forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jun 2, 2019 18:20:48 GMT
With a POD of 1988, how does one better the performance of the Iraqi armed forces in the First Gulf War? I would presume major training and doctrinal changes would be needed, but how could this be done specifically?
In the war, I'm talking about:
1) At least one major battle between Iraqi and Coalition (US, British etc rather than Saudi) armoured forces that sees major losses for the Allies.
2) A successful Iraqi air attack against a Coalition target in Saudi, preferably a US-used airbase.
3) An air battle that sees more than one Coalition aircraft shot down in specifically air-to-air combat.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 2, 2019 18:45:56 GMT
In all honesty, the 'best performance' could have come if they had packed up and gone home right before the war started.
Saddam could have said he proved his point, was betrayed by fellow Arabas and it was all a Zionist plot.
The US would have been stuck defending Kuwait in the long-run, waiting for the Iraqis to return.
This would mean that the façade of Iraq's supposedly 'mighty' army that was there in 1991, and that was a real thing in terms of people believing it, would have been maintained for good.
I guess we would have threads entitled WI: Iraq and the Coalition duked it out in 1991, mano-to-mano
I know this doesn't answer your challenge. As to that exactly, I just can't see how. Iraq was a paper tiger and what the Coalition threw against them was the best of the best.
|
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jun 5, 2019 19:09:53 GMT
Don't sit still for a year and then allow the Coalition to conduct a month long air campaign against largely stationary forces. That was literally conceding every possible advantage to the Coalition and allowing them to perform a textbook battle from their doctrine.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 5, 2019 19:26:38 GMT
Don't sit still for a year and then allow the Coalition to conduct a month long air campaign against largely stationary forces. That was literally conceding every possible advantage to the Coalition and allowing them to perform a textbook battle from their doctrine. I agree. Though they did go forward - Al Khafji - and look what happened to them. |
|
|
|
Post by EwellHolmes on Jun 5, 2019 21:15:46 GMT
Don't sit still for a year and then allow the Coalition to conduct a month long air campaign against largely stationary forces. That was literally conceding every possible advantage to the Coalition and allowing them to perform a textbook battle from their doctrine. I agree. Though they did go forward - Al Khafji - and look what happened to them. An unserious, minor attack committed after they had already allowed the Coalition to do a buildup and had allowed the air campaign to begin. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 5, 2019 22:58:15 GMT
I agree. Though they did go forward - Al Khafji - and look what happened to them. An unserious, minor attack committed after they had already allowed the Coalition to do a buildup and had allowed the air campaign to begin. Oh, yes, I agree, they had dug-in and been blasted to bits. However, with Al-Khafji I disagree that it was either unserious or minor. Too bloody late and foolish, yes. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,837
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Jun 6, 2019 8:37:13 GMT
An unserious, minor attack committed after they had already allowed the Coalition to do a buildup and had allowed the air campaign to begin. Oh, yes, I agree, they had dug-in and been blasted to bits. However, with Al-Khafji I disagree that it was either unserious or minor. Too bloody late and foolish, yes.
IIRC that was the fear some people had at the time. That he might continue into eastern Saudi and occupy the oilfields there. Possibly even into the UAE. Although this would certainly have meant war with the west and possibly others as it would put too much of the world's oil reserves into a single - unreliable - pair of hands. Possibly why he didn't push on as he hoped to take Kuwait and keep it without a fight rather than gamble big and almost certainly lose.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 6, 2019 8:44:24 GMT
Oh, yes, I agree, they had dug-in and been blasted to bits. However, with Al-Khafji I disagree that it was either unserious or minor. Too bloody late and foolish, yes.
IIRC that was the fear some people had at the time. That he might continue into eastern Saudi and occupy the oilfields there. Possibly even into the UAE. Although this would certainly have meant war with the west and possibly others as it would put too much of the world's oil reserves into a single - unreliable - pair of hands. Possibly why he didn't push on as he hoped to take Kuwait and keep it without a fight rather than gamble big and almost certainly lose.
I was under the impression that initially a stop order was down to logistics. Plus the Gulf Arabs were still supposed to be Iraq's friends... though maybe not the UAE. However after a few weeks, they could have moved on. What was in their way? The 82nd Airborne, which could have been run over like any Saudi or Gulf Arab force. Heavy US, British and Egyptian forces didn't show up for months. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,837
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Jun 6, 2019 9:00:53 GMT
IIRC that was the fear some people had at the time. That he might continue into eastern Saudi and occupy the oilfields there. Possibly even into the UAE. Although this would certainly have meant war with the west and possibly others as it would put too much of the world's oil reserves into a single - unreliable - pair of hands. Possibly why he didn't push on as he hoped to take Kuwait and keep it without a fight rather than gamble big and almost certainly lose.
I was under the impression that initially a stop order was down to logistics. Plus the Gulf Arabs were still supposed to be Iraq's friends... though maybe not the UAE. However after a few weeks, they could have moved on. What was in their way? The 82nd Airborne, which could have been run over like any Saudi or Gulf Arab force. Heavy US, British and Egyptian forces didn't show up for months.
Yes they could have had possibly dramatic successes, provided their supply lines weren't successfully interdicted but its holding it afterwards. For a while after the invasion of Kuwait it was doubtful if a coalition could be put together to force Sadaam's withdrawal. If he had occupied the Saudi fields as well, to which he didn't even had the shadowy claim he he to Kuwait it would have meant war and possibly to the level of his permanent removal. He gambled on a limited gain and lost but gambling the other way could well have seen his regime ending earlier.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jun 6, 2019 12:30:07 GMT
I was under the impression that initially a stop order was down to logistics. Plus the Gulf Arabs were still supposed to be Iraq's friends... though maybe not the UAE. However after a few weeks, they could have moved on. What was in their way? The 82nd Airborne, which could have been run over like any Saudi or Gulf Arab force. Heavy US, British and Egyptian forces didn't show up for months.
Yes they could have had possibly dramatic successes, provided their supply lines weren't successfully interdicted but its holding it afterwards. For a while after the invasion of Kuwait it was doubtful if a coalition could be put together to force Sadaam's withdrawal. If he had occupied the Saudi fields as well, to which he didn't even had the shadowy claim he he to Kuwait it would have meant war and possibly to the level of his permanent removal. He gambled on a limited gain and lost but gambling the other way could well have seen his regime ending earlier.
I'd agree that Saddam going much further would bring about his eventual downfall. Operation Iraqi Freedom 1991. |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Jun 8, 2019 13:12:56 GMT
Is there any chance that a more long-lasting USSR which is led by hard liners and manages to delay thw military and economic faliures of the late 80s could back Iraq to the hilt? Saddam was a big Soviet client and a more aggressive Sovoet foreign policy could have seen a Soviet ground force based in one of their allies, presumably either Iraq or Syria as part of a small 'Middle East Front'. Too outlandish? Does that concept warrant its own thread?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,837
Likes: 13,226
|
Post by stevep on Jun 8, 2019 13:50:44 GMT
Is there any chance that a more long-lasting USSR which is led by hard liners and manages to delay thw military and economic faliures of the late 80s could back Iraq to the hilt? Saddam was a big Soviet client and a more aggressive Sovoet foreign policy could have seen a Soviet ground force based in one of their allies, presumably either Iraq or Syria as part of a small 'Middle East Front'. Too outlandish? Does that concept warrant its own thread?
forcon
I'm not sure that hard liners would have delayed the failures of the 1980's and earlier. Probably actually make things worse. They might hide the underlying problems until there's a challenge and then the wheels come off even quicker, which could be nasty, possibly fatally so, with hard liners in control.
You might, if you avoided the intervention in Afghanistan, which proved a military and social drain, have the SU last longer although this could require another round of brutal suppression in eastern Europe, most especially probably in Poland. Which again would be a drain but might not have the same impact in the Muslim world as the invasion of Afghanistan. As such its still about and looking a serious rival to the west in 1991.
In which case the problem might be that Soviet support might not help, especially if Saddam pushes on into Saudi as its likely to alienate from him a lot of the Arab world as he will be seen as a threat to existing regimes. Or by a "small Middle East Front" you mean that pretty much simultaneous with Iraqi attack on Kuwait the Soviets attack western Europe? That would create a totally new situation and its doubtful in the short term if the west could send any help to Saudi but depending on how both alliances fare things could easily see either side go nuclear. Or possibly a more aggressive Saddam clashes with Israel which again could go nuclear. [Although with Egypt and Jordan presumably still pro-western and Syria as a traditional rival of Iraq that could be difficult as I suspect he may prefer to keep relations with Israel not too hostile while things are looking good for him.]
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Jul 13, 2019 1:58:33 GMT
Difficult, as any dictatorship the armed forces being not really efficient and more apt to internal control than to a real fight is a feature not a bug.
Not only that but the gap both in term of training and tecnology is too wide, plus this was the type of war that NATO has been trained to fight in the last 50 years.
The only thing that come in mind are:
1- Fincantieri and the italian authorities let the ships built for the Iraqui Navy go home instead of being blocked in Italy, after the ceasing of the hostilities with Iran and not waiting a formal peace treaty. We are talking about 4 Lupo class Frigates, 6 class 550 destroyers and a Logistic support Ship of Stromboli class; with that Saddam Navy while really outgunned (even in term of training) can at least put a fight.
2- use the air force and not send her to Iran
3- more dispersion of the troops to at least make the work of the coalition air forces harder
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jul 13, 2019 11:14:37 GMT
Difficult, as any dictatorship the armed forces being not really efficient and more apt to internal control than to a real fight is a feature not a bug. Not only that but the gap both in term of training and tecnology is too wide, plus this was the type of war that NATO has been trained to fight in the last 50 years. The only thing that come in mind are: 1- Fincantieri and the italian authorities let the ships built for the Iraqui Navy go home instead of being blocked in Italy, after the ceasing of the hostilities with Iran and not waiting a formal peace treaty. We are talking about 4 Lupo class Frigates, 6 class 550 destroyers and a Logistic support Ship of Stromboli class; with that Saddam Navy while really outgunned (even in term of training) can at least put a fight. 2- use the air force and not send her to Iran 3- more dispersion of the troops to at least make the work of the coalition air forces harder Good points, something which is hard to come up with because Iraq was in such a poor position. Maybe some of those ships get a lucky hit or two in, maybe a couple of those aircraft take down a Coalition jet or two and maybe the spread of troops leave some not getting bombed. It's all deckchairs on the Titanic though! |
|
|
|
Post by lukedalton on Jul 19, 2019 20:06:26 GMT
Difficult, as any dictatorship the armed forces being not really efficient and more apt to internal control than to a real fight is a feature not a bug. Not only that but the gap both in term of training and tecnology is too wide, plus this was the type of war that NATO has been trained to fight in the last 50 years. The only thing that come in mind are: 1- Fincantieri and the italian authorities let the ships built for the Iraqui Navy go home instead of being blocked in Italy, after the ceasing of the hostilities with Iran and not waiting a formal peace treaty. We are talking about 4 Lupo class Frigates, 6 class 550 destroyers and a Logistic support Ship of Stromboli class; with that Saddam Navy while really outgunned (even in term of training) can at least put a fight. 2- use the air force and not send her to Iran 3- more dispersion of the troops to at least make the work of the coalition air forces harder Good points, something which is hard to come up with because Iraq was in such a poor position. Maybe some of those ships get a lucky hit or two in, maybe a couple of those aircraft take down a Coalition jet or two and maybe the spread of troops leave some not getting bombed. It's all deckchairs on the Titanic though! Yeah, frankly unless Kim the elder decide in a fit of geriatric folly to use the situation to end the job started 40 years before, the Iraqui armed forces don't really stand a change unless there is a fundamental change in the regime |
|
