Got something I would like to bounce off of those here for comments, ideas, suggestions, and even flames. Group I hang out with are always futzing about with various scenarios from various time frames ranging from the second world war to the next one. We've used various rules systems to game them out, and the current debate is on how things aught to be done (Yes, its a dead horse here).

Currently, I'm putting together a combined arms company like everyone else, with the idea is something along the lines of a well manned us cav troop mixed in perhaps with a little infantry.

I'm giving it a pair of command variant IFV's in the HQ along with a APC and a TOC, a maintenance section of 2 ARV's, a mortar section (Using the AMOS) of 2 SPM's, 3 platoons of 6 IFV's with 5-6 man sections in each, and a 4th platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles (that could be held as a support force or chopped into 3 two vehicle sections attached to the first three platoons).

Naturally it being me, these are all CV90 based, but, the idea is to give a balance of mobile firepower, with enough boots to actually be able to do something outside the vehicles without being stretched.

So, am I missing something, is this to off the wall, or?

How about this, for the 3 platoons. Have two APC with 9 man squad, four IFV or (two IFVs and two AFVs) with small section carrying capabilities. The APC would have something similar to .50 caliber and 40 mm Grenade launcher. This would give you an almost well rounded assortment of weapons, and still give you full dismounted infantry platoon when needed.

With the platoon of 6 Large Caliber Gun vehicles, make two platoons one standard 4-tank Platoon and then 6 vehicle platoon that LCG or something like the M901. Where the 6 vehicle platoon can be either farmed out to the three main platoons or used to protect their own sector as needed, their could be command vehicle for this platoon where the platoon leader doubles as operation officer for the company. The tank platoon could be the muscle that is needed or used as point during move out.

Yes, I know in theory this would be a very large company, but I see the one platoon mostly operating as section attached to the other platoons during most operations, adding to those platoon firepower. Also each of these platoons would have the manpower on the ground too. If the Company gets into position where they have too operate in fair size town they have enough men on the ground and still can have fair size reaction force too.

Another option is to have two of the hybrid infantry platoons in some six vehicle combination like the old ARC scout platoons with two tank platoons with again an addition 6 LCG/Anti-tank Missile Platoon that could be farmed out as needed.

Just some thoughts.

I thought about a 5th platoon, but three things kept me from doing so:

1, I thought it was getting a little on the cumbersome side, and the more vehicles the more of a tail the notational higher level unit needs.
2, I always liked the 3 line platoon, 1 weapons platoon format that the Wehrmacht used in the second world war - and occasionally you would find a pair of morts in the HQ section.
3, But most importantly, we have some limits on what we could do: No upper limits on spending - yet - but the manpower limits are in the 150-250 men range, so had to take that into account.

I based it off of the current ACR troop, but instead of straight up Cav, I flexed towards Mounted Rifle, sort of a primarily recce, but with the manpower to do line if needs be. Hence the larger number of not only dismounts, but IFV's as well. I went with 3 squads of 2 sections to keep manpower down, while making sure that the vehicles can actually carry them and their equipment easily.

I seriously considered doing the APC/IFV mix: And I might do so if the group puts a spending limit on us, I figure for most uses, a OWS is good enough. If the platoon is mixed APC/IFV, or if 3rd is a 'shock' platoon with IFV's and the first two with APC's is still up in the air. I am leaning to shock just for the coolness factor of it. :)

The thing back in the late 1980s when Mechanized Battalion was suppose to have 4 Mechanized Companies, HQ, HCC, Support Company as well as the Anti-tank Company. Like the Light Infantry cousins with their Weapons Company, the Company rarely served as combat unit in the field with the platoons and sections attach directly to the other combat units and HQ/HCC.

About the only time they did serve together was when the Battalion would be in the defensive position and they would cover high speed avenues of approaches to the defensive position that the cross-attach armor company(ies) didn't cover. Also during the offensive they and the various M113 based vehicle was limiting factor of how fast the battalion could move forward. Kinda hard to move to fast when many of the FO, FIST, and Ambulance were still based on them.

Yeah never understood how anyone could think 4 M2 or 6 M3 could provide the proper number of dismounts for an Mechanized Infantry or Cavalry/Armor Cavalry platoon to perform their functions. Then again with some Divisional Cavalry and Battalion Scout Platoon converting to 6 HMMWV still had limited number of dismounts, for the Divisional Cavalry and Battalion Scout Platoon you wanted to have smaller dismounts for it was their job to screen, locate, and give the information to higher HQs.

Where the Armor Cavalry had this mission at Corps-level as well as misleading the enemy recon units in to thinking they were facing a much stronger force than a Troop, Squadron or Regiment. Thus tying up resources before their main body ran into the Corps main body.

Yeah it is the one things I don't understand with the 2nd ACR now being Stryker Brigade and plans of changing the 3rd ARC into one. They have increase manpower, but they exchange the increase of manpower with the lost of combat punch.

I find it ironic that the new Heavy Brigades are similar to Armor Combat Commands of World War II. With similar irony that when these Brigades and the new Infantry Brigades were deployed they usually had third combat battalion attached to the Brigades. Rarely when they did deployed a Heavy and Infantry Brigade would also cross-attach a Battalion to give the lighter armed Infantry Brigade some punch and Heavy Brigade more manpower on the ground.

So yeah having a Company with up to 5 combat platoons seems to unwieldy. Yet, like I said the one platoon parsed out to the other platoons. Having 3 mounted infantry platoons companies would serve as the Mechanized companies/troops while the other company with 2 Infantry and 2 Tank platoons would served 'ideal' mix to give armor punch, but still have plenty of boots on the ground.

What's the cost of an M2 or M3 compared to a Stryker?
What's the cost of maintenance?

Which one looks better on the annual budget papers?

In other words, which one can the politicians point to and say, "yes, we have more armoured vehicles on the ground at a reduced cost"?

Yeah only if the Stryker and it family of vehicle had been able to do what they were suppose to do, but that is another story.

Reason they weren't adopted before 2000, was that at the same time when the Army had been testing the LAV-25 with Marine Corps, the plans were in motion to buy the M2/M3 family for the Mechanized forces. I have always felt that the Wheeled Mechanized Brigade would fit in the US Army, especially like say the second Mechanized Brigade of the Mechanized Divisions and with the 2nd Infantry Division. Many other nations had done this with many of their Mechanized Division with one Brigade/Regiment being track and rest wheeled.

Yet, the M2/M3 was too new and they didn't want to dilute the supply chain with another vehicle since the older M113 and it variants would still be soldiering on for many years to come. What I find ironic is the Stryker Brigades are the only Brigades still established with 3 Stryker Infantry Battalions while the Heavy and Infantry Battalion have 2 Heavy Task Forces or Infantry Battalion(Light).

It sad that even the last true ACR is being converted to Stryker Brigade, had hoped that at least one decent Brigade size unit would survive intact...*ugh*

On side note if they took a Stryker Battalion from every two Stryker Brigades and move things around they would still be able to raise the 5th Brigade the Army had planned on being Infantry Brigades but cancelled in early 2010....Oh Well.

As mentioned in another thread, the Iraqi army has spent over two billion dollars on US equipment over the past few years, including such things as ODS Brads and M1A1SA's. Just enough of both to equip an "elite" division extremely well, while the rest will be getting rebuilt WarPac grade (The high end granted) equipment. So far, the universal opinion is that now the Iraqi's really have a good grasp at just how game changing the M1 is when it comes to armoured warfare in the region, and how much training makes a difference. At any rate, even though they have not received them all yet, nor have the finished training all the personnel that will field this largesse of stuff, they are already looking at their most likely threats (Iran and Turkey) and seeing something they might change. Was talking with a buddy is part of the US troops training them and he says their officers are already pointing out that M1's, and in particular this division, is not equipped nor trained for urban combat, but for open field. And since they don't have to worry about trees and such blocking turret traverse, how hard will it be to install a longer calibre gun tube in the Abrams, if not a 140? Seems that they accept the fact that they won't get their hands on DU ammo, so are looking for ways to maximize what they do have.

Yeah it is grand we are re-arming their elite unit with our ancient materials of war while the rest of their army is still Pact armed.

Still, experience has shown that 20+ year old western cast-offs appear to be better quality than the best they already had. You would expect a tank should be able to withstand a shot or two from it's enemy counterpart and be able to return effective fire. From what we know the T-72's etc popped like a pricked balloon, even before they knew the M1s and Challengers were there.

Actually, the M1's are not cast offs: They are fresh off the refurbishment line at Lima. Damn near brand spanking new - newest ones around actually, and will all have the latest goodies save for Battlefield Management. From what I understand, the Brads are also being rebuilt to new condition as well. I hear A3, but most places I have read all say ODS, so, I'm leaning to the majority on this one.

From what I understand, most armies are replacing their DU-based penetrators with tungsten-based penetrators due to fears (possibly unfounded) of hazmat problems on battlefields and ranges. Anyone have current experience or knowledge on this?

Cast offs, downgrades, whatever - they're not the absolute best available anyway.

No idea, we was issued DU when we rolled into Iraq, even got to shoot a few off at live targets, but never heard word one on if it was bad for us or not. And with the e-kick the military was on, if there was any hard evidence to that, they would have said something. So my money is on none to negligible negative impact. In honesty the environmental impact from using tanks is worse than any effect DU has in my opinion. After all, the D stands for Depleted. IE: Safe, Non Radioactive, not bad for you 'less you get hit with it, and so on and so forth. As to the spalling, anything will cause that, hell WP is worse.

Of course not, no one has gotten any of the full up SEP's except for the US. Thats fairly obvious. Even you all only got the M1A1SA's... which come to think of, so did the Iraqi's.

Granted, the SA isn't a bad tank, almost as good as a SEP, and just as good in all the ways that really count when its time to lay tube on target.

Actually the T-72 we encounter in Iraqi as well as all Pact/Soviet/Russia vehicles were the actual top of the line models one would find say in the Russia or other Soviet Republics military arsenals. Even with their allies in the Warsaw Pact wouldn't get the same capabilities built in as their Soviet counterparts.

Still up until the the US M1 and other NATO tanks of that generation of AFVs started to come online, the Soviets T-62, T-64, and T-72 units probably would probably been able to carry the day easily due to sheer numbers. It one of the reasons it took over 10+ years and couple false starts for the US to come up with the replacement for the M60 MBT.

It still makes one wonder though for lot of the Pact units were still equipped with T-55 and T-62s. They were still in the process of updating the front line units in the Warsaw Pact even as the wall coming down with the major exception being the East German Army which seemed to be more heavily armed as their units were suppose to function as components of the Soviet Armies...*shrug*

One of the main reasons that the T-55 was kept in service in the Warsaw Pact countries is that, for its environment, it was a good tank. The perceived battle ground of West Germany has a lot of terrain that doesn't allow for long range tank sniping. One NATO study gives an average range of 900 meters, well within effective range of the 100mm main gun. The Soviets (and the WP) trained for short range engagements, where whoever gets the first round off, wins the fight. They also used an intresting gunnery technique that compensated for the poor fire control system.

You see, the Russians do not practise one-on-one engagements.

What they practise is platoon-on-one engagements. A typical four-tank platoon would start with the platoon leader's tank calling out his estimated range and firing. The second tank in the platoon, would call out their adjustment and fire, then the third and fourth tanks would repeat the process. With four tanks engaging, the assumption is that the NATO tank would find itself overwhelmed by targets and forced into breaking off its engagement by firing its smoke grenades or abandoning its fighting position, thus allowing the Soviet platoon to close the range and negate the superior NATO fire control systems.

It was only with the issue of the new generation of laser-rangefinders and digital computers that NATO was able to come with a counter to this technique.

As for a lot of the T-55s poor rep...it has a lot to do with the Middle East Wars of 1967 and 1973...the T-55 was used in an environment that allowed for long range sniping by tanks as well as terrain that features dunes and sharper hills than those found in the Central Russian steppes. Here the numerous design flaws of the T-5s were brought into view and ruthlessly exploited by the IDF.

That and the pure numbers of T-55s produced. Yeah, it always been the Soviets goal attempt to overwhelm an enemy tank with the numbers games.

And why not...it worked in the World War II and the Russians have also been big fans of don't mess with a working method.

Was websearching and came across a fansite; one of the postings was a modified US OOB for Twilight 2000. In this OOB, the writer had several units activated; now some of them I can understand, like reactivating the 4th Armored Division and sending it to the Persian Gulf; reactivating ACRs like the 10th and 14th and sending one to Europe and one to the Persian Gulf. Okay, gives some badly needed firepower for the XVIII Airborne and I Amphibious Corps....

But it was his reactivation of the 11th, 13th and 17th Airborne Divisions that raised an eyebrow. I know I'm going to start a major flame war, but this is my opinion; the age of throwing airborne divisions into major operations via transport aircraft ended with World War Two. Nowdays, the "Airborne" portion simply means that the division has strategic mobility via the Air Force. I feel that Desert Storm simply confirmed that while it is very easy to transport several thousand paratroopers to a distant theater, their ability to project power is limited to how far they can march in a day. This is the major drawback of the light divisions and the reason why the US Army is moving to the medium division format. Light Divisions are to light to project power and Heavy Divisions tie up too much strategic sealift in sending them to the area of operations.

Now, by no means am I slamming the Light fighters, I have the deepest respect for them, I am simply questioning their ability to project power. Tactically, they have a range of about 30 miles, they do not have the ability to transport enough supplies to sustain operations without the assignment of transportation companies. They truely are a case of "too little tail, not enough teeth."

Now I have strapped on my flame-proof longjohns, put on my SCBA....FLAME AWAY!

No more airborne divisions?
 

No argument from me, at least as far as new divisions.

I like an idea that I remember reading in Patton's "War as I knew it," in which he recommended a parachute regiment for each Army, for quick-grab operations, like a bridge in the enemy rear. With the advent of helicopters, I think some kind of air-assault unit on call for a corps or army commander would be a handy force-multiplier.

I point out that the Soviets apparently agreed, and there was an air-assault brigade assigned to each Front, and another for the Shock Army/Tank Armies that were supposed to be the breakthrough and exploitation forces. These were in addition to the airborne-mechanized divisions held in strategic reserve.

For me, I guess for the US, I would have liked to make that a Ranger unit (company/battalion) semi-attached to a corps' helicopter brigade. It could be dropped or choppered to some location really quickly. If not Rangers, then consider them light dragoons, and we are back to the cavalry theme of this thread. :rolleyes:

I for one would like to see a "reasonable" expansion of the Ranger Program, something capable of the missions that the Ranger Battalions were intended for. While a battalion per corps may be too much, I can see two battalions assigned to each theater.

Honestly the formation of 11th, 13th, and 17th Airborne Divisions to me wouldn't be much, if they were treated as holding unit with at least one of the Brigades airborne-trained and the other Air Assault/Air mobile trained. Still having a Division at Army/Army Group levels would give major command enough troops that one could move in to take Bridge or something like that as needed and allowing the Brigades enough time to train and absorb replacement in between operations. Even if these Divisions only had two Brigade Combat Teams it would still give Army Group Commanders, or UN Korea Command option they wouldn't have.

Even WWII showed a military force that got to cocky with their Airborne troops, would attempt foolishness that could only be topped by the other side couple years later. Crete and Market Garden proved the limitation. It interesting that the last airdrop in Europe was more of tactical one much similar to what today Air Assault/Air mobile troops fill in today.

I do remember that even though at time the West German Army had an HQ for their Airborne Division each of the operational Brigades were tasked to a Corps.

As for the 4th Armored along with the 10th and 14th ACR would of seemed to make sense. Especially if they were heading out to the Middle East and Korea.

Yeah I would think there would be some type of expansion and not likely to find the entire Regiment in the Middle East since they were suppose to operate as independent Battalions or smaller size unit during operations.

It is one of the things that having in theory, that the 82nd Airborne, 101st Air Assault, and 10th Mountain Divisional HQ, are suppose to be able integrate into their Division the new Infantry and Heavy Brigade seamlessly. It is one of the things when you look at the various Division Commanders in the Army, not only these three Divisions, but Army-wide.

Several of the Division Commanders of these three Division rarely spent time outside of the XVIII Airborne Corps, the 75th Ranger Regiment, or Special Forces community. What time they did, it was a tour here in Germany or Korea, some time at the Pentagon, but most of their postings rotated around these type of units. Where as the other side of the coin the rest of the Divisional Commander of the for other Divisions served largely in Mechanized, Armor, and Armor Cavalry with various stints in with Light units.

Results have been that many of the Heavy Divisional Commanders do know the limitation that the Light force bring to their Operational Mix, while the Light Divisional Commanders seem so sure they could do so much more that the Heavy Divisional Commanders realized all too well.

As for the Army heading toward more and more to Medium scale force, well it what the the 6th, 7th, 25th Light Infantry Division as with the 9th Motorized Division should of been organized with maybe one Brigade of each of the mention Light Division being organized into Light Infantry Brigade for air mobility, but that would of been stretch in itself since the 25th and 7th basically shed their heavy equipment to become Light units....

Been thinking over those ideas of a hip pocket force at the corp level, and I am thinking that it really is a good idea. Maybe even at the divisional level. Some sort of hip pocket force, much more mobile than the division that its part of of, as some sort of 'elite' company that can be pulled out and used for those really hairy missions that has to go off - and do so faster than the divisions normal assets would allow.

If you look at the deployments for the 82nd Airborne Division it was usually 2 Brigade size elements during it larger deployments, with the notable exception of 1990-1991 and 2003. While most of the time the 101st and 82nd sent out Battalion size task forces out for most deployments, which invariably included other sub-units of the XVIII Airborne Corps in support.

The main reason why they still have XVIII Airborne Corps around with these two Divisions is because it sounds nice when you can claim to assets in the air on the ground in so many hours. It was part of the reason why the 9th Infantry Division was a test unit for so long, part of their goal was to help give the 6th, 7th, 25th Light and 10th Mountain Division Medium Brigade to support the two Light Brigades. Then again we know where history went on that before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Especially when you consider the 6th, 7th, and 25th along with the 9th probably would be the first units shipped to Korea if they were needed first. Now with the 2nd ID only having forward it Heavy Brigade and the other 3 Brigades are stationed at Fort Lewis home of the 9th Motorized Infantry Division 'Test Bed'. The main difference once the 2nd Infantry and 25 Infantry are finally deployed fully to Korea there will be 8 Combat Brigades as oppose 11 regular duty Combat Brigade under the older system. *Shrug*

I can see 82nd as strategic reserve; with the division joining the XVIII Airborne in the Persian Gulf, there would be a need to rebuild the strategic reserve, but with the pressures of supporting three overseas and one CONUS front, I doubt if the manpower/training time to organize another airborne division.

I can see a airborne brigade, perhaps, but I think it would be more likely that there would be a couple of airmobile brigades and 1-2 light divisions.

In the Twilight timeline I can see SEATF being upgraded to brigade level (and yes, call it the 173rd), this would give the ACE Mobile Force a major reinforcement, high likely to go either to Turkey or to southern Germany following the Italian attack.

Got to admit, I'm a fan of the ACRs being reactivated, in their heavy level of organization, they would make a great fire brigade for RDF/Korea!

Like I said I doubt any of those three Division would be completely Airborne or Air Assault trained. Maybe a Brigade or two at best. Say one Division HQ of each moving to Korea and Europe and keeping one in the states.

The Korea one would probably take administration and operational function of Air Assault Brigade of the 2nd and airborne units sent there.

The one Europe could provide support to the an expanded 173rd Airborne, but also NATO with the ability of deploying Airborne/Air Assault/Airmobile Division where need with the other Brigades for such operation coming from other members of NATO.

The Division left in the State would be administrative HQ, with Brigades at Bragg, Benning, and Campbell for training purposes with another active Brigade ready for deployment.

Just some thoughts.

So would you think that if more ACR were activated would they be more along the lines of the traditional ACRs or would make the one being sent to the XVIII Airborne Corps a lighter and leaner version?

While I feel that sending a traditional "Heavy" ACR would give more punch to the XVIII than a light, it would be more likely that it will be one of these hyped-up Hummer/TOW outfits that gets created.

In a perfect world, where I'm SECDEF (LOL) I would push for a heavy ACR preloaded just for the PG and I don't think it would be a bad idea to assign two. A pair of heavy ACRs could raise holy hell in the area!

Yeah I would tend to agree to you, and yeah two traditional would give the Corps the additional back-bone that would give it ability to take on forces they might face. Leave the HMMWV/TOW outfit to bulk up the Airborne and Air Assault units.

The one interesting thing is that during the operation in 2003 when Heavy units were flown into Norther Iraq after the 173rd had secured airfields. Not the most effective way to get heavy equipment into the airhead, but it was proof it could be done. Yet, like many things, after the first time you do a trick, the next time they will know what you were up too, when tried again.

I nominate that last it as the understatement of the month. :)

The 3rd, when we rolled in, from what I saw of not only Iraqi units, but Kuwaiti ones as well, could easily manhandle units three times its size, and thats without the Air Force/Navy air strikes. Send a couple of Heavy ACR's, back them with a pair of carriers in the gulf, and they would own anything they wanted.

Yeah, that is why the 24th then the 3rd Mech after being re-flagged was assigned to the XVIII Airborne Corps with the hopes that this unit would be enough. Even though the active components of this Division probably would of been diverted to Europe if there was chance for it becoming an active battlefield to reinforce even temporary the units of the III Corps. At least until the National Guard units were brought up to speed.

Always felt that the 194th, 197th, and both Brigades of the 24th Mechanized probably would ended up in Europe. The assigned Round out Brigades then would shipped out to the Persian Gulf to build the 24th Mechanized Division and possible a new formed Armored Division. Also I could see the 40th Mechanized Division ending up in either Korea or Persian Gulf before ending up in Europe due to their west coast location.

LOL!

I have never understood why the equipment for a ACR was never pre-loaded...it was always a Marine Brigade or an Airborne Task Force...Iraq, at one time, could field more MBTs than anyone else in the region...so expecting that a couple of light brigades would serve as much more than a speed bump always seemed the height of stupidity. After all, if the equipment is there, than all ya need is to fly the crews in, and wasn't that what was expected of the lights?

If I had been Saddam, sure as hell, the Coalition would not have been given months to build up and ship heavy divisions in and bring in air wings. After all, the last time paratroopers went toe-to-toe with an armored division, they got their asses handed to them! TOWs and Dragons are nifty little toys and they sure beat the hell out of 6-pounder antitank guns and PIATs, but like any ATGM, they have a lot of drawbacks and I would not want to see what happened when a half-way decent armordivision commander, grins and yells "GO FOR IT!"

Sitting here typing this, I have an ex-zoomie telling me about how the Air Farce won Desert Storm. If you have the time to fly in the air wings and ship the bombs and missiles in, then the ole AF can be a real decent equalizier...but if Saddam had the balls, the olnly thing he would have had to worry about would have been a couple of Carrier Air Wings initially, and if he had used his air force, then the 82nd and Marines would have fought under a neutral sky at best...and then it would have been lights against heavys....and what a fight that would have been!

The sad thing only ACR that could of been touch before the fall of the Berlin Wall was the one based out of TX. I forget if it was the 2nd or 3rd, always confuse which one was where without looking it up. I wanna say the 3rd ACR, anyways they were the only ACR the US could move without NATO throwing a shit fit. For that matter any unit of the III Corps being used elsewhere caused some members to worry. Especially the one who realized of the 5 Divisions that were part of the III Corps only the two that had forward deployed Brigades had on paper their entire force, with the other three Division relying on round-out Brigades.

Never understood why he stopped: A 24 hour stand-down would have doctrinally correct with the pact style doctrine they used, in fact, I assumed that was what was going on. Even 72hrs may have been possible, but past that, there was no chance to go south. One of the many what-if's I like to think about is what-if he followed doctrine and swung south 24-36 hours after he swept the last of the Kuwaiti resistance away?

This has been wargamed, both officially and by wargamers, the results have been surprisingly even. In every game, if Saddam goes for broke after nailing Kuwait, he's well into Saudi Arabia before the US can intervene effectively. I've seen the coastal strip on the Saudi side of the PG go down, the capital fall, in one game I've even seen Mecca fall to the Republican Guard. Most of the games have Saddam taking the key oil fields AND managing to hold them in the wake of an Coalition counterattack. And the wargames always wind up with a light brigade drawing a line in the sand. And then getting smoked when the Republican Guard goes for broke. Maybe its the wargammer's last round mentality...but dropping a shitload of heavy artillery on paratroopers and then following up with three armored divisions on a narrow front......well, George Patton always claimed that the best use for enemy soldiers was greasing his tank's tracks....just don't think he meant it this way!

Agreed: Field day for a few weeks until we can get enough heavy stuff (Be it armour or air) to really slow him down or stop him - and I'd hate to be one of the airborne speedbumps flown in those first few days. My question is: With Saddam going south, and taking lumps eventually from allied forces, would Iran go west seeing a chance to bite off a chunk of Iraq?