Warthog Territory Forums :: View topic - NO ARTILLERY?

Warthog Territory Forums http://warthogterritory.net/forum/

NO ARTILLERY? http://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3111	Page 1 of 2

Author:	2drezq [ 03 May 2003, 08:52 ]
Post subject:
Did I read right? Rumsfeld sent us into Iraq without artillery? Tell me I misunderstood. PS, wouldn't the Baghdad 500 have been the perfect place to prove the need for the Crusader? "The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper

Author:	wayne2010 [ 03 May 2003, 11:46 ]
Post subject:
Only my opinion but would the name “Crusader” be the wrong name for something in the Middle East?

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 03 May 2003, 20:31 ]
Post subject:
Crusader was cancelled. Our troops had artillery. "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	EzyJack [ 04 May 2003, 06:17 ]
Post subject:
[quote] Did I read right? Rumsfeld sent us into Iraq without artillery? Tell me I misunderstood. ------------ I read we went in with 1/3 of normal allotment of MLRS and some other Arty. We had Palladins and towed arty. MLRS shot up nearly 800 rounds. They hit Baghdad airport with over 70 rounds of MLRS. In the first week of the War, there is some video of a Palladin torching. You see some folks exiting a burning Palladin, found out later the whole crew was fine. Some sort of blowback. We used lots of Arty. Jack

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 04 May 2003, 09:40 ]
Post subject:
Yeah, catostrophic failure. "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	wayne2010 [ 04 May 2003, 10:28 ]
Post subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Cursader was cancelled<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote> Yes and when I saw that it was going to be canceled last year the first thought was I bet the name did not help. <img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_dissapprove.gif border=0 align=middle> I have a video of a fifteen round shoot out between the Cursader and a Palladin and the Palladin was only on it third round when the Cursader was finished and moving to the next firing point. Even with the weight problem the Cursader looked like it was equal to 10 or 20 Palladins. So which weight more one hundred pounds of feathers or one hundred pounds of political BS? <img src=icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle> Edited by - wayne2010 on May 04 2003 09:29 AM

Author:	mattlott [ 04 May 2003, 10:40 ]
Post subject:
Question did they go with only a third the artillery because they wanted to move faster than the MLR and Palidin vehicles could move?

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 04 May 2003, 11:40 ]
Post subject:
"cause we can do this with 85,000 men". "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	EzyJack [ 04 May 2003, 11:47 ]
Post subject:
[quote] Question did they go with only a third the artillery because they wanted to move faster than the MLR and Palidin vehicles could move? ---------------------- They moved at 5MPH towards Baghdad in 48 hours, even the MLRS and Palidins could handle that. Think it was a short 238 miles or so from the Kuwait border. Rummy went in light. Just read the 4ID, had to really do some work on their equipment. 2 months at Sea and they had some damage. Jack

Author:	2drezq [ 04 May 2003, 16:39 ]
Post subject:
So we did have artillery, did we have as much as we needed? Ya, Crusader might not have been a good name for anything is this campaign. "The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 04 May 2003, 22:08 ]
Post subject:
Apparently we had enough... "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	kingfrogger [ 08 May 2003, 16:30 ]
Post subject:
Y'know, that's one point I never understood... It seems that in any conflict, we utilize the most <u><i>mundane and boring</i></u> (not to mention "cost-effective") means of dealing with the threat as possible. Instead of using more "air power" and heavy ordinance (even more UAVs, etc.) we tear away nearly 100,000 men and women from their families and from their country to go risk their lives eating sand for a few weeks. Why not put a couple battle groups out in the seas around the Middle East and use up some more of those pesky cruise missles, and launch more air strikes to get rid of those 20- and 30-year old bombs and other old ordinance we've got stock-piled? Worst-case scenario, our economy gets a boost and we create more jobs, by putting men and women to work building NEW bombs... would that be so bad? "I like the way it fires, but do you have anything louder?"

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 08 May 2003, 20:25 ]
Post subject:
That's called the Powell doctrine, and it is almost the exact opposite of the Rumsfeld doctrine. Look at the diff in the forces deployed for ODS and for OIF. Night and day. "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	Stinger [ 09 May 2003, 05:14 ]
Post subject:
Also gotta remember Frog that they want to use the new and hightech only enough so that it gets good revues for combat but doesn't actually get put in a place where bad things can happen. They want to justify the new tech but not give any reasons to the opposition on why we should get ride of it. 1. Don't look conspicuous; it draws fire. 2. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.

Author:	kingfrogger [ 09 May 2003, 09:13 ]
Post subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Look at the diff in the forces deployed for ODS and for OIF.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote><BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Also gotta remember Frog that they want to use the new and hightech only enough so that it gets good revues for combat but doesn't actually get put in a place where bad things can happen. They want to justify the new tech but not give any reasons to the opposition on why we should get rid of it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>I have prepared an official response to both of those factual statements. <ahem> That's bullshi*t. I understand the rationale behind, but don't agree with, the practice of sending thousands of American soldiers to war to risk their lives and health, not to mention separating them from their families, to do the same job that a carrier group and/or air base laden with the latest aircraft and munitions technology could do in LESS THAN HALF the time, and with LESS THAN HALF the risk to American lives. Thank you. Oh, and on a complete side note, why didn't we use "cluster bombs" this time around? Seeing all those little bomblets carpeting the ground and hoping that an enemy infantry div. was caught under it was such a comforting thought for me during ODS... <sigh> "I like the way it fires, but do you have anything louder?"

Author:	Stinger [ 09 May 2003, 09:48 ]
Post subject:
We did. We used a GPS guided anti-tank CBU 1. Don't look conspicuous; it draws fire. 2. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.

Author:	kingfrogger [ 09 May 2003, 10:07 ]
Post subject:
WHEN WAS THIS?!? I didn't hear/see anything about that... Damn it... I hate when I miss things blowing up... <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle> "I like the way it fires, but do you have anything louder?"

Author:	Stinger [ 09 May 2003, 11:56 ]
Post subject:
B-52's dropped them. Not sure about any other birds carrying them. The one time I can specificaly point to was when the Republican guard sent out a bunch of suicidals... I mean a flying column.... to try and turn back the 3rd IDs movement toward Baghdad, I don't believe they got very close to the 3rd before being obliterated. 1. Don't look conspicuous; it draws fire. 2. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 09 May 2003, 12:09 ]
Post subject:
"I understand the rationale behind, but don't agree with, the practice of sending thousands of American soldiers to war to risk their lives and health, not to mention separating them from their families, to do the same job that a carrier group and/or air base laden with the latest aircraft and munitions technology could do in LESS THAN HALF the time, and with LESS THAN HALF the risk to American lives." Ummm.....Carriers do not win wars. Niether does the USAF. The Army does. There was NO way that OIF could have been executed with air power only, and the same is true for ODS. Both ops required large formations of ground troops to go in there and root the little devils out.(Same is true for Panama, Afghanastan, Korea, WWII, and WWI) So that's two wars(ODS + OIF) with a grand total of about 180 combat fatalities among ground troops. Where's the huge risk you are talking about? "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	Stinger [ 09 May 2003, 12:16 ]
Post subject:
I think what he was trying to get at is his frustration that all the new equipement gets hyped up then (seemingly)not used. How we're told how wee need this and that, and then when the time comes a lot of it doesn't get used because we don't want to compromise its abilities, or some such. Frog and I have had these cconversations before, so trust when I say he knows the Army and Marines are VERY necassary. Plus I'll kick some more sense into him this weekend <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> Edit: now looking back on what Frogger said though maybe I'm wrong... 1. Don't look conspicuous; it draws fire. 2. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you. Edited by - Stinger on May 09 2003 11:25 AM

Author:	M21 Sniper [ 09 May 2003, 12:36 ]
Post subject:
They use the older munitions on purpose....cause we paid good money for the stuff, and there is little point to it's shelf life expiring in a warehouse. "If they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Captain John Parker, Battle of Lexington.

Author:	kingfrogger [ 09 May 2003, 13:12 ]
Post subject:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Ummm.....Carriers do not win wars. Niether does the USAF. The Army does. There was NO way that OIF could have been executed with air power only, and the same is true for ODS. Both ops required large formations of ground troops to go in there and root the little devils out.(Same is true for Panama, Afghanastan, Korea, WWII, and WWI)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Whoa... believe me, as Stinger mentioned, I <u>fully</u> understand and appreciate the role of ground troops (USA/USMC, etc.) in ANY conflict. But, as Stinger also clarified, I just get annoyed when the DoD invests so much of the budget into these "advanced technologies" and promises faster, stealthier, more accurate, longer-range, larger area of effect, "new and improved" weaponry and equipment, and then we're still dropping conventional munitions and using 30-year old equipment to wage war on an enemy that could barely shoot fish in a barrel. Maybe I'm just too trigger-happy... wasn't trying to downplay the role of the Army or Marine Corps <u>at all</u>. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, guys... <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> "I like the way it fires, but do you have anything louder?"

Author:	2drezq [ 09 May 2003, 13:59 ]
Post subject:
Say what you like, I still think that Crusader looked like a great idea! Of course I think there is no such thing as to many or to big when it comes to cannons. Heck, I'm <i>still</i> mad that they sidelined the Iowa class BB's. Of course, I wish we had something with just a little bit bigger guns!<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> "The First Rule in a Gunfight: Have a gun. If you violate this rule, no other rules apply" Jeff Cooper

Author:	EzyJack [ 09 May 2003, 14:48 ]
Post subject:
[quote] I just get annoyed when the DoD invests so much of the budget into these "advanced technologies" and promises faster, stealthier, more accurate, longer-range, larger area of effect, "new and improved" weaponry and equipment, and then we're still dropping conventional munitions and using 30-year old equipment to wage war on an enemy that could barely shoot fish in a barrel. ---------------------- Oh yeah big problem with many high tech weapons systems. The Patriot system is a pricey sucker and it nailed two aircraft and sucked in one HARM. Latest word is there might have been too much RF around the battlefield. Well geeze, they are supposed to be tested for this. Let's hope they have a real lessons learned in Iraq. Let alone finding some WMDs. Jack

Author:	boomer [ 09 May 2003, 15:26 ]
Post subject:
ummm... no GPS cluster bombs, the buffs as far as I know dropped the WCMD, it has an INS to comp for wind from high altitude, low tech and good enough for an area weapon. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/