Don't think so, they dug holes (never heard of that) put out claymores and placed out a listening patrol. That takes some time.Originally Posted by William F. Owen
To be fair to these guys it was said that they were on a ridge line with steep fall off. The listening post would have been the cut off group but at 100m maybe too close and at ten foot off the path they were either idiots or it was a razor back ridge.
Trimming the post is a bugger as going to the New York Times site requires membership. OK so saved by my browser memory I note something of interest in that scouts using night-vision locted five TB hiding. Now what about the aircraft that came over head? Do Apaches have thermal? Is it legitimate to expect the Apaches to search out the TB among the rocks? Follow them back up the hill etc etc?While this is probably not the norm, it is about as good as it gets in Afghanistan. CPT Howell was my counterpart at NTC. He didn't learn anything from me that allowed his unit to do this. Including the PFC and the selector lever...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04...age...er Hicks, NYT)
Negativity is its own reward...
How do you arrive at that conclusion? There are about 200± Rifle Platoons plus Scout Platoons, LRS units and SOF elements in Afghanistan. I do not know how many Journalists are there but I suspect the number is far smaller; all of them are not embedded with Infantry units and all of them do not elect to go out with patrols -- nor, often are they allowed to (not for censorship purposes -- other than the SOF folks who are paranoid about OpSec -- but because the Army is leery about getting them injured). I talk to folks who are there now and there's much that does not make the news for both good and bad reasons. The good primarily concerns OpSec, the bad the fact that the US Army and media have a strong distrust of each other.So have millions of us.I've been there and done that.Can't help it can you.'Bad' as in when there are more own forces casualties?
Nah, body count is irrelevant. We don't like to be seen bragging (if their KIA count is higher) or complaining (if our KIA count is higher). We learned that the hard way in Korea (the media will misrepresent and play for the gora angle...), relearned it in Viet Nam, relearned it yet again in this series of conflicts. We're a sensitive caring if slow learning Army.Really ignorant allegation. I mentioned, as did the reporter, that it was the first big success for that Platoon. We do not know how long they've been there, nor do we know what previous or other units in the same area did. In short, we don't know enough to comment intelligently about the action. As you just proved. You can of course make rather silly and biased comments with no factual basis if you wish. Innuendo occasionally works.It seems it was the first positive result in the area so they (the military) need to milk it for all the propaganda value it may have. They probably want to concentrate on the 13 kills in one contact and can handle to 'minor' criticism that comes from the whole truth getting out.Not just in Rhodesia, it happened in Korea, in Viet Nam, in Iraq and it happens now in Afghanistan. Not much the west can -- or will -- do about it....Having been on these ops we used to wonder where they got the childrens bodies from.That's a simplistic message. If the Armed Force do it, they'll be accused of propaganda. If embedded reporters do it, they frequently get accused of being 'co-opted' by the forces. There will never be enough reporters who are not embedded to do even a marginal job of reporting -- if they could be trusted to be objective. Our experience in Viet Nam and Iraq was that such objectivity was not as common as one would hope, the Afghan conflict looks la bit better -- only because it's smaller and far fewer journalists are there...The message was simple, make the facts available otherwise only their version will be shown.
Maybe...
Yes. Depends on time on station and whether the folks on the ground could give a search area and the Apache flight pattern. No way to know without having been there.
All the information I have from different sources informs me that very few if any night ops are being carried out by non special forces units. They seem to have the kit to do it so there must surely be some serious questions asked of commanders.
Body count is irrelevant?Nah, body count is irrelevant. We don't like to be seen bragging (if their KIA count is higher) or complaining (if our KIA count is higher). We learned that the hard way in Korea (the media will misrepresent and play for the gora angle...), relearned it in Viet Nam, relearned it yet again in this series of conflicts. We're a sensitive caring if slow learning Army.
On a flight a while ago I found myself next to a British couple who when we discussed Afghanistan their point was that they only see and hear of the bodies of Brit soldiers being brought back and nothing of the Taliban dead. I did not have the heart to tell then that 80% of Brit casualties are through IEDs where they don't even see the TB let alone kill any of them. If the Brits were indeed killing the TB then it would slip out into the media one way or the other.
OK so I need to quote for you then:I mentioned, as did the reporter, that it was the first big success for that Platoon. We do not know how long they've been there, nor do we know what previous or other units in the same area did. In short, we don't know enough to comment intelligently about the action...
"The patrol, Second Platoon of Company B, was in a place where no Americans had spent a night for years, and it seemed that the Afghans did not expect danger. "
"Second Platoon, Company B has endured one of the most arduous assignments in Afghanistan. Eight of the platoon’s soldiers have been wounded in nine months of fighting in the valley, part of a bitter contest for control of a small and sparsely populated area. Three others have been killed."
"“It’s the first time most of us have even seen the guys who were shooting at us,” said Sgt. Thomas Horvath, 21."
So yes by all accounts it had been a really s###ty tour so far for that platoon. Glad they could salvage something out of it in the end.
It is of intense interest to the rest of the world that the US can put a man on the moon but can't figure out how to facilitate a free and accurate flow of information to the media. So who is screwing this up? Is it the military themselves or politicians?Not just in Rhodesia, it happened in Korea, in Viet Nam, in Iraq and it happens now in Afghanistan. Not much the west can -- or will -- do about it.That's a simplistic message. If the Armed Force do it, they'll be accused of propaganda. If embedded reporters do it, they frequently get accused of being 'co-opted' by the forces. There will never be enough reporters who are not embedded to do even a marginal job of reporting -- if they could be trusted to be objective. Our experience in Viet Nam and Iraq was that such objectivity was not as common as one would hope, the Afghan conflict looks la bit better -- only because it's smaller and far fewer journalists are there...
Last edited by JMA; 04-25-2010 at 08:59 PM.
Not talking necessarily about that particular incident. In general terms could thermal imaging equipment in choppers or other cheaper aircraft (in terms of cost per flying hour) be employed on night surveillance tasks? Has it been tried?
Night video
Somewhere here at SWC, within the past year, there is a link to a night video (from an Apache TADS ?) focusing in on a Tal squad advancing toward a Coalition ground unit. The point of the post (IIRC) was how many "Captain, may I"s were required before the gunship could engage. It eventually did engage, as did the ground unit - all on the linked video.from JMA
Not talking necessarily about that particular incident. In general terms could thermal imaging equipment in choppers or other cheaper aircraft (in terms of cost per flying hour) be employed on night surveillance tasks? Has it been tried?
Regards
Mike
I would love to see that. I understand the own forces carry a gizmo that allows the chopper to identify them. What's all the 'May I's' for? Confirm they are not civies or own forces and are indeed hostiles then let rip. Must be very frustrating for the air-crews and the ground forces.
Not tried, done constantly. Probably too much, if anything...
Aside from the Apache, the number of UAVs (Drones) operated by the Army, the Air Force, the Marines and the CIA approach 30,000 hours net flying time per month in Afghanistan. All three services plus the Navy also operate fixed wing aircraft ranging from the RC/EC 135, E8 (Both 707 like acft) and P3 (the Navy maritime patrol acft which has significant overland capability) and a slew of Beechcraft King Airs modified for surveillance. Most have infrared and or millimetric wave and MTI radar and other sensors. Aerostats are here and there. That's all just US, other nations also contribute UAV, fixed and rotary wing assets.
There's little ground in Afghanistan that doesn't have nightly coverage of some sort or, for areas not under fairly constant observation -- it's a big country,about half the size of ZA -- places that can be reached and covered fairly quickly. Aerial Surveillance is heavy, patrols are out nightly, long range surveillance patrol are out days at a time -- most of that in in the news but you have to hunt for it, it's not catchy enough for the major media
All of that is open source and readily available in any of the internet search engines. For example, Google 'Aerial Surveillance Afghanistan' (LINK) and you get 50K hits.
Your constant queries on very basic facts most here deem common knowledge are interesting. One could suspect that a significant lack of knowledge and research coupled with apparent reliance on inefficient news media coverage might leave you with some hesitancy to assume you understand what is happening in Afghanistan -- and how to fix it...
Of course, one has been wrong before...
You have some ignorant or confused sources.
Serving people who've been there and are there now disagree totally with your sources. I'm not even going to waste time on that specious argument. Aside from the Opsec issue, neither of us can prove anything.In the context of US military photos and their release, yes.Body count is irrelevant?I cannot speak for the British. I can tell you that in my opinion, that's a specious number, the assumption that no enemy is seen or killed is highly questionable and this (LINK) article from the Times gives me the option of believing it or believing your innuendo. Guess which one wins.... I did not have the heart to tell then that 80% of Brit casualties are through IEDs where they don't even see the TB let alone kill any of them. If the Brits were indeed killing the TB then it would slip out into the media one way or the other.Sigh. Amateurs are so much fun. First item. I doubt the platoon or even the Battalion involved would really know that no one had been there in year. Think about it. They might not have been there before, there's no guarantee that even another company from the same Battalion had not been. Even if true, it proves absolutely nothing about activity in the surrounding area or by other units through out Afghanistan. The fact that no one, no unit has spent the night on a particular piece of ground proves nothing except that patch of ground is likely to be free of trash. I'd be disappointed if a unit did spend the night where others had -- that's called establishing a pattern...OK so I need to quote for you then..."The patrol, Second Platoon of Company B, was in a place where no Americans had spent a night for years, and it seemed that the Afghans did not expect danger. "
"Second Platoon, Company B has endured one of the most arduous assignments in Afghanistan. Eight of the platoon’s soldiers have been wounded in nine months of fighting in the valley, part of a bitter contest for control of a small and sparsely populated area. Three others have been killed."
"“It’s the first time most of us have even seen the guys who were shooting at us,” said Sgt. Thomas Horvath, 21."
A Platoon of 40 or there about in a space of nine months has 3 KIA and 8 WIA. That's an average casualty rate of rate of .001 per day. When it gets to a Korea or Viet Nam like average of about ten times that, then it might be called arduous. By some. I doubt I would but I'd need to know a lot more to make anywhere near a valid determination.
If they have not seen the enemy before, that sounds like they were getting shot at from people who are better at hiding in rocks then the Platoon was in finding those people. It also sounds like the Platoon may be getting better at its job. Given the low key combat tempo in Afghanistan, nine months may be a bit long -- but only a bit...
"By all accounts?" You only have one account, that from a Reporter, one that's been tampered with by an Editor and one that may or may not be accurate. Your standard of proof is awesome.You left out the media. Add them in and my choice would be 'all of them in about equal parts.' I might give a slight preponderance of blame to the media who in my view have an unduly skewed view of their power and role. But only slight...It is of intense interest to the rest of the world that the US can put a man on the moon but can't figure out how to facilitate a free and accurate flow of information to the media. So who is screwing this up? Is it the military themselves or politicians?
The Politicians come next because they are capable of and do drive some media reportage. The military is far from blameless, they do some really dumb stuff, media wise (and generally...) -- as I said, there's a LOT of distrust between the Armed Forces and the media -- and both of those mistrust the Politicians (who return the favor...).
A British Colonel not long ago told my son that the US media makes us out to be a bunch of clowns and he knows we are not but has a hard time convincing those who have not worked with us. I have to agree. We have never been 'popular' for a variety of valid and invalid reasons. I've been traveling the world since 1947, we were unpopular then and it has been up and down since -- Viet Nam was about the lowest point, Iraq and today don't even come close. I'd say today, we rate about where we did after Korea. After the tumultuous Sixties, our media tilted leftward and then got bought by the US entertainment industry who are more interested in pushing their entertainers and celebrities than they are in news. Bad stuff...
Here you go
Easily found by entering 'apache' and 'video' in the search box found in the uppermost Blue strip on this page.
LINK.
Not good digging country, more likely sangars.
Kicking out listening posts should be automatic. Seems a hasty ambush to me, not a planned ambush. Hard to say unless one was there.
This must not be his fault or the media's at all.Your constant queries on very basic facts most here deem common knowledge are interesting. One could suspect that a significant lack of knowledge and research coupled with apparent reliance on inefficient news media coverage might leave you with some hesitancy to assume you understand what is happening in Afghanistan -- and how to fix it...
I've encountered the worst misinformations about military hardware among both journalists and soldiers. Others tend to shut up unless they played a videogame that mentioned something related.
The quantity of urban legends, simplifications and other misinformation in the (German) armed services is astonishing, for example. Sometimes you shouldn't even trust specialists in their own trade (because all too often, their education/training was too specific and they can often merely repeat what they were told - or worse). There's also the problem that a certain dosage of optimism is injected into soldiers (exception: NBC troops) in order to motivate them - this leads to wrong judgements as well.
You assume the (common) knowledge level of people with very diverse experiences or great interest in the topic. That's not really "common knowledge" in my opinion.
Last but not least, I doubt that anyone really understands what happens in AFG. This is difficult even with a lag of a couple years and insider (one side insider only!) knowledge. Even those who think of themselves as experts should be aware that their understnading and knowledge is necessarily far from perfect.
What would I do without you Ken ;-)
Steady now Ken.
I refer you you to "CHAPTER 10 PATROLLING; Section II. TYPES OF PATROLS" in FM 3-21-9
" Hasty Ambush. A platoon or squad conducts a hasty ambush when it makes visual contact with an enemy force and has time to establish an ambush without being detected."
Doctrine is a guide, no more.
It is written by people in heated and air conditioned offices who may once have done a few things -- or not -- but whose guiding light is to make their boss happy. Everyone should be aware of the doctrine so that it can be intelligently modified as needed.
A hasty ambush is any ambush that was not planned and rehearsed on similar ground.
I'd also point out that the action described in the article meets your quote; the Platoon as you earlier pointed out had established a defensive position, that got converted into an 'ambush' (actually, a sort of ambush but so called by sloppy doctrinal and media interpretation). Sounds hasty to me...
As for this:Your own research and searches???What would I do without you Ken ;-)
It'd also help keep Fuchs off my back...
Nah. Not really. What I would like to see is the point...
I agree. that's why I said specifically; "Your constant queries on very basic facts most here deem common knowledge are interesting."(emphasis added /kw). I applied that to most -- not all -- poster on this Board and to the basic stuff...
I tend to avoid commenting on issues unless I have some knowledge gained by direct and repeated personal experience in multiple environments (a one time thing can be an anomaly) and / or I've seen reports from at least three, preferably competing, reasonably reliable sources. I also generally try to contain my biases (of which I have a bunch...) and to avoid politics, generic slams and stereotyping with little basis in fact.
I don't expect everyone to adhere to that goal -- regrettably, even I don't hit it constantly but I do try. What I'd like to see is is most posters head in that direction...With that I totally agree, no caveats. I will point out, though, that also applies to most wars, most places. Onkel Carl's friction abounds...Last but not least, I doubt that anyone really understands what happens in AFG. This is difficult even with a lag of a couple years and insider (one side insider only!) knowledge. Even those who think of themselves as experts should be aware that their understnading and knowledge is necessarily far from perfect.
You want humor?I agree. that's why I said specifically; "Your constant queries on very basic facts most here deem common knowledge are interesting."(emphasis added /kw). I applied that to most -- not all -- poster on this Board and to the basic stuff...
I tend to avoid commenting on issues unless I have some knowledge gained by direct and repeated personal experience in multiple environments (a one time thing can be an anomaly) and / or I've seen reports from at least three, preferably competing, reasonably reliable sources. I also generally try to contain my biases (of which I have a bunch...
I don't expect everyone to adhere to that goal -- regrettably, even I don't hit it constantly but I do try. What I'd like to see is is most posters head in that direction...With that I totally agree, no caveats. I will point out, though, that also applies to most wars, most places. Onkel Carl's friction abounds...
Read the sworn statements from all the participants in a TIC.
I can't get a gunner and driver to agree upon what happened.
It is written by people in heated and air conditioned offices who may once have done a few things -- or not -- but whose guiding light is to make their boss happy. Everyone should be aware of the doctrine so that it can be intelligently modified as needed.
A hasty ambush is any ambush that was not planned and rehearsed on similar ground.
I'd also point out that the action described in the article meets your quote; the Platoon as you earlier pointed out had established a defensive position, that got converted into an 'ambush' (actually, a sort of ambush but so called by sloppy doctrinal and media interpretation). Sounds hasty to me...
As for this:Your own research and searches???
It'd also help keep Fuchs off my back...
Oh dear. It seems that when confronted with the facts you would rather throw the manual out the window than accept that you were out on the definition. Sad.
...oh, and the personal stuff Ken, its water off a ducks back.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks