, you can get a good meal in China for just several Chinese dollars, but in the US you have to pay at least five US dollars to get a descent meal at a fast food resturant, unless you order from the dollar menu . If you convert the US dollar into Chinese currency, you can buy at least several good meals in China. But if both currency are buying somewhat similar food, then shouldn't they have somewhat similar purchasing power? All I'm saying is that Chinese currency should worth a lot more than it is right now which means the 75 billion conversion from Chinese currency is incorrect.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Let me get this straight?

Are you saying that China gets the same benefit out of $75bil that the US gets out of $400bil+?

 

[Bull]

Let me get this straight?

Are you saying that China gets the same benefit out of $75bil that the US gets out of $400bil+?

OOE,that can never be the case, as if he is saying there is a price diffrential of more than 6 times in the cost of an asset between China and US,then US shud have been dead by now.

What i have read the price diffrential btw asset classes in US and China wud be max 70-80%