Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 Apr 2003 23:24:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
319 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > > The answer is simple: they were under fire. You can't wait around for a
> > > Delta Force team to be rounded up, briefed, assess the situation, and then
> > > make a strike. Mortar rounds are coming in *now*.
> >
> > There is more than one way to take an objective. This approach, if proven
> > too hard, could be abandoned for a better one.
>
> Not too hard: too slow. Shells are dropping. Mortars require a spotter.
> As I said, there are circumstances where you can't shilly-shally (delay,
> stall, avoid positive action). Oops! Just lost B company, maybe we can
> make a group decision, show of hands, all in favor...
That decision is easy to take. In a few words, the tanks can fall back to
point "A", where no mortar can reach.
> The tank was there, it had a weapon that would be effective. Really, the
> only question is did the U.S. spotter take a really good look?
Indeed.
> > > I don't think asking guys in a tank to take architectural quizes in the
> > > middle of combat is realistic. Let's presume that it was a hospital
> > > building with a big red cross on it with spotters calling in artillery
> > > strikes from its roof. Obvious building without comparative balustrade
> > > construction techniques through a periscope required. The outcome would be
> > > the exact same, and as long as there was reasonable cause, *any* country's
> > > military would do the exact same thing.
> >
> > That situation you refer as possible would present an interesting
> > possibility: to wait, out of range. A hospital is not self sufficient - so
> > the snipers would have to move eventually - the civilians would not be
> > killed outright (or risk it) in a fierce fight.
>
> No, please stop with the snipers.
Sorry, I misread. My bad.
> The shot was fired to take out what they
> believed were spotters for mortar shells that were currently falling. To
> stop the mortars, you have to take out the spotter. Any delay means your
> units can be ripped to shreds. In fact, you are allowing them the time to
> refine their aim.
But I'm not advocating delay under exposure - that's why I say fall back,
rethink strategy, go back and attack. The aim can be refined, but range is a
good protection.
> Please address it from this viewpoint: how will delaying
> taking decisive action benefit the safety of the troops under attack?
> Waiting out of range simply would mean that the Iraqis could dictate when
> they want an attack stopped. What you seem to want is a politically correct
> method of conducting war, which transalates to completely ineffective.
They can delay attacks this way, true. But they can't help them.
And there are more ways to win a war than to kill the enemy; all there is to
be done is to expurge him of his will to fight.
> > > Common sense would be to not voluntarily go into a war zone. Common sense
> > > would not be to sit in a confused area with no lines with no readily
> > > identifiable way of establishing that you are a non-combantant.
> >
> > One way to identify non-combatants is the absence of armament; true that one
> > *combatant* may not be carrying armament, but then again his threat is only
> > potential and can be dealt with as such.
>
> That is not a reliable method, nor would arms necessarily be displayed by a
> spotter. War correspondents traditionally are not afforded any slack in war
> zones - you are there at your risk.
What can I say?
How do you know a man is a man, and a woman is a woman, without seeing their
cromossomes? You believe appearence. And then you risk calling "Mr." or
"Miss", at 50% chance of being right. Oddly, you usually are!
> > > Why shoot in a crowded building with a shell? Imagine yourself in the tank:
> > > do you see that the building is crowded? No. What's the best way of taking
> > > out the spotter? Main gun.
> >
> > Assuming it is so, which shell: armor piercing, or explosive? The difference
> > is in the area around the target that is hit. Remember, the two reporters
> > killed were in different rooms. If a spotter was to be hit, why hit
> > unsuspecting people around him too?
>
> That would be the call of tank commander depending on what he would think to
> be the most effective: I would presume high explosive against a building
> (armor piercing might penetrate too far and actually be worse). You keep
> arguing from the standpoint that somehow the tank commander's first priority
> should be that of protecting possible non-military personnel that he can't
> see and has no knowledge of, rather than protecting his unit.
Exactly.
> > > If you shilly-shally, what happens? You and
> > > the rest of your unit remain under fire. Your duty? Take out the spotter.
> > > You cannot just sit around paralyzed in combat.
> >
> > The tank can use the boxing tactic and move around. It's a lot more
> > complicated to hit a moving target, isn't it? I know a tank isn't exactly
> > easy to move around, but it can fall back and later advance from another angle.
>
> Abandon the rest of the unit to its fate?
Oh no, by no means!
> Pull the whole attack out while
> under fire?
A couple minutes could do the trick. And retreating under fire is the same
as advancing under fire, and better than to stand still under fire.
> It doesn't make the slightest ounce of military sense.
For a footsoldier, it doesn't. For an armored unit, it does; RPG's don't
have a very fast rate of fire, and tanks are faster than troops on foot.
> You
> nail the spotter by the most expedient means possible. Anything else is
> foolish.
I'd do it the least messy way possible.
> > > > > Reporters
> > > > > are usually not given enough credit for going into dangerous situations in
> > > > > quest of the truth. One thing that we must do, as the interpreters of the
> > > > > images we see, is do just that: interpret what we see. A five-second clip
> > > > > simply does not tell the story - it only confirms that the tank, indeed, did
> > > > > really shoot at the hotel.
> > > >
> > > > Was it reasonable use of force?
> > >
> > > Yes, given the situation.
> >
> > As you can understand from all I've been saying, I disagree.
> > But I will accept this to be a matter of oppinion, and quit my complains (as
> > if they cared anyway, now that the harm is done)
>
> I understand you disagree, but I honestly think you don't really understand
> the situation or the military peril of what you adovocate.
>
> >
> > > > If indeed the tank crewman thought he saw a spotter (and I have to give him
> > > > eagle eyes to choose among all the people with lenses on the balconies),
> > > > wasn't that whole incident a lot like using a nuke to kill flies?
> > >
> > >
> > > A second time: observers from outside of the tank saw someone with
> > > binoculars, not the tank crew. Presumably they were using binoculars, too,
> > > so I don't know what "eagle eyes" has to do with it, though traditionally in
> > > military units, you use the guy with the best eyes as a spotter.
> >
> > What's so awkward in having binoculars to observe a war from "outside"? How
> > many of the reporters in the hotel do you think have them? It's not odd at
> > all, given the distance towards most of the buildings in town.
>
> I already explained the situation: no lines, so the troops have no idea of
> friend or foe, except by interpretation of actions. It's up to the
> reporters to take precautions.
Is there any infallible one?
> They didn't understand how their actions
> could be misinterpreted, with tragic results. Alas, war is not forgiving
> (there, I avoided quoting General Sherman).
>
> >
> > > A nuke to kill flies? No. It was probably the best thing to use, in fact.
> > > Rifle bullets would be very difficult to actually hit the target, grenades
> > > wouldn't have the range or accuracy, artillery or air strikes *would* be
> > > overkill and too slow, in any case.
> >
> > Fall back a bit.
>
> See above: retreat under fire is dangerous.
Fire is dangerous; weather retreating, advancing, or standing. There are
different dangers to each kind of unit.
> > Infantry in the other bank (there is more than one bridge), entering the
> > hotel. Two men go up. A few bullets, or even a hand grenade. Problem dealt
> > with (and think of the media coverage for such a spectacularly precise
> > operation!)
>
> Oops! The mortar had the time to zero in! The whole unit was wiped out!
The tank is no longer there.
> Or...Oops! There was a whole squad defending the spotter. Your two men got
> wiped out *along* with the unit in the street.
A whole squad? In a hotel room, hotel which happened to be loaded with
journalists? Wouldn't the troops be tipped off at the lobby?
> > Proceed forward again with the tanks. Carry on the ops.
>
> Too late, all gone. More died because of inaction than because of action.
If the building were empty of reporters - remember they can act as
informants, if goaded into it.
> > Or, even better, approach from the hotel's side of the river. It is
> > possible, IIRC there was one division coming in the city that way.
>
> What if the targets were not conviently on that side?
If they were East of the hotel, they'de be met after the tanks had passed
it; If south, then the tanks would have used another bridge, much farther
from the building; if West, the tanks would have met it before the hotel.
> > But that's just how I'd do it. IF, of course, I had put myself in a position
> > where I'd have to do it at all.
>
> You'd be busted below private and peeling 'taters and washing latrines! Or
> elected to an office. :-)
Or, in the worse possible option, die with a clear conscience.
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) This is what Frank was talking about when he mentioned the circuitous nature this conversation has taken on. I say *why* simply pulling back is not the answer, and you simply repeat that the thing to do is withdraw without addressing my (...) (22 years ago, 11-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) Not too hard: too slow. Shells are dropping. Mortars require a spotter. As I said, there are circumstances where you can't shilly-shally (delay, stall, avoid positive action). Oops! Just lost B company, maybe we can make a group decision, show (...) (22 years ago, 10-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
49 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
