From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 11:06:35 MST
John K Clark <jonkc@att.net> wrote:
> >there is no modern precedent for a large city being taken successfully
> >where the defenders decided to hang on and actually fight to the end.
>
> Berlin.
No, Berlin eventually surrendered. Also, the city was (had been)
largely destroyed and the Red Army suffered bad losses.
> The casualty rate in this war must be at least a thousand to one
> in America's favor, so at least so far there is no evidence things
> will be dramatically different this time.
That only works for pounding troop concentrations from the air. It
will be very different for urban combat. Let's be clear here:
Taking Baghdad is very possible. Taking it without substantial
losses on the side of the Coalition forces _and_ without large
civilian casualties looks impractical if the Iraqis decide to go
down fighting. It will be very interesting to see how the Coalition
forces intend to go about this.
-- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 11:38:08 MST