Does it bother anyone besides me?

[Rinnhart]

It's not the arrow, it is the Indian. 

The M1-A1 is a fine piece of equipment, but the French in 1940 proved that even with the better tank (at the time, their medium tank was the best in the world) you cannot win an industrial age, mobile war with poor doctrine, weak command and control, and poor leadership.  The leadership and Command and control in the ME states varies widely, Saddam actually had one of the better outifts in tha regard.

Modern warfare is an incredibly complex undertaking.  The level of organizational sophisitcation and mental agility required to train and fight a combined arms battle at brigade level and above is hard to explain.  There are so many factors, so many ways to scew up.

The Israeli's, as I understand it from what I have read, adapted Wermacht doctrine to their situation.  They have since evolved a uniquely Israeli "way of war."  They have the doctrine, they train, they use good equipment, and have a compelling motive.  Losing is not an option, as for them there is no tomorrow if they lose.

Occhi
[right][snapback]80990[/snapback][/right]

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).

[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

[Ashock]

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]

Just to give another example to add to what Occhi said. In '43 during the Battle of Kursk, near the village of Prohorovka, the largest isolated tank battle in history took place.
According to what I've been able to figure out from reading German, Russian and British sources, the approximate numbers were something like 500-600 german mostly Tigers and Panthers, against around 700-800 russian mostly T-34s. Now, at this time the T-34 were not yet upgraded to their T-34/85 status with an 85mm gun, so basically the only way they could pierce the germans was through the side and from up close, very close. So the battle should have been a slaughter, logically speaking. However, what the russians did is to move in at full speed up until from the air it was impossible to tell which is which becasue they were right in each other's faces and thereby cutting down the german advantage to a large degree. Crews would ram an enemy tank after running out of ammunition, and other similar sorts of acts. The result was a complete slaughter on both sides...instead of on one side. It ended up somewhere along the line of the germans losing something like ~ 400-500 tanks, basically close to 3 of their best armored divisions while the russian 1st (I believe it was 1st, but maybe not) Guards Tank Army ceased to exist, as a result of ~600 tanks destroyed. My point is that with the right training and desire and enough courage/fear, you can overcome many disadvantages. Iraqis do not know and have not been trained how to fight, only how to bully the weak.



-A

[Occhidiangela]

Iraqis do not know and have not been trained how to fight, only how to bully the weak.
-A
[right][snapback]81005[/snapback][/right]

Not completely true. It was true that a lot of brave but poorly organized formations went forth to fight, and got slaughtered, partly due their always being behind on the decisions cycle.

However, a very effective piece of Command and Control was executed during the night of the "Great Apache Raid." The Army commander wanted to run a deep strike with a couple of Apache BN's. The routes taken precluded the usual supressive fires, which are only so effective against AAA anyway. The defenders knew the Apache's were coming, thanks to reports on the ground, and lay in wait. The signal to fill the air with lead was the turning on and off the lights of nearby towns and cities, which was accomplished pretty well.

The Apache's flew into a veritable hail storm of lead. The mission was disrupted. A couple got shot down, and much ballyhooed by the press, and a bunch more needed some serious repair before flying again.

Also note that a lot of Iraqi units dissolved, and re appeared as partisan formations. This was clearly the result of a prior plan. I'd say it takes a bit of discipline to follow a plan like that, and to pull off the air defense tactic described above. Not completely unable to fight, no.

In the larger scheme, however, the Iraqi command and control was so badly disrupted that any well organized defense or counter attack plan was pre empted time and again.

This gives me pause regarding the Cold War and Central German campaign that NATO wargamed so many times. It was well known that the Soviets would disrupt C2 where they could. With a paralyzed C2 structure, I wonder at how effective a defense of West Germany might have been versus a fast tempo strike by the Red Army. As the first few days of the air battle was fought to determine if either side retained command of the air, the Speznaz and fifth column efforts could have made a coordinated defense collapse in confusion. Without good C2, you can't mass fires, nor effects on a disbursed battlefield.

Glad we never found out.

Occhi

[whyBish]

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.
[right][snapback]80998[/snapback][/right]

But don't they view the U.S. & allies as that force already? (or at least the fanatics in the region, but not the region as a whole...)

[Rinnhart]

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
[right][snapback]80999[/snapback][/right]

Did you actually read my post?

Assuming you did, and you spewed out the belittling comments that you did, regardless:

I'm not attempting to argue that if the republican guard had had M1A1s they might have won. I'm not saying their strategic ability was equal to that of the coalition forces. I'm saying one of the fricken boxers, the better of the two, had a goddamn knife! It was wholesale slaughter! It was not shermans and tigers, it was Mark I's against Tigers!

Back towards the original tangent-

We have a bad habit of making our weapons available to our current "allies."

[Rinnhart]

And your vaunted command and control babble be damned. Without the so-called "toys" modern tactical theory is worthless. The reason we haven't been mauled by Iraq like we were by Vietnam isn't just training, it's advances in command and control implementation allowed by modern telecommuncations technology.

Toys! :angry:

Hear about that new-fangled "Maxim" that American's been trying to sell?

[Occhidiangela]

And your vaunted command and control babble be damned.
[right][snapback]81026[/snapback][/right]

Thus spake an amateur. A drunk fighter will tend to lose to a sober fighter, if they are both professionals. Why? Because one will get inside the other's decision cycle and exploit that advantage. Same is true in a knife fight.

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

Thus spake an amateur.

Oh, burn.

I've just been pwned. Someone get occhi a mop, he needs to clean up all his leetsauce.

[Ashock]

Oh, burn.

I've just been pwned. Someone get occhi a mop, he needs to clean up all his leetsauce.
[right][snapback]81033[/snapback][/right]

I fail to understand why some people refuse to accept that they might not be as knowledgeble about some issues as the people they are arguing with. You are arguing about modern warfare with someone who has been in the armed forces for at least 50 years (hehe, Occhy) and does not hide that fact. I just don't get it.



-A

[Occhidiangela]

You are arguing about modern warfare with someone who has been in the armed forces for at least 50 years (hehe, Occhy) and does not hide that fact.
-A
[right][snapback]81089[/snapback][/right]

I believe I was just PWNED. "It burns, it burns!" :o

I have heard it said that "buddy" is half a word. ;)

Occhi

[Rinnhart]

I fail to understand why some people refuse to accept that they might not be as knowledgeble about some issues as the people they are arguing with. You are arguing about modern warfare with someone who has been in the armed forces for at least 50 years (hehe, Occhy) and does not hide that fact. I just don't get it.
-A
[right][snapback]81089[/snapback][/right]

This hasn't been an arguement, it's been two seperate discussions attempting to occupy the same thread. I was fine playing in my sandbox and the 10th grader came over and quoted literature at me. He's posting to post on the topic, correcting me when there's nothing to correct, and using blanket statements and comments, that can only be described as counter-productive, to redirect the topic into a tangent he's utterly superior in, Ashock.

I'll pass, thanks very much.

[Any1]

I fail to understand why some people refuse to accept that they might not be as knowledgeble about some issues as the people they are arguing with. You are arguing about modern warfare with someone who has been in the armed forces for at least 50 years (hehe, Occhy) and does not hide that fact. I just don't get it.
-A
[right][snapback]81089[/snapback][/right]

Actually, I had no idea Occhy was in the military.

Ashock, Just because someone is in the armed forces, does't necessarily make them an authority with respect to the "Art of War". Occhy is pretty well read and informed on a lot of topics. IMHO, it would be logical to assume military strategy is just another area of interest for him.

I also didn't realize he had fought in the Korean war in the 50's. :whistling:

[Occhidiangela]

Actually, I had no idea Occhy was in the military.  

Ashock, Just because someone is in the armed forces, does't necessarily make them an authority with respect to the "Art of War".  Occhy is pretty well read and informed on a lot of topics.   IMHO, it would be logical to assume military strategy is just another area of interest for him.

I also didn't realize he had fought in the Korean war in the 50's.   :whistling:
[right][snapback]81113[/snapback][/right]

FWIW:

Strategy and the Art of War, as you call it, as well as the Theory of War is something that, unlike many folks who serve, I spent some time immersed in.

As for the gray hairs, well . . . Ashock has already covered that. :blush: Though I ain't that old!

And Rinnhart:

When you attempt to describe success or failure in armed conflict by a comparison of toys, you open yourself to being shown up, because, as I suggested before YOU started this sub-argument, with this assertion

"If you take away the bow and hand the Indian a Kalashinikov, the game changes, Occi"

it is the Indian not the Arrow. Israel 1948 classic case in point. The Battle of Savo Island a better one. (1942, off of Guadalcanal, Japs versus US)

You tried to assert that it was the Arrow. It was and is the Indian, though good arrows never hurt.

The metaphor represents "the fighting man(the trained or otherwise prepared force)" versus "his equipment(toys.)" John Paul Jones added a nautical twist: "Men mean more than guns in the rating of a ship." That is still true.

The decisive difference has generally been Indian rather than the Arrrow since rocks and clubs were the coin of the realm.
Occhi

[Any1]

As for the gray hairs, well . . . Ashock has already covered that.  :blush:  Though I ain't that old!
[right][snapback]81115[/snapback][/right]

Those damn gray hairs! <_< *pulls down knit cap a little lower over the ears*

edit: I had to google FWIW...For What It's Worth

[Rinnhart]

Goddamn circular arguments.



I made the statement with an eye towards the original context of the discussion- Israel's apparent military dominance. Better armaments may manifest a mitigating factor in future conflicts. I was not, as you seem to believe, claiming better weapons guarantee victory. That said, they certainly are not a disadvantage!

Strategy is defined by the technology of the time, just as technology's evolution can be guided by the needs of changing strategic thinking.

The Indian and the Bow must both be considered. You cannot fight a modern war without modern tools.

[Occhidiangela]

Goddamn circular arguments.
I made the statement with an eye towards the original context of the discussion- Israel's apparent military dominance. Better armaments may manifest a mitigating factor in future conflicts. I was not, as you seem to believe, claiming better weapons guarantee victory. That said, they certainly are not a disadvantage!

Strategy is defined by the technology of the time, just as technology's evolution can be guided by the needs of changing strategic thinking.

The Indian and the Bow must both be considered. You cannot fight a modern war without modern tools.
[right][snapback]81120[/snapback][/right]

We have an accord.

Occhi

[whyBish]

I believe I was just PWNED.&nbsp; "It burns, it burns!"&nbsp; :o&nbsp;

I have heard it said that "buddy" is half a word.&nbsp; ;)

Occhi
[right][snapback]81092[/snapback][/right]

Hmmm... my mental marker for the Occhi image changed again :P

[Occhidiangela]

Hmmm... my mental marker for the Occhi image changed again&nbsp; :P
[right][snapback]81132[/snapback][/right]

If I decide Devil's Advocate, does that mean you are a lawyer?

Or does that mean you reside somewhere below Tristram, lurkng about for unwary adventurers upon whom to cast your spell? ;)

Occhi

[Drasca]

Mao was an excellent revolutionary, and a disaster as a national leader in the practical domestic sense.&nbsp; Economic erosion, famine, much else destroyed under his ideals focused leadership.&nbsp;
[right][snapback]80724[/snapback][/right]

Although at the time his Nationalist party rival Chiang Kai Shek wasn't terribly great either, I'll add a few practical bonuses to what was being kicked out through revolution.

Things like: Multiple wives, foot-binding, kicking out european opium stranglehold. Got rid of feudal class system. Establish better semblence of egalitarianism. Lots of oppressive old traditions needed to be thrown out. Also did establish a rather impressive railway system that wasn't in place before (do I play Railroad tycoon II too much?). So... social benefits abound.

There's no question his economic decisions ended up unsound. While few of the educated lurkers here would think it, I'd just like to stress Mao wasn't terrible on the Evil scale. He f'ed up the economy and millions starved! He freed the people, women and men from being slaves to economy, social order or drugs. Hmm... Can't say I'm not glad the old leadership is gone, but how much worse or lacking was that leadership previous to or rivalling Mao?

The cultural lens is much different when made in china :whistling: