StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mr Bean wrote:Sea Skimmer just out of curisotry have the Figures on Cost Effetiveness for various other opitions?

IE
Napam

You can't destroy a point target like a bunker with napalm. It has no penetrating power.

Taticual Nukes

Sure it'll be cost effective. It'll also be an atrocity.

2000lb dumb's

You're not guaranteed of taking a target out with unguided munitions, and you'll need a big strike package to take it out. Not cost efficient.

Vympel wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
To support their claims that the USAF only bombed a bunch of decoys...

You do know that a decoy is considerably more valuable than the burnt out husk of a tank that's had it's turret blown off, right?

Oh...I'm sorry. I thought you meant that they towed away wreckage of real hardware but left behind more wreckage of decoys.

To provide another counterpoint, I'd like to comment on these also.

Mr Bean wrote:Sea Skimmer just out of curisotry have the Figures on Cost Effetiveness for various other opitions?

IE
Napam

Napalm would be far worse for civilian casualties than T-Hawks, IMHO. More likely to spread out of control, and sudden wind gusts affect napalm far more than HE or cluster munitions.

Taticual Nukes

If we're willing to wait a few years, destroy the entire city, and ignore the whole fact that the center of Baghdad is an archaeological site, then MAYBE tactical nukes will be effective. That's some pretty big if, though.

2000lb dumb's

Inaccurate, more likely than T-Hawks to cause civilian casualties. Puts pilot's lives at risk, since the center of Iraq has not been policed for AA weapons. The best alternative to T-Hawks, but still a weak proposition. JDAMs maybe, but dumbs...I doubt they'll ever be primary weapons of the USAF again.

Mr Bean wrote:Sea Skimmer just out of curisotry have the Figures on Cost Effetiveness for various other opitions?

IE
Napam
Taticual Nukes
2000lb dumb's

Compared to the Tomahawks?

To be accurate napalm canisters most be dropped from very low in a shallow dive, no way the USAF will do that with a thousand pieces of AAA shooting at the planes. So it would be a matter of high-level carpet-bombing with the stuff. Probably some Mk82's mixed into a second strike to take out fire fighting equipment.

So Napalm would be pretty useless, unless we started a city wide firestorm with it. That would suck the air right out of any bunker and kill anyone inside, and take out any other target. The death toll would be in tens of thousands however.


Not sure about nukes, likely much much cheeper, and since we have a big surpulse of them replacement is not an issue, unlike missiles. That limits the cost to flying the planes in, so where looking at a few million at most. Course we'd also kill a similar number of millions of people.

A 2000-pound JDAM costs only 21,000 dollars and will kill most anything things a Tomahawk could kill. However they'd cause more collateral damage, the mk80 series creates massive fragments that can be lethal at 3 miles. Actually they'll take you head clear off at that range.

And since they can't fly into a 10 story window or anything like that we'd be dropping moreof them. Overall they would still be far cheeper, mabey 25 million dollars for ordanance, but with several times more people killed.

Using dumb 2000 pounders, and high releases, we'd probably need to drop 4-12 to kill each of the Tomahawk targets. I'm not sure of the cost of a dumb 2000-pound bomb, but Its around a few thousand dollars.

Even if we need scores it would still be far far cheeper. But of course most bombs would miss with predictabul results.

Vympel wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
And yet I've encountered nothing to contradict it, or the fact that a tank inside of a barn is not going to be very effective in combat.

NATO claimed they destroyed some 50% of Serbian armor in Kosovo and all sorts of other outrageous figures. The Serbs came back with their own brand of bullshit and said that they had only mamanged to kill 13 Serb tanks. Although both are no doubt lies, NATO's claims are certainly worth looking at. Come on, these are people that even had the audacity to bullshit that they *intentionally* destroyed decoys so as to prevent their use

The story about the KLA drawing the Serbs out into the open wreaks of crap- the story goes that a Serb brigade was drawn out into the open and destroyed by airstrikes, resulting in massive Serb casualties. No such evidence discovered.

NATO claims that the Serbs policed the battlefield really well and that all the equipment they destroyed were taken away. A few problems with that. If they policed the battlefield so well, how come so many decoys they made were left behind, but not the wrecked shattered remains of T-55s and M-84s blown apart by 2000lb bombs and useless?

I'm working from a figure of Serb losses being about 25-30 tanks and armored vehicles and 30 artillery pieces, and that about 15 and 15 got destroyed within the 48 hours are around the KLA's attack.

A greaty many of there decoys where totaly improvised, an armored battalions support trains could have built many of the ones they used.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
Oh...I'm sorry. I thought you meant that they towed away wreckage of real hardware but left behind more wreckage of decoys.

Wreckage of real decoys would be pretty difficult to find. There'd be a crater and wood chips.

You also have to wonder at the logic that states that NATO just *watched* the Serbs pick up hundreds of hulks of dead vehicles that are of no use to anyone and take them back across the border on trucks and trains.

jaeger115 wrote:Oh please. Bush is going to get voted out in 2004 if massive civilian casualties result.

LOL. I'm sorry, but that's about the first time I've laughed for a week. Americans didn't give a shit about the Iraqi death toll in Gulf War II, don't give a shit about foreign anything in general, and aren't going to give a shit if Shrubby proves his manhood by flattening Baghdad with multiple ICBM strikes.

As for shooting 600-800 TLAM in the first two days, it's not possible given currently estimated US forces in the area. Globalsecurity.org's orbat estimates only 790 VLS cells in range. This is not sufficient given that a portion of these cells will need to be devoted to SM2 for ship self-defense. There are, however, around 1,500 additional VLS cells enroute in the form of three CVBGs. If Shrubby wants to shoot off 800 million dollars worth of TLAM in the mother of all fireworks displays, he's going to be in a position to do it in a matter of weeks.

Don't be surprised if the US gives the UN inspectors another few weeks to look around--Shrubby needs the time to get his toys prepared for his nationalist wankfest.

Vympel wrote:You also have to wonder at the logic that states that NATO just *watched* the Serbs pick up hundreds of hulks of dead vehicles that are of no use to anyone and take them back across the border on trucks and trains.

Well, they can be melted down for scrap metal...

Enlightenment wrote:

jaeger115 wrote:Oh please. Bush is going to get voted out in 2004 if massive civilian casualties result.

LOL. I'm sorry, but that's about the first time I've laughed for a week. Americans didn't give a shit about the Iraqi death toll in Gulf War II, don't give a shit about foreign anything in general, and aren't going to give a shit if Shrubby proves his manhood by flattening Baghdad with multiple ICBM strikes.

As for shooting 600-800 TLAM in the first two days, it's not possible given currently estimated US forces in the area. Globalsecurity.org's orbat estimates only 790 VLS cells in range. This is not sufficient given that a portion of these cells will need to be devoted to SM2 for ship self-defense. There are, however, around 1,500 additional VLS cells enroute in the form of three CVBGs. If Shrubby wants to shoot off 800 million dollars worth of TLAM in the mother of all fireworks displays, he's going to be in a position to do it in a matter of weeks.

Don't be surprised if the US gives the UN inspectors another few weeks to look around--Shrubby needs the time to get his toys prepared for his nationalist wankfest.

What about all of the Democrats that could use that for their own political gains? I'm sure that they are going to play up civilian casualties and the gruesome details of the war to make it unpopular. NTM all of the anti-war guys out there already protesting. And the public opinion over the war is swinging wildly back and forth. Evidence of massive civilian casualties might just be enough to go anti-war and cost Bush his re-election.

Enlightenment wrote:

jaeger115 wrote:Oh please. Bush is going to get voted out in 2004 if massive civilian casualties result.

LOL. I'm sorry, but that's about the first time I've laughed for a week. Americans didn't give a shit about the Iraqi death toll in Gulf War II, don't give a shit about foreign anything in general, and aren't going to give a shit if Shrubby proves his manhood by flattening Baghdad with multiple ICBM strikes.

As for shooting 600-800 TLAM in the first two days, it's not possible given currently estimated US forces in the area. Globalsecurity.org's orbat estimates only 790 VLS cells in range. This is not sufficient given that a portion of these cells will need to be devoted to SM2 for ship self-defense. There are, however, around 1,500 additional VLS cells enroute in the form of three CVBGs. If Shrubby wants to shoot off 800 million dollars worth of TLAM in the mother of all fireworks displays, he's going to be in a position to do it in a matter of weeks.

Don't be surprised if the US gives the UN inspectors another few weeks to look around--Shrubby needs the time to get his toys prepared for his nationalist wankfest.

Its also been rumored that as many as five CVBG's will be sent at least for the opening attack, and a temporary surge of SSN's is possibul. Its also feasible, though unlikely that some surface ships would be rapidly reloaded in Kuwait or Bahrain during the day. B

-52's are the most likely way of upping the numbers though, each one can carry up to 20 Tomahawks. And with the B-1 fleet available for iron bombing duties, that's a likely option.

Vympel wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
Oh...I'm sorry. I thought you meant that they towed away wreckage of real hardware but left behind more wreckage of decoys.

Wreckage of real decoys would be pretty difficult to find. There'd be a crater and wood chips.

You also have to wonder at the logic that states that NATO just *watched* the Serbs pick up hundreds of hulks of dead vehicles that are of no use to anyone and take them back across the border on trucks and trains.

Depends how dead the thing is. The habit of Soviet designed tanks and spin-offs to explode anything you penetrate the turret makes recovery quite often pointless. But it is an issue, and many a few may have been taken back to be stripped or repaired.

Unlikely that the number is in the hundreds though.

Necro99 wrote: Do you really think the gov will spend 500 MILLION for a single missile barrage?

Honestly, thats pure propaganda.

And that's about how much cheese nachos the US populace eats in about
a year. Methink's you've overestimated the price of the TLAM and CALCM
by a factor of 2. Probably 250 m a day in missiles. Expensive, but not
excessively so if we're doing it full out to force a regime change......

Now, launching 40+ TLAMs at a pissant desert training camp like Bill Clinton
used to do, is expensive, lots of boom boom for little effect....

Durandal wrote:
"There will be no safe place in Baghdad."

Hear that? They're targetting the entirety of the fucking city. Shrub can spin-doctor it however he wishes, but the fact remains that he is deliberately targetting civilians.

Uhm, how about the context of "saddam cannot fucking HIDE anywhere"?

Reminds me of the time the Germans came to Saydam and said
"we can build a bunker impenetratable to anything short of a nuke!"

So he had them build assloads of those uber-bunkers.

Then comes the Gulf War, and a special bomb developed in
scant MONTHS is dropped from a F-111, blowing the
supposedly impentatrable bunker to hell in a few seconds.

Oh yeah, some bright genius in the EYE-RAKI defense establishment
had the idea of using these superhardenend bunkers with military
command data-links and satellite dishes on the roof as a civilian
air raid shelter

Sea Skimmer wrote: And yet I've encountered nothing to contradict it, or the fact that a tank inside of a barn is not going to be very effective in combat.

They kept the majority of their combat power EFFECTIVE for continued
operations. The Serbian army walked out of kosovo an EFFECTIVE
fighting force, not one that had been bombed to shit

Enlightenment wrote: As for shooting 600-800 TLAM in the first two days, it's not possible given currently estimated US forces in the area. Globalsecurity.org's orbat estimates only 790 VLS cells in range.

What about CALCMs (Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles)
launched from B-52s flying off from diego garcia. The US Air Force
will want to play too..

STFU before you embarass yourself with anymore vomit from your
mouth.