Posted on 03/31/2005 5:20:31 AM PST by IAF ThunderPilot
All I can say is, thank you, Israel! :)
This was, I believe, a money issue. Saddam may have had some modern AT missile systems (there were reports, later disputed, that the Iraqis had some of the Russian "Kornet" ATGMs), but for the most part he hoarded his "oil for food" money, or spent it on new palaces.
Cheers and thumbs up to you from Virginia, Ivan. To use the old Southern expression: preach it, brother!
This suggests that some rethinking of equipment is in order. Assymetrical warfare presents different needs and requires different technology. Such warfare is likely to be with us for awhile.
IMO the biggest mistake of this war was not anticipating the terrorism after. It is the Islamist trademark.
Saddam didn't possess anti-ERA weapons. And I don't think it was a money issue. He had unlimited money to buy such things, and no embargo would have stopped him.
Because he didn't have anti-ERA weapons, they didn't therefore, fall into the hands of the insurgents.
The U.S. Military entered Iraq without ERA on its vehicles.
So, did the military enter Iraq knowing full well that Saddam did not possess anti-ERA weapons? Was this an intelligence failure?
At some point in time, it became evident to the military that they really, really needed ERA.
When did the military realize that it needed ERA? Was it before it entered into Iraq, when they would be in full battle contact with the Iraqis, expecting, I assume, that the Iraqis would possess anti-ERA weapons, or was it after it entered Iraq and the insurgents began to use conventional weapons against troops in vehicles not protected by ERA?
"The rush deliveries were part of the US military's effort to slow the damage done by roadside mines, explosive charges and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which have killed more than 150 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Actually anti-ERA weapons are mainly improved tank shells & anti-tank missiles with tandem warheads-while these are not impossible to get,they are not as easily available on the black market or through 'dark' government contracts.It was reported that the Iraqi army did have a few Kornet missiles(from Syria),though some reports now rubbish that claim.
I think your post itself answers your query-the US did not anticipate this scale of insurgency.Most of the weapons the Slammics used-mines,RPGs etc were easily available & darn cheap.
Thank you Israel.
M-1 Abrams Tank Proves Useful, Vulnerable In Iraq
(Washington Times, March 31, 2005, Pg. 9)
The Army's M1 Abrams tank unexpectedly has proven to be one of the best weapons in close-range urban warfighting in Iraq, but its once invincible image has been shattered by an inventive enemy. Insurgents have destroyed more than 20 of the 68-ton armored fortresses and disabled scores more, not with sophisticated anti-tank weapons, but with relatively crude rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.
Regards
I visited Dachau once, in 1981, while I was in the USAF and stationed in Germany. It was ghastly and educational. I saw the monument there, saying in French, Russian, German and English (I think it was those languages) NEVER AGAIN. Only time will tell if those words are true.
If you are referring to "intelligence" in the sense of "reconnaissance and surveillance" the answer in this case is "no". Of course, you can never know what you don't know, and tandem warhead rounds aren't like tanks or tactical ballistic missiles that have a rather large "footprint". For example, if Saddam Hussein had believed that we were spending a ton of money on ERA prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, he might have prevailed on his contract Russian generals to purchase more tandem warhead systems/rounds for him. On the other hand, if you mean "intelligence failure" in the sense that senior commanders have not had the intelligence or common sense to listen to what their Military Intelligence personnel have been telling them for decades about the "rear area threat" posed by Soviet SPETSNAZ or North Korean unconventional warfare forces (which had the potential to be a far more serious threat than the Iraqi insurgents), then "intelligence failure" may be an operative term.
Then again, as Secretary Rumsfeld suggested, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you wish you had. There is no "perfect mix" of "light" and "heavy" forces for every conceivable contigency. Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom the Left's military martyr, then Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki (i.e. he who was "so right" and "so prescient" about how many "boots on the ground" would be needed to pacify Iraq), was frantically trying to strip the armor from military vehicles so that they would be more "air transportable". One by-product of this was the "Stryker" light armored vehicle, which was "retro-fitted", post OIF, with anti-RPG screens to give it the ballistic protection Eric the All-Knowing never intended it to have (like the WWII "tank destroyer", the Stryker was supposed to use its superior speed and enhanced "target acquistion" capabilities to protect it from the threats posed by Russian-made main battle tanks, and from ATGM/RPG equipped infantry). Naturally, every military commander would like all their vehicles, even the mobile mess truck, to be armored, all-terrain, amphibious and fast, but the tax-payers wouldn't even want to contemplate the prospects of paying for such a force.
Reactive armor for the Bradley was being made in 2001. Don't know if it was made for US before, but it was made long before the Iraq insurgency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.