Post #90,635
3/23/03 11:12:56 AM
|
Re: Heavy Causalties Among US Forces
10 people isn't heavy casualties.
|
Post #90,644
3/23/03 11:26:09 AM
|
Those are the ones you've heard about
If, for example, that Russian site is right about the results near Nasariyah, that would put the casualty rate at over 100 (~15 tanks, ~30 other vehicles).
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #90,645
3/23/03 11:29:06 AM
|
Reports in Israeli newspapers
are at least 50 casualties, I think that the US news organizations are being very slow to report any bad news.
|
Post #90,653
3/23/03 11:38:51 AM
|
Russian reporting
(~15 tanks, ~30 other vehicles).
That would be more tanks in a single engagement than they managed in the entire 1991 war (in one engagement on 2/27/91 the Iraquis lost 60 T-72s in forty minutes without scratching the paint on the US brigade. I've looked in on the English-language Russian news sites over the years, and while they're entertaining, their take on the news is not infrequently...fanciful.
This mugging we're engaged in has proved somewhat tougher sledding than advertised, but I'd be enormously surprised of the figures you cite are borne out by a postwar accounting--not, to be sure, that this crew isn't perfectly capable of cooking the books.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #90,675
3/23/03 12:03:25 PM
|
Different situation
At the same time, trying to draw too many parallels between the two conflicts can also mislead. One: that was ten years ago... after being pasted that heavily, do you think they really sat on their hands and did nothing to improve their equipment? Two: the US forces are in unfriendly territory; last time 'round, most people in the countryside they were fighting in were on their side, this time they're not. Three: part of the Russian report was that the US group was caught completely by surprise; they were north of Basra and pointing south when the Iraqi column came at them from the north. Also, this particular group were infantry, not cavalry. Possibly the Iraqis now have DU munitions (the US had them and Iraq didn't in '91) which could be the great equaliser in tank battles this time around. The Russian site claims that they got caught in a pincer movement, which is one of the most tactically devastatingly bad places to be, and are at risk of being cut off from the main body of the US/UK forces.
They are claiming that most of the information they are using is coming from the GRU, and is based on assets in the area and satellite reconaissance.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #90,682
3/23/03 12:16:21 PM
|
Re: Different situation
I'm not certain that they had much scope to improve their equipment--they haven't imported any more tanks, and the T-72 was seriously outclassed by the Abrams (which has presumably itself been subject to sundry refinements since that time). Given that the US has an air presence, and does not typically deploy troops and armor without it, it's hard to see how the Iraqis could have achieved surprise. However, I possess no expertise in these matters whatsoever, and am not qualified to undertake a detailed discussion of the technical impedimenta. I remain skeptical about the Russian accounts, but I'm prepared to evaluate other evidence.
cordially,
"Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist."
|
Post #90,665
3/23/03 11:51:11 AM
|
It is clear that US news organizations are censoring ...
the news. Al Jazeera has been showing pictures and interviews of 5 captured Americans and no American news organization (CNN, MSNBC, NY Times)that I have seen on the web has even reported their capture let alone shown pictures or mentioned their names. They are only hurting their own credibility as the facts will get out.
|
Post #90,668
3/23/03 11:53:20 AM
|
Uh... it's all over CNN and ABC on TV.
The web news, in my experience, trails the television reports by an hour or more.
That's not to say they aren't kid-gloving it. Just not quite like you are describing.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #90,671
3/23/03 11:58:00 AM
|
As I thought...
It's on CNN's main web page now, but not in the story itself. The web isn't as instantaneous a news reporting medium as you'd like to think. From the main page: About 10 U.S. troops killed or held as POWs
\ufffd U.S soldiers go astray, confronted by Iraqi military
\ufffd U.S. 7th Cavalry met with artillery fire in south-central Iraq Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #90,674
3/23/03 11:59:58 AM
|
I thought the web was better then that
It is too bad as I get all my news from the web. At least it seems that the foreign news websites are more update then the US ones.
|
Post #90,676
3/23/03 12:03:41 PM
|
As I said elsewhere:
Don't use the media right now to get your facts.
If you really want facts, read about events that happened several days ago, *after* they are no longer a) propaganda, b) unclear, c) suppressed for operational purposes.
Using the media to follow a war in realtime is like trying to referee a sports match in the dark without instant replay. All you're getting right now is psyops and speculation.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
