Planetarion Forums

Kåre Willoch · 27 Mar 2003, 00:13

Well, it's said that around a 1000 vehicles of the republican guard are on the move tonight under the cover of sandstorms.

Will this be a last desperate attack were the Iraqis take advantage of the bad weather to manage to attack without being destroyed from the air ? If they have the guts for it, even though they lose the battle, it can be a disaster for the "coalition".

I mean, dead Iraqis are one thing, but what if we see dead Americans in the thousands ?

As much as I hate Bush, one has to hope they're about to surrender. Not likely at all though....

would the US ever recover if they lost this war ?

Jammers · 27 Mar 2003, 00:19

They recovered from Vietnam, and then it was conscripts getting killed in their masses, which I would think has more effect than volunteers.
Don't worry though, I'm sure the British will come to the rescue once again.

Ditcher · 27 Mar 2003, 00:27

Well they didint actually lost in Vietnam. Just lost public support and had to withdraw and let south vietnam fk up all after leaving. But yeah I agree (unlikely) failure in Iraq would really hurt them and take long time to recover from the shock.

Kåre Willoch · 27 Mar 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Ditcher
Well they didint actually lost in Vietnam. Just lost public support and had to withdraw and let south vietnam fk up all after leaving. But yeah I agree (unlikely) failure in Iraq would really hurt them and take long time to recover from the shock.

----
The USA lost in Vietnam. Or do you consider pulling out with your tail between your legs a victory ? The thing people forget about South Vietnam, is that 70% of the population there were actually on the side of North Vietnam. So it wasn't very easy to win of course. The US mass bombing of genocidal nature wasn't enough to break the population down.

You really need to upgrade your bull**** detector if you believe somebody telling you the US didn't lose in Vietnam.

Ditcher · 27 Mar 2003, 00:41

Militarily they did not lost. Politically yes. However I consider these two to be totally different cases. Perhaps I should have added that.

edit: Of course taking account political table back then It was a defeat overall.

Nusselt · 27 Mar 2003, 00:47

tbh even on the ground there isnt anything the iraqis have that will begin to match the americans, even without air power, every bit of their equipment is better than anyone elses, im not saying that in a pro us lets kill all the arabs kind of way, its just that ffs they spend a quarter of a trillion dollars a year making sure they are the best. Id expect the american forces to smash through the iraqis, they might lose a few men, but hardly thousands.

Scoot951 · 27 Mar 2003, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
would the US ever recover if they lost this war ?

Short of the Iraqis nuking a couple of our cities (which I don't believe they can do) I can't imagine how we could possibly lose. A single battle, perhaps, but not the war.

Judge · 27 Mar 2003, 00:56

It is extremely unlikly that in an engagement between Iraqi and Coalition Armour, that heavy casualties would be inflicted on Coalition Armour.

I have no idea about the vulnerability of the US Armour, but it is probably a match for UK Armour, and UK Armour has very little chance of being dented by the Iraqi's let alone destroyed.

The only Tanks that can possibly knock out a Challenger, is an Abrahms or another Challenger, and as the Iraqi's have neither, I doubt they will do a lot.

Ditcher · 27 Mar 2003, 01:02

In desert no, Iraks dont have a chance. But in Baghdad it can get harder but not to "thousands of casulties" I think.
Hmm it would be interesting to know how many men they have calculated to lose and what is the ultimate max if there is any.

Tactitus · 27 Mar 2003, 01:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
It is extremely unlikly that in an engagement between Iraqi and Coalition Armour, that heavy casualties would be inflicted on Coalition Armour.

I have no idea about the vulnerability of the US Armour, but it is probably a match for UK Armour, and UK Armour has very little chance of being dented by the Iraqi's let alone destroyed.

The only Tanks that can possibly knock out a Challenger, is an Abrahms or another Challenger, and as the Iraqi's have neither, I doubt they will do a lot.

A single Iraqi truck-mounted anti-tank gun managed to take out two M1A1 Abrams tanks on Tuesday by ambushing them from behind (most tanks have thinner armor on the back). They were the first Abrams tanks lost to enemy fire in their 20-year history. Fortunately, none of the tank crew were injured.

I hope Saddam gets a chance to award[*] that anti-tank crew some medals, as that was some excellent shooting.

[*]Posthumously, of course.

xtrasyn · 27 Mar 2003, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Tactitus
A single Iraqi truck-mounted anti-tank gun managed to take out two M1A1 Abrams tanks

they rock severely in c+c generals too

wu_trax · 27 Mar 2003, 01:43

it would be a bit stupid to waste all well trained troops on the front line.
the iraq could just cut of the supplies (which are not at all secured) and watch the us soldiers starving.
but then, he already did some really stupid things during the iraq-iran-war

Akallabeth · 27 Mar 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge

The only Tanks that can possibly knock out a Challenger, is an Abrahms or another Challenger

Leopard 2

Scoot951 · 27 Mar 2003, 01:48

They could probably drive all the way back to Kuwait and back again before they were in any danger of starving to death. Gas might be a bigger problem, but I doubt the Iraqis can damage it that much.

wu_trax · 27 Mar 2003, 01:49

some us-generals seem to be pretty much worried about supplies. and if i read that some tanks need fuel every 80km i doubt they would come that far.

Sandsnake · 27 Mar 2003, 01:56

Top 3 tanks in the world are the M1A2 SEP, Leopard 2A5, and Challenger. In that order, though according to the US Army publication Armor, the Leo and the Abrams fight for the #1 spot. Interestingly enough, they're all the same damn tank, with each country making additions or minor changes.

Abrams have the top armor in the world, Leo's have the top fire control system, and the brits have the best suspension system...

As for any frontal assault by the Iraqi's, they're toast. You can kill their biggest tank with a .50 cal machine gun if you shoot it properly. Supplies will only be an issue if they really manage to cut them off, but another US division is moving into Kuwait as we speak.

Sandsnake · 27 Mar 2003, 01:57

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
some us-generals seem to be pretty much worried about supplies. and if i read that some tanks need fuel every 80km i doubt they would come that far.

the things are gas hogs...it takes like 26 liters of fuel just to START an abrams.

deerbarn · 27 Mar 2003, 02:04

Doesnt the Abrams use a ****ing gas turbiney type engine?

wu_trax · 27 Mar 2003, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
Top 3 tanks in the world are the M1A2 SEP, Leopard 2A5, and Challenger. In that order, though according to the US Army publication Armor, the Leo and the Abrams fight for the #1 spot. Interestingly enough, they're all the same damn tank, with each country making additions or minor changes.

Abrams have the top armor in the world, Leo's have the top fire control system, and the brits have the best suspension system...

i thought we copied each other anyway?

Quote:

As for any frontal assault by the Iraqi's, they're toast. You can kill their biggest tank with a .50 cal machine gun if you shoot it properly. Supplies will only be an issue if they really manage to cut them off, but another US division is moving into Kuwait as we speak.

again, im certainly not an expert on the us-military nor do i know which troops are available right now, but after what i just read at least two divisions would be necessary to secure the supply-lines.
the 4th infatry devision needs two weeks to get ready and the 1st cavalry division (they dont attack with horses, do they

?) would even need 5 weeks. (these are the troops from turkey if i understood everything correctly)

Starbucks · 27 Mar 2003, 02:08

if they had the 1st Mechbot Division they would be fine

Kal_Zakath · 27 Mar 2003, 02:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
The only Tanks that can possibly knock out a Challenger... another Challenger, and as the Iraqi's have neither, I doubt they will do a lot.

They don't have to, they can just sit back and let the Challengers destroy each other. (Lost the link to the story)

Sandsnake · 27 Mar 2003, 02:16

Quote:

Originally posted by deerbarn
Doesnt the Abrams use a ****ing gas turbiney type engine?

General Electric 1500HP...same thing they use on Blackhawk Helicopters.

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
i thought we copied each other anyway?

It was actually a multi-national project. The tank was designed and everyone went off and made their own variation.

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
again, im certainly not an expert on the us-military nor do i know which troops are available right now, but after what i just read at least two divisions would be necessary to secure the supply-lines.
the 4th infatry devision needs two weeks to get ready and the 1st cavalry division (they dont attack with horses, do they ?) would even need 5 weeks. (these are the troops from turkey if i understood everything correctly)

They're capable of moving FAR quicker, and if need be, 3d ID can fall back, securing it's own supply lines...problem is at that point, all bets are off as securing the rear would be priority over everything (and we'd look REALLY bad). They'd have a hell of a time pulling it off though, as we track most everything, and any significant force moving around would get noticed and destroyed by rear echelons.

Sandsnake · 27 Mar 2003, 02:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Iniluki
If its such a large group of tanks why not just drop a moab?

Or a few hundred cluster bombs?

Or call in the Warthogs?

they will probably do "all of the above"

IndiaSour · 27 Mar 2003, 03:14

Just heard on CNN from a Marine General (one of the JCS I think), that they havent seen reports of the Iraqis moving out. Though he said it would be a good thing.

Vermillion · 27 Mar 2003, 04:59

Who kills tanks with tanks?

Yes, a T-72 (the best the Iraqis have) can only hurt an Abrams with a rear shot or a 1 in a thousand hit, but Iraq has TOWs, and they are far more effective. Even the older style Russian TOWs like the Sagger can take out an Abrams or a Challenger, Reactive armour is just not all that effective.

AT Mines, Even a relatively modern RPG against rear armour can do the job...

There is a reason why the world is getting slowly out of the Tank business, they are too expensive and too easy to kill.

Oh, and I would put a T-90 on the top armour list, though the Russians have STILL not managed to mass produce them yet...

Sandsnake · 27 Mar 2003, 05:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Vermillion
Oh, and I would put a T-90 on the top armour list, though the Russians have STILL not managed to mass produce them yet...

their armor is something else...the sliding plates and anti-missile system are pretty bad ass...not much use against a US super sabot, but still quite a peice of work.

*Cooper* · 27 Mar 2003, 08:48

Yes well, you aint gotta fight them!

My platoon is moving out to south Iraq today (getting flown!)
to intercept the republican guard troops/vehicles before they reach the US troops

Gayle29uk · 27 Mar 2003, 09:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyanide
Yes well, you aint gotta fight them!

My platoon is moving out to south Iraq today (getting flown!)
to intercept the republican guard troops/vehicles before they reach the US troops

Maybe your platoon commander should communicate a little better, there IS no column of Iraqi armour.

Quote:

0010: Reports of huge Iraqi Republican Guard armoured column heading south from Baghdad are false, US military commanders say.

wu_trax · 27 Mar 2003, 09:15

where do all these false reports come from anyway? civil uprise in basrar, counter offensive ...?

xtrasyn · 27 Mar 2003, 09:16

Quote:

Originally posted by wu_trax
where do all these false reports come from anyway? civil uprise in basrar, counter offensive ...?

White House News Production Facility

Emperorn · 27 Mar 2003, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandsnake
their armor is something else...the sliding plates and anti-missile system are pretty bad ass...not much use against a US super sabot, but still quite a peice of work.

You forgot to mention the AT-11 missile it fires through the gun barrel. The effective range of the super sabot is listed at 3000m, correct me if I am wrong, whilst the T-90 can engage enemy armour at 4000m with it's anti-tank missile system.

The French Leclerc, Israeli Merkava and the Japanese Type-90 MBT:s are all state of the art tanks comparable to the above mentioned.

Dave · 27 Mar 2003, 11:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
It is extremely unlikly that in an engagement between Iraqi and Coalition Armour, that heavy casualties would be inflicted on Coalition Armour.

I have no idea about the vulnerability of the US Armour, but it is probably a match for UK Armour, and UK Armour has very little chance of being dented by the Iraqi's let alone destroyed.

The only Tanks that can possibly knock out a Challenger, is an Abrahms or another Challenger, and as the Iraqi's have neither, I doubt they will do a lot.

Depends which tanks, and which type of ammunition they are using.

The vast majority of Iraq's tanks are old Soviet models, but they have a limited number of the T-72 and the T-80, which, when equipped with the right ammunition could potentially destroy UK&US Armor.

But coupled with that is the fact that all of the Iraqi's armor is equipped with ancient targeting devices, meaning that they they are almost totaly useless unless they are at a relatively short range, and in broad daylight! The Coalition armor has thermal imaging targeting devices, allowing them to hit any tank in day or night, up to 2 miles away.

As such, its more of a case of being dead before having the chance to fire, than being dead because your unable to penatrate your targets armor.

Ste · 27 Mar 2003, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
would the US ever recover if they lost this war ?

No. But only because of the oil.
That is why they have to win at all costs.