Latest war news ?

chavvdarrr

Veteran
- north front has been opened - 1000 paratroops landed in northern Iraq
- 3rd infantry division was attacked wednesday night during sand storm and was pushed back losing several tanks and machines. Lots (>10) soldiers are listed as lost.(Reuters reporter)
- round Nasiria 37 american soldiers were wounded from "friendly" fire (from another US unit). 3 critical, 2 heavy wounded. (AFP reporter)

I'm wondering if these are covered elsewhere? It's getting harder to enter main news sites (cnn for example), and there is no mention of last 2 there.
Perhaps a thread where to share last news would give better understanding of whats going on?
 
yes, they were covered on all the major networks. See msnbc.com homepage for example.

However, the 3rd infrantry division was not pushed back. Only concrete information I can find is 1 tank lost (unknown number of bradleys. It's hard to kill an M1A1 with RPGs, so I don't expect very many loses). 1,000 enemy Iraqis killed, and the US remains in control of both sides of bridge they were fighting over near Najaf.

It is sad to see the casualities, but the media is really overblowing this. The US military is powerful, but not invincible, and the cries that the war is taking too long, or the magnification of the casualities we are seeing are really insignificant compared to historical battles.

Anyone expecting the war to be won in 7 days and with no loses is simply out of their mind. Even with 100:1 or 1000:1 kill ratios, the US is still going to take loses.

The US strategy is a little risky, leaving your supply lines long and with little force protection, but the guerillas won't be able to do any real damage (e.g. cut off the supply line to the 1st and 3rd divisions), and are simply an annoyance. Total air dominance pretty much means that any attempt to use an armored division to cut the supply line in the desert is instantly eradicated. It's hard to fight a guerilla war in the middle of the desert, with no mountains or forests to shield you. Pretty much relegates the guerillas to urban areas.

The 4th infantry division is on its way, which uses more modern digital battlefield equipment, so that should help shore up the south. Would have been much better if Turkey had simply let them enter Iraq from the north tho.

I'm wondering if the US is going to use any Rangers.
 
DemoCoder said:
yes, they were covered on all the major networks. See msnbc.com homepage for example.
Trying all sites needs time , exchanging links with good sites was one of the reasons I started the thread.
And example how different the stories look on different sites...
Anyone expecting the war to be won in 7 days and with no loses is simply out of their mind.
Agree.
Would have een much better if Turkey had simply let them enter Iraq from the north tho.
Strongly disagree. Turkish army in Iraq will be disaster. Both because all kurds will fight them fiercelly, and because it will be self-destructing for Turkey.
 
chavvdarrr said:
Strongly disagree. Turkish army in Iraq will be disaster. Both because all kurds will fight them fiercelly, and because it will be self-destructing for Turkey.

I'm pretty sure DC meant that it would have been better if Turkey let the U.S. entier Iraq on the ground via Turkish bases. ;)

I agree on both counts: U.S. using Turkey would've been better: Turkish forces entering the North in any non-coordinated manner = bad.
 
The news i heard stated that the M1A1 tanks that were lost were lost due to russian anti-tank missles (i forget what they were called) that were specifically designed do take out one of our M1A1's. Dont know if this is true or not.
 
found in iraq, a mural celebrating 9/11. i believe they said they found it in a baathist building.

vert.911.mural.jpg

later,
 
I'm wondering if the US is going to use any Rangers.

From what I have heard, the majority of the 1000 paratroopers dropped in the north were Rangers. The same time they were discussing this, they stated that they were not 'heavily' armed so they wouldn't mount an offensive(reporter commentary), I had to laugh at that one.
 
i heard thatt the 1000 rangers were sent in to secure a northern airstrip (which they did) and now the second wave of planes are on the way to bring in the heavy supplies. Not sure if that will include tanks and what not. I know they could drop a few tanks but how many could they bring in per plane? any hard data out there?

later,
 
Another war news tidbit. FOXNews and CNN were airing a statement by the Pentagon that says that Iraqi troops who abandoned their posts and went home are now being forced to fight. That their families are being held and threatened with death if the men refuse.

Also, more mines have been discovered in the bay, so for right now the huge shipment of humanitarian aid has to cool it's jets while the dolphins get sent back out to hunt for the mines...I am just waiting for PETA to start up about that!

And just in while I'm watching right now...Hans Blix has issued a statement that so far the coalition has no evidence that Hussein has used any banned weapons. Interestingly enough, the statement was issued after CENTCOM's press conference this morning (US time) where they spoke specifically about three missles fored at Kuwait: one of them travelled 190 KM, one travelled 158 KM, and one was shot down 140 KM into it's flight. The ban on long range missles only allows Husein to possess missles which have a maximum range of 150 KM.
 
MrsSkywalker said:
And just in while I'm watching right now...Hans Blix has issued a statement that so far the coalition has no evidence that Hussein has used any banned weapons. Interestingly enough, the statement was issued after CENTCOM's press conference this morning (US time) where they spoke specifically about three missles fored at Kuwait: one of them travelled 190 KM, one travelled 158 KM, and one was shot down 140 KM into it's flight. The ban on long range missles only allows Husein to possess missles which have a maximum range of 150 KM.
After all it depends how one defines 150kms .... with helping wind or without...
a joke.

But really, how to determine the range of a rocket?!
 
chavvdarrr said:
But really, how to determine the range of a rocket?!

You obviously haven't spent much time in a college engineering and/or physics classroom. ;)

Its a simple equation to determine the range once you have a few points along the trajectory.
 
RussSchultz said:
chavvdarrr said:
But really, how to determine the range of a rocket?!
You obviously haven't spent much time in a college engineering and/or physics classroom. ;)
Its a simple equation to determine the range once you have a few points along the trajectory.
No, I spent much time learning physics - I have magister in quantum electronics after all... and some time in the army :), yet in reality, one cannot use simple ballistic equations - simply putting more fuel you can get bigger range... so it's possible to have "150km rocket" , which flies 200km, perhaps that was the reason to want Al Samum's destroyed (although afaik they're ranhe is 150km).... I just am not aware how these ranges are calculated - is it the maximum possible range (including wind etc.) or the range on which one can count (eg no less than).
 
It's hard to kill an M1A1 with RPGs, so I don't expect very many loses)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT BUT BUT... In [insert games name] all I have to do is go to the back of the tank and fire 1 to 3 rockets in the back and it blows up.

Please enlighten the knowledgely challenged. :)
 
K.I.L.E.R said:
It's hard to kill an M1A1 with RPGs, so I don't expect very many loses)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT BUT BUT... In [insert games name] all I have to do is go to the back of the tank and fire 1 to 3 rockets in the back and it blows up.
It's not easy to completly destroy M1A1, but is fairly easy to make it unmovable/easy target for artilery.
In today's combat, the battle-time of living for T80 (which afaik is close to m1a1 as war-power) is 5 minutes. NO MORE. And good anti0tank weapon is much cheaper&easier to use than a tank.
THe question is - are Iraqi soldiers good enough.... - you read the "joke thread" do you? :)
 
BUT BUT BUT... In [insert games name] all I have to do is go to the back of the tank and fire 1 to 3 rockets in the back and it blows up.
One unit of pikemen is more than enough to destroy a tank. Why waste rockets? :)
 
Back
Top