Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[mabadesc]

I understand your point, but I don't know whether you're basing it on a generalization (the fact that the US maintained air superiority throughout the war) or whether you have concrete data as to what percentage of the tanks were destroyed by helicopters/gunship planes and what percentage were destroyed by coalition tank fire. If you can find these numbers, please post them, as I would be interested to read them.

All I can do is re-state that during the brief internet search I performed, the Rumeylah Feb. 28, 1991 battle was repeatedly referred to as a major tank battle by the majority of the sites I browsed. In fact, as I previously mentioned, a good number of sites mentioned it as the "largest tank battle since World War II".

Since it's being mentioned to in this manner, I can only assume that there was major "tank against tank" combat.
I also somewhat vaguely remember watching a Discovery channel (?) documentary about this battle in which coalition soldiers were recollecting stories about the combat. For instance, I remember quite a few of them were in awe of their tanks because they could hit a T-72 well before the T-72 could get close enough to respond. Finally, these coalition troops were also impressed by the fact that their tanks could take direct hits from T-55 and T-72's and remain operational, or at the very least, the crew inside these damaged M1's would remain unharmed, even if the tank received a hit and was disabled or damaged.

Anyway, like I said, if you find a detailed account of the battle (with technical data), please post it on this thread because I wasn't able to find one and I would be interested in reading it.

[Florin]

QUOTE

...That particular day, roughly 200 Iraki tanks (T-72 and T-55) were destroyed by coalition tanks supported by helicopters.  Coalition losses = 0..........

As I wrote to Panzer King before, the coalition had the full aerial supremacy, which makes all the difference. Like in Normandy, in June-July 1944.
And as I mentioned there, only in the Battle of Kursk (1943) the tank crews were fighting "fair", as the German and Soviet presence in the air was somehow equal.
I quoted from you in this post: "coalition tanks supported by helicopters." :wink: OK, Chandernagore already expressed this point, so I should not repeat it.

QUOTE

...All I can do is re-state that during the brief internet search I performed, the Rumeylah Feb. 28, 1991 battle was repeatedly referred to as a major tank battle by the majority of the sites I browsed. In fact, as I previously mentioned, a good number of sites mentioned it as the \"largest tank battle since World War II\"......

The same way the Soviet propaganda pictured the counterattack at Kursk on July 12 as the biggest tank battle occurred in one day in WWII.
It took 60 years for the Russians to start to say that actually many German tanks and German AFV were destroyed by the Russian infantry, and the "tank to tank" battle story was intended to cover the "shame" of losing so many Russian tanks in the field.
Even Stalin, who cared so little about his own people, and sacrificed them with no blink, had an access of mad anger when he heard how many Soviet casualties were in the Battle of Kursk.
Regards,
Florin

[Chandernagore]

A few more remarks here and there.

QUOTE

...whether you have concrete data as to what percentage of the tanks were destroyed by helicopters/gunship planes and what percentage were destroyed by coalition tank fire.

This would not be extremely conclusive. We are not looking at what sort of weapon nailed the tank but wether there was a tank to tank battle or not. And what kind of battle it was.

If a friendly tank blows up an abandoned enemy tank, the burning hulk doesn't signal that a tank to tank battle occured.

A tank is only useful in a single position for a short period of time. Once spotted, its survivability diminishes quickly. Therefore the tank must move. Michael whitman, to take one famous German ace, would not fire 3 rounds from the same position. After the second shot his tank would take another firing position, wether the previous rounds hit or not. Acting otherwise was inviting disaster. If the mobility of the tank is impaired by enemy airpower, it will fight at great disadvantage. The killing blow may come from an enemy tank but the mere presence of the fighter bomber (or copter) above it's head has an equal role in it's destruction.

If one side can select an optimum range while the other side can't (once again, because of airpower) you will find it hard to use the data to compare respective tank to tank fighting abilities.

What you can say however is that the combined arms performance of the US army was vastly superior to that of the Irakis.

QUOTE

All I can do is re-state that during the brief internet search I performed, the Rumeylah Feb. 28, 1991 battle was repeatedly referred to as a major tank battle by the majority of the sites I browsed. Since it's being mentioned to in this manner, I can only assume that there was major \"tank against tank\" combat.

Up to now I couldn't came up with any website refering to such a massive tank to tank battle. Perhaps your search was too close to the events and it is reflected in data quality.

QUOTE

Finally, these coalition troops were also impressed by the fact that their tanks could take direct hits from T-55 and T-72's and remain operational, or at the very least, the crew inside these damaged M1's would remain unharmed, even if the tank received a hit and was disabled or damaged.

A direct hit, even if it doesn't penetrate, is going to harm the crew (stun effect, metal splinters...)

QUOTE

Anyway, like I said, if you find a detailed account of the battle (with technical data), please post it on this thread because I wasn't able to find one and I would be interested in reading it.

I can't. I didn't find anything worthwile
All my remarks are based on tactical analysis. Now you can fiercely cry "gooblygook ! " ;-)

[Florin]

I had a revelation.
It took me one year to understand why the Iraqis do not offer flowers to their liberators, as Mr. Donald Runsfeld predicted when the war started.

The Iraqis do not offer flowers to their liberators, because in a desert there are no flowers to grow and be offered!

[mabadesc]

A recent quote from Hans Blix...

PARIS, April 8 (AFP) - "The country is on the verge of civil war today. The majority of Iraqis are certainly happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but they are all against the American occupation, which is resented as a humiliation," Blix told the Le Parisian daily.

:shock:

[Florin]

1900 years ago, Iraq (Mesopotamia) was the last province to be attached, and first to be abandoned, by another empire... The Roman Empire.
The Roman occupation lasted little more than one decade...

[Florin]

QUOTE

A recent quote from Hans Blix... PARIS, April 8 (AFP) - \"The country is on the verge of civil war today.......\"

With all respect for Mr. Hans Blix, I think he uses a wrong term.

In this moment the Shia's do not fight with Suni's or with the Kurds.
This is not a civil war.

A part of the Shia's joined forces with a part of the Suni's to fight against what they perceive as foreign occupiers. So, again...
This is not a civil war. It is simply an ongoing war.

[mabadesc]

Florin wrote:

QUOTE

In this moment the Shia's do not fight with Suni's or with the Kurds.   This is not a civil war.

You are correct, Florin. It's amazing how a diplomat with so much experience can make such a gross mistake.

Not to mention the fact that his statement is also false when he says that "all Irakis are against American occupation". Maybe a portion, maybe a majority, maybe a large majority.....hell, maybe "almost all"....but not ALL. Did he conduct a poll door-to-door in Irak? Is he saying that he knows for a fact there is not one single Iraki person who welcomes the Americans? :rollroll:

Once again, completely amateurish statement by a supposedly professional diplomat.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Florin wrote: QUOTE In this moment the Shia's do not fight with Suni's or with the Kurds.   This is not a civil war.   You are correct, Florin. It's amazing how a diplomat with so much experience can make such a gross mistake. Not to mention the fact that his statement is also false when he says that "all Irakis are against American occupation". Maybe a portion, maybe a majority, maybe a large majority.....hell, maybe "almost all"....but not ALL. Did he conduct a poll door-to-door in Irak? Is he saying that he knows for a fact there is not one single Iraki person who welcomes the Americans? :rollroll: Once again, completely amateurish statement by a supposedly professional diplomat.

Okay. Let me take the opposite point of vue. I'm the devil's advocate. So what Mr Blix said is exactly true.

He said "The country is on the verge of civil war today"

And it is. As soon as the US leave it will start like in Afghanistan. The pawns are in position and just wait the green flag for the big rush to power. That the opposing factions agree to fight the US doesn't change this fact. Remember, both nationalist and communist Chinese fought against the Japanese... before rushing at each other's throat.

"they are all against the American occupation"

Well, me I would not like foreign occupation. Occupation is always badly received. Liberation from a tyrant is one thing. But what you have here and now is plain occupation and meddling into another country's free political affairs. So yes, "they're all against" is quite a good approximation.

During the French revolution, Robespierre once uttered this :"nobody likes armed missionaries". Guess what he was talking about ?

The US missed a chance to withdraw early and reap the laurels. It choosed to stay and sink in a quagmire. I should not even say "the US" but just W. Bush, the artisan of the fiasco and his merry band of neocon oil business men.

[Chandernagore]

A curiosity : Sistani's website

http://www.sistani.org/

And on the Iraki front, it looks like a Tet Offensive by now...

[mabadesc]

Chander,

We were discussing the accuracy of a diplomat's statement. You're going off into the pro-war/anti-war rethoric. I understand you're playing devil's advocate, but I'm not sure your arguments hold too well.

Blix is a professional diplomat, he shouldn't make approximations, especially when speaking for others.

60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.... 95% are all considered crushing majorities when it comes to politics, but they still leave out millions (or hundreds of thousands) of people. Blix knows that, I'm quite sure.

So, given that he's neither the spokesman of the Iraki people nor an amateur politician, he should know better than saying "ALL Irakis" and ignoring hundreds of thousands or millions of Iraki citizens with a single word.

It's a bit analogous to saying that all SS members were murderers. Well, guess what? Maybe the majority were, but not all of them.

But, like you said, you were playing devil's advocate...

[Chandernagore]

Of course we're a bit playing with words. But tell me, which American citizen and under what circumstance would welcome foreign occupation ? They didn't appreciate the presence of the British crown soldiers very much, if my memory holds. And those soldiers where, so to speak, of the same blood as the Americans while there is no bond between Americans and Irakis...

That said, Blix should not have said "all". Every country has it's collaborators and it's Quislings :wink:

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

...which American citizen and under what circumstance would welcome foreign occupation ? They didn't appreciate the presence of the British crown soldiers very much, if my memory holds.

I agree. Granted, the majority did not. But you'd be surprised, a rather large, significant portion of the American populace in the pre-independence days were against the revolution and were quite satisfied with the status quo.
And the 2 situations (Irak and America) weren't that similar either. America was a British colony (natural goods and resources were being taken to Great Britain for free, Americans were taxed without being represented in parliament, etc...). Irak is not a colony (maybe in your eyes it is), the US is not pumping oil out of Irak and shipping it home for free, etc, etc...
But we're diverging from the issue at hand and returning to the old debate (whether the whole Iraki war was good or bad), and I think we both know we have different views on this issue. :wink:

QUOTE

That said, Blix should not have said \"all\". Every country has it's collaborators and it's Quislings

That's really what I was tryring to say, and you said it well.

[Florin]

QUOTE

...... But you'd be surprised, a rather large, significant portion of the American populace in the pre-independence days were against the revolution and were quite satisfied with the status quo.

Thousands of Washington soldiers were Irish immigrants. The fact that they started a new life in the New World did not change their hate regarding England.
Also, Pennsylvania was founded by the Swedish colonists, including Philadelphia. New York was New Amsterdam, founded by the Dutch.
In the early 1700's there were waves after waves of Scottish and German immigrants. The German cultural influence was very strong in the 1770's. The official usage of English, in stead of German, in the newly created United States, was decided in the Congress with a difference of only one vote! (Just try to imagine a German speaking America in 1940... that one vote in Congress in the 1780's changed the history!)
My point is... In this country where I and "Mabadesc" live, everybody now feels "American", but in the 1770's, the immigrants still had strong feelings that they are Swedish, German, Dutch, Irish, Scots. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that actually the "pro-Great Britain, pro-King George" colonists to be mostly of British origin, and the "good guys" to be all the ones I mentioned above.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that actually the \"pro-Great Britain, pro-King George\" colonists to be mostly of British origin, and the \"good guys\" to be all the ones I mentioned above.

Like Gunther Vashingtonh, Thomas Gefherzon, John Paulus Johannes etc...