Quote:
|
Interesting comparison. Comparing an air war with a ground war.
|
Neither one of them were an Air War. Both were supported by Air assets, but both were fought, and won on the ground.
Quote:
|
The missions were completely different and the scope and scale of the war vastly different. GW1 pushed Saddam back to his borders. GW2 decimated his military, pushed into a country the whole time providing aid to towns along the way.
|
Where do you get your information? It is erroneous. GW1 did not stop at the Iraqi border. It was fought deep into Iraq. Our forces were actually called back so we did not take Baghdad. The missions were very similar, although the goals were different. GW1 mission was to take back control of Kuwait, protect Saudi Arabia, and engage the Iraqi military until the Iraqi government surrendered, or was destroyed. Saddam chose surrender when he saw Baghdad was threatened. GW1 decimated his military.
GW2 was similar, but fought with too few assets on the ground, IMO. That is why our supply lines were wide open, stretched thin, and unprotected. We did not provide aid to towns along the way. Hell, we did not have most of those towns secured, that is why we endured so many attacks on our supply lines. This is a direct result of not having enough boots, and tracks on the ground before kicking off the hostilities, IMO. It is to 3rd ID's credit that they were able to sustain the advance, and defeat the Iraqi's on their own ground. 3rd ID has a proud history, and tradition of doing this all the way back to WW1. Hell, they did it in GW1. Ever hear of the Phantom Brigade? My bother was a part of it in 1991 with 3rd ID.
GW2 differed in that removing Saddam, and his government, were the primary goals. We did not stop before reaching Baghdad this time as we did in 1991. It would have been much easier to do in 1991, IMO, since we had so much more combat power on the ground. GW2 had more urban fighting than did GW1, but GW1 had more head to head, large scale slug outs. It is actually a miracle in both cases that casualties were/are so light.
Quote:
|
it could have been much worse.
|
Very true.
Quote:
|
i remember talking to one of my marine friends and he was saying before he left that originally they were predicting a 70% casualty rate among the front line infantry. thank god they were wrong.
|
I know that some Cavalry Scouts were told to expect 80% to 90% casualties during the initial engagement in 1991. As you already stated, Thank God they were wrong.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Unless you were there, you really haven't got the foggiest as to how tough it was, or what really occurred. If you want an education on how it was in 1991, or how it is now, come on over to
www.cavalryscouts.com There are plenty of Veterans from GW1, and a few from GW2 (recently returned), and a few from both. We have a lot of members still over there, and get updates as to what the situation is straight from the front. We definitely do not rely on the "unbiased media" for the straight scoop.
Quote:
|
Casualties so far = casualties in Gulf War
|
Just an FYI. This Gulf War is a continuation of the 1991 War.
Linear Mode
