PDA

View Full Version : Iraq tactics


pfch1977
February 28, 2008, 01:21 AM
Im surprised to see no posts on the tactics in Iraq. There seems to be a wealth of military on this website, but few discussions about the tactics used in Iraq.

If I may ask a question, why did Iraq become the "big drive"? What was the point behind constant armored convoys and did we get anywhere with that tactic?

The Soviets were beaten back in Afghanistan using big armored convoys. The Soviets tactics were much more aggressive and they had the MI-24 HIND which is arguably the most devasating attack helicopter that was ever built.

What are today's big picture tactics? More armored convoys? A

MLeake
February 28, 2008, 08:40 AM
Given the fact that you have no idea who monitors a forum, discussion of specific military tactics is not a good idea, especially during an active campaign.

This may be why you don't see military posters putting up anything specific. General tactical concepts are ok, but not anything that would approach classified.

Forgive me for stating the obvious.

Hard Ball
February 28, 2008, 10:45 AM
"and they had the MI-24 HIND which is arguably the most devasating attack helicopter that was ever built. "

I gather that you have never seen a Long Bow Apache.

freakshow10mm
February 28, 2008, 12:26 PM
I seriously doubt the enemy is going to learn anything new. They have been studying out tactics for over 30 years.

phroggunner
February 28, 2008, 03:57 PM
What was the point behind constant armored convoys and did we get anywhere with that tactic?

How else are supplies supposed to be transported?

Creature
February 28, 2008, 04:06 PM
The Soviets tactics were much more aggressive and they had the MI-24 HIND which is arguably the most devasating attack helicopter that was ever built.

It was built like a tank. That was all it had going for it. The next step was the Havoc..which was an attempt to catch up with the Apache, which it failed to do.

As for tactics, room clearing is room clearing is room clearing. Its a dangerous job any way you slice it. Its why we have been leaning on winning hearts and minds these past couple of years. Get the Iraqis to take over that job willingly, and do it well, and the problem is licked.

IdahoG36
February 28, 2008, 04:15 PM
Get the Iraqis to take over that job willingly, and do it well, and the problem is licked.


Good luck with that. If memory serves me well, we tried that in Vietnam with the ARVN.

Wildalaska
February 28, 2008, 04:16 PM
I seriously doubt the enemy is going to learn anything new. They have been studying out tactics for over 30 years.

Based on what I have heard from numerous Iraq vets, the enemy has no clue how to conduct modern warfare. Thats why the blow up shoppers with women suicide bombers and can only nip at us with roadside bombs while hiding among the civilian population.

It isnt politcally correct of course to refer to death. So, the "surge" is sucessful becasue we are winning "hearts and minds" and allying ourselves with the Shieks, etc.

What they arent telling you is that we are killing them 100 to one with advanced small unit tactics in combination with advanced technology, and decent training. Thats the key to the Iraq war...a whole generation of terrs is being decimated.....


War is like life, it evolves. All the bitching about how our trucks werent armored, we werent ready, the troops got to modify their vehicles themselves. blah blash blah, amply demonstrates the ignorance of the press (and those who believe their propaganda) regrading history and warfare qua warfare.


Go study Normandy. War is on the job training and always will be. Plans are good until the first shot is fired.

WildbutheyimjustaneoconwhatdoiknowAlaska ™

Wild

Lawyer Daggit
February 28, 2008, 04:33 PM
Wild Alaska's comment in respect to Normandy... and to earlier comment about lack of preparation.

Only 30% of Tanks at Normandy (Shermans upgraded with a bigger gun) had a gun capeable of killing a Tiger tank. Why? incompetence by planners. They had captured Tigers in N Africa and new of their frontal armour and the ferocious range of its gun.

People adapted yes. Thousands died through incompetence.

freakshow10mm
February 28, 2008, 04:33 PM
Any urban warfare tactics are pronounced on the Internet on various websites, in books, and videos. I seriously doubt the enemy is cruising TFL looking for advice on how to execute four man diamond assaults or slicing the pie for clearing rooms.

Wildalaska
February 28, 2008, 04:39 PM
Wild Alaska's comment in respect to Normandy... and to earlier comment about lack of preparation.

I was actually referring to the Battle of the Hedgerows.

Only 30% of Tanks at Normandy (Shermans upgraded with a bigger gun) had a gun capeable of killing a Tiger tank. Why? incompetence by planners. They had captured Tigers in N Africa and new of their frontal armour and the ferocious range of its gun.

People adapted yes. Thousands died through incompetence.

Actually it was production delays....and the invasion could no longer be delayed to get production up.

And I challenge you to proovide us with support for your allegation that thousands of Tankers died in Normandy via incompetence. In point of fact, armor played very minor role in the early phases, and by the time the Third Army was activated, the Germans were beaten.

US armor tactics adapted to the superiority of German armor, just like the Russians did until their armor became better.

WildnowincompetencewasafactoratTarawaAlaska ™

carguychris
February 29, 2008, 11:48 AM
Regarding the "constant armored convoys", it takes a long supply train to maintain an army in the field. Always has, and probably always will. Attempts by past military leaders to eliminate the supply train have almost invariably resulted in spectacular failure. Yes, U.S. military leaders seem to have failed to anticipate the number of mines that U.S. troops would encounter, but that's what happens in war... the enemy finds your weak point and you adapt.

Also, re: the "inferior" U.S. tanks in WWII, it didn't have to do with "incompetence by planners"... it had to do with the fact that, in a war, you frequently have to fight with what you have rather than what you want. :(

Also, those "inferior" U.S. Sherman tanks had a major advantage over the German Tigers- they were cheap to manufacture. The Germans' tendency to field complex and finely crafted weapons systems such as the Tiger severely hurt them during the late stages of the war when their production capacity couldn't approach their rate of combat losses. One of the major reasons that the Americans and particularly the Soviets were able to thrash the Germans so badly late in the war was that both countries were great at designing weapons that could be built quickly and cheaply by relatively unskilled labor. :D

IdahoG36
February 29, 2008, 12:12 PM
particularly the Soviets were able to thrash the Germans so badly late in the war was that both countries were great at designing weapons that could be built quickly and cheaply by relatively unskilled labor.

I recently saw a show on the History Channel that was about the T-34 tank. It said that at one point in the war, T-34 tanks were rolling off of the assembly line unpainted and right onto the battlefield.

Crosshair
February 29, 2008, 01:56 PM
"and they had the MI-24 HIND which is arguably the most devasating attack helicopter that was ever built. "

I gather that you have never seen a Long Bow Apache.
Apples and Oranges. The MI-24 Hind is a much more versatile aircraft than the Apache or even the Long Bow Apache. The Apache was designed and built for one task, as a tank killer. The Hind was designed as a flying APC, to land troops and provide fire support and other such tasks.

The Hind is also a much lower maintenance aircraft compared to the Apache. The Hind's only weakness is it's thermal signature that makes it very vulnerable to MANPAD's.

warrior poet
February 29, 2008, 02:23 PM
What's this Apache thing? We're still using the AH-1. Oh wait... Army gear... more money to buy, more money to maintain, AND less reliable in harsh conditions? :confused: Yeah... the Corp'll pass on that one. :D

chopz
February 29, 2008, 03:41 PM
i believe this subject is what got me banned from thehighroad. :(

i'll be quiet. please don't ban me.

Crosshair
March 1, 2008, 01:11 AM
kraven

To coalesce with other parts of the thread, I believe in WW2 the phrase "Loose lips sink ships" was the way they said it then.

We are fighting people who don't know what open sights are for. An enemy that has to rely on roadside bombs and mortars/rockets to inflict any real damage. If they really wanted to learn about the tactics used they could probably pull it off with a pair of binoculars, a video camera, and some note paper.

JohnKSa
March 1, 2008, 04:53 AM
This subforum is about FIREARMS Tactics and Training, not the strategy behind the use of military heavy equipment and aircraft.