Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Save?
Password
Log in
Help
Register
What's New?
Advanced Search
Forum
This is a discussion on Thunder Run and Battle for Grozny within the World Armed Forces forums, part of the World Strategic Defence Area category; In the taking of Baghdad in 2003, two armored battalions and an infantry battalion conducted two operations that effectively ended ...
Like Be the first of your friends to like this. Thread Tools
3 Likes
Display
02-01-2010,
10:48 PM
Join Date: Location: Posts:
#1
Aug 2005 ... 411
Obcession
Member
02-02-2010,
01:27 AM
Join Date: Location: Posts:
#2
Mar 2006 California, or the internet 2,053
Finn McCool
Moderator
In both operations, the attacker enjoyed total firepower superiority and air superiority. In both operations, the attacker carried out a bold plan of armoured thrusts through the hostile city. What exactly caused such staggering difference in results? Was it the broad streets and low-rise buildings of Baghdad that favoured armour more than Grozny? Was it the tactics used by the Iraqis versus the Chechens?
Great thread. There's not enough real tactical discussion on this forum, and someone's got to remind the fanboys that equipment doesn't actually count for that much. I've read Thunder Run, about the 3rd Infantry Division's (the 3rd IIRC) successful seizure of Saddam's palaces, and I've read pretty extensively about the various battles of Grozny. I think that there's a couple of important differences between the two. First off, the forces involved were entirely different. In Baghdad, the US forces were far more professionally trained and led. Their equipment was superior to the equipment the Russians had in Grozny, and was in far better condition. They had better intelligence about what to expect (if anything they were told to expect more resistance than actually showed up). At Gronzy, the Russian forces were made up almost entirely of poorly trained conscripts who hadn't been payed and were led by officers that were wholly incompetent. The Russian forces suffered from pretty high levels of drunkenness and corruption. Their equipment wasn't in very good shape and the conscripts were sent into the city after being told that resistance would be light,and they didn't have clear orders. M1 Abrams and M2/M3 Bradleys are also far more able to take hit from an RPG than T-72s and BMP-1s. That's just a fact. So the Americans were very well prepared for the battle and the Russians were not at all prepared. The defending forces were also quite different. The Iraqis had very low morale, most of their forces melted away when confronted with the oncoming American tanks, or tried to engage them with small arms, got sprayed with coax and 25mm rounds and then ran away. The Baathist leadership tried to control the forces defending Baghdad centrally. They could not; there was very little communication and coordination in the defense of Baghdad. The Chechens didn't try to centrally control the defense. Instead they used their lack of coordination to their advantage, and the Russians had to deal with dozens of largely independent groups of Chechen fighters attack from all directions. Chechen morale, equipment, and training were all at least marginally better than that of the Iraqis. Many of the Chechens had been trained in the Soviet army. I think the terrain of the cities does have something to do with it as well. Baghdad doesn't have very many tall buildings, so the problems those pose to tanks were less severe. Also the US foresaw the problems that complicated highway junctions could cause, and secured them with infantry to allow the tanks to pass freely. Ultimately the biggest difference is the quality of the attacking forces. I'm not saying that this is a simple case of "America good, everyone else bad". If the US had been up against the level and skill of resistance the Chechens provided, they would have suffered much heavier casualties. The Russian Army in 1993 and 1994 was in terrible shape, and has vastly improved since. Also the Russians went first, so the Americans had the opportunity to consider the lessons of Grozny.
plawolf and KingLouis like this.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter. -Winston Churchill
09-03-2011,
05:24 PM
Join Date: Location: Posts:
#3
Jan 2011 Atlanta, Ga 2
tecumseh35
New Member
09-05-2011,
03:39 AM
#4
Join Date: Posts: Jul 2010 1,958
MwRYum
Senior Member
#5
09-05-2011,
09:03 AM
#5
Join Date: Posts: Oct 2007 2,850
plawolf
Senior Member
09-05-2011,
09:51 AM
Join Date: Location: Posts:
#6
Nov 2006 Germany 1,515
Scratch
Senior Member
09-25-2011,
04:22 PM
Join Date: Location: Posts:
#7
Mar 2006 California, or the internet 2,053
Finn McCool
Moderator
Well coordinated, the operation was more or less successfull, though still costly. Luckily, the defenders still had no state of the art Anti-Tank weapons, otherwise it would have been even more difficult. And the assaulters I guess would have had to rely more on infantry and light, quick vehicles. I believe that would have meant less crushing the enemy, but more bleeding it out with snipers hiding in buildings and slowly suppressing enemy movement in the citiy to allow street by street clearing.
If you watch combat videos from Fallujah, you can see that the Americans used tanks and armored vehicles very conservatively. They moved slowly and were always totally surrounded by infantry to the rear and sides. To engage targets, they peeked out from around corners and then blasted buildings that were providing resistance. Then the infantry would go forward and clear. Then the tank moves up and blasts/suppresses the next building, allowing the infantry to move up, clear it, then do it again. That's how you win an urban battle.
Battles are won by slaughter and maneuver. The greater the general, the more he contributes in maneuver, the less he demands in slaughter. -Winston Churchill
10-03-2011,
07:41 PM
Join Date: Posts:
#8
Sep 2011 7
firefox007
New Member
10-03-2011,
07:57 PM
#9
Join Date: Posts: Oct 2009 2,095
solarz
Senior Member
"The Russian Army in 1993 and 1994 was in terrible shape, and has vastly improved since" (Grozny attack). Why do you make this statement? Do you have links, to first-hand sources, that can prove the Russian Army is in great shape compared to '93? Their recent attempt to create the beginnings of a professional Army have failed completely. I understand they have TWO, count 'em, two, fully-equipped fullstrength Army divisions, that's it! And those sit @ Moscow, in case of rebellion or coup, as the Tsars always did. I think the Russian Army is in just terrible shape, not ready to field even one Brigade to help their Ossetian allies; who asked for help, & got none as the Russians really couldn't provide even a small force....
10-04-2011,
11:01 AM
Join Date: Posts:
#10
Sep 2011 7
firefox007
New Member
That war was fought with masses of poorly-trained conscripts who were promised by Putin they would not be sent to a war zone. They were not ready to fight, were not properly equipped, and did not fare well in the fighting. Russian soldiers are often not paid on time, or not paid for months, endure savage beatings at the hands of the older soldiers, suffer greatly from alcoholism and health neglect. That the Russian Army can attack and eventually wear down the tiny Georgian army, is no proof of their fighting abilities. Their Army is in the sorriest shape it has ever been in; conscription is widely hated & avoided, or bribed out of.
10-04-2011,
01:48 PM
#11
Join Date: Posts: Oct 2009 2,095
solarz
Senior Member
That war was fought with masses of poorly-trained conscripts who were promised by Putin they would not be sent to a war zone. They were not ready to fight, were not properly equipped, and did not fare well in the fighting. Russian soldiers are often not paid on time, or not paid for months, endure savage beatings at the hands of the older soldiers, suffer greatly from alcoholism and health neglect. That the Russian Army can attack and eventually wear down the tiny Georgian army, is no proof of their fighting abilities. Their Army is in the sorriest shape it has ever been in; conscription is widely hated & avoided, or bribed out of.
That's the most ridiculous spin I've ever read. 2008 South Ossetia war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Casualties and losses Georgia: Military[24][25] 162 killed, 947 wounded, 8 missing, 42 captured[26][27] Police[25] 11 killed, 3 missing, 227 wounded Russia: 64 killed, 283 wounded, 3 missing, 12 captured[28][29] South Ossetia: about 150 killed[30][20] (including volunteers), unknown number of wounded, 41 captured[26] Abkhazia: 1 killed, 2 wounded[31] And in case you're going to claim that Russia outnumbered Georgia, both had about 10k soldiers in South Ossetia. And if you consider a 1:3 casualty ratio to be "did not fare well in the fighting", I'd hate to see the Russians when they do fare well.
Last edited by solarz; 10-04-2011 at 01:52 PM. Player 0 likes this.
10-06-2011,
03:00 PM
#12
Join Date: Posts: Oct 2007 2,850
plawolf
Senior Member
That the Russian Army can attack and eventually wear down the tiny Georgian army, is no proof of their fighting abilities.
What the hell are you talking about? There was no 'eventually wear down', the Russians went in and utterly crushed the US trained and equipped Georgian army in a matter of hours. It was a massive route after that, with the Georgians falling back in disarray, and the only reason the Russian Army stopped it's advance was because Putin told them to stop. If Putin had not been feeling so charitable, there would be no state of Georgia today.
10-06-2011,
05:43 PM
Join Date: Posts:
#13
Aug 2005 2,056
adeptitus
Senior Member
10-11-2011,
02:40 PM
#14
Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Universal Health care 'Reeducation' camp Posts: 2,333
TerraN_EmpirE
Senior Member
Australian military news and discussion | Interesting Interview about the War on Terror
Bookmarks Posting Permissions
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off
-- English (US)
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 PM. Powered by vBulletin Version 4.2.1 Copyright 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved. Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
SinoDefenceForum.com