Anything suprise you so far?

[volkodav]

2 epicstruggle:

First where do you get low effectiveness.

Bush promised that war will be very shot - one weak, 10 days maximum. Now it is clear, that he was mistaken.

2nd, I don't think that Siriya's bus with civillians and Iran's oil shaft is very precise bombing.

3rd, situation is very simular to Serbiya, when 2000 civillians were murdered under bombs, but without any significant damage to military forces.

Open you eyers: you bomb a CITY, and your aims are BUILDINGS. Tell me, what is a aim to bomb Saddam village and museum of him? From military point of view?

I would expect the companies to deny proof

If your have some russian to english dictionary read this:
http://www.gazeta.ru/firstplace.shtml
It is a interview with firms directors, main idea: USA are blamed them 1st in 2000, introduced sanctions, but after NO PROOFS were found sanctions were removed.

but has the russian government denied that there are russians in Iraq.

If so, why we should deny this? Iraq under ugly agression, it is a good thing if our instructers help Iraqes people to defend there sovereignty. By the way, there is no regular russians militaries in Iraq so far, this is only mercenaries.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Bush promised that war will be very shot - one weak, 10 days maximum. Now it is clear, that he was mistaken.

Bush never promised ANY SUCH THING, and in fact, CAUTIONED against such thinking.

 

[RussSchultz]

By the way, the missile that hit Iran was of Iraqi origin, or so says IRNA (the Iranian news agency). Go see for yourself at www.irna.com

USWAR/Iran summons Iraqi diplomat over missile attack

Tehran, March 23, IRNA -- Iraq's charge d'affaires to Tehran has been
summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry in connection with a missile
attack which is thought to have been carried out by the Iraqis.
Interior Minister Abdolvahed Moussavi Lari has cited expert
examinations indicating that the missile, which had hit the western
region of Sardasht, was Iraqi-made.
BH/AR
End

edit: added the short news blurb because IRNA is slow

 

[volkodav]

Bush never promised ANY SUCH THING, and in fact, CAUTIONED against such thinking.

well, maybe I'm mistaking, but before war journalists were talking that Iraqes army will not be fighting and surrender as soon as war begin... And that all you have to do is go to Bagdad and kill or capture Saddam and his sons.

Now it's clear that Iraqes people don't want to surrender, they want to fight.

 

[volkodav]

By the way, the missile that hit Iran was of Iraqi origin, or so says IRNA (the Iranian news agency). Go see for yourself at

Sorry for that, it wasn't noted in russian mass-media.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

well, maybe I'm mistaking,

Not maybe...ARE mistaken.

but before war journalists were talking that Iraqes army will not be fighting and surrender as soon as war begin...

That's the trouble with people like you. Mistaking "war journalists" comments for those of the adminstration.

And that all you have to do is go to Bagdad and kill or capture Saddam and his sons.

Oddly, in the first official address to the press from the coalition command, Franks exactly said that even if we knew Saddam and his sons were DEAD, that wouldn't change anything. The goal is ousting the REGIME, not ousting Sadam.

Of course, getting rid of Sadam is part of that.

Now it's clear that Iraqes people don't want to surrender, they want to fight.

Not clear at all. If we knew, and everyone else was convinced, that in fact that Sadam was dead, then we would know if they want to surrender or fight.

All we know right now is that Iraq is telling everyone Sadam is in fact "alive and well".

 

[Heathen]

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.

Well he's only got about 700 T62s and T72s with the rest being M-48s, M-60s, AMX-30s, Centurions, Chieftains and other more obsolete kit. Oh he was buying them on the 'grey' market I suspect most likely via N. Korea, China and France (Yes you're right in thinking I don't like them).

Still it should be interesting but on any open field engagement with even partial visibility in excess of a thousand yards the Iraqis are toast.

My mate was the tank pilot. Hits? Hmm three on the turret front facing facis. With two more on the right hand hull and one on the nose, I could double check but he's bit busy at the mo if you get my drfit.

 

[John Reynolds]

Now it's clear that Iraqes people don't want to surrender, they want to fight.

Are we talking a military based on Saddam's Sunni political party or the people themselves? Big difference.

 

[epicstruggle]

The problem with all the coverage is that you only see part of the picture. You see massive bombs going off and assume that there must have been civilian deaths, heres how you tell if there are mass casualties. PEOPLE DONT GO BACK TO THEIR ROUTINES RIGHT AWAY. when you see day shots of life in bhagdad, you see people taking the bus, shopping, walking around, doing everyday kinda stuff. The buildings hit are not full of civilians at night, plus these building are where the government works/stores stuff. so you wont get casulties there.

Please keep in mind that we only see what happens in front of the camera, most of the action happens outside of that.

later,

ps keep staying on topic.

 

[pascal]

Yeah people are going to the shoping, movies, theather, etc...
Nothing is happening, just a mass bombing

 

[epicstruggle]

yes, people are going about their lives, they have realized that the US has only bombed at night in certain locations. Watch the news, youll see people in the streets in bhagdad doing what ever they do in their normal lives. Ill take your and put down which always beats one

later,

 

[PurplePigeon]

yes, people are going about their lives, they have realized that the US has only bombed at night in certain locations.

That is very interesting isn't it? It does seem that when you watch those live cameras in Baghdad during the daytime, there is a lot of normal activity going on (and I'm getting sick of seeing that same two story office building all the time, let me tell you). For all the talk of "shock and awe", if the massive bombardment always hits government buildings, it wouldn't take much for all of the Iraqi military personnel to just move into civilian locations... Of course equipment and documentation will be destroyed in the bombing targets, which is useful in disrupting command and control, but as far as "shock and awe", is it a big "so what"? Should the campaign be renamed "Sound and Fury"?

 

[Himself]

I would think that Iraq would be sure that the obvious military targets were going to go and would have left them deserted long before the US even arrived.

 

[Vince]

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.

HA! What do you expect your country and experts to say? Our primary MBT sucks and won't even stand a chance against a M1A2-HA?

Where you get this amazes me as you have the power of the web to check how wrong this is. The M1A1's in '91 outranged your Soviet T-72s, even in the dense particulate and blocking matter from the burning Oil Wells - it was later stated (fas.org) that the M1A1s had over 1,000meters in target aquisition and destruction over the T-72. Because even without the Lazer rangefinder (which is BS anyways), the M1A2's Optical and IR systems are decades advanced of the T-72. There goes that sandstorm BS.

Infact, the M1A1 (we have M1A2s now with vastly improved optics, targeting and battlefield info sharing) is in a class above the T-72s. FAS stated that the T-72 is more comparable to the decade old M60A3.

And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

A M1A2's Chobham composite armor, especially the -HA versions with a DU screen over vital areas, can withstand the discarding sabot, KKV from a T-72 depending on situations. HEAT is debatable.

"They disclosed that Soviet-made 125mm guns were unable to penetrate the M1A1 frontal armor, even a close ranges. Their tungsten penetrators stuck into the armor like arrows." - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671791656/102-5394237-9288142


But, thats if the T-72 can get past the M1A2's superior IR and Optical systems, and the interconnected Battfield management system in which Info from other systems (eg. Air, Space, Land) are shared and presented to the Commander - which it can't.

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).

Since the M1's turbines stopped in '91 and allowed the shitty T-72s to hit them. This borders on propaganda.

I mean, back 12 years go the M1A1's were raping the T-72s. Now add an electronic warfare system thats bleeding-edge and an improved powersource and it's not even a fight.

Americans have more to worry about from Iraqi's in Civilian cloths and other assorted "low-tech" ways to kill

 

[Vince]

Sorry for that, it wasn't noted in russian mass-media.

It would appear that Russian mass-media doesn't report alot. Not that this is anything new.. I love how so many Russians (and Europeans in general) are against the war, yet they're listning to total BS and have so little substantive information.

Ignorance is Bliss indeed.

 

[Heathen]

HEAT is debatable.

Er not really, Chobham's designed with HAET rounds in mind. Without going into specifics of how the armour works, ahh the wonders of the official secrets act, I'm certain it will stop any HEAT round the T-72 can chuck out even close up.

The only chance a T-72 has got is to try and lodge a shell in the gap between the hull and the turret.

The T-72 wasn't a bad tank for it's day but against the M1A2 and Challenger IIs the Coalition are driving around in it's little more than a dangerous toy.

Waiting on the arrival of Dorchester...

 

[Vince]

3rd, situation is very simular to Serbiya, when 2000 civillians were murdered under bombs, but without any significant damage to military forces.

"The troops made a rapid advance under heavy allied air protection that wiped out a column of charging Iraqi armor and sent some of Saddam's outer defenses withdrawing toward the capital..."

"To get here, the troops drove north through flat, desert terrain, passing bombed trucks that had anti-aircraft guns mounted on them, empty foxholes and berms dug for tanks that had been abandoned by Iraqi forces. Cabs of the anti-aircraft trucks were peeled back missile blasts, which scorched the ground around the trucks. Some had bodies still inside, burned beyond recognition."

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_BATTLEFIELDSITE=ILJOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

PS. Thanks Heathen

 

[nutball]

One comment I will make on the T-72 v. M1/Challenger debate is that the US do have the benefit of air superiority in the current campaign. So even if the Iraqi tanks do outnumber those of the coalition and are equal in capability (at least one of those assumptions you guys are debating), you need to add the air-based units into the mix to work out who is going to win.

For example, post D-Day in WW2 the bulk of German armour was destroyed by aircraft, not by Allied armour. The rules haven't changed that drastically since then (certainly not since Gulf War 1, where that was the case too).

 

[Heathen]

For background info

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/index.html

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/t72-pr.cfm

However when it comes to capability the T-72s used by the Iraqis are badly outmatched, add in the relatively crude training even the republican guards gets and any staright fight is gonna turn into a turkey shoot. There are numerous instances during the first gulf war of US armoured forces basically obliterating any Iraqi armoured formation which came into range.

Check the write ups here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/rg.htm

 

[pax]

I think the biggest surprise is how few surrenders have been seen so far. I expected about half the iraqi to drop its guns by now. Its clear that the iraqi army us virtually all compposed of sunnis and most of it is in baghad. The behavior of the civvies tells me this is looking a little vietnamish already... soon itll be only a guerrilla type war.

But I still expect only a few weeks more of war. The only real concern is afterwards... probly some longterm guerilla skirmishes in occupied Iraq.

Ive been reading about how kinetic energy weapons will soon render any tank vehicles obsolete for years... youd think they would be cheap and mass produced by now. I wonder if tank guns can be adapted to those kinds of munitions... The t72 has a good gun is what a military bud told me whose seen it in action but the tank itself is shit... its basically just a platform for the gun...