Thunder Run and the Armoured Drive into Baghdad.

[Pillar]

So I was reading Thunder Run about the armoured drive into Baghdad and some questions came up, I thought I'd post my thoughts here.

Two things really stood out as contributing to the success of this mission -- the professionalism of the American crews and the total lack thereof from the Iraqi's. But on the other hand the whole thing looked like a recipe for disaster to me had the training standards of the two armies not been so disparate.

The mission was tasked for the purpose of (paraphrasing) "Showing the Iraqis that we can drive right into Baghdad if we want to." The Americans were having problems with the "hearts and minds" side of information warfare because Baghdad Bob was broadcasting that the Americans were being slaughtered outside of Baghdad, which was held to be impenetrable.

Planners obviously believed the operation would be a success despite conventional thinking about the risks of an armoured vehicle convoy in heavy urbanised environment.

I wonder what exactly allowed them to predict this. Apparently the soldiers involved themselves were surprised at the lack of coordination and "suicidal" tactics of the Iraqis. Many of them believed it was all a trap, since overpasses and bridges had been left intact leading straight into the city. Uncoordinated, haphazard attacks from alley ways and buildings characterized the drive into the city, with (to me) surprisingly little damage being inflicted to the convoy.

Among the convoy were Bradley and M113 vehicles, both of which I had previously believed were extremely vulnerable in urban environments where RPG's would be abundant. Is this not so?

The book also gave the impression of very little armoured resistance. I don't recall any T-72's being mentioned, but I haven't read the whole thing yet. Wouldn't T-72's be just as lethal as M1's in close quarters? How about those Bradleys and M113's?

I'm just amazed at the audacity of this "raid" and how well, considering, it faired. Is American training and armoured technology just making their armour force an "all-enivornment" tool?

The crews are forced to keep to their vehicles and so haven't got a lot of "staying" power, but still, very surprisingly capable.

Adam

[Zipuli]

From sources I've read it seems that only armoured resistance was a few BMP-1s that were shot to pieces. Also carbombs were destroyed before they reached the convoys. The Iraqis (and foreign mercs and volunteers) suffered terrible casualties as they were not trained well and they were not organized in any way... Still they had quite a number of RPGs (that they couldn't use effectively).

T-72s are lethal, but not that lethal with the old ammo Iraqis used. Also the Iraqi tank crews were mostly politically trained and they had no idea how to effectively use their tanks. So going against the best army in the world may not be a good idea with those! Some brads got hit by RPGs too (according to the sources) and none were lost.

Of course US had huge advantage in training and vehicles, but the Iraqis were not too organized or trained and had no way to keep up with the situation. The soldiers in the other side of the city most propably didn't know about the raid until their friends told them (or they heard the sounds and figured it out)..?

Zip

[Gator]

The big tank fight in Baghdad occurred north of the airport, and involved 3-7 Cav. If memory serves a unit pushed out along the highway and ran into some T-72s dug in. I think it was a close-in knife fight, but of course the Abrams won handily.

[taskforce-panther]

at obj. peach when the 3id secured the far side of the bridge (Euphrates) the iraqis counter attacked with 2 waves from north and the south and basically a platoon of m1's and mabe an apc or two might have been involved in the fight took out a company sized element of the republican guard and then ya had fedayeen or what nots running round the streets with ak's and rpgs and bout anything that would fire a bullet

[chappy]

the reason it worked?
If there's 2 things the americans are good at in war its:
-Overwhelming firepower (both in the main force advance and in ind. fire support) and close air support.
- Excellent logistical support. (Fuel Food and ammunition)

[Trekker]

Aswell as suprise. No Iraqi (or anyone else for that matter) thought they would go full force in, with tanks and IFVs. As i understand the iraqi was prepered for infantry to do a "traditional" house to house fighting.

Those who drove the fuel and ammo trucks into the three junktions and further to the tank coys objects had some balls, impressive going into a firefight with xx amounts of diesel/JP and ammo.

[chappy]

Aswell as suprise. No Iraqi (or anyone else for that matter) thought they would go full force in, with tanks and IFVs. As i understand the iraqi was prepered for infantry to do a "traditional" house to house fighting.

Those who drove the fuel and ammo trucks into the three junktions and further to the tank coys objects had some balls, impressive going into a firefight with xx amounts of diesel/JP and ammo.


Sorry my above post should have included the other reason why it was succesful:

-The main Iraqi army disbanded itself.
-the loyalists bided their time.

almost the entire Iraq army dissolved itself in the inital phase of the conflict. Even the loyal elements of republican guard were more likely to ditch their uniforms, hide their weapons and wait till the main (conventional) battle was over than stand and fight.

Dare i say it but the intention to house-house fight was certainly realised and employed by the iraqis. It may not have been coordinated and implemented immediately, but once the occupation was in place (and the war declared over) the ex-baathist loyalist forces did indeed escalate the asymmetric urban fighting over the following months. As the method of fighting was realised as effective and seen to work, other groups and militias were encouraged to do the same.

You can drive a tank through a street but that doesnt make the area 'clear' of enemy. The simple fact is that you do have to go from house to house and clear them. So yes u can claim that the initial drive into baghdad was successful, because it did what it said it would 'drive to the heart of baghdad' but did it really acheive anything?
Not really.

Reference fallujah, najaf and varius other towns and suburbs (sadr city) that eventually fell under 'insurgent' control in the months after the full tilt drive to badghdad. The US forces had to go back in and reclaim those areas (sometimes more than once). Generally speaking the majority of the insurgent forces simply melted into the background when the US force came in to do the job in strength.

There was never going to be a full scale conventional battle in iraq or baghdad. The americans knew that and the Iraqis knew that. The minority that were delusional enough to think they could block it were immediately overwhelmed by sheer superior firepower. The remaining (loyalists) went underground and waited to begin the assymmetric war.

[TopKick]

Murphy's law of combat #? (pick one). When you've cleared the area or objective, don't forget to tell the enemy.

[taskforce-panther]

the initial fight for baghdad was mainly a bunch of ragtag Figs not really a military force

[Elf`]

That raid was foolish beyond belief. That it worked(?) was sheer luck and the poor quality of the enemy troops(?) contributed as well. If that had been tried in Chechnya, the whole column would probably have been wiped. I read "Thunder Run" several times and still cant get over how incredibly optimistic the commanders were at their own superiority. Yes, at some point we needed to go into Baghdad, but it seemed, well, foolish to do so in that way...there WAS NO REAL INTEL on the situation up there...

[Trekker]

Since Sadamm and his propaganda told everyone that the coalition was halted way south of Bagdhad (even his own generals thought so), the decision wasn't optimistic beyond stupidity, the coalition knew this. The first thunder run was a sensor, feeling how the enemy would react and their capabilities, and it did. It showed that the Iraqis had no orgeniced defence, and that the motivation was pretty low (which the whole campaine has shown).

But i agre since the Div HQ at several times questioned the commanders decision to stay in the city, noone could be sure it was going to work. But the risk had been calculated (to some extent).

Thats how i understood Thunder run, anyway.

[taskforce-panther]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/invasion/interviews/marcone.html

[taskforce-panther]

The big tank fight in Baghdad occurred north of the airport, and involved 3-7 Cav. If memory serves a unit pushed out along the highway and ran into some T-72s dug in. I think it was a close-in knife fight, but of course the Abrams won handily.


and the 69th armor we didnt approach the south side of biap we went around to the north and yes there was a massive fight up there

[ShermansWar]

An organized defense may have done serious damage, but there is little mention made here about the fact that we had bribed off most of the iraqi army leadership, and had effectively neutralized the command and control of most of what was left through airstrikes and the continuation of american air superiority. These were critical factors in the success of the mission. The Americans had in fact taken the initiative, and had shaped the batttlefield so that the iraqis had no real freedom of maneuver, and had little opportuniy to react. We were, in fact, inside the enemies decision cycle from the beggining. Even the forces that they had, should they have been concentrated and coordinated might have hurt us, but, as it was, we had the initiative to such an extent that the only real reaction they were capable of was the troops that were already along the route could fire at us( and more than likely face superior firepower in return and be defeated) , and a few fast moving irregulars were able to post themselves along the route and take potshots.This also was no real threat, at least to the overall likely success of the mission. US command could reasonably deduce this beforehand, and this was in fact what took place.

[taskforce-panther]

The big tank fight in Baghdad occurred north of the airport, and involved 3-7 Cav. If memory serves a unit pushed out along the highway and ran into some T-72s dug in. I think it was a close-in knife fight, but of course the Abrams won handily.


and the 69th armor we didnt approach the south side of biap we went around to the north and yes there was a massive fight up there


i type O the statement........ the 3rd 69th and 2-7th went thru the south into BIAP while the 2-69th 1-15th and others went thru the north, and engaged in a tank fight up there....I was reading and i had to correct that

[taskforce-panther]

heres a couple graphics

[koga]

baghdad bob said that the americans were being desimated...then a brad rolls by past him hehe...something like that

[taskforce-panther]

hehehehehehe

[koga]

that looks like hackworth LOL

[taskforce-panther]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :nukem2:

[Hackworth]

Naw, that's Panther's illegitimate child. He gave birth last Thursday. We still don't know who the father is.

[SFViper19D]

heres a couple graphics

Hey, 3-69 rolled right through Burger King and the PX!!!

Oh sorry, that came later.....

[taskforce-panther]

[quote="Hackworth"]Naw, that's Panther's illegitimate child. He gave birth last Thursday. We still don't know who the father is.[/quote

hmmmmmmmmmmm
gee hackworth, thats a real intelligent comeback.... :roll:

thank you hack for clearing that up :lol:

so please stop aggin crap on OK? ive already been fussed at by moderators bout my posts, and im tryin really hard to keep it clean now give it a rest

thank ya

[taskforce-panther]

but on a different note: after the siezure of BIAP, the drive thru town to Al Salam palace was at the own will of the units not the COs we were pumped and instead of waiting we regrouped and went on