If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
Jack Linthicum wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote: Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with which both you and I, Walt are familiar. I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed. It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force, not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation. Please describe the effects of this event, did anyone surrender? Did the populace flee in the streets seeking shelter? Did any of the "bunker busters" bunk a buster? Were any of the "precision targets" actually targets, or just guesses based on those people who were waiting with the flowers? Actually, it seemed like the civilian populace reacted with "Hey, they're blowing up Saddam's stuff. That's good. I wonder what's for dinner?" As for the effects of the event, it significantly cut down on the ability of Saddam's brigades to counterattack inbound Allied forces. The objective wasn't to get Iraqi civilians to surrender en masse. "Bunk a buster"...heheheh...I just got that. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
On 26 Oct 2006 08:12:11 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ" wrote: "Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's not go there. Walt BJ You must have been watching a different channel. I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a main downtown intersection and parkway. During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted. Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down. Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those situation. Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with which both you and I, Walt are familiar. I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed. It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force, not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com Please describe the effects of this event, did anyone surrender? The initiation of ground operations came much more quickly than in Desert Storm (remember that air campaign too 100 days.) When started, coalition forces rolled almost unopposed to Basra, Baghdad and Tikrit. The Republican Guard apparently fled and command/control of defending units was apparently non-existant. Seems pretty effective militarily to me. Did the populace flee in the streets seeking shelter? You apparently didn't get the point of what I posted. The populace quite apparently did not feel any need to flee the streets seeking shelter. They appeared on the major news networks to be confident that they were NOT the targets. Did any of the "bunker busters" bunk a buster? Did JADMs and LGBs hit their targets? Absolutely. Did aircrews die in the process? No. Did the regime topple? Yes. Is much of this related to the relationship between Sunnis and Shi'a? No. Were any of the "precision targets" actually targets, or just guesses based on those people who were waiting with the flowers? Are you dense or simply indoctrinated? Is a highway bridge a "guess"? Is an air defense Hq a legitimate target? How about an armor marshalling area? Republican Guard barracks? Satellite, ELINT, HumINT, Comm intercepts, lots of over-flights, etc. equal pretty good intel for a campaign. But, that doesn't fit your scenario does it? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
Ed Rasimus wrote: On 26 Oct 2006 08:12:11 -0700, "Jack Linthicum" wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ" wrote: "Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's not go there. Walt BJ You must have been watching a different channel. I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a main downtown intersection and parkway. During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted. Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down. Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those situation. Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with which both you and I, Walt are familiar. I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed. It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force, not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com Please describe the effects of this event, did anyone surrender? The initiation of ground operations came much more quickly than in Desert Storm (remember that air campaign too 100 days.) When started, coalition forces rolled almost unopposed to Basra, Baghdad and Tikrit. The Republican Guard apparently fled and command/control of defending units was apparently non-existant. Seems pretty effective militarily to me. Did the populace flee in the streets seeking shelter? You apparently didn't get the point of what I posted. The populace quite apparently did not feel any need to flee the streets seeking shelter. They appeared on the major news networks to be confident that they were NOT the targets. Did any of the "bunker busters" bunk a buster? Did JADMs and LGBs hit their targets? Absolutely. Did aircrews die in the process? No. Did the regime topple? Yes. Is much of this related to the relationship between Sunnis and Shi'a? No. Were any of the "precision targets" actually targets, or just guesses based on those people who were waiting with the flowers? Are you dense or simply indoctrinated? Is a highway bridge a "guess"? Is an air defense Hq a legitimate target? How about an armor marshalling area? Republican Guard barracks? Satellite, ELINT, HumINT, Comm intercepts, lots of over-flights, etc. equal pretty good intel for a campaign. But, that doesn't fit your scenario does it? Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com I wonder if you remember all the build up to the use of shock and awe? Or the "results" that turned out to not be true? Like Saddam was blasted in his bunker and then blasted again and all it did was blow up some innocent bystanders. About all that precision stuff did was spend weaponry to no real end. It was ground troops they needed not the Fourth of July. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibl...Saddam_Hussein April 7, 2003 bombing On April 7, at around 15:00 local time, an air strike was carried out on Mansour, a residential area of Baghdad, on intelligence that Hussein and/or his two sons might be there along with other senior Iraqi officials. A single B-1B bomber dropped four precision-guided JDAM 2,000-pound bombs. The warplane was already aloft in case any such "target of opportunity" arose. The strike was unleashed just twelve minutes after receiving the orders and just 45 minutes after the intelligence tip was received by the Central Command in Qatar. The four bunker-penetrating bombs destroyed the target building, the al Saa restaurant block and several surrounding structures, leaving a 60-foot crater and unknown casualties. The area of Baghdad that was bombed was not under coalition control at the time, so U.S. officials could not confirm the extent of the casualties. On April 4, video was released of Hussein walking in the street of a Baghdad neighborhood surrounded by throngs of supporters. The neighborhood in the videotape was the same one target in the April 7 strike. Some U.S. officials privately were certain that Hussein was killed in the strike, but publicly the government remained cautious and stressed that the demise of Hussein himself is not the ultimate goal of the military conflict. British intelligence officials believed that Hussein may have left the targeted building just minutes before it was destroyed, and that he probably survived the attack. Their belief was vindicated by Saddam's capture on December 13, 2003. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3827601.htm Still, it's undeniable that the first week of "shock and awe" did not go as the Pentagon had hoped. As U.S. forces gather for a climactic battle for Baghdad, they have been hobbled by sandstorms, guerrilla strikes by fedayeen irregulars, stretched supply lines, friendly fire incidents, and signs that the Iraqis may use chemical and nerve agents. As a result, Rumsfeld and Franks face increasing flak. ****The most frequently heard charge: that the U.S. lacks the ground troops for what may turn into a tough, protracted fight in Iraq.**** That wasn't how things were supposed to play out. Pentagon planners had hoped that a blitz of precision bombing and cruise-missile strikes would sever Saddam Hussein's ability to communicate with his commanders. A simultaneous land assault would arrive on Saddam's doorstep with unnerving speed. Isolated and surrounded, Iraqi soldiers were expected to surrender en masse. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
B1-B Bombs Saddam........
Snipped to save electrons....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibl...Saddam_Hussein April 7, 2003 bombing On April 7, at around 15:00 local time, an air strike was carried out on Mansour, a residential area of Baghdad, on intelligence that Hussein and/or his two sons might be there along with other senior Iraqi officials. A single B-1B bomber dropped four precision-guided JDAM 2,000-pound bombs. The warplane was already aloft in case any such "target of opportunity" arose. The strike was unleashed just twelve minutes after receiving the orders and just 45 minutes after the intelligence tip was received by the Central Command in Qatar. The four bunker-penetrating bombs destroyed the target building, the al Saa restaurant block and several surrounding structures, leaving a 60-foot crater and unknown casualties. OK, regarding the above strike? What was the sequence here? Were all four JDAMs released simultaneously or were they "staggered"? Being GPS guided, is there any reason why they could not have been dropped simultaneously? Is there any potential interference among the 4 bombs? Dean |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ" wrote: "Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's not go there. Walt BJ You must have been watching a different channel. I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a main downtown intersection and parkway. During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted. Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down. Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those situation. Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with which both you and I, Walt are familiar. I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed. It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force, not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation. Good lord. Once again Dr. Ed proves that he couldn't tell a debacle from a fiasco (yes, there is a slight difference) if he saw it on Fox News. When will it sink in on you geniuses that your shrub put us in the ditch with his S&A BS? Cheers ==bob Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:37:34 GMT, Bob Matthews
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ" wrote: "Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's not go there. Walt BJ You must have been watching a different channel. I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a main downtown intersection and parkway. During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted. Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down. Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those situation. Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with which both you and I, Walt are familiar. I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed. It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force, not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation. Good lord. Once again Dr. Ed proves that he couldn't tell a debacle from a fiasco (yes, there is a slight difference) if he saw it on Fox News. When will it sink in on you geniuses that your shrub put us in the ditch with his S&A BS? Cheers ==bob Gosh, Bob, that well reasoned response certainly refuted my observations. We've got some gratuituous name calling, a bit of scatalogical reference, a demeaning of a news source (check above to see that I said, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others,) and a simple assertion. Yep, great job. I'm convinced. Why I couldn't have concluded that myself simply shows the superficiality of my understanding. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
AirRaid wrote:
"Military action has been in planning since before the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. This could come in any one of three forms or some combination of them: A US attack by air power alone, a ground invasion as in the 1991 and 2003 attacks on Iraq, or the encouragement of an Israeli attack. The National Security Doctrine form of "Preventive Action" now under the most intense study is aerial bombardment. This is attractive because America does not have sufficient combat troops for a land invasion. Moreover, allegedly the U.S. Air Force generals have said that even alone air power could "take out" (destroy) all suspected Iranian nuclear installations and so devastate Iran that the regime would collapse. What would aerial bombardment entail? What it involved in Iraq gives at least a starting point: in some 37,000 sorties the US Air Force dropped 13,000 "cluster munitions" that exploded into 2 million bombs, wiping out whole areas, and fired 23,000 missiles. Naval ships launched 750 Cruise missiles with another 1.5 million pounds of explosives. More powerful weapons are now available. Air Force General Thomas McInerney gave the Neoconservative Weekly Standard in April an inventory of "improved" weapons. They include vastly larger "bunker buster" bombs and greater targeting ability. McInerney pointed out that a B-2 bomber can drop 80 500 pound bombs independently targeted on 80 different aim points. In effect, this aerial bombardment would eclipse the "shock and awe" of 2003 and be far more destructive than the 1991 campaign or the devastating air war on Vietnam." http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html Why all the trigger happiness about IRAN??? North Korea is the one actually testing nucs? We are still in Talk mode with IRAN |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
AirRaid wrote:
What would aerial bombardment entail? What it involved in Iraq gives at least a starting point: in some 37,000 sorties the US Air Force dropped 13,000 "cluster munitions" that exploded into 2 million bombs, wiping out whole areas, and fired 23,000 missiles. Naval ships launched 750 Cruise missiles with another 1.5 million pounds of explosives. More powerful weapons are now available. Air Force General Thomas McInerney gave the Neoconservative Weekly Standard in April an inventory of "improved" weapons. They include vastly larger "bunker buster" bombs and greater targeting ability. McInerney pointed out that a B-2 bomber can drop 80 500 pound bombs independently targeted on 80 different aim points. In effect, this aerial bombardment would eclipse the "shock and awe" of 2003 and be far more destructive than the 1991 campaign or the devastating air war on Vietnam." http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html Hmmm. Just one data point checked: 1.5 million pounds of explosives divided by 750 cruise missiles is 2000 pounds per missile. Funny, the BGM-109 warhead is slightly less than 1000 pounds. So much for their credibility. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003
Tiger wrote:
AirRaid wrote: "Military action has been in planning since before the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq. This could come in any one of three forms or some combination of them: A US attack by air power alone, a ground invasion as in the 1991 and 2003 attacks on Iraq, or the encouragement of an Israeli attack. The National Security Doctrine form of "Preventive Action" now under the most intense study is aerial bombardment. This is attractive because America does not have sufficient combat troops for a land invasion. Moreover, allegedly the U.S. Air Force generals have said that even alone air power could "take out" (destroy) all suspected Iranian nuclear installations and so devastate Iran that the regime would collapse. What would aerial bombardment entail? What it involved in Iraq gives at least a starting point: in some 37,000 sorties the US Air Force dropped 13,000 "cluster munitions" that exploded into 2 million bombs, wiping out whole areas, and fired 23,000 missiles. Naval ships launched 750 Cruise missiles with another 1.5 million pounds of explosives. More powerful weapons are now available. Air Force General Thomas McInerney gave the Neoconservative Weekly Standard in April an inventory of "improved" weapons. They include vastly larger "bunker buster" bombs and greater targeting ability. McInerney pointed out that a B-2 bomber can drop 80 500 pound bombs independently targeted on 80 different aim points. In effect, this aerial bombardment would eclipse the "shock and awe" of 2003 and be far more destructive than the 1991 campaign or the devastating air war on Vietnam." http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html Why all the trigger happiness about IRAN??? North Korea is the one actually testing nucs? We are still in Talk mode with IRAN Korea has no oil. Please define Talk Mode, as in we don't talk to enemies only friends? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|