Talk:Republican Guard (Iraq)

message: Anyone have any evidence for the use of the MP40? It is listed on the page as being in use by the IRG but I find no evidence of this. Cite, anyone? Ogress smash! 02:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite Needed 

message: RGFC. What the F*&& does it stand for? There is nothing more frustrating to a reader than un-explained abbreviations that some conspiracy theorist pulls out of their ass.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.24.8 (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RGFC stands for Republican Guard Forces Command, though I agree that it should be cited i.e. Republican Guard Forces Command (RGFC).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.225.23 (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: rewritten it it to stop it sound like it was written by a sneering american 12 year old  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.107.171 (talk) 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained abbreviation 

message: Part of this sentence does not make sense: "Once the international coalition it was decided to participate in the conflict, five divisions were withdrawn from Kuwait to the Iraqi border to serve as reserve forces" --Mortense (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help needed to make sense of this sentence 

message: The link that is in the infobox now (May 2012) goes to a page that says in the opening paragraph that it is NOT referring to the battle that the Iraqi Republican Guard particpated in. However, there is no page for the battle of that name that the RG DID participate in.Darkstar8799 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of Wadi al-Batin

message: Recording various cites for the composition of the Guard at different times prior to pulling it all together and editing the article.
Invasion of Kuwait/Pre-Desert Storm
*Hammurabi (Armoured vs. Mechanised (1A Bde, 2M Bde).)  Likely armoured, as equipped with best available tanks and doesn't need a majority of armour Bde to be an armoured Div.  Composed of: 17th Armoured Brigade, 8th Brigade.
*Medina. Armoured (2A 1M).) Composed of 14th Bde, 10th Armoured
1998
Northern Corps
*Adnan (Mechanised). Composed of 11th, 12th 21st.
*Baghdad (Infantry). Composed of 4th, 5th, 6th.
*Medina (Armoured). Composed of 10th, 2nd, 17th, 14th (note 2 units crossover with Hammurabi; unexplained & affects many of the units here).
*Al Abed (Infantry). Composed of 38th, 39th, 40th.
Southern Corps
*Nebuchadnezzar (Infantry[). composed of 19th, 22nd, 23rd.
*Hammurabi (Mechanised).  Composed of 17th, 8th, 14th.
*Anedaa (Armoured).  Composed of 27th, 28th 29th.
2002
2003
Bromley86 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composition 

message: @.  Re. the change I made.  That info was added by the same IP that added it to an article that I reviewed a while ago, Battle of the Bridges.  I reverted it there, explaining why, and offered to discuss on the Talk page.  He declined to, put it through again a number of months later and added it here.  The relevant piece in that source, which is a good source (I've used it in Battle of the Bridges), is on pages 90-91:
Another challenge resulted from the fact that neither Hamdani nor his troops held any enmity for the Kuwaitis and therefore planned to minimize casualties, military and civilian. According to his plan, there would be no preliminary shelling or “protective [artillery] fires.” Hamdani went so far as to require his tanks to fire only high-explosive shells, not sabot [armor piercing] in an attempt to “frighten the occupants, but not destroy the vehicle.”
That doesn't entirely support the statement made:
 (a)The tanks of the Republican guard during the invasion were ordered not to use Anti-tank ammunition, but only High-explosive anti-personnel munitions so as to minimize Kuwaiti casualties in tank engagements by scaring their crews (b)into abandoning their tanks, (c)this proved to be an unfortunate mistake for the republican guard when they faced stubborn armoured resistance by the Kuwaitis near Al-Jahra in the Battle of the Bridges.
(a) is fine - I've no problem with it factually, other than to note that Hamdani was not in charge of the entire Guard, but merely the Hammurabi.  
(b) is not supported by the source, as it may have been intended to make them abandon their tanks, or perhaps just to encourage them to retreat; it's speculation.  
(c) would certainly be true if they hadn't used AP when they should, but is (AFAIK) not supported by a statement in the source (i.e. it's OR).  
The whole statement indicates that that is how the engagements were fought.  They might well have been, but equally it seems more likely that the plan was not adhered to when they did bump into organised resistance that both slowed them down and inflicted losses.  We have no support for either of those possibilities.  Also note that Hamdani, whilst an excellent primary source, may have some reasons for adjusting the facts and, as noted above, that he wasn't in overall command of the operation.  Also note that the description of the Battle of the Bridges engagement from the Kuwaiti POV, published in Armor, doesn't mention the lack of AP (although, as with Hamdani, they'd have a reason not to).
That's the situation, re. support by the source.  However, the other matter that I referred to is undue weight.  It simply does not belong in a summary of the invasion of Kuwait.  The lack of pre-attack artillery barrage (also mentioned on those pages) might do, but maybe not.
So, any objection to me removing it again?  Bromley86 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Undue reliance upon the opinions of this source? Perhaps. Worse is drawing our own conclusions from a source. Meanwhile, covering it in this article, however well or poorly, is definitely undue attention to a detail, which is a different question than undue weight. The IP who put it in the battle article had the right place, whatever other aspects were poor including the citation format. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be ok with the source but just sticking with the facts as stated by the source.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done.  As I said in the edit summary, I don't believe that it should be included (it's just not relevant), but at least it's factually accurate now.  Bromley86 (talk) 00:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

text: So, learning that there is a skimpy divisional history article, I moved it there, instead. In general the organization and linkage among Iraqi unit and battle history articles strike me as sparse and maybe even sloppy. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion & HE shells 

message: The Republican Guard was disbanded in 2003... by a member of a Republican Party. Isn't it worth mentioning?101.56.50.245 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: On the word "Republican"