Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US battle plans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US battle plans

    I watched a programme where a very senior British soldier described the US advance on Baghdad as on of the greatest military operations ever. Does anyone know where I can find any links to specifics and battle plans, graphics etc.

  • #2
    Yeah, I'd like to see those too.

    Greatest military operations ever ... ?
    Get the US out of NATO, now!

    Comment


    • #3
      Well the US side did have a lot of advantages in recon and weaponary so it's hard to say it's the greatest ever.
      After a horrifying and expensive war with Iran, after a huge and failed invasion of Kuwait, after ten years of the No Fly Zone and regular bombing, the US bumped into Saddam Hussein's Iraq and it fell apart like a wet paper sack. Now his problems are our problems.
      Get the US out of NATO, now!

      Comment


      • #4
        I guess he meant in the way of tactical operations, opening up the Iraqi defences etc. You know a kind of US blitzkrieg.

        Comment


        • #5
          The full Battle Plan will not be released until Congress completes it's report on the war. Vth and XVIIIth Corps along with the 1st MEF will be submitting their "After Action Reports" over the next couple of months. Gettting copies is very difficult. The best reports will come from books written about the war. I know a slew are going to be available.

          To be honest, the greatest thing about this war was the Coalition troops ability to adopt to the changing situation. This was not a cake walk. The enemy resisted in a manner that it difficult to engage them. AARs from the Battlefield suggest our troops had a difficult fight. They adjusted, and created tactics to seize Basra and Baghdad with remarkably low casualties.

          Yet, I am still angry at Rumsfield somewhat. I am very concerned Washington mettled too much with the planning. There are rumors Rumsfield denied request for more troops, which were clearly needed. In Basra and Baghdad, our troops were stretched out so thin, it was overly dangerous.

          Gen. Meyers and Gen. Franks both had the responsibility to turn in their "stars" if they didn't agree with the plan. I am a very strong supporter of the Goldwater-Nichol's Act of 1986, which among other things, strengthened the powers of US military commanders.

          If Rumsfield placed our troops and citizens of Iraq at stake to minimize the political risk. I would like to see him removed. Franks and Meyers should be court-martialed. The plan should have been developed by CENTCOM in the field, not Washington, DC.

          I might sound like I'm rushing to judgment. However, I don't believe someone a few thousand miles away from the battlefield knows how to fight the battle. It doesn't matter how successful Rumsfield's ideaology is, compromising these fundamentals undermine the ability of our forces to develop and execute a battle plan based on the enemy.

          The commanders clearly had alot of authority. They chose when the fight occured. Still, I'm not comfortable with rumors dominated planning and rejected realistic request for additional power.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deltapooh
            The full Battle Plan will not be released until Congress completes it's report on the war. Vth and XVIIIth Corps along with the 1st MEF will be submitting their "After Action Reports" over the next couple of months. Gettting copies is very difficult. The best reports will come from books written about the war. I know a slew are going to be available.

            To be honest, the greatest thing about this war was the Coalition troops ability to adopt to the changing situation. This was not a cake walk. The enemy resisted in a manner that it difficult to engage them. AARs from the Battlefield suggest our troops had a difficult fight. They adjusted, and created tactics to seize Basra and Baghdad with remarkably low casualties.

            Yet, I am still angry at Rumsfield somewhat. I am very concerned Washington mettled too much with the planning. There are rumors Rumsfield denied request for more troops, which were clearly needed. In Basra and Baghdad, our troops were stretched out so thin, it was overly dangerous.

            Gen. Meyers and Gen. Franks both had the responsibility to turn in their "stars" if they didn't agree with the plan. I am a very strong supporter of the Goldwater-Nichol's Act of 1986, which among other things, strengthened the powers of US military commanders.

            If Rumsfield placed our troops and citizens of Iraq at stake to minimize the political risk. I would like to see him removed. Franks and Meyers should be court-martialed. The plan should have been developed by CENTCOM in the field, not Washington, DC.

            I might sound like I'm rushing to judgment. However, I don't believe someone a few thousand miles away from the battlefield knows how to fight the battle. It doesn't matter how successful Rumsfield's ideaology is, compromising these fundamentals undermine the ability of our forces to develop and execute a battle plan based on the enemy.

            The commanders clearly had alot of authority. They chose when the fight occured. Still, I'm not comfortable with rumors dominated planning and rejected realistic request for additional power.
            YAY. More nutty conspiracy theories. If anything Rumsfeld has been vindicated. I could understand criticism if the whole thing had been a quagmire... but give him a friggin break.

            There are always going to be a few generals who disagree with the battle plan or the defense department. The pentagon is a huge bureacracy that resists change of any kind. Who was that idiot general that said we would lose 10,000 troops in the battle for Baghdad?

            I can't believe you buy into so much of the dumb media hype deltapooh.

            http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
            "Speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own Michael Moore, as their representative American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities." - Christopher Hitchens

            Comment


            • #7
              This really wasn't much of a test for Rumsfields new policies. Before the war it was thought the Iraqi military was a fourth rate power after decades of war and sanctions. In fact this was true. Defeating the Iraqi military was in the big picture not a big task nor very difficult.
              "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

              Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kid kool


                YAY. More nutty conspiracy theories. If anything Rumsfeld has been vindicated. I could understand criticism if the whole thing had been a quagmire... but give him a friggin break.

                There are always going to be a few generals who disagree with the battle plan or the defense department. The pentagon is a huge bureacracy that resists change of any kind. Who was that idiot general that said we would lose 10,000 troops in the battle for Baghdad?

                I can't believe you buy into so much of the dumb media hype deltapooh.

                http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...l=chi-news-hed
                Rumsfield's strategy has been vindicated, not his actions during the planning phase. General Myers would say Rumsfield didn't plan this war. He and Franks had to sign on to the plan. If they did follow a plan they were uncomfortable with, it could mean Court-Martial. They had a duty to resign their post in protest.

                I'm not saying it occured that way. Given Rumsfield's general behavior and attitude, I can see him being an *ss in planning meetings. Instead of telling commanders to come up with a better plan, he probably said "this is what I want you to do."

                It doesn't matter if the plan turned out successful or not. I really don't feel comfortable with the civilian branch of the government being heavily involved in the planning of a military action. I doubt Rumsfield Micromanaged like Sec. of Defense McNamera, but I do feel there is good reason to believe his vision of how this war should be fought was imposed on our forces. Success should not vindicate these kinds of actions because maybe next time you won't be.

                At the same rate, I should be careful. The military did plan to have 4th ID along with elements of the 1st ID role in from the north. So it could be we went in cheap out of necessity. I know we couldn't wait too long as the conditions continued to deteriorate.
                Last edited by Deltapooh; 03 May 03, 16:13.
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  This really wasn't much of a test for Rumsfields new policies. Before the war it was thought the Iraqi military was a fourth rate power after decades of war and sanctions. In fact this was true. Defeating the Iraqi military was in the big picture not a big task nor very difficult.
                  This is exactly it. But why was the immediate job at hand never properly characterized this way? Maybe it was because if Iraq had been announced as a no-player militarily, its status as a threat in the region would have had no credibility. The whole call for invasion could never have generated any momentum at all in the US. Especially since as an alleged host of terrorists, it could in no way be compared with Afghanistan.
                  Get the US out of NATO, now!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SparceMatrix


                    This is exactly it. But why was the immediate job at hand never properly characterized this way? Maybe it was because if Iraq had been announced as a no-player militarily, its status as a threat in the region would have had no credibility. The whole call for invasion could never have generated any momentum at all in the US. Especially since as an alleged host of terrorists, it could in no way be compared with Afghanistan.
                    Actually, a number of people predicted a speedy, low casualty victory if the Iraqis did not employ WMDs or fight in urban areas. Most observers were convinced they would do both. They could have, but chose not to.

                    Maybe Saddam isn't as dumb as I thought he was. The employment of Weapons of Mass Destruction would have collapsed international opposition to the war. France made that extremely clear at the outset. Saddam likely believes that if we don't WMDs, the world will not tolerate the Coalition occupation, and he will be able to re-capture his throne. It's one scenario we didn't didn't explore probably. It might sound silly or like I'm trying to make excuses. Yet, I remind you Saddam is known for living in la la land.

                    Urban combat favors no one. I believe the Iraqis found that out. Troops thought houses and playgrounds would provide them better protection than the vast desert and camo provided in 1991. They didn't realize those narrow streets and alley-ways still provided a narrow angle of attack that could be exploited. Precision and intelligence removed the protection Iraqi troops prayed for.

                    The average Iraqi soldier is not stupid. Infact, they are quite intelligent. Troops quickly realized they were fighting for a regime that inevitable fall was immediate. They also feared WMDs would be used. (That's the only reason why I can imagine soldiers would carry and wear gas masks.) So their chances of survival were less. Soldiers realized their future didn't look good, and chose to walk away when the opportunity materialized. They feared joining a politically dead man more than fighting being punished by a leader with no power.

                    All this doesn't mean the Iraqis were not a threat. We created the circumstances that faciliated our rapid victory. I doubt many of Iraq's allies could do the same, particularly if Saddam was waving WMDs around. Hopefully, our actions ensures no one will be forced to test my theory.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I didn't think that Saddam would use the WMDs. I don't think he ever held out real hope of winning. His only victory was going to be a political victory. In fact they were doing what I figured they would do: start destroying the ones they couldn't hide or transport out of the country. Saddam is probably safe somewhere, negotiating with terrorists and rogue regimes as to how his WMD will be used. One rumor has them buried in the Bekaa valley.
                      ...a man that can stand up for a principle and sit down on his own stool.
                      -the Firesign Theatre

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        All this doesn't mean the Iraqis were not a threat. We created the circumstances that faciliated our rapid victory. I doubt many of Iraq's allies could do the same, particularly if Saddam was waving WMDs around. Hopefully, our actions ensures no one will be forced to test my theory.
                        I think that sums it up pretty well. And I think I agree that the high intelligence of the Iraqi soldiers contributed too. I did not agree with the attitude that Iraqis were going to just run around with their hands up. I was suprised to see everything fold up the way it did. I have a feeling that there was a certain amount of negotiation, it may still be going on. This reflects on the intelligence of the soldiers of both sides. I thought that SH could have used WMDs with a certain amount of impunity since there was an invasion going on. WMDs would have had much more respectability under those kind of circumstances. But I don't think WMDs are actually easily applied as defensive weapons and I am mostly thinking of the various gases applied in warfare. I imagine that they are mostly applied in distance battlefronts away from cities or as offensives against cities.

                        And this all assumes that there are in fact any WMDs at all. I think another reason that SH ever used WMDs in the first place was they were running out of everything else. Which means that by the time the US beganthe invasion, there was nothing left of substance beyond small arms. But this is no mystery to somebody, Janes would know, I bet.
                        Get the US out of NATO, now!

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X