Talk:Republican Guard (Iraq)

Cite Needed

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)

Unexplained abbreviation

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)

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)

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)

Help needed to make sense of this sentence

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not make sense: "Once the international coalition it was decided to participate in the conflict, five divisions were withdrawn from Kuwait to the Iraqi border to serve as reserve forces" --Mortense (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Wadi al-Batin

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)

Composition

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[1] vs. Mechanised (1A Bde, 2M Bde).[2]) 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,[3] 8th Brigade.
• Medina. Armoured (2A 1M).[4]) Composed of 14th Bde[5], 10th Armoured[6]

1998 Northern Corps

• Adnan (Mechanised[7]). Composed of 11th, 12th 21st.
• Baghdad (Infantry[8]). Composed of 4th, 5th, 6th.
• Medina (Armoured[9]). Composed of 10th, 2nd, 17th, 14th (note 2 units crossover with Hammurabi; unexplained & affects many of the units here).
• Al Abed (Infantry[10]). Composed of 38th, 39th, 40th.

Southern Corps

• Nebuchadnezzar (Infantry[[11]). composed of 19th, 22nd, 23rd.
• Hammurabi (Mechanised[12]). Composed of 17th, 8th, 14th.
• Anedaa (Armoured[13]). Composed of 27th, 28th 29th.

2002 [14]

2003 [15]

Bromley86 (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Invasion & HE shells

@Degen Earthfast. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Insignia/symbol

If I understand correctly, the recent change was made on the strength of this CIA page and this uploaded image. Not good enough, IMO; 15 mins of hunting netted me the CIA image, but nothing else like it.

Also, I note that you changed the colour of the CIA image, as well as editing the text banner part of the image, which is not the right thing to do.

Do you have any other published sources? Bromley86 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I changed it slightly from the CIA doc so it was closer to the uploaded document (since that's a primary source as compared to the CIA secondary source). Some other examples of the use of the logo-with banner can be seen here on a Republican Guard Missile Command flag, here on a Republican Guard Missile Bt. emblem, and here on an Administration/Command Unit emblem. MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's some other examples too - 1., 2., 3., 4.. MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Cheers MrP. All that looks like OR though, and speculation at that. We have one reliable source (the CIA doc) that uses the text banner, and that's it. All the rest are (at best) primary sources, and they all differ from each other (one of the triangles is purple!). Bromley86 (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I think it's just purple due to being on a truck/fading in the sun. I acknowledge it's OR though - sadly I don't think there are any academic articles/books on the insignia of the Iraqi Armed Forces (references that do exist are sparse, and very basic), meaning that this is all we've got. I would disagree however with you regarding reliability - clearly, with there being such a wide range of different types of Republican Guard units all of whom utilised the Triangle + Scroll combination there is clear reasoned grounds for believing that the scroll was a part of the full emblem. The CIA rubber-stamp then gives this a substantial degree of credibility.

I don't think it's unsurprising that there are slight differences - many of the examples come from operational uses (flags trucks etc), meaning they have a degree of uniqueness as the individual who made them likely did it from memory as opposed to a template. When it comes to getting an idea of the exact specifications of the scroll, the best examples are those done with the most care - i.e. the plaque, the manual, and the CIA page & original document. the plaque, CIA document, and original version seem to largely corroborate. I should add it's worth bearing in mind that the existing emblem isn't itself wholly without question - it doesn't cite any sources, utilises a thick black border which I haven't seen anywhere else, and there are questions over whether the IRG triangle should be isosceles (as portrayed) or a pyramid. MrPenguin20 (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it's surprisingly thin on the ground. CNN has a border, so does Global Security. Janes (or any published book) would be a good one, or any of the Hamdani debriefs. Even Ospreys would be interesting. Bromley86 (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

On the word "Republican"

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)