Debate and Discussion

Could the USA have beaten Saddam in 2003 using WWII technology?
kyupol at 1:53PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Lets say USA army had WWII technology during the war to remove saddam from power?

Will they still have won? I think its a yes since 90% of Saddam's soldiers were all too eager to surrender.

I saw an article before… (sorry long lost the source)… about an interview with a former Iraqi soldier who said that they forced him to fight or else they'd kill his family. This poor guy was only given an AK-47 with 50 bullets. He said he tried to get as far away as possible from his unit, then empty the clip into the air, then he dressed up as a civilian and escaped.

I've also seen some video of Iraqi POWs. Why do they look old and malnourished? And some dont even have proper uniforms and were only wearing flip flops. While US army troops are all big and buffed and ready to fight.


NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM
ozoneocean at 2:23PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(online)
posts: 25,023
joined: 1-2-2004
Of course they would have won, and easily. There's no scenario in which they would have lost, even if the Iraqis actually had chemical weapons and were prepared to use them. Iraq was possibly the piss-easiest country in the world to invade (that was worth invading), which of course is why it was invaded.

If the US had used WW2 tech, then they would have had a few more casualties. Even then most would probably be because of “friendly fire” and accidents. The war would've taken a bit longer than it did though.
They used some actual vintage WW2 tech in the first little battle didn't they? (“Gulf War 1”…) They had those two last remaining battleships pounding away, providing nice accurate bombardments.

And why the hell are they still calling what they're doing now a “war”, as if it's still going on? The US isn't at war with anybody at the moment… There are occupation forces in two countries; Nato in Afghanistan, and US led forces in Iraq. But no wars… “War on Terror” doesn't count, because it's simply a slogan like “War on Drugs”. There's a hostile populace, rebels and such, but no actual “war”, just the sort of stuff you have to expect when you're an occupation force. It doesn't mean people don't get killed of course, but “war” is of a different order altogether.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Inkmonkey at 5:15PM, Oct. 21, 2006
(offline)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
This fight would have been done a lot sooner if WW2 tech was used because you'd have some fuckin' Navajoes along.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
Phantom Penguin at 11:14AM, Oct. 22, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Hell. No.

Do you know how much damage a RPG or AK-47 really does?

An RPG can kill a M1A2 Abrams if it hits it in the right place. i can't imagine what it would do to a sherman.

They put up one hell of a fight compared to what people think. If you think we just walked into Baghdad your dead wrong. We ran into trench complexes, bunkers, thousands of men willing to die to keep us out.

They laid 500 pound aircraft bombs to explode when a tank ran one over. They still had T-72s and BMP-3s inside the capital that we had to take out. A WW2 tank would be obliterated by a T-72.

We wouldn't be able to beat them with Vietnam-era weapons.
We need what we have.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Phantom Penguin at 11:15AM, Oct. 22, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
ozoneocean
Of course they would have won, and easily. There's no scenario in which they would have lost, even if the Iraqis actually had chemical weapons and were prepared to use them. Iraq was possibly the piss-easiest country in the world to invade (that was worth invading), which of course is why it was invaded.

If the US had used WW2 tech, then they would have had a few more casualties. Even then most would probably be because of “friendly fire” and accidents. The war would've taken a bit longer than it did though.
They used some actual vintage WW2 tech in the first little battle didn't they? (“Gulf War 1”…) They had those two last remaining battleships pounding away, providing nice accurate bombardments.

And why the hell are they still calling what they're doing now a “war”, as if it's still going on? The US isn't at war with anybody at the moment… There are occupation forces in two countries; Nato in Afghanistan, and US led forces in Iraq. But no wars… “War on Terror” doesn't count, because it's simply a slogan like “War on Drugs”. There's a hostile populace, rebels and such, but no actual “war”, just the sort of stuff you have to expect when you're an occupation force. It doesn't mean people don't get killed of course, but “war” is of a different order altogether.


Its not a open war. But its still a war to the people who have been there. The people not calling it a war need to look into what the servicemen over there go threw.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 11:53AM, Oct. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 25,023
joined: 1-2-2004
Phantom Penguin
We wouldn't be able to beat them with Vietnam-era weapons.
We need what we have.
I don't think the original intent of the question was simply referring to weapon on weapon (that was part of it), but also to the low morale of the Iraqis, unwillingness to fight, their isolation, comparatively low numbers etc. (-Your M2 Machine guns are from before WW2 btw)
Maybe a better scenario would have been to ask which country/s couldn't have prevailed against them?
-I believe most modern medium size armies in the world would've been able to fare pretty well.
Phantom Penguin
ts not a open war. But its still a war to the people who have been there.
No one says it's not damn rough on them, and bloody unfair that they should have to go through it, it's murderously hard! But it's an occupation. The US just hasn't had much experience with that. Look to the latter days of British occupations as a good example, even into the 60's in places like Kenya, and then there were the French in places like Algeria. -it was always horrific and many people died.
The US did have some experience of occupation in hostile areas after WW2, even after the Korean war (and even as far back as the Philippines if I remember right…). Maintaining an occupation of a place like Iraq is in many ways much harder than fighting the actual war! That's how things work out… But we do need the differentiation. -If only to better understand what is going on. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Phantom Penguin at 2:25PM, Oct. 22, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Yeah there are some weapons from WW2 that would do very well. Like the M2 50cal. Hell we still use it on our tanks.

But the low moral for the Iraqi troops was one things. They had thousands of Fediyeen (sp?) Islamic fighters from syria and paid fighters that fought most of the battles.

When we attacked Highway 8 on the way to baghdad they had thousands of fighters charging our tanks full knowing we were going to blow them away. But most uniformed Iraqi soldiers did give up.

It was the ‘imported fighters’ that pretty much did all the fighting.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ccs1989 at 2:44PM, Oct. 22, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Wow, that sucks.

By the way, Phantom Penguin, as much as I disagree with this war I have a huge amount of respect for you going into the line of fire like that. All the soldiers going over there are extremely brave. It's unfortunate about the cause though.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Mystic Hand at 9:08AM, Oct. 24, 2006
(online)
posts: 118
joined: 10-17-2006
There's also the issue of collateral damage.

Modern weapons allow more precise strikes that keep civilian casualties to a minimum, which was a huge part of the operational strategy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
ozoneocean at 11:43AM, Oct. 24, 2006
(online)
posts: 25,023
joined: 1-2-2004
Mystic Hand
Modern weapons allow more precise strikes that keep civilian casualties to a minimum, which was a huge part of the operational strategy.
That isn't precisely true.
The real story is that it's a lot easier to accurately use weapons of mass destruction (for want of a better phrase), like bombs, artillery, and missiles. The purpose of increasing the accuracy is to get a better kill rate, limit wastage, and to reduce the risk of killing your own troops.
Civilians and their property are still destroyed the same as they always were, there's not much strategic incentive to prevent that (apart from PR and politics). But massive bombing runs like the B-52 raids during Vietnam are not required anymore. That does mean less risk to civilians, true, but the apparent increase in accuracy means bolder and more frequent strikes in more heavily populated areas, so it always tends to balance out. -Plus, the accuracy isn't always as good as the hype suggests.
Phantom Penguin
When we attacked Highway 8 on the way to baghdad they had thousands of fighters charging our tanks full knowing we were going to blow them away.
That sounds awful. It reminds me of some of the British campaigns in Northern Africa during the 19thC, where they used Maxim guns and gatling guns against thousands of spear carrying warriors. Must have been grim stuff. :(
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
kyupol at 6:26PM, Oct. 24, 2006
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Phantom Penguin
We wouldn't be able to beat them with Vietnam-era weapons.
We need what we have.

I got reminded of some American general's bragging that they could have won the war even if they traded places with Iraqi troops. Lets say its iraqis in american weapons and americans in iraqi weapons…

So his bragging doesnt hold any water?

From a military perspective, how could Saddam have given America a harder time?

NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:25PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved