When they invaded they moved such a large army, so quickly through iraq.-(If there had been a large organised iraqi defence)- strategically did they leave there supply lines open to attack, risking leaving there attacking force without fuel and ammo in the middle of the desert?
2006-11-22 05:41:53 · 13 answers · asked by bob 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yes, they did. It was a calculated risk. The Germans did the same thing in WWII, which was very successful (39-40). So did the US a few years later (44-45).
The idea is that you bunch your units together to achieve maximum firepower against the enemies forces, with the objective being to breakthrough the enemies line of defense. Once the initial breakthrough occurs, then the bunched forces are spread out to destroy the enemies backfield of supplies & their command and control (headquarters) units. Secondary units of the attacking force are tasked with protection of the supply lines, rounding up & holding prisoners of war.
The risky part is that by bunching the majority of your forces in one place, you leave your own supply lines open to attack via a flanking manuver. However, this risk is mitigated by the fact that once you breakthrough the enemy's primary line of defence, they are usually too occupied with trying to defend their own territory / supply lines / reestablish a line of defence to go after yours.
2006-11-22 05:52:18 · answer #1 · answered by Big Super 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There was no luck about the whole situation.
The concept of complete spectrum dominance through joint warfighting demands that we eliminate the effectiveness of enemy fighting units. By providing superior air coverage and rapid mobile ground units, our supply lines were protected from enemy assault. The use of superior intel, surveillance, and recon measures also ensured that we knew where significant OPFOR units were and could counteract their manuevers to flank and disrupt supply lines.
Further, even if supply lines were cut off, most of our organized combat forces carry a reasonable supply with them, so they would not have been "stranded in the desert." At the same time, while there are alot of retired officers balking on CNN, the use of lightning tactics in iraq was indeed a wild success in overwhelming the iraqi forces and regime change. In other words, not only will we see these highly effective and lean tactics used repeatedly in the future, but you also "ain't seen nothin yet."
2006-11-22 07:49:17 · answer #2 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah and so did the Wermacht in 1940 roll up the opposition in France with their tactic of 'lightning war'. The shock and awe bombing campaign destroyed command and control facilities and we are talking about the most technically advanced armed services in the world whose intelligence of Iraqi troop deployments would have been superb. There is a spurious notion that American troops are too soft to really fight. Well anyone who has seen documentary footage of the fighting in WW2 and imagines that the Marine Corps has given up its traditions or the 101st Airborne can't fight just hasn't a clue as to the fighting spirit these brave soldiers have.
Perhaps the strategy carried some risk but Iraq had lost most of its armour in the first Gulf War and American air supremacy would have broken any counter attack against supply lines.
2006-11-22 05:58:57 · answer #3 · answered by william john l 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the US used blitzkrieg tactics and this naturally leaves your logistics open to attack as the fighting forces tend to out run the supply lines. The US use of this tactic was pushed by Rumsfeld trying to do much more with less. The pentagon is not likely to use this tactic again. If they do they will use helos to fuel and supply the army if ground supply is cut off. So in answer to your question did we get lucky NO! We were annoyed and embarrassed but not in any real danger as we had air superiority and once the sand storms abated the convoys moved virtually unmolested.
2006-11-22 05:58:50 · answer #4 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The USA military leaders up to now did not counter the move of the Iraqi Army which was self-termination. And the 1st decision was to make the Iraqi Army illegal.
2006-11-22 06:03:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
conflict is by no ability the respond on your problems! My opinion on the conflict in Iraq is in basic terms a waste of money! i'm an American and united statesa. and different countries are transforming into broke popular via conflict. I purely wish President Obama could desire to the yank troops of the midsection East!
2016-10-17 09:41:47 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Preparation Planning and Good Military Tactics.
2006-11-22 23:37:04 · answer #7 · answered by Blueblaze 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They new everything about the Iraqi army. They had spies in the UN inspection team before the war.
2006-11-22 05:53:37 · answer #8 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, no luck was involved.
The US military is pretty much the best fighting force in the world. And the Iraqi army in 2003 wasn't even on par with the one that got its butt whipped in 1991.
2006-11-22 05:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
they did leave then self exposed to attack but Iraq's army was not organised to attack so the US got Lucky.
2006-11-22 05:47:30 · answer #10 · answered by mat67 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋