MilitaryForums.co.uk

I was reading the Sunday papers yesterday and I came accross a diagram of the proposed means of attack on Iraq. Now we have; Royal Marines, Royal Fusiliers, Royal Tank Regiment, Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, U.S. Marines, U.S. Paras, U.S. tanks & artillery & planes.

Now I also noticed that, apart from the fact that this is letting Saddam know how we will waste him, that there is no British Paras, shame really

£20 says its a bluff.

Bluffed about a maritime attack last time as well, US Marine Expiditionary Unit dollied aobut of the coast backed up by SBS doing little raids to seek attention.

Sea-borne assault would have to many casualities. Would be a bad bad bad idea. Doesn't mean it won't happen though.

K

Why are the Royal Fusiliers being used? I would have put the Paras before them. I don't know much about the Army but the Paras might be a better choice? Please correct me though if i'm just babbling about sh*t! I take it the Scots Dragoons will be doing the Recon work?

Ross

Also can some explain the roles each of the different Units will be playing in Iraq?

Iraq's main defence is heavy armour, T-62, T-64 and BMP. Oh and hiding.

Stuff that an SA80 won't make a flying f**k of difference to.
Therefore Light Infantry ( ie Paras) aren't much use.

Wouldn't expect US airborne units to be used much, reckon paper will have got it wrong there.

Fusiliers are used to working in Iraq and are part of our armour so they are included, scots guards are armoured unit.
http://www.army.mod.uk/fusiliers/index.html

In this, unlikely, scenario RM would set up the beach head and then allow the heavy armour ( hopefully fitted with the correct Sand filters this time) to pour in and crush the wee blighters. Backed up by Air Power the poor sand loving Iraqis won't have much of a chance.

RM doesn't do armour. Not our thing mate. The Viking box doesn't count as armour before anyone mentions it. We would suffer seriously taking the beach head. Not to D-Day levels but still way too heavy for todays wars. All those dug in tanks and support stuff would spot us a mile off and knock us out before the beach. Even US airpower wouldn't be able to remove them all.


Remember the newspaper won't be running the war. Its really just guessing as well.
Cheers,

K

I'm not the world's best in geography guys, but isn't Iraq virtually landlocked? Which beach-head are we going to use?

Hope Saddam isn't registered on here.

Derek Blevins wrote:I'm not the world's best in geography guys, but isn't Iraq virtually landlocked? Which beach-head are we going to use?

Spain

Lucky Paras, I reckon. This is one little party that I'm glad I don't have to do my thing for Queen and Country in. And certainly not for Tony (President Designate - EU; he wishes!)

Nice one Si!

Personally I wouldn't see the RM doing any amphibious assaults either. As has been said, any beach head will be heavily defended, and the only way is to match it with heavy armour, and only the USMC can provide that. Line up a dozen LCACs (and I mean proper LCAC's, not our poxy little things), steam up with troops/light vehicles following on behind in conventional landing craft. The second you hit the beach, pour out the Abrams (each LCAC can carry 4 MBT's I believe) and roll up the sandy road to Baghdad. And seeing as RM could only fulfill the infantry wave part, I doubt there would be any need for their skill. In fact, I'd probably prefer to take the US marines if possible, given they will be far more familiar with the operation style, and correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure their marines can outshoot ours, handy if the pancake terrain could have them engaging targets at their maximum effective range. Not to mention the fact that a deafening storm of "Hooyah!" "Get some!" "That all you got? My momma can fight better than you!" will keep the civilians back home more happy than "Aww bugger, me boots melted again".

That said, I can forsee the RM being used more once the land battle gets started, perhaps doing commando stuff by taking on forward air defences, command posts and the like. More probable though, they'd be operating in the Northern areas doing their mountain warfare thing, the Iraqi heavy armour would probably be concentrated elsewhere so the light infantry nature of the RM wouldn't be such a problem, especially as the no fly zones would be an excellent starting point for an air campaign, probably speeding up the aquisitation of air dominance over those areas and allowing CAS aircraft relatively free movement to support ground forces.

Going back to the paratroops issue, there is little need to paratroops as a lot of the terrain seems to be suitable for (albeit rough) landing medium and small transport aircraft, so it would be more safe to just land and have the troops on the ground jsut as fast, but with less danger and probably some form of armoured support. Even in this instance, The main purpose I expect would be to cut off Iraqi armoured formations, in which case heavy infantry would be more suited, with more anti tank weapons than you can shake a stick at and in this role again, much safer to land troops with more heavy weapons than they would be able to jump with. The only real use I can see for dropping conventional troops would be to very rapidly secure key resources such as oil installations. The US has apparently got evidence that Iraq plans to destroy key infrastructure elements such as these as they fall back, so we may want to take them as soon as possible before they Iraqis realise they're losing and blow them up. Besides, even if we aren't worried about that, Bush will. No point invading Iraq to control it's oil if it's all burning now is there .

It can't be Spain Si, Straw made us give it back 10 minutes after it was conquered in heroic fashion by a hungover LC rate and a bunch of lads out for a Banyan.

lol, you wouldn't say that if you saw the conditions we had to do our iron sight APWTs in "SIX target widths left corporal??!?!". Besides, last time the iraqis got battered to hell because they stayed out in the open. The only long range shooting the USMC will be doing will be with shotguns!!

-Steve C

I could get maudling, but it won't help the poor bastards who will be hung out to dry by Saddam when the time comes. During the last unpleasantness my younger brother had never experienced anything like it, 1000s went down, while many, many 1000s gave in. They had no hope, little training and no resolve. I hope this time they give in even quicker so the man can be tracked and eliminated. BUT, then who takes his chair, have you seen the bunch of eejits meeting in London? Dozens of differing viewpoints and variations of religion, try and find a leader form them. Oh shit.

Just read the paper, says that the Royal Marines will not be used for any amphibious landings.

ross

What the F--K do newspapers know, about who will,and who won't,be employed doing what?Some wet behind the ear's cub spouts a load of cobblers,and people actually take notice of what he says,it's too pathetic for words.Most of todays reporters know sod all about the services,and most politicians,including Princess Tony and his motley crew,know even less,so,in the final analysis it will,as usual,be down to the lads on the ground to carry the can for any balls-ups.


Aye Owdun.

Just saying what i read.... Don't shout.......

Ross