# Scuds from Iraq ver1.0



## chip haehnel (Jul 1, 2009)

Perhaps this has been rolled over to death previously, but I have seen no definitive history of the operation against the Scuds. Warthogs seemed the ideal platform, but reported success rate was low. The go fast guys may have superior avionics compared to the vintage Hogs, loiter time and six guns still seem to be ideal for SAR, S and D, and CAS. Modern drones today for this type of operation, gentlemen and ladies?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 2, 2009)

I had a classmate over there and he told me the most effective operation against the Scuds were the British SAS.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2009)

Back in my day, during the first Gulf War, there were more than just aircraft trying to destroy SCUDs.... There were more than several "Ops" by certain groups within the US Military that did their part in elimniating as many of these hard to find targets...

U will not hear of these missions as they a still classified as Top Secret...


----------



## evangilder (Jul 2, 2009)

You are talking about a mobile target. Tracking, and targetting something that is highly mobile and normally camouflaged is not an easy target from the air. But like Dan said, using specialized teams to locate them and take them out by whatever means necessary is more effective. The teams can call in whatever assets they need to get the job done, whether it be air, artillery, or other means.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2009)

Bingo Eric....


----------



## RabidAlien (Jul 2, 2009)

Best targeting/tracking equipment in today's TOE.....the Mk1/Mod1 eyeball. Each GI is issued two (2) each. Ya just can't beat HUMINT! Mark that puppy, put a dot on it, and call in the guns!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm wanting to say that the Scuds/launchers were fairly delicate, ie not requiring any specialized weaponry to take them out (such as an A10's spent uranium rounds do a better job against tanks than their standard rounds), at which point pretty much anything in the general vicinity with ammo bigger than a .22 round could probably have taken them out?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2009)

I cant correct u Rabid as ur correct... They were not a difficult target to destroy, just find..... Cluster munitions were usually the weapon of choice for gettin the area saturated...


----------



## evangilder (Jul 3, 2009)

No better way to clear an area that a well placed cluster bomb or two. You don't want to be on the receiving end of that.
Scuds are like about any other surface to surface missile, nothing special about them and they aren't armored. Since the propellant is a liquid that is highly flammable, one hole and one spark and ker-fricken-boom. 

The Scud was really just an updated V2 rocket, and the updates weren't that technological either.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 3, 2009)

I believe I'm right in saying that the (in)famous Bravo Two Zero patrol were on Scud-busting duties, along with other SAS units, during GW1. Also, IIRC, the idea was for the SAS to locate the launchers and then call in RAF assets to actually take them out, the SAS team scarpering in the ensuing chaos.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 3, 2009)

Correct 100% BT....


----------



## trackend (Jul 4, 2009)

Only problem was Bravo two zero was a cocked up operation its the units ( what ever nationality) who didnt get found out that did the bizz its just that they dont write books about it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 4, 2009)

hint hint nudge nudge know what I mean???

Spot on Lee.. Stuffs still classified...


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 4, 2009)

trackend said:


> Only problem was Bravo two zero was a cocked up operation its the units ( what ever nationality) who didnt get found out that did the bizz its just that they dont write books about it.



Of course, and the debate continues to this day about which account of the patrol is right and even if they should have been published at all. McNab and Ryan have certainly become wealthy from that botched op. But then, a sucessful patrol wouldn't have sold many books


----------



## trackend (Jul 4, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Of course, and the debate continues to this day about which account of the patrol is right and even if they should have been published at all. McNab and Ryan have certainly become wealthy from that botched op. But then, a sucessful patrol wouldn't have sold many books



I dont think they had that in mind at the time BT " I know lads lets get caught slapped about a fair bit have some teeth yanked out etc then when whats left of us get back we can sell loads of books" 

I am no covert operation expert at all but I have met just one genuine artical and I was informed publicity is the last thng they want and he took a very dim view of any ex SO opening his cake hole to make a few bob.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jul 4, 2009)

I know the SAS took a very dim view of real names of the deceased being published in both accounts. I suppose the stories of Bravo One Zero and Bravo Three Zero will never be told, as they didn't get it wrong. Like I said, publishers aren't interested in telling the story of the patrols that went right...


----------

