Re ISIS defenses around Mosul. My son and part of his Engineering unit accompanied Kuwaiti engineers when they crossed into Iraq and broke through sand berms and tank ditches (which were filled in with berm sand). However, this was only after the Iraqi border towers had been totally wiped out so that there would be no warnings given to Iraqi artillery/tanks etc.
These were middle level berms not the big ones like the Moroccans put up to (and did) stop POLISARIO vehicle forces from raiding Army camps (which they had done very successfully until the berms went up).
Berms and trenches in front of an enemy’s position will cost you lives that you don’t want to lose. B-52’s can obliterate massive berms and trenches in a single run without losing any good guys on the ground.
If you’ve got ‘em, use ‘em.
House to house urban fighting against a fanatical force is very costly in lives, as American and Iraqi forces found out in Fallujah I and II. I would have preferred to level small areas to wipe out snipers and bunker/houses concentrations as a demonstration to those who were left as to what was coming down the pike unless they fled or surrendered.
What I would like to know is how many ISIS troops are actually occupying Mosul (a figure I’ve never seen) and how many Sunnis are actually helping them (a figure that can only be a guessestimate).
Also, has ISIS cut off escape routes for the civilian population, thus making them hostages in their own homes?
And if ISIS does flee, how, through what road routes out of the city, and to where? If we know that, we can leave them a way out and then blast the hell out of them in the open.
A few will fight to the death so it is our duty to kill them, dead.
Standoff tactics keep your casualties down while whittling down the forces of a surrounded/entrenched enemy. A good commander doesn’t sacrifice his men in frontal attacks if there are other viable alternatives available.
Kudos to your son for serving.
The combat engineers were a major force in both the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the the Desert Storm invasion. A friend of mine led a tank company into Iraq during Desert Storm, and spoke very highly of their Engineers, who breached obstacles in minutes, and buried a significant percentage of the enemy right into their positions, allowing quick breakthroughs and securing their rear as the moved to follow-on objectives. In some cases, the tanks did not even have to halt their forward movement.
In both of those cases, enemy defenses had been defeated in detail by airpower, before the assault.
I am not opposed to the use of B-52’s, or any other weapon system, I’m just saying that they are less suited to the Mosul operation (campaign, maybe), for a few reasons.
1. A dense urban environment loaded with civilians would likely produce an excess of collateral damage - not a downside for many of the cheering section here, but a big concern for commanders and their JAGs. If there are some defenses outside the city in the open, then sure, why not? Those suckers are sitting ducks. In the city, its safer for the boss’ career to let the Iraqis do the demolitions/war crimes.
2. The attack will take place under the Obama administration. They will be less likely to allow significant B-52 strikes in the city, if at all.
3. The Iraqi Gov’t should, and likely will, strongly oppose excessive damage to the city before the assault, hoping for a quick victory, and fearing the later political recriminations from locals We already see that, with the Kurds restricting rocket fire into the city.. If the attack becomes a protracted meat grinder, all bets are off though.
4. Even if we bomb a trench line, we would still need the Engineers to level a route through the debris, and clear remaining mines for vehicles to get through. A heavy armored combat earthmover could probably breach their defenses almost as quick as clear bomb damage.
5. At some critical urban chokepoints, excessive bomb damage could impede you more than the enemy obstacles (like the earlier post on Stalingrad mentioned).
6. I doubt that ISIS will be near as effective in building defenses as the Ba’ath Party was. Their strength is small unit infantry tactics, against people who are unwilling or unable to mount a good fight. No more tanks for them since airstrikes started, and little ability to use indirect artillery, much less large scale engineering.
7. They have a lot of frontage to cover around a big city, with stretched resources. What defenses they prepare could often be by-passed.
8. Hopefully, it won’t be American troops on the assault, but rather a big bunch Shia militiamen in flip-flops with AKs, led by Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen. They can throw bodies at the problem. The Kurds are a different story, but their leadership conserves their troops, unlike the current Iranian proclivity.
So B-52’s shaking them awake three nights before the assault to get them ready to run would be fine, but outside of town, with precision strikes in town.
Your proposal of leaving a door open for retreat, along a long, open “Highway of Death” kill zone, would be ideal. As you mentioned though, the civilian population will likely be fleeing as well.
Highway 1 to the West, and through Tal Afar, is the main (and only significant) route of retreat for ISIS from Mosul. If that route is blocked, the local jihadis will probably hide their guns and go back to their day jobs, while the foreigners get bayoneted.