*DAMN R6 Forum

Aside from all the theoretical debates about why anyone would fight a war, I'm beginning to wonder how exactly they're managing to do so too.

Take a look at this description from an article in the Washington Post today:

"Battles also were reported around Diwaniyah, as fighting shifted eastward and across the Euphrates River. U.S. Marines killed at least 80 Iraqi soldiers and took more than 40 prisoners in an eight-hour battle that saw Iraqis firing from buildings, dugouts, holes and behind buses, according to an Associated Press report.

"You name it, they were there," said Cpl. Patrick Irish of Grants Pass, Ore. No Marine casualties were reported in that battle.

[/i]

Now, I understand that US equipment is far superior to the Iraqis.  But how is it possible for US troops to sustain fire for 8 hours without getting hit even once??  What were the Iraqis shooting at?  I can understand 120 enemies being overwhelmed and losing their lives. . .those seem like reasonable losses in one battle, especially in comparison to those of previous wars.  But since they apparently had the opportunity to fire back, how could they possibly not have hit anything??

Anyone have any idea?

I'm guessing this attack occured at night. Very few, if any Iraqi troops have night vision goggles. While the Iraqis would have been able to fire back at muzzle flashes, I'm sure its very disorienting. It hits you psychologically that your friends are being shot and killed and you can't even see where the fire is coming from. Also, Iraqi troops aren't just inferior technologically, they also lack the training American troops have. Anyways, just my opinion/idea on how we had such a decisive victory in that battle.

Also take into consideration that although fire was being exchanged, the 80 Iraqi casualties could have resulted from larger scale (not rifle) weapons. It never says how they were killed in the article.

Loudnotes, all of the conflicts of the past decade have been like this too. Our forces are well trained in tactics, can shoot much better (many of the Iraqi's shooting have been pressed into service and given a gun), and we have armor to shoot from and hide behind.

Factor our overwhelming superiority with close-air support and the Iraqi army is toast. It is a bunch of infantry men (Iraqi's) versus our infantrymen, mechanized units, and close-air support.

If the Iraqi's were to tally their war losses, I guarantee you we would have a superior ratio to that of Mogadishu in Somalia where we killed thousands of enemies and lost around 20 guys. Just reading the reports from the Pentagon concerning what we have done to the "vaunted" Medina division is proof of this (we have basically killed half the men in that division, and are wiping out a majority of their mobile and armored units).

Assassin is right, just look at the numbers from Somalia, and you'll see much the same kind of ratios.

And I think Mellow hit it right on the head.  NVG.  

Take for example, the soldier that was shot in the head, or the helmet I should say. He took 4 shots and each one ricocheted off his protection. Not to mention the heavy kevlar vests they wear.

Also consider that these Iraqi's are irregular militia. They aren't trained or equipped as well as the regular army. They also use guns notorious for shitty accuracy (since they come from Russia...OOOOOOO cossack's gonna rape me). As tasty mentioned, most of those casualties could've come from larger scale weaponry such as artillery, air raids, and tank fire.

During the Gulf War we pretty much destroyed Saddam's military power. WIth Iraq's poor economy, saddam wouldn't have enough money or resources to rebuild that army in the 12 years we left them alone. They might as well just start throwing sticks and stones.....

Then how is the world's most powerful nation having even remotely any trouble overcoming such a force?

I read in the paper about one of our missing tanks having been waylaid because it drove right into a ditch the Iraqis had dug as a trap.  A ditch!  21st century, million-dollar bombs, and we can't drive over a ditch?

The truth is that we really aren't havng much trouble at all overcoming these forces. The only way Saddam has had a remote chance of getting to us are by our own errors, mechanical failure, and guerilla tactics.

From what I have just seen, the Baghdad division of the Republican Guard is completely annihilated, and the Medina division has almost shared the same fate.

Loud: The only tank that I have heard that we lost was when one strayed off the path and went over an unfinished bridge into the Euphrates river. But if the incident you say is true, you don't know how large or deep that ditch might have been and what it was disguised as.

It takes time to flush out enemies using guerilla warfare tactics, atleast if you want to do so with minimal casualties on your side and on the civilian side. The Iraqi's never really stood a chance to begin with, they still don't, they're just bunnies deep down in their holes waiting to be dragged up ears first, takes time but it's not much more than just that.

Yeah, we're really creaming them over there. The news makes it sound like we're having more problems than we really are. Think about it this way: How many American soldiers died in one day in Vietnam? It was a pretty high number, I don't know it off hand. Now, compare that to how many lossses the Coalition has suffered in a week. I think the number is around 70, or 80, which is pretty remarkable, considering the amount of Iraq we already have secured.