Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:25:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
316 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> But why does some "commander" have to make a decision? The tank
> commander is a "commander". If a tank commander can't make immediate
> decisions, then how can you argue that anyone short of the chief can
> make decisions? Does a private have to ask permission to return fire?
> What weapons do you have to ask permission to fire on? What targets?
Targets suspected of housing the enemy, but known to house third parties.
Regarding the command level, I argue the commander of the tank hadn't got
enough information to make that specific decision: he should have been told
it was a hotel, and should therefore have asked for clarification of orders
when he (thought?) saw a spotter.
> Note that the rules of operation do actually specify when permission
> should be asked (note that that came into question in the case of the
> accidental bombing of the Canadians in Afganistan - of course that was a
> less tense situation, so the rules required asking permission in more
> circumstances).
Can you give me a link to the conclusions of that incident? I'm interested
in knowing further about it.
> When the Iraq military took to pretending to surrender and then shooting
> their captors by surprise, they ratcheted up the situation several
> notches. We are showing incredible restraint given that provocation.
Which was also remarkably small compared to pessimistic predictions. In an
army with 500k troops who were supposedly eager to defend their homeland,
the number of desperate actions like suicide bombings was relatively
insignificant compared to desertions (desertions, not surrenders).
> > > We must recognize that desperate people take
> > > desperate measures.
> >
> > Was the crew desperate? Or just too hyped up?
>
> I wasn't clear enough here. I'm not saying the US soldiers are
> desperate. I'm saying the Iraq soldiers are desperate, and thus have
> taken desperate measures, that change the scope of the battle. Now, we
> can either accept their reasons for desperation and withdraw, or we can
> understand them and reject them, and continue. We have chosen to reject
> them.
Or to ignore them (in the end, it's the same). But because the numbers were
so small...
> The Japanese in WW II were almost as desperate (which was one of the
> reasons we decided to drop the bomb - people were having visions of
> slogging through Japan like slogging through Okinawa [military
> historians: I'm thinking Okinawa represents one of the most determined
> force ever dealt with in a modern (post WW I) war [over 110k Japanese
> killed, over 12k US killed <note that the number of people immediately
> killed by the a-bombs was only about 150k, and Okinawa is just a little
> island compared to Japan>], Vietnam might come close, but I don't think
> we had the same determination on our side to meet them, and thus is hard
> to compare]).
In comparison, was there any japanese fleet that could have been used to
withdraw the japanese if they were inclined to? I mean, the japanes did
understand the concept of retreating from an unsustainable position, like
they did in the Aleutian Islands. So the level of desperation in Okinawa
might have been potentiated by the absence (?) of any other escape, and the
thought (erroneous) that the americans would not be able to accept their
eventual surrender, being already predisposed by their earlier experiences
to believe the japs didn't surrender.
If you want another example of desperation, on a different context, let me
give you this: in WW1, there was this german submarine off the Azores,
threatening navigation. One day, one small vessel from the Portuguese navy
in escort duty to a steamer met it, and despite the disproportion of force,
engaged it in battle. Half the crew was killed, and the small craft
destroyed, but the steamer arrived to the islands in safety. Back then, it
was deemed heroic action - the ship was defending others while risking himself.
> > > Until you have spent a day in a city in war with people shooting at you,
> > > I reject your out of hand judgement (not that I have spent such time
> > > under fire, but I have thought about the situations, and realize split
> > > second decisions are made, and some will wind up being horribly wrong).
> >
> > It takes more than a split second to aim and fire a tank. 4 people are
> > inside, one of them can easily ask "what are we shooting at?"
>
> And I'm sure they did.
Can you be just as sure if any answer was given?
> > > > > Who said the reporters have any right to be safe there at all?
> > > >
> > > > In a *hotel*?
> > >
> > > What makes a hotel so sancrosanct?
> >
> > Non-combatants. Why else is a place of worship sacrossant? Or an embassy? In
> > the end, all are just buildings.
>
> Yup, they're all just buildings. Yes, in war, you try to avoid
> non-combatant casualties, but when the choice comes down to you or them,
> which would you choose?
Between killing a non-combatant consciently and having to live with it, or
get myself killed? Me to the grave. I could enter the realm of philosophy to
explain myself, but is it really needed?
> > > Hotels have often been used as
> > > command posts in war. Also, how easily can you tell the difference
> > > between a high rise hotel and a high rise apartment building?
> >
> > That's Baghdad, not Manhattan - not that many high rise buildings, even
> > fewer with gardens on the front (and on the riverfront, BTW).
> > Why would there be high-rise apartment buildings in Baghdad? The land is
> > cheap, and steel is expensive (for them).
>
> The pictures I've seen have shown other tall buildings. I have no idea
> how the hotel stacks against the others.
Some distance. It's not the only tall building, but there aren't that many
of those in the vicinity (it's relatively near old Baghdad).
> > > > > I bet if you asked any of them if they would expect the hotel
> > > > > to not be shot at *even* if there were Iraqi's shooting from
> > > > > other balconies, they would tell you that no, they would expect
> > > > > it to be hit.
> > > >
> > > > If there were iraquis shooting from the hotel, wouldn't they have seen it,
> > > > and have the chance to leave?
> > > >
> > > > And even in that case, to shoot a sniper in a crowd, would you shell it???
> > >
> > > Yup. Snipers can be blasted hard to hit with small arms fire,
> >
> > (What about other snipers with high speed rifles?)
>
> If you have one handy. However, snipers are most effective at taking
> their time to shoot from surprise. Returning fire on another sniper is
> pretty darned hard (though is has been done). Most snipers are taken out
> with much less finesse.
Wouldn't a case such as this ask for some more finesse? I argue it did.
> > > and if
> > > they are on the balcony of a high rise building, you can't take them out
> > > with a grenade (probably the most common way snipers are taken out). And
> > > just because you're in a tank, you can't just leave him there.
> >
> > You can report it, so someone better equipped can take him out.
>
> A tank seems pretty well equiped to take out a sniper.
Obviously. That's why I included the word "better".
> > > For a
> > > tank to be most effective, especially in an urban setting, the commander
> > > must be able to have his head out, otherwise, you get a tiny view of the
> > > world (and can miss things like people in orange vests kneeling in the
> > > road).
> >
> > Ok.
> > He wasn't outside.
>
> At that moment. My point is, a tank commander needs to spend as much
> time "head up" as he can. Snipers make him take cover, and reduce the
> effectiveness of the vehicle, and increase it's danger from someone
> sneaking up with a grenade.
I suppose it has been said earlier that there was no sniper, so this chance
was in the realm of hypothesis. Every case is a case, and this one might and
should, IMO) have been dealt with more carefully than it was.
> > > Modern tanks have much more visibility than they used to, but
> > > they still suck (if you want an approximation that begins to reach what
> > > the limitations of visibility are [and probably even the limits of
> > > maneuverability], try driving your car in reverse to work some day...).
> >
> > I understand it's hard to look at everything from the inside.
> > But the commander *was* on the inside (sadly, apparentely), safe from
> > snipers, and had plenty of time to look at the target and identify it
> > correctly. If you're correct that he only say a part of the hotel and shot
> > immediately, then it's a bit of rush in action, isn't it?
> > An analogy: you're in a sooting range with a sniper rifle; you point at the
> > first target you see on the scope, and fire. When you raise your head, you
> > see the guy next to you staring at you, asking himself why you just shot his
> > target. Is it clever action, to shoot at whatever "moves" (so to speak)
> > within your field of vision?
>
> I think you severely underestimate how much visibility you have inside a
> tank. Taking time doesn't help deal with a fast moving situation. You
> can't see enough. Also, please don't try and compare war to a shooting
> range. In war, if you shot the guy I was aiming at before I got him, I'd
> be pleased.
And if you shoot whomeveris next to him while he shoots you, won't you have
done two deadly mistakes? Instead of one, that is?
> I would also point out that the reality in war is that almost no shots
> are aimed. In fact, there's a lot of science behind how many shots an
> M-16 fires with one pull of the trigger (enough that hopefully one of
> the bullets will hit close enough to the target to matter, but not so
> many that you waste bullets, or worse, most of the bullets you shot go
> completely wild because you've lost control of your weapon from the
> recoil). You would be amazed at how many bullets are fired per wound
> caused.
I know. I figure the time of the heavy semi-automatic rifles was better in
that aspect than the time of automatic assault rifles. More killing among
the troops, sure, but probably less carnage in the vicinity.
> In any modern war, most wounds are caused by high explosives (grenades,
> tank shells, mortar shells, artillery, bombs, etc.).
And yet, troops receive training in the use of bayonets...
> > > > > Are all hotels off limits or only the ones with reporters?
> > > >
> > > > All that are occupied by unarmed people. They can be taken, they can't be
> > > > fired upon. After all, it's a civilian building - it changes if troops were
> > > > indeed in the place: if they were isolated they could be shot at, if near
> > > > civilian targets another course of action would have been required. The
> > > > nearest example is the efficiency required from a SWAT team, adapted to the
> > > > circumstances.
> > >
> > > Ok, so all I have to do to prevent invasion no matter how justified is
> > > have an unarmed person in each building?
> >
> > Invasion? Where does that come from?... (Any siege mentality?)
>
> What do you think we're doing in Iraq? Looks like an invasion to me.
I thought it was liberation... ;-)
Ok, joking aside, do you realize that if every building could be occupied by
civilians, there would be noone left for the armies? It's impracticable -
but it would be clever, I admit. It would be much like a mass-hostage-taking!
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) But why does some "commander" have to make a decision? The tank commander is a "commander". If a tank commander can't make immediate decisions, then how can you argue that anyone short of the chief can make decisions? Does a private have to (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
