_BiB_ Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 I'll light some for him too. Of all the battlefields I've read about in WWII...if someone asked me which one I'd least like to step back in time and fight in, I'd say Stalingrad. Cold, wet, hungry...and both armies combined probably ran over 70% casualties over the course of that campaign. Urban combat deemphasizes training in favor of sheer mass. Frankly, it sucks, big-time. 105078[/snapback] Unless I'm very wrong, in my opinion and from what I've heard, Fallujah will not exist next week. Period. Except as rubble and dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Unless I'm very wrong, in my opinion and from what I've heard, Fallujah will not exist next week. Period. Except as rubble and dust. 105086[/snapback] but what kinds of numbers will we lose in the battle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Unless I'm very wrong, in my opinion and from what I've heard, Fallujah will not exist next week. Period. Except as rubble and dust. 105086[/snapback] You know something is about to hit the fan when we spend half a day (Friday morning) dropping thousands upon thousands of leaflets from bombers urging women and children to evacuate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 but what kinds of numbers will we lose in the battle? 105089[/snapback] As few as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Unless I'm very wrong, in my opinion and from what I've heard, Fallujah will not exist next week. Period. Except as rubble and dust. 105086[/snapback] One word: Lidice. Or here's a couple more: Oradour-sur-Glane. I know I'm disagreeing with the experts here...but from a strategic standpoint, that would be very, very wrong. Short-term it's the easy way out. Long-term...levelling an entire city does far more harm to the ultimate strategic goal than a couple thousand US casualties would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 6, 2004 Author Share Posted November 6, 2004 One word: Lidice.Or here's a couple more: Oradour-sur-Glane. I know I'm disagreeing with the experts here...but from a strategic standpoint, that would be very, very wrong. Short-term it's the easy way out. Long-term...levelling an entire city does far more harm to the ultimate strategic goal than a couple thousand US casualties would. 105106[/snapback] I'm no expert in this, but it's as I say. Needless destruction will be avoided, but if the situation warrants, things will be blown up. Perhaps Chicot can chime in to verify this, but Fallujah is pretty well run down and in disprepair after 18 years of war and neglect. If it can be stabilized, we'll pour a lot of money into rebuilding it better than before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Hmmm. Just a thought... AP said that we've been selectively bombing the northern, eastern, and southern neighborhoods in the city, in addition to the central market area. Maybe the goal is to force them to seek shelter in the western neighborhoods, send in the army & Marines to contain them, then damn near raze that section of the city via merciless bombardment. Afterwards have the guys on the ground converge and clean up what's left. Probably too simple, but I did a report on Lidice way back in high school, and I can't imagine us doing that to any city. The fallout would be disastrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Hmmm. Just a thought... AP said that we've been selectively bombing the northern, eastern, and southern neighborgoods in the city, in addition to the central market area. Maybe the goal is to force them to seek shelter in the western neighborhoods, send in the army & Marines to contain them, then damn near raze that section of the city via merciless bombardment. Afterwards have the guys on the ground converge and clean up what's left. Probably too simple, but I did a report on Lidice way back in high school, and I can't imagine us doing that to any city. The fallout would be disastrous. 105122[/snapback] Second problem with that strategy: rubble is usually (often, really) better cover than buildings. One of the biggest problems the Germans first ran into in Stalingrad was that they bombed the stevestojan out of the city first...then when the ground troops went in, they found the Russians were fighting from much better cover than the buildings themselves would have provided. Ultimately, you can never get everyone by bombing (unless it's a big-ass nuke on a small area - nothing survives inside the fireball, outside you have some chance). Eventually, someone's got to walk in and poke the corpses...and you may as well start that way, since a scoped rifle with a guy behind it is a much more certain killer than any bomb ever invented (save maybe the US ones I haven't yet heard about... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Eventually, someone's got to walk in and poke the corpses...and you may as well start that way, since a scoped rifle with a guy behind it is a much more certain killer than any bomb ever invented (save maybe the US ones I haven't yet heard about... ) 105133[/snapback] Good point. Reminds me of the movie whose name I can't recall, but that you may have seen, which chronicles a young Russian sniper's experience in the defense of Stalingrad. He pulled some some dead comrades on top of him and used them as cover, and when the Krauts came by poking at them, they missed him. He then waited, and ended up taking out several German officers and a few regulars from his position. I wish I could remember the name of that film... I think it's right up your alley, fairly accurate from a historical prospective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 I have been out all day, and getting ready to head out again, but wanted to inject some knowledge. Not sure about the rest of the Corps, but I am pretty sure it applies. In 1985 or so, I was primarily a data dink. But for a year or two, I got straddled with a second task, as so often happens in the Corps. That was I was part of the NBC, primarily nuke, react team on the base. That meant we had certain people that were in important that we ensured got to "cover", and we were then responsible for security the area. Depending on the situation, we couldn't ensure the place could or could not be secure. So we were heavily trained in Urban and building clearing. We were trained with the FBI guys and they said, the tactics were going to be taught throughout the Corps over the next few years. So it is my educated guess, these guys know what they are doing. I hope they do well, and I am praying for my brothers. I too have some very close friends there. Don't know if they are involved in this but they are in country. Be prepared in the news reports, I have heard the Marines expect at least to kill 60% of the enemy during this battle. This is huge numbers. Lets hope we take none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Good point. Reminds me of the movie whose name I can't recall, but that you may have seen, which chronicles a young Russian sniper's experinence in the defense of Stalingrad. He pulled some some dead comrades on top of him and used them as cover, and when the Krauts came by poking at them, they missed him. He then waited, and ended up taking out several German officers and a few regulars from his position. I wish I could remember the name of that film... I think it's right up your alley, fairly accurate from a historical prospective. 105155[/snapback] Enemy at the Gates - great movie & Rachel Weisz, yum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Good point. Reminds me of the movie whose name I can't recall, but that you may have seen, which chronicles a young Russian sniper's experinence in the defense of Stalingrad. He pulled some some dead comrades on top of him and used them as cover, and when the Krauts came by poking at them, they missed him. He then waited, and ended up taking out several German officers and a few regulars from his position. I wish I could remember the name of that film... I think it's right up your alley, fairly accurate from a historical prospective. 105155[/snapback] Sounds kind of like Vasily Zaitzev in "Enemy at the Gates"...which was honestly a rather ahistorical movie, I thought. Zaitzev's story, as I've read it, was far more interesting. And if the insurgents in Fallujah want to play sniper-war with the Marines...fine. Marine's will kick their ass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Sounds kind of like Vasily Zaitzev in "Enemy at the Gates"...which was honestly a rather ahistorical movie, I thought. Zaitzev's story, as I've read it, was far more interesting. And if the insurgents in Fallujah want to play sniper-war with the Marines...fine. Marine's will kick their ass... 105167[/snapback] Yeah we kind of invented those tactics didn't we. Army has tried over the year, but we are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Sounds kind of like Vasily Zaitzev in "Enemy at the Gates"...which was honestly a rather ahistorical movie, I thought. Zaitzev's story, as I've read it, was far more interesting. And if the insurgents in Fallujah want to play sniper-war with the Marines...fine. Marine's will kick their ass... 105167[/snapback] Boy did they do a great job hyping that film only to completely drop the ball. VERY disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Boy did they do a great job hyping that film only to completely drop the ball. VERY disappointing. 105170[/snapback] When was the last time a movie lived up to the hype. Maybe Independence Day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 When was the last time a movie lived up to the hype. Maybe Independence Day? 105172[/snapback] Saving Private Ryan I thought "Independence Day" sucked. VERY predictible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Saving Private Ryan I thought "Independence Day" sucked. VERY predictible. 105177[/snapback] I thought private ryan sucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 Sounds kind of like Vasily Zaitzev in "Enemy at the Gates"...which was honestly a rather ahistorical movie, I thought. Zaitzev's story, as I've read it, was far more interesting. And if the insurgents in Fallujah want to play sniper-war with the Marines...fine. Marine's will kick their ass... 105167[/snapback] Enemy at the Gates, that's it. The waves of Russian soldiers being told they'd be shot in the back if they didn't fight, the sniping, and the stalemate that eventually led to Germany's retreat all seemed fairly accurate to my understanding of the battle. I imagine you're much better versed in Stalingrad's defense than I am, but I thought the film captured the spirit of the battle rather well. Knowing that 99% of the time "the book" is better than "the movie," would you recommend it as a worthwhile read in this instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 I thought private ryan sucked. 105180[/snapback] Patriot with Mel Gibson drove me bat-stevestojan with its inaccuracies. Went to the theater to see it, but I should have known it would piss me off when I saw Turlington's Dragoons wearing red coats in the commercials. Nice story, and at least they got the gist of Cowpens right, or at least better than Braveheart did the Battle of Sterling Bridge, which according to the film oddly took place on a hillside and not on the bloody bridge, but I digress... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 I see a great deal of history appreciation here. A friend of mine is getting ready to publish a Civil War book on the history of the West Point class of 1862. Tremendously well researched and there are some really fascinating stories there. He graduated West Point himself (Retired Colonel) and is often asked to conduct seminars and such. The story is told primarily through the eyes of a central 19 year old cadet (who's room mate was GA Custer) and it deals very nicely with the politics of the time, what life was actually like at the academy in those days, and very detailed and scholarly descriptions of the battles they participated in. Goes into their later life experiences, for those who survived. He's located many rare period pictures to accompany the story. When it comes out, if anyone is interested, I will get some autographed copies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts