SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: kvkkc1 who wrote (183443)9/18/2001 6:51:06 PM
From: asenna1  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 769670
 
Bush has blinked.

The Show has been cancelled.



To: kvkkc1 who wrote (183443)9/18/2001 9:56:32 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Hi kvkkc1; Okay I exaggerate on the speed of counterbattery fire, though it is possible for radar rangers to plot enemy mortar tubes well before the rounds land. Here's some quotes on US counterbattery during the Gulf war. US Technology has improved since then:

Iraq's respected long-range artillery that survived the air campaign was ineffective. Denied air surveillance by coalition air superiority, Iraqi artillery units lacked any meaningful targeting capability. Intimidated by continuous air presence, the Iraqis never turned on their counterbattery radars. There is evidence that some Iraqi artillery positions may not have been manned as US units approached. Iraqi fires were described as "erratic" and "completely ineffective". The units that were able to fire were dealt with switftly. US units were able to use counterbattery radars continuosly to silence Iraqi fires with powerful rocket barrages. Fixed in place by destruction of their prime movers, Iraqi artillerymen faced a dilemma: stay and die or abandon the equipment and live. [p. 79]
...
US Army versus artillery as paraphrased by Colonel Scales, USA: "A prisoner of war whose artillery unit . . . opposed VII Corps . . . revealed that his 64 gun battalion group lost seven pieces during the air phase and 46 to MLRS
[Multiple rocket launcher] raids. . . . One captured battalion commander stated that his unit fired only once during battle, and within moments, artillery bomblets devastated his position. A third of his soldiers fled the position and left most of his guns destroyed and the rest of his soldiers dead." (Source: Col Robert H. Scales Jr., "Accuracy Defeated Range in Artillery Duel," International Defense Review, May 1991.) [p. 127]
...

au.af.mil

In other words, his artillery position was destroyed before they have a chance to fire a second time. The other American advantage is imaging:

...
Another category of vision enhancement technology-thermal imaging-avoided the need of image intensification systems for clear night skies and retained the advantage of passivity. By reading the heat signatures of vehicle engines and human bodies at distances beyond 2 miles, thermal-imaging systems penetrated visual barriers created by nighttime, dust storms, and rain or snow. These systems proved particularly useful on MlA1 tanks, Bradleys, TOW missile launchers, and Apache helicopters. When combined with laser range-finding systems on armored vehicles, thermal imaging gave crews the ability to fire on targets-the troops called them "hot spots"-before the enemy even knew they were there.52

Soldiers at all levels enthusiastically praised all of the imagery devices. American troops were able to carry out night or day combat operations with virtually the same efficiency. This equipment vastly surpassed the obsolescent Soviet equipment used by the Iraqis and overturned the age-old assumption that the force fighting on its own territory had an inherent advantage. By seeing the heat signatures of Iraqi tanks and other vehicles on their thermal-imaging scopes before their own appeared on Iraqi scopes, Americans could engage targets in heavy rain, dust storms, and darkness. So, throughout the ground war the Iraqis, on their own familiar territory, were continually subjected to accurate fire in conditions, at distances, and from directions they did not expect.53
...

army.mil

Of course no armed force is invincible. What I'm trying to give here is a counter argument to the fear that the US is beaten before it arrives on the field.

By now you've no doubt read what the Taliban has done -- entrenched near the Pakistani border. In that sense, they're mirroring what Saddam Hussein did. They even have the concentration in artillery and SCUD missiles. As far as the guerilla threat goes, the majority of the support for the Taliban is from non Afghan natives, but the real problem is running a guerilla war with no source of supply.

-- Carl

P.S. Looking for the above links I came on this diary:
people.delphi.com