Allied Coalition Versus Iraq (GULF WAR 2)
-
So much about US coalition versus Iraq!
Practically it better to lump them together into a major topics
Allied Coalition Versus Iraq -
Unexpected Twists In The Iraqi Army's Tactics Lead Marine Corps To Adapt
By Robert Wall/Air Base near Iraq
Iraqi armed forces and militia disguised as civilians and at times pretending to surrender only to fire on approaching coalition troops are causing planners of the U.S. air war to reevaluate their strategy. They say they need to find a way to support ground forces without weakening the strict rules of engagement that limit attacks on noncombatants.
"They are employing guerrilla tactics, and we are going to have to adapt," said Col. Jon Miclot, operations officer for the 3rd Marine Air Wing (MAW). "These pockets of resistance I think are going to present a problem to us," he added.
Other issues also facing planners are the need to improve time-sensitive targeting to engage a fleeing enemy before he can hide and monitor ground operations in nearby countries.
But the planners' first priority is grappling with "guerrilla tactics." Established rules of engagement mean pilots can't attack suspected militias or military troops disguised as civilians. "If they drive civilian trucks and [wear] civilian clothes, we are not going to drop [bombs]" until the forces reveal themselves as hostile, Miclot said.
The threat from guerrilla forces is causing the Marines to shift some of their weapon choices. For instance, the service expects to rely less on GPS-guided Joint Direct Attack Munitions and more on visual targeting as the Marines shift their attention to striking mobile targets. That will mean a greater emphasis on close air support from helicopters, primarily AH-1W Cobra gunships and laser-guided ordnance from fixed-wing aircraft. AV-8B pilots are considering the use of 5-in. rockets to attack individual vehicles or buildings with low-risk damage to surrounding areas.
But the new engagement schemes also could put pilots at greater risk. For instance, F/A-18s might be pressed to operate at lower altitudes. MAW representatives acknowledge those schemes increase the exposure of aircraft to anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles, but believe they can employ their weapons and leave the target area quickly, said one F/A-18D pilot.
For the past few weeks, aircrews have been studying the performance envelope of Iraqi air defenses, such as the S-60, KS-12 and KS-19 anti-aircraft artillery and SA-7 through SA-18-class shoulder-fired infrared-guided missiles.
The Iraqi tactics are creating a grassroots demand from pilots to loosen the rules of engagement. "We need to take the gloves off," said one squadron commander, a sentiment echoed by a large number of aviators here. So far, war planners aren't willing to make the shift.
During the intense firefights around urban areas, including Nasariya and Basra, sorties were redirected on several occasions to support forces on the ground. Moreover, attack helicopters are assigned to regimental units to provide permanent close air support.
Despite the heavy emphasis on close air support, a vast number of fixed-wing aircraft sorties continued to be assigned to deep strike missions to soften Iraq's military units before ground forces reach them. Targeting video from AV-8B and F/A-18 squadrons show a large number of armored vehicles and artillery systems being destroyed, although imagery of revetments revealed many more that weren't destroyed.
With the first serious Iraqi opposition slowing the coalition's ground progress last week, there were also signs of discontent about the start of the main phase of the war that began after the impromptu strike on Saddam Hussein's command center on Mar. 19.
Concerns were being voiced that the main campaign was rushed since aircrews weren't expecting to launch operations that night. But at a memorial service for four U.S. Marines who died in a CH-46E crash at the start of the campaign, Maj. Gen. James Amos, the 3rd MAW commanding general, went out of his way to defend the decision to launch the mission that encountered poor weather in the run-up to the crash. The fatal flight, which also killed eight British Royal Marines, was supposed to insert forces into the Al Faw peninsula. Amos said the crews were ready to act even though the day was intended to be devoted to maintenance. As the first helicopters entered the target area, poor weather came in, forcing the raid to be aborted, at which point the CH-46E crashed. A similar assault was conducted successfully a few days later. -
US Pilots 'Bask in Glory' of Bombing Baghdad
Fri March 28, 2003 08:56 PM ET
ABOARD USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN (Reuters) - American pilots who bombed Baghdad on Friday spoke of the thrill of a successful attack in the teeth of fierce anti-aircraft fire.
"It was exhilarating," Commander Jeff Penfield said after landing his F/A-18E Super Hornet back on the Abraham Lincoln, which is supporting the U.S.-led invasion force from the Gulf.
"It was all nice and calm in the city," he said. "Once those bombs hit all hell broke loose. I bet we saw 15 SAMs (surface-to-air missiles), about three or four up our way so we had to defend a couple of times.
"What I felt more than anything was exhilaration."
Under the bombardment, blasts battered government buildings and pounded the southern outskirts of Baghdad, where U.S.-led forces have been targeting the city's defenders on the ground.
U.S. commanders and the pilots say they are taking great pains to limit civilian casualties in their efforts to overthrow President Saddam Hussein. But Iraqi officials said over 50 were killed by a blast at a busy market during Friday's raids.
It was the second such Iraqi accusation this week. U.S. officials have said they are still looking into those claims.
Up in the skies over the Iraqi capital, Penfield led a "strike package" of three planes that dropped 1,000-pound laser-guided bombs on mobile targets near the city.
Flying through dense anti-aircraft fire, they sought targets with infra-red sensors and night-vision goggles.
Baghdad is the most dangerous of destinations: "This is the most demanding, probably the most threatening place you can go.
"But at the same time you get an element of excitement because that's where the best targets still are and those targets have to go away so the ground forces can go in."
So far all the U.S. pilots have come back to the Lincoln.
And on Friday night, they came back buzzing:
"I can't sleep yet," said Penfield. "I'll go down and get something to eat, unwind, bask in the glory a little bit."
-
Satellites aid U.S. military in Iraq
Philip Chien
SPECIAL TO THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published March 28, 2003
The U.S. military has at least 50 satellites supporting the war in Iraq — including highly classified radio-listening satellites and weather satellites that anybody can use.
All were launched after the end of the first Persian Gulf war. The military's resources in space also include the 28 satellites of the Global Positioning System, as well as commercial communications and Earth resource satellites.
"The DSCS bird provides anti-jam, beyond-line-of-sight communications to tanks to the Army, ships to the Navy and aircraft to the Air Force," said Christine Anderson, program manager for the Defense Satellite Communications System [DSCS]. "It really is the lifeline of our troops overseas."
During the first Gulf war, a pair of DSCS satellites transmitted 80 percent of the military traffic between the Middle East and the United States.
"If you're a telecommunications satellite, you don't want my satellite to be interfering with your satellite. They have to keep them apart," said astronomer Jonathan McDowell, who maintains a database of satellites, including publicly known information about U.S. military satellites. "The International Telecommunications Union negotiates those slots. Most of the military communications satellites have slots filed with the ITU.
"The British Skynet 4D military [communications satellite] was moved at the end of 2002 to get a better view of the Middle East," Mr. McDowell said. "The satellite was moved from the Atlantic Ocean to a position almost directly south of Iraq."
The British also have Skynet 4E over the Indian Ocean, Mr. McDowell said. "So this is really well-placed to support communications between the Middle East and Europe," he said. "It would be a fairly [sure] guess that the U.S. could have moved some of its [spare] satellites for better coverage over the region, too."
The United States owns five reconnaissance satellites capable of taking images over Iraq. "There are two Keyholes in the standard orbital planes, plus an older Keyhole, which has drifted into a different orbit," satellite observer Ted Molczan said.
Each Keyhole satellite passes over Iraq twice a day — in daylight and darkness.
In addition, there are two radar satellites, often called "Lacrosse" because of an early code name. The Lacrosse satellites make about six passes over Iraq each day. They use an active radar system to take images day and night and are not affected by the weather.
The Defense Support Program (DSP) missile-warning satellites were originally designed to monitor missile tests, but also are capable of monitoring short-range missiles, such as the Scud. During the first Gulf war, DSP satellites tracked Scuds that Iraq launched toward Israel.
In the extremely classified category are seven National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) satellites in geostationary orbit, 22,300 miles above the equator. These satellites are believed to be radio-monitoring platforms with giant antennas that open like an umbrella, sensitive enough to monitor cell-phone conversations.
"The DSP missile-monitoring satellites and the NRO's listening birds have unpublished locations," Mr. McDowell said.
However, "the Milstar satellites are so large they can be viewed by the naked eye under ideal conditions and are easily visible in small binoculars," Mr. Molczan said. "It would be absurd to try to hide their existence."
Besides operational communications, the Navy's Global Broadcast Service is used for what the Navy calls "quality of life." It can be used to provide the same broadcasts to military personnel that they would get in the United States on a home satellite dish.
The STS-99 Space Radar Topography Mission that flew on the Space Shuttle Endeavour in February 2000 produced a three-dimensional map of the world. Those data are available to military planners, including Marine units in the field and programmers entering a course into a cruise missile.
The 28-satellite Global Positioning System is used for navigation, especially for precision weapons. GPS satellites can be used to guide bombs or aircraft with pinpoint precision. -
Aussie planes bomb elite soldiers
From correspondents in Doha, Qatar
March 28, 2003
AUSTRALIAN F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers have conducted bombing attacks against Iraqi Republican Guard units in fighting along the road to Baghdad.
In the first release of specific information about RAAF activities in the Iraq conflict, an Australian defence source said the attacks occurred over the past 48 hours in support of the US 5 Corps in its advance on Baghdad.
US forces are facing increasingly bitter fighting as they move closer to the capital with Republic Guard units putting up stiff resistance.
The defence sources said two RAAF Hornets each dropped two laser-guided bombs on Republic Guard positions.
"They were attacking ground targets including armoured vehicles and infantry," he said.
"As best that can be assessed at the moment, they were successful."
RAAF aircraft have also conducted ongoing escort duties, accompanying US tanker, early warning and reconnaissance aircraft.
Coalition air activities have been hampered in recent days by a vast dust storm which has cut visibility across the region. -
Silkworm, anti-ship missile, suspected in Kuwaiti blast
By Associated Press, 3/28/2003 20:30
The ''Silkworm'' believed to be the missile that exploded near a major shopping mall in Kuwait City early Saturday is a Chinese-made version of the Soviet Styx, a crude but sometimes effective anti-ship missile.
The Silkworm has a 1-ton explosive warhead and a range of about 50 miles. It flies a sea-skimming horizontal course, using an on-board radar guidance system that homes in randomly on the first or biggest major ship, building or other target that it picks up.
Patriots geared against aircraft and high-altitude missiles probably could not pick a Silkworm up on radar.
Silkworms, or HY-1s, were used during the Iraq-Iran ''tanker war'' in the Persian Gulf in 1987-88 but by Iran, not Iraq. An Iranian Silkworm was fired from a launcher in Iraq's Faw peninsula, then occupied by Iran. It hit one of the 11 Kuwaiti oil tankers that had been ''reflagged'' with the U.S. flag to qualify for U.S. Navy escort through the Gulf.
Kuwait was then backing Baghdad in the Iraq-Iran war that lasted from 1980 to 1988.
The tanker was moored at Kuwait's main coastal terminal, loading oil, when the Silkworm crashed into its bridge, causing massive damage and blinding the American captain. It was the only confirmed incident of a Silkworm hitting a target during the war, although Iran had numerous batteries along its coast, especially in the vital Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the Gulf. -
The B-2 Spirit multi-role bomber came to the 40th Air Expeditionary Wing and joined forces with the B-52 Stratofortresses, adding another asset to the coalition team in Southwest Asia.
The lead aircraft and its crew in a formation of Air Mobility CommandÕs C-17 Globe Master IIIs air drop vehicles and weapon systems into Northern Iraq after departing from an undisclosed base somewhere in Europe on March 26, 2003. This is the first time the C-17 and its aircrews have preformed a heavy drop into a combat zone bringing war fighting capability to forward deployed Army troops.
A Tomahawk cruise missile launches from USS Cape St. George, operating in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. -
Apaches secure bridge at An Nasiriyah
By Spc. Jacob Boyer, 3ID (M) PAO
Attack helicopters from 1st Battalion, 3rd Aviation Regiment secured the Highway 1 Bridge over the Euphrates River near An Nasiriyah as ground troops from 3rd Infantry Division moved toward the town March 21 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
AH-64 Apaches from B and C Companies flew out shortly after arriving at an airfield near Jalibah in Southern Iraq. They initially observed artillery fire coming in on the 11th Iraqi Division before moving in and shaping the battlefield themselves, said Col. Curtis D. Potts, commander, 4th Brigade.
“We went in and shaped air defense, armor and artillery systems,” said Potts, a Skokie, Ill., native. “Division artillery hit them 30 minutes prior to set a seed and prep. Then we came in to shape what was left.”
“It was a deliberate attack in support of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team,” said Capt. R.J. Garcia, commander, B Co., 1-3 Aviation. “We went up, identified the suspected target area, scanned for enemy forces and destroyed what we saw.”
After taking out several Iraqi positions, the helicopters moved on to secure the bridge before enemy forces could destroy it, he said. 30 dismounted troops, six armored personnel carriers and several tanks were destroyed in the action.
Some of the tanks present were identified as T-72Â’s, which are not assigned to the 11th Division, Potts said. Their presence was indicative of a Republican Guard presence in the area.
“We believe (Saddam Hussein)’s pushed them down to the regular army units,” he said. “But we killed those vehicles and secured the bridge.”
The third portion of the mission consisted of giving close combat support to 3rd Brigade as they engaged enemy targets, Potts said. From his command and control UH-60 Blackhawk, Potts was able to call in air support from the Air Force, Navy and British forces.
“There were two British Harriers, two F-1s and 2 A-10s in the area,” he said. “It was kind of cool. They were all stacked up waiting for us to send targets.”
The enemy was fighting harder than expected, said Garcia, a South Lake, Texas, native.
The helicopters came under fire from surface-to-air missiles, but none were damaged in the operation.
“We had one go right in front of our nose,” said Chief Warrant Officer David Keshel, a B Co. pilot from Savannah, Ga.
Garcia said he did not realize they had been fired on until it was time to leave.
“We actually didn’t see it, but the follow on forces told us we had surface-to-air missiles fired behind us,” he said.
The helicopters stayed on station until relieved and returned to Jalibah with a successful mission behind them.
“The mission was outstanding,” said Chief Warrant Officer Steve Seahan, a B Co. pilot from Inkster, Mich. “We all came home safe, and that’s the most important thing.”
“We’re proud to do it,” said Chief Warrant Officer Mike Hartwick, a B Co. pilot from Orrick, Miss. “It’s pretty apparent over the past few days that 1-3 Aviation is the shockwave in front of the spearhead in southern Iraq.” -
United States soldiers patrol near Harir airbase north of Arbil, in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, March 28, 2003. The United States moved more troops into northern Iraq overnight, advancing plans to open up a northern front in the war to oust Iraqi President Saddam.
A satellite image taken on March 27, 2003 shows thick smoke rising from burning oil-filled trenches in Baghdad. Bombs and missiles crashed into Baghdad again on Friday as the United States kept up a relentless bombardment, but a defiant Iraq promised "living hell" for the Americans and their British allies.
U.S. soldiers patrol near Harir airbase north of Arbil, in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, March 28, 2003. The United States moved more troops into northern Iraq overnight, advancing plans to open up a northern front in the war to oust Iraqi President Saddam. -
Navy Risks New Strategy for Prowlers
20 minutes ago
By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer
ABOARD THE USS KITTY HAWK - Slow-moving and packed with electronic equipment, the Prowler radar-jamming plane usually stays clear of battle. But with the campaign against Baghdad's defenses heating up, the Prowlers are joining in the strikes.
It's a risk for the vulnerable aircraft, but their crews say they've been eager to get into the fight.
"It's about time," said Lt. Doug Graber, an electronic warfare officer who was on a EA-6B Prowler that fired a missile Saturday — the second strike by a Prowler from the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in two days.
Prowlers usually stay in the background of the battle, roaming the skies for hours and throwing down a broad blanket jamming radar on the ground to support the bomb-laden Navy and Air Force warplanes flying to their targets.
With four crew members in each plane and a top speed of 620 mph — much slower than the supersonic strike fighters — the craft is a more of a target for gunners on the ground.
Still, they carry a number of High Speed Anti-Radar Missiles, or HARMs. And they have been called on to use them as air strikes increase against the Iraqi Republican Guard units defending the capital ahead of an expected U.S.-led ground assault.
The Kitty Hawk's "Gauntlets" Prowler squadron fired its first HARM Friday night. It was a pre-planned strike, designed to protect two F/A-18 Hornets from a surface-to-air missile post near the fighters' assigned targets, said Lt. Rob Fluck, 27, who flew in both Friday and Saturday's missions.
The next day's strike was a surprise, said Fluck. While flying its standard radar-jamming mission, the Prowler got the order to fire in support of Hornets striking targets close to Baghdad.
"We kind of have a special mission, where we go out there and just kind of hang out in a place," the electronic warfare officer from Syracuse, N.Y., said. "Today we got tasked over the radio, `Hey, we need this here,' and we did it.'"
Some squadron commanders have recently pushed for a greater share of the action over Iraq (news - web sites), said Graber, 30, from South Bound Brook, N.J.
"A lot of the worry is that they want to keep such a valuable jet away from any kind of threat," he said. "But we've gotten a lot more active lately."
The HARMs, which have a much smaller warhead than general purpose bombs, fix on a target after they have been dropped from a plane. On-board sensors search for radar "noise" and home in on the strongest signal, directing the missile toward the radar emission and detonating at the source. First built in the mid-1980s, HARMs were used extensively by NATO (news - web sites) forces during the Kosovo conflict.
"We fire the missile out there and basically it is a pit bull just waiting for somebody to their arm out of leg out ... and it will sick right in on them," Fluck said.
But experts warn that HARMs are more likely to strike the wrong target than laser-guided bombs because the tracking system can become confused by heavy radar traffic or can hone in on the wrong radar frequency, including "friendly" emissions. Unlike laser-guided bombs, pilots do not steer HARMs onto their target.
Fluck said neither Prowler crew that fired on Friday or Saturday saw their missile hit.
The missile strikes bring the Prowler's role closer to that of the fighter and bombers pounding Iraqi targets to Baghdad's immediate south for more than a week. The barrage has targeted artillery, tanks, command posts and other targets of the Republican Guard to soften the approach for U.S. ground troops.
Carrier-based fighter pilots have been making the roughly 300-mile flight to the area, then getting targets from forward controllers and striking with laser-guided, satellite-guided and unguided bombs in missions lasting around three hours. The Prowlers generally spend about six hours flying around the same area during a radar-jamming mission.
Friday's missile was the first HARM the squadron had fired since 1997, said Lt. j.g. Brendan Sticks, 25, from Glen Rock, N.J., the pilot of Saturday's mission.
Sticks joined the squadron less than four weeks ago.
"He showed up here and listened to everybody complain about how we don't shoot HARM," said Graber. "He showed up and right away, here's the war and we're shooting HARM. He can't understand why we were all complaining."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=9&u=/ap/20030330/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_prowlers -
A wounded Iraqi girl is treated by U.S. marines in central Iraq March 29, 2003. Confused front line crossfire ripped apart an Iraqi family on Saturday after local soldiers appeared to force civilians towards U.S. marines positions. The four-year old girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, was screaming for her dead mother, while her father, shot in a leg, begged to be freed from the plastic wrist cuffs slapped on him by U.S. marines, so he could hug his other terrified daughter.
A U.S. marine doctor holds an Iraqi girl in central Iraq March 29, 2003. Confused front line crossfire ripped apart an Iraqi family on Saturday after local soldiers appeared to force civilians towards U.S. marines positions. -
the report below could seem rather biased to some, draw your own conclusions
March 30, 2003
www.iraqwar.ru
The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of the war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report based on the Russian military intelligence reports.
[ < previous report | next report > ]
March 28, 2003, 1448hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - According to the latest intercepted radio communications, the command of the coalition group of forces near Karabela requested at least 12 more hours to get ready to storm the town. This delay is due to the much heavier losses sustained by the coalition troops during the sand storms then was originally believed. Just the US 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division sustained more than 200 disabled combat vehicles of various types. The 101st Airborne Division reported some 70 helicopters as being disabled. Additionally, the recently delivered reinforcements require rest and time to prepare for combat.
At the same time the US forces have resumed attacks near An-Nasiriya and An-Najaf since 0630hrs and are continuously increasing the intensity of these attacks. During the night and early morning of March 28 the Iraqi positions in these areas were subjected to eight aerial assaults by bombers and ground attack aircraft. However, so far [the coalition] was unable to penetrate the Iraqi defenses.
Also during the early morning the British units begun advancing along the Fao peninsula. Latest radio intercepts from this area show that under a continuous artillery and aerial bombardment the Iraqis have begun to gradually withdraw their forces toward Basra.
First firefights between troops of the US 82nd Airborne Division and the Iraqi forces occurred in northern Iraq in the area of Mosula. At the same time the arrival of up to 1,500 Kurdish troops has been observed in this area. So far it is not clear to which of the many Kurdish political movements these troops belong. Leaders of the largest Kurdish workers party categorically denied participation of their troops. They believe that these may be units of one of the local tribes not controlled by the central authorities of the Kurdish autonomy and "ready to fight with anyone" for money.
According to verified information, during the past 48 hours of the Iraqi counterattacks the coalition forces sustained the following losses: up to 30 killed, over 110 wounded and 20 missing in action; up to 30 combat vehicles lost or disabled, including at least 8 tanks and 2 self-propelled artillery systems, 2 helicopters and 2 unmanned aerial vehicles were lost in combat. Iraqi losses are around 300 killed, up to 800 wounded, 200 captured and up to 100 combat vehicles 25 of which were tanks. Most of the [ Iraqi ] losses were sustained due to the artillery fire and aerial bombardment that resumed by the evening of March 27.
First conclusions can be drawn from the war
The first week of the war surprised a number of military analysts and experts. The war in Iraq uncovered a range of problems previously left without a serious discussion and disproved several resilient myths.
The first myth is about the precision-guided weapons as the determining factor in modern warfare, weapons that allow to achieve strategic superiority without direct contact with the enemy. On the one hand we have the fact that during the past 13 years the wars were won by the United States with minimum losses and, in essence, primarily through the use of aviation. At the same time, however, the US military command was stubborn in ignoring that the decisive factor in all these wars was not the military defeat of the resisting armies but political isolation coupled with strong diplomatic pressure on the enemy's political leadership. It was the creation of international coalitions against Iraq in 1991, against Yugoslavia in 1999 and against Afghanistan in 2001 that ensured the military success.
The American command preferred not to notice the obvious military failures during expeditions to Granada, Libya and Somalia, discounting them as "local operations" not deserving much attention.
Today we can see that in itself massed use of strategic and tactical precision-guided weapons did not provide the US with a strategic advantage. Despite the mass use of the most sophisticated weapons the Americans have so far failed to disrupt Iraqi command and control infrastructure, communication networks, top Iraqi military and political leadership, Iraqi air defenses. At the same time the US precision-guided weapons arsenal has been reduced by about 25%.
The only significant advantage of the precision-guided weapons is the capability to avoid massive casualties among the civilians in densely populated areas.
What we have is an obvious discrepancy between the ability to locate and attack a target with precision-guided weapons and the power of this weapon, which is not sufficient to reliably destroy a protected target.
On the other hand, precision-guided munitions demonstrated their superiority over conventional munitions on the battlefield. The ability to attack targets at long ranges with the first shot is the deciding factor in the American superiority in land battles.
The second myth disproved by this war is the myth propagated by the proponents of the "hi-tech" war, who believe in the superiority of the most modern weapons and inability of older-generation weapons to counteract the latest systems. Today the technological gap between the Iraqi weapons and those of the coalition has reached 25-30 years, which corresponds to two "generations" in weapons design. The primary Iraqi weapons correspond to the level of the early 1970s. Since that time the Americans, on the other hand, have launched at least two major rearmament efforts: the "75-83 program" and the "90-97 program". Moreover, currently the US is in the middle of another major modernization and rearmament program that will continue for the next five years. Despite of this obvious gap, Iraqi resistance has already been publicly qualified by the US as "fierce and resilient". Analysts believe that the correlation of losses is entirely acceptable to the Iraqis and they [ the analysts ] do not see any strategic coalition advantage in this war. Once again this proves that success in modern warfare is achieved not so much through technological superiority but primarily through training, competent command and resilience of the troops. Under such conditions even relatively old weapons can inflict heavy losses on a technologically-superior enemy.
Two enormous mistakes made by the US command during the planning stages of this war resulted in the obvious strategic failure. The US has underestimated the enemy. Despite the unique ability to conduct reconnaissance against the Iraqi military infrastructure through a wide network of agents implanted with the international teams of weapons inspectors, despite unlimited air dominance the US military command has failed to adequately evaluate combat readiness of the Iraqi army and its technical capabilities; the US has failed to correctly assess the social and political situation in Iraq and in the world in general. These failures led to entirely inadequate military and political decisions:
The coalition force was clearly insufficient for a such a large-scale operation. The number of deployed troops was at least 40% short of the required levels. This is the reason why today, after nine days of war, the US is forced to resort to emergency redeployment of more than 100,000 troops from the US territory and from Europe. This, in essence, is the same number of troops already fighting in Iraq.
The buildup and distribution of the coalition forces have been conducted with gross neglect of all basic rules of combat. All troops were massed in one small area, which led to five days of non-stop fighting to widen this area. The initial attack begun without any significant aerial or artillery preparation and almost immediately this resulted in reduced rate of advance and heated positional battles.
Today we can see that the US advance is characterized by disorganized and "impulsive" actions. The troops are simply trying to find weak spots in the Iraqi defenses and break through them until they hit the next ambush or the next line of defense.
Not a single goal set before the coalition forces was met on time.
During the nine days of the war the coalition has failed:
- to divide Iraq in half along the An-Nasiriya - Al-Ammara line,
- to surround and to destroy the Iraqi group of forces at Basra,
- to create an attack group between the Tigris and the Euphrates with a front toward Baghdad,
- to disrupt Iraq's military and political control, to disorganize Iraq's forces and to destroy the main Iraqi attack forces.
A whole range of problems that require their own solutions was uncovered directly on the battlefield. Thus, combat in Iraq raised serious concerns about the problem of coordination between units from different services. Limited decision-making time and the ability to detect and to engage an enemy at a great distance make "friendly fire" one of the most serious problems of modern warfare. For now the coalition has no adequate solution to this problem. At one location or another every day of this war the coalition troops were attacking friendly forces.
The second problem of the coalition is its inability to hold on to the captured territory. For the first time since the war in Vietnam the Americans have to deal with a partisan movement and with attacks against their [the US] lines of communication. Currently the coalition is rushing to form some sort of territorial defense units for guarding its supply lines and for maintaining order in the occupied territories.
A range of technical problems with equipment has been revealed during the combat operations. Most operators of the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank agree that the tank was inadequate for performing the set combat tasks. The primary problem is the extremely low reliability of the tank's engine and its transmission in desert conditions. Heat from the sun, hot sand and the constantly present hot dust in the air nearly nullified the advantages offered by the turret-mounted thermal sights. Visibility range of these sights did not exceed 300 meters during movement in convoy and reached up to 700-800 meters during stops. Only during cold nights did the visibility range reach 1000-1,500 meters. Additionally, a large number of thermal sights and other electronics simply broke down. The tiny crystalline sand particles caused electrical power surges and disabled electronic equipment.
This was the reason for the decision by the coalition command to stop movement of troops at night when a contact with the enemy was deemed likely.
The main strong side of the coalition forces was the wide availability of modern reconnaissance and communication systems that allowed to detect the enemy at long ranges and to quickly suppress the enemy with well-coordinated actions of different types of available forces.
In general the US soldiers showed sufficiently high combat resilience. Even in the extremely difficult weather conditions the troops maintained control structure and adequately interpreted the situation. Combat spirit remained high. The majority of troops remain confident in their abilities, while maintaining belief in the superiority of their weapons and maintaining reasonable confidence in the way the war is being fought.
It should be noted, however, that the way the war is being fought did create a certain sense of disappointment in most of the troops. Many are feeling that they've been lied to and are openly talking about the stupidity of the high command and its gross miscalculations. "Those star-covered Pentagon idiots promised us a victory march and flowers on the armor. What we got instead were those damned fanatics fighting for every dune and the sand squeaking in your ass!" said one of the wounded recuperating at a hospital in Rammstein. [ Reverse translation from Russian ]
Nevertheless, despite the sand storms the terrain favors the coalition actions by allowing it to employ their entire arsenal of weapons at the greatest possible range, which makes it difficult for the Iraqis to conduct combat operations outside of populated areas.
Overestimating the abilities of its airborne forces was a weak side of the coalition. Plans for a wide-scale use of helicopters as an independent force did not materialize. All attempts by the US command to organize aerial and ground operations through exclusive use of airborne forces have failed. Because of these failures by the end of the fourth day of the war all airborne units were distributed across the coalition units and used by the attacking forces for reconnaissance, fire support, and for containing the enemy. The main burden of combat was carried by the "heavy" mechanized infantry and tank units.
Another serious drawback in the coalition planning was the exceptionally weak protection in the rear of the advancing forces. This resulted in constant interruptions in fuel supply. Tank units sometimes spent up to 6 hours standing still with empty fuel tanks, in essence, being targets for the Iraqis. Throughout the war delivery of food, ammunition and fuel remains a headache for the US commanders.
Among the US soldiers there has been a wide-scale discontent with the quality of the new combat rations. Servicemen are openly calling these rations "shitty." Many soldier just take the biscuits and the sweets and discard the rest of the ration. Commanders of the combat units are demanding from the coalition command to immediately provide the troops with hot food and to review the entire contents of the combat ration.
Among the strong sides of the Iraqi troops are their excellent knowledge of the terrain, high quality of defensive engineering work, their ability to conceal their main attack forces and their resilience and determination in defense. The Iraqis have shown good organization in their command and communication structures as well as decisive and and well-planned strategy.
Among the drawbacks of the Iraqi forces is the bureaucratic inflexibility of their command, when all decisions are being made only at the highest levels. Their top commanders also tend to stick to standard "template" maneuvers and there is insufficient coordination among the different types of forces.
At the same time commanders of the [Iraqi] special operations forces are making good use of the available troops and weapons to conduct operations behind the front lines of the enemy. They use concealment, show cunning and imagination.
The first strategic lessons of the war
[ Lessons of the war in Iraq are discussed here with a focus on a possible similar war between Russia and the US ]
The main of such lessons is the ever-increasing significance of troop concealment as one of the primary methods of combat. Concealment and strict adherence to the requirements for secrecy and security become strategic goals of the defending forces in the view of the US reliance and that of its allies on precision-guided weapons, electronic and optical reconnaissance as well as due to their use of tactical weapons at the maximum possible range afforded by these reconnaissance methods. Importance of concealment is being seen in Iraq and was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia, where the Yugoslav Army preserved nearly 98% of its assets despite the three months of bombing. Within our [Russian/European] battle theater concealment methods will offer us [the Russian army] an enormous advantage over the US.
The second lesson of this war is the strategic role of the air defenses in modern warfare as the most important service of the armed forces. Only the complete air dominance of the coalition allows it to continue its advance toward Baghdad and to achieve the critical advantage in any engagement. Even the short interruption in air support caused by the sand storms put the US and British troops in a very difficult situation.
Elimination of the air defenses as a separate service branch of the [Russian] Armed Forces and its gradual dissipation in the Air Force can be called nothing else but a "crime". [This statement refers to the recent unification of the Russian Air Force (VVS) and the Air Defense Force (PVO) and the secondary role of the air defense force within this new structure.]
The third lesson of the war is the growing importance of combat reconnaissance and increased availability of anti-tank weapons capable of engaging the enemy at maximum range. There is a requirement on the battlefield for a new weapon system for small units that would allow for detection of the enemy at maximum distance during day or night; for effective engagement of modern tanks at a range of 800-1000 meters; for engagement of enemy infantry at a range of 300-500 meters even with the modern personal protection equipment possessed by the infantry.
(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-28-03, translated by Venik) -
The so called "independent and objective Views" from the Russian reporters and military experts, are views seen with "Cold War" lenses, and the same old Russian mentality to discredit any USA moves on the World Stage.Originally posted by redrooster79:Too long to be viewed. To view the post, click on the preceding posts by redrooster79
The difference will be seen in 90 days time, and the US forces will probably teach the Russian a thing or two in how to handle real combat.
Compared to what the Russians have done in trying to subdue the Chechyens, the US-UK Coalitions Force has incurred less civilian casualties in the first TEN Days of War than what the Russians have been responsible for. -
we all know how incompetent the russians are, but they alone remian with the resources to spy on the americans. There is another difference here, the russians are no longer motivated by ideology and the iron curtain is no more, although previous prejudices might have lingered but they are by no mean as strong. But like i mentioned read the post with a generous pich of salt draw your own conclusion, bring your pro-american views to somewhere where it can be discussed, lets keep this thread for new, not opinions and speculations. So read the russian site, then read bbc and what have you, and hopefully you might have a balance account of the warOriginally posted by Atobe:The so called "independent and objective Views" from the Russian reporters and military experts, are views seen with "Cold War" lenses, and the same old Russian mentality to discredit any USA moves on the World Stage.
The difference will be seen in 90 days time, and the US forces will probably teach the Russian a thing or two in how to handle real combat.
Compared to what the Russians have done in trying to subdue the Chechyens, the US-UK Coalitions Force has incurred less civilian casualties in the first TEN Days of War than what the Russians have been responsible for. -
this is 1 bad thing bout this war: being 1-sided instead of seeing both side of views n analyse it
in fact , i am sick n tired of both sides of the reports n news
-
yeah major news network had been withdrawing their top correspondents from the central command briefing point in Qatar becasue of the bullshit they have been getting, old news, rhetorics and smokescreens
-
The problem with news seen from any country, is that they all serve their masters (political or private capitalist).
Each opinion makers from any News Agency, have their own agenda - ABC, AL-JERZEERA, CBS, CNN, FOX, ITN, and "what-have-you" from the world of broadcasting.
Even "Green Peace" environmentalists, to the Actors Guild Associations, to the various French, German and even UK Politicians - each have their own agenda, set on the world most popular theme to protest the War.
Whatever their agenda is, they have all set on the immediate unexpected military development on the ground, in the present context, to try and gather as much publicity as possible to justify their temporary cause in opposing this War.
Just like in the Vietnam War, the News Agencies have fallen prey again, and are being used by all sides to support and condemn this War.
To each reader who has made up his mind, whichever view is being offered, it will probably not do much to change the opinion.
However, to those who have not made up their mind about this War, the inaccurate portrayal, or misinformation - of current events by those who claim their role as Opinion Makers - can undermine the outcome of this War.
Part of the cause in the US failure in the Vietnam War, was that it had lost its grip on the Public Opinion concerning this War, as the News Agency was manipulated by the Russians, the Vietnamese, and all other War Opponents to influence Public Opinion against the US determination to win the War in Vietnam.
The beginning of this public campaign to arouse Public Anti-War feelings is slowly coming into place again. -
I don't claim to have seen all of the posts by Venik and Co. since I heard about him from the rec.aviation.military forum, but as far as I'm concerned thats about the most balanced article to be connected with his name since those days.Originally posted by Atobe:The so called "independent and objective Views" from the Russian reporters and military experts, are views seen with "Cold War" lenses, and the same old Russian mentality to discredit any USA moves on the World Stage.
The difference will be seen in 90 days time, and the US forces will probably teach the Russian a thing or two in how to handle real combat.
Compared to what the Russians have done in trying to subdue the Chechyens, the US-UK Coalitions Force has incurred less civilian casualties in the first TEN Days of War than what the Russians have been responsible for.
Heard a report from a BBC journalist on the World Service radio "embedded"(I REALLY detest this term and this way of reporting the war BTW) with the Marines at Nasiriya and they had an interview with a USMC platoon or company commander and he basically reiterated a lot of what the article said. The officer said his troops were tired and disappointed at how stiff the resistance was, the shortage of supplies, how they were lied to by his commanders and politicians on the quality/morale of the enemy.
Think the drivel you see on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News is to be trusted? Makes you wonder whos the one who holds "views seen with Cold War lenses" -
Thats why get your news from different sources and form your own opinion. And that is why unrestricted access to information is so important to get an informed world view.Originally posted by duotiga83:this is 1 bad thing bout this war: being 1-sided instead of seeing both side of views n analyse it
in fact , i am sick n tired of both sides of the reports n news
The problem is that too many are happy to stick to one viewpoint and accept it as gospel while quick to dismiss all alternatives as rubbish. We saw a perfect example a few posts back -
2 much information make u go crazy, i have seen it both side liao....the more u see, th emore u dun wan to see anywayOriginally posted by Viper52:Thats why get your news from different sources and form your own opinion. And that is why unrestricted access to information is so important to get an informed world view.
The problem is that too many are happy to stick to one viewpoint and accept it as gospel while quick to dismiss all alternatives as rubbish. We saw a perfect example a few posts back -
Storm Trials
Britain uses its Storm Shadow air-launched
cruise missile for the first time in battle
DOUGLAS BARRIE/LONDON
Britain has pushed its Storm Shadow land-attack cruise missile into use ahead of its revised in-service date, with the weapon being launched from Tornado GR4 strike aircraft against Iraqi targets.
Completion of a comparatively limited number of production rounds was expedited in the run-up to the conflict, and the missile had been deployed into theater by mid-February. As of late last week, at least 16 had been launched.
Initial assessments suggest the weapon's operational debut was "successful," a Defense Ministry official said.
The missile was deployed operationally even though government officials earlier admitted the ministry was reviewing program time scalesbecause of unspecified "technical problems." Some British sources suggested these might have been related to the warhead. Alongside the Storm Shadow, British forces also fired Tomahawk submarine-launched cruise missiles during the Mar. 21-22 attacks. Targets for the Tomahawk included the intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.
31 March 03 AWST -
Eyes in the Sky
Marines will gain real-time intel they had been lacking,
as targeting pod video capability is added to AV-8Bs
ROBERT WALL/AIR BASE NEAR IRAQ
The U.S. Marine Corps is upgrading its AV-8B Harriers to relay real-time video from its Litening II targeting pod to front-line troops, thereby giving them immediate access to airborne intelligence.
The modification, which is only starting to enter the arsenal, adds a C-band data link to the pod to broadcast one-way streaming video to a forward-deployed ground station or to small tactical terminals carried by ground forces. The data feed is important, because Marines don't generally have access to imagery from other intelligence assets such the video provided by the Predator unmanned aircraft, noted one senior Marine Corps official. Even when intelligence from Predator and other sources is passed to the Marines, it usually reaches only higher command levels and not small tactical units.
The effort is just one of many enhancements AV-8B pilots would like to see made to the targeting system. "We have barely scratched the surface" of capabilities the pod can deliver, said the executive officer for VMA-214.
Tactically, Harrier pilots expect to employ the video whenever they aren't on a bombing run, said a senior aviator with VMA-214. But the modification also is causing apprehension. Skeptics fear the Harrier will gradually morph into a recce system and lose its strike role.
Although the AV-8B has a GPS/INS system, the imagery itself is not accurate enough to derive coordinates to target a GPS-guided weapon. Nevertheless, officials believe once the information is provided to the Marines' command-and-control system, it could allow strike aircraft, mortars or rocket-launched systems to be employed with greater accuracy.
A forward air controller (FAC) can view the imagery on a ruggedized laptop computer powered by new "smart" batteries that allow 5 hr. of continuous operations. Moreover, ground tools are being developed to enable FACs to use the video to derive targeting-quality coordinates on their laptops.
Urban close air support is one area in which the new tool could prove useful, said the 3rd Marine Air Wing (MAW) representative. It would allow ground units to view in real time what threats may be lurking behind a building or where....
31 Mar 03 AWST -
As 40 Commando Royal Marines move into Abu al Khasib, a suberb of Basra, a booby trapped Iraq sentry post is blown up near a challenger tank, March 30, 2003. President Saddam Hussein's grip on Iraq's second largest city, Basra, remains as tight as ever over a week into a virtual siege there by U.S. and British troops, residents said on Sunday. REUTERS/Terry Richards/POOL -
'Dam Busters' squadron uses new missileOriginally posted by cavsg:Storm Trials
Britain uses its Storm Shadow air-launched
cruise missile for the first time in battle
MARK NICHOLLS WITH THE RAF AT THE ALI AL SALEM AIRBASE IN KUWAIT
March 24, 2003 08:09
RAF Tornado crews used a secret new weapon in combat for the first time in the raids over Baghdad at the weekend.
It has emerged that bomber crews deployed a revolutionary new missile that can penetrate concrete bunkers, as they targeted Saddam Hussein's regime HQ and command and control centres.
In a battle-zone coincidence, the new Storm Shadow missile was dropped for the first time by Tornado crews from 617 Squadron – The Dambusters – on what was the 60th anniversary of the unit.
The squadron was formed on March 21, 1943, to drop what was then the most revolutionary bomb of its era, the so-called bouncing bomb used in the second world war Dambuster raids, which struck at the heart of industrial Germany and the critical dam structure that underpinned the Nazi war machine.
Storm Shadow, ironically an Anglo-French project, has been a closely-guarded secret at the Ali Al Salem airbase in northern Kuwait until it was first used at the weekend.
Tornado Detachment commander Group Capt Simon Dobb, said: "It is the first time it has been used and the initial battle-damage assessment indicates that the first missiles hit their targets with pinpoint accuracy."
Storm Shadow missiles, which weigh 1350kg and cost £750,000 apiece, are air-launched cruise missiles with a range of 230km.
They can penetrate many feet of concrete and were used to target bunkers where Saddam Hussein and key members of his regime may have been sheltering. They penetrate the concrete structures and cause massive damage within.
Group Capt Dobb added: "We have had to be cagey about this because it is a brand new weapon, this is the first time it has been deployed operationally and it is being used way ahead of its official introduction into service."
The missiles, made by Matra/Bae Dynamics, have been shipped direct from the production line to the Kuwaiti base because it was felt they were ideal for the missions on Baghdad: precise, powerful and can be dropped from distance without exposing the aircraft to unnecessary dangers over a target area.
The highly intelligent weapon, deployable by day or night in all weather conditions, also causes minimal collateral damage. Storm Shadow is a 'fire-and-forget' weapon, it has long range with fully-automated guidance and can follow terrain at low level.
Before use in raids on Friday and Saturday night, they had been tested in secret on the aircraft. They were also only moved around the base at night and when it was known there were no satellites overhead, in order to maintain the high level of secrecy surrounding the new weapon.
However, for the 617 crews from RAF Lossiemouth flying the missions, there was high drama en route to the target.
The commanding officer of 617 Squadron, Wing Cmdr Dave Robertson, who flew the mission with his pilot Sqn Ldr Andy Myers, said there was anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles aimed at them as they headed towards their drop point.
And for a second aircraft, crewed by Sqn Ldr Noddy Knowles and Flight Lt Andy Turk, evasive action was needed after a missile locked on to their jet.
Wing Cmdr Robertson, 45, who comes from Cornwall, said: "About halfway towards the target, my number two was fired at by a surface- to-air missile. He reacted to that attack with evasive action, which meant jettisoning his fuel tanks."
That reduced the weight of the Tornado by around four tons but fuel became a critical issue as the mission continued.
Wing Cmdr Robertson said the weather was bad and communications difficult with so many aircraft over Iraq at the time.
He also told of witnessing a firefight on the ground between Iraqi and coalition forces as they flew north. The target for the Storm Shadow remains secret, but it is understood it was at a point significantly north of Baghdad.
Wing Cmdr Robertson is acutely aware of the relevance of 617, with the squadron's flamboyant history, being asked to drop this weapon for the first time in combat.
He said: "I am very proud that 617 Squadron was asked to perform this role. It is not insignificant that our squadron, formed during the second world war to perform specialist tasks, was asked to fire this revolutionary new weapon on what was the 60th anniversary of our formation."
During the second world war, 617 Squadron was formed from specially-selected crews by flying ace Guy Gibson for the dangerous missions at low level over the dams in the heart of industrial Germany, which supplied the factories on which the Nazis relied for their war effort.
Later in the war, 617 Squadron led the attack which finally sunk the German battleship Tirpitz.
Military chiefs point out that it was only coincidence that 617 Squadron dropped this new weapon on the date of the 60th anniversary.
The squadron was deployed to Kuwait because it has been assigned the role of introducing Storm Shadow into service.
It is understood the Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Peter Squire, sent congratulations to the Tornado crews – most from RAF Marham – that took part in the raids over Baghdad in the last 48 hours.
Air crews from all four Marham squadrons, along with 617 Squadron from RAF Lossiemouth, are flying as the Tornado Air Combat Wing from Ali Al Salem. They launched missions round the clock with US forces as part of a ferocious aerial assault on Iraq over the weekend.
Tornados based in Qatar, some also from 617 and 12 Squadrons from RAF Lossiemouth, along with elements of II (ac) from Marham, were also involved.
