Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/17/2002 9:07:28 AM EDT
Watching Blackhawk down, the unavoidable "What would I do in that situation?" question came up.

Particularly where the two brave Delta snipers went down to protect the second crash site. I asked myself which would I rather have...M14 sniper rifle or M16A2.

The amount of ammo that I could carry with the M14 was an initial concern, however, I don't know that any amount of ammo on that particular site would have mattered with only two rifleman putting rounds down range at 1000's of targets. It may have extended their survival time but not long enough.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:19:19 AM EDT
In that situation ammo could have made the difference between life and death. IO don't think the weapon choice was an issue, but I would have chosen the M16A2 on burst or M4A1 on rock & roll. Defending the chopper against a large group would have been more effective on Auto/Burst, but only if you have enough ammo to sustain fire untill the enemy retreats or dies. Those men were brave and that is the kind of spirit we need to see more of with our American fighting men.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:23:45 AM EDT
A question I had was "What about the Mini-Gun?"

Does the mini-gun have any backup power, or is it solely supplied by main power? It would seem like a good idea to have it operable on a downed bird, for the exact scenario that played out in Mogadishu. One sniper taking out those who got in close or flanked them, and a guy running the mini to hold back the crowd. I'm reasonably certain that a few bursts from the mini would've sent them scurrying, even the ones high on Khat. Might have made a difference.


(OF COURSE, this should've never happened anyway, 'cuz there should have been an AC-130 on station. There would have been NO crowd with a Spectre on guard. Damn, I hate Bill Clinton.)

Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:25:34 AM EDT
Me and my partner were just talking about this yesterday. I would pick the M4 over the M14, the 30 rd. mags and faster reloads mattered in that situation. If I could know if advance what I was getting myself into, M249 SAW, with a slung MP-5 and 1911.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:37:29 AM EDT
Okay,

After having seen the movie, read the book and very, very pissed off at the time it happened, I'll throw an opinion.

I have chatted with some of the survivors on other boards. I deal with Dillon Areo all the time. Miniguns do not have reserve power. They operate from ship's power. Minigun was disabled.
I think Mike Dillon is working on a solution to that if DOD wants to pay for it.

After reading Paul Howe's comments on the poor performance of the m855 round out of the 14.5" M4, he said that Randy Shughart was the smartest man in the unit for his choice of the M14. The m855 out of the M4 just doesn't fragment and is not a man stopper. It was taking six shots at times to put somebody down unless you got a CNS hit.

Me? I have an M4gery. It looks cool. I have 2 tried and proven FALs for main battle rifles never far away.

I think that burst fire would have been better than selected targets single fired. Too many of them. Just kill 'em all and let God sort them out. I would have shot anything that moved.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:45:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By oneshot1kill:
In that situation ammo could have made the difference between life and death. IO don't think the weapon choice was an issue, but I would have chosen the M16A2 on burst or M4A1 on rock & roll. Defending the chopper against a large group would have been more effective on Auto/Burst, but only if you have enough ammo to sustain fire untill the enemy retreats or dies. Those men were brave and that is the kind of spirit we need to see more of with our American fighting men.



"Those men were brave..."

That brings up another question for discussion. The warrior class of people on this sight can relate...

Did those two guys really think it was a "suicide" mission, or that they could defend the chopper...even though very hazardous. Jumping on a grenade is a suicide mission, but I feel that the warrior mindset says that it's possible, however unlikely, to pull it off.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:45:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rtech2:
Too many of them. Just kill 'em all and let God sort them out. I would have shot anything that moved.



My position, exactly. In a situation like that, I'd rather be questioned later than buried later. I'd have mowed down the entire street; men, women, children, dogs, birds, insects, microbes, everything, had I had an appropriate weapon. ROE be damned.

Besides, if you hang out with the crowd, be prepared to face the consequences!
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:11:09 AM EDT


"Those men were brave..."

That brings up another question for discussion. The warrior class of people on this sight can relate...

Did those two guys really think it was a "suicide" mission, or that they could defend the chopper...even though very hazardous. Jumping on a grenade is a suicide mission, but I feel that the warrior mindset says that it's possible, however unlikely, to pull it off.

Having been an 11B for 4 years and served in 1st RTB (Ranger Training Bat), I think they thought, and it was quoted in the book, that they were extremely experienced in the art of killing. They were very good at it. I think they thought there was a chance they could hold the crowd back until ground force arrived. Besides, it was the only option for help to the crew. They did not want to leave a guy stranded or to die alone. I would have done the much same thing myself, I would think. I have performed very stupid acts before in a situation somewhat like that, and perfectly justified it in my mind that it was a very rational act. The only response at the time. Afterwards you think, "God, how STOOPID!!!!"

I would have just mowed everything down in my path. To hell with being selective.

"If it runs, it's VC. If it stands still, it's very disciplined VC".
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:11:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Scary:

"Those men were brave..."

That brings up another question for discussion. The warrior class of people on this sight can relate...

Did those two guys really think it was a "suicide" mission, or that they could defend the chopper...even though very hazardous. Jumping on a grenade is a suicide mission, but I feel that the warrior mindset says that it's possible, however unlikely, to pull it off.



I think this will be like the story I heard of the early test pilots. They would be in trouble and heading down. The guy on the radio would tell them they had 8 seconds to bail out. The test pilot would be thinking, "Hell, I have got 8 seconds to fix this problem."

Most would just bail. I think Shugart and Gordon were thinking, "We will just set down and hold these guys off until the calvary arrives." And they probably thought they were good enough to do it. And they probably were better than we will ever know.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:22:13 AM EDT
Imagine what ONE PASS by an AC-130 would have done to that crowd. JUST ONE. And then think about the President who wouldn't allow the 130 or the Armor to be part of that raid.


Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:26:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BillD:

Originally Posted By Scary:

"Those men were brave..."

That brings up another question for discussion. The warrior class of people on this sight can relate...

Did those two guys really think it was a "suicide" mission, or that they could defend the chopper...even though very hazardous. Jumping on a grenade is a suicide mission, but I feel that the warrior mindset says that it's possible, however unlikely, to pull it off.



I think this will be like the story I heard of the early test pilots. They would be in trouble and heading down. The guy on the radio would tell them they had 8 seconds to bail out. The test pilot would be thinking, "Hell, I have got 8 seconds to fix this problem."

Most would just bail. I think Shugart and Gordon were thinking, "We will just set down and hold these guys off until the calvary arrives." And they probably thought they were good enough to do it. And they probably were better than we will ever know.



exactly my point.

So what about the guy that throws himself on the grenade to protect his buddies from the blast. That is a suicide mission, giving your life to protect others.

I believe there's a difference between knowing you are going to die... and knowing you "might" die fighting.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:27:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:34:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2002 10:36:01 AM EDT by rtech2]
I was so very, very mad at Clinton and Aspen that day. Those guys were my comrades, my buddies who were dying there. The command element was very, very poorly informed and planned the mission very bad based on that intel.

The command structure of the QRF was, by all purposes, illegal. The 10th was under UN command and commanded by a foreign national, which, under the US Constitution, illegal.

My appreciation and respect goes out to Michael Fey, who refused to serve under the UN and wear the uniform of the UN.

TFR was very lucky the previous missions went perfect. They learned of our standard mission profile and took steps to stop it or meet it.

Garrison was wrong to use the same assault plan every time. Poor planning.

An AC-130 would have been real close air support. They could have cut a path back to the base. I love it.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:41:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rtech2:


"Those men were brave..."

That brings up another question for discussion. The warrior class of people on this sight can relate...

Did those two guys really think it was a "suicide" mission, or that they could defend the chopper...even though very hazardous. Jumping on a grenade is a suicide mission, but I feel that the warrior mindset says that it's possible, however unlikely, to pull it off.



Having been an 11B for 4 years and served in 1st RTB (Ranger Training Bat), I think they thought, and it was quoted in the book, that they were extremely experienced in the art of killing. They were very good at it. I think they thought there was a chance they could hold the crowd back until ground force arrived. Besides, it was the only option for help to the crew. They did not want to leave a guy stranded or to die alone. I would have done the much same thing myself, I would think. I have performed very stupid acts before in a situation somewhat like that, and perfectly justified it in my mind that it was a very rational act. The only response at the time. Afterwards you think, "God, how STOOPID!!!!"

I would have just mowed everything down in my path. To hell with being selective.

"If it runs, it's VC. If it stands still, it's very disciplined VC".

In all likelihood, I don't believe the rules of engagement were "strictly" adhered to! Don't forget that the movie was a movie. I was based on real events, but how many of you believe that all of the dirty details of mowing down crowds of people were disclosed?

Anyone hear of war crimes?

Watch it and read the book as secondhand hear say, which is credible, but not the whole truth!

The minigun issue also pissed me off!
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 10:56:45 AM EDT
I think with a big hostile crowd like that, every single person standing there cheering your near death, should be killed. Including all women and childern. EVERYTHING. They are all your enemy.

Why didn't the guy with the M-16 fire at around chest level long side to side sweeping bursts?

Instead of just shooting at the guys that were the "Kamikazi" dudes running into the downed chopper getting shot, I think I'd be more inclined to unload a few magazines from left to right, then back the other way into the ENTIRE crowd!!!

Then save the remaining magazines for the "suicide" guys that came running into the helicopter.

Dunno, just a thought. In the end with that large crowd, you're probably going to be overrun anyway. Might as well take out a large portion of the crowd before they individually run up to you. It may have made a psychological difference on that hostile crowd, making them feel like you had an endless supply of ammo.

Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:08:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hk45USP:
I think with a big hostile crowd like that, every single person standing there cheering your near death, should be killed. Including all women and childern. EVERYTHING. They are all your enemy.

Why didn't the guy with the M-16 fire at around chest level long side to side sweeping bursts?

Instead of just shooting at the guys that were the "Kamikazi" dudes running into the downed chopper getting shot, I think I'd be more inclined to unload a few magazines from left to right, then back the other way into the ENTIRE crowd!!!

Then save the remaining magazines for the "suicide" guys that came running into the helicopter.

Dunno, just a thought. In the end with that large crowd, you're probably going to be overrun anyway. Might as well take out a large portion of the crowd before they individually run up to you. It may have made a psychological difference on that hostile crowd, making them feel like you had an endless supply of ammo.




No flame, but it's NOT a garden hose. The cyclic on FA M16s means you get about 1.5 seconds of "spray", hardly enough time to work in "pray."

I'm certainly no operator, but I've fired a lot of FA. First thing I learned is, Hollywierd be damned, you're (at least I'm) not gonna hit squat without aimed fire.

I exclude for purposes of this observation Antiterr Operators doing CQB/ room clearing stuff. They use aimed fire, but don't use the sights, from what I can tell. They are very selective about their fire, though, and don'nt merely "sweep" a room. Those guys are unreal, but we're talking longer distances here.

I think dumping a mag garden hose style would just eat up ammo.

There is a place for the "You guys better duck!" message of full auto, but I think you are talking about trying to kill lots of guys with a sweep.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:30:03 AM EDT
I am no "operator" myself. FA fire "sweeps" would just eat up ammo and hit little. D Boys are very selective about how they shoot. I still think that controlled, aimed bursts would be "a good thing".

Another thing, when you take fire, ROE's go out the window. My first thought was it pissed me off that some little brown person had balls enough to shoot at me during my first firefight. I wasn't thinking about backstop, innocents or anything else (were in a wooded area with no civilians or houses around and the ground was my backstop).

Do you guys really mean that it's not like Hollywould? You sweep a crowd with FA fire and every person falls down, dead, instantly? <kidding>

I really need to stop watching movies.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:30:38 AM EDT
The movie scene with Shughart and Gordon was not really that accurate.

Rather than play "what if's" here, the only thing to say here Bill has already said... And they probably thought they were good enough to do it. And they probably were better than we will ever know. This is exactly correct.

-SARguy
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:43:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Hk45USP:

Why didn't the guy with the M-16 fire at around chest level long side to side sweeping bursts?




Because it was reality and not a dream sequence from Dumb and Dumber.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:45:06 AM EDT
I don't speak from the experience of some here having never seen combat myself, but having read the book, viewed the theatrical release and owning the DVD ... I have pondered Shugart's and Gordon's position quite a bit.

The task force had already had 3 missions into the city. The threat level was obviously much less during the previous insertions.

Given that the 2nd crash was somewhat distant from the first crash and the target building, the threat could resonably be expected to be less at crash site 2.

I don't know if any training can prepare you for an enemy that is suicidal and high on narcotics which was very well illustrated during the battle at crash site 2.

I personally believe that they felt they had a chance, maybe slim, but a chance to survive. They also felt there was a chance they could save ome of the downed crew - knowing that your buddies are down there basically defensless in that chopper is one heck of a motivator.

Ryan
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:57:58 AM EDT
IMHO, in my VERY humble opinion, Shughart and Gordon probably thought that if they picked off a few shooters from the advancing crowd, most of the other shooters would fall back, regroup, get organized, etc., and most of the non-combatants, women and children, etc., would scatter, upon realizing that the crash site was being defended. This is what I would have thought had I been in their position.

I would NOT have expected a suicidal frontal assault by armed and unarmed masses of men, women and children, who would not falter even as they saw those next to them get cut down quickly by rapid aimed fire.

We did not understand the mindset of our enemy that day. African fighters in general are short on training, but long on experience--and mindset makes a huge difference. By the time we realized that we had "stirred up a hornet's nest", it was too late and the shit was already hitting the fan.

I own the movie on DVD, and I read the book in 3 days. What Shughart and Gordon did still blows my mind. If BHD was fictional everybody would look at each other and say "that shit would never happen dude, but those guys sure looked cool," etc. Well, that shit DID happen, and when I try to place myself in Shughart and Gordon's shoes, I can't really say that I would volunteer to secure that crash site. Maybe thats why they were Delta and I'm sitting in front of a computer screen. But I salute them, and any Ranger I meet that's seen action abroad gets a free brew courtesy of my wallet. That and my undying patriotism for this country is all I can offer to the memory of those guys.

MOLON LABE
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 12:53:47 PM EDT
I'd take the M4. FA fire would be extremely wasteful and ammo wouldn't have lasted long at all. The M4 allowed carry of more ammo, more controllable allowing for more rapid and accurate sustained fire. At the range they were shooting at it would not be to difficult to get hits to vital organs. I think for the most part that they were probably being selective with their shots to take out the greatest threat and not to avoid collateral damage. This is based on what I would do, I guess.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 12:55:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SARguy:
The movie scene with Shughart and Gordon was not really that accurate.

Rather than play "what if's" here, the only thing to say here Bill has already said... And they probably thought they were good enough to do it. And they probably were better than we will ever know. This is exactly correct.

-SARguy



it's like saying, what if I find myself at the helm of the space shuttle? How do I pilot it.

My point being that few of us can even understand the courage of these operators, no second guessing these guys. They are elite heroes that made a request to be inserted based on the fact that they were not going to let anyone get left behind.

In an age where the word hero gets tossed around, look no further than these snipers for the real deal.




Link Posted: 7/17/2002 1:00:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LE6920:

In an age where the word hero gets tossed around, look no further than these snipers for the real deal.





Well put.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 1:06:14 PM EDT
I haven't read the book yet. Besides Durant, does anyone really know how the battle went? It just strikes me as odd that some people are making statements about something that no one really knows about. And from the BHD documentary, even Durant says he only heard the battle. First he heard the firing stop on one side of the Blackhawk. Then the other side grew quiet. That's how he know Shughart and Gordon were down. Was there some sort of eye-in-the-sky footage of the firefight?
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 1:28:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wadman:
I haven't read the book yet. Besides Durant, does anyone really know how the battle went? It just strikes me as odd that some people are making statements about something that no one really knows about. And from the BHD documentary, even Durant says he only heard the battle. First he heard the firing stop on one side of the Blackhawk. Then the other side grew quiet. That's how he know Shughart and Gordon were down. Was there some sort of eye-in-the-sky footage of the firefight?



I have read the book many, many times, seen the movie many, many times (8 while at the theater), conversed with some of the participants, talked with some of the 160 Little Bird guys, have some operational experience, etc.

Yes, they had footage from an orbiting P-3 of the actual insertion and defense from Gary and Randy (one of them tripped and fell on his face after leaving the Hawk) and they got disoriented after hitting the ground.

I don't second guess them at all. All the guys there had more than enough firepower. I don't think they had enough support from command or enough bodies in the fight. I'm just giving an opinion of what I might have done given the same situation. Durrant was immobile and tucked in a building and a place of safety as the D Boys could get him.

There is lots of official footage from several aircraft during the battle.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 2:52:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By oneshot1kill:
In that situation ammo could have made the difference between life and death. IO don't think the weapon choice was an issue, but I would have chosen the M16A2 on burst or M4A1 on rock & roll. Defending the chopper against a large group would have been more effective on Auto/Burst, but only if you have enough ammo to sustain fire untill the enemy retreats or dies. Those men were brave and that is the kind of spirit we need to see more of with our American fighting men.



I think I would have chosen a SAW.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 3:08:58 PM EDT
From the distance of an orbiting helicopter, I think an M-14 is a wiser choice, but once on the ground, ammo obviously becomes much more important at those short distances.

I wonder if the choice of M-14 was made based on thinking that all shots would probably be long distance shots from a helicopter, or did that guy always use an M-14? Would be interesting to know.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 4:10:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SARguy:
The movie scene with Shughart and Gordon was not really that accurate.

Rather than play "what if's" here, the only thing to say here Bill has already said... And they probably thought they were good enough to do it. And they probably were better than we will ever know. This is exactly correct.

-SARguy



Amen
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 5:03:07 PM EDT
First off, I am new to this forum, and I want to thank all you men for your service. I was on PBRs and got out in '67...so a lot of the new weaponry is not familiar to me, so I am playin catch up.
Those ,men in that movie were certainly brave, but I feel that any one writing in this thread could/would have done the same in combat.
The good thing about the movie is, it characterized those troops as being superb fighters. And it showed that ONCE again, they were sold out by Bill Klinton and his ilk, sittin somewhere in some office back home. (I loathe that sub-human).
I try and put myself in the role of one of those civilians. Would I or my family have been on the street, actin like it was a holiday? I think not. They were all the enemy. If it means firing upon the "non-combatants" to save your brothers' lives then, so be it.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 5:09:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:


I think I would have chosen a SAW.



At least this answer makes sense.

I would have chosen an M16 variant with at least an 18" barrel because the damn gun was designed to be effective only with the bullet at high velocities. (Or at very short ranges.)

Remember SCHV - the HV stands for High Velocity.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 5:16:55 PM EDT
I don't understand why in a helicopter capable of lifting a "heavy hummer", there was not a shitload of magazines in a box somewhere. If I were on that helo I would have ratholed 1 or 2 thousand rounds, for my weapon (mp5 or MP5-PDW).
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 5:38:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2002 5:40:36 PM EDT by tarfu64]
Haven't seen the movie since usually Hollyweird f's it up. I have read the book and, in my mind's eye, that was reality enough.

What keeps on replaying in my mind was how camplacent everyone became doing the overflights into the Mog with the 'Hawks. These guys thought it was going to be cake, so they didn't pack squat 'cause they thought they'd be home for dinner and shooting rats later in the hangar-like always. Familiarity breeds contempt. Bottom line, why didn't they pack the bird with ammo? Why didn't they have NVD's? Because they had no fear of the Skinnies. And they had no commanders with stones to tell the Blue Helmets how the Hell it was going to go down-just a bunch of political hacks looking for an easy ticket punch to the JCS.

God bless them all. They deserve our respect and admiration for the Hell they went through.

And a few of these!
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 5:45:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Scary:
So what about the guy that throws himself on the grenade to protect his buddies from the blast. That is a suicide mission, giving your life to protect others.

Well, if you don't throw yourself over the grenade, maybe you all will die?
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:04:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By skullworks:

Originally Posted By Scary:
So what about the guy that throws himself on the grenade to protect his buddies from the blast. That is a suicide mission, giving your life to protect others.

Well, if you don't throw yourself over the grenade, maybe you all will die?



That throwing yourself on a grenade stuff is total bullshit. I can't really conceive of a scenario where that makes any sense at all. Pick it up, throw it or yell "grenade" and hit the deck or get the hell out of your hole. Suicide doesn't ever make any sense to me. My 2 cents.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:09:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BillD:
And they probably thought they were good enough to do it. And they probably were better than we will ever know.

I would even go so far as to say that they were that good. Unfortunately at times luck's just not on your side. You might be on top of your game, but in that split second the amateur just happens to get a lucky break - and the game's over.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:26:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Disgustipated:
I don't understand why in a helicopter capable of lifting a "heavy hummer", there was not a shitload of magazines in a box somewhere. If I were on that helo I would have ratholed 1 or 2 thousand rounds, for my weapon (mp5 or MP5-PDW).


Honestly,
who wouldve thought one of the blackhawks wouldve gone down? Command hadnt really planned on it. Also who wouldve htought 2 would go down on the same mission? If youve seen one of the mh60 black hawks youll realize theres a lot less room then a regular uh-60. I had the oppurtunity this year in may to go to the Army aviation association of america (Quad A) convention in Tennessee and learn a lot about these helos. I had the Commander of the unit, the Aviator of the year also from the 160th a CWO3, and the commanding General of SOC (3 star General Bryan "Doug" brown) tell me and some other friends about these birds and their uses in a private reception. I also got to go inside of them and got to see how much they differed and talked to other pilots and enlisted from the unit about them.
THey have enough Flir, Night vision and other advanced electronics that they are almost crammed like an attack helo platform. This equip allows them to fly through mountains, canyons or anywhere totally blacked out relying on electronics only and complete missions 10 hours and longer. The only real place where i could see 2000 rounds in mags stored would be one of the mh-47's which were not used on this mission.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:26:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By skullworks:

Originally Posted By Scary:
So what about the guy that throws himself on the grenade to protect his buddies from the blast. That is a suicide mission, giving your life to protect others.

Well, if you don't throw yourself over the grenade, maybe you all will die?



That throwing yourself on a grenade stuff is total bullshit. I can't really conceive of a scenario where that makes any sense at all. Pick it up, throw it or yell "grenade" and hit the deck or get the hell out of your hole. Suicide doesn't ever make any sense to me. My 2 cents.



Drjarhead, might i suggest you take a long look at the citations at the following link www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

Count how many of your countrymen have been awarded the Medal Of Honor for willingly throwing themselves on grenades to protect their fellow men.

Your attitude is not very respectful to the men who paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving your country.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:31:49 PM EDT
When faced with 1000 + enemy mutants, there is only one weapon to have in a situation like that....Flame! Fire purifies baby! No armor can stand against it. No building can shield you from it for very long. An M203 with a couple of WP and incendiary rounds, sent down range, would have broken that party up real quick...
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 6:41:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2002 6:42:44 PM EDT by Sukebe]

Originally Posted By Tuukka:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:

Originally Posted By skullworks:

Originally Posted By Scary:
So what about the guy that throws himself on the grenade to protect his buddies from the blast. That is a suicide mission, giving your life to protect others.

Well, if you don't throw yourself over the grenade, maybe you all will die?



That throwing yourself on a grenade stuff is total bullshit. I can't really conceive of a scenario where that makes any sense at all. Pick it up, throw it or yell "grenade" and hit the deck or get the hell out of your hole. Suicide doesn't ever make any sense to me. My 2 cents.



Drjarhead, might i suggest you take a long look at the citations at the following link www.army.mil/cmh-pg/moh1.htm

Count how many of your countrymen have been awarded the Medal Of Honor for willingly throwing themselves on grenades to protect their fellow men.

Your attitude is not very respectful to the men who paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving your country.



Tukka, your sentiments are appreciated. They are heroes. I don't really think that Drjarhead intended to be disrespectful. I believe that in those instances where a warrior makes a decision to throw himself on a grenade that it is an instinctive reaction made during the heat of battle with little thought of life or death. I'm guessing that more than a few men after covering a live grenade with their bodies had a last thought of "oh shit, WTF am I doing?" just before the grenade detonated. Imagine after landing on a grenade as 1 second, 2 seconds, 3 seconds tick by and you you have a moment of clarity, "I should have picked it up and thrown it back" may go through your mind just before hot shrapnel rips through your body.
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 7:59:18 PM EDT
IIRC, something like 50% of the MOH commendations for "grenade-diving" are NOT posthumous....

Scott

Link Posted: 7/17/2002 9:24:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: IIRC, something like 50% of the MOH commendations for "grenade-diving" are NOT posthumous....

Scott




I don't know the percentage, but you are correct in that I have read at least a few that were not posthumous.




Originally Posted By drjarhead: That throwing yourself on a grenade stuff is total bullshit. I can't really conceive of a scenario where that makes any sense at all. Pick it up, throw it or yell "grenade" and hit the deck or get the hell out of your hole. Suicide doesn't ever make any sense to me. My 2 cents.


???
Pick it up? If the original thrower has any grenade experience, he will try not to throw a grenade into a fighting position with plenty of time left to dispose of it.

Throwing it is a good option unless.... see above comment - now it goes off at chest/head level - bad.

Hit the deck? How low are multiple people in a fighting hole gonna get? A very good chance that the folks in closest proximity to the grenade will not fare well at all.

Get out of your hole? You'r close enough to the enemy to get grenades lobbed into your hole and you suggest getting out of the hole?????
Link Posted: 7/17/2002 11:51:42 PM EDT
I think we can sit and second guess this situation a million times and never come up with a solid answer.

It is easy to sit back in the recliner and say "i would have chosen this" or "I would have chosen that". Bottom line is that none of us here were in the position to make any of those decisions.

Sh*t happens. Period. You can ask for all the assets in the world and you may or may not get them. That is the nature of the beast. If you were not willing to accept that, then you would not be in that line of work.

Those guys did what they could. The only thing that could have changed the outcome of that battle was the God Almighty. Let's simply be proud to know that people like that exist and are out there defending freedom and justice.
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 12:03:23 AM EDT
blap blap blap blap i hate clintoon.

"Blackhawk down" was an stupid movie.
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 4:34:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 7:06:34 AM EDT


The above picture is the real Super 64 crash site than Gordon and Shughart went in to defend. It's a nightmare for an entire SAR team let alone two men. It's not at all like the movie portrayed.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn't cut it. Simply put, that they did was what had to be done. The real military guys here understand that. Little boys like kentstate can't possibly understand what real sacrifice means.

-SARguy
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 7:34:26 AM EDT
Let's not forget that the 7.62 out of the M14 prolly would have been able to pass thru about 4 Sammies in the crowd, as skinny as they were. While the 7.62 won't fragment like the 5.56 will (the M855 didn't do a good job anyway on the skinny targets), you'd still get 2 .30cal holes in each target that the round passed thru.

However, I think I would have chosen a M16A2 with M193 in one hand, and a M14 with 155gr TAP in the other
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 7:37:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kentstate4:
blap blap blap blap i hate clintoon.

"Blackhawk down" was an stupid movie.






Scott

Link Posted: 7/18/2002 7:37:49 AM EDT
With regards to the "throwing yourself on a grenade" advocates:

1) My point is that there are other alternatives. The fact that someone acts stupidly doesn't make them a hero.
Now, you may find circumstances where one of the other options I presented wouldn't work well. That is why I presented a variety of other options depending on the scenario.

2) I wish they wouldn't give medals for this. IMO this does not make one a "hero". Sorry.

3) I've had military training and they DO NOT teach you to throw yourself on a grenade. Geez. In fact, I was taught specifically not to do this.

4) It takes about the same amount of time to get out of a hole as it does to fall on a grenade.

5) A grenade's blast goes primarily upward in a more or less cone shaped explosion due to the fact that they are usually laying on the ground when they go off. Keep this in mind.
Further the fuse timing in a grenade is not exact, ie there is some variation--keep this in mind as well.
The individual throwng it is under a considerable amount of stress.

Once again, throwing yourself on a grenade is fucking stupid and does not merit any medal much less MOH. Now, flame away.
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 7:50:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2002 7:50:52 AM EDT by SJSAMPLE]

Originally Posted By Tate:
Pick it up? If the original thrower has any grenade experience, he will try not to throw a grenade into a fighting position with plenty of time left to dispose of it.



Anyone who lets the spoon fly and counts down the fuze is really taking his life into his own hands. Grenade fuzes are percussion-initiated and burn-timed. Don't trust them. Name one basic training course that teaches the soldier or marine to let the spoon fly and count down the fuze? No. They teach you to keep a firm grip on the grenade, and throw BOTH the spoon and the grenade. When throwing into close positions, like rooms, foxholes or bunkers, you give the grenade a good hard toss to keep it bouncing around. 99% of the time nobody is going to know it's there until it detonates.
Link Posted: 7/18/2002 8:26:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By rtech2:
<snip>After reading Paul Howe's comments on the poor performance of the m855 round out of the 14.5" M4, he said that Randy Shughart was the smartest man in the unit for his choice of the M14. The m855 out of the M4 just doesn't fragment and is not a man stopper. It was taking six shots at times to put somebody down unless you got a CNS hit.<snip>


For the record, in the book, Paul Howe never stated that he was using a 14.5" barreled M4. Could have been a 10" barreled XM177 for all we know. His complaint was more centered around the performance of the "green tip" ammunition, not the weapons platform itself.

Or did he tell you that on one of the other boards?

I'm not gonna second guess the actions and choices of Schugart and Gordon. They did what they had to do.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top