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

[Der Maresal]

QUOTE

QUOTE And the Phoenix missile - don't ask how many millions that costs, 3M+ ? Do you actually know what aircraft carries this missile and what purpose it serves?

Yes I do - It is carried by the F-14 Carrier Interceptor, which can carry a total of 6 maximum. 4 under the fuselage and two under the inner pair hardpoints. It is used as a long range missile (designed maintly to intercept Soviet Tupolev Tu-95 'Bear' which thretened American aircraft Carriers. When launched it is guided by semi-active radar from the F-14s nose and climbs to a high altitude, at which point it turns on it's own radar and at a speed of mach 4+ uses it's own inertia to slam into the target.

It is the most expensive Air-launced missile in the World at that 's why I listed it there.
If i'm not mistaking during the bombing of Lybia an F-14 crashed into the sea with a full load of these Phoenixes while landing. Assuming the plane carried 6 of these and that each is worth at least 3 million $ - the US lost 18 million $ worth of missiles, not to mention the 42 million $ Tomcat. :wink:

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

I would not say that they lost (as Der Maresal stated). They did manage to stop Communism from spreading into SE Asia.

Given that whole Indochina toppled like a house of cards into the Communist camp I would suggest they lost. But it was not a military defeat.

[mabadesc]

Way to go researching the Phoenix after Victor asked you the question, Maresal. :wink: But you made the mistake of answering with a full description that sounds like it's taken from an encyclopedia (te-ai dat de gol). :oops:
You should've given a brief description, that would have been more credible that you really knew the answer without looking it up.

Anyway, on to more relevant things.
Here is some military data regarding Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2. The info was gathered from cnn and Department of Defense websites.

GULF WAR I (1991)
Iraqi Losses (caused by US, not including allied caused losses)

Soldiers Killed: 30,000 – 100,000
Prisoners: 85000
Tanks Lost: 3,847
Artillery Lost: 2,917
Armored Personal Carriers Lost: 1,450


US Casualties:
148 Killed
458 Wounded
207 Killed in friendly fire or accidents
Tank Lost: 4(all to friendly fire) oops - it happens
Artillery Lost: 1
Armored Personal Carriers Lost: 9

Hmmm....3847 Iraki tanks destroyed versus 4 US tanks destroyed (by friendly fire). I would say that's a pretty good ratio...don't you think?
Soldiers KIA: US 148, Irak about 60000 estimate (range 30,000-100,000) I think these are pretty good numbers as well.


First head-to-head US/Irak tank battle as narrated by a veteran:

"Another highlight of the war took place when 1 Iraqi Republican Guard Division met up with 1 Marine Division. For the first time the US M1A1 Abrams would duel head to head with the Russian T-72 tank. When the smoke cleared about 200 Iraqi tanks, most T-72's, were destroyed without the loss of a single US tank."

Well, T-72=200, M1A1 = 0. Once again, I like those odds.



Moving on to GULF WAR 2:

As you recall, the actual war (post-war guerilla fighting excluded) took place from mid-March to beginning of May. Here are US casualties month-by-month according to cnn and DoD:

3-2003 65 US soldiers killed
4-2003 73
5-2003 37

Total during actual invasion of Irak = 175 US soldiers

(Granted, there have been considerably more casualties since then, but I'm talking about the months of the actual war - invasion).

Let's see, we have 175 dead out of approximately 300,000-400,000 US soldiers fighting during those months.

That's pretty darn good. Consider this: If you have a normal city with population of 400,000 and there are 2 fatal car accidents per day, in 3 months that would amount to 180 fatalities. The same as the number of US soldiers killed while invading Irak. Not bad, huh?

Keep in mind, though, that there have been many more casualties in the post-war Irak administration, and these continue to add up, for now. So please don't misinterpret the data, which only addresses the months of the actual war.

[mabadesc]

Maresal said a few posts ago:

QUOTE

+  -How much do these Hellfire missiles and rockets on that Apache cost?  I know an ordinary 500lb bomb is roughly $10, 000, a Sidewinder missile about $60,000, an AMRAAM AIM-120 $200,000, Maverick missile $100,000? a pod with 19 Rockets, about $10,000- And the Phoenix missile - don't ask how many millions that costs, 3M+ ?   Shooting 'Gold in the Mudd', and turning millions of dollars - up in smoke - is the American philosophy of winning wars

So what is your point exactly? What's wrong about a country buying the best/most modern equipment for its military if they have the money to do it? You said it's a waste of tax-payer money. Don't worry, most tax-payers are in agreement when it comes to the US military budget. And besides, taxes in the US are *still lower* than they are in Romania, not to mention Western Europe and Scandinavia, which have outrageously high income-taxes.
Why exactly do you resent the fact that an army can afford to research and buy modern equipment? Would you have been happier if the US air fleet consisted of Mig 21's? :wink:

Btw, they don't spend money without relevance. For instance, when it comes to bombers, most US bombers are still the good old reliable B-52's (re-equipped with modern electronics), because they proved they work just great. The B2-stealth and B1-Lancer represent only a small fraction of the US bomber fleet.
Same with the F-14 Tomcat and Bombcat. It's a rather old fighter jet, but they upgraded them and they're still using them with great results.

Best Regards.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Hmmm....3847 Iraki tanks destroyed versus 4 US tanks destroyed (by friendly fire).  I would say that's a pretty good ratio...don't you think?

Mmm I wouldn't like to argue endlessly but, well data (moreover published defense data) has always a tendency to reflect on it's owner. I doubt the Iraki has 3847 operational tanks (a third of that would be my ceiling). Most were used in fixed positions because you do not engage in swirling tank battles when the enemy has total and deadly control of the air.

So it doesn't tell much about kill ratio in pure tank to tank battle. I would recognize however that in the desert the Abrams is probably at it's best against any opposition. A good deal of that superiority would vanish I think in build up or restricted environment like you find in much of Europe for example.

[mabadesc]

Chander, you said:

QUOTE

Mmm I wouldn't like to argue endlessly...

Chander, as far as I'm concerned, you and I have been in agreement in this topic since the beginning (regarding the US military issue). You were able to separate your political views from your objective, factual views, which is more than I can say about others.
Anyway, I agree that this whole post is going nowhere. Even facts can't convince some people...

About the data.....sure, I'm not denying that some (any) data may be biaised or calculated to slightly favor its author (cnn, dod, Irak, whoever). But I don't think it's false. CNN and DoD would have too much to lose in credibility if they posted false data. I don't think they would risk it.

[inahurry]

3500 battle tanks is "slightly" distorted ? I wonder how is moderately distorted then. Mybe the countless fakes are included there.

The American losses are way below the real ones but I still can't see the point of mentioning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the eventual Iraq's defeat unless you think the same will happen in Iraq with the US forced to abandon it. Then you sure have a point.

Add around 7% of the American troops involved there who suffer to this day from serious chemical and radioactive poisoning. They aren't enlisted anymore and they will never be, because now they are unfit for the active service. And not because of age.

US official losses weren't staggering either in Korea or Vietnam compared with other countries casualties, especially Vietnam (North and South )'s but US didn't win militarily. The Iraq invasion is ongoing, it won't take long after the American withdrawal and even the US history will reflect a no-win situation. This is a very serious strategic issue already because neo-cons plans were more ambitious. If they don't abandon them (invasion of Syria for instance) the whole mess risks to set the world on fire.

[Der Maresal]

QUOTE

Way to go researching the Phoenix after Victor asked you the question, Maresal.   :wink:   But you made the mistake of answering with a full description that sounds like it's taken from an encyclopedia (te-ai dat de gol).  :oops:     You should've given a brief description, that would have been more credible that you really knew the answer without looking it up.

You underestimate me "mabadesc" ! Just because I dislike the American world does not mean I'm stupid or don't know anything about technical matters!!. On the contrary - weaponry is my specialty!

My description of the Phoenix i did not make up, nor did I went to reseach it. I actually learned about it some five years ago from a documentary named "Wings" on the discovery channel.
I don't know why think that If I'm anti-american I don't know anything about their arsenal. (on the crontrary!! :x Know you ennemy and know yourself - and you can fight 100 battles without fear of loosing!) :wink:

And since I live in the west I have access to alot more sources then you - everything ranging from Books on modern Aircraft to my huge collection of Flight Simulators like Janes, Top Gun etc etc..(with an entire encyclopedia on weapons), which includes some that not even you know.! (genious :!: )

Again, just because I don't "ass-kiss" the West like you do does not mean I know nothing about the world around me. On the countrary - I think I have found out a few secrets which compleatly changed my view of the people you regard as the "good-guys".
This naive romanian pro-americanism is typical of some - to which I see that you also belong.
I expect you will lighten up some-day, and stop underestimating those you don't like or disagree with.
:!:

[Victor]

QUOTE

Yes I do - It is carried by the F-14 Carrier Interceptor

Then if you do, why did you mention it in connection with the Irak war? It was not used.
As a side note, I do not see why one would consider it a waste, since it guarded a several billion-dollar ship and the lives of a few thousand men.

QUOTE

Given that whole Indochina toppled like a house of cards into the Communist camp I would suggest they lost

SE Asia is not just Indochina. Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Burma did not become Communist.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

SE Asia is not just Indochina. Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Burma did not become Communist.

Obviously, but the direct goal of the military intervention was to preserve South Vietnam. The US did not unload half a million soldiers at Da Nang & Cam Rahn to protect Burma or the Philippines. Maybe it did impact the political situation there, I don't know. What remains is a set of finite objectives in South Vietnam, none of which where achieved in the end. Not that many Americans are going to defend the thesis that Vietnam was a victory or even a draw of any sort. When the first T34 blasted the gates of the presidential compound in Saigon, the last illusions of face saving were gone.

My point is that I believe you need a finite/limited set of parameters to define victory or defeat. If your definition is too wide you reach no conclusion. The US clearly set these parameters itself in South Vietnam.

South Africa did not fall to communism either but I cannot consider this a victory resulting from US operations in Vietnam...

[mabadesc]

Maresal said

QUOTE

And since I live in the west I have access to alot more sources then you - everything ranging from Books on modern Aircraft to my huge collection of Flight Simulators like Janes, Top Gun etc etc..(with an entire encyclopedia on weapons), which includes some that not even you know.! (genious  )     Again, just because I don't \"ass-kiss\" the West like you do does not mean I know nothing about the world around me. On the countrary - I think I have found out a few secrets which compleatly changed my view of the people you regard as the \"good-guys\".   This naive romanian pro-americanism is typical of some - to which I see that you also belong.

Excuse me, oh, Mr. Privileged one... for forcing you to listen to a poor romanian. By the way, I wasn't going to mention this, but I also live in the West and have spent most of my life here.

Maresal:

QUOTE

Just because I dislike the American world does not mean I'm stupid or don't know anything about technical matters!!.

I never said or implied you were stupid, Maresal. You're the one who said it, not me. :wink:
I also never said you don't know *anything* about technical matters.

QUOTE

And since I live in the west I have access to alot more sources then you - everything ranging from Books on modern Aircraft to my huge collection of Flight Simulators like Janes, Top Gun etc etc

Once again, childish and irrelevent. I think most fans of this forum have a rather good reference collection, regardless of whether they live in the West, like us, or in Romania. Besides, you can get most of the info from the web. Just subscribe to Jane's News.

QUOTE

I think I have found out a few secrets which compleatly changed my view of the people you regard as the \"good-guys\".

Please enlighten us.....we'd be happy to hear the "secrets" you found out.
By the way, I don't see things in black and white. There are no good-guys and bad-guys. I don't agree with everything the US or its administration does. But if I were forced to choose between the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or Saddam and the US, I'll choose America any day of the week.

P.S. If I were you, I wouldn't mention Flight simulator games as "military reference". It only lowers your credibility. That was pretty funny, though...

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

if I were forced to choose between the Taliban or Al-Qaeda or Saddam and the US, I'll choose America any day of the week.

And if it ever comes to that, so shall I. I may well be pro- EUR I still find far more common ground with western values and US democracy than with the Al Quaeda trash.

And my wife told me not to try to put a Djelabah on her head

[Victor]

QUOTE

Obviously, but the direct goal of the military intervention was to preserve South Vietnam. The US did not unload half a million soldiers at Da Nang & Cam Rahn to protect Burma or the Philippines. Maybe it did impact the political situation there, I don't know. What remains is a set of finite objectives in South Vietnam, none of which where achieved in the end.

But unchecked Communism might have spread much morein that area, than it actually did. You cannot call it a Communist victory either.

[inahurry]

Noam Chomsky who has no real sympathy for nationalism and in his younger years inclined toward a sort of socialism-anarchism notes the main threat for US after WW2 was nationalism not communism. Before I find the relevant passages, here are a few others regarding the “rotten apple” theory, a theory which is at the base of the general aversion against nationalism and independent policies regardless of broader ideologies.

from the book What Uncle Sam Really Wants, published in 1993
Odonian Press

“The threat of a good example” - http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/...on_Example.html

“No country is exempt from U.S. intervention, no matter how unimportant. In fact, it's the weakest, poorest countries that often arouse the greatest hysteria.

Take Laos in the 1960s, probably the poorest country in the world. Most of the people who lived there didn't even know there was such a thing as Laos; they just knew they had a little village and there was another little village nearby.
...

From the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 till the collapse of the Communist governments in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s, it was possible to justify every US attack as a defense against the Soviet threat. So when the United States invaded Grenada in 1983, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff explained that, in the event of a Soviet attack on Western Europe, a hostile Grenada could interdict oil supplies from the Caribbean to Western Europe and we wouldn't be able to defend our beleaguered allies. Now this sounds comical, but that kind of story helps mobilize public support for aggression, terror and subversion.
…

This was even true in Indochina, which is pretty big and has some significant resources. Although Eisenhower and his advisers ranted a lot about the rice and tin and rubber, the real fear was that if the people of Indochina achieved independence and justice, the people of Thailand would emulate it, and if that worked, they'd try it in Malaya, and pretty soon Indonesia would pursue an independent path, and by then a significant area of the Grand Area would have been lost.

If you want a global system that's subordinated to the needs of US investors, you can't let pieces of it wander off. It's striking how clearly this is stated in the documentary record-even in the public record at times. Take Chile under Allende.
Chile is a fairly big place, with a lot of natural resources, but again, the United States wasn't going to collapse if Chile became independent. Why were we so concerned about it? According to Kissinger, Chile was a "virus" that would "infect" the region with effects all the way to Italy.
…

US planners from Secretary of State Dean Acheson in the late 1940s to the present have warned that "one rotten apple can spoil the barrel." The danger is that the "rot"-social and economic development-may spread.

This "rotten apple theory" is called the domino theory for public consumption.
…

Sometimes the point is explained with great clarity. When the US was planning to overthrow Guatemalan democracy in 1954, a State Department official pointed out that "Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon: its broad social program of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors where similar conditions prevail."

In other words, what the US wants is "stability," meaning security for the "upper classes and large foreign enterprises." If that can be achieved with formal democratic devices, OK. If not, the "threat to stability" posed by a good example has to be destroyed before the virus infects others.

That's why even the tiniest speck poses such a threat, and may have to be crushed.”

[inahurry]

QUOTE

There are more types of war. You can sweep the enemy tanks from the field, but you can get into big problems in guerilla war. But, please, tell us, which army today can defeat the Americans in a conventional war?

The "what if". Depends where the war is fought. Assuming no kind of nuclear or other "weapons of mass destruction" are used, not even the "tiny" ones, Russians on their soil and Chinese on theirs would win. On a "neutral" battlefield is very hard to tell. If oil is going to have a major economic role in the next 30 years then the battlefield is already known - Middle East, the area around the Persian Gulf. US and UK are already planning to transform Diego Garcia into the most importan military base in the world. I doubt other important countries will passively accept US control over all the important oil reserves. We'll wait and see, won't we?