Subject:
|
Re: Hotel Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 11 Apr 2003 23:01:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
391 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > 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.
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 comments on why that is a dubious thing to do. To recap and
expand: pulling out under fire is in itself perilous. There must be firm
tactical or strategic reasons for doing so. Otherwise you have: given up
your objective (clearing the location of the enemy, supporting a flanking
unit, suppressing enemy fire, etc.); extended the period of combat thereby
increasing casualties, not decreasing them; have to pay for the same real
estate twice (increased, not decreased, casualties); handed your enemy a
method of controlling your actions; exposed your units to fire when it may
be safer for them to hold their positions or advance (thereby increasing
casualties, not decreasing them).
Note how many times you are not doing the casualty count any favors. If you
wish to advance the "just retreat until everything is politically
acceptable" argument, you need to address all this.
> > 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.
Herein is the problem: you don't seem to understand that you *are*
advocating delay under exposure. That's the whole point of this, the unit
was taking mortar fire.
>
> > 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.
Yes they can, they just do it again, or do it again from a different
building. By pinning down operations for political considerations rather
than tactical ones, they can do it again and again. See Viet Nam for the
problems of political micro-managing tactical situations (and another case
of a foolish war to begin with, but that's another debate).
> 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.
Yes, and retreating would have ENcouraged them, not discouraged them. You
push relentlessly until they break - you actually kill less than if you have
to fight them again.
>
> > > > 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!
You are saying that you should go by appearances, which is what you have
been arguing against? Do you wish to restate the above? Do I get to repeat
my encounter at the Computer Games Development Conference that is actually
relevant to the above (but not to this thread)? :-)
>
> > > > 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.
I don't know how to respond beyond that would be an incredibly stupid
policy. It would cost more lives than it would ostensibly save. Paralysis
of action in war is fatal.
>
> > > > 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.
See way above. Do not repeat the immediately above until you address that
or we shall continue in circles.
>
> > 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.
Are you saying you know the tactical disposition of all units in the area?
That you can state categorically that there were no soldiers on foot? That
the armored units had room to turn or could be driven backwards as easily as
forwards? A mortar is not an RPG. Mortars have an *extremely* high rate of
fire. This is not to mention that this unit may have been supporting a
flanking unit, requiring that other unit to halt or retreat, requiring its
flanking unit to halt or retreat...
>
> > You
> > nail the spotter by the most expedient means possible. Anything else is
> > foolish.
>
> I'd do it the least messy way possible.
Nailing the spotter by the most expedient means possible *is* the least
messy way.
> > 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?
Yes. Stay out of the area. There is no other infallible precaution (and
space junk in decaying orbit may still fall out of the blue and get you).
Since news agencies are there to get the news, this is usually not
completely acceptable, and thus they are taking a calculated risk.
>
> > > 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.
"Unit". But aside from that, Oops! The enemy had time to reorganize, it
got wiped out upon return.
>
> > 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?
We are talking about what units must do under fire and the decisions that
they must make and your sense of complete moral outrage at the decisions
made. I am trying to address that whereas it was a tragedy, there were
sound military reasons for doing what they did. If one had perfect
knowledge, then the squad would never have been needed. Delaying for a
special ops team, which is what you advocated would be a foolish tactical
delay given the situation.
>
> > > 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.
I'm not sure what your point is? That they would violate neutrality and aid
the Iraqi military? Okaaaaaay, if they want to take sides and be subject to
a military tribunal headed by Dubya, that's their funeral and I wouldn't cry
a tear for them. Perhaps I misunderstand you.
>
> > > 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.
Are you saying that you know the tactical dispositions of all the troops in
that area, that you *know* that there weren't already troops in all of those
locations?
> Or, in the worse possible option, die with a clear conscience.
And condemn others in your unit to the same death, losing more lives than
you saved.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) (scratching my head) All that what you've said is what appears reasonable, but strictly from a military POV. Although the casualties can be (arguably) decreased in regular action with that quicker method, the risk of catastrophic failure under (...) (22 years ago, 12-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hotel Palestine
|
| (...) That decision is easy to take. In a few words, the tanks can fall back to point "A", where no mortar can reach. (...) Indeed. (...) Sorry, I misread. My bad. (...) But I'm not advocating delay under exposure - that's why I say fall back, (...) (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
|
|
|
|
