Would You Do the Same for Someone You Hardly Know?
-
Storywolf, no I did not leave the part about armour piercing out. Read the below quote which ws part of my VERY first reply to you about M-16s in the situation, with the important parts set in boldOriginally posted by storywolf:Viper52,
you left out the important point "armour-piercing" rounds from the start of your posting. If you put "not suitable bullets" to a M16, you cannot use that case to say my point that M16 is more suitable in that situation.there were much dissatisfaction with the ammo used in the battle, since it was designed to defeat body armour [/quote]
As for the 2nd part, its just splitting hairs. The fact is that the book stated clearly that the M-16/ammo combi used in the battle left much to be desired, and if there was more research done by you into the battle, the point about the M-16 would not have been brought up.
You cannot just compare guns, you have to factor in the ammo as well. You can have the best gun in the world, but if the ammo you use is unsuitable for the job at hand, the gun will be instantly rendered unsuitable for the task.If normal 5.56 round are put in, the for distances below 300m, the 5.56's velocity make up for its short coming of the 7.62. So in a way it is still as capable a round to take down anyone. The only problem is for further distance, then, the 5.56 is disadvantage.
Not that you're wrong, but again, we're specifically discussing the guns/ammo used in the Mogadishu battle here, not in general.[quote]
By the way, I don't memorized or put too much faith in facts on rifles and bullets from novels from pilot and journalist.
Mark Bowden's book is based largely from interviews with the Ranger and Delta soldiers who took part directly in the battle. The crticism of the ammo was levelled by the soldiers he interviewed, not by Mark Bowden himself. He just put their criticism into print. And Mike Durant is a NightStalker from the 160th SOAR, not your typical Air Force chopper pilot. I would dare say he knows his guns and ammo.
The books are narratives, not novels. There IS a difference.
For what it's worth, I'd put more faith in those books than the movie. Any day. -
i dont like it when people after a few round of post..began to hit on the source of information..claiming it invalid..
in that case we shldnt discuss this at all...after all..its a true story written into a novel...so its a novel in that case it cannot be trusted...
n the funny things is..some of us here..didnt even bother to read the book n come here to debate n assume they know everything by watching the movie..
im not quite highly educated..but i always read..
think i shld call myself StoryNathan...
-
I hear ya Nathan, especially when they did not even evaluate the source of information in the first place. Talk about arbitrary judgement!Originally posted by NathanG5:i dont like it when people after a few round of post..began to hit on the source of information..claiming it invalid..
Whats even funnier is that someone admits just watching the movie, not read the books and not watched the PBS documentary on the incident, then claims he's the "objective" one!
n the funny things is..some of us here..didnt even bother to read the book n come here to debate n assume they know everything by watching the movie..
Hmmm...StoryNathan? I like it, has a nice ring to it!
-
I assume that you are talking me!!!Originally posted by Viper52:Whats even funnier is that someone admits just watching the movie, not read the books and not watched the PBS documentary on the incident, then claims he's the "objective" one!
Hmmm...StoryNathan? I like it, has a nice ring to it!
From someone who claimed to be "objective" and yet made such a emotional statement as shown below.Being a mod does not mean I have to treat anyone with kid gloves. I'd happily treat those who disagree with me with respect, but when someone doesn't show others (particularly those who died doing something not everyone can do) any respect, to the point of belittling their achievements and rudely questioning their intelligence, can they expect and demand me to show them the same respect?
How could someone who are emotionally attached to the snipers be objective in the first place?!?
I dun know where you learn the word objective from, to be objective , one must not be emotionally attached to the issue, becos by been emotionally attached , you are already biased to the issue.
That is why I dun want to debate with you, becos it is pointless, as I have already given my view on it with the follow facts that have not been changed with whatever arguement you have put up so far, therefore I still think they should not be put in becos it was suicidal.
1.The two snipers with rifles and pistol were facing a mob of abt hundred with rifles, pistol and even RPG.
2. There was no reinforcement avaliable in any known time frame or any other form of support for the two snipers. -
HEy man,bout the M-14 and M16s and Car-15s.Please note that the optical scopes fitted to their weapons are reflex scopes.They juz provide a 1.5X to 2.5X zoom feature to their weapons.And besides,the fact that the M-14 round delievers a heavier knock-down punch is definitely true.And the M-16s and Car-15s are loaded with the Army's new "Green Tip" round.Its basically a 5.56 round tipped with a Tungsten Carbide Penetrator and is designed to punch through armour.Since noe og the sammies are wearing body armour,it is like sticking them with an ice pick.It just makes a clean punch through the body.Thus,there is not enough knocking power to knock them down.The point of shooting at the enemy is to make sure they get hit and they stay down.Thus,we should not question how the 2 operators get killed.
But,we must realise that its what they did that truly mattered.And its the fact that they volunteered and were not ordered to go in and secure the site.So why don't we give them our greatest admiration and salute the fact that they scarficise themselves so readily and self-lessly?
And btw,any ppl in Spec Ops community here?Please tell me if its advisable to load the magazines with ball,an armour piercing round and tracer?So that you get a mix of rounds?Thanx!!! -
I dunno why they were using green tip AP rounds against the sammies (I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the army deciding to be more green by replacing its old lead bullets), but in any case the old FMJ M855 and its modern variants 5.56mm the M-16 usually uses causes far more damage then an AK-74 round.
The higher velocity and smaller size of the 5.56 round tends to make it fail from hyrdrostatic pressure buildup when it enters flesh to a sufficent depth (4-5 inches), causing it to breakup into several fragments which in turn scatter at high velocities within the body, causing explosive decoupling of tissue and massive internal trauma.
The AK round, which heavier, is far more stable and punches a small hole. More damage is only done after the bullet has penetrated a considerable distance within flesh, about 14 inches I believe where it will tumble and finally end up base first. But the damage and trauma caused is far less then that of an M-16 round.
If you are hit by a fragmenting 5.56mm round in the torso, chances are you are likely to have taken a nonsurvivable wound. The main issue is that the 5.56 lacks takedown power, that is, while it can kill a person dead with on hit, usually unless it's a CNS or shot to the heart, the target usually has time to charge you, empty a magazine, or trample on you. A 7.62 has more knockdown power, but it's good to note that no round we have, except maybe a .50cal, which can blow off large chunks of the body, can actually knock down a person, people dropping when they are hit is more of a reflex action then the actual energy of the round. Indeed. -
See Gary, this is exactly what the others have been saying about you all this while, you see only part of the story, the part which you want to see, to try to justify your opinions which honestly don't hold because of the fact that they've been formed with a miniscule part of the story in the first place!
And then at the same time, you conveniently ignore every other fact which doesn't back you up!
You've offered us a lot of examples in the previous post alone. Thanks for making my job easy!
I assume that you are talking me!!!
Well, as I've said before, if you think the shoe fits, who am I to disagree?
From someone who claimed to be "objective" and yet made such a emotional statement as shown below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being a mod does not mean I have to treat anyone with kid gloves. I'd happily treat those who disagree with me with respect, but when someone doesn't show others (particularly those who died doing something not everyone can do) any respect, to the point of belittling their achievements and rudely questioning their intelligence, can they expect and demand me to show them the same respect?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we present Exhibit A:
You just harp on the fact that I respect them for their actions, this I'm "emotional". But the fact is that, I've repeatedly said, if you want to judge their actions as a bad tactical call (which I've said it is), you must temper it with the fact that their intentions was to rescue 2 trapped friendlies, and that they were confident in their abilities, along with the fact that it takes a lot of guts to do what they did. Hence, as I've always said (and you've always ignored), DO NOT JUDGE THEM UNTIL YOU"VE BEEN IN THEIR SHOES! Is that so hard to understand gary?
Here I present Exhibit B:
I dun know where you learn the word objective from, to be objective , one must not be emotionally attached to the issue, becos by been emotionally attached , you are already biased to the issue.
A simple search on www.dictionary.com lists the meaning "Objective" as:
- Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices:
- Based on observable phenomena; presented factually
You constantly harp on the fact that I'm influenced by emotions to say I'm not objective, yet you ignore the fact that
- You're influenced by perjudices formed by getting only a partial set of facts of events (by forming an opinion based only on the movie which has itself admitted that certain parts are dramatized and not true)
- You've never presented the facts factually because you don't have ALL the facts! (you've admitted so yourself)
You fail 2 out of 3 criterion for objectivity old boy.
That is why I dun want to debate with you, becos it is pointless,
So put your money where your mouth is. You keep saying you want to stop, yet you always come back when I've posted. Wait a minute, could it be because you're...emotional?
And as I've said, if you don't want to debate with me, fine, but then you never put out counterpoints by the other posters who disagree with you either. Why Gary?
as I have already given my view on it with the follow facts
Part of the facts my dear boy, part of the facts, some fictional dramatization and a lot of gaps in your knowledge of events and background. It has been established repeatedly already. And not by me alone.
that have not been changed with whatever arguement you have put up so far,
Thats a result of your own stubborness and refusing to accept facts which you can't even rebut, not anything else.
therefore I still think they should not be put in becos it was suicidal.
1.The two snipers with rifles and pistol were facing a mob of abt hundred with rifles, pistol and even RPG.
2. There was no reinforcement avaliable in any known time frame or any other form of support for the two snipers.
You've still yet to answer the question which has been asked of you since Page 1 of this thread by a few posters including me, just because it was a difficult task with little chance of success, is it then justified to leave 2, maybe 4 of your own to die?
And if your answer is yes, how would you feel if it was you trapped down there while your friendlies watch on because it is "too risky" or "suicidal"? You've never answered that one either
So whos ignoring the points the other side made? And who has successfully rebutted the points the other side made? -
And as I've said, if you don't want to debate with me, fine, but then you never put out counterpoints by the other posters who disagree with you either. Why Gary?
This is becos none of them have presented anything to change the two facts that I have presented above.
That is to change the odds and increase their survivability.
I have already presented my view on the incident, likewise others presented their view.
Fine with me if they have different view, I dun have to change their view just becos the view dun agree.You've still yet to answer the question which has been asked of you since Page 1 of this thread by a few posters including me, just because it was a difficult task with little chance of success, is it then justified to leave 2, maybe 4 of your own to die?
Ans to qn1:
And if your answer is yes, how would you feel if it was you trapped down there while your friendlies watch on because it is "too risky" or "suicidal"? You've never answered that one either
Yes, if is there practically no chance of success of rescuing the 2-4 , and in turn getting more to die.
In this case 2 against 100, what the odds?!?
As a leader, one has to make rational decision,for the well being of the whole.
Col Mcknight I think of the convoy was asked whether they could get to crash site, he replied no , becos they are running low on ammo as well as high injurys among themselves, and make a rational decision to return to base to regroup.
You see , he has review the risks and the ability of the convoy of that moment and make a rational decision. Sometime , leaders have to make difficult decision but it has to be rational.
Ans to qn2:
It is ok becos it is parts & parcels of war, if it is too risky for them to come in ,I will understand.
Remember that Durant asked the snipers ' Where is the rescue squad?"
And the sniper replied 'We're it'
I could the see the resignation on the face of Durant. -
IIRC , i once read that the AP 5.56 round was actually meant to be use against modern body armour becos the standard 5.56 could not penetrate the modern body armour.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I dunno why they were using green tip AP rounds against the sammies (I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the army deciding to be more green by replacing its old lead bullets), but in any case the old FMJ M855 and its modern variants 5.56mm the M-16 usually uses causes far more damage then an AK-74 round.
The higher velocity and smaller size of the 5.56 round tends to make it fail from hyrdrostatic pressure buildup when it enters flesh to a sufficent depth (4-5 inches), causing it to breakup into several fragments which in turn scatter at high velocities within the body, causing explosive decoupling of tissue and massive internal trauma.
The AK round, which heavier, is far more stable and punches a small hole. More damage is only done after the bullet has penetrated a considerable distance within flesh, about 14 inches I believe where it will tumble and finally end up base first. But the damage and trauma caused is far less then that of an M-16 round.
If you are hit by a fragmenting 5.56mm round in the torso, chances are you are likely to have taken a nonsurvivable wound. The main issue is that the 5.56 lacks takedown power, that is, while it can kill a person dead with on hit, usually unless it's a CNS or shot to the heart, the target usually has time to charge you, empty a magazine, or trample on you. A 7.62 has more knockdown power, but it's good to note that no round we have, except maybe a .50cal, which can blow off large chunks of the body, can actually knock down a person, people dropping when they are hit is more of a reflex action then the actual energy of the round. Indeed.
But when the AP is used against someone that do not have body armour , it actually went in and out thru & thru , causing less damage than the standard 5.56mm round as you described above.
Well , anyway I am no medical doctor but I have ever seen on movies and heard story that at time when someone is shot once or more, it might not actually stop the person from fighting as long as he was not hit at some vital organs like the heart or brain or spine I think.
Sometime , ppl do not even realise that they are hit until they see blood on their body.
I remember once during NS that one man has actually has one of his finger sheared off & did not realised it until someone told him so.
Another story abt the real story abt Israeli tank gunner, his tank was actually hit by a APFSDS which penetrated thru and out the turret and sheared off both his leg, he did not realised it & continued fighting.
Therefore at time , even one who are fatally injured does not mean that he could not fight on for a while. -
I'm not sure where you are geting your opinions from Gary, but I don't think the Delta operatives were intending to rescue Mike by taking on 100 Sammies, and truth be told, nobody really knows when exactly or where exactly they died.
Speculation on my part, but don't think the D-boys plan was to go in, hold off 100 sammies until help arrives, their intention was more likely to get down, get the pilot and hole up somewhere or try to extract the person on foot. Which was probably what they were planning, not camp in a Black Hawk and carry on zapping sammies as the impression you might have gotten from watching the movie.
But of course, things didn't go exactly to plan, but from the outset, it was hardly a sucide mission and they certainly didn't go in blindly.
Truth be told, nobody knows exactly where or when those two soldiers died. And the segment in the movie was the director's own take on what happen. What we do know is that at some point they were unable to extract the pilot, disengage the enemy and were overwhelmed.
To hold off 100 sammies as if they are hero units was certainly not in their decks, they knew their limits and made their choice.
How you draw the conclusion from the bare facts that their action was sucidal or unwise, I'm not sure. Dangerous and risky, yes. But then again everyone involved was in serious danger back then as well. -
Actually you can't say nobody know what happen, Durant the pilot did survive and released later, based on the citation for their MOHs as well as the movie. They were on their own against a 100!!!Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I'm not sure where you are geting your opinions from Gary, but I don't think the Delta operatives were intending to rescue Mike by taking on 100 Sammies, and truth be told, nobody really knows when exactly or where exactly they died.
Speculation on my part, but don't think the D-boys plan was to go in, hold off 100 sammies until help arrives, their intention was more likely to get down, get the pilot and hole up somewhere or try to extract the person on foot. Which was probably what they were planning, not camp in a Black Hawk and carry on zapping sammies as the impression you might have gotten from watching the movie.
But of course, things didn't go exactly to plan, but from the outset, it was hardly a sucide mission and they certainly didn't go in blindly.
Truth be told, nobody knows exactly where or when those two soldiers died. And the segment in the movie was the director's own take on what happen. What we do know is that at some point they were unable to extract the pilot, disengage the enemy and were overwhelmed.
To hold off 100 sammies as if they are hero units was certainly not in their decks, they knew their limits and made their choice.
How you draw the conclusion from the bare facts that their action was sucidal or unwise, I'm not sure. Dangerous and risky, yes. But then again everyone involved was in serious danger back then as well. -
I'm lost for words, so I'll use a buncha smileys
-
wrong wrong n wrong..Originally posted by gary1910:Ans to qn1:
Yes, if is there practically no chance of success of rescuing the 2-4 , and in turn getting more to die.
In this case 2 against 100, what the odds?!?
As a leader, one has to make rational decision,for the well being of the whole.
Col Mcknight I think of the convoy was asked whether they could get to crash site, he replied no , becos they are running low on ammo as well as high injurys among themselves, and make a rational decision to return to base to regroup.
You see , he has review the risks and the ability of the convoy of that moment and make a rational decision. Sometime , leaders have to make difficult decision but it has to be rational.
Ans to qn2:
It is ok becos it is parts & parcels of war, if it is too risky for them to come in ,I will understand.
Remember that Durant asked the snipers ' Where is the rescue squad?"
And the sniper replied 'We're it'
I could the see the resignation on the face of Durant.
the sniper did not answer Durant becos in the 1st place..Durant did not ask them..
let me type out something from the book..this will let u understand more abt it.."It was then, for the first time, that it dawned on Durant that they were stranded. The pilot felt a twist of alarm in his guts. If Shughart was asking how to set up communication, it meant he and the other guy had come in on their own. THEY were the rescue team. And Gordon had just been shot!"
clear to u?
next abt the Delta Sniper being emotional n not thinking...read this.."Mike Durant still thought things were under control. His leg was broken but didn't hurt. He was lying on his back, propped against a supply kit by a small tree, using his weapon to keep back the occasional skinnie who poked his head into the clearing. There was just about a fifteen-foot space between the wall to his left and the tail of the chopper. Durant admired the way the Delta guy positioned him."
the one main reason the Delta Sniper are willing to go down was..
the rescue convoy was on its way..they assume it was on its way..but it was block off n unable to reach Durant crash site on time..
cmon go read the book...this is getting crappy.. -
wrong again..Durant dunno how they got killed n where..Originally posted by gary1910:Actually you can't say nobody know what happen, Durant the pilot did survive and released later, based on the citation for their MOHs as well as the movie. They were on their own against a 100!!!
Durant only heard them shouted that they were hit..but didnt see them get hit or where they got hit.."Then he heard one of the operators - it was Gary Gordon - cry out that he was hit. Just a quick shout of anger and pain. He didn't hear the voice again."
"Over the din he heard Shughart cry out in pain. Then it stopped."
-
Say Gary, you should buy the DVD.
If you want to get your opinions and "facts" from the movie, at least you should listen to the commentries, they are very good. Having the director's say, along with several dudes who were actually in the battle, especially on the two delta operatives. Several parts of the movie were dramatized or changed from the original incident for purposes of allowing the audience to better keep up with the story and to distill a 18 hour long firefight into 2.
While in general the movie is a very good adaptation of the book, and stays true to the gist and spirit of the incident, as the soldiers there would testify in the DVD, you should treat the movie as a starting point to discover the facts, not take them from there.
I think you would realize that a lot of your conclusions are quite wrong and if Ridney Scott was here, he might slap your face. -
Now I wanted to ask some questions from the book, did any commanders know exactly when the convoy will reached them?Originally posted by NathanG5:the one main reason the Delta Sniper are willing to go down was..
the rescue convoy was on its way..they assume it was on its way..but it was block off n unable to reach Durant crash site on time..
cmon go read the book...this is getting crappy..
Did the convoy managed to reach the first crash site? ( from the movies is no)
If they were not blocked off , how far were they from the second site? 5mins , 10 mins.?
Why I ask this is very simple, 2 men against a 100 , I dun think it will be a very long fight.
Whatever the answer are, if the commanders dun know when the support for the snipers were coming, then to me it was still a mistake for them to let in. -
I could the see the resignation on the face of Durant.
Which Durant? Reel or real? It's amazing you are using the preformance of actors to booster your "facts" of the incident. What's next? Let me think...
Humans can fly.
I could see the way Neo escaped the hundreds of Smiths at the end of the Burly Brawl.
Nuff said. -
I was just giving a illustration, not stating any facts, anyway the book descibed the same feeling from the movie has given by Nathan.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Which Durant? Reel or real? It's amazing you are using the preformance of actors to booster your "facts" of the incident. What's next? Let me think...
Humans can fly.
I could see the way Neo escaped the hundreds of Smiths at the end of the Burly Brawl.
Nuff said.
I was answering to Viper how I feel if there is no one to save me if I am in the same situation, I will gatreful to to them if someone try to save me but in the case like the Durant, I will most probably feel the same if the other two joining me in this quite hopeless situation. -
no..the commanders not sure...so does it matter?Originally posted by gary1910:Now I wanted to ask some questions from the book, did any commanders know exactly when the convoy will reached them?
Did the convoy managed to reach the first crash site? ( from the movies is no)
If they were not blocked off , how far were they from the second site? 5mins , 10 mins.?
Why I ask this is very simple, 2 men against a 100 , I dun think it will be a very long fight.
Whatever the answer are, if the commanders dun know when the support for the snipers were coming, then to me it was still a mistake for them to let in.
hey u already say u have your own view..y bother to question then?
because in your view..your view is correct..
n im too lazy to type the whole thing out...
since when u got the number 100?
read your last sentence...
it is only u..
well..u dun think so..dun assume..read...
u realize something? if u are my commander..i will never follow u to war..cos i'ii know if something same happen to me..i'ii be left to die..
wat if the convoy was only a a few minute away? n Durant was left all alone? can Durant fend off the mob by its own?
the Delta sniper was send down because there is a chance..CHANCE!!
the question u ask is simple but seriously insulting the ability of Spec Ops people..
n u still insist on using the movie as full facts..there are alot of facts not shown on the movies..
once again..go read the book... -
I have the DVD, but I did not go thru with the commentary.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Say Gary, you should buy the DVD.
If you want to get your opinions and "facts" from the movie, at least you should listen to the commentries, they are very good. Having the director's say, along with several dudes who were actually in the battle, especially on the two delta operatives. Several parts of the movie were dramatized or changed from the original incident for purposes of allowing the audience to better keep up with the story and to distill a 18 hour long firefight into 2.
While in general the movie is a very good adaptation of the book, and stays true to the gist and spirit of the incident, as the soldiers there would testify in the DVD, you should treat the movie as a starting point to discover the facts, not take them from there.
I think you would realize that a lot of your conclusions are quite wrong and if Ridney Scott was here, he might slap your face.
Anyway did the commentary did imply that they knew when the convoy would reach them ?
Did the commentary say how big were ?the less 50? around 100?
If the answer is still no and the mob is still 100, then the statement I have made earliar still stand, so the odds still remain!!!!! -
well..by my describtion..Durant did not show any resignation...Originally posted by gary1910:I was just giving a illustration, not stating any facts, anyway the book descibed the same feeling from the movie has given by Nathan.
I was answering to Viper how I feel if there is no one to save me if I am in the same situation, I will gatreful to to them if someone try to save me but in the case like the Durant, I will most probably feel the same if the other two joining me in this quite hopeless situation.
his hope was still there...right until the 1st skinny appear infront of him..he then gave up.. -
lolz..okokOriginally posted by gary1910:I have the DVD, but I did not go thru with the commentary.
Anyway did the commentary did imply that they knew when the convoy would reach them ?
Did the commentary say how big were ?the less 50? around 100?
If the answer is still no and the mob is still 100, then the statement I have made earliar still stand, so the odds still remain!!!!!
so wat would u have done if u are the commanders?
wat strategy will u use? -
The reason for why I believe that they should not be allowed in was the overwhelming odds against the two snipers, the commanders also dun know when there would be additional support to them which would change the odds.Originally posted by NathanG5:no..the commanders not sure...so does it matter?
hey u already say u have your own view..y bother to question then?
because in your view..your view is correct..
n im too lazy to type the whole thing out...
since when u got the number 100?
read your last sentence...
it is only u..
well..u dun think so..dun assume..read...
u realize something? if u are my commander..i will never follow u to war..cos i'ii know if something same happen to me..i'ii be left to die..
wat if the convoy was only a a few minute away? n Durant was left all alone? can Durant fend off the mob by its own?
the Delta sniper was send down because there is a chance..CHANCE!!
the question u ask is simple but seriously insulting the ability of Spec Ops people..
n u still insist on using the movie as full facts..there are alot of facts not shown on the movies..
once again..go read the book...
So far that have not been changed, any additional info will only just info. Did not change the odds.
Anyway you have own view and I have mine, I have already given the reason for my view in the thread. -
in that case answer the above question..if u are the commanders..wat will u do?Originally posted by gary1910:The reason for why I believe that they should not be allowed in was the overwhelming odds against the two snipers, the commanders also dun know when there would be additional support to them which would change the odds.
So far that have not been changed, any additional info will only just info. Did not change the odds.
Anyway you have own view and I have mine, I have already given the reason for my view in the thread.
left DUrant there to die? -
I'm not sure about you, but Gary is making little sense to me.
Adding facts will change your points. Why? Because when taken into their context, something which you have obviously failed to notice. Do change things a lot for you. But of course, the only fact you are concerned about was "100 on 2" which I dunno where you drew it from.
(Considering nobody actually saw the engagement, one wonders if it actually played out the way it did in the movie.)
And if you haven't listened to the commentary, go do so now, don't expect us to do your homework for you. So far you have been doing little but shooting from the hip based on your own shaky and personal opinion of a dramatization and then expecting people to put you straight. For goodness sakes and everybody's sanity, please get your facts right before you post anything.
Nobody's gonna deny your right to your own point of view, no matter how silly or wrong it may be. As you can see from my signature, while I don't agree with everything he's saying, I certainly found them funny as you are starting to become slightly amusing as well.
Anyway, I am amazed you can deduce the actual emotions and their context of the people and their actions in the situtation based on actors preformance in a dramatization in which Ridney Scott, which respecting his attempt to tell the story, himself has taken several liberities for the sake of making a movie.
At the same time, you said that you did not trust the book and the pilots, a nonfiction narrative and the people who were actually there and probably know a heck load more about actual combat and the tools of war then you can ever hope to know.
I think this entire pointless debate would have been avoided if you had simply done your basic homework before you came in here with lots of style, but no substance.
There were plenty of factors and things that could have been done, have been done, and have not been done in that incident. At the end of the day, was
And please, spare people the 100 on 2 canapoly crap. As I stated a few posts before, these were D-Boys, and they certainly weren't going in there to take on 100 (how on earth do you even know the number) sammies and fend them off the save the pilot. Due to many things beyond their control, things went wrong and they got killed. You can't simply pin this on a bad call on their part or the commander. It's just war. Things like this happen. You can be the best trained person with the highest level of skill, but still die. Wait... why am I telling you this? Oh yeah, because you didn't listen to the commentary.
What matters is that these soldiers did their duty to the best, or even beyond their call of duty given their situtation, and their actions were extraordinary. That deserves a MOH by any book.
If you didn't notice, there were situtations where small numbers of americans were isolated and had to fight off far larger numbers of skinnies as well. I don't see you harping on that.