U.S. Ships Tanks to Gulf, Bush to Make Case on Iraq

Reuters | 9/04/02 | Stefano Ambrogi

[rightwing2]

Bush sending heavy M-1 tanks to the Gulf to fight Saddam? This must really be embarrassing for the Chief of Staff of the Army and those other DoD/Army unilateral disarmers who continue to sing the siren song that "tanks are obsolete". What ever happened to Bush's secret plan to drop the 82nd airborne on Baghdad to accept the 425,000 man Iraqi Army's surrender on behalf of the US with the aid of a few thousand light infantry Special Forces troops. Why aren't we sending our Stryker armored car brigade to Iraq for battle testing. The answer-because the Stryker light armored car brigades would be utterly decimated by Saddam's heavy tank forces, but better now than later when the entire US Army is reduced to a tankless army of 1930s era armored cars armed primarily with 50 cal machine guns.

[RightWhale]

the Iraqis would emerge victorious from any showdown with their enemies.

Without a doubt. Iraq will emerge without Saddam, without the Ba'ath party, and with fresh international contracts and a lot of new foreign investment. Happy times are just around the corner.

[Maximum Leader]

Interesting you mention the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The theory that a mobilized army means war was certainly true in 1914. Once Austria-Hungary started mobilizing, Russia mobilized, in response, the Germans mobilized, in response the French mobilized. Because the mobilization orders were intricate and exact (especially, since the troops were moved by railroad, all the RR schedules had to align), once the order to mobilize was given, there was no simple way to stop the mobilization. If an army did try to stop it, they would be left hopelessly fouled up, and vulnerable to enemy invasion. So even though no one really wanted a war, there was no one to stop the slide once mobilization started.

Anyways, Barbara Tuchman wrote a book about all this in 1962 called "The Guns of August". The Cuban Missile Crisis arose a few months later and this book appears to have been on everyone's mind. JFK is quoted as saying he didn't want someone to some day write a book called "The Missiles of October" because he had blundered into a war.

So, that teacher is wrong. Our command structure is intentionally set up so that the president can change his mind at the last possible minute. So like JFK in "13 Days" (and like every skipper in every movie about the Navy), the president can yell "Belay That!" just before the balloon goes up.

[AzSteven]

Why aren't we sending our Stryker armored car brigade to Iraq for battle testing?

Well, those Strykers are the top of the line in the newest US Army technology. We wouldn't want to be unfair to Iraq by coming in with such an overwhelming technological superiority and look like bullies by sending our overpowering Strykers in. What would the UN think?

Besides, its for the children...

[rightwing2]

Well, those Strykers are the top of the line in the newest US Army technology. We wouldn't want to be unfair to Iraq by coming in with such an overwhelming technological superiority and look like bullies by sending our overpowering Strykers in. What would the UN think?

Technological superiority? Newest US Army technology. Those Stryker IAV's are thinly armored, poorly armored "death traps" that are going to get a lot of good soldiers killed in the next war--maybe as soon as Iraq this fall. Having fancy comms and neat digital displays ain't going to mean jack squat when confronted with 125mm cannon armed Iraqi T-72s or even T-55s for that matter. The Iraqi tanks will wipe them out. Won't even be a contest. Imagine the headlines--"Top of the line US Army Stryker Brigade smashed by Saddam's armor". We don't want to give Saddam that kind of propaganda victory, now do we? I'd really like to see you explain exactly how you think 50 cal MG armed Stryker armored cars are going to deal with Saddam's 2200 tanks or even his 3700 BMPs and BTRs for that matter.

[hchutch]

Agreed. I'd rather have M8 Bufords over the LAV Strykers.

But the LAV-25 is better than the M113, IMHO.

Personally, my view on the "Modernization" is that we ought to add two or three "light" (relatively light) armored cav regiments that could be deployed somewhere. Same organization as a heavy unit, but replacing M1A2s with the M8 and M3s with the LAV-25.

[AzSteven]

I'd really like to see you explain exactly how you think 50 cal MG armed Stryker armored cars are going to deal with Saddam's 2200 tanks or even his 3700 BMPs and BTRs for that matter.

The Iraqis will be utterly devastated, of course. Shinseki says so. And just imagine when the third-generation version of the Stryker, code--named 'Slapper' comes out. Armed with the latest in .22 LR single-shot weapons, and protected with a dense coating of Pentagon papier-mache.

(The original post was intended to be sarcasm, but I forgot the little 'sarcasm' symbol. But I suppose the Iraqis could be hurt from shrapnel from exploding Strykers, of course...)

[rightwing2]

The Iraqis will be utterly devastated, of course. Shinseki says so. And just imagine when the third-generation version of the Stryker, code--named 'Slapper' comes out. Armed with the latest in .22 LR single-shot weapons, and protected with a dense coating of Pentagon papier-mache. (The original post was intended to be sarcasm, but I forgot the little 'sarcasm' symbol. But I suppose the Iraqis could be hurt from shrapnel from exploding Strykers, of course...)

ROFLOL!!! Yes, I agree the Iraqis might take collatoral damage from exploding Strykers. BTW, the Army recently came out with a new bulletproof vest. I strongly suggest that Stryker crewman wear them at all times because they will need them to protect against new Russian tungsten carbide 7.62 AP and standard issue 14.5mm HMG AP bullets bouncing around inside the Stryker crew/troop carrying compartments. Incidentally, I have been inside a Stryker prototype at the Pentagon. The vehicle has a high profile. Stryker troops cannot fight mounted. The Remote Weapons System cannot fire on the move. These and many other reasons are why 13 out 14 Strykers in the Stryker company at Millenium Challenge 2002 were destroyed before they were resurrected by the armored car generals in order to avoid a public relations disaster for the Army leadership.

[colorado tanker]

"Bush sending heavy M-1 tanks to the Gulf to fight Saddam? This must really be embarrassing for the Chief of Staff of the Army and those other DoD/Army unilateral disarmers who continue to sing the siren song that "tanks are obsolete". What ever happened to Bush's secret plan to drop the 82nd airborne on Baghdad to accept the 425,000 man Iraqi Army's surrender on behalf of the US with the aid of a few thousand light infantry Special Forces troops. Why aren't we sending our Stryker armored car brigade to Iraq for battle testing. The answer-because the Stryker light armored car brigades would be utterly decimated by Saddam's heavy tank forces, but better now than later when the entire US Army is reduced to a tankless army of 1930s era armored cars armed primarily with 50 cal machine guns."

LOL! Well, as you know, Stryker struck out. Looks like the adults, who would actually have to fight in Iraq, are in charge now. I don't care how lousy the Iraqi soldiers are, I still want my Abrams.

[hchutch]

And if they want air-deployable armor, BRING BACK THE M8.

[mhking]

The United States will ship tanks and heavy armor to the Middle East this month as President Bush tries to garner domestic support for efforts to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Let's try that sentence again:

The United States will ship more tanks and heavy armor to the Middle East this month as President Bush tries to garner domestic support for efforts to tells Congress and the American people what we will do to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

[rightwing2]

But the LAV-25 is better than the M113, IMHO.

This of course is a moot issue since the LAV-25 was rejected by the Army as being impossible to fit on a C-130 just as the Stryker MGS is impossible to fit on a C-130. The LAV-25 has more firepower than a standard issue M-113. However, M-113 can be fitted with guns as large as 76mm and has been by many of our allies. Even with a 76mm turret, the M-113 would be C-130 transportable because it is tracked and has a lower profile than a LAV-25. The other problem with LAVs is that they are road-bound. They have little to no battlefield tactical mobility and as Millenium Challenge proved they are very susceptable to flat tires even without live ammo being fired on the battlefield! 13 Stryker tires had to be replaced during the four day Millenium Challenge exercise totalling 6% of the Stryker companies tires. Each one of those vehicles could have been turned from mobility kills to hard kills while changing their tires. With flying bullets, we could see 75-100% mobility kills for the wheeled Stryker WW2 relic design vehicles.

[colorado tanker]

"And if they want air-deployable armor, BRING BACK THE M8." Amen! Sing it brother!

[hchutch]

I like your re-write much better. Much closer to the truth.

[Highest Authority]

I vote for nukes in the first strike! That would definitely cause a lot of "wet sand" under those arab robes! It would end the conflict instantly!!

[Jake0001]

How about the weasel approach?

We start bombing the crap out of Baghdad with conventional bombs and all the sudden it lights up in a nuclear explosion.

Explanation? Saddam MUST have had a bomb and our bombing inadvertantly detonated it.

[Almondjoy]

First use of nukes is a bad idea.. if we did and go unpunished just wait till China decides to wipe out Japan and Taiwan for regional dominance.. and what the hell would we do without the Finnish? You know Crazy Ivan is gonna truck a bomb over there simply because they were embarassed by them during WWII.

[reagan_fanatic]

"We have prevailed before and we will also prevail in Umm al-Ma'arik
(the Mother of All Battles) in the end, God willing,"

Ever notice how every boast, every threat these diaper-heads make
against the United States always ends with 'God willing...?'

I think the English translation should be 'If we're lucky..'