Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: U.S. Ground Vulnerablity Keywords: Tanks, Iraq Message-ID: <1990Aug22.025624.16870@cbnews.att.com> Date: 22 Aug 90 02:56:24 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS Lines: 52 Approved: military@att.att.com From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) With all the troops flowing into Saudi Arabia, the big issue seems to be armor. With an announced figure of 30,000 troops currently in Saudi Arabia, there seems to be a critical shortage of heavy armor. What tanks are currently in the desert? The 82nd airborne seems to have brought M551 Sheridans, which are close to useless (can they fire shells out of the gun? I understood that the chassis didn't take the recoil very well). The Marines seem to have M60A1 (or are they M48s -- I only cost fleeting glimpses of them on the TV). I don't think the 101st has any tanks at all. The 24th Mech has yet to arrive, and is an "armor-light" division anyway (I think -- do they have the normal 5 battalions of tanks? Where are they now?) The III corps (2nd Armored and 1 Cav) won't arrive for two weeks (somebody's brother here is in the 2nd armor, and has been told he'll be leaving sometime between August 26th and September 4th, so I assume the equipment will arrive sometime in that span). All this is extremely unsettling. That leaves the U.S. forces very vulnerable to the estimated 5000 tanks in Iraq's arsenal. Granted, a large number of these appear to be T-54s, but the numbers are overwhelming. I am under the impression that Iraq could roll to Riyadh tomorrow if they chose too, inflicting immense losses on the American forces. What could stop them? Air power is only possible if you continue to control the airbases, which require ground forces, which I don't think we have. Besides, Iraq could probably knock out the bases for a day or two, which would be enough to reduce sorties during the first critical days. A chemical attack would also slow the sortie rate (ever try servicing an F15 in a chemical suit?), and there doesn't seem to be that much margin for reduction. Iraq also seems to have plenty of anti-aircraft weapons which would reduce the effectiveness of CAS and interdiction attempts (interdiction itself would not be as useful in the desert, there being so few "choke-points" to hit). TOW and other weapons (Dragons, LAWs -- not that you'd want to get that close to a tank to use one) are useful, but the best weapon to stop a tank is still another tank. Besides, what good is it to kill tanks at a 10:1 ratio when you're facing tanks at a 25:1 ratio. Iraq ain't Panama. The U.S. has not faced an enemy like this since Korea. Have we sent in too few forces to do the job, but too much to lose? The next three weeks will be critical. As an aside, III corps was one of the units earmarked for Europe (the 2nd Armored has a small brigade in Bremen), and, in fact, has equipment pre- positioned there (I think). The deployment of this unit to Saudi Arabia would have been undreamed of two years ago. One of the "benefits" of the end of the Cold War. Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com