**OFFICIAL WAR THREAD** 7th Calvary fights off Iraqi attack; Bush seeks 75 billion for war

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Appy the WWII ratio to this war and you wind up with 15,000 americans dead.

Could you show me your maths in the other war thread please? I still think 15,000 allied dead is big.

Cheers,

Andy

I think what he's saying is that 15,000 Americans would be dead by now, given the current Iraqi casualties and applying the WWII ratio to our troops. Which is obviously not the case, and it's NOT an extrapolation of the total number of Americans that will be killed (which is what I think you're implying).

No, I'm saying historic wars average a suprising 1:15 death ratio for allied troops.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf

Originally posted by: Alistar7
red cross report being given preliminary indications they "might" be able to see American and British POW's.

Since Iraqi is using the red cresent as a cover for thier military, how about we dress up a couple Delta Force guys as red cross and get our POWs outta there...

They better keep them alive, that's the only thing keeping them on the planet....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
WWII 1:15 allied troops died. 250k troops/15=16,666.

Thanks. I was wondering how you got there! (didn't see the 15:1 thing)

Cheers,

Andy

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Appy the WWII ratio to this war and you wind up with 15,000 americans dead.

But the dynamics of war are much different now than they were 60yrs ago.

 

[iwearnosox]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Appy the WWII ratio to this war and you wind up with 15,000 americans dead.

But the dynamics of war are much different now than they were 60yrs ago.

THat ratio holds through vietnam.

The caveat is if we're drawn intro baghdad building to building, we lose our technical advantage. I don't think it will be 1:15, but it's going to be higher than most people expect.

We'll see.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Can someone tell me what the point of flying a stealth bomber 36 hours around the world to bomb iraq is? Wouldn't a regular plane or cruise missile do the job for less?

Are we just flying cool planes for the sake of flying cool planes now?

I was thinking the same thing. Using B2's that are based over there is one thing, but bombing from the central US seems impractical. Surely smaller jets that are stationed near the attack points would be able to deliver more ordnance in a shorter amount of time. Even if the B2 carries 7x the weapon load, it takes 30x as long to run a sortie. Seems like a waste of gas and time to me.

 

[conjur]

Pentagon: No U.S. forces killed in battle near Najaf Tuesday that killed "hundreds" of Iraqis. Details soon

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
LOL an iraqi armored column made a run for it from basra.

Don't they know there's hardware just waiting for them to do that?

makes you wonder how "minor" that revolt was.....

British artillery has been shelling them from a distance for quite some time. The Iraqi column was trapped in the city and they were slowly getting picked off.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Can someone tell me what the point of flying a stealth bomber 36 hours around the world to bomb iraq is? Wouldn't a regular plane or cruise missile do the job for less?

Are we just flying cool planes for the sake of flying cool planes now?

I was thinking the same thing. Using B2's that are based over there is one thing, but bombing from the central US seems impractical. Surely smaller jets that are stationed near the attack points would be able to deliver more ordnance in a shorter amount of time. Even if the B2 carries 7x the weapon load, it takes 30x as long to run a sortie. Seems like a waste of gas and time to me.

Bush and Co. all personally signed the bombs with a sharpie, and there were also big carictures of their heads on the bombs too. That's why they took off from the US...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Can someone tell me what the point of flying a stealth bomber 36 hours around the world to bomb iraq is? Wouldn't a regular plane or cruise missile do the job for less?

Are we just flying cool planes for the sake of flying cool planes now?

I was thinking the same thing. Using B2's that are based over there is one thing, but bombing from the central US seems impractical. Surely smaller jets that are stationed near the attack points would be able to deliver more ordnance in a shorter amount of time. Even if the B2 carries 7x the weapon load, it takes 30x as long to run a sortie. Seems like a waste of gas and time to me.

they fly alot higher as well, the sandstorms wont affect them.....

 

[conjur]

Drone planes have been used to check on the progress of the Iraqi columns.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
Appy the WWII ratio to this war and you wind up with 15,000 americans dead.

But the dynamics of war are much different now than they were 60yrs ago.

one of the most sought after targets in military history was a main airplane engine plant in Japan during ww2, 833 sorties flown with full fighter support were used to eliminate this vital component of the imperial war machine, all failed, it maintained production until the war ended.

One of our bombers today has the capablility to destroy six equally sized factories, acting alone, within a 1,000 mile radius without actually passing over any of the targets, on ONE mission....

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
LOL an iraqi armored column made a run for it from basra.

Don't they know there's hardware just waiting for them to do that?

makes you wonder how "minor" that revolt was.....

British artillery has been shelling them from a distance for quite some time. The Iraqi column was trapped in the city and they were slowly getting picked off.

I think the column from Basra would be trying to cut the supply lines while the main Iraqi column from the north used the darkness and last of the cover of the sandstorm to attack from the north. They know they will lose but hope to cause causaulties among the coalition forces.
The main danger would be if they could keep the supply lines cut while making the US forces to the north use up their gas and ammo. I don't think it will work but it's probably the best gamble the Iraqi troops have. They know that if they sit still they will be slowly cut to pieces. Think of it as a Battle of the Bulge in Iraq.

 

[Marshallj]

lol, I just saw a video where some Iraqi woman is complaining that a cruise missile struck her area. She said "why did they strike?"." there are no military targets around here". But while she was saying this I could see an anti-aircraft gun in the background...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Marshallj
lol, I just saw a video where some Iraqi woman is complaining that a cruise missile struck her area. She said "why did they strike?"." there are no military targets around here". But while she was saying this I could see an anti-aircraft gun in the background...

That's not a gun. It's an automatic grain disbursement machine.

 

[SgtBuddy]

Search Results matching the keyword http://www.teasquadron.com/Soldiers.html
No search results were found back.


Flash Slide show

 

[Trezza]

if the iraqis can view cnn is it good that they have battle maps with our troop/tanks on it?

 

[MoobyTheGoldenCalf]

CNN: British Marines find cache of grenades stored at Umm Qasr school

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Trezza
if the iraqis can view cnn is it good that they have battle maps with our troop/tanks on it?

I'm sure they already know our whereabouts. They have people all over the country radioing in our positions.

 

[conjur]

UN meeting...each member gets 5 min. to speak, apparently. Not sure what this is about. Is this that 'emergency meeting'?

 

[Chain777]

Hey guys, you know there's a thread for "discussing" this topic.

I thought this was a "breaking news, war update" thread?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
CNN: British Marines find cache of grenades stored at Umm Qasr school

You know the Coalition planted those just like they planted the chemical warfare suits and antropin at that hospital.

 

[conjur]

Iraqi Ambassador calls US "barbaric". Uhh....pot, meet kettle.

Sources: Pentagon looking at report U.S. soldiers were shot by Iraqis while they had hands up, surrendering
Who's the barbarian?

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: conjur
Iraqi Ambassador calls US "barbaric". Uhh....pot, meet kettle.

I don't even think a comparison is necessary...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
Russia is already saying they won't believe us when we find the WMDs... link

....And he (Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov) counseled Washington and London not to make unsubstantiated claims to have found caches of banned weapons in Iraq to justify their military offensive.

"If there are claims by coalition forces about discovering weapons of mass destruction...only international inspectors can make a conclusive assessment of the origin of these weapons," he said. "No other evaluation and final conclusion can be accepted."

Sounds reasonable to me. If the Coalition wants to legitimately claim something, independent 3rd party confirmation should be required.