Cowardice!!!?? Mate, i think that you have no idea! Because the marines withdrew after taking four casulties? Is that why you are prepared to call them cowards? If so then you obviously dont have any military experience and are not qualified to make that remark based on that article. i have zero respect for any of your opinions posted as of now.
WAH-64 attack helicopters to ferry troops
- Thread starter riksavage
- Start date
Cowardice!!!?? Mate, i think that you have no idea! Because the marines withdrew after taking four casulties? Is that why you are prepared to call them cowards? If so then you obviously dont have any military experience and are not qualified to make that remark based on that article. i have zero respect for any of your opinions posted as of now.
So they took four casualties. So what!!! The next time they will again meet resistance, and stiffer one for that I bet. No wonder the Pashtuns (assuming the defenders were of that tribe) have no respect for Western troups.
If it were just an infantry assault I would say, ok, can happen.
But with tanks, heavy artillery, assault helicopters, etc!!!
The officer who led that assault should have been replaced immediatly.
Just my unqualified opinion. And I spent a couple of years as an officer in the armed forces of an European country.
If you spent your time there you should know that you just don't go on if the resistance is much more hard than expected and you were not prepared for this.
You regroup and make a new plan instead of taking unnecessary casualties.
And as said before if the enemy has well prepared fortified positions in this area it is hard to bury them out of even with artillery and bomber support.
You regroup and make a new plan instead of taking unnecessary casualties.
And as said before if the enemy has well prepared fortified positions in this area it is hard to bury them out of even with artillery and bomber support.
Hmmm Distiller is the kind of officer I want leading me into an assault. You know the type who yells out follow me and you then you never have to deal with him again because he disappears into pink mist (friendly fire or what ever).
You have to re-think your idea on tactics and not blast the guy in charge for his decisions which were IMO just fine. You have 4 blokes shot and 1 missing/dead at the end of the day is terrible. Just think what you would loose if the you pushed on with the assault, a high body count and a bloody rock house. Hmmm not a victory but stupidity of the highest degree.
Now, lets pull apart your reasons for your remarks.
They had tanks...ok, how many and do you know what level of support they were able to give or were they part of the diversion?...Do you know this? NO YOU DON'T
Heavy artillery...ok, were they providing support thoughout the assault or were they sofening up the target area. Do you know this? NO YOU DON'T
Gunships...ok, great if you can use them, without hitting your own troops during the final assault or were these part of the diversion. Do you know this? NO YOU DON'T.
So basicly you are basing your remarks off an article written in a newspaper. You were not on the ground and have no idea of the situation that these men were in.
I am sure if you lead the assault, you would be a big hero and I guess you don't really care about the families of the dead that you would need to talk to and tell them why you pushed on and what good you did by doing this.
Grow up and re up, deploy to a war zone and see how long you last with a gun-ho attitude.
Have a nice day!
You have to re-think your idea on tactics and not blast the guy in charge for his decisions which were IMO just fine. You have 4 blokes shot and 1 missing/dead at the end of the day is terrible. Just think what you would loose if the you pushed on with the assault, a high body count and a bloody rock house. Hmmm not a victory but stupidity of the highest degree.
Now, lets pull apart your reasons for your remarks.
They had tanks...ok, how many and do you know what level of support they were able to give or were they part of the diversion?...Do you know this? NO YOU DON'T
Heavy artillery...ok, were they providing support thoughout the assault or were they sofening up the target area. Do you know this? NO YOU DON'T
Gunships...ok, great if you can use them, without hitting your own troops during the final assault or were these part of the diversion. Do you know this? NO YOU DON'T.
So basicly you are basing your remarks off an article written in a newspaper. You were not on the ground and have no idea of the situation that these men were in.
I am sure if you lead the assault, you would be a big hero and I guess you don't really care about the families of the dead that you would need to talk to and tell them why you pushed on and what good you did by doing this.
Grow up and re up, deploy to a war zone and see how long you last with a gun-ho attitude.
Have a nice day!
nfloorl:Were you an infantry officer or a "blanket counter officer?". If the OC of the attacking force felt it was unproductive to continue the assualt,realised that there were more enemy than expected,why would you continue? Any way as i said before,to think that called it an act of cowardess relagates your opinion meaningless and irrelevant to me. I dont care what army you served in or what rank you held,you have proved to me that you have no regard for your own men, and would have been a very lonley,and(on ops) nervous PL comd.
Oh,mate....thats it for me on this thread. I agree to strongly disagree with you on this.
Last edited:
Just a little background I recall from the TV & newspaper reports of what the military said about this operation.
In the past the opposition retreated into fortified compounds during the winter and planned for the offensive to re-start in the spring.
This fort like many others had been under observation for some time (many weeks). The objective was to show the opposition that they couldn’t just hibernate in these forts and expect to remain unmolested.
The main objective was not necessarily to take the fort, just to rattle their cage.
Several other forts have been attacked. I expect that if any of the forts had been poorly defended that they would have been taken.
I suspect that these forts are likely to receive regular visits.
Chris
In the past the opposition retreated into fortified compounds during the winter and planned for the offensive to re-start in the spring.
This fort like many others had been under observation for some time (many weeks). The objective was to show the opposition that they couldn’t just hibernate in these forts and expect to remain unmolested.
The main objective was not necessarily to take the fort, just to rattle their cage.
Several other forts have been attacked. I expect that if any of the forts had been poorly defended that they would have been taken.
I suspect that these forts are likely to receive regular visits.
Chris
Video
The following video was released just over an hour by the UK MoD.
Paul Beaver a "defence expert" makes comment on air, as the video was broadcast by BBC TV. He makes a small error in supposing that there were just two helicopters, previous footage from the scene and an MoD release, stated that there were three helicopters, two with two troops attached to the outside and one helicopter as back-up, that apparently took the video that has just been screened.
It also confirms comments posted on this thread that, hanging on the side was an emergency technique adopted by the AAC to recover aircrew if a helicopter went down. (Straps were carried in the helicopters for that purpose).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6280000/newsid_6284400?redirect=6284429.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1>
Chris
The following video was released just over an hour by the UK MoD.
Paul Beaver a "defence expert" makes comment on air, as the video was broadcast by BBC TV. He makes a small error in supposing that there were just two helicopters, previous footage from the scene and an MoD release, stated that there were three helicopters, two with two troops attached to the outside and one helicopter as back-up, that apparently took the video that has just been screened.
It also confirms comments posted on this thread that, hanging on the side was an emergency technique adopted by the AAC to recover aircrew if a helicopter went down. (Straps were carried in the helicopters for that purpose).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6280000/newsid_6284400?redirect=6284429.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&nbram=1>
Chris
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Going back to the original thread – attack helicopters capable of carrying personnel. The UK ACC’s approach makes sense; I seriously doubt the Apache’s would patrol as a single unit (two or more), so if a helo was forced to land a second, subject to environment and local conditions, could theoretically recover the aircrew. At the end of the day the helo's can be replaced, trained and experienced crews are another matter.