cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (08/22/90)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > > From: cashman@acsu.buffalo.edu (geoffrey a cashman) > > > Some of you might be saying "What can the Wisconsin due to Iraq from the > eastern mediterranean?". Answer: (one possible one) She has tomohawk > cruise missiles as well. Within a few days the Marine Corps will have a built up a substantial amphibious assault capability, which would be might useful if it were decided to liberate Kuwait by assault. The Marines hit the beaches, while the Army swings north through the desert, threatening to cut off about 1/3 of Iraq's army. The Wisconsin can easily hit targets 15-20 miles inland, day or night. Ask any Marine what this means if he has to go in over the beach. Air power is great, but (IMHO) NGFS would be essential to a successful assault from the sea. You should see what a VT fused 16" HE round does to troops in the open. Shazam! I don't think the Wisconsin is there primarily to launch cruise missiles; there are other platforms which can do this there already. Cruise missiles are nice, but there are problems with the "exotic" weapons that make them indecisive in the Gulf: (a) they are relatively few and mighty expensive, (b) nobody knows how effective they are in REAL combat - 80%? 50%?; history says less than 100%, (c) they are best used against the enemy's high-value targets like C3, and Iraq's forces are mostly tanks and grunts. To defeat Iraq you need the old standbys (probably): artillery, tanks, iron bombs, and grunts. That's my idle speculation for today. Pat Kauffold AT&T Bell Labs Naperville (708) 713-4726
n8443916@unicorn.wwu.edu (John Gossman) (08/28/90)
From: n8443916@unicorn.wwu.edu (John Gossman) >> Some of you might be saying "What can the Wisconsin due to Iraq from the >> eastern mediterranean?". Answer: (one possible one) She has tomohawk >> cruise missiles as well. > >Within a few days the Marine Corps will have a built up a substantial >amphibious assault capability, which would be might useful if it were >The Wisconsin can easily hit targets 15-20 miles inland, day or night. >Ask any Marine what this means if he has to go in over the beach. >Air power is great, but (IMHO) NGFS would be essential to a successful >assault from the sea. You should see what a VT fused 16" HE round does >to troops in the open. Shazam! -----------^^^^ My father was among the Marines that landed on Saipan. He recalls American BBs and Cruisers shelling the beaches for hours before the landing. When the Marines hit the beach everything looked like it had gone through a grinder. BUT... The dug in Japanese positions were relatively undamaged. Basically its better than nothing, but pre-invasion bombardment is not going to substitute for hard fighting at the beachhead. --John Gossman SoftSource Inc. [mod.note: But it *can* take the steam out of a counterattack. After all, we're unlikely to meet any shore defenses of the sort constructed on Pacific islands in WWII. The big problem would be holding off an early counterattack.- Bill ]
Thomas.Farmer@actrix.co.nz (Thomas Farmer) (08/28/90)
From: Thomas.Farmer@actrix.co.nz (Thomas Farmer)
In his message, Pat Kauffold says that there could be problems using
cruise missiles as they have never been tested under battle conditions.
Rather than limiting their use in Iraq, wouldn't this increase the
likelihood of their use?
How else does one test weapons in the battlefield without having a
battlefield? The situation in Iraq is a golden opportunity for the
battlefield testing of arms and systems.
--
Yes folks, here it is! The unofficial .sig for Sleeping Beagle!
mail tfarmer@actrix.co.nz (I think)