| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Investigation into Corruption; UN Oil for Food Program | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 9 2004, 12:25 PM (327 Views) | |
| doctortobe | Apr 11 2004, 11:41 AM Post #16 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
One aspect of your argument that I would disagree with would be the fact that the opposition would find that their equipment could not stand up to American/British weaponry. This is because A: Any military worth its brass already knows how their equipment will stand up to their opponents (if the intelligence on the weapon is good). and B: The Iraqi Army would hardly be considered a good unit to test the effectiveness of ANYBODY's weaponry. In fact, I remember hearing many American soldiers state that if the Americans and Iraqis traded weaponry, that the Americans would still beat Iraqi M1A1's with American T-72s. Training is the most important aspect of a military force, not technology. Other then that, I agree with you totally. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Apr 11 2004, 01:34 PM Post #17 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
anon_persona: Easy to make allegations - but you should provide at least some links. Enlighten us Ludites and Lefties and doubting Thomas'. doctortobe:
Really ? I wonder if the tank crews in the US Marines , US Army and US Home Guard would agree with that statement. I don't think they'd be too keen on swapping tanks. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dwayne | Apr 11 2004, 02:13 PM Post #18 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
http://united-states-of-earth.com/article.asp?MenuID=2130 http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1134695,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109866,00.html
The Marines certainly wouldn't want to use a T-72, but I'm certain that Marines could figure out how to operate a T-72 and destroy a M1A1 before an Iraqi could figure out the M1A1 and destroy the T-72. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 11 2004, 03:57 PM Post #19 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
Exactlly my point. If the technology were reversed, the Coalition would still have won. The only way to truely compare the capabilities of the equipment of two armies is to have two similarly trained forces use them against each other. For example, the Army regularly trains Air Defense soldiers against Hind helicopters. In the well trained hands of Army pilots, it is not always a sure thing that the Air Defense will prevail in training. However, seeing as how the American pilots fly the Hinds even more then their Russian counterparts, if you learn to beat the American trainers, you can handle anybody else in the world. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 11 2004, 07:21 PM Post #20 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
Sorry I didn't cite, but I was under the impression that this was common knowledge; if not it could have been easily discovered on the net. For example my first search revealed these articles on the first page alone: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/...d02613e31d.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1134695,00.html http://www.tastymanatees.com/archives/000435.html http://sayanythingblog.com/archives/000634.php I still think that US/UK military hardware would be test verses Iraqi stuff (esp. French air, Russian ground) in a prolonged war. The Gulf War proved that the US stuff is far superior - in clear terrain and without direct confrontation. The US has a major advantage in poor visibility and longer ranges - Medina Ridge proved that. However military officials (I'd guess Schwartzkoff, Powell, or perhaps H.W. Bush) didn't want us to cut off the Iraqi escape route and provoke a direct confrontation in some metropolitan atmosphere (there was some salt marsh/lakes making this town the ideal cutoff point) so instead there was just constant bombing of that road (can't remember the name). There is still some question as to the T-72's abilities versus the Abrams series at ranges under 500 meters in the day with good visibility. Even under these circumstances the Abrams series is superior. However, the US got to dictate terms of both conflicts, eliminating radar and communications outposts and conducting combat primarily at night. There are still some concerns: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/defaul...ons_learned.htm All of this info is out there for us civies, meaning that people will know the inadequacy of Iraqi training and their force's disadvantages. People will take all of this to heart when they review the recent conflict. The US lost 3 Abrams if I recall correctly, even though they were widely considered invincible. Granted, 2 were self-inflicted (not fratricide; demobilization kills to prevent the tank from being used against the US - this happened once in the Gulf War too). Also, the Iraqi air force was not used in the Gulf, and it was expected to be used in this latest conflict given that it would be an all-or-nothing affair. Additionally the closer-in conflict of house-to-house fighting predicted to occur during this more recent conflict made people believe the war would go more the Iraq's strengths. All of this made people believe the conflict would be much bloodier, and US/UK hardware proved itself. Remember the libs predicting thousands in casualties? To be honest, I don't even agree with trhe arguement I am putting forth; I love US equipment in particular, and UK stuff are no Tonka toys. However those in other nations (many who have a natural anti-US prejudice, mind you) gave the other equipment the benefit of a doubt, and predicted a bloody war. Regardless this gets away from the main point I'm trying to make; that the arguement for entering Iraq was bulletproof and remains so, and that in retrospect those that opposed the war were largely corrupt. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 11 2004, 07:24 PM Post #21 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
"Any military worth its brass" - I just caught that. Like whom, Petain? Perchance Gamelin? That is hilarious. Sorry, it's hard not to make fun of the French under these circumstances. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| doctortobe | Apr 11 2004, 10:14 PM Post #22 |
|
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
|
You put to much emphasis on what was a very one sided fight. Not only were the troops of the Iraqi army woefully unprepared, but we had total air superiority and were able to pick when and where the fighting was going to be. With that, Operation Iraqi Freedom could have been won with B-17s and M10s (perhaps an overstatement but you get the idea). The Army frequently trains with Soviet equipment bought from Russia. This allows our forces to see what it is like to fight against such a force with troops that are well disciplined and trained in the use of the equipment. And I can tell you right now, given that the OPFOR usually has the advantage of knowing the fighting area they are stationed in, you have to have advanced tactics and communication between both your soldiers and your commanders to be able to win the battle. Mere statistical data does not mean that American equipment is dominant over the weaponry of the enemy, if the enemy knows that their equipment is at a disadvantage in certain situations, they will use tactics to overcome that situation. As for the French, that is exactly my point. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| anon_persona | Apr 12 2004, 02:11 AM Post #23 |
|
Lieutenant Junior Grade
|
I agree with the points you've been making entirely, and I did before the war. However it is hardly debatable that certain people before the war thought it'd be bloody, and this can only be attributed to a still lingering question of US combat capacity. What other reason could there be? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


2:14 PM Jul 11