home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!psinntp!psinntp!ncrlnk!ciss!law7!military
- From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
- Subject: Re: desert storm operations
- Message-ID: <BxtK77.1Ft@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
- References: <Bwzp8H.4z3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <BxEvyz.1D3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <BxGrMw.6wq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> <BxKAzM.FIM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:06 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 58
-
-
- From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
-
- In article <BxKAzM.FIM@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> writes:
- >
- > From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
-
- > True. But man for man I don't think there is a better trained or more
- > educated fighting force in the world. I don't know if combat experience
- > really means much in modern warfare any more.
-
- I'd have to disagree. Various NATO armies ore critical of the US Army because
- they rotate officers much more quickly, preventing them getting a thorough
- understanding of each job. The Isreali's would probably be even better than
- the Europeans. In general the US Army seems to come over as the best
- superpower army but several of the smaller armies are better trained. The only
- relevant quote I can remember was from a US General who said that BAOR (British
- Army of the Rhine) was "the best trained but worst equipped army in the whole
- of NATO". Then again, when you have top class weapons systems your training
- doesn't need to be the "best", merely adequate. US army training is certainly
- more than adequate and this combination of good training and top technology
- makes them the best cndidate for world policeman.
-
- >
- > Its true that the intelligence community at least publically overestimated
- > the stregnth and abilities of the Iraqi armed forces, but I know they don't
- > rely solely on electronic means for intelligence gathering. I think some
- > of the overestimates were intentional for reasons of a measure of safety
- > and a bit of propaganda. I saw an interview where someone said that the
- > counts from photos and the like where wrong, and I just don't believe it.
- > I have a inkling that the high command had a very good estimate of Iraq's
- > actual ability. Swartzcoffs (sp?) might have been suicide if Iraq was a
- > good as they said.
- >
- The Pentagon has a habit of overestimating opponents strengths to help them get
- much bigger defence budgets than they really need. I saw a book on this once
- where a retired General corrected the "public estimates" put out by the
- military (and with evidence) showed the USSR and other "likely opponents" had
- about half of what we credited them for and that their weapons systems were
- only half as effective as we are led to believe.
- I'll get back to you with the name of the book.
-
-
- >>The rapid destruction
- >>of Iraqi forces was due to a combination of factors including the technologica
- >>l edge and the doctrinal edge (also the fact that the majority of Iraqis
- >>in Kuwait thought it was wrong for them to be there).
-
- OK I hate to get flamed but get ready. I don't believe we destroyed the Iraqui
- forces as much as you like to believe. We didn't surround them when we had the
- chance, we still have Saddam in power with some very big forces. This seems to
- be the US way of fighting a war, try not to win it just don't let it get
- politically embarasing.
-
-
- Rob
-
-
-