Australian SAS talks Afghanistan, Iraq

[ariweiner]

SAS soldier talks about Iraq

24apr04

AN Australian SAS soldier has told publicly for the first time of a gun battle with al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan.

In a rare move, the Australian Defence Force has allowed SAS Singleman Martin Wallace and other SAS soldiers speak to Channel Nine's Sunday and 60 Minutes program about their experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In a preview on the Nine News tonight, Singleman Wallace described the battle which occurred in March 2002 in a valley south of Karbal where it was thought Osama bin Laden was hiding out.

He was one of two Australians with US forces dropped into the valley by helicopter.

However, the group was mistakenly dropped on top of an underground al-Qaeda stronghold and immediately came under heavy fire.

"We had guys with chest injuries, there was open fractures, basically fragmentation wounds over some of their entire bodies," Singleman Wallace said.

Lieutenant Colonel Rowan Tink said Singleman Wallace helped rescue some of the injured.

"Under fire we moved out, collected some of these wounded and dragged them back," Lt Col Tink said.

Singleman Wallace had the only radio and called for air support. The American B52 bombers then pounded the enemy.

"Without air cover, I'd say yeah we'd would've all been wiped out," Singleman Wallace said.

"I was just thinking about I'm going to get out of here; I'm not going to die in this bloody valley."

In Iraq, a squadron leader named only as Major Paul, described how the Australian troops captured a group of suspected Iraqi fighters hiding out in a cement factory.

Instead of attacking the factory, they called in a US fighter jet to break the sound barrier. The sonic boom scared those hiding in the factory.

"The result was that the people came running out with their arms up."

A senior US Army officer praised the Australian SAS.

"The Australian SAS displayed those kind of things that make them the elite, in my view, of small unit infantrymen throughout the world," Lieutenant General Frank Hagen Beck, Army deputy chief of staff, said.

[usa320]

Instead of attacking the factory, they called in a US fighter jet to break the sound barrier. The sonic boom scared those hiding in the factory.

"The result was that the people came running out with their arms up."



They used that trick back when the war first started and Fedayeen fighters were hiding ina mosque. They had an F-14 break the sound barrier a few times and the guys ran out, thinking they were getting bombed.

[Grim]

Where can we read the whole iterview?

[Spud]

Where can we read the whole iterview?

Ask and you shall receive ;)

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/transcript_1536.asp

A little taste


ROSS COULTHART: That key SAS role - to be an army's eyes behind enemy lines - was what the Australians did again a year later in the western desert of Iraq. From here coalition planners feared ballistic missiles might be launched into Israel as Saddam's response to an invasion, possibly triggering a nuclear response from Tel Aviv. SAS teams were to search for Saddam's missiles or his alleged weapons of mass destruction. Now they were waiting on the border for the command to enter Iraq.

SQUADRON COMMANDER PAUL: It came from the Prime Minister and also in conjunction with the President of the United States. I indicated to the boss that we were ready to go and he said, "You have the green light" and I replied "No worries, boss, who dares, wins! I'll see you when it's all over." We were invading a country which hadn't been done since Gallipoli for Australia, and, you know, the adrenaline was very high.

ROSS COULTHART: As the Australians crossed the border they knew that elite Iraqi units, specially trained to hunt down SAS forces, were waiting for them. And before long, they were found.

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: They definitely weren't conscript soldiers. They were very aggressive. They were very well trained. They moved towards us. We moved towards them.

TROOP COMMANDER QUENTIN: They were operating in sports utility vehicles with large machine guns mounted in the rear tray and on observing our location, they began engaging us with heavy machine-gun fire, small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

JASON, PATROL MEMBER: When you come under fire, you really don't think about it at all.

ROSS COULTHART: What was going through your head?

JASON, PATROL MEMBER: Well, basically getting to the next vantage point so you can return fire. You really don't think about the rounds coming in at you. You're just making sure that you're doing your drills correctly and that you're backing up your mate in the next car.

ROSS COULTHART: Trooper John later earned a medal for his bravery during this three-hour battle. Under heavy fire he used Javelin shoulder-launched missiles to destroy two Iraqi vehicles.

TROOP COMMANDER QUENTIN: Both sides in this particular instance actually stopped shooting to watch this rocket cruise through the air and that actually engaged a moving vehicle at high speeds, moving away from us, and I think that changed the battlefield.

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: It was a little bit daunting seeing so many enemy coming towards us, but when we saw how effective our weapons systems were in neutralising their vehicles, and you could actually physically see the shock on the enemy's faces when they did see their vehicles destroyed.

SQUADRON COMMANDER PAUL: We were getting rounds splashing all around the vehicles around the guys when they dismounted. We were getting RPG - rocket-propelled grenades - exploding over our heads, at times, and behind us.

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: Quite a few of the enemy at this stage started to surrender, cause they had seen two of their vehicles destroyed but that being said, there was also quite a few hiding in the grass returning fire with their rocket launchers and their small arms. Several also attempted to set up a mortar tube and they were about to try and engage us with that.

ROSS COULTHART: So, what did you do?

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: We couldn't really engage the enemy around the mortar tube because there were some surrendering so we engaged the mortar tube with a sniper rifle and that was very effective. The round hit the tube and caused a mortar bomb that was in the tube to explode.

SQUADRON COMMANDER PAUL: There was a Bedouin tent in between us and the enemy. The enemy promptly moved in behind that and in amongst the Bedouin tent and there were civilians in there, at which point we stopped firing because of the threat to the locals.

ROSS COULTHART: Do you think they knew that - that you wouldn't fire through a tent?

SQUADRON COMMANDER PAUL: I think so. They exploited that component of our professionalism probably. It was also a difficult time. We were also trying to effect the capture of about eight enemy who were surrendering with their arms in the air, but as soon as we had got within range they had dropped their weapons and continued firing. It was a very difficult situation.

ROSS COULTHART: When they did that, when they stopped surrendering and continued firing, what did you do?

SQUADRON COMMANDER PAUL: As soon as they are in an aggressive pose, and a threat, they were then neutralised.

ROSS COULTHART: Iraqi soldiers who surrendered were disarmed and allowed to go free.

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: Yeah. I think some of them were quite surprised and, at first, maybe were even a little hesitant to walk away in case we really weren't going to let them go.

ROSS COULTHART: They were worried you were going to shoot them in the back or something?

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: Yeah.

ROSS COULTHART: Wasn't it a worry, in your mind, that these blokes might walk over a hill, pick up a weapon, and start shooting at you?

JOHN, SAS PATROL MEMBER: Yeah, I think that's always a possibility but we did have a job to complete and by having prisoners we wouldn't have been able to complete that job.

[Ballistic]

I taped that actually, gotta see if I can get a tv/tuner card from work for my PC and I'll see if I can rip it and upload it for ya's.

[digrar]

There is another bit on 60 minutes tonight. I'm not sure if it is just a condensed version of this mornings interviews or not, will have to watch and see.
edit: Just saw that LtCol Tink will be in the 60 minutes chat room from 2030hrs AEST tonight and the transcript of the 60 minutes interview will be available on the 27th of April.

[Ballistic]

Thanks mate, did'nt know that, will check that out too.

[ShotOver]

Yeah, im sitting here with the laptop infront of the TV waiting for it to come on TV, haha.

[Fitzcarraldo]

There is another bit on 60 minutes tonight. I'm not sure if it is just a condensed version of this mornings interviews or not, will have to watch and see.


I saw the effort on this mornings "sunday" show, and from the little I could discern from the ads, its looking to be a re-run. I guess we will know for sure in an hours time anyway, so no matter.

[Fitzcarraldo]

edit: double post

[Ghostwolf]

Singleman Wallace had the only radio and called for air support. The American B52 bombers then pounded the enemy.

"Without air cover, I'd say yeah we'd would've all been wiped out," Singleman Wallace said.


It proves once again that B-52 is the best close air support weapon.

[Fitzcarraldo]

edit

[Uninen]

"Without air cover, I'd say yeah we'd would've all been wiped out," Singleman Wallace said.

So much for "being the better warriors", its technology that speaks.

[Fitzcarraldo]

So much for "being the better warriors", its technology that speaks

Id say them hypothetically being "wiped out" would have been due to being numerically out-numbered and/or over-run, as opposed to having worse individual soldiering skills than the Afghanis.....

[Grim]

Nice interview, anyine now if it's possible to stream or download it?

[Spud]

Chat at 60 minutes is getting underway

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Don't pay any attention to what uninen writes Fitzcarraldo. Hes just an attention whore who makes baseless definative statements and then refuses to back himself up with any evidence, proof or sources. His credibility has already been destroyed on this forum.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Chat at 60 minutes is getting underway

Just went from watching interviews with elite soldiers who fight and die for their country to learning about Hugh Jackmans relationship with his father.......all in the same program, makes you wonder.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Don't pay any attention to what uninen writes Fitzcarraldo. Hes just an attention whore who makes baseless definative statements and then refuses to back himself up with any evidence, proof or sources. His credibility has already been destroyed on this forum.

Yeah, it would seem so. I've been lurking here long enough to completely agree.

[Uninen]

Ngati Tumatuenga,

Speak for yourself kid.

And futhermore do you actually think that any western army would have been doing "so well" had they not had so huge "technological gap" between them and the enemys they have fought?

And also this "calling of airstrikes" is standard procedure for them, especially for "coalition troops", if the **** hits the fan........

They havent yet fought a enemy which is at the same "level" as them. IE having aircrafts, helicopter and tanks of same numbers and capabilities.

:cantbeli:

But i suggest that you just drop it, cause YOU dont got a clue. Also your only trying to flame me.

Fact remains that most wars of last 10-15 tears have been won by the side that has been more "high tech".

[Spud]

Chat at 60 minutes is getting underway

Just went from watching interviews with elite soldiers who fight and die for their country to learning about Hugh Jackmans relationship with his father.......all in the same program, makes you wonder.

I turned off before that kicked in ;)

[Fitzcarraldo]

Chat at 60 minutes is getting underway

Just went from watching interviews with elite soldiers who fight and die for their country to learning about Hugh Jackmans relationship with his father.......all in the same program, makes you wonder.

I turned off before that kicked in ;)

Probably the smart thing to do.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Ngati Tumatuenga,

Speak for yourself kid.

And futhermore do you actually think that any western army would have been doing "so well" had they not had so huge "technological gap" between them and the enemys they have fought?

And also this "calling of airstrikes" is standard procedure for them, especially for "coalition troops", if the **** hits the fan........

They havent yet fought a enemy which is at the same "level" as them. IE having aircrafts, helicopter and tanks of same numbers and capabilities.

:cantbeli:

But i suggest that you just drop it, cause YOU dont got a clue. Also your only trying to flame me.

Fact remains that most wars of last 10-15 tears have been won by the side that has been more "high tech".


I....Im not sure what you are arguing about?

[Uninen]

"Without air cover, I'd say yeah we'd would've all been wiped out," Singleman Wallace said.

So much for "being the better warriors", its technology that speaks.

:roll:

About that is what im talking about..... this what i said, and it stands true, the fact that "its technology that speaks"........

Statement over which that POS for human being "Ngati Tumatuenga" called me in "names" for..... and other untrue BS about me...


Don't pay any attention to what uninen writes Fitzcarraldo. Hes just an attention whore who makes baseless definative statements and then refuses to back himself up with any evidence, proof or sources. His credibility has already been destroyed on this forum.

Now is that really so.... lol, not. Also seem my comment which made him lash out..... now was that comment "untrue"? Hardly so.......... this sad person just dont have any clue about what is he talking about, he just feels that its his duty to attack me.

:|

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

uninen wrote,

Fact remains that most wars of last 10-15 tears have been won by the side that has been more "high tech".

Gosh thats amazing. Once again I am in awe of your intellect. :cantbeli:


And also this "calling of airstrikes" is standard procedure for them, especially for "coalition troops", if the **** hits the fan........

So what your saying is troops in a disadvantageous position would actually call for assistance rather than go it alone and be defeated. Incredible. :cantbeli:


And futhermore do you actually think that any western army would have been doing "so well" had they not had so huge "technological gap" between them and the enemys they have fought?

I agree. Damn those dirty stinking westeners and they're propensity to not fight 'fair'. What ever happened to queensbury rules. :cantbeli:

Geez, I hope you don't have any influence on your countries military uninen, because with a thought process like that their screwed.

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Uninen]

this sad person just dont have any clue about what is he talking about, he just feels that its his duty to attack me.

:|

:roll:

See.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

uninen wrote,
Quote:
Fact remains that most wars of last 10-15 tears have been won by the side that has been more "high tech".


Gosh thats amazing. Once again I am in awe of your intellect. rofl

Quote:
And also this "calling of airstrikes" is standard procedure for them, especially for "coalition troops", if the **** hits the fan........


So what your saying is troops in a disadvantageous position would actually call for assistance rather than go it alone and be defeated. Incredible. rofl

Quote:
And futhermore do you actually think that any western army would have been doing "so well" had they not had so huge "technological gap" between them and the enemys they have fought?


I agree. Damn those dirty stinking westeners and they're propensity to not fight 'fair'. What ever happened to queensbury rules. rofl

Geez, I hope you don't have any influence on your countries military uninen, because with a thought process like that their screwed. rofl

[Fitzcarraldo]

this sad person just dont have any clue about what is he talking about, he just feels that its his duty to attack me.

:|

:roll:

See.

well yes...but
you comment that; "so much for being better warriors" which implies that you think, were it not for the "fancy pants" technology and air support, the 10th Mountain and 2 SASR tprs [that were present] are in a worse class of soldier than the Al Qaeida fighters. Which im sure, can definantly be taken as an insult.

[mack pl]

Do you noticed this part about snow, when some SAS memeber talking about it(some of them never seen snow before mission in A-stan).WTF? SAS havent got training in mountains at winter?Maybe only his squadron havent got this training?I know ,its Austaralia(desert etc.), but i read in some magazine they have trainings in winters.Its stupid question, but I dont understand this :roll:

[Uninen]

Dont know whose actually "better" or "worse", but you must give it to those Al-Qaida members and Talibs... that they have had plenty of actual war experience, IE most of them were already what one would call as "old" or as "veteran" warriors.....

Certainly not "greens" like most (if not all...) "coalition troops" that were deployed. (but one must give to them that their training and discipline certainly was better.... along with equipment and support....)

And like i said, supperior equipment has saved "coalitions ass" on many occasions..... and calling B-52:s to strike the enemy during a gun battle seems bit extreme.... "unfair".........

[mack pl]

.... "unfair".........War isnt fair :roll:

[mocking_loudly_died]

Dont know whose actually "better" or "worse", but you must give it to those Al-Qaida members and Talibs... that they have had plenty of actual war experience, IE most of them were already what one would call as "old" or as "veteran" warriors.....

Certainly not "greens" like most (if not all...) "coalition troops" that were deployed. (but one must give to them that their training and discipline certainly was better.... along with equipment and support....)

And like i said, supperior equipment has saved "coalitions ass" on many occasions..... and calling B-52:s to strike the enemy during a gun battle seems bit extreme.... "unfair".........

Man for man, SAS vs ****head taliban = no contest. This is all pointless ****, you don't know your arse from your elbow.

[Fitzcarraldo]

this is all pointless ****.

Agreed, now im going to watch television.

Edit: might catch "enemy at the gates" to be precise.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

uninen wrote,

And like i said, supperior equipment has saved "coalitions ass" on many occasions..... and calling B-52:s to strike the enemy during a gun battle seems bit extreme.... "unfair".........

Priceless..... rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Uninen]

.... "unfair".........War isnt fair :roll:

Yeah it isnt....

But the point was that if they cant handle the situation and must call B-52 to bomb living **** out of the opposition.... well that doesnt actually make the "coalition people" in the ground "supreme" or "better".... now does it?

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......

AND IMHO bombing "soldiers" or "terrorists" that are defenceless, is no better than carpet bombing of cities full civilians.

But then again, this has never been a problem for "coalition / allies".

[Rilence]

There is another bit on 60 minutes tonight. I'm not sure if it is just a condensed version of this mornings interviews or not, will have to watch and see.
edit: Just saw that LtCol Tink will be in the 60 minutes chat room from 2030hrs AEST tonight and the transcript of the 60 minutes interview will be available on the 27th of April.
what 60 minutes chat room??

[mocking_loudly_died]

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......


What f*cking planet are you from?

[Flagg]

First you embarrassed yourself with this:



And like i said, supperior equipment has saved "coalitions ass" on many occasions..... and calling B-52:s to strike the enemy during a gun battle seems bit extreme.... "unfair".........


And then you went even further with:


But the point was that if they cant handle the situation and must call B-52 to bomb living **** out of the opposition.... well that doesnt actually make the "coalition people" in the ground "supreme" or "better".... now does it?

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......

AND IMHO bombing "soldiers" or "terrorists" that are defenceless, is no better than carpet bombing of cities full civilians.

So they should be given a fighting chance before they get smoked? This isn't Dirty Harry.

Uninen...you have once again CLEARLY indicated your stance and your troubling sympathies.....as well as having made an ass of yourself.

You are discussing warfare as if it is some kind of sport where it has to be a fair contest.

Even a lowly infanteer like me knows the ONLY way to voluntarily enter an engagement with the enemy is with brutal and overwhelming force.

Anything else is bad tactics and will get good guys killed.

To simplify it, never bring a knife to a knife fight, bring a F'n shotgun......and you DO kick a man when he's down......cause you don't want him to get back up...it's not about "sportsmanship" it's about keeping your buddies and yourself alive.

Uninen...you are an ignorant attention whore

[Fitzcarraldo]

There is another bit on 60 minutes tonight. I'm not sure if it is just a condensed version of this mornings interviews or not, will have to watch and see.
edit: Just saw that LtCol Tink will be in the 60 minutes chat room from 2030hrs AEST tonight and the transcript of the 60 minutes interview will be available on the 27th of April.
what 60 minutes chat room??

It ended a few hours ago, wasnt quite what i expected, lots of personal questions and a few "what does it take to be in the SAS" type questions. I anticipated it would be primarily about op. Anaconda and Iraq freedom, but i guess alot of operational directed queries got chopped.
I suppose I could try and copy and paste the whole thing if you want.

[Uninen]

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......


What f*cking planet are you from?

From "out there"....... :)

[Fitzcarraldo]

Just a thought, pretty poor choice of days to annoy the forums Australian and New Zealand population. And none-the-less doing so by insulting the credibility of the troops.

end rant/

[Khabbi]

Uninen I dont see your point , at all

If I was in a firefight I wouldent want it to be fair , I would want my side to have M4s and Airsuport , and the enemy sticks and stones , or maybe sand . Im sure the western troops lie awake at night thinking about how it wasent a fair fight , " sure , we survived but it wasent fair , so it must not count".

Fair fights are for movies .

[Ballistic]

:roll: Uninen, I always suspected you we're an idiot. This thread confims that suspicion 100%.


Yeah it isnt....

But the point was that if they cant handle the situation and must call B-52 to bomb living **** out of the opposition.... well that doesnt actually make the "coalition people" in the ground "supreme" or "better".... now does it?

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......

AND IMHO bombing "soldiers" or "terrorists" that are defenceless, is no better than carpet bombing of cities full civilians.

But then again, this has never been a problem for "coalition / allies".

What is this bull**** ? The fact is they did handle the situation. The SASR were able to call in and direct air support to knock out a large number of enemy combatants in the area using the assests made available to them. The SASR (and Regular Aus Army) and the American Soldiers/Marines are and always will be superior to those terrorists, not because of the technology made available to them, but because of the training and dedication these men have to doing what is RIGHT.

I'm sure you are a superior soldier and would have had all the right moves in a situation like that huh ? I mean, with RPGs and mortars landing all around you, you would have kept a brave face and charged them all with your superior l337 soldiering skills, am I right ??Frankly "mate" who gives a **** if they had air defences or not, they are the enemy and they had it coming it's that simple.

Bombing enemy combatants and bombing civilians are completely different. You have a twisted sense of logic, infact I think you are completely devoid of logic, the diarrhoea you wrote quoted above proves it.


di·ar·rhe·a also di·ar·rhoe·a
n.
Excessive and frequent evacuation of watery feces

Sums up your posts on this forum perfectly.

[Trident-za]

Wow, has this thread gone off-topic, or what? I think I'll just continue the trend :)

I don't see anything wrong with using whatever technology you have - war isn't about fair, as pointed out several times. It amuses me, though, to see so many people on this forum complaining that the enemy doesn't fight fair and are cowardly etc etc. They want the enemy to come out and "fight like men"..... you know, guys with AK47s and RPGs against tanks/helicopter gunships, smart bombs etc etc.... the very definition of fighting "like men" :lol:

Now before anyone gets too worked up.... remember that I see nothing wrong with this "unfairness". I do see something wrong with people who complain bitterly that the enemy fight unfair and like cowards. I dislike terrorism and am fully behind the coalition troops. But, I think it takes pretty big balls to stand up to an armed convoy (with all the technological support ) with an RPG7 and/or AK47. Do I think what the bad guys are doing is right? Nope.... but I don't think they're cowards either.

Oh... and for the record... I think that the Spec Ops guys could probably kick ass big time without all the bells and whistles, provided that the military planners don't dump them in crappy situations. Op Anaconda was a military planning disaster, which was rescued by technological superiority.

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

uninen wrote,

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......


Just when I thought it couldn't get any funnier. rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl


But the point was that if they cant handle the situation and must call B-52 to bomb living **** out of the opposition.... well that doesnt actually make the "coalition people" in the ground "supreme" or "better".... now does it?

Stunning uninen, absolutely stunning. Your rational is awe inspiring. May I ask what drug you're smoking?.

I can't wait for your next bout of verbal diarrhoea.

[kommando]

yeah the way that dude said it about the snow and stuff was this:

Coming from Queensland I had not encountered snow before, but you soon get over it.

obviously he is not in mountain troop, hence why he hasnt seen the snow be4.

mountain troop would be the main snow/arctic group (correct me here BiZ or Digrar if im wrong)

and i would assume he was from mobility troop.

But yeah up here in Qld its all sunny all year round NOOOOO snow ever haha.

[Kilgor]

And like i said, supperior equipment has saved "coalitions ass" on many occasions..... and calling B-52:s to strike the enemy during a gun battle seems bit extreme.... "unfair".........

As a aussie would say, your a bloody wanker mate.

Since when has war ever been been fair ?

[Uninen]

you know, guys with AK47s and RPGs against tanks/helicopter gunships, smart bombs etc etc.... the very definition of fighting "like men" :lol:

rofl

Yeah,

This is what i mean....... and feel that its "kinda wrong".....

But whatever, as you guys seem to be enjoying of having one sided slaughter.

[Michael RVR]

Just a thought, pretty poor choice of days to annoy the forums Australian and New Zealand population. And none-the-less doing so by insulting the credibility of the troops.

end rant/

Couldn't agree more. :bash:

[ronin2172]

you know, guys with AK47s and RPGs against tanks/helicopter gunships, smart bombs etc etc.... the very definition of fighting "like men" :lol:

rofl

Yeah,

This is what i mean....... and feel that its "kinda wrong".....

But whatever, as you guys seem to be enjoying of having one sided slaughter.

So let me guess u think the aussie SAS shoulda held off calling in the b-52's in the interest of fairness? I have seen dumb A** comments before but this takes the cake! Any soldier no matter what army is going to tell u that NOT taking advantage of technological superiority is stupid. The whole point is to cause as much damage to your enemy while keeping down the casualties on your side. And if that means carpet bombing some poor fools, then oh well. Name me a war in which one side held back a technical advantage because it wasn't fair, or that it feels kinda wrong. U think the Taliban would have held back if they had an advantage over the aussies (u seem to forget they OUTNUMBERED the aussie unit)

Judging by your posts u must think all Spec ops guys r Rambo, indestructible and able to take on whole armies singlehanded with nothing but a bow and arrow!

[Fitzcarraldo]

Also back on topic now. I remember hearing a while ago on this forum about the SEAL [I think i remember reading], who fell out of a chinook and was rescued by rangers [ again not sure]. If what i saw in the interview was anything to go by, it seemed like the SASR boys were the ones who called in the air support from their observation post after the rangers chopper got downed.
Anyway, That was one aspect of that incident I had never heard before.

edit: feel free to correct any uncertanties.

double edit: spelling

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Yeah I read the SASR patrol commander recieved the DCM for that action.

[Aussie E]

The SEAL (Neil Roberts) fell out of the Chinook as it took RPG fire, the Chinook limped away and later landed, this is when the noticed Roberts missing. Another team (SEAL I think came in and went to retrieve the body) started to search for him. The QRF which was a group of Rangers and a AF combat controller and a AF Parareescueman then came in on a second Chinook, when it landed it came under heavy small arms and RPG fire, in the initial berriage 3 Rangers were killed (I wear a KIA bracelet with SPC Marc A Andersons (one of the Rangers) name on it everyday to remind me what these great men and women are doing for us.), the helicopter was crippled leaving the QRF trapped, during the insuueing firefight one of the PJ's (Jason Cunningham) was also mortally wounded. This was all obsverved by a SASR team with an American CC with them. The trapped soldiers ended up calling in air support that dropped some rather large bombs pretty damned close to them. All told the US lost 6 KIA from the QRF, later on the SEAL team that went to look for Roberts joined up with them and were evacuated.
The best record of this firefight that I have found is in None Braver by Micheal Hirsch.
List of KIA:http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/b03052002_bt101-02.html

[Aussie E]

Here's a link to the USAFSO Tactical Air Control Party
Member's Personal Experience of Operation Anaconda:
http://globalspecops.com/sts.html

[Keyboard]

But the point was that if they cant handle the situation and must call B-52 to bomb living **** out of the opposition.... well that doesnt actually make the "coalition people" in the ground "supreme" or "better".... now does it?

It only shows that they werent up to the task and had to resort to "dirty tricks"...... using bombers to attack people that had no effective air defences......

AND IMHO bombing "soldiers" or "terrorists" that are defenceless, is no better than carpet bombing of cities full civilians.

But then again, this has never been a problem for "coalition / allies".

I've only seen a few of your posts, but you're one of the biggest idiots I've ever seen.

[RoBBo]

agreed

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

Yep.