Would You Do the Same for Someone You Hardly Know?
-
You are contradictory, you said it yourself even 1% of chance , then he( Durant) should be rescued, yet why are you saying that now in this case????Too risky??Originally posted by NathanG5:his name n rank is Cpl Jamie Smith..wat a joke..is that the only thing u can come up with?
seriously u are giving yourself a dead end..
read on naive one..
the difference between the 2 incident is so obvious..that i wonder y u brought it up..
Durant crash site-
they were sending in only 2 Delta Snipers..to hold off the mob until the convoy reach them..
simple task..go in n secure as best as possible..but the convoy never reach..
Cpl Jamie Smith-
they were asking for a Black Hawk..how many Black Hawk are available during that time..go count yourself!!!
do u know the procedure of CSAR??
how the hell u gona land a Black Hawk in a hot street?
hey you are the genius here..tell me how u gona do that?
even with the little bird flying around the area..the barely escape being hit by RPG!!
n pls get your FARKING FACTS RITE!!
there is another convoy tryin to reach the wounded..Cpl Smith have people to DEFEND HIM!!! does Durant have people to DEFEND him?
does Durant have medic with him?
stop watching the damn movie arse!
the reason Cpl Smith die because the commander-in chief n some senators are not willing to pull in the Bradleys for the Task Force!!!
Father of Cpl Smith never blame the Task Force commanders..the father even insult President Clinton during the 2 snipers MOH ceremony!!!
i cant believe u farking come up with this lame crap...its 2 different situation!!!!
READ !!!!!
pls imagine it yourself in REAL TIME!!! NOT 2 HOUR!!!
there is a questioning regarding y wasnt any evec for Cpl Smith...
there was no court hearing for Durant incident...
get it?
U STILL HAVE NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!!
Really make me wonder????
Medic said that he needed immediate medical attention becos he was dying, as I said , the commanders has to believe that becos they are no medical doctor. Is that so difficult to understand ???
A hundred rangers and 10 doctor will be useless to him w/o the proper equipment to save his life!!!
Why I said that they are lesser risk becos at that moment , there were at least 15 or more rangers and delta in the 1st crash site.
They could actually setup a perimeter for the LZ, let the bird to be in and out in 2 mins. Risky but doable.
Anyway,the commander think it was too risky, therefore they have not sent the bird, as I said noboby will fault the commander for this decision, likewise nobody will fault the commanders if they did not let snipers in the 2nd crash site.
It is all risk and value and the commander have to make the rational decision, if he has to leave someone to die just like this case, nobody will fault them. And this kind of decision have been made in the past as well as the future, that's the reality of war.
As for Bradley , dun know what's the hell you are talking abt?!?
Since they are not even there, so why bring it up?!?
Now your 1% chance is throw out now Huh?!?
-
Erm, even if they were using the greentips, it was too late to draw out as all the armed forces at that time would be using that round anyway after they phased out the M855 rounds. The greentip is supposed to be the standard issue round and I think they're still using it in Iraq today.Originally posted by storywolf:Hi Nathan,
If you don't even know what the ammos the guys are carrying whether they are suitable for anti-personnal, how it justify to say it is correct to send them in ? The moment you say you don't know, what rounds, you already clearly stated that you are not in a position to jusify their firepower, to do the job effectively !
If you send 2 guy in with M21 & a car-15 with "amoured pirecing" rounds, and ask them to do anti-personal which the rounds is not suited for, then sending them in is not questionable ? Is it not the job for professional commanders to know their ammos and their purpose, even viper52 and other like you, read about it from books ! Oh so the commander who send them in may not read enough books on guns and ammos, or we presume he have amnesia and forgot what rounds they are all issued. Whatever it is still a mistake on someone part !
The reason is several. There was a lot of debate over the NATO and the US M855 5.56mm rounds when they were first introduced because their wounding ability was considered inhumane under the Geneva convention.
According to "theory" indeed, military rounds are supposed to injure, not kill the target. This is because an injured soldier is a larger liability then a dead one. An injured soldier takes more fight out of the enemy as some have to tend to him while a dead one is well, dead. Hence rounds that wound, and not kill make stragetic, though not tatical sense. In that sense, the greentip was designed to wound the target, and not kill it, unlike the M855 (Whose fragmentation was some sort of an unintended discovery)
Of course, they had no time to know that the sammies didn't really care if the rounds fired at them wounded or killed them, they just wanted to get their chops in without caring about losses and injuries. Against that kind of unconventional enemy, the M855 would be the best, but sadly, the military is a stiff organization and I doubt anybody saw this obvious coming.
So even if they returned to base also no point, that is, if they were using the greentips, for that would have been standard issue.
BTW, an M14 7.62mm actually does less damage then an M855 5.56 round, the effect is pretty similar to an AK wound, except the bullet tends to yaw after penetrating to a shallower depth in flesh.
Of course, the D-boys themselves, who were experts in weapons and ammo, would know the consquences of using the greentip versus an M855 round and given the choice, they would have elected for the M855 as spec ops have to kill, not wound their targers. Though it is not known if they were given that ability to choose their rounds or if they had no choice.
By the way, I dunno how Gary calculates the odds, but one percent seems ridiculus to me. It's a highly fluid situtation down there and the deck of cards can change in an instant. Those two D-boys didn't put themselves into danger foolishly and they certainly knew what they were doing and the risks involved. They getting killed if more of an effect of the fortunes of war then bad planning. The situtation was not hopeless, it was uncertain.
I suspect Gary's ultraconservative way of leading and hard headed thinking would get more people torn up. And if we follow his line of reasoning, he would be the only trooper electing to stay behind after the convoy decides to saddle up and return because according to him, it seems insane to return into an uncertain situtation for a blackhawk. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
oh man..im not sure if you are stupid or wat? or maybe my england too chim?
You are contradictory, you said it yourself even 1% of chance , then he( Durant) should be rescued, yet why are you saying that now in this case????Too risky??
Really make me wonder????
[b]Medic said that he needed immediate medical attention becos he was dying, as I said , the commanders has to believe that becos they are no medical doctor. Is that so difficult to understand ???
A hundred rangers and 10 doctor will be useless to him w/o the proper equipment to save his life!!!
Why I said that they are lesser risk becos at that moment , there were at least 15 or more rangers and delta in the 1st crash site.
They could actually setup a perimeter for the LZ, let the bird to be in and out in 2 mins. Risky but doable.
Anyway,the commander think it was too risky, therefore they have not sent the bird, as I said noboby will fault the commander for this decision, likewise nobody will fault the commanders if they did not let snipers in the 2nd crash site.
It is all risk and value and the commander have to make the rational decision, if he has to leave someone to die just like this case, nobody will fault them. And this kind of decision have been made in the past as well as the future, that's the reality of war.
As for Bradley , dun know what's the hell you are talking abt?!?
Since they are not even there, so why bring it up?!?
Now your 1% chance is throw out now Huh?!?
[/b]
u zoom into a single so tightly that u blind sided yourself on the other situation..i cant help u..u dun even bother to read the book..
u dun even know wat u are talking abt..u cant even issue any facts abt the whole battle..
hey u cant blame me for making u look dumb...
read up the after report of the battle..the congress meeting discussing wat actually happen at Mog..
if u are too lazy to do it..dun expect us to do it for u..
u dun even wana answer my question..i answer every single of your dumb question..
regarding the bradleys..if u dig deep enough..MG Garrison request for armour back up..before the whole TFR was send in Mog..but was deny by the prez n congress..it is all related..piece it together properly..u will realize u are not that dumb at all. -
Well , it was Nathan not me abt the 1% as quoted below :Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:By the way, I dunno how Gary calculates the odds, but one percent seems ridiculus to me. It's a highly fluid situtation down there and the deck of cards can change in an instant. Those two D-boys didn't put themselves into danger foolishly and they certainly knew what they were doing and the risks involved. They getting killed if more of an effect of the fortunes of war then bad planning. The situtation was not hopeless, it was uncertain.
I suspect Gary's ultraconservative way of leading and hard headed thinking would get more people torn up. And if we follow his line of reasoning, he would be the only trooper electing to stay behind after the convoy decides to saddle up and return because according to him, it seems insane to return into an uncertain situtation for a blackhawk.Originally posted by NathanG5
Since he has said 1% chance , then the snipers should be send in.
the fact that there is a slim chance of rescuing Durant..maybe 1%?
who knows..miracle might happen?
Now the Cpl Smith incident, he said it was too risky.
Well anyway all this whether should be send in or not is all subjective and there was always be someone with different view on it.
But the point I would like make is that if the risk to take is too high where more soldiers will be more likely to be killed rather than saving more lives then it should not be taken!!!
So what is the acceptable risk, that itself is subjective.
That another point is that it is all abt risk and value and the commander have to make the rational decision, if he has to leave someone to die just like this case, nobody will fault them. And this kind of decision have been made in the past as well as will be in the future, that's the reality of war.
Anyway we have our debate,ST, Nathan ,Meander and storywolf.
I think that will be end for me on the subject, nice chatting wif you guys, good day. -
dear Gary
im not sure y u took my 1% theory so hard...?
it was just a casual example..n u took it with u from the 1st post i say abt it..
read that post again.. use your brain abit..
n btw Gary..it will be nice of u to reply those post u chose to ignore..unless u cant..hey i will answer all your post..dun worry abt that man..if i miss out any..just tell me..
if u are really that objective...u look outside the situation..not just just looking at the incident..
but i dun think u cant... -
dude..are u blind to see the question mark behind the 1%?Originally posted by gary1910:Since he has said 1% chance , then the snipers should be send in.
Now the Cpl Smith incident, he said it was too risky.
Well anyway all this whether should be send in or not is all subjective and there was always be someone with different view on it.
But the point I would like make is that if the risk to take is too high where more soldiers will be more likely to be killed rather than saving more lives then it should not be taken!!!
So what is the acceptable risk, that itself is subjective.
That another point is that it is all abt risk and value and the commander have to make the rational decision, if he has to leave someone to die just like this case, nobody will fault them. And this kind of decision have been made in the past as well as will be in the future, that's the reality of war.
omg... -
hi SingaporeTyrannosaur
Care to donate blood ?
You are right about the properties of the different bullets.
What I suppect they are given the AP(M955 - black tips) round which is suppose to design agument M855 to give soldiers add on capability against light amour .The greentips rounds is (M855) which if they are issued with will be good in anti-personal. In fact the M855 bullet wound have the same effect as the M193, only the M855 is a heavier bullet for improve range.
Check out the below website, for the comparison of wound damage.
http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html -
not related to Black Hawk Down...but something very interesting..Originally posted by storywolf:hi SingaporeTyrannosaur
Care to donate blood ?
You are right about the properties of the different bullets.
What I suppect they are given the AP(M955 - black tips) round which is suppose to design agument M855 to give soldiers add on capability against light amour .The greentips rounds is (M855) which if they are issued with will be good in anti-personal. In fact the M855 bullet wound have the same effect as the M193, only the M855 is a heavier bullet for improve range.
Check out the below website, for the comparison of wound damage.
http://www.fen-net.de/norbert.arnoldi/army/wound.html
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/ -
out of point ... but it's i'm bored and there seem to be quite a few ammo experts in the thread.
I never knew there was such a big family within the 5.56mm itself or that all projectiles yaw after hitting a body. All i knew was that the projectile spins, the exit wound would be significant larger than the entry wound. I'm ignorant but hey, I've never shot anyone and I don't really intend to.
Anyway i'm curious, what kind of 5.56 round does the SAF issue?
And what about hollow tip rounds? What are they called? -
hollow tip?Originally posted by meander:out of point ... but it's i'm bored and there seem to be quite a few ammo experts in the thread.
I never knew there was such a big family within the 5.56mm itself or that all projectiles yaw after hitting a body. All i knew was that the projectile spins, the exit wound would be significant larger than the entry wound. I'm ignorant but hey, I've never shot anyone and I don't really intend to.
Anyway i'm curious, what kind of 5.56 round does the SAF issue?
And what about hollow tip rounds? What are they called?
think got a few kind..
think its those SAF sniper use..there was one 7.62 round that are suppose to be ban by Geneva Convention..
the name sound very malay..but cant remember liao.. -
Think this topic should move on from here now....Originally posted by NathanG5:hollow tip?
think got a few kind..
think its those SAF sniper use..there was one 7.62 round that are suppose to be ban by Geneva Convention..
the name sound very malay..but cant remember liao..
So, the crux of the matter is the painfulness of deciding on sending any rescue team to get prisoners out, due to the risk and uncertainty that the rescue team may even be wiped out. Just like in the Saving Private Ryan movie the contradiction between military objectivity and moral obligations towards all soldiers and their families at home.
Then, the next step to handle such situation, or maybe the ultimate solution, is that the rescue team shall be totally non-human, but human-like. The best illustration is a derivative of the Terminator cyborgs.
These humanoid war machines can wear skins to best suit the hostile environment where the prisoners are held or about to be taken prisoner/overrun by enemy. Blending well with the enemy forces, their mission is to get as close to the prisoner(s) and guarding them against abuse or torture, while remaining undercover, until the most opportune time to release and escape with the prisoner as steathily as possible.
If cover gets blown, their primary roles as hunter-killers of the enemy would be activated to waste the entire enemy encampment before getting the prisoners out in one piece -
-
Lapua Mag ?Originally posted by NathanG5:hollow tip?
think got a few kind..
think its those SAF sniper use..there was one 7.62 round that are suppose to be ban by Geneva Convention..
the name sound very malay..but cant remember liao.. -
Nah, the Finnish Lapua rounds used by our snipers aren't hollow-point.Originally posted by NathanG5:hollow tip?
think got a few kind..
think its those SAF sniper use..there was one 7.62 round that are suppose to be ban by Geneva Convention..
the name sound very malay..but cant remember liao.. -
Deleted
-
Storywolf, if its donating blood, I'm game for it. Count me in!
I tried donating some years back, but the mobile blood bank rejected me as I had been to Tekong a few months before the donation drive, and declared it on the blood donor form that I had taken anti-malaria medication.
Tell you what, can you start up a new thread on donating blood, and the details on how we can go about doing it, I'll make it a sticky thread for everyone to see. Putting it here means its easy for those who're not reading this thread to miss. -
Hi Viper52,
Started a new thread " donating Blood" Thanks. -
Just a quick correction on that count my friend, this is what I posted:Originally posted by storywolf:incorrect combination of rifle/round = useless gun, thanks viper52 for his arguement on that)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.
Nowhere did the word useless come up in my argument, nor did I use that word. "Unsuitable" and "Useless" are 2 very different things.
Please don't put words in others mouths, thank you.
-
No worries!Originally posted by storywolf:Hi Viper52,
Started a new thread " donating Blood" Thanks. -
To meander:
The spinning of the projectile has nothing to do with the damage caused to the human body as a target. Smoothbore muskets will inflict as much damage as similar rifled weapon. The spinning projectiles are spun to be stable in flight.
The most reliable, and scientifically proven method of killing your oppoent with a projectile, is to cause as large tissue distruption as possible, be it though punching a large hole or using bullets that shatter within the body from hydrostatic pressure buildup.
In FIBUA, shattering 5.56mm is good if you got a good camping spot, because anybody you zap will almost certainly be dead or out of the fight. 7.62 while more powerful, unless propelled to higher then normal velocities, will not shatter and tend to just pass through the body not really doing much damage. -
To meander:
yyah agreed..from the book......the D-Boys mostly carry M-4 carbines with teflon coated NATO 5.56 round..which of course go thru the target without stopping..the enemy may not even know they r shot when their adreneline is pumping hard...they still got a chance to run...now the problems comes...is he dead?...mortally wounded?...in such situation we dun wanna guess whether the enemy is wounded or wat..we want them DEAD!...
The spinning of the projectile has nothing to do with the damage caused to the human body as a target. Smoothbore muskets will inflict as much damage as similar rifled weapon. The spinning projectiles are spun to be stable in flight.
The most reliable, and scientifically proven method of killing your oppoent with a projectile, is to cause as large tissue distruption as possible, be it though punching a large hole or using bullets that shatter within the body from hydrostatic pressure buildup.
In FIBUA, shattering 5.56mm is good if you got a good camping spot, because anybody you zap will almost certainly be dead or out of the fight. 7.62 while more powerful, unless propelled to higher then normal velocities, will not shatter and tend to just pass through the body not really doing much damage.
...The M-14s are more accurate and have a much better stopping power than the M-4s,,,though not a good CQB weapon... 
...welcome any comments... -
Hey, to be roeect,please note that the Delta troopers are armed with the CAR-15 carbine.And the rounds issued to them are not teflon tipped,but tungsten carbide tipped.