Better Iraqi Performance in the 1991 Gulf War

Ak-84

Banned
Some Iraqi divisions did put up as good a fight as they could in the circumstancs. Phase Line Bullet comes to mind.

I think that even if they had attacked before December, they coud still have left with something, the Allies were not ready till January. Also, the political dimension cannot be ignored, how long can a war last where you have had significant Western casualties.
 
Some Iraqi divisions did put up as good a fight as they could in the circumstancs. Phase Line Bullet comes to mind.

I think that even if they had attacked before December, they coud still have left with something, the Allies were not ready till January. Also, the political dimension cannot be ignored, how long can a war last where you have had significant Western casualties.

If they invade a 2nd sovereign country and attack US forces there in before the air campaign has begun against them there will be no problem maintaining public support for fighting him.
 
At the tactical level, there were some Iraqis who did put up a good fight. But their higher level command left a lot to be desired. One thing that Saddam made perfectly clear: loyalty to Saddam (not Iraq) counted more than battlefield competence. Case in point: he fired his Chief of Staff in Nov '90 for daring to say that in the coming war, American victory was inevitable. Saddam took that personally, and replaced a very competent field commander with a yes-man. And in '89, his cousin and brother-in-law, Gen. Adnan Kharallah (Defense Minister and CINC-Republican Guard Forces Command) was killed in a "helicopter accident." His alleged offense: being a national hero in the later years of the Iran-Iraq War. This guy was more popular than Saddam, and even though he was a member of Saddam's clan, in Saddam's view, he had to go. And so he did....
 
I've had a think about this and think the key was the Iraqi artillery. Soviet artillery like generally had longer range than its western counterpart and Iraq also had about 100 South African G5s and other long range stuff. If this could be taken advatage of the Iraq can do a bit better.
 
There's a counter to the G-5 and GHN-45 guns the Iraqis had: MLRS. The Iraqis called it "Steel Rain" during the actual war; those who used it called "The Grid Square Removal System." Prime duty for MLRS (both U.S. and British) was counter-battery fire.
 
Yes, they had to take some warhead out and add some propellant for the anti-G5 rocket. There's an answer for everything, but overall about the only Soviet equipment which has superior performance to western equipment is artillery. Tanks and planes can't go head to head, but artillery could use its greater range to get some hits in before being drilled. I mean the Iraqis had months between desert sheild and desert storm, enough time to figure out their strengths and western weaknesses and put two and two together.
 
Yes, they had to take some warhead out and add some propellant for the anti-G5 rocket. There's an answer for everything, but overall about the only Soviet equipment which has superior performance to western equipment is artillery.

I agree, artillery is the key:

- Prior to the war, Saddam make artillery an elite branch (like the French did in WWI). Talented officers and motivated soldeirs are assigned to it. Long range artillery is deployed into mobile positions in Kuwait city. The artillery is supplemented by brigades of elite infantry. They have supplies and plenty of decoys for a year.

-U.S. Marines advance to the outskirts of Kuwait City and get a nasty surprise. The Marines are hit by accurate and heavy mortar fire. Iraqi long range artillery and rockets hits units and convoys all overy Kuwait.

-Units bypassing Kuwait City quickly realize that most of the Iraqi army is is Iraq. There are no 73 Easterling Turkey shoots. As U.S. units near the Iraq border, they are hit by more lethal long range artillery fire from Iraq.

-There is no easy Coalition response. Grinding down the Iraqi artillery is going to take time and cost civilian casualties. Yet, Kuwait is not liberated when Iraqis still effectively contest large portions of the country via artillery. Other annoyances: Iraqi Special Forces teams have ambushed several convoys inside Saudi Arabia causing heavy U.S. casualties and then melted back into civilian areas. Saudi police units trying to find these lethal teams are not exactly motivated or talented.

- A geo political military decision is made to storm Kuwait City. The city is taken, but hundreds of marines are killed in house to house fighting.
 
Last edited:

Tovarich

Banned
Re Saddam's chems.

I read in a newspaper (can't remember which, probably the Grauniad) that Saddam was quietly informed through diplomatic channels that any use of chemical weapons would be met with a nuclear response, and that the USSR had reassured the US that they'd take a "serves him right" attitude under those circumstances.
So using his WMDs would've led to a far worse result for Saddam, rather than better.

Do people think that's true, or just one of those stories in retired peoples' memoirs which gets bigger in the telling?
 
I read in a newspaper (can't remember which, probably the Grauniad) that Saddam was quietly informed through diplomatic channels that any use of chemical weapons would be met with a nuclear response, and that the USSR had reassured the US that they'd take a "serves him right" attitude under those circumstances.
So using his WMDs would've led to a far worse result for Saddam, rather than better.

Do people think that's true, or just one of those stories in retired peoples' memoirs which gets bigger in the telling?

It seems plausible, although I can't imagine the relatively reasonable Bush nuking Iraq over the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. On a civilian population, especially Israeli or American civilians, would be a different story. More likely, I could see the levelling of both Baghdad and Tikrit with conventional bombing if the Americans were hit with cyanide shells or the equivalent.
 
Hmm, the artillery is a good idea. One I was thinking about is if Saddam launched an assault on the Saudi oilfields across the border as soon as reasonably possible, before the Americans arrived in real force, how much damage could he possibly cause if he just sent his Air Force in an all-out suicide run on the KSA before being shot down? Not completely sure on what the goal would be, aside from perhaps bombing the fields, the Yanks, or getting the bombers to Riyadh or something, but I've heard the Saudi Air Force wasn't particularly competent so he might do a lot of damage to them before the USAF/USN blows them out of the sky or sends them running back to Iraq. Granted, he's still gonna get massive losses out of that but it would hurt the enemy a lot more than letting half the airforce run away to Iran or something. Any thoughts on the plausibility of that? Or the results of all this?

About the chem weapons, I think it'd be something Saddam might do once he's forced out of the KSA and Kuwait and the coalition is marching on Baghdad. He might choose to pull back his forces (and especially all his Republican Guard) to fight his Mother of All Battles there and that would probably be where he unleashes mustard gas or even more lethal chemicals on the enemy once he realizes he's lost and just wants to throw everything he has at the coalition.
 
The RSAF had some very good fighter jocks: they all trained either in the U.S. or Britain, and the combat record they did rack up in the actual war bears this out-2 kills and some very good air-to-ground strike runs. Their main problem is maintenance; it's mostly done by contractor personne-then and nowl.

Once CENTAF gets established (and the first carrier group-Independence-was there by 5 Aug, withl Langley AFB's 1st TFW there by 8 Aug), the IrAF's window starts shrinking. The initial deployement is 48 F-15s and the 24 A-model Tomcats on the carrier. Throw in the RSAF's 60 F-15Cs and that's enough to give any Iraqi strikes a good run for their money. And only the Su-24s the Iraqis had could reach Riyadh: and they weren't combat-ready.
 
Hmm, I guess that ties into the requirement from the OP of having a PoD that allows the Iraqis to be more ready and trained for a large war, without actually averting the war itself.
 

Tovarich

Banned
It seems plausible, although I can't imagine the relatively reasonable Bush nuking Iraq over the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. On a civilian population, especially Israeli or American civilians, would be a different story. More likely, I could see the levelling of both Baghdad and Tikrit with conventional bombing if the Americans were hit with cyanide shells or the equivalent.

Oh, the piece didn't give the impression they were talking about using strategic nukes on, eg, Baghdad; I do remember that much (and I suspect most people even in the US Forces would've baulked at that idea!)
More like 'battlefield' nukes (low KT) on Republican Guard barracks, etc.
Indeed, even a lifelong anti-nuclear activist like my self would see that as a more civilised response than levelling cities by conventional means - innocent civilians are just as dead/maimed whether by conventional weapons or WMDs!
 
Last edited:
Oh, the piece didn't give the impression they were talking about using strategic nukes on, eg, Baghdad; I do remember that much (and I suspect most people even in the US Forces would've baulked at that idea!)
More like 'battlefield' nukes (low KT) on Republican Guard barracks, etc.
Indeed, even a lifelong anti-nuclear activist like my self would see that as a more civilised response than levelling cities by conventional means - innocent civilians are just as dead/maimed whether by conventional weapons or WMDs!

I've heard a similar story and I don't think they were going to nuke Baghdad as much as set one off over the city. I believe they were threatening to detonate a nuke over the city and black it out using EMP which not only would that end the war, but likely topple the whole regime.
 
I've heard a similar story and I don't think they were going to nuke Baghdad as much as set one off over the city. I believe they were threatening to detonate a nuke over the city and black it out using EMP which not only would that end the war, but likely topple the whole regime.
Hmm, you think they'd do that if Saddam had unleashed mustard, nerve, tabun and sarin gas on coalition forces once he realized he's losing his big fight for Iraq? If so, the ramifications would be interesting. Would make a good TL, having Saddam prepare his army better, launch a fierce attack on Saudia Arabia, pull back to Iraq and form a competent defense, starting the Mother of All Battles he boasted about, giving a tougher challenge to US and allied forces, only to use chemical weapons on them once it started going against him, prompting a nuclear detonation over a major city in tandem that throws Iraq into chaos as they launch one big assault towards Baghdad, fighting a fierce fight for the city and capturing or killing Saddam. Someone should make that TL, really. Still curious about the consequences once Iraq is in coalition hands, I mean not only would it be the deadliest US fight since Vietnam with thousands of casualties, but many of them are afflicted with gas wounds. And then there's the whole "nuke detonating over Baghdad" thing which would surely shock the entire world, no matter how warranted or anything.
 
To of Bought Chieftain then going with the T-72 tank .
This tank had the gun to damage the M-1 and much better fire control then the T-72 tank had .

300px-Chieftain-MkIII-latrun-2.jpg
 
Top