Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by cheesypoptart, Mar 22, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Men or Mission?
What would you have done?
wish he was my boss
Mission of course. COL Dowdy found a solution that accomplished the mission and spared his Marines.
IMHO, the US Army in Bagdhad doing "Thunder Runs" had more to do with his relief than his performance.
The Marines had to put together a 'scratch' mechanized force just so they could keep up with Army (sidebar: One US Army Heavy Divsion has more mechanized and armor assets than the entire Marine Corps.). Another challenge was the level of manuever. The Marines rarely practice manuevering above the battalion/squadron; whereas the Army routinely exercises at the brigade and division level. The logistics 'tail' to support a heavy division is outside the Marine's scope, so the Army was directed provide an entire support package so the Marines could keep up their op-tempo.
The Marines did an outstanding job of task organizing for the fight despite the aforementioned challenges and "got busy". Mech warfare at combat speed is a new thing to them; whereas the Army had the logistics, speed, communications and training to accomplish the mission (thank you National Training Center!).
I think it grated on General Mattis' nerves to see the US Army plowing ahead into Bagdhad while his force was moving at a deliberate pace, following his operations order, and incurring few casualties in the process. I feel that politics, not performance, drove the relief of COL Dowdy. Manuever warfare is NOT directly linked to speed of advance. It IS directly linked to common sense and initiative at the lowest level. Both of which were in ample supply with COL Dowdy.
I think COL Dowdy did a brilliant job, and history will be kinder to him than GEN Mattis. The way I see it, COL Dowdy was relieved because he didn't take ENOUGH casualties to accomplish the mission.
Very intelligent analysis, Tracy-Paul.
I wish the press were able to understand such detail .
Noone ever said that Maureen Generals were smart, and the removal of Col. Dowdy would prove they aren't
Col. Dowdy hats off to leading from the front instead of being a rear-ender, better to be treated an @ss then smell like one
They will; when the Pope gets a hickey...
My take on reading just the first post here was that this was political. Rumsfield was under pressure from those who thought he had not provided sufficient troops in theatre. Any sign that a unit was struggling would add to this criticism - regardless that the Marines were fighting a type of battle that was - for them - unorthodox. If I'm right in this, the General was under orders to do something severe and public.
Just to put TP's comments re USMC armour into some kind of perspective, with some 400+ M1A1, 600+ LAV and 800+ AAV's, the USMC actually has somewhat more armour than the British Army!
Yeah, but we've got Warrior - and of course the Chally 2. If the Beharry VC proves anything, it's that Warrior's the best IFV for counter-insurgency on this planet. So we may have less, but we'll also lose a lot less, <cough Bradley>.
Those AAVs are death traps from what I've heard and seen, since they weren't designed for this kind of in-land stuff. Are they still operating in the Sandbox or have they been withdrawn?
The AAV isnt well suited for urban operations as it is pretty thin skinned, but aside from LAV's its the only APC the Marines had. The Marines were not organized for the mission they were assigned. To make up for deficiencies the Army assigned support units to I MEF. The Marines did a great job,but the pace of their advance was slowed by the die hards holding out in the town's along the MSR. I also agree that Mattis say the rapid advance of the 3ID and so felt compelled to keep up. I think Dowdy would have become a general officer had he not been relieved. But if he had been unjustly fired then the Commandant could have put him on the list for BG,so far that hasnt happened.
In terms of weight and protection, the Brads and Warriors are almost identical. Both have the same aspect vulnerabilities as well. What am I missing here vis-a-vis protection?
Let's limit it to the Brads and Warriors currently in Iraq. Lord knows there's enough varieties of the types...
If I remember correctly, the magic word is Chobham applique armour. Actually, that's three words. Never mind...
As an aside, in terms of weaponry and avionics, I believe the Bradley is actually superior (well, the Warrior is really an MCV, not an IFV), although the British Warrior versions are due for a large upgrade.
I thought the Warrior had spaced laminate armour. I hadn't realized it was Chobham... cool beans.
If I remember correctly, the hull is made of aluminium, the turret of steel. You can up-armour it though, and that makes all the difference. Cool beans, indeed!
The add-on armour is the large rectangular blocks on the sides and front. Quite apparent if you compare pictures of vehicles with and without. It covers the crew compartment rather then the whole of the vehicle. It does add weight and reduce mobility though, not that it matters for current ops.
Aluminium is a popular material for light armoured vehicles as it is stiff and light. Hence the hull can be built as an aluminium box which is strong enough and offers a decent degree of protection.
Separate names with a comma.