Does it bother anyone besides me?

[Occhidiangela]

If you take away the bow and hand the Indian a Kalashinikov, the game changes, Occhi.

The Republican Guard fought well for how outclassed, numerically and technologically, they were. But the fact of the matter is, 1960's soviet tanks never had a chance against late 80's technology. Iraqi forces were out-gunned, out-ranged, and out-armored when facing Coalition forces. Shermans vs. Tigers except with far more Tigers than Shermans.

And, for good measure, toss in the complete domination of the air by the Coalition.
More on topic: I fully believe that what the region needs is a good, bloody, prolonged, horrible, outright war. Need a fricken Hitler figure to terrify everyone so much they can look at one another and say "you know, those guys really aren't so bad." A unifying enemy that's not supported by a super power, or a super power itself, would be best.

Worked for Europe (granted circumstances were a bit different with Communist Russia looking over part of the reconstruction).
[right][snapback]80998[/snapback][/right]

Your answer is disapppointing. I reply to you with a discussion of combined arms warfare, command and control, and doctrine, and you come back with toys.

It is not the arrow, it is the Indian. You note the nod given Saddam's forces, who were trained to fight combined arms warfare. Wait a minute, you failed to note that in your reply. The invading force in 2003 was not just better trained, and had command of the air (which if you bother to learn about Joint Warfighting doctrine has at last borrowed from old Soviet Doctrine about the massing of effects) it also fought anti C2 warfare effectively, which forced the units of the Rep guard into fighting, at best, at the Battalion and Company level as organized formations.

The key metric on tank formation versus tank formation was a combination of fire control, crew training (not the toy, the trained crew) and overall fighting style. If you are outranged, you have to shape the battlefield to start the fight within your effective weapons range. Weapons effectiveness is nil if you can't aim for the vunlerable point on a tank and hit it.

There were a number of meeting engagements in 2003 where Iraqi tanks were dug in and came near to ambush and kill sack conditions that favor the defense. War, however, is not a video game, and it takes solid crew training and sound command and control to bring effective fires to bear on the modern battlefield.

Combined arms wins, partly because he who sees the enemy first and - or clearest can make a better decision sooner on the chaotic battlefield. Stay inside your opponent's decision cycle, and you will tend to win a fight. As true for boxing and ultimate fighting as for armed combat.

Why to you think the partisan has an advantage is the LIC in Iraq? The partisan can most often get inside his enemy's decision cycle and act first, be it with an IED or a car bomb. He then goes back to swimming with the fishes.

Occhi