Would You Do the Same for Someone You Hardly Know?
-
I wont if theres a high chance of me getting my ass kicked...I mean whats the point if there are 10 machine gun men and 1 rocket launcher and 20 riflemen in your way and you go "chiong ah!!! complete selflessness!!! SHEN!!"
bangbangbangbangbang!!! -
this is ture..Originally posted by meander:No I don't like it either, but it's reality. Someone from our special forces told me that once. Sg would send in a team of special forces even it's just to rescue 1 pilot. That's even though we have tons of pilots around and only a handful of special forces members. -
Ahhh...you are talking abt BAT-21. It was based on the true story of what actually happened. The truth was that he was more than just a colonel. He was dealing with intelligence, and knew alot of classified information; you can imagine what would happen if he gets caught...in essence he becomes a value-added package on top of his Top Priority status...Originally posted by gary1910:Everyone is expendable including pilots, looking at the situation, it is to me grave tactical mistakes becos two soldiers won't last long in that situation.
Rescuing a down pilot by SF is another, with calculated risk and special training to do so.
If the risk is too high, even a Col will be left there.
I remember a movie abt a down Col in Vietnam, he was actually survieying an area to be carpet bomb becos of large concentration of enemy movement.
Becos of the high enemy concentration , many attempts to pick him by helo have failed, even losing pilots. But the plan to carpet bomb still went ahead even he was still in the area, becos he was also expendable.
Since he was in the loop of the plan he managed to evade the enemy and went into safety b4 the bombing started.
But I agree with you on that part. We are all expendable. It was an irrational decision. But what I think the commander could have done was to send in Little Birds on strafing runs...keep them going long enuff for a rescue force to reach Durant. Or at least have Shugart and Gordon pick the enemy off from the Blackhawk. Once you leave the helo, you basically lose two elements: mobility and optimum tactical view of the scenario.
-
interesting thread here.. just wanna throw a few thots that crossed my mind..
Should the commander have allowed the parajumpers in to provide perimeter security knowing that support would probably not be available for some time and extraction would be impossible?
Having read the arguments about the expendability of personnel, I am thinking that if you treat yr people as expendable, you will not be able to command the respect/loyalty of these people for long.
The reason that they have dedicated SAR teams shows the commitment to the pilots.. when they say they are coming to get you, they mean it.
On the other hand, cold logic would say that you have already lost 2 BlackHawks, sending in 2 more personnel into a 'compromised' situation is not exactly sound military strategy.
Regarding the worth of a pilot versus the spec ops guys, although IMHO I don't think it costs as much to train them versus a pilot, they don't exactly come cheap either.
A recent article in ST mentioned that the creed of West Point (Duty, Honour, Country) was not chosen at a whim. They actually conducted studies during Vietnam that showed that people did their jobs becos it was their duty and not becos they were patroits, brave etc.
The fact that the 2 of them still went in demonstrates the kind of beliefs that the both of them carried.
So whether someone would do the same would IMHO depend on what beliefs you subscribe to. But Viper52 is right oso, talk is cheap and it is when the rubber meets the road that you know whether or not you really believe what you say you do.
Sorry for the long rant.. -
Of course, a rescue will be conducted after careful risk asessment on the situation, regardless whether it is a pilot or a grunt.Originally posted by kurios55:interesting thread here.. just wanna throw a few thots that crossed my mind..
Should the commander have allowed the parajumpers in to provide perimeter security knowing that support would probably not be available for some time and extraction would be impossible?
Having read the arguments about the expendability of personnel, I am thinking that if you treat yr people as expendable, you will not be able to command the respect/loyalty of these people for long.
The reason that they have dedicated SAR teams shows the commitment to the pilots.. when they say they are coming to get you, they mean it.
On the other hand, cold logic would say that you have already lost 2 BlackHawks, sending in 2 more personnel into a 'compromised' situation is not exactly sound military strategy.
Regarding the worth of a pilot versus the spec ops guys, although IMHO I don't think it costs as much to train them versus a pilot, they don't exactly come cheap either.
A recent article in ST mentioned that the creed of West Point (Duty, Honour, Country) was not chosen at a whim. They actually conducted studies during Vietnam that showed that people did their jobs becos it was their duty and not becos they were patroits, brave etc.
The fact that the 2 of them still went in demonstrates the kind of beliefs that the both of them carried.
So whether someone would do the same would IMHO depend on what beliefs you subscribe to. But Viper52 is right oso, talk is cheap and it is when the rubber meets the road that you know whether or not you really believe what you say you do.
Sorry for the long rant..
The question is whether the situation for example a down pilot surounded by at least a coy of enemy troops , carry too high of a risk to perform.
Becos you are talking abt the life of the rescue team which might consist of at least a helo, two pilots, winch operator, gunners, medic and maybe a team of SF ground troops.
The commandant of the SAR sqn must be able to make a rational decision by weighting the pros and cons, if it is too high of a risk , then the down pilot will have to fend for himself, otherwise his sqn will not be operational very soon.
Therefore a leader must be able to make rational decisions with calculated risks, if he has to leave to one guy to die and ensure the safety of many more , then he has a make a right decision.
Now , let go back to Somalia case, I remember the BG keep on saying that no one get left behind, I dun know whether it is the Nam's MIA legacy or the BG SF gung-ho attitude that he has which let him make such a decision.
Remember when the two Snipers requested to go in , three other high ranking officers were in the loop, I am sure among the four, at least one have felt it was not a right one, but none voice out.
BG left the decision to the XO, a good tai-chi which the lower ranking officers will most probably follow. I hope that the SAF dun have many of such ball carrying officers and voice out when neccessary.
Therefore, I will follow and respect a leader which always make rational decisions and becos of that even left someone to fend for himself for the good of the rest, it just parts & parcels of war. -
IIRC, it's actually more expensive to train a SF operator than it is for a pilot. Also bear in mind, we're talking about the varsity when it comes to Gordan and Shughart, Delta, weapons training, language skills, cross training on any number of skills, add to that they had to be from the 'normal' SF community to begin with. Time and money.
Also, aren't you guys like missing the pt here? What's this talk about calculating the odds, weighing the pros and cons pushing the blame on General Garrison? Those 2 men volunteered out of their own free will to go down, they weren't forced, they stepped up to the plate, simple as that. Yeah, better a general who has all his marbles accounted for than a loose cannon who sends his troops into the mouth of the guns but their situation was different.
2 men, highly trained, very motivated, probably with higher than avg IQ. What in the world would make people like them volunteer for a situation where there would be no hope of rescue, where death was almost certain? And there's the key word, volunteer.
Maybe it was this code the operators had, do something rather than nothing, leave no man behind, no matter how great the odds, you could write essays on the psyche of an SF operator. I don't really know what I would have done if I were Garrison regarding Gordan and Shughart and this thread has made me consider that, I still don't have an answer. Maybe that's why they have the CMOH, for times when words are just not enough to explain why people like Gordan and Shughart did what they did.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohsom.htm[/url] -
It is simply he was the top guy in the operation , he supposed to make the right & rational decision , regardless whether they have volunteered or otherwise, becos the final say still lie on him.Originally posted by Arnhem:IIRC, it's actually more expensive to train a SF operator than it is for a pilot. Also bear in mind, we're talking about the varsity when it comes to Gordan and Shughart, Delta, weapons training, language skills, cross training on any number of skills, add to that they had to be from the 'normal' SF community to begin with. Time and money.
Also, aren't you guys like missing the pt here? What's this talk about calculating the odds, weighing the pros and cons pushing the blame on General Garrison? Those 2 men volunteered out of their own free will to go down, they weren't forced, they stepped up to the plate, simple as that. Yeah, better a general who has all his marbles accounted for than a loose cannon who sends his troops into the mouth of the guns but their situation was different.
2 men, highly trained, very motivated, probably with higher than avg IQ. What in the world would make people like them volunteer for a situation where there would be no hope of rescue, where death was almost certain? And there's the key word, volunteer.
Maybe it was this code the operators had, do something rather than nothing, leave no man behind, no matter how great the odds, you could write essays on the psyche of an SF operator. I don't really know what I would have done if I were Garrison regarding Gordan and Shughart and this thread has made me consider that, I still don't have an answer. Maybe that's why they have the CMOH, for times when words are just not enough to explain why people like Gordan and Shughart did what they did.
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/mohsom.htm[/url]
The facts were at the time:
1) No info of any survivor at the crash site.
2) Knowing a mob of hundred with guns etc moving toward the crash site.
3) Not knowing when would any other frlendlies available for support.
4) Knowing very well that 2 men against mob of hundred will not survive for very long.
Since he wasthe top guy, he should be the one to make sure all and final decisions must be rational and for the good of the men under him as well as achieving the objectives.
Looking at the facts above , do you still think that he was right to let the snipers to go in?
Remember the final say was still depend on him. -
the BG keep on saying that no one get left behind, I dun know whether it is the Nam's MIA legacy or the BG SF gung-ho attitude that he has which let him make such a decision.
Imagine you go out to war. Would you want to die in a foreign country? Or be left behind and captured as a POW? Nobody would. The bn/bde commanders cannot guarantee that they will win the battle. They can't even guarantee that you will come back alive. The only promise they can make you, is the one that will try their damn best to bring you back alive; and should you fall in battle, they will at least bring the body/dogtag/remains back.
...
BG left the decision to the XO, a good tai-chi which the lower ranking officers will most probably follow. I hope that the SAF dun have many of such ball carrying officers and voice out when neccessary.
No it's is not some SF gung-ho attitude. I have no idea what to call this spirit, so I'll just loosely term it "brotherhood". It is something every fighting unit should posess. This will make everyone in the unit give their best, give the enemy hell; knowing the fact that should they falter or fall, their brothers WILL be there for them.
Call it the least we can do for our brothers in arms, give them a glimmer of hope. And in the case of the KIA who gave their lives for the cause, the very least we can do is take them back. Don't let them "ke si ta siang" while you get your ass safely home by hiding behind rocks and trees.
Years later, the world might forget the battle. But to those who were there, they would harbor no regrets having done what they could, when they could.
Furthermore, the SF snipers went in fully knowing there was a chance they might not come back. The BG even asked them if they knew what they were doing. They said yes then and went in. While they brought the pilot back, they themselves perished.
They took a risk and failed, but they still achieved something great in bringing the pilot back. If all our commanders don't have the balls to take risks at appropriate times, then I will be truely worried about the SAF. -
Gary, you recollection of the Bat21 incident was straight from the Hollywood movie about the incident, which was full of inaccuracies and dramatizations of the actual event. Hardly a good case to try to prove your point.Originally posted by gary1910:Everyone is expendable including pilots, looking at the situation, it is to me grave tactical mistakes becos two soldiers won't last long in that situation.
Rescuing a down pilot by SF is another, with calculated risk and special training to do so.
If the risk is too high, even a Col will be left there.
I remember a movie abt a down Col in Vietnam, he was actually survieying an area to be carpet bomb becos of large concentration of enemy movement.
Becos of the high enemy concentration , many attempts to pick him by helo have failed, even losing pilots. But the plan to carpet bomb still went ahead even he was still in the area, becos he was also expendable.
Since he was in the loop of the plan he managed to evade the enemy and went into safety b4 the bombing started.
As someone said, COL Hambelton was a USAF EW specialist, and highly sought after by the NVA and their Soviet sponsors, and thus the Americans would do their utmost to get him out alive. Expendable? It hardly seems expendable when they mounted one of the largest SAR missions of the entire Vietnam war, spread over 11 days, and lost 3 SAR helos and 2 OV-10 FAC planes just get him out.
There was no carpet bombing of the area scheduled, it just so happened that the area COL Hambleton was in was packed to the wazoo with NVA troops because of the Easter invasion. Thus he had to move to a safer area before the SAR guys could get him out
In the meantime, heres a couple of links on the mission, theres also a full length book if anyone is interested:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/rescue/res13a.htm
http://www.b66.info/Anecdotes/anecdote6.htm
http://www.scopesys.com/cgi/bio2.cgi?bio=P119 -
Gary, its easy to talk about being rational, following the book, and disparaging others for being too easily swayed by emotions when you're safely ensconed behind the computer at home without having to make those kind of decisions in the heat of battle. 20/20 hindsight counts for nuts.Originally posted by gary1910:It is simply he was the top guy in the operation , he supposed to make the right & rational decision , regardless whether they have volunteered or otherwise, becos the final say still lie on him.
The facts were at the time:
1) No info of any survivor at the crash site.
2) Knowing a mob of hundred with guns etc moving toward the crash site.
3) Not knowing when would any other frlendlies available for support.
4) Knowing very well that 2 men against mob of hundred will not survive for very long.
Since he wasthe top guy, he should be the one to make sure all and final decisions must be rational and for the good of the men under him as well as achieving the objectives.
Looking at the facts above , do you still think that he was right to let the snipers to go in?
Remember the final say was still depend on him.
You make it sound as if by using your "facts", it was easy for Garrison to keep Shugart and Gordon up on Super Six Eight. Have you considered the flip side of your facts?
1) No info of any survivor at the crash site.
And what if there were. All 4 were injured, incapacitated and alive?
2) Knowing a mob of hundred with guns etc moving toward the crash site.
And knowing that the very same mob would have torn the 4 crew from limb to limb if the CWO Durant's crew were alive?
3) Not knowing when would any other frlendlies available for support.
So, we leave the possibly alive friendlies down there to die?
4) Knowing very well that 2 men against mob of hundred will not survive for very long.
The operative word here is probably. There was a high chance they would not make it out alive, and Garrison as well as Shugart/Gordon knew that. But they also knew that if they didn't try and that cost 4 of their guys their lives they will never live it down the rest of their lives
The reason behind sparing no effort to rescue your friendlies is simple. It is to let you soldiers know that if they will get nothing less that 100% effort when it comes to support from their fellow soldiers if they are ever in a tough spot. If soldiers/pilots knew that their fellow soldiers will leave them to die because its the "rational" thing to do, how much effort do you think soldiers will put into carrying out their missions? Or even worse, won't they surrender at the first sign of being left behind and spilling the beans to preserve their lives?
As I've put across to you in an earlier Courageous thread, its easy to use 20/20 hindsight, dehumanise yourself and prattle on about logic and rationality till the cows come home without an iota of empathy. But try thinking for a moment if you were in Garrison's/Shugart's/Gordon's shoes, and it was your good buddy/brother down there. I'd like to hear you talk about being rational then.
I'm not saying the decision to go down to aid the crew of Super Six-Four is right or wrong. I'm just saying what I've been saying all along in this thread, we cannot judge other's decisions until we have, or at least tried to imagine how it would be like, to walk in their shoes. -
Originally posted by meander:
A grunt suppose to have "never say die" attitude, a commander should have a rational mind becos his decision affect everyone under him and the objectives.
Imagine you go out to war. Would you want to die in a foreign country? Or be left behind and captured as a POW? Nobody would. The bn/bde commanders cannot guarantee that they will win the battle. They can't even guarantee that you will come back alive. The only promise they can make you, is the one that will try their damn best to bring you back alive; and should you fall in battle, they will at least bring the body/dogtag/remains back.
No it's is not some SF gung-ho attitude. I have no idea what to call this spirit, so I'll just loosely term it "brotherhood". It is something every fighting unit should posess. This will make everyone in the unit give their best, give the enemy hell; knowing the fact that should they falter or fall, their brothers [b]WILL be there for them.
Call it the least we can do for our brothers in arms, give them a glimmer of hope. And in the case of the KIA who gave their lives for the cause, the very least we can do is take them back. Don't let them "ke si ta siang" while you get your ass safely home by hiding behind rocks and trees.
Years later, the world might forget the battle. But to those who were there, they would harbor no regrets having done what they could, when they could.
Furthermore, the SF snipers went in fully knowing there was a chance they might not come back. The BG even asked them if they knew what they were doing. They said yes then and went in. While they brought the pilot back, they themselves perished.
They took a risk and failed, but they still achieved something great in bringing the pilot back. If all our commanders don't have the balls to take risks at appropriate times, then I will be truely worried about the SAF.[/b]
The outcome is that one pilot captured, and additional two good men killed, are you sure it is success to send them in in the first place? What did they actually achieved?
First thing you must remember that no one knew anyone has survive the crash, they might be that everyone were dead. If that happened, the two snipers would be stuck and be killed or captured eventually and achieving nothing. ( 2 vs 100)
If the situation was one or more did survive the crash, if the two snipers did not went in, will they all be killed or captured?
Nobody know , but chances are some might be captured or killed right?(1-3 vs 100).
Even with all of them survive the crash and with snipers sent in, what are the chances of them getting out w/o being captured or killed?
(5 vs 100).
You see I have listed out all the possible outcomes for the decision to be made by the BG, odd are against them becos of the superior number that the other side have and all dun look good.
The BG should be looking at all the pros & cons and decide, knowing that the odds were against them and no means to change that becos he was unable to know when additional support was available to the two snipers.
Actual situation, was two additional men were killed, and the pilot was captured by the militants. The decision to capture him instead of killing him was made by the militant becos they want to have him for POW exchange.
So even w/o the two snipers been sent in, the militants might not even kill him.
And two snipers might actually achieve nothing,only as you called it "brotherhood spirit". -
Well ,I will say it again. Viper
Regardless how emotional the the two snipers or the rest the commanders were , the main thing that the commander in this case the BG should leave a side his feeling and make a rational decision for the good of his men under him.
He suppose to be becos he has to look at the big picture and decide what is good for the objectives and all his men under him.
I am not saying that he should not try to rescue any survivor if any but it should be done with a reasonable chance of success, knowing very well it will be a situation where it will be at most 5 vs at least 100 militants.
Becos at the end of the day, he will ask himself this question, how many life did I lose today and how many did I save for all the decisions that I have made?
As for the movie Bat-21, even it might not be accurate as you said, the point is that the same, all SAR team will try to rescue any down pilot with a reasonable chance of success otherwise they will be losing more men than they rescue. -
Hi All,
As for the rescuing of downed airmen or other POWs, it is not just a matter of dollar and cents like how many $$$ to train one pilot vs $$$ to train a SOF operative.
When a pilot go into combat, he/she needs to know that if he is downed, his countrymen will do all they can to get him out. That is why when a pilot is downed, they will risk a SAR chopper with "two" pilots at least one or two airmen/gunners to get him out. Why risk one heli, two pilots and two airmen for "one" guy. It is not just $$ and cents but doing what you need to do.
Similarly, when it comes to $$$ and cents why bother to even have a medic or cassavec your injured troops, if one is injured just leave him lah and continue with your mission. right??
It is not economic terms why one will rescue pilots or help injured soldiers but it is just something you need to know.
As for the BAT21, true story but don't know whether the movie got all the facts straight, he is a highly valued intelligence source and needs to be extracted at all cost. -
Fight for your freedom not your country but whats the difference?
-
Yes there is no information on the crash site on the survivors, but they know of the armed mobs are onto the crash site. That is information.
A good commander will know that the situation is hopeless and not let emotion rules, snipers are not mean to engage this type of operations, sending them in is totally against the rules in deploying of snipers, there is totally not a single chance in success.
Letting good men die on the ground may not be right, but sending more men to be killed don't make things right, it does more wrong.
Sparing no effort in rescue is important, but it must too be based on risk and resources. Blindly following some slogan or doctrine is foolish.
I like the slogan which viper52 put !!!
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, with no chance of being free, unless made free and kept so by greater men than himself".
But "If soldiers/pilots knew that their fellow soldiers will leave them to die because its the "rational" thing to do, how much effort do you think soldiers will put into carrying out their missions? Or even worse, won't they surrender at the first sign of being left behind and spilling the beans to preserve their lives?" Then according to the slogan above , he is preserve his own life no-matter what and will be a miserable creature that is not free and useless !!! -
I believe there's a policy with some units or commanders, .. "No one gets left behind" ... no matter the odds, fallen comrades-dead or alive will be recovered ... In war and military conflicts, anything can happen to anybody ... who is to say you won't be the next one requiring rescue
-
I am also against on sending people or sucidal missions. From the movie, it seems that the commanders are aware that there is almost no chance of success, but still agree to put the snipers down as the two of them are "aware" of the danger and "volunteer" to be put down.
Maybe the movie was inaccurate leh... maybe initially the resistance isn't too bad but later on they get overwhelmed.
Anyway, we will never know what really happen. With no offence to the two dead snipers maybe the movie exaggerate the american gung-ho spirt. -
well..base on the book itself..they volunteer themselve..Originally posted by spencer99:I am also against on sending people or sucidal missions. From the movie, it seems that the commanders are aware that there is almost no chance of success, but still agree to put the snipers down as the two of them are "aware" of the danger and "volunteer" to be put down.
Maybe the movie was inaccurate leh... maybe initially the resistance isn't too bad but later on they get overwhelmed.
Anyway, we will never know what really happen. With no offence to the two dead snipers maybe the movie exaggerate the american gung-ho spirt.
the resistance was starting to built up..they can see skinnies moving toward the crash side from the little bird..lotsa them.. -
Gary, one more time, you are drawing your conclusions with the benefit of hindsight, something General Garrison didn't have the benefit of that day in October 1993. Like I've said, its easy for armchair warriors like you to to say what he should have done, what he shouldn't have done while sitting safely behind your keyboard.Originally posted by gary1910:A grunt suppose to have "never say die" attitude, a commander should have a rational mind becos his decision affect everyone under him and the objectives.
The outcome is that one pilot captured, and additional two good men killed, are you sure it is success to send them in in the first place? What did they actually achieved?
First thing you must remember that no one knew anyone has survive the crash, they might be that everyone were dead. If that happened, the two snipers would be stuck and be killed or captured eventually and achieving nothing. ( 2 vs 100)
If the situation was one or more did survive the crash, if the two snipers did not went in, will they all be killed or captured?
Nobody know , but chances are some might be captured or killed right?(1-3 vs 100).
Even with all of them survive the crash and with snipers sent in, what are the chances of them getting out w/o being captured or killed?
(5 vs 100).
You see I have listed out all the possible outcomes for the decision to be made by the BG, odd are against them becos of the superior number that the other side have and all dun look good.
The BG should be looking at all the pros & cons and decide, knowing that the odds were against them and no means to change that becos he was unable to know when additional support was available to the two snipers.
Actual situation, was two additional men were killed, and the pilot was captured by the militants. The decision to capture him instead of killing him was made by the militant becos they want to have him for POW exchange.
So even w/o the two snipers been sent in, the militants might not even kill him.
And two snipers might actually achieve nothing,only as you called it "brotherhood spirit".
You've obviously never read the Mark Bowden book, and like the Bat 21, using Hollywood dramatisations to draw your conclusions, because if you've read the book before shooting your mouth off, you would have realised that Shugart, Gordon, and the crew of Super Six Two circling above the Super Six Four crash site, reported that they have seen both Durant AND co-pilot Ray Frank alive AND moving. So your assertion that the 2 snipers and Garrison did NOT know if anyone survived on Super Six Four is just plain rubbish.
So if you want facts, lets talk facts gleaned from the books Blackhawk Down and In the Company of Heroes (Mike Durant's own book on his experiences in the Mog).
- Super Six One went down while spinning, hit a house on its way down, got it's nose crushed in the crash and ended up on it's side. Yet there were 4-5 suriviors out of 6-7 on board.
- Super Six Four went in an open area without hitting anything, it was relatively intact, no flames, no explosion, it was upright. Even with no eyeball confirmation of survivors, with the information above at hand, would it be wrong to assume there are survivors?
- Most importantly, it had been confirmed that both Durant and Ray Frank were observed to be alive.
Weekend warrior critics of Garrison, like you, picked on his decision to leave the final say on the 2 snipers going in to his subordinates and the snipers himself. Had he taken your suggestion and vetoed the attempted rescue, leaving Ray Frank and Durant on the ground to fend for themselves while Super Six Two circled above with 2 Delta snipers watching as they got captured, or worse killed and mutilated by the mob, I can picture the same weekend warriors castigating Garrison for leaving his pilots down there "to die" and accusing him of micromanaging the battle by remote control in his office in Mogadishu airport. With armchair generals armed with 20/20 hindsight like you, its damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
Sure thing Gary, thats right, if its a difficult job, so don't do it at all.
Walk the walk, or at least try to imagine walking the walk, before you talk the talk Gary. And try not to use Hollywood hogwash as exact narratives of history, because more often than not, they're historically inaccurate. -
Whats a reasonable chance? 10%? 40%? 90%?Originally posted by gary1910:Well ,I will say it again. Viper
Regardless how emotional the the two snipers or the rest the commanders were , the main thing that the commander in this case the BG should leave a side his feeling and make a rational decision for the good of his men under him.
He suppose to be becos he has to look at the big picture and decide what is good for the objectives and all his men under him.
I am not saying that he should not try to rescue any survivor if any but it should be done with a reasonable chance of success, knowing very well it will be a situation where it will be at most 5 vs at least 100 militants.
Becos at the end of the day, he will ask himself this question, how many life did I lose today and how many did I save for all the decisions that I have made?
As for the movie Bat-21, even it might not be accurate as you said, the point is that the same, all SAR team will try to rescue any down pilot with a reasonable chance of success otherwise they will be losing more men than they rescue.
If you want a real life example of the consequences of doing what you extol here, try this website
At the end of the day, a good officer would also have to ask himself, did he do all he could for his men? Did he leave anyone to die when there was a chance he could be saved?
As for Bat21, you're twisting facts and drawing wrong conclusions again. The mission stretched into 11 days and resulted in 4 aircraft lost and many KIA/MIA because they went into the area where he was despite the odds. Only after repeated failures and losses did they come up with the alternate plan. -
A man who does nothing and a man who gives less than 100% are different things. You're misquoting my sig file and my words.Originally posted by storywolf:I like the slogan which viper52 put !!!
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he values more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, with no chance of being free, unless made free and kept so by greater men than himself".
But "If soldiers/pilots knew that their fellow soldiers will leave them to die because its the "rational" thing to do, how much effort do you think soldiers will put into carrying out their missions? Or even worse, won't they surrender at the first sign of being left behind and spilling the beans to preserve their lives?" Then according to the slogan above , he is preserve his own life no-matter what and will be a miserable creature that is not free and useless !!!
In war, a 100% effort from your fighting men is needed. If your fighting men enter the battlefield knowing that their "friendlies" will not risk their lives to save their friends, what is the motivation for the fighting men to give 100%? Pilots will take less risk to get their bombs on target to hurt the enemy to stay safe. Soldiers will not follow through with maximum effort and take that little more risk to ensure missions succeed. How to win a war if everyone thinks this way?
That is different from men who do nothing. -
Exactly! Thats what I've been saying all along!Originally posted by spencer99:Maybe the movie was inaccurate leh... maybe initially the resistance isn't too bad but later on they get overwhelmed.
Anyway, we will never know what really happen. With no offence to the two dead snipers maybe the movie exaggerate the american gung-ho spirt.
Gary is using 20/20 hindsight, taking human emotions and the human psyche out of the equation, going by the assumption that Hollywood movies are 100% historically accurate and drawing his skewed, biased opinions. -
You're wrong, You are just been emotional and illogical, just like two snipers!!!Originally posted by Viper52:Gary, one more time, you are drawing your conclusions with the benefit of hindsight, something General Garrison didn't have the benefit of that day in October 1993. Like I've said, its easy for armchair warriors like you to to say what he should have done, what he shouldn't have done while sitting safely behind your keyboard.
You've obviously never read the Mark Bowden book, and like the Bat 21, using Hollywood dramatisations to draw your conclusions, because if you've read the book before shooting your mouth off, you would have realised that Shugart, Gordon, and the crew of Super Six Two circling above the Super Six Four crash site, reported that they have seen both Durant AND co-pilot Ray Frank alive AND moving. So your assertion that the 2 snipers and Garrison did NOT know if anyone survived on Super Six Four is just plain rubbish.
So if you want facts, lets talk facts gleaned from the books Blackhawk Down and In the Company of Heroes (Mike Durant's own book on his experiences in the Mog).
- Super Six One went down while spinning, hit a house on its way down, got it's nose crushed in the crash and ended up on it's side. Yet there were 4-5 suriviors out of 6-7 on board.
- Super Six Four went in an open area without hitting anything, it was relatively intact, no flames, no explosion, it was upright. Even with no eyeball confirmation of survivors, with the information above at hand, would it be wrong to assume there are survivors?
- Most importantly, it had been confirmed that both Durant and Ray Frank were observed to be alive.
Weekend warrior critics of Garrison, like you, picked on his decision to leave the final say on the 2 snipers going in to his subordinates and the snipers himself. Had he taken your suggestion and vetoed the attempted rescue, leaving Ray Frank and Durant on the ground to fend for themselves while Super Six Two circled above with 2 Delta snipers watching as they got captured, or worse killed and mutilated by the mob, I can picture the same weekend warriors castigating Garrison for leaving his pilots down there "to die" and accusing him of micromanaging the battle by remote control in his office in Mogadishu airport. With armchair generals armed with 20/20 hindsight like you, its damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
Sure thing Gary, thats right, if its a difficult job, so don't do it at all.
Walk the walk, or at least try to imagine walking the walk, before you talk the talk Gary. And try not to use Hollywood hogwash as exact narratives of history, because more often than not, they're historically inaccurate.
The BG has of course reviewed all his option when the 2nd crash happened, he tried to divert a group of men to 2nd crash but they were stuck.
Next of course to send a sufficient group men via helo but he did not have such luxury, otherwise if he has more than 10 men he would has given the order for them to go in but no, he has only two snipers in the air.!!!
He and his commanders knew that 2 men will not survive long against a 100 that was why they did not order them to go in !!!!
Only after the third requests from the snipers that he has relented even against his initial better judgement.
Why did he let them in? Was his initial assessment wrong?
No, his initial assessment was right, he relented based on emotions rather than logic.
You talk abt hindsight, do I really need any?!?
2 men against a hundred, what the chance of them surviving and able to escape capture or kill especially with casualty?
None!!!!
A standard military offensive against heavily defended objectives is 3 : 1 to be successful.
Now you are talking defending an area with no fortifcation against the enemy number more then 20-50 times against yours?!?
A BG and everyone here should know that it can't be done. And I am not the only one here to say that!!!.
You talk abt looking at the mob and how they going to slaughter the survivor etc, yes it was difficult for the snipers to see this, that was why they wanted to go in , letting emotion ruled over their logic just like you did in your reply.
My view on this based on rationality, the BG as a commander with many men under him should likewise make rational decision, not emotional one. This case clearly show why it should be. -
I dun think so, the movie is quite accurate and the reality is even worse. Let me quote from the citation for MOH :Originally posted by Viper52:Exactly! Thats what I've been saying all along!
Gary is using 20/20 hindsight, taking human emotions and the human psyche out of the equation, going by the assumption that Hollywood movies are 100% historically accurate and drawing his skewed, biased opinions...........When Master Sergeant Gordon learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the second crash site, he and another sniper unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After his third request to be inserted, Master Sergeant Gordon received permission to perform his volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Master Sergeant Gordon was inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site....... Master Sergeant Gordon used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers until he depleted his ammunition. Master Sergeant Gordon then went back to the wreckage, recovering some of the crew's weapons and ammunition. Despite the fact that he was critically low on ammunition, he provided some of it to the dazed pilot and then radioed for help. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. After his team member was fatally wounded and his own rifle ammunition exhausted........
It clearly show the crash site was "hot" with large number of enemy that they aborted the first attempt to land and have to land the 2nd time abt 100m away.
Later part said that they have exhausted all their ammo as well as those recovered from the wreck. This indicate a heavy fighting against a large group of enemy.
The citation is more or less agree with what have been shown on the movie. -
Looking at the MOH citation... he this Gordon guy really deserve the MOH .......