Fiddle's Green

[dragoon500ly]

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!

[Adm.Lee]

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.

[dragoon500ly]

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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.

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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....

[Panther Al]

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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*

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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.

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!

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

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!

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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!

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.

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.

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!

[Abbott Shaull]

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.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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!

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?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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!

[Panther Al]

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?

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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?

The primary question is just how much and how fast heavy stuff could have been transported in, remember that it took almost 20 days to ship armor and supplies from CONUS and get them through the Suez Canal, and if Saddam had been able to close the canal down, even if only for a few weeks....the transit time around the Horn of Africa would have added another 15 days easy...the only hope of slowing down Saddam would have been if Egypt had been able to push through two or more corps into the fight, something that would have been very hard to pull off in real life.

As for navy air....the carrier in the Med could have been pulled through the canal within the first days of the fighting, PacFlt could have chopped one and possibly two carriers so the initial support would have been 3 CAWs, maybe 200 combat aircraft? While the Air Force could have shifted 2-3 wings, but its the logistic support that would have been the real stumbling block...in the pre Desert Storm days, it flat out didn't exist in the size needed to take on Iraq at the time.

So with Saddam and the Coalition engaged in a nasty dog fight, would Iran have been able to push. I doubt it. Iran took severe losses in equipment and manpower.

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah, well it one of those things. I think Persian Gulf War, Saddam had several things to worry about.

1st off he always wanted to appear to be much stronger than he forces really were.

2nd off there was alway exposing himself from attack from his other neighbors. Iran had grudge, of course they were still in rebuilding phase after their battles with the Iraqis. Then there was always fear of Turkish Troops in the north who would of course been in pursuit of those troublesome Kurds. Syria even though both were ruled by Parties with the same name, they weren't on the most friendly of terms, as was proven with a Syrian units in the coalition troops. Jordan wasn't much of friend.

3rd the further he moved from his supply depots the more exposed his forward units would of been. Saudi is big country with lot of nothing. It like places out between the Mississippi River and Rockies Mountain in the US, but much more barren.

4th I think the resistance movement that was put up in his newly acquired province even took him by surprised and didn't want make run into Saudi to have to tie down units doing the same.

5th if he taking out Saudi, he may as well take the other City-State that populate the southern Persian Gulf coast to eliminate places where the coalition to gain foot holds to attack him.

6th possibility he wasn't totally acting on his own. Strangely enough Russia or China didn't veto the UN actions against him. I think much like Korea and Vietnam there were still people in the Russia who wanted to see what the Americans and her allies would respond. It also gave them chance to test some of their equipment even though it wasn't as good as they had for themselves and see how it performed. Russia was still trying to find out how strong NATO was, and was objecting to so many of their former client States and Republic in their efforts in joining the Alliance. After seeing it took 6 month for the US and the coalition to get enough ground forces to take eject the Iraqis, along with the fact that National Guard round-brigade would still out of the game too. Then that little Battle of Kafji (sp?) was little too set up to test the Marines and the coalition forces with them.

The trouble thing is if you look at the list. It seems like he had all the card in his hands for at least the first week after his initial movement. After that he had another two weeks of freedom of moving at his own choosing, yet he allow the US and the coalition to build up a strong defensive position before he even sent a 'Recon-en-force' into Saudi. There were plenty of things, that don't make sense. The one thing he had with Kuwait and Kuwait City was a decent port to the Gulf. Maybe he figure trying to take much more would be waste of time effort, more so than trying to build up his defenses. In the end this was part of the downfall, because instead of dispersing his force out of much larger are, they were concentrated in very limited area, which in turn made it just that easier for the Coalition Air unit to pound the crap out his ground troops and take the fight out of them, before the ground fighting had even started.

The thing is he had several things to worry about if he pushed on, the further he push the further away the Republican Guard would have to be removed from areas where his regime needed them more for control.

Just some thought on that.

[dragoon500ly]

Well the Saddam-into-Saudi-Invasion will always be one of the great what ifs. There is no doubt that by pausing after taking Kuwait was one of the biggest mistakes of the campaign. If he had gone for broke, the most likely result would have been his being able to seize the east coast of Saudi Arabia and even over running some of the smaller Gulf oil states. Strategically, this would have given him control of well over half of the world's known oil reserves, as well as most of the major water distelliation plants in the region. This would have given him a much better chance of keeping his ill-gotten gains. This would also have thrown a major monkey wrench into any operations to through him out.

One of the things that a lot of people forget is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states provided a lot of POL and purified water to the Allied forces, with most of this capability in Iraqi hands, it would have added much more to an already over-stretched supply line.

So Saddam sweeping into Saudi would have been a nightmare scenario for CENTCOM.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Well the Saddam-into-Saudi-Invasion will always be one of the great what ifs. There is no doubt that by pausing after taking Kuwait was one of the biggest mistakes of the campaign. If he had gone for broke, the most likely result would have been his being able to seize the east coast of Saudi Arabia and even over running some of the smaller Gulf oil states. Strategically, this would have given him control of well over half of the world's known oil reserves, as well as most of the major water distelliation plants in the region. This would have given him a much better chance of keeping his ill-gotten gains. This would also have thrown a major monkey wrench into any operations to through him out.

One of the things that a lot of people forget is that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states provided a lot of POL and purified water to the Allied forces, with most of this capability in Iraqi hands, it would have added much more to an already over-stretched supply line.

So Saddam sweeping into Saudi would have been a nightmare scenario for CENTCOM.

Yeah as matter of fact, if he would had kept advancing hew would of had gain control of large section of Saudi, most likely any Gulf State who even thought about objecting too loudly, they would be gobbled up too, just like Kuwait.

I still think Moscow, and fear of over-extension, along with the memories of the Irar-Iraq War all played factor on why they stopped where they did. Why else would you allow the opposing force over 6 months to prepared and get it shit together so they can steam roll over you. Due to your waiting for them to steam roll, your army goes from the 5th largest in the world to shadow of itself. Also the agreement that Saddam was able to negotiate for a cease-fire is too much of co-incidents that will probably be debated for years. For most of the people who really know the truth about the top people in the Iraqi Government in 1990-1991 are either dead or if they are lucky enough be alive are in prison.

[Panther Al]

You know, all of the really odd things about the gulf war that made it what it was, certainly qualifies it in my mind for one that causes the most WTF moments when researching it.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

You know, all of the really odd things about the gulf war that made it what it was, certainly qualifies it in my mind for one that causes the most WTF moments when researching it.

Yes I know what you mean. Like why invade the smaller of two countries that you share oil fields with, then sit and wait for your a$$ to be kicked.

I mean who lets coalition combine Air power fly over with little or no resistance.

It did show some weakness of our equipment starting with the Patriot Missile system in that as anti-missile system it was somewhat effective, but if you didn't destroy the warhead, all you have done is cause someone else to have headache.

Or the fact that you send SAS team deep into Iraq in an area where Intelligence failed to notice an Iraqi Armor Division was located at defending Scud launch sites, but also showed that the equipment they were issue could fail too under certain conditions too. Also the team was ill prepared for the weather they faced too. The team had many strike against them, it could of easily been a situation where the entire team could of been lost.

Even the 2003 with the Information Minister out on the river claiming that American were hundred of miles from Baghdad even while their was M1 tanks on the other side of the river in plain sight behind him.... Both wars makes you wonder WTF for several reasons.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Or the fact that you send SAS team deep into Iraq in an area where Intelligence failed to notice an Iraqi Armor Division was located at defending Scud launch sites, but also showed that the equipment they were issue could fail too under certain conditions too. Also the team was ill prepared for the weather they faced too. The team had many strike against them, it could of easily been a situation where the entire team could of been lost.

They should have sent the Aussie SAS.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Targan

They should have sent the Aussie SAS.

As it was, General Schwarzkofp didn't want to use them, he didn't trust from his time in Vietnam. It took the second-in command of the Coalition Forces to convince him to even think about using the Special Forces and Special Air Services. The person is question was British SAS trained soldier who knew their capabilities. He was the one who push for expanding their use.

In part it was much like various US Operations in the 1980 in which more and more Special Operations units were given bigger piece of the action because they had to show their capabilities. Only this time they didn't go way over board like they had in Operation Just Cause and Operation Urgent Fury. In those operation many time and again afterwards the Special Operational units were sent on mission that other units should of taken care of. Like the Seals taking down airfield that is usually reserved for the 75th Ranger Regiment units. Just Bravo Zero Two just had blind stupid military luck that happens.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

As it was, General Schwarzkofp didn't want to use them, he didn't trust from his time in Vietnam. It took the second-in command of the Coalition Forces to convince him to even think about using the Special Forces and Special Air Services. The person is question was British SAS trained soldier who knew their capabilities. He was the one who push for expanding their use.

In part it was much like various US Operations in the 1980 in which more and more Special Operations units were given bigger piece of the action because they had to show their capabilities. Only this time they didn't go way over board like they had in Operation Just Cause and Operation Urgent Fury. In those operation many time and again afterwards the Special Operational units were sent on mission that other units should of taken care of. Like the Seals taking down airfield that is usually reserved for the 75th Ranger Regiment units. Just Bravo Zero Two just had blind stupid military luck that happens.

There was a Ranger battalion in country as well as most of Delta Force, all tied up in the vital task of providing bodyguards and security for His Imperial Majesty Norman "The Pimple" Schwartzkopf. At least the Special Forces Group was allowed to do (mostly) what they are trained to do, organize and train local resistance and liaision for foreign military units.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

There was a Ranger battalion in country as well as most of Delta Force, all tied up in the vital task of providing bodyguards and security for His Imperial Majesty Norman "The Pimple" Schwartzkopf. At least the Special Forces Group was allowed to do (mostly) what they are trained to do, organize and train local resistance and liaision for foreign military units.

Yeah I always liked the one or two Delta operator who were the one people were suppose to see when he was out and about. That isn't the job I would of wanted, the #1 or #2 target for anyone wanting to kill him. Yeah, I am surprise they limited it to only Battalion of Rangers. Then again they did need to keep something in Reserve considering the usual Reserve Force were sent over first due to the speed they could be deployed...*Shrug*

Yeah he was allowing the Special Force Group to act as force multipliers, but as for using the Special Forces for some the other vital mission they could carry out, Schwartzkopf was of the mind of the Marine Corps for a long time. Any Light Infantry man could pull off the same job.