Marko
Member
The link below is to a grahical estimate of the Invasion plans of Iraq.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,650132,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,650132,00.html
Invasion Plans
- Thread starter Marko
- Start date
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
Thanks for sharing the link 
Tiberius
Member
This is exactly the plan I was referring to in the other thread that (I think) will not work. Saddam will end up surrounded in Baghdad with the entire city held hostage. Going in house to house could end up with incredibly high casualties but that is not the problem.
We could take the city if we are determined enough but the resulting fall out in the Arab and civilized (note the separation of the two -with all apologies, I couldn't resist that little shot.) worlds, would lose us the war for winning the battle.
Think Jenin, multiplied by 100,000.
I believe we must strike _immediately_ for Baghdad with all available paratrooper and airmobile forces, while neutralizing enemy forces outside the city with air and manuever elements.
Hopefully the operation can catch the Special Guard by surprise and secure the city before Saddam has a chance to react.
Hopefully the published plan is a ruse to put Saddam off guard
(and he is not reading this forum )
What do you guys think?
We could take the city if we are determined enough but the resulting fall out in the Arab and civilized (note the separation of the two -with all apologies, I couldn't resist that little shot.) worlds, would lose us the war for winning the battle.
Think Jenin, multiplied by 100,000.
I believe we must strike _immediately_ for Baghdad with all available paratrooper and airmobile forces, while neutralizing enemy forces outside the city with air and manuever elements.
Hopefully the operation can catch the Special Guard by surprise and secure the city before Saddam has a chance to react.
Hopefully the published plan is a ruse to put Saddam off guard
(and he is not reading this forum
)What do you guys think?
Mark Stevens
Europe Aflame Forum Moderator
I think you're right about misinformation. I realise that the UK's contribution will be minor compared with that of the US if it comes to an all-out ground war, but our press is busily pumping out sad stories of how our rifles don't work, the Challenger tanks aren't 'desertified', no spare parts available, it'll take months to get anything to the Gulf, we can't spare the troops because several thousand are covering for striking firemen, etc.
Friends I know in the armed forces reckon that it's all b******t.
The only thing you can be certain of is that whatever plan is put into action won't have been advertised in advance, although this sort of thing makes fascinating reading for those of us interested in strategic studies.
My personal view is that the West - all right, the USA - will try another Serbia/Afghanistan: supress the air defences, use smart weapons as much as possible to knock out the bridges, railways, command centres, military concentrations and other obvious targets, use Special Forces and assorted Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels as much as possible, and wait for the regime to collapse.
I can't believe that we're really preparing to slug it out toe-to-toe in the ruins of Basra and Baghdad.
Friends I know in the armed forces reckon that it's all b******t.
The only thing you can be certain of is that whatever plan is put into action won't have been advertised in advance, although this sort of thing makes fascinating reading for those of us interested in strategic studies.
My personal view is that the West - all right, the USA - will try another Serbia/Afghanistan: supress the air defences, use smart weapons as much as possible to knock out the bridges, railways, command centres, military concentrations and other obvious targets, use Special Forces and assorted Kurdish and Shi'ite rebels as much as possible, and wait for the regime to collapse.
I can't believe that we're really preparing to slug it out toe-to-toe in the ruins of Basra and Baghdad.
Deltapooh
Member
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Closer than is safe for my enemies
- Country
-
Baghdad seems like "a city too far" as an H-hour objective. There are too many locations that need to be hit in and around the city, with force protection being the top priority. Saddam could sucker 100,000 troops into Baghdad, then order his commandos to blow damns on the Euphrates. And I doubt he'll be able to launch SCUD missiles from within the city.
In addition, I question whether or not we can land, then support such a large force early on. Baghdad's ADA will shred helicopters, and low flying cargo planes. Downed aircraft will cost us the momentum, dramatically shifting how the operation is conducted.
The closer the people is to their leader, the more determined they'll fight. Baghdad is the one city Saddam controls without a shadow of a doubt. The people and soldiers will resist because of fear, loyality, and hatred for the West.
We all know what Saddam will likely do given the press reporting. Convinced Baghdad is the primary OBJ at H-hour, he'll order all RGFC to move toward the city to defend and repel the light air assault force.
It's better to make Saddam think we are going to take Baghdad early on. He'll move his Center of Gravity, the RGFC, to defeat us. Then our forces can assault seizing most of country rapidly, likely capturing many of his WMDs. The less space Saddam has to launch SCUDs, the better. He'll most likely try to preserve his missiles and launchers by moving them closer to the city as well. Our planes can then hunt them down more easily in the small area.
Capturing Baghdad will be an difficult task under any circumstances. If we try to take it at H-hour, the light force might be seriously mauled, cutting back on our combat power, boosting enemy morale, and contributing to a slower advance. Even if we capture the city, holding it until link-up will be a difficult.
I say let Saddam think Baghdad is the primary OBJ. While he's trying to defend the city, we take the country from him. Then all our forces, as can concentrate on a single point. Airpower can attack artillery, reducing, although not eliminating, the threat of WMDs, and we will have the force to defeat the RGFC for good.
Urabn terrain doesn't favor anyone really. The Iraqi's already have trouble coordinating. The ubran environment will make this worse. Troops will find themselves cut-off, or feeling cut-off and abandoned. This will make success more likely for us.
However, we must assume the enemy will fight like hell. People should prepare for massive casualties, then pray a bloodbath doesn't materialize. More importantly, we're gonna have to accept the horrible truth of urban combat. Innocent people will die. Neighborhoods will be reduced to rubble, etc. That's war. The US and it's allies can't assign unreasonable ROEs to commanders to appease international governments who, if were fighting in the same conditions, would level the city before sending in troops.
In addition, I question whether or not we can land, then support such a large force early on. Baghdad's ADA will shred helicopters, and low flying cargo planes. Downed aircraft will cost us the momentum, dramatically shifting how the operation is conducted.
The closer the people is to their leader, the more determined they'll fight. Baghdad is the one city Saddam controls without a shadow of a doubt. The people and soldiers will resist because of fear, loyality, and hatred for the West.
We all know what Saddam will likely do given the press reporting. Convinced Baghdad is the primary OBJ at H-hour, he'll order all RGFC to move toward the city to defend and repel the light air assault force.
It's better to make Saddam think we are going to take Baghdad early on. He'll move his Center of Gravity, the RGFC, to defeat us. Then our forces can assault seizing most of country rapidly, likely capturing many of his WMDs. The less space Saddam has to launch SCUDs, the better. He'll most likely try to preserve his missiles and launchers by moving them closer to the city as well. Our planes can then hunt them down more easily in the small area.
Capturing Baghdad will be an difficult task under any circumstances. If we try to take it at H-hour, the light force might be seriously mauled, cutting back on our combat power, boosting enemy morale, and contributing to a slower advance. Even if we capture the city, holding it until link-up will be a difficult.
I say let Saddam think Baghdad is the primary OBJ. While he's trying to defend the city, we take the country from him. Then all our forces, as can concentrate on a single point. Airpower can attack artillery, reducing, although not eliminating, the threat of WMDs, and we will have the force to defeat the RGFC for good.
Urabn terrain doesn't favor anyone really. The Iraqi's already have trouble coordinating. The ubran environment will make this worse. Troops will find themselves cut-off, or feeling cut-off and abandoned. This will make success more likely for us.
However, we must assume the enemy will fight like hell. People should prepare for massive casualties, then pray a bloodbath doesn't materialize. More importantly, we're gonna have to accept the horrible truth of urban combat. Innocent people will die. Neighborhoods will be reduced to rubble, etc. That's war. The US and it's allies can't assign unreasonable ROEs to commanders to appease international governments who, if were fighting in the same conditions, would level the city before sending in troops.
Wolfe Tone
Member
Deltapooh
Just said some of this on ‘‘What could go wrong'' post. You’re right about sending in relatively light forces, even backed by massive air power to take Baghdad early on. That would be a very risky strategy! I think myself that a major conventional assault from Kuwait northwards will be the likely avenue of approach with perhaps Basra being bypassed and a rapid advance to the Iraqi capital being undertaken straight away. No doubt as a ruse Airborne forces will be on standby to make Saddam keep forces in the city in case the Allies try a 'Coup de Main' I believe it's called!
To do this quickly the Allies will have to have Engineer units up front to bridge any river and canal crossings on the way north, as I'm sure they don't want another repeat of 'Market-Garden'!
Beforehand I would say that western Iraq would be occupied to stave off any Iraqi attack on Israel. An unlikely event but the potential for a nuclear catastrophe will have to be checked in advance.
When Baghdad is reached the most likely scenario is that the city will be surrounded and the garrison starved out while at the same time military pressure is brought to bear on the Iraqi forces trapped inside. It's anyone' guess where things will go from there however. No doubt next year we will all be here discussing this saying ' I got that bit right!' while excusing away our errors.
Mark…..I think you are dead right about it being B------t that the British Army will be going into battle with a load of equipment that does not work. These weapons were used in the last Gulf war and worked well enough. No doubt there will be equipment failures of some level but that applies to all armies in all wars anyway. As far as I know the BA will at least send in an Armoured division, so I would not say that is a minor contribution! I wonder if any British troops will be committed to the northern front to help the Kurds. I think the Paras, RM Commandos and perhaps the Gurkhas would be ideal for a role there. There is also a small group of special ‘Marine and Artic Warfare’ troops who played a small but important part in the Falklands campaign. I’m sure they will be sent in somewhere! The SAS will be there too but their real role will be sabotage and intelligence gathering. I think the Australians are the only other country to publicly commit to sending troops but I have no idea how many will go.
Just said some of this on ‘‘What could go wrong'' post. You’re right about sending in relatively light forces, even backed by massive air power to take Baghdad early on. That would be a very risky strategy! I think myself that a major conventional assault from Kuwait northwards will be the likely avenue of approach with perhaps Basra being bypassed and a rapid advance to the Iraqi capital being undertaken straight away. No doubt as a ruse Airborne forces will be on standby to make Saddam keep forces in the city in case the Allies try a 'Coup de Main' I believe it's called!
To do this quickly the Allies will have to have Engineer units up front to bridge any river and canal crossings on the way north, as I'm sure they don't want another repeat of 'Market-Garden'!
Beforehand I would say that western Iraq would be occupied to stave off any Iraqi attack on Israel. An unlikely event but the potential for a nuclear catastrophe will have to be checked in advance.
When Baghdad is reached the most likely scenario is that the city will be surrounded and the garrison starved out while at the same time military pressure is brought to bear on the Iraqi forces trapped inside. It's anyone' guess where things will go from there however. No doubt next year we will all be here discussing this saying ' I got that bit right!' while excusing away our errors.
Mark…..I think you are dead right about it being B------t that the British Army will be going into battle with a load of equipment that does not work. These weapons were used in the last Gulf war and worked well enough. No doubt there will be equipment failures of some level but that applies to all armies in all wars anyway. As far as I know the BA will at least send in an Armoured division, so I would not say that is a minor contribution! I wonder if any British troops will be committed to the northern front to help the Kurds. I think the Paras, RM Commandos and perhaps the Gurkhas would be ideal for a role there. There is also a small group of special ‘Marine and Artic Warfare’ troops who played a small but important part in the Falklands campaign. I’m sure they will be sent in somewhere! The SAS will be there too but their real role will be sabotage and intelligence gathering. I think the Australians are the only other country to publicly commit to sending troops but I have no idea how many will go.