| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Not So Fast; Battle Of Baghdad Delayed |
| 2003-03-31 |
| The start of the battle of Baghdad has been delayed for at least a week, due to the early misuse of airpower by the U.S., say active and retired Air Force officials. Only after five days of war did air strikes begin to focus on attacking enemy ground forces, particularly the better armed and organized Republican Guard units. During the 1991 offensive against Iraq, ground forces were softened up by a month of bombing beforehand. This time, close air support intensified only after U.S. ground forces--after moving 220 of the 300 mi. to Baghdad--lost their momentum... This article might be monday morning QBing and inter-service squabbling, but at least it's written by a real defense pub. ...Placement of the fire support coordination line (inside of which strike aircraft activity is severely limited) has been pointed to as a problem, possibly a blunder. It was set so far in front of the attacking U.S. troops that for a while fixed-wing aircraft weren't able to focus on methodically destroying the Iraqi ground troops, said the senior planner. Close air support tasks were left instead to attack helicopter units that operate at low speeds and altitudes, making them vulnerable to concentrated small arms and light antiaircraft artillery fire. "The helicopters were being shot to pieces because they're flying where everybody on the battlefield can hit them," he said. "For a long time Army aviators have believed that they can fly nape of the Earth and survive [that kind of fire]. What we should have done is taken the oil fields around Basra and then let everybody sit for a couple of weeks while Air Force and Navy tactical air pounded the Iraqi ground forces..." Echoing some of Fred's criticisms of |
| Posted by:JAB |
| #10 This has been a wonderful plan so far(no thanks to Turkey).Weve got the majority of southern Iraq under control.Were in the process of clearing out the thin resistance to our supply line(s),in the meantime resupplying our troops that are on the doorstep of Bagdad.In the coming days,we'll bulk up our 101st in the north with an armored division and have that mother of all sh@t holes completely surronded.Most oil wells are contained and guarded, air bases in the north and south are functional and being used for sorties. All in ten days,with the loss of life even lower than the first go round.And you got people still second guessing are brass. good show |
| Posted by: Brew 2003-04-01 00:18:56 |
| #9 FOTSGreg - The problem with the A-10 isn't so much with the plane as it is with the Air Force's perception of it. The AF suffers from a long term case of HFKoTS disease. That stands for Higher! Faster! Knights of the SKY! It's sad, but the AF has an obsession with conducting aerial combat as it was in the first world war.. honorable, knightly combat between individuals. They fight to keep it that way, even when it's no longer practical. Bomber pilots are referred to (when they think no one's evesdropping) as "those dirty truckdrivers". Promotions tend to be channeled by giving extra promotion points to fighter pilots (or former fighter pilots), and points denied to ground support or bomber pilots. The Air Force doesn't want to share the "glory of the air", yet at the same time doesn't want to do the necessary - yet grubby - job of close ground support, as it isn't seen as glamorous. Hell, they even fought to keep helicopters out of the Army's hands. *shrugs* The AF's attitude is that ground support isn't _really_ needed, and that mudfoot soldiers who whine to be supported from the air are just being cowardly snivellers who don't have the courage to "charge the guns" in the fashion of the Light Brigade. (Whom, interestingly enough, the Fighter Pilot Mafia in the AF admires. After all, it was so NOBLE to charge the guns that way. *sigh* God deliver me from knightly idiots.) Ed |
| Posted by: Ed Becerra 2003-03-31 17:18:01 |
| #8 Just as an aside - Harriers. Wow. Leave it to the British to develop a jet that curtsies. *grin* |
| Posted by: Tadderly 2003-03-31 14:52:31 |
| #7 FOTSGreg, A-10s are still doing great service with AF. Marines have Harriers and F-18s. AF was trying to phase them out up to GW1. Thay did such a good job the Army told the JCS and Congress that if the AF didn't want them, the Army would take them. The AF was still trying up until Afghanistan, they did such a good job there that I think they gave up and are upgrading them. There will be a big shakeout in AF requirements after GW2. I think that the "Fighter Mafia" will lose their hold on AF leadership and it will swing back to the "Bomber Boys" and attack planes like the A-10. They sure won't get as many F-22s as they wanted. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-03-31 14:26:35 |
| #6 I agree with Anonon. There were key terroritorial objectives: airfields, main highway and bridges over the Euphrates, Umm Qasr port -- that were essential to supplying forward troops, eliminating much of the WMD threat, and disrupting the regime's ability to communicate and coordinate. The danger of leaving ground troops concentrated in Kuwait and doing a leisurely bombing was too great. Saddam could have done a lot of damage that he's no longer capable of. |
| Posted by: paj 2003-03-31 14:12:41 |
| #5 It was never Coalition policy to make a Bee-line to Baghdad. Their objectives were: capture an airbase in Western Iraq; secure the oil ports and oil fields of southern Iraq; encircle all the southern and central Iraq cities; reach the outskirts of Baghdad. And do all the above while attacking command and communication centers, weapons stores and production facilities, military bases, mobile and fixed equipment, and troops. |
| Posted by: Anonon 2003-03-31 13:17:17 |
| #4 It's been my understanding for awhile that the USAF hates the A-10s and doesn;t even use them anymore. Most have been reassigned to Marine units. Can someone clear that up for me? |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2003-03-31 13:09:09 |
| #3 I agree with that - the Airforce has for years been trying to get rid of the grunts best flying USAF friend - the A-10. Thank goodness they haven't succeeded. Those were great to see when I was over there the last time. As for the Army Helis - they were supposed to be the part of a doctrine: air and ground recon (Thats Cav Scouts on the ground) find the baddies, Helis throw hellfires on the AA assets spotted and designated by the scouts, then the AF come in with A-10's bombing and strafing. After that the Cavalry Scouts bypass to move deeper into the enemy rear to find the next set of victims while the helis work over the survivors to provide cover, and finally the grunts move in to sift the rubble after the artillery has pounded it. My bet: Some dummy got the idea that the helicopters could do it all themselves and go on Air Raids. Not A Good Idea without prior supression. In my opinion, as a former Cav scout NCO, its about as stupid as charging into an urban area with tanks and no infantry support - a recipe for disaster. Bad use of the unit and equipment in contravention to the doctrinal role they were designed and trained to fill. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-03-31 12:53:59 |
| #2 I'm retired Air Force, and this sounds like sour grapes to me. "You promised us we'd be able to defeat Saddam from the air, and now you're sending in ground troops before we had a chance." Franks said he wasn't going to fight this battle using outmoded models, that he was going to introduce the element of surprise into the war from the very beginning. It's working, and will probably continue to work until there's nothing left but to take Baghdad with ground troops. I don't care how the war is fought, or who gets the glory, as long as in the end we nail Saddam and end his torturous regime. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-03-31 12:43:50 |
| #1 The FSCL is not THAT limiting--it just means that you can't attack anything inside the FSCL without clearing it with your friendly forces. This sort of coordination frequently, but not always, rules out a fast mover seeing a target of opportunity inside the FSCL and dropping bombs on it, but it doesn't rule out dropping bombs on a pre-planned (and thus already coordinated) target. I think the problem is really the Air Force, who sees CAS (close air support) in a different light than the Navy/Marine Corps team. The Marines practice CAS all the time and sometime get to attack targets beyond the FSCL, whereas the AF practices "strategic" bombing and sometimes get to practice CAS with the Army. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-03-31 12:09:50 |