Aerial Bombardment of Iran would Eclipse 'Shock and Awe' of 2003

Jack Linthicum wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's
palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main
thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities
and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without
collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses
were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with
which both you and I, Walt are familiar.

I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed.

It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force,
not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that
innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by
media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation.

Please describe the effects of this event, did anyone surrender? Did
the populace flee in the streets seeking shelter? Did any of the
"bunker busters" bunk a buster? Were any of the "precision targets"
actually targets, or just guesses based on those people who were
waiting with the flowers?

Actually, it seemed like the civilian populace reacted with "Hey,
they're blowing up Saddam's stuff. That's good. I wonder what's for
dinner?"

As for the effects of the event, it significantly cut down on the
ability of Saddam's brigades to counterattack inbound Allied forces.
The objective wasn't to get Iraqi civilians to surrender en masse.

"Bunk a buster"...heheheh...I just got that.

On 26 Oct 2006 08:12:11 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:

"Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that
instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the
recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun
handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that
someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that
S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's
not go there.
Walt BJ

You must have been watching a different channel.

I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX,
MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the
street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a
main downtown intersection and parkway.

During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic
flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement
into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry
continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted.

Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged
at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down.
Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those
situation.

Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's
palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main
thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities
and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without
collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses
were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with
which both you and I, Walt are familiar.

I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed.

It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force,
not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that
innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by
media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Please describe the effects of this event, did anyone surrender?

The initiation of ground operations came much more quickly than in
Desert Storm (remember that air campaign too 100 days.) When started,
coalition forces rolled almost unopposed to Basra, Baghdad and Tikrit.
The Republican Guard apparently fled and command/control of defending
units was apparently non-existant. Seems pretty effective militarily
to me.

Did
the populace flee in the streets seeking shelter?

You apparently didn't get the point of what I posted. The populace
quite apparently did not feel any need to flee the streets seeking
shelter. They appeared on the major news networks to be confident that
they were NOT the targets.

Did any of the
"bunker busters" bunk a buster?

Did JADMs and LGBs hit their targets? Absolutely. Did aircrews die in
the process? No. Did the regime topple? Yes. Is much of this related
to the relationship between Sunnis and Shi'a? No.

Were any of the "precision targets"
actually targets, or just guesses based on those people who were
waiting with the flowers?

Are you dense or simply indoctrinated? Is a highway bridge a "guess"?
Is an air defense Hq a legitimate target? How about an armor
marshalling area? Republican Guard barracks?

Satellite, ELINT, HumINT, Comm intercepts, lots of over-flights, etc.
equal pretty good intel for a campaign.

But, that doesn't fit your scenario does it?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 26 Oct 2006 08:12:11 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
wrote:


Ed Rasimus wrote:
On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:

"Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that
instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the
recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun
handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that
someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that
S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's
not go there.
Walt BJ

You must have been watching a different channel.

I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX,
MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the
street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a
main downtown intersection and parkway.

During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic
flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement
into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry
continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted.

Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged
at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down.
Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those
situation.

Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's
palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main
thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities
and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without
collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses
were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with
which both you and I, Walt are familiar.

I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed.

It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force,
not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that
innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by
media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Please describe the effects of this event, did anyone surrender?

The initiation of ground operations came much more quickly than in
Desert Storm (remember that air campaign too 100 days.) When started,
coalition forces rolled almost unopposed to Basra, Baghdad and Tikrit.
The Republican Guard apparently fled and command/control of defending
units was apparently non-existant. Seems pretty effective militarily
to me.

Did
the populace flee in the streets seeking shelter?

You apparently didn't get the point of what I posted. The populace
quite apparently did not feel any need to flee the streets seeking
shelter. They appeared on the major news networks to be confident that
they were NOT the targets.

Did any of the
"bunker busters" bunk a buster?

Did JADMs and LGBs hit their targets? Absolutely. Did aircrews die in
the process? No. Did the regime topple? Yes. Is much of this related
to the relationship between Sunnis and Shi'a? No.

Were any of the "precision targets"
actually targets, or just guesses based on those people who were
waiting with the flowers?

Are you dense or simply indoctrinated? Is a highway bridge a "guess"?
Is an air defense Hq a legitimate target? How about an armor
marshalling area? Republican Guard barracks?

Satellite, ELINT, HumINT, Comm intercepts, lots of over-flights, etc.
equal pretty good intel for a campaign.

But, that doesn't fit your scenario does it?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

I wonder if you remember all the build up to the use of shock and awe?
Or the "results" that turned out to not be true? Like Saddam was
blasted in his bunker and then blasted again and all it did was blow up
some innocent bystanders. About all that precision stuff did was spend
weaponry to no real end. It was ground troops they needed not the
Fourth of July.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibl...Saddam_Hussein

April 7, 2003 bombing

On April 7, at around 15:00 local time, an air strike was carried out
on Mansour, a residential area of Baghdad, on intelligence that Hussein
and/or his two sons might be there along with other senior Iraqi
officials. A single B-1B bomber dropped four precision-guided JDAM
2,000-pound bombs. The warplane was already aloft in case any such
"target of opportunity" arose. The strike was unleashed just twelve
minutes after receiving the orders and just 45 minutes after the
intelligence tip was received by the Central Command in Qatar. The four
bunker-penetrating bombs destroyed the target building, the al Saa
restaurant block and several surrounding structures, leaving a 60-foot
crater and unknown casualties.

The area of Baghdad that was bombed was not under coalition control at
the time, so U.S. officials could not confirm the extent of the
casualties. On April 4, video was released of Hussein walking in the
street of a Baghdad neighborhood surrounded by throngs of supporters.
The neighborhood in the videotape was the same one target in the April
7 strike.

Some U.S. officials privately were certain that Hussein was killed in
the strike, but publicly the government remained cautious and stressed
that the demise of Hussein himself is not the ultimate goal of the
military conflict. British intelligence officials believed that Hussein
may have left the targeted building just minutes before it was
destroyed, and that he probably survived the attack.

Their belief was vindicated by Saddam's capture on December 13, 2003.


http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3827601.htm

Still, it's undeniable that the first week of "shock and awe" did not
go as the Pentagon had hoped. As U.S. forces gather for a climactic
battle for Baghdad, they have been hobbled by sandstorms, guerrilla
strikes by fedayeen irregulars, stretched supply lines, friendly fire
incidents, and signs that the Iraqis may use chemical and nerve agents.
As a result, Rumsfeld and Franks face increasing flak.

****The most frequently heard charge: that the U.S. lacks the ground
troops for what may turn into a tough, protracted fight in Iraq.****

That wasn't how things were supposed to play out. Pentagon planners had
hoped that a blitz of precision bombing and cruise-missile strikes
would sever Saddam Hussein's ability to communicate with his
commanders. A simultaneous land assault would arrive on Saddam's
doorstep with unnerving speed. Isolated and surrounded, Iraqi soldiers
were expected to surrender en masse.

Snipped to save electrons....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibl...Saddam_Hussein

April 7, 2003 bombing

On April 7, at around 15:00 local time, an air strike was carried out
on Mansour, a residential area of Baghdad, on intelligence that Hussein
and/or his two sons might be there along with other senior Iraqi
officials. A single B-1B bomber dropped four precision-guided JDAM
2,000-pound bombs. The warplane was already aloft in case any such
"target of opportunity" arose. The strike was unleashed just twelve
minutes after receiving the orders and just 45 minutes after the
intelligence tip was received by the Central Command in Qatar. The four
bunker-penetrating bombs destroyed the target building, the al Saa
restaurant block and several surrounding structures, leaving a 60-foot
crater and unknown casualties.

OK, regarding the above strike? What was the sequence here? Were all
four JDAMs released simultaneously or were they "staggered"? Being GPS
guided, is there any reason why they could not have been dropped
simultaneously? Is there any potential interference among the 4 bombs?

Dean

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:


"Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that
instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the
recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun
handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that
someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that
S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's
not go there.
Walt BJ


You must have been watching a different channel.

I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX,
MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the
street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a
main downtown intersection and parkway.

During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic
flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement
into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry
continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted.

Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged
at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down.
Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those
situation.

Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's
palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main
thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities
and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without
collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses
were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with
which both you and I, Walt are familiar.

I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed.

It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force,
not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that
innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by
media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation.

Good lord. Once again Dr. Ed proves that he couldn't tell a debacle
from a fiasco (yes, there is a slight difference) if he saw it on Fox News.

When will it sink in on you geniuses that your shrub put us in the ditch
with his S&A BS?

Cheers

==bob



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:37:34 GMT, Bob Matthews
wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On 25 Oct 2006 20:15:33 -0700, "WaltBJ"
wrote:


"Shock and Awe" - I read the original paper, and all I can say is that
instead of S and A all that is accomplished is to really PO the
recipient and make him lock and load or, if he doesn't have a gun
handy, to hone his knife to a very sharp edge. One would hope that
someone at a decision-making level would read some history to see that
S and A has never worked. Well, maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but let's
not go there.
Walt BJ


You must have been watching a different channel.

I watched the fixed camera that was usually displayed on CNN, FOX,
MSNBC and others, at the Iraqi Ministry of Information. It showed the
street in front of the building and swapped with one that showed a
main downtown intersection and parkway.

During the raids, the traffic lights continued to operate, traffic
flowed and life went on as usual for the working citizens. Movement
into and out of the parking garage across the street from the ministry
continued. IOW, the innocent citizenry was not targeted.

Also seen was the intense AAA and missile fire, apparently discharged
at random, with little apparent effect. What goes up, must come down.
Random damage from expended flak and missiles is inevitable in those
situation.

Targeting was of military installations, C3I facilities and Sadaam's
palaces/headquarters. Places like Republican Guards Hq, main
thoroughfare bridges, military supply dumps, communications facilities
and missile batteries were hit with PGMs and generally without
collateral damage. Target servicing rates were high, coalition losses
were low and Pk was incredible compared to earlier conflicts with
which both you and I, Walt are familiar.

I wasn't particularly shocked, but I sure was awed.

It was definitely not a carpet bombing campaign. It was counter-force,
not counter-value. It was precise and although there is no doubt that
innocents died, it was well focussed. It was also well observed by
media which is not necessarily favorable to the operation.

Good lord. Once again Dr. Ed proves that he couldn't tell a debacle
from a fiasco (yes, there is a slight difference) if he saw it on Fox News.

When will it sink in on you geniuses that your shrub put us in the ditch
with his S&A BS?

Cheers

==bob

Gosh, Bob, that well reasoned response certainly refuted my
observations. We've got some gratuituous name calling, a bit of
scatalogical reference, a demeaning of a news source (check above to
see that I said, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and others,) and a simple assertion.

Yep, great job. I'm convinced. Why I couldn't have concluded that
myself simply shows the superficiality of my understanding.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

AirRaid wrote:
"Military action has been in planning since before the wars with
Afghanistan and Iraq. This could come in any one of three forms or
some combination of them: A US attack by air power alone, a ground
invasion as in the 1991 and 2003 attacks on Iraq, or the encouragement
of an Israeli attack.

The National Security Doctrine form of "Preventive Action" now
under the most intense study is aerial bombardment. This is attractive
because America does not have sufficient combat troops for a land
invasion. Moreover, allegedly the U.S. Air Force generals have said
that even alone air power could "take out" (destroy) all suspected
Iranian nuclear installations and so devastate Iran that the regime
would collapse.

What would aerial bombardment entail? What it involved in Iraq gives
at least a starting point: in some 37,000 sorties the US Air Force
dropped 13,000 "cluster munitions" that exploded into 2 million
bombs, wiping out whole areas, and fired 23,000 missiles. Naval ships
launched 750 Cruise missiles with another 1.5 million pounds of
explosives. More powerful weapons are now available. Air Force General
Thomas McInerney gave the Neoconservative Weekly Standard in April an
inventory of "improved" weapons. They include vastly larger
"bunker buster" bombs and greater targeting ability. McInerney
pointed out that a B-2 bomber can drop 80 500 pound bombs independently
targeted on 80 different aim points. In effect, this aerial
bombardment would eclipse the "shock and awe" of 2003 and be far
more destructive than the 1991 campaign or the devastating air war on
Vietnam."


http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html


Why all the trigger happiness about IRAN??? North Korea is the one
actually testing nucs? We are still in Talk mode with IRAN

AirRaid wrote:

What would aerial bombardment entail? What it involved in Iraq gives
at least a starting point: in some 37,000 sorties the US Air Force
dropped 13,000 "cluster munitions" that exploded into 2 million
bombs, wiping out whole areas, and fired 23,000 missiles. Naval ships
launched 750 Cruise missiles with another 1.5 million pounds of
explosives. More powerful weapons are now available. Air Force General
Thomas McInerney gave the Neoconservative Weekly Standard in April an
inventory of "improved" weapons. They include vastly larger
"bunker buster" bombs and greater targeting ability. McInerney
pointed out that a B-2 bomber can drop 80 500 pound bombs independently
targeted on 80 different aim points. In effect, this aerial
bombardment would eclipse the "shock and awe" of 2003 and be far
more destructive than the 1991 campaign or the devastating air war on
Vietnam."
http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html

Hmmm. Just one data point checked: 1.5 million pounds of explosives divided
by 750 cruise missiles is 2000 pounds per missile.
Funny, the BGM-109 warhead is slightly less than 1000 pounds.

So much for their credibility.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Tiger wrote:
AirRaid wrote:
"Military action has been in planning since before the wars with
Afghanistan and Iraq. This could come in any one of three forms or
some combination of them: A US attack by air power alone, a ground
invasion as in the 1991 and 2003 attacks on Iraq, or the encouragement
of an Israeli attack.

The National Security Doctrine form of "Preventive Action" now
under the most intense study is aerial bombardment. This is attractive
because America does not have sufficient combat troops for a land
invasion. Moreover, allegedly the U.S. Air Force generals have said
that even alone air power could "take out" (destroy) all suspected
Iranian nuclear installations and so devastate Iran that the regime
would collapse.

What would aerial bombardment entail? What it involved in Iraq gives
at least a starting point: in some 37,000 sorties the US Air Force
dropped 13,000 "cluster munitions" that exploded into 2 million
bombs, wiping out whole areas, and fired 23,000 missiles. Naval ships
launched 750 Cruise missiles with another 1.5 million pounds of
explosives. More powerful weapons are now available. Air Force General
Thomas McInerney gave the Neoconservative Weekly Standard in April an
inventory of "improved" weapons. They include vastly larger
"bunker buster" bombs and greater targeting ability. McInerney
pointed out that a B-2 bomber can drop 80 500 pound bombs independently
targeted on 80 different aim points. In effect, this aerial
bombardment would eclipse the "shock and awe" of 2003 and be far
more destructive than the 1991 campaign or the devastating air war on
Vietnam."


http://www.hnn.us/articles/31051.html


Why all the trigger happiness about IRAN??? North Korea is the one
actually testing nucs? We are still in Talk mode with IRAN

Korea has no oil. Please define Talk Mode, as in we don't talk to
enemies only friends?