UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 30
th, 2019 at 12:21am:
Brian, somehow, I don't believe that you would be able to handle conducting military operations in 50+ degree heat. Given that 50+ degrees celsius rarely gets reached anywhere in the world, even around the hottest parts of the world, I would probably call your claims very remotely plausible.
There is a world of difference between the official BoM temperatures and what actually occurs away from the temperature gauge. Then there is the difference between "in the shade" temperatures and what is experienced "in the sun". In 1979 I was an infantryman conducting exercises near Port Augusta in January. The official temperature was approximately 47 degrees in nearby Port Augusta. Out on the range, we measured 52 degrees. We conducted mock operations there. It was hot. We had a cool change part way through the exercise and the temperature dropped to 42 degrees. We appreciated it.
Quote:I don't consider my region to get all that hot during the summer months. I see daytime temperatures anywhere from September to March of any year to have daytime temperatures any range from 30 to 35 degrees -- except during cloudy and rainy days. But for the 150 sunny days of the 'summer' months, it is difficult to work outdoors. I could assume that Iraq would be hot enough to see soldiers keel over from dehydration if they are not drinking a large bottle of water every couple hours.
If they aren't careful, yes. Doonesbury an American cartoonist portrayed the US troops being briefed on how much water they should consume. The closing panel had one saying to the other. "I'll cover you while you drink!" In reality, it isn't that bad once you become used to it. You do need to wear gloves though as everything metal is boiling hot and that includes weapons and tools. You should also make frequent rests.
11 years old? You're only a youngster.
Quote:I cannot remember the 1990 Gulf War very well -- being that I was 11yo when the war started and finished. But I seem to recall that much of the early campaign was more of an air war. Bombers targeting valued targets. It was not really the army's job to fight until after the air campaign was very much over. I can tell you, not from experience in the military, but through living in a hotter climate. You would not fight a war in desert conditions when the temperatures exceed 40 degrees celsius. The Americans would have waited until the Autumn months before launching ground forces.
It was all relative, UnSub. The gulf experiences lower temperatures in the autumn/winter but they still average round 30 degrees. They also experience fogs. So there are pluses and minuses. Perhaps the biggest plus is the improved vision. Ground reflections are reduced and mirages almost disappear. This allowed the Western MBTs to out range the Iraqi MBTs.
Quote:Enough media has been posted on the Americans involvement in Iraq from the year 2003. Obviously, the motivation was oil related. Much like the motivation for the 1990 conflict. 2003 to 2011 was all about protecting oil fields and enforcing business deal onto the Iraqi oil men in favour of the USA. GWB would not be sending $1 trillion worth of military commitments to the Iraq conflict if it was not oil interests. If the Americans wanted to counter terrorist activity, they should be reassessing their people working at the Pentagon.
Oil wasn't that important, directly to the US. Iraq and the Middle East was an important oil source fo Japan and Europe. Without oil, they would not be able to trade. Without trading partners, the US economy would die.
In 1990-91, the Saudis basically footed the bill. They paid over two thirds of the cost of the war. They were happy to do so. 2003 however, the Saudis weren't interested in playing and so the coalition was forced to mount it's operations from Kuwait. Kuwait was more than willing to do that but still it wasn't interested in paying for it. Most of the cost of the invasion and occupation was footed by the US's own citizens.
Money was squandered during the Occupation. Over a billion dollars simply "disappeared". It was loaded onto helicopters by the CIA and flow out to tribal leaders and they accepted the pay offs happily. No effort was made to account for the money. Where the US botched the Occupation was in disarming the Iraqi military and police. This left hundreds of thousands unemployed and without any pay. So they were embittered towards the US and Allied Occupation forces and joined the Resistance or created their own. If they had kept the Iraqi Military and Police in existence they would have had a better handle on controlling the populace.
Forum
Pages: 
