Would You Do the Same for Someone You Hardly Know?
-
Viper52
{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.
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.}
Sorry I just interpet your sig from another angle.
I am looking at things different from your view.
Yes, in a war 100% effort from your fighting men is needed, if your fighting men enter the battlefield knowing that they will be send on missions that have totally no value, no chance and to their death in vain, than the only motivation is, at the 1st chance for them put a bullet in you, themselves.
"That is different from men who do nothing?" . In some situation, it may be better off doing "nothing", for he has done something that we so call "thinking". Doing nothing is sometime better then doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason that make the situation worse. The different in war between men who don't think is death for nothing !
There is no wrong or correct ! Everyone is may have different view. Just remember, people who say "No" have their valid reason also.
Thank you -
To paraphrase, soldiers are as good or as bad as the men that lead them.
Officers have the burden of command responsibility and leadership. If they don't plan or lead well, then no matter how good your soldiers, they arent worth squat if their officers make irrecoverable mistakes.
As for the Mogadishu event, this was just a case of bad planning which set them all up for failure. Anything else they did right after the capture of the enemy leaders was damage control IMHO.
If you read the book, I believe the author has stated the factors for the failure of the operation. -
Why thank you, but I'll never put myself up on the same plane as Gordon and Shugart. And that is why unlike you, I'll not judge the actions of others so flippantly and summarily unless I'm sure I can do better than them.Originally posted by gary1910:You're wrong, You are just been emotional and illogical, just like two snipers!!!
Yes. Look at your own judgement and the circumstances which you've made them under. You never once stepped into their shoes, you've never considered the circumstances they were in, you've never even bothered to read the facts from the book. As I've said all along in this thread, no one is fit to judge the 2 snipers actions until they've been through a similar situation, and you, Armchair General gary1910, sitting safely behind your keyboard, is ESPECIALLY not fit to judge them simply because of the fact that you are not objective enough to.
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.
[/quote]
Again, you're plucking partial facts and pure fiction, and moulding them to suit your own judgemental opinions. From Blackhawk Down (the book not the Hollywood version):
1) The first request from the snipers was not vetoed outright by the Colonels in the C2 bird. They were told to hang on because no-one was sure if there were survivors. This prompted Super Six Two to go low over the Durant crash site, where both Ray Frank and Mike Durant were confirmed to be alive by those on board Super Six Two. The Colonels then told Super Six Two to hold on (again, not a veto) and take down as many targets as possible from the air, which the snipers did, while waiting for the 2 convoys to try to reach the crash site.
2) It was then observed from Super Six Two that both convoys trying to reach the Durant crash site were in trouble. That was when the pilots (not the snipers) asked for the snipers to be inserted AFTER telling the snipers of the odds (in case the 2 Delta couldn't see for themselves), to which both snipers concurred with the request and agreed to go in.
Now, to quote from the book directly (bold are mine to highlight points):
-----------------------------------------
Up in the command bird, (Colonel) Harrell pondered the request. It was terribly risky, maybe even hopeless. But one or two properly armed, well-trained soldiers could hold off an undisciplined mob indefinitely. Shugart and Gordon were experts at killing and staying alive. They were serious, career soldiers, trained to get hard, ugly things done. They saw opportunity where others saw danger. Like the other operators, they prided themselves on staying cool and effective in extreme danger. They lived and trained for moments like this. If there was a chance to succeed, these two believed they would.
In the C2 bird, seated side by side, Harrell and Matthews weighed the decision. Their entire air rescue team was on the ground already on the first crash site. The ground convoy wasn't going to get to Durant and his crew fast enough. But dropping Shugart and Gordon would most likely be sending them to their deaths. Matthews turned down the volume of their radios momentarily.
"Look, they're your guys," he said to Harrell, "They're the only two guys we've got left. What do you want to do?"
"What are our choices?" Harrell asked
"We can put them in or not put them in. Nobody else is going to get to that crash site that I can see"
"Put them in" said Harrell
So long as there was even a tiny chance, they felt obliged to give it to the downed crew.
------------------------------------------
Therein in the last sentence, is the difference between good soldiers and armchair critics like you. They had loyalty to their men, while you, will leave them to die in the name of "rationality" and "logic" while debating statistics. Error in judgement? Maybe. But illogical and ermotional? You're delusional
Now had you read the book, you'll have realised the decision was not made on a whim, like you're claiming throughout this entire thread based on watching a Hollywood movie. Duh.
You talk abt hindsight, do I really need any?!?
You just looked at the results of the battle, crunched some numbers and plucked some inferences from a Hollywood movie and drew your pea-brained conclusion. If thats not hindsight, I don't know what is.
Wrong again!!! Slim, but not none. And whether as a soldier (the snipers) or a leader (the 2 colonels), you owe it to your comrades to try no matter how slim the chance, especially if you knew that theyÂ’d do it for you.
2 men against a hundred, what the chance of them surviving and able to escape capture or kill especially with casualty?
None!!!!Again, assumptions suit your own tinted views while paying little attention to facts. Which witness did you ask to ascertain that emotion ruled logic? Which combat report did you read to draw that "conclusion"? Or did you just interpret that from watching a Hollywood movie?
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.
Of course, but again, after all that I posted, are you still so sure the decisions made was based on emotions?
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.[quote]"Quite" accurate, no doubt, but like IÂ’ve said, not 100% accurate. And you've already been caught using fictional dramatizations from the movie and taking it as the gospel truth in a lame attempt to back up you even lamer arguments.
I dun think so, the movie is quite accurate and the reality is even worse.
Face it, your biased views, made in the name of you so-called “rationality” and “logic”, are utter drivel and just plain wrong. -
Of course, this angle I totally agree with. But then, at the same time, if everyone were to, has generally agreed that in war, men fight mainly because of the man next to them, and less for the rights and wrongs of their cause.Originally posted by storywolf:Yes, in a war 100% effort from your fighting men is needed, if your fighting men enter the battlefield knowing that they will be send on missions that have totally no value, no chance and to their death in vain, than the only motivation is, at the 1st chance for them put a bullet in you, themselves.
Of course, there are limits. The American penchant for taking and giving up hills in Vietnam just for the bodycounts is a good example. -
Not according to gary1910, he wasOriginally posted by spencer99:Looking at the MOH citation... he this Gordon guy really deserve the MOH .......
- Illogical
- Emotional
- Achieved f***-all in that action
- Badgered his commanders into letting him go on a wild goose chase
- Made the same commanders look like bad officers who couldn't make up their minds
- Should have did f***-all in the helo and stayed alive, instead of getting on the ground doing f***-all and getting himself killed and achieving nothing in the process.
By using that same twisted logic gary1910 is blabbing about here, the 2 MOH given to Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon were the most undeserved ones in it's history. -
Viper, debating with you is really wasting my time. Not only you resort to name calling, bloody immatured kid. All the postings you have did not change the odds at all!!!!
Your only reason that the snipers should be send in becos if there is any possibility of saving of down fellow soldiers, they should be regardless of risk! How stupid can one be!!!!
Becos if the chances is so slim, getting more friendlies been killed to do it is simply stupid!!!!
The way I see it is that the risk way too high, even the quote from the book agree. Two snipers not matter how well trained they are , they are still humans with rifles and pistols, not superman.
Against at least a hundred men with rifles and pistol and some RPG, the chances of survival is still none, even with all your quotes and new info from the book !!!!
In think in the history warfare, I believe that is not a single case where 2 men could actually fight off 100 similar armed men determine to kill them!!!!
Let me say this again in my previous post where you conveniently ignored:
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?!?
You said it yourself that the snipers is survival is slim, even they could hold the perimeter, they eventually will run out ammo , which was the case.
Even with unlimited ammo, where could they go with an injured soldier surrounded by enemy at all side???
So who is being delusional, one who do not look at the odds, making decision w/o regard to risk and value.
And thingy abt the MOH, they are awarded for their bravery not their intelligence. I dun think any panel in the world will award them for that!!! Maybe we should have the "Intelligence" awarded to you?!?
Enuff said, I believe we agree to disagree, becos I dun want to debate with a name calling immatured kid!!!!! -
All I wanted said at this point is the so called "intelligent" Viper immatrured name calling kid certainly does not qualify as a mod in a forum where points are debated and at time even agree to disagree.
Calling ppl "pea brain" just becos that he dun agree with my points where many other in this thread like storywolf, the.raven, spencer99 and shotgun thwho have have more or less concurred with my points, so he was indirectly saying the same thing to them too!!!
I dun know whether if there is mod to control wayward mod that are trying to start a flame war by name calling in this forum, I hope there is , otherwise it will be full of sh!t in the forum!!!! -
Viper52
-----------------------------------------------
Now, to quote from the book directly (bold are mine to highlight points):
Up in the command bird, (Colonel) Harrell pondered the request. It was terribly risky, maybe even hopeless. But one or two properly armed, well-trained soldiers could hold off an undisciplined mob indefinitely. Shugart and Gordon were experts at killing and staying alive. They were serious, career soldiers, trained to get hard, ugly things done. They saw opportunity where others saw danger. Like the other operators, they prided themselves on staying cool and effective in extreme danger. They lived and trained for moments like this. If there was a chance to succeed, these two believed they would.
In the C2 bird, seated side by side, Harrell and Matthews weighed the decision. Their entire air rescue team was on the ground already on the first crash site. The ground convoy wasn't going to get to Durant and his crew fast enough. But dropping Shugart and Gordon would most likely be sending them to their deaths. Matthews turned down the volume of their radios momentarily.
"Look, they're your guys," he said to Harrell, "They're the only two guys we've got left. What do you want to do?"
"What are our choices?" Harrell asked
"We can put them in or not put them in. Nobody else is going to get to that crash site that I can see"
"Put them in" said Harrell
-----------------------------------------------
I still think that the decision is still bloody wrong in a miliary propective. Sniper are expert in killing people and survival, only if they are not seen ! The greatest danger a sinper is to be seen and shot at, They are totally unequip for gun fight with mobs ! Their main weapon is mount with a 10x or at least 8x scope, which is tune to shoot at 600m to 700m, at the crash site with mob so near, that rifle is almost useless. Their seconday weapon should be a M16 variants. In the crash site, they became nothing much than 2 infantry with rifles, unable to use their unique sniper skills.
Yes they may have got medals for it, yes that is for their bravely which we all admired but that does not mean the decision correct. If getting medals is a measure that decision are correct, then we should count the medals that was given out the the people in the mob for killing the snipers too. -
Originally posted by storywolf:
Why bother with stubborn arrogant "kid", otherwise he will start calling you armchair general, lamer and later pea brain!!!!And that especially coming from a mod!
I still think that the decision is still bloody wrong in a miliary propective. Sniper are expert in killing people and survival, only if they are not seen ! The greatest danger a sinper is to be seen and shot at, They are totally unequip for gun fight with mobs ! Their main weapon is mount with a 10x or at least 8x scope, which is tune to shoot at 600m to 700m, at the crash site with mob so near, that rifle is almost useless. Their seconday weapon should be a M16 variants. In the crash site, they became nothing much than 2 infantry with rifles, unable to use their unique sniper skills.
Yes they may have got medals for it, yes that is for their bravely which we all admired but that does not mean the decision correct. If getting medals is a measure that decision are correct, then we should count the medals that was given out the the people in the mob for killing the snipers too.
[/b]
I have been very tolerant with all his name calling up tilll now, we all agree that the probability of them saving anyone and themselves from the crash site was practically nil which was basis of our argrument.
I have listed the standard SOP military ratio for an offensive operation which was more or less standard all over the world. The reason why most armies in the world follow the rule is becos it was statistical facts and thru various evaluations and experiments conducted by them to come out with that ratio which he totally ignored!!!
Most leaders in the use historical statictical data and other operational research methodology to help them in decision making, not gut feel and emotion, obviously he is not and never will be I am afraid.
Till now he rant abt the actual truth abt the whole incident , and all te quotes from book and websites but none of them shaken our basis of our arguement, that is to change the odds of what the snipers were facing and their probability of success!!!!
They still faced a 100 or so armed men and no definite support for them at all at the landing near the crash site!!!! -
Hey guys,calm down man.Lets discuss this as adults and not go into name-callshin and all that crap.The point here is,that no matter what,the downed crew still deserves a chance and oppunity to be rescued.They have done their job,and the commanders knowingly let the 2 Delta snipers in so as to provide some form of morale boost for the crew if they are alive.And,we cannot in watever way belittle Gordon and Shurghart's part.They fought to the very end.It really pains me to see,and read that 2 men who are real warriors to the very ends.
These days,if not all,most military forces are made of paper-pushers.Who want stars and not [b]scars.So it is really heart-wrenching to see that the 2 Delta snipers volunteered themselves into the hot zone knowing fully that they might be killed in such heavy hostile activities.We salute them.And the only way for soldiers,is not to be a paper-pusher,but to make sure they walk the talk.And when the nitty gets gritty,they are able to pull the trigger, and give up their lives not for their country,but for their fallen brothers-in-arms.Coz when the first shot passes your heads,politics and all that load of crap goes out the window.The only thing that matters is,the man next to you.The onli person you can rely to cover your six and also do his part to make sure you two have the best chance of survival. -
Hi gary1910
We had already posted our view with supporting facts. If others have different views, let be gentleman and let them post theirs.
Don't worry, I don't mind being call an arm-chair critic or names. Thanks to my former course commander, all the terrible name known to man-kind had been used on me at least 3 times
The postings here already show how much knowledge, depth and experience in military and military tactics each one of us had. Calling other people "armchair critics" or names is not going to change that, it will only serve to reflect on their own character. -
now now, all of you, please calm down. Views may clash, names maybe called. But i will just treat this as an isolated incident. So yar guys, just ignore whatever that has been said to you so far and continue your discussion. And please, no more name calling from this post on thank you.
-
x2Originally posted by storywolf:Hi gary1910
We had already posted our view with supporting facts. If others have different views, let be gentleman and let them post theirs.
Don't worry, I don't mind being call an arm-chair critic or names. Thanks to my former course commander, all the terrible name known to man-kind had been used on me at least 3 times
The postings here already show how much knowledge, depth and experience in military and military tactics each one of us had. Calling other people "armchair critics" or names is not going to change that, it will only serve to reflect on their own character. -
Agree and Thanks.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:now now, all of you, please calm down. Views may clash, names maybe called. But i will just treat this as an isolated incident. So yar guys, just ignore whatever that has been said to you so far and continue your discussion. And please, no more name calling from this post on thank you.
As for this topic, I have said enuff. -
First of all, there was quite a bit of evidence proving Mike Durant (the pilot) was still alive after the crash. I'll reiterate some more in addition to viper.
A Blackhawk is built with shock absorbers to withstand a terrifically hard impact, so long as it lands in an upright position. And Durant's Super 64 Blackhawk was indeed upright.
Quoting from the book it wasn't mission impossible to attempt rescue :
"This was not a hopeless mission. One or two properly armed, well-trained soldiers could hold off an undisciplined enemy indefinitely. Shughart and Gordon were experts at killing and staying alive. They were career soldiers trained to get hard, ugly things done."
Randall Shughart and Gary Gordon weren't your average run-of-the-mill peng kia. They belonged to the Delta Force. Enought said
Now, let's look at the judgement from the PoV of a higher ranked personnel of in the SAF. My CO screened the Black Hawk Down movie to the entire battalion right before our ATEC. After the movie, he addressed the bn and asked,
"Would you do the same? Go in to rescue the pilot?"
*note : it's not exactly what he asked, but the essence is there*
No I'm not carrying balls here. I've aready ORDed. And no I did not like our CO. He implemented lots of rules and regulations that made life very hard on us ground level commanders. Though I have to admit he was a not-bad (i refuse to use "good" ) CO tactically. We got recon 2A-very-very-high, scored better in ATEC than any other combat unit that workyear including guards and cdo. Almost kena Charlie Mike for recon 1, knn sibeh heng ...
Anyway he replied that he would do the same thing. I presume he meant same as Col Harrell since, well he is the CO afterall. He said he would send in men to rescue down/missing/stranded men. He mentioned points to which I agreed, possibly for the very first time. What he said was about fighting spirit and brotherhood. All in my previous post ... go read it again.
Now you have it, from a infantry CO from SAF. -
To those who say : "No, screw the pilot, leave him there. Paiseh ah buddy, but you had to be stranded where no one could get you quick. Now I do have 2 snipers here sitting pretty that could hold out while others come rescue you, but nah it's too risky. Tough luck."
Look at the local nicoll highway accident. According to you people, because the collapse site is still dangerous due to water gushing in, unstable soil movement blah blah, we shouldn't rescue any survivors coz we would risk losing rescuers. But days passed, our CD rescuers continued despite danger and hard work. Even though the possibility of survivors was getting lower every passing moment, the rescuers wanted to at the very least retrieve the body. All this, to give closure to the families of the victims. And finally today, all rescue work was halted for fear of affecting nearby buildings.
Detractors would now point out and say : "Haha, see isn't it too dangerous now, rescue works stop liao."
My point is, it was dangerous in the first place, and rescue work was still carried out. Now it's too dangerous so we stop. Who says it too dangerous? Engineers at the site itself.
So can we go down now and say "Hey continue the rescue! It looks quite safe to me leh. Afterall nothing else fall down what."
NO. Because we do not have the knowledge of an engineer.
So while all of us armchair generals (damnit we are ALL armchair generals like it or not) debate the issue, let us consider the fact that we were never there at the site. We cannot just base our arguments on "facts" from the movie and books. We were never there, it was never our call to make whether it was too dangerous to attempt rescue. That's why certain final decisions are always left to commanders in the field.
Col Harrell felt the snipers could handle the mob. Mind you this was a commander who had been in battles before. He probably had seen more battles than any of us ever would in movies. He would have seen from where he was, the current situation then.
More importantly, he, more than anyone one of us in the entire forum, knew his own guys. He knew what the enemy was capable of, and what his own men can do. If he felt his guys can take the heat, who the heck are we to say no?
To detractors who say :
"Bo liao send 2 sniper in. Sniper can only shoot from far far one. Useless at close range. Not their type of job leh ..."
They were from the delta force. One of the BEST special ops forces in the world. Nuff said.
"Wah liao this Col Harrell is a bad commander lor, send his men in to die"
Name me any other confirmed situation where he handled a similar combat situation badly.
Sorry bout the profanities and sacarstic psedo-conversations. I just read Xiaxue's blog ... it has an unfortunate effect on my language. Those who've read it will know. -
Originally posted by meander:
whose blog?
[
Sorry bout the profanities and sacarstic psedo-conversations. I just read Xiaxue's blog ... it has an unfortunate effect on my language. Those who've read it will know.[/b]
-
whose blog?
Xiaxue. No I don't think she's in any of the sgforums. Pretty funny 19yr old girl who makes up tons of stories. Aiyah ... read it and you'll understand.
Here : http://www.xiaxue.blogspot.com/ -
More background material on the Mogadishu event.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/
This part of the site is especially interesting, an interview with Dr. Kenneth Allard, Colonel, US Army (Ret.)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/interviews/allard.html
"The Rangers in Somalia essentially were the ones who had to cash the checks for political miscalculations which had occurred all the way back in Washington, D.C. We had had a very imprecise idea of our strategy and our objectives. It went from bad to worse. And eventually the American fighting man paid that price on the soil of Mogadishu." -
Just to add my 2 cents to this thoroughly discussed and chewed over issue. But in line with what meander has put up and with the current nicoll accident in mind, I must confess that my first impressions of what the 2 snipers did in Somalia was that it was a waste. But as viper pointed out, my pov was based on the film that I watched. Didn't managed to get the book though I was told that the film was really just an adaptation and facts that couldn't get compressed into the movie timeframe were left out.
After sifting through the arguments (name calling aside), I believe that this is a good case for us to reconsider and discuss - which was what people have been doing. Call it hindsight - but it is a useful tool for us to learn and reflect even before we have a chance to get into such a decision point ourselves. This what people in many schools do - it is called Case studies. Using real life cases for discussion and learning. I think we have been doing that and like all real cases, there is actually no correct answers. There might be extreme ones which is really up to one to accept but the real answers often are subtly different based on one's background and experiences.
My learning point, based on what have been discussed and what our leaders have decided to do in the nicoll highway case, is that one should try, as far and as best as we could, to rescue or help those in distress - simply because we would want others to do the same for us in the same situation. If I was Durant, I would really want the guys to drop in and pull me out NOW!. But when the odds are really down and we have done all that in our conscience to help - then we need to make that really cruel and difficult decision to halt all actions. Again - there is really no simple and clean cut yes or no, when or how. You call the shots, you bear the consequences. No one can really be the true judge of it, I think.Originally posted by meander:
To those who say : "No, screw the pilot, leave him there. Paiseh ah buddy, but you had to be stranded where no one could get you quick. Now I do have 2 snipers here sitting pretty that could hold out while others come rescue you, but nah it's too risky. Tough luck."
Look at the local nicoll highway accident. According to you people, because the collapse site is still dangerous due to water gushing in, unstable soil movement blah blah, we shouldn't rescue any survivors coz [b]we would risk losing rescuers. But days passed, our CD rescuers continued despite danger and hard work. Even though the possibility of survivors was getting lower every passing moment, the rescuers wanted to at the very least retrieve the body. All this, to give closure to the families of the victims. And finally today, all rescue work was halted for fear of affecting nearby buildings.
Detractors would now point out and say : "Haha, see isn't it too dangerous now, rescue works stop liao."
My point is, it was dangerous in the first place, and rescue work was still carried out. Now it's too dangerous so we stop. Who says it too dangerous? Engineers at the site itself.
So can we go down now and say "Hey continue the rescue! It looks quite safe to me leh. Afterall nothing else fall down what."
NO. Because we do not have the knowledge of an engineer.
So while all of us armchair generals (damnit we are ALL armchair generals like it or not) debate the issue, let us consider the fact that we were never there at the site. We cannot just base our arguments on "facts" from the movie and books. We were never there, it was never our call to make whether it was too dangerous to attempt rescue. That's why certain final decisions are always left to commanders in the field.
Col Harrell felt the snipers could handle the mob. Mind you this was a commander who had been in battles before. He probably had seen more battles than any of us ever would in movies. He would have seen from where he was, the current situation then.
More importantly, he, more than anyone one of us in the entire forum, knew his own guys. He knew what the enemy was capable of, and what his own men can do. If he felt his guys can take the heat, who the heck are we to say no?
To detractors who say :
"Bo liao send 2 sniper in. Sniper can only shoot from far far one. Useless at close range. Not their type of job leh ..."
They were from the delta force. One of the BEST special ops forces in the world. Nuff said.
"Wah liao this Col Harrell is a bad commander lor, send his men in to die"
Name me any other confirmed situation where he handled a similar combat situation badly.
Sorry bout the profanities and sacarstic psedo-conversations. I just read Xiaxue's blog ... it has an unfortunate effect on my language. Those who've read it will know.[/b] -
On the last statement...in the first place, Rangers were not the right supporting element for the search-and-kidnap mission. Lightly armed and armoured relative to the opposing forces whether they knew it or not. They could have brought in the overwhelming firepower of the nearby M60s from the start, knowing these stuck-up 'Rangers Lead the Way' 'heros'. Their doctrine is outdated in the light of street warfare. Frankly, they need to make themselves heavier and be willing to be less mobile in order to fight this kind of war. Either that, or let the regular Marines or Army/Armour lead the way instead.Originally posted by Tango1: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...
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.
-
Thanks for the WAG on my age, but FYI its a matter of public record. More lack of adequate research?Originally posted by gary1910:Viper, debating with you is really wasting my time. Not only you resort to name calling, bloody immatured kid. All the postings you have did not change the odds at all!!!!
It has never been my intention to change the odds. I have set out my stall from my first post in this thread which is
- Not to pre-judge the actions of the sniper when one has not walked in their shoes
- Stated that in CSAR, the first priority is to get the man. Number crunching and bean counting are 2nd priorities. Of course, it is better to do so in more favourable odds, but failing that, the first priority is to still to try to get the man out.
On the contrary, it has not been ignored. It has been addressed over and over again in various ways. You just chose to harp on and on about it more different ways.
Your only reason that the snipers should be send in becos if there is any possibility of saving of down fellow soldiers, they should be regardless of risk! How stupid can one be!!!!
Becos if the chances is so slim, getting more friendlies been killed to do it is simply stupid!!!!
[/quote]
It might be stupid to you, but as have been repeated over and over by the others here, there is an extremely good reason for this. That was the basis of CSAR from the day the concept was mooted, from the days of the Vietnam War (as exemplified by the Bat 21 rescue) and it will always remain the case.
Let me say this again in my previous post where you conveniently ignored:
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?!?
To paraphrase you, all the postings you made do not change for a moment the fact that in such cases, the rescue of the man is the first priority in CSAR.
That, unfortunately, is not enough reason to abandon 2, maybe four, injured friendlies minutes away from being captured or dismembered.
You said it yourself that the snipers is survival is slim, even they could hold the perimeter, they eventually will run out ammo , which was the case.The field they were dropped in was 25 yards away (another fact you will know if you read the book). It can easily be negotiated, but the whole thing was overtaken by events.
Even with unlimited ammo, where could they go with an injured soldier surrounded by enemy at all side???
As I've stated, I've looked not just at the odds, but also looked at things at all angles. That was the reason why I concluded that I cannot make a judgement on their actions without having been put in the same situation. And that was what I've been trying to say all this while to you.
So who is being delusional, one who do not look at the odds, making decision w/o regard to risk and value.Nice...now that you've been backed into a corner, you lash out at America's highest military award, the only one presented by the president, and won by only 3000+ soldiers since 1862
And thingy abt the MOH, they are awarded for their bravery not their intelligence. I dun think any panel in the world will award them for that!!!
And to top it off, you insult the memory of the men and demean their actions by questioning their intelligence.
Actually, there is an award for stupidity, FYI. Its called the Darwin awards, and they give out awards from death stemming from lack of intelligence. Funnily enough, I don't see the 2 snipers nominated or even winning that.
[quote]
Maybe we should have the "Intelligence" awarded to
you?!? Sticks and stone gary, sticks and stones.
What I know is not true will not hurt me. Wait, is that why some of my comments set you off? -
Haha, nice try Gary. There are lots who concurred with my points too. But I won't use their names to get into a "My gun is bigger than your gun" argument.Originally posted by gary1910:Calling ppl "pea brain" just becos that he dun agree with my points where many other in this thread like storywolf, the.raven, spencer99 and shotgun thwho have have more or less concurred with my points, so he was indirectly saying the same thing to them too!!!
]
[/b][/quote]
I dun know whether if there is mod to control wayward mod that are trying to start a flame war by name calling in this forum, I hope there is , otherwise it will be full of sh!t in the forum!!!!][/b][/quote]
Tsk tsk, heat getting to you? By some past examples, things haven't got hot enough here to qualify as a fireplace, never mind a full-blown falme war.
I don't know what got you thinking that I called you names. The examples you cited above were directed at your views, and that was just me calling a spade a spade, considering,
- they were skewed
- they were made with partial facts and mostly fiction as background research
- they did not consider all the factors involved.
If you thought they were personal attacks on you, well, if you (not me) think the shoe fits... -
Storywolf, if you want to look at it from just a purely military perspective, talk 3:1 odds, military textbooks et al, you might have a case. But as have been repeated over and over again, things are not so simple in this case. Before we call judgement, we must look at things from all those perspectives before making that call.Originally posted by storywolf:Viper52
I still think that the decision is still bloody wrong in a miliary propective. Sniper are expert in killing people and survival, only if they are not seen ! The greatest danger a sinper is to be seen and shot at, They are totally unequip for gun fight with mobs ! Their main weapon is mount with a 10x or at least 8x scope, which is tune to shoot at 600m to 700m, at the crash site with mob so near, that rifle is almost useless. Their seconday weapon should be a M16 variants. In the crash site, they became nothing much than 2 infantry with rifles, unable to use their unique sniper skills.
Yes they may have got medals for it, yes that is for their bravely which we all admired but that does not mean the decision correct. If getting medals is a measure that decision are correct, then we should count the medals that was given out the the people in the mob for killing the snipers too.
I shall not repeat them any more, because the same points have been made over and over again in various ways.
Besides, Shugart was known to be armed with an M14 semi-automatic rifle. Reading through the book, it is doubtful if M16 variants would be more useful in their situation, as there were much dissatisfaction with the ammo used in the battle, since it was designed to defeat body armour and the mobs didn't use any, there were several occasions when the Rangers and Deltas found that their 5.56s went right through without doing much damage and each target required several rounds before being stopped for good. Hardly something you'd want to in the snipers' position.
The M14, with its 7.62 x 51 NATO, made sure that the targets stayed down when hit. -
Just a question for storywolf and gary1910: You seem to take quite a fair bit of umbrage at being termed "armchair critics". So what kind of real combat experience do you have to make that tag untrue when applied to you?Originally posted by storywolf:The postings here already show how much knowledge, depth and experience in military and military tactics each one of us had. Calling other people "armchair critics" or names is not going to change that, it will only serve to reflect on their own character.
The older regulars have already agreed on this, and meander has already pointed out above, if we want to judge the actions of military men in a combat situation from in front of our computers without having been in real combat ourselves, we already are armchair generals.
As for the other "names" I supposedly called gary, I've already stated my case. If he wants to be thin-skinned see them as personal attacks, by all means.
To sum things up, if we want to be armchair generals, the least we can do is to try to be
- objective about it
- do proper research about it
- Keep an open mind, explore all perspectives
- do not rush to judge, and let personal bias colour our opinions and most importantly
- Show respect for their actions and sacrifices, even if we disagree with their actions
What Gary Gordon and Randy Shugart did took a special kind of courage and character, and their sacrifice deserves more than to have their actions and intelligence questioned by someone without an iota of combat experience, who was trying to dig himself out of a hole he put himself in the first place be judging without knowing all the facts
Certain individuals have showed an blatant and stubborn refusal to do so even to the slightest bit, and IMO, there is little surprise they should be called out for it.
I'm done on this topic if my counterparts are, but if they're game to continue, so am I.