They watched the wrong movie.

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
By now I am sure that most have heard that the Iraqis prepared for this war by "studying" the movie "Black Hawk Down". It has occured to me that they would have been much better off to watch the movie "Patton". They would have seen Patton throw his Armored corp into the flank of the Germans attempt at an armored thrust into the Allied lines (Battle of the bulge), thus learning that you do not stop a major armored breakthrough with uncoordinated suicide attacks on the weak flank.

They also would have heard Patton say;

"You do not win a war by dying for your country, you win wars by making the other poor b@st@rt die for his country"

I guess that it is a good thing for us they did not pay attention to this old classic!
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
actually that's wrong. Patton didn't have to worry about public opinion back at home. Consider this unrealistic scenerio: if all the people that died in the war (I hear ~2000 soldiers ~1000 civilans) had become suicide bombers instead, the US&UK would have effectively lost the war. If we take the average suicide bomb to kill 3 soldiers, that means that over the course of a few months, the US&UK would have sustained ~9000 casualties. I don't think the public wouldn't have tolerated that, thus forcing withdrawl.

 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
But the Iraqis did attempt to use sucide bomers and their kill ratio was no where NEAR what you say, most of those Iraqi dead were essentially sucide bombers because they did not have enough sense to differenciate between a defensless, unepecting civilian and a trained prepared military force.

Further edit:
perhaps you do not understand, It was the Iraqis who needed to throw a division of the Republican Guard against the American flank at Naysaria. Their attack was little more then a nuisance, it did not have a significant effect on the main armored thrust.
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
76
Methinks they should've watched Rambo. Yeah. That'd have done the trick.
 

Tates

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 25, 2000
9,079
10
81
actually that's wrong. Patton didn't have to worry about public opinion back at home. Consider this unrealistic scenerio: if all the people that died in the war (I hear ~2000 soldiers ~1000 civilans) had become suicide bombers instead, the US&UK would have effectively lost the war. If we take the average suicide bomb to kill 3 soldiers, that means that over the course of a few months, the US&UK would have sustained ~9000 casualties. I don't think the public wouldn't have tolerated that, thus forcing withdrawl.

Or worse yet, an asteroid could have struck killing us all
rolleye.gif


Of course public opinion mattered during WWII. Patton got in deep trouble for slapping wounded soldiers in a field hospital , was forced to formally apologize to his entire corps and was subsequently relieved of command. In the 1940's, news traveled alot slower. They didn't have embedded reporters, and they certainly didn't have live broadcasts from the field.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Who were they kidding? Doesnt matter what movie they watched, they were all overmatched.
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,938
5
0
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
actually that's wrong. Patton didn't have to worry about public opinion back at home. Consider this unrealistic scenerio: if all the people that died in the war (I hear ~2000 soldiers ~1000 civilans) had become suicide bombers instead, the US&UK would have effectively lost the war. If we take the average suicide bomb to kill 3 soldiers, that means that over the course of a few months, the US&UK would have sustained ~9000 casualties. I don't think the public wouldn't have tolerated that, thus forcing withdrawl.

That's flawed. The suicide bombers you're familiar with were killing unarmed civilians in surprised. You're not going to get those kind of numbers suicide bombing military formations in heavy armor.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Moralpanic
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
actually that's wrong. Patton didn't have to worry about public opinion back at home. Consider this unrealistic scenerio: if all the people that died in the war (I hear ~2000 soldiers ~1000 civilans) had become suicide bombers instead, the US&UK would have effectively lost the war. If we take the average suicide bomb to kill 3 soldiers, that means that over the course of a few months, the US&UK would have sustained ~9000 casualties. I don't think the public wouldn't have tolerated that, thus forcing withdrawl.

That's flawed. The suicide bombers you're familiar with were killing unarmed civilians in surprised. You're not going to get those kind of numbers suicide bombing military formations in heavy armor.

I dunno, it seems suicide bombers in Israel usually get 10+ civilians, so 3 soldiers seems reasonable. I dunno what the situation is though...if you have soldiers patroling on foot (as in some of the pictures), it shouldn't be hard to just come near then and detonate yourself...

But then again..maybe these suicide bombers don't think in terms of efficiency and stuff...



Originally posted by: RossGr
But the Iraqis did attempt to use sucide bomers and their kill ratio was no where NEAR what you say, most of those Iraqi dead were essentially sucide bombers because they did not have enough sense to differenciate between a defensless, unepecting civilian and a trained prepared military force.

Further edit:
perhaps you do not understand, It was the Iraqis who needed to throw a division of the Republican Guard against the American flank at Naysaria. Their attack was little more then a nuisance, it did not have a significant effect on the main armored thrust.

I doubt it would have been possible for them to do that. the Air force would have probably killed all the tanks if they had come out in the open...
Also, when I say suicide bomber, I mean palestinian-type bombers...
 

freakflag

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2001
3,951
1
71
"There exists sufficient evidence to show that a small handful of reporters did, in fact, try to make George Patton look either evil or stupid.

Wow. I am shocked. No journalist would ever consider doing that now.

They have too much integrity.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: RossGrFurther edit:
perhaps you do not understand, It was the Iraqis who needed to throw a division of the Republican Guard against the American flank at Naysaria. Their attack was little more then a nuisance, it did not have a significant effect on the main armored thrust.

The battle was won in the air. When their armor so much as blinked, it got blasted. Hard to mount much of an offensive under those conditions.
 

RossGr

Diamond Member
Jan 11, 2000
3,383
1
0
The battle was won with text book use of combined arms tactics, Air AND land. Air planes can make big holes in the ground but they cannot take a city.

Of course the Iraqis could not throw a armored division at the weak flank, but if they had their sh@t together enough to attempt they may of even been able to defend their air space.

This war is an example of what happens when an army that is all show and no skill encounters a well trained well led army. It was not a fair fight. It was the PRESENCE of armed men who captured Baghdad. If we had persued the plan that was fully expected by the Iraqis we would still be dropping bombs and they would STILL hold there cities.

I am begining to understand that we actually started the game of Calvin Ball, we changed the rules when our infantry moved before the dust had settled from the first bomb.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: RossGr
The battle was won with text book use of combined arms tactics, Air AND land. Air planes can make big holes in the ground but they cannot take a city.

Of course the Iraqis could not throw a armored division at the weak flank, but if they had their sh@t together enough to attempt they may of even been able to defend their air space.

This war is an example of what happens when an army that is all show and no skill encounters a well trained well led army. It was not a fair fight. It was the PRESENCE of armed men who captured Baghdad. If we had persued the plan that was fully expected by the Iraqis we would still be dropping bombs and they would STILL hold there cities.

I am begining to understand that we actually started the game of Calvin Ball, we changed the rules when our infantry moved before the dust had settled from the first bomb.

Yes, we faked them out with shock and awe and went to ground first.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
The celebration in Baghdad was a suprise even to our military planners at this point. I think the fact resdients woke up and found no soldiers or police for the first time in their lives had more to do with it that our presence outside the city. The night before though in one quarter of the city, Fedayeen were driven out by "heavily armed citizens"......:D