Anything suprise you so far?

[epicstruggle]

Id like to know if anything has suprised you so far about the war in the Iraq?

Id like to request that everybody stay on topic. Please do not post things like "I expected millions to be dead", lets be reasonable here. Also please keep in mind that in a war there are casualties on both sides, so keep that in mind when you post in this thread. Thank you.

Ill start off with some of the things that have suprised me so far:

-Turkey not allowing air rights over their country.
-Lack of some big actions in the northern part of Iraq. Mainly due to above point.
-The fact that the air campaign did not last a couple of days before the troops went in.

These are just some of the things that have suprised me so far.

Again stay on topic. Please
later,

 

[MrsSkywalker]

I am surprised that the forces got through 200+ miles of land with very little resistence. I mean, they (they being the news, the gov, the analysts) have said that the soldiers don't want to fight and predicted mass surrendering. While it's true we have had around 1500 soldiers surrender to us, I have to wonder where the rest of them are. Estimates were that Saddam had between 1/2-3/4 million troops. I figured we'd be seeing more of them by now.

 

[Neutrality]

Estimates were that Saddam had between 1/2-3/4 million troops.

Actually the true number is around 400 thousand troops at the most.

-Neutrality-

 

[volkodav]

2 MrsSkywalker:

I am surprised that the forces got through 200+ miles of land with very little resistence.

It is logical, because without domination in the air tanks are only a good targets for enemy's aircrafts and helicopters. I think now Saddam waits for sand-storm, during which his tanks army will counter-attack aggressors.

 

[Neutrality]

I think now Saddam waits for sand-storm, during which his tanks army will counter-attack aggressors.

The problem with that is that the coalition tanks can knock out the Iraqi tanks with them knowing what hit them. Considering it has been 12 years since the first war and that the Coalitions target systems have evolved since then and the fact that the Iraqi systems are just as obsolete as they were then its highly unlikely that the Iraqi armour will be any serious threat to the coalition.

-Neutrality-

 

[RM. Andersson]

It looks like Saddam prefer to fight inside citys and to attack supply lines.
That is a surprise I guess.

 

[volkodav]

Coalitions target systems have evolved

Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

 

[Neutrality]

It looks like Saddam prefer to fight inside citys and to attack supply lines.
That is a surprise I guess.

Well its not that surprising. Its his only real chance since the coalition cannot take advantage of their superior air power in the cities without killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. If it comes to fighting in the cities the Iraqi forces are on more equl terms with the coalition. It will result in huge casualties on both sides and although the outcome of the war is already clear its remains to be seen if even those for a war will tolerate such heavy losses. Only other option is to bomb the crap out of Bagdad if it comes to that but the potentially huge civilians losses wont really be tolerable either.

Its a very grim situation to be in indeed. Lets just hope it doesnt come to that.


(note : im for the war but trying to be realistic here)


-Neutrality-

 

[Neutrality]

Coalitions target systems have evolved

Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

Whoops, you might have a point there. ´

-Neutrality-

 

[epicstruggle]

Another suprise:

Russians in Iraq supplying anti air weapons, gps jammers, and assistance setting/deploying this eq.

I guess now I understand why they did not want to help out, they might have to kill their own citizens.

Thanks for staying on topic, or close to it.

later,

 

[RM. Andersson]

It looks like Saddam prefer to fight inside citys and to attack supply lines.
That is a surprise I guess.

Well its not that surprising. Its his only real chance since the coalition cannot take advantage of their superior air power in the cities without killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. If it comes to fighting in the cities the Iraqi forces are on more equl terms with the coalition. It will result in huge casualties on both sides and although the outcome of the war is already clear its remains to be seen if even those for a war will tolerate such heavy losses. Only other option is to bomb the crap out of Bagdad if it comes to that but the potentially huge civilians losses wont really be tolerable either.

Its a very grim situation to be in indeed. Lets just hope it doesnt come to that.


(note : im for the war but trying to be realistic here)


-Neutrality-

To put Bagdad under siege will probably also work eventually.
After a while there will be no more food and medicine inside Bagdad.
Under such conditions the soldiers inside the city will have to give up sooner or later. And the coalition forces can wait outside with plenty of food and everything they need.
That would of course be cruel in a way and civilians might die. But perhaps more will die if they fight in the streets or use heavy bombing?
The best thing with a long siege would be that very few coalition soldiers would get hurt or killed.

 

[Neutrality]

To put Bagdad under siege will probably also work eventually.

A siege is probably the best option however its highly unlikely that the civilian population will approve of it.

Basically, if Saddam really refuses to give up and takes the fighting into the cities the Coalition will be screwed no matter what it does.

-Neutrality-

 

[Heathen]

Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

Not saying you're wrong or anything but are you sure? The M1's a pretty tough tank and a mate of mine was a Challenger pilot in the first, his tank got hit six times by a couple of T-72s and the only repair needed was a new paint job and a cracked viewing lense on the Cuppola

My surprise so far

- Lack of involvement of the 82nd & 101st US airborne and the 16 UK Air Asault

 

[RussSchultz]

From what I understand, the 101 airlifted into Northern Iraq today/yesterday.

 

[Natoma]

Call me crazy, but why do I get the feeling that perhaps we've been drawn deeper into Iraq, faster than we really expected, for a purpose? I was watching TV last night and apparently there are 3 major dams that we don't have control over yet, that if blown up by the Iraqis, would flood practically all of Southern Iraq, taking pretty much most of our forces out.

And even if they don't do that, there are thousands of soldiers that have been falling back, maybe to Baghdad, to prepare for the 'last stand'. I dunno. You know what they say about things being 'too quiet' right? Well, right now things seem too easy, and it's making the region sound too quiet.

 

[volkodav]

2 epicstruggle:

Russians in Iraq supplying anti air weapons, gps jammers, and assistance setting/deploying this eq.

It is a bullshit. Simply Washington is looking for justification of low effectiveness of bombing and lots of civillians deaths in Bagdad, nothing more.

Our companeis denyes these charges, there is a lot of ways how this equipment could went to Saddam.

 

[RussSchultz]

I was watching TV last night and apparently there are 3 major dams that we don't have control over yet, that if blown up by the Iraqis, would flood practically all of Southern Iraq, taking pretty much most of our forces out.

That would be quite a feat if those dam's held enough water to flood all of southern Iraq!

However, if those dams were breached, the floodwaters would rush down the Tigris and Euphrates and destroy all of Iraqi civilization south of Bagdad, or at least Basra and Umm Kasr. Presumably, however, we're not travelling along the river, but out in the desert to the east and west of the river valley, so our troops would be "relatively" safe.

 

[nutball]

Call me crazy, but why do I get the feeling that perhaps we've been drawn deeper into Iraq, faster than we really expected, for a purpose? I was watching TV last night and apparently there are 3 major dams that we don't have control over yet, that if blown up by the Iraqis, would flood practically all of Southern Iraq, taking pretty much most of our forces out.

Yes I've been wondering about those dams. Remember the marsh Arabs that Saddam displaced by damming the river(s) and draining their marshland? Hope the miltary haven't forgotten about them!

 

[volkodav]

2 Heathen:

Not saying you're wrong or anything but are you sure? The M1's a pretty tough tank and a mate of mine was a Challenger pilot in the first, his tank got hit six times by a couple of T-72s and the only repair needed was a new paint job and a cracked viewing lense on the Cuppola

No, I'm not sure. But I'll be surprised if defence of tanks became better than attack. Also, guns shells also improves, so, if Saddam really was buying weapon on black market, he can have now last-gen commulative shells for his tanks. And as far as I know Saddam has ~2000 tanks against ~250 coalition's. And M1 turbins could stop (and stop tank) in sand-storm condition without any damage (It was said on russian TV).

Ok, lets see what happen.

Buy the way, could you ask you mate in which part of Challenger those six hits were taken? I mean, gun-tower is much harder armoured than others parts of tank.

 

[epicstruggle]

It is a bullshit. Simply Washington is looking for justification of low effectiveness of bombing and lots of civillians deaths in Bagdad, nothing more.

Our companeis denyes these charges, there is a lot of ways how this equipment could went to Saddam.

First where do you get low effectiveness. Second according to aljazeere there have only been a cople of civilian deaths. Third the news broke in the media and then they went to the pentagon which comfirmed it. Fourth, I would expect the companies to deny proof, but has the russian government denied that there are russians in Iraq. Ill trust the russian government before I trust the companies there.

later,