Chinook Down!

For those who don't believe that SNAFUs always will be a feature of Warfare,
have a look at:

"http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4522966%255E421,00.html
"

> At 5:11 PM +1000 6/25/02, Alan E Brain wrote:

And why was that SAS dude not carrying his E-Tool?

LOL- why was not the  SAS dewd carrying his E-tool?

probably because he could not fit it under his facemask and ninja suit!

this sounds to me like an "ELITE" braying for the press in the best traditions
of an ass with an axe to grind....

this would classify as a CHARLIE FOXTROT in my ARMY too, but, i am always
curious when allied "ELITES" begin to sqawl after a fight.

i am pretty sure there were enough problems among wonderful folks of all
nationalities involved in the operation to be shared out equally.

I noted that the article seemed kind of down on the US troops and the overall
plan.

Yet something that was sort of covered very quickly was that the op was
planned based on intel from the very SAS that was doing the squalling. Perhaps
not the same group of guys, but the same overall organisation.

Nevertheless, dropping in to the lowlands when you anticipate the
highlands being occupied seems a little silly/stupid.

> On Tue, 2002-06-25 at 12:07, DAWGFACE47@webtv.net wrote:

> LOL- why was not the SAS dewd carrying his E-tool?

Because we, the Australian Army, screwed up. Next time, we know better.(BTW
think of these guys as LRRPS rather than ninja-suit commandos. They're
more
likely to carry a laser designator and air-frequency radio than an MP-5
and gasmask).

> i am pretty sure there were enough problems among wonderful folks

Oh, Roger that. No question.

I'm somewhat perturbed by the general reaction on the list to the article. ie
Taking it personally.

It's obvious that the original article's slanted to be from an "Australian
Perspective"
- but no more so than the majority of US-slanted reports, which are,
after all,
for a US audience. "Slant" is probably the wrong word - it's a matter of
emphasis. The BBC (for example) although probably the most unbiased source in
the world tends to give more detail to the exploits of UK troops, for the same
reason
- it's aimed primarily at a UK audience. Anyway, it might give a glimpse
to USAians of the type of thing we have to wade through when looking through
many
US after-action reports. Some people just accept it as one of those
things, some people see it as a sign of uniquely US arrogance. They're wrong:
it may be arrogance (I think it's just human nature), but if so, every
nationality
is guilty of it. Even Australians :-)

Anyway, I'm more concerned about "lessons learnt". I don't care who had the
Charlie Foxtrot, the point is to LEARN from it, and not make the same mistakes
again. At least one American life was lost due to lessons not having been
learnt from Russki experiences. Ouch. Letters home. Body bags. A good mate
lost, because
of a systemic screwup. The system - rather than any individual or group
of individuals
- failed. Next time we know better, OR BLOODY WELL SHOULD DO.

Some Lessons learnt:

Learn from past lessons, and analyse Lesson learnt.

Comms gear problem - the use of Runners to take messages is probably
always going to be a feature of combat, when things go wrong, due to terrain,
enemy jamming etc.

Massive Firepower a la B-52 or Ortillery is not always totally effective
vs
dug-in troops. Helos or light Gravtanks take damage and must go home to
lick wounds, but are grossly effective while they're around. And nothing, but
nothing,
beats an AC-130 on call when things get down and dirty.

"When Shits are Trumps, your training takes over." I'm sure the same thing was
said in Latin 2000 years ago, and Egyptian 2000 years before that. But well
worth repeating as a pithy quote.

Entrenching tools should be moved up in the list of priorities when
considering the combat load. Especially when operating as a combat rather than
observe-and-avoid
force, and when the terrain is suitable for digging (most unusual conditions
for the SAS, but they happen, as here.)

Inter-allied co-operation works: Australian troops down to the level of
PFC-equivalent