Iraqi field fortifications question

[Marcello]

I have seen some pictures of iraqi field fortifications and I got curious about them. It seems they built a lot of personnel shelters, dug and covered with sandbags and the like. Also lots of berms, the occasional antitank ditch, small fighting positions and some trenches. They also employed a lot of tank in the static role, either dug or behind berms. Now my question is did they build anything else?

Did they built concrete shelters for personnel à la WW1? Did they build concrete pillboxes for machine guns/antitank guns?

Bunkers with tank turrets? Artillery gun pits ? Anything of the sort?

I am aware of the yugos at the airbases and the reinforced border posts but I was interested in the field stuff.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Marcello

[DemolitionMan]

The Kuwaiti beach was very heavily fortified in anticipation of an amphibious attack, IIRC with concrete trench lines and bunkers.

[Guest aevans]

The Iraqis built blockhouses on overpasses crossing the ring roads around Kuwait City, constructed out of what appeared to be cinderblock. They appeared to be designed to cover both the crossing road and the ring road.

[Marcello]

The Iraqis built blockhouses on overpasses crossing the ring roads around Kuwait City, constructed out of what appeared to be cinderblock. They appeared to be designed to cover both the crossing road and the ring road.

 

Interesting. Did they build reinforced emplacements for their antitank gun as well?

[DesertFox]

Does Cinderblock hold up at all to heavy weaponry?

[Marcello]

Using the info provided in this thread I have been able to find this:

 

http://news.webshots.com/photo/1096807715016222121LCIdAw

 

I assume the cinderblocks were filled with concrete. Even so it does not look terribly solid, I suspect it would be hard pressed to withstand more than few .50 cal hits or an 81mm mortar bomb.

If anybody has pictures like this I would be really interested to see them.

[Guest aevans]

Interesting. Did they build reinforced emplacements for their antitank gun as well?

 

The crew served weapn and AFV emplacements that I saw were just appropriately sized entrenchments. Adjoining personnel and ammo shelters had ovherhead cover, but it was pretty much just for camouflage and to keep the rain out -- usually just some plastic sheeting with a few inches of sand spread over it.

[DKTanker]

Does Cinderblock hold up at all to heavy weaponry?

LOL, no. Won't even hold up to 7.62. Which leads me to believe that when somebody states a position was made of cinder block they mean either A) concrete block or B)poured concrete walls or C)Pre-cast concrete. Because of the forming both poured concrete and pre-cast concrete can have a vague resemblance to concrete block.

[Guest aevans]

LOL, no. Won't even hold up to 7.62. Which leads me to believe that when somebody states a position was made of cinder block they mean either A) concrete block or B)poured concrete walls or C)Pre-cast concrete. Because of the forming both poured concrete and pre-cast concrete can have a vague resemblance to concrete block.

 

It was cinderblock -- gray & grainy, and the mortar joints were so slipshod you could clearly make them out from a hundred feet away.

[KingSargent]

Using the info provided in this thread I have been able to find this:

 

http://news.webshots.com/photo/1096807715016222121LCIdAw

 

I assume the cinderblocks were filled with concrete. Even so it does not look terribly solid, I suspect it would be hard pressed to withstand more than few .50 cal hits or an 81mm mortar bomb.

If anybody has pictures like this I would be really interested to see them.

I have readily destroyed cinderblock with a .357 Magnum Pistol. Filling the holes in a cinderblock wall with concrete would be very difficult and contribute little to structural strength.

[DKTanker]

I have readily destroyed cinderblock with a .357 Magnum Pistol. Filling the holes in a cinderblock wall with concrete would be very difficult and contribute little to structural strength.

Now that you mention it, filling the voids of cinderblock with mortar while laying each course wouldn't be so difficult.

[DKTanker]

It was cinderblock -- gray & grainy, and the mortar joints were so slipshod you could clearly make them out from a hundred feet away.

Not saying it wasn't cinderblock, but concrete block, which is dry cast, has a similar appearance. In fact they are the same except that what we normally think of as cinder block has voids while concrete block has none.

[Marcello]

filling the voids of cinderblock with mortar while laying each course wouldn't be so difficult.

 

That was what I had in mind. Has anybody seen similar structures left over from the Iran Iraq war?

[Karida]

That was what I had in mind. Has anybody seen similar structures left over from the Iran Iraq war?

 

Many were destroyed early on. Dug in fortifications were used up until sometime in 1984 when a more mobile campaign was pressured for and they were finding it hard to maintain the fortifications under heavy battack. MG turrets and the like got thrown out of use pretty quickly because they'd just get swamped with artillery fire and be destroyed really quickly. Everything ended up as quickly repairable dirt trenches and stuff that could be dug really really quickly.

 

I know in Kuwait that anything built was not meant to last. Kuwait was supposed to work around a stalling action to keep enemy forces under heavy enough fighting, and make it tough enough, that they would give up from popular pressure. It didn't work out that way, but it was the intent. It was not expected that the Guard would have to actually fight any foreign forces at all once Kuwait was taken, so not much outside was built. Beach defences to protect the flanks, which were not expected to be used, and fall back positions for regular army forces to use. When the Guard divisions ended up being dragged into the fight, and especially when they were being bombed, it was a complete turn around to what was intended to happen.

 

So fortifications were not a huge part of Iraqi use. The war with Iran wore that concept down quickly and efforts were made more towards less permenant positions unless there was no choice. If you have seen poorly built blockhouses and bunkers in Kuwait and along the Iraqi coast then I wouldn't be surprised, they were never meant to be held long, and some may never have been meant to actually be used.

[Marcello]

Many were destroyed early on. Dug in fortifications were used up until sometime in 1984 when a more mobile campaign was pressured for and they were finding it hard to maintain the fortifications under heavy battack. MG turrets and the like got thrown out of use pretty quickly because they'd just get swamped with artillery fire and be destroyed really quickly. Everything ended up as quickly repairable dirt trenches and stuff that could be dug really really quickly.

 

Can you elaborate on the fortifications used before 1984 ? Were antitank guns put in bunkers with overhead cover? What were these MG turrets?

 

Many thanks in advance for any info. This stuff is very difficult to find out about.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Marcello

[Karida]

Can you elaborate on the fortifications used before 1984 ? Were antitank guns put in bunkers with overhead cover? What were these MG turrets?

 

Many thanks in advance for any info. This stuff is very difficult to find out about.

 

Not really, I can only go off what my father told me, and what I've seen. And I was born in 1985 so I can't go much earlier.

He never mentioned design specifics, just complaints about one thing or another.

 

Although if I had to guess from experiance, anti-tank guns were not covered in enclosed fortifications. They wouldn't have proved much use fighting Iran because all the fights were either infantry or more mobile.

 

I would think anti-tank guns would be dug into sandbag pits and at best covered with nets or tarps, but I can't see much more effort put into it.

[Paul in Qatar]

I dunno. I wasn't there.

 

Iraqi fortification doctrine grew out of the Iran/Iraq war where poorly-led formations (on both sides) charged into each other. It was like WWI, and promoted the same sort of "sit tight and mow them down" defensive theory. Their manuals called for triangular company positions. Three of these formed the endpoints for a triangular all-around battalion position. Even three of these could form the corners for a regimental position.

 

That never really happened. It looked good on paper. In Real Life, the triangles looked like pita bread when seen from above, and more often units dug in as best suited local conditions.

 

Cinder block (Why is it called that?) will not stop a thing. On the other hand (I suppose) it causes little harm. What you really have to avoid is hiding behind brick. The stuff shatters and increases weapons effects. Nasty that.

[DKTanker]

Cinder block (Why is it called that?) will not stop a thing.

Because cinder block, unlike concrete block, actually uses cinders and or clinker as aggregate.

[ABNredleg]

I dunno. I wasn't there.

 

Iraqi fortification doctrine grew out of the Iran/Iraq war where poorly-led formations (on both sides) charged into each other. It was like WWI, and promoted the same sort of "sit tight and mow them down" defensive theory. Their manuals called for triangular company positions. Three of these formed the endpoints for a triangular all-around battalion position. Even three of these could form the corners for a regimental position.

 

That never really happened. It looked good on paper. In Real Life, the triangles looked like pita bread when seen from above, and more often units dug in as best suited local conditions.

 

Cinder block (Why is it called that?) will not stop a thing. On the other hand (I suppose) it causes little harm. What you really have to avoid is hiding behind brick. The stuff shatters and increases weapons effects. Nasty that.

 

Before ODS kicked off our engineers built a replica of a Iraqi battalion triangular position in Kuwait for live-firing exercises - I seem to recall each side being 1000 meters in length. I can't remember the exact tactics we came up with but seemed to recall it was going to take a BN TF to capture each company position. It's amazing how quickly trench clearing can consume troops. (Fortunately, we only had to do this in training.)

 

As to actual Iraqi positions, I wasn't overly impressed. Either there was insufficient overhead cover, insufficient supports holding up the overhead cover, or both. They seemed to have plenty of engineering equipment because the artillery positions we inspected not only had berms around the gun positions, but also had large berms around the entire battery position.

Edited March 16, 2008 by ABNredleg

[Xavier]

Before ODS kicked off our engineers built a replica of a Iraqi battalion triangular position in Kuwait for live-firing exercises - I seem to recall each side being 1000 meters in length. I can't remember the exact tactics we came up with but seemed to recall it was going to take a BN TF to capture each company position. It's amazing how quickly trench clearing can consume troops. (Fortunately, we only had to do this in training.)

 

As to actual Iraqi positions, I wasn't overly impressed. Either there was insufficient overhead cover, insufficient supports holding up the overhead cover, or both. They seemed to have plenty of engineering equipment because the artillery positions we inspected not only had berms around the gun positions, but also had large berms around the entire battery position.

A triangular position(with I presume in a company would mean a platoon position on each corner?) does sound as a decent fortification plan to my untrained mind, if well executed which doesn't seem to be something arabs are good at.

[Paul in Qatar]

It looked good on paper. The idea was it provided all-around security. But even Iraqi engineers (the best branch of their army) could not pull it off.

[Xavier]

It looked good on paper. The idea was it provided all-around security. But even Iraqi engineers (the best branch of their army) could not pull it off.

may be a stupid question, but what's so difficult about making decent field works? especially with weeks of preparation.

[Guest aevans]

may be a stupid question, but what's so difficult about making decent field works? especially with weeks of preparation.

 

Terrain. The notional triangular battalion position was supposed to be 1,000 m on a side. Even in the desert that's too far for mutual support between company positions. As stated, looks real good on paper, doesn't make much sense in practice. Iraqi field fortifications that I saw tried somewhat to conform to the terrain, but they were really slipshod in construction. They were mostly fighting holes without connecting trenches and shelter bunkers with inadequate overhead protection.

[Karida]

Terrain. The notional triangular battalion position was supposed to be 1,000 m on a side. Even in the desert that's too far for mutual support between company positions. As stated, looks real good on paper, doesn't make much sense in practice. Iraqi field fortifications that I saw tried somewhat to conform to the terrain, but they were really slipshod in construction. They were mostly fighting holes without connecting trenches and shelter bunkers with inadequate overhead protection.

 

 

That's what you get when you have an army that just came out of a bloody 8 year war and have no real motivation, or energy, anymore. Let alone most of them being new conscripts, and the infantry commanders being so bad as to be people I wouldn't trust to run a McDonalds.