Downed US Seals may have got too close to Bin Laden

[Jeremiah]

THE first sign of trouble was a radio message requesting immediate extraction. A four-man team of US Navy Seal commandos had run into heavy enemy fire on a remote, thickly forested trail in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

Downed US Seals may have got too close to Bin Laden

::nobreak::THE first sign of trouble was a radio message requesting immediate extraction. A four-man team of US Navy Seal commandos had run into heavy enemy fire on a remote, thickly forested trail in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan.

Trouble turned to disaster when a US special forces helicopter carrying 16 men was shot down as it landed at the scene, killing all on board. Almost two weeks later, a mission that led to the worst US combat losses in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001 has turned into an extraordinary manhunt. It has also opened an intriguing new front in the coalition’s battle against terrorism.

The story of Operation Red Wing, a US-led search for Taliban and Al-Qaeda guerrillas in the mountain wilderness of Kunar province, contains remarkable human drama and an unresolved military mystery.

For five days amid the hostile peaks and ravines along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, a lone American commando eluded the guerrillas who had killed at least two of his colleagues and destroyed the Chinook helicopter.

When the unnamed Seal finally collapsed from exhaustion he was found by a friendly Afghan villager who summoned US forces. The subsequent search for his colleagues turned up two bodies and the manhunt for the fourth commando continues this weekend despite claims by Taliban guerrillas yesterday that he had been captured and beheaded.

“We killed him at 11 o’clock today; we killed him using a knife and chopped off his head,” declared Abdul Latif Hakimi, a Taliban spokesman who has made several false claims in the past.

Yet whatever the final death toll from the worst incident in the history of the Seals — the Sea Air Land Commandos — there were tantalising hints that the original mission had been far from routine.

According to former special forces officers and other military sources, the four-man Seal strike team may have come too close to one of the US-led coalition’s highest-priority targets — perhaps Mullah Muhammad Omar, the former Taliban leader, or even Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda. Other military sources suggested the target was a regional Taliban commander suspected of links with Al-Qaeda.

More than 300 US troops were yesterday combing the area for signs of the missing commando and the militants who apparently used a portable rocket-propelled grenade launcher to destroy the Chinook.

Other helicopters and remotecontrolled aerial drones were flying over deep, inaccessible valleys. Rainstorms were slowing the search, and there was a danger of growing local hostility after claims that up to 25 civilians died when US aircraft bombed a compound in Kunar province last weekend.

US officials insisted the compound was used by militants and one spokesman said the attack with precision guided weapons was part of an “intelligence-driven” operation.

But Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan’s pro-US president, warned Washington that civilian casualties could erode public support for the coalition.

It was late in the evening of Tuesday, June 28, that Lieutenant Michael Murphy and the three members of his specialist team reported an encounter with the enemy.

Pentagon spokesmen said Murphy’s unit was engaged in general reconnaissance as part of a sweep through the region amid fears that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have quietly been regrouping and are preparing for an Iraq-style insurgency.

Yet other special forces sources noted that small Seal units like Murphy’s are primarily designed for concealment and stealth, which indicated a more specific mission.

“Its insertion represented an extraordinary risk,” said the author of an influential military blog known as Wretchard. “They would be operating in an area known to be a stronghold of the Taliban, where any contact with the enemy automatically meant they would be grossly overmatched.”

Another source noted that Murphy’s unit bore all the hallmarks of a long-range sniper team sent to hunt down a particular target. US Navy Seals are trained to spend long periods operating clandestinely.

“The fact that the US did not send in several hundred troops for a sweep instead of the four-man recon team strongly suggests the team’s mission was to fix a very high target before it could flee from an airmobile assault,” Wretchard said.

Whatever the team’s real objective, it found itself trapped in heavy rain with darkness falling. Seal veterans boast that they never call for help unless absolutely desperate. Exactly what befell Murphy and his team remains unknown, but commanders at Bagram airbase near Kabul wasted no time in dispatching eight more Seals on a helicopter crewed by eight members of an elite army unit.

As it was coming in to land in the Waigal valley, near the provincial capital of Asadabad, the helicopter was struck by what officers believe was a rocket-propelled grenade fired from the cover of nearby trees.

Lieutenant-General James Conway, chief of operations at the Pentagon, described it as a “pretty lucky shot” but when communications with the Chinook were lost, commanders were taking no chances. The next wave of troops landed a safe distance away and took 24 hours to reach the site, where it was confirmed that all 16 men on the helicopter had died.

For the four Seals on the ground, a desperate battle for survival had begun. Their story may not be told in full until the fate of the fourth member of the team is clear — the one Seal who survived has been debriefed by military officers but the Pentagon has released only the barest outline of his story for fear of compromising continuing operations in the area.

From the details released, it appears that the Seals may have dumped their backpacks to move faster on steep terrain. Former special forces sources said that when facing a superior enemy, the commandos would give each other covering fire as they mounted a phased retreat.

Coalition commanders acknowledge that for all their superior weaponry and communications, US forces are at a disadvantage in fighting in the Afghan mountains.

At some point in the mountain battle, Murphy, 29, was killed. So was Petty Officer Danny Dietz, 25. But at least one of the four Seals survived.

When he was found last weekend he was several miles from the helicopter wreckage. A friendly tribal elder notified authorities that he was caring for a wounded American. The commando was airlifted to Bagram, where his injuries were said not to be life-threatening.

US officials have not yet explained how the surviving Seal might have become separated from his missing colleague. The two dead commandos were said to have been “killed in action”.

To some US military sources, the strength of the force sent into the area suggested more than a simple search for a soldier who has been missing for 11 days. The manhunt may be providing cover for what might have been the original mission — to track down an elusive “high value” target who may once again be about to slip away.

www.timesonline.co.uk . . .

[LordHalbert]

I think it shows that special forces whether they be Seals or SAS are not immortal or super human and when faced with overwealming force, they can and do die.

[Jeremiah]

sorry mods delete this post ......... :| mudmarined again. :petting:

[soma]

Send in the OMEGA FORCE.

[abncougar]

I think it shows that special forces whether they be Seals or SAS are not immortal or super human and when faced with overwealming force, they can and do die.


ever hear of Mogadishu, Somalia?? and the proper term to generally classify SEALs or SAS, etc is specail Operations forces, not just special forces.

[MSR]

I think it shows that special forces whether they be Seals or SAS are not immortal or super human and when faced with overwealming force, they can and do die.


ever hear of Mogadishu, Somalia?? and the proper term to generally classify SEALs or SAS, etc is specail Operations forces, not just special forces.
Ease spring champ Lord Halbert makes a good point. I am pretty sure the poms come under UKSF, not SOF.

[RGRBOX]

Good story... and your right about how this and many other stories about the SOF of the world, show us why they are special... I'm not going to make any speculations on this intill all of the story comes out... but I'll drink a toast to the 4 SEALs and the SEALS and Air Crew who've lost their lives on this daring mission...

And I hop that that lone SEAL still out there makes it out OK..

[Argyll]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

[kiddnplay]

I'm not sure you can call Mogadishu a failure. Despite the losses, they still managed to get the prisoners they had taken at the target building out of the city and into custody. As for the larger mission itself, there were not too many failures, just a lack of political will on the part of Clinton and his people who couldn't seem to stomach the fact that people may have to die in order to accomplish the mission. I would say the mission was incomplete, not a failure.

As to the whole SEAL incident, an excellent point was made by author Sean Naylor in a recent book he wrote called Not a Good Day to Die, which details Operation Anaconda which took place a few years ago in Afghanistan. A lot of people, as a result of that operation, began to question the ability of SEALs to operate outside of a maritime environment. A lot of mistakes were made during Anaconda that showed how inexperienced the SEALs were when operating in high mountainous, landlocked terrain, and as a result, a lot of SEALs ( Neal Roberts among them) and Army SOF paid with their lives.

I would never question the professionalism and courage of the SEALs, but I do believe they sometimes are a little bit out of their element when operating the way they do in Afghanistan. The guy they rescued is obviously one tough SOB.

[Hoplite_V]

Sounds like some great we're winning the war properganda.

[Kristos]

Sounds like some great we're winning the war properganda.

Absolutely

[HR24]

I'm not sure you can call Mogadishu a failure. Despite the losses, they still managed to get the prisoners they had taken at the target building out of the city and into custody. As for the larger mission itself, there were not too many failures, just a lack of political will on the part of Clinton and his people who couldn't seem to stomach the fact that people may have to die in order to accomplish the mission. I would say the mission was incomplete, not a failure.

As to the whole SEAL incident, an excellent point was made by author Sean Naylor in a recent book he wrote called Not a Good Day to Die, which details Operation Anaconda which took place a few years ago in Afghanistan. A lot of people, as a result of that operation, began to question the ability of SEALs to operate outside of a maritime environment. A lot of mistakes were made during Anaconda that showed how inexperienced the SEALs were when operating in high mountainous, landlocked terrain, and as a result, a lot of SEALs ( Neal Roberts among them) and Army SOF paid with their lives.

I would never question the professionalism and courage of the SEALs, but I do believe they sometimes are a little bit out of their element when operating the way they do in Afghanistan. The guy they rescued is obviously one tough SOB.

Not trying to flame you hear mate, but I would be careful basing your assumptions off of a book which can be viewed as being slightly slanted. Not saying the author did it on purpose, but it comes a little off that way.

I think the majority of us here on this board have no place questioning the SEALs on how they operate on land or mountainous terrain. I think the mistakes made in OA were more command mistakes than anything else. It seems epidemic in military and govt services that the majority of those in charge are actually completely out of touch on how to operate in the field. The guys in OA were ordered to infil that way. When these guys are ordered to do it, they do. I am not familiar with Team 10's AOR, or qualifications on terrain, but considering the fact that they were inserted as a 4 man recce team says something about them and their skill levels.

Also, let's be certain these guys are from Team 10 and the delivery teams the DOD ID'd them as being a part of. If you recall, Roberts was listed as Team 4 initially, but was later revealed as a DEVGRU operator.

I have heard from a few ex-SF and current AFSOC contacts that the two CIA contract guys that were killed in late 2003 were suspected of stumbling onto a HVT's security element. To me, it just seems these 4 brave men were possibly sent out on a sensitive recce or stumbled onto somebody important's security element, got overwhelmed and did the best they could to evac from the situation. Whatever may have actually happened to them, all 20 should be commended on their bravery, skill, and dedication to their fellow soldier.

RIP to all.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

[RGRBOX]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

Mog was only a political failure.. the politicians didn't allow all of the assets that the guys on the ground use and needed to be there, that's one reason that you had UH 60 flying low to give needed over ... they was a request for 130 Gunships to fly overwatch, and for armor.. the mission that day was a sucess... they captured the persons they were looking for and the extracted them.. yes, men died, but this can be expected in these types of situations, and missions... The political failure of giving back these guys in the end was BS... but it happened...

[Midav]

Speaking about Mogadishu, is it true that 2000 marines were offshore at the time of the battle?

[Fee Fi Fo Fum]

I'm not sure you can call Mogadishu a failure. Despite the losses, they still managed to get the prisoners they had taken at the target building out of the city and into custody. As for the larger mission itself, there were not too many failures, just a lack of political will on the part of Clinton and his people who couldn't seem to stomach the fact that people may have to die in order to accomplish the mission. I would say the mission was incomplete, not a failure.

As to the whole SEAL incident, an excellent point was made by author Sean Naylor in a recent book he wrote called Not a Good Day to Die, which details Operation Anaconda which took place a few years ago in Afghanistan. A lot of people, as a result of that operation, began to question the ability of SEALs to operate outside of a maritime environment. A lot of mistakes were made during Anaconda that showed how inexperienced the SEALs were when operating in high mountainous, landlocked terrain, and as a result, a lot of SEALs ( Neal Roberts among them) and Army SOF paid with their lives.

I would never question the professionalism and courage of the SEALs, but I do believe they sometimes are a little bit out of their element when operating the way they do in Afghanistan. The guy they rescued is obviously one tough SOB.

Not trying to flame you hear mate, but I would be careful basing your assumptions off of a book which can be viewed as being slightly slanted. Not saying the author did it on purpose, but it comes a little off that way.

I think the majority of us here on this board have no place questioning the SEALs on how they operate on land or mountainous terrain. I think the mistakes made in OA were more command mistakes than anything else. It seems epidemic in military and govt services that the majority of those in charge are actually completely out of touch on how to operate in the field. The guys in OA were ordered to infil that way. When these guys are ordered to do it, they do. I am not familiar with Team 10's AOR, or qualifications on terrain, but considering the fact that they were inserted as a 4 man recce team says something about them and their skill levels.

Also, let's be certain these guys are from Team 10 and the delivery teams the DOD ID'd them as being a part of. If you recall, Roberts was listed as Team 4 initially, but was later revealed as a DEVGRU operator.

I have heard from a few ex-SF and current AFSOC contacts that the two CIA contract guys that were killed in late 2003 were suspected of stumbling onto a HVT's security element. To me, it just seems these 4 brave men were possibly sent out on a sensitive recce or stumbled onto somebody important's security element, got overwhelmed and did the best they could to evac from the situation. Whatever may have actually happened to them, all 20 should be commended on their bravery, skill, and dedication to their fellow soldier.

RIP to all.

Agreed.

[RGRBOX]

Speaking about Mogadishu, is it true that 2000 marines were offshore at the time of the battle?

I don't think so... I beleive Iread somewhere that the Marine Task Force had already left... there was the 10th Mtn Div down the road... but only the Pakastanis had any armor....

[PrincessRAR]

I'm not sure you can call Mogadishu a failure. Despite the losses, they still managed to get the prisoners they had taken at the target building out of the city and into custody. As for the larger mission itself, there were not too many failures, just a lack of political will on the part of Clinton and his people who couldn't seem to stomach the fact that people may have to die in order to accomplish the mission. I would say the mission was incomplete, not a failure.

As to the whole SEAL incident, an excellent point was made by author Sean Naylor in a recent book he wrote called Not a Good Day to Die, which details Operation Anaconda which took place a few years ago in Afghanistan. A lot of people, as a result of that operation, began to question the ability of SEALs to operate outside of a maritime environment. A lot of mistakes were made during Anaconda that showed how inexperienced the SEALs were when operating in high mountainous, landlocked terrain, and as a result, a lot of SEALs ( Neal Roberts among them) and Army SOF paid with their lives.

I would never question the professionalism and courage of the SEALs, but I do believe they sometimes are a little bit out of their element when operating the way they do in Afghanistan. The guy they rescued is obviously one tough SOB.

too right your not sure

[PrincessRAR]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

complete would have been at the RV, from the line of departure that mission was ****ed.

[MSR]

a lot of SEALs ( Neal Roberts among them) and Army SOF paid with their lives.
Then how about spelling his name right eh champ?
It's Neil Roberts

[RGRBOX]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

complete would have been at the RV, from the line of departure that mission was f***.

Most missions are fvcked starting from the LOD... but this one was completed that day... talk to the guys who owere there, and not read all the stories that have come out of it... I was a bad day for those guys but it was also a good day... Sometimes your given tuff missions to preform, with little or less support to do them then your used to.. I can talk you thru a lot of problems with this mission... but it will do no good.. too late, and the dead are dead... but speaking in military terms according to the Warning Order and the Op Order given and the way the guys preformed on the ground.. the mission was tuff, screwed from the get go, because of the the politics, but the mission was a sucess... the Obj was reached...

[Frost]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

complete would have been at the RV, from the line of departure that mission was f***.

Most missions are fvcked starting from the LOD... but this one was completed that day... talk to the guys who owere there, and not read all the stories that have come out of it... I was a bad day for those guys but it was also a good day... Sometimes your given tuff missions to preform, with little or less support to do them then your used to.. I can talk you thru a lot of problems with this mission... but it will do no good.. too late, and the dead are dead... but speaking in military terms according to the Warning Order and the Op Order given and the way the guys preformed on the ground.. the mission was tuff, screwed from the get go, because of the the politics, but the mission was a sucess... the Obj was reached...

In a very narrow militery view the mission can be called a succes. But it was a failure. If the price of a mission is way higher than the gain than it's no longer a succes, no matter you reach your goals or not. The price was WAY to high on this one. The objectives were accomplished, but that's about it.


About the original post;
Good story. It's very sad to hear about these good guys who died. It's not every day that a group of SOAR and SEALS get shot. The Chinook is a big-ass helicopter and unfortunately the only one capable of operating properly in the mountains of afghanistan. It also shows that dispite all it's sensors, forward-looking infrored and counter-meassures it's still a big target.

RIP to the brave guys and I hope that one SEAL will be found. I don't think he's alive anymore, but let's hope he was killed in action instead of beheaded :( . Somehow I think KIA is better than having you head chopped of in captivity.

[RGRBOX]

SAS are not Special Operations Forces,they're classed as Special Forces!!

Moghadishu was a failure if I remember correctly too,as for overwhelming forces,they had CAS available when the **** really hit the fan,different terrain,different enemy..............different different......your point being?

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

complete would have been at the RV, from the line of departure that mission was f***.

Most missions are fvcked starting from the LOD... but this one was completed that day... talk to the guys who owere there, and not read all the stories that have come out of it... I was a bad day for those guys but it was also a good day... Sometimes your given tuff missions to preform, with little or less support to do them then your used to.. I can talk you thru a lot of problems with this mission... but it will do no good.. too late, and the dead are dead... but speaking in military terms according to the Warning Order and the Op Order given and the way the guys preformed on the ground.. the mission was tuff, screwed from the get go, because of the the politics, but the mission was a sucess... the Obj was reached...

In a very narrow militery view the mission can be called a succes. But it was a failure. If the price of a mission is way higher than the gain than it's no longer a succes, no matter you reach your goals or not. The price was WAY to high on this one. The objectives were accomplished, but that's about it.


About the original post;
Good story. It's very sad to hear about these good guys who died. It's not every day that a group of SOAR and SEALS get shot. The Chinook is a big-ass helicopter and unfortunately the only one capable of operating properly in the mountains of afghanistan. It also shows that dispite all it's sensors, forward-looking infrored and counter-meassures it's still a big target.

RIP to the brave guys and I hope that one SEAL will be found. I don't think he's alive anymore, but let's hope he was killed in action instead of beheaded :( . Somehow I think KIA is better than having you head chopped of in captivity.

I agree with you on the cost of this and a lot of missions... butif this is a price that Cmdrs are forced to make and ldrs and men are willing to take.

[Baboonass]

As to the whole SEAL incident, an excellent point was made by author Sean Naylor in a recent book he wrote called Not a Good Day to Die, which details Operation Anaconda which took place a few years ago in Afghanistan. A lot of people, as a result of that operation, began to question the ability of SEALs to operate outside of a maritime environment. A lot of mistakes were made during Anaconda that showed how inexperienced the SEALs were when operating in high mountainous, landlocked terrain, and as a result, a lot of SEALs ( Neal Roberts among them) and Army SOF paid with their lives.
.

You'll have to read the whole book and take what you will from it. The way you quote this doesn't do it justice.

Authers take poetic justice to sell a book, you may find the truth somewere in the middle, but not always.

SEAL work in all terrians, (hence, SEa, Air, and Land). A typical platoon work up before deployment will take 1 1/2 to 2 years with very little time between courses on instruction. there is a reason the divorce rate is 90% in team life, we simply are never home.

Not every mission is Maritime, most of our training is on the land. This misconception is common, and very old.

[Midav]

Speaking about Mogadishu, is it true that 2000 marines were offshore at the time of the battle?

I don't think so... I beleive Iread somewhere that the Marine Task Force had already left... there was the 10th Mtn Div down the road... but only the Pakastanis had any armor....

Ah ok, Thanks!

[Baboonass]

Speaking about Mogadishu, is it true that 2000 marines were offshore at the time of the battle?

I don't think so... I beleive Iread somewhere that the Marine Task Force had already left... there was the 10th Mtn Div down the road... but only the Pakastanis had any armor....

Ah ok, Thanks!

The MEU was still in the AO. I'm not sure what their mssion was, but because of the sensitive nature of the operation, they were not included in the brief up.

The ARG I was on arrived on Oct 9th and relieved the privious MEU.

[GREEK71AIRBORNE]

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

If Moghadishu was a victory, then what is failure?
Come on man! No one is unbeatable, Maybe the objectives where completed but that makes it a victory? What about the cost? Unless it was an operation who must completed IN ANY COST! and i dont think it was...
US Navy SEALS is one of the most profesional and capable Special operations Unit, but they are humans, so they can be defeated when the situation is not good.
R.I.P for the victims, May God Rest their soul!

[Baboonass]

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

If Moghadishu was a victory, then what is failure?
Come on man! No one is unbeatable, Maybe the objectives where completed but that makes it a victory? What about the cost? Unless it was an operation who must completed IN ANY COST! and i dont think it was...

!


The mission was sucessfull. The mission tasks were completed. Although the mission did not go as planned, (no mission ever does) they still completed it.

A mission failure would be if the mission tasks were not completed.

A mission can be a clusterf*ck and still be successful. A mission that goes off without a hitch, but failed to yield results is a failure.


Pretty basic stuff.

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

If Moghadishu was a victory, then what is failure?
Come on man! No one is unbeatable, Maybe the objectives where completed but that makes it a victory? What about the cost? Unless it was an operation who must completed IN ANY COST! and i dont think it was...

!



The mission was sucessfull. The mission tasks were completed. Although the mission did not go as planned, (no mission ever does) they still completed it.

A mission failure would be if the mission tasks were not completed.

A mission can be a clusterf*ck and still be successful. A mission that goes off without a hitch, but failed to yield results is a failure.


Pretty basic stuff.
Exactly!

[PrincessRAR]

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

If Moghadishu was a victory, then what is failure?
Come on man! No one is unbeatable, Maybe the objectives where completed but that makes it a victory? What about the cost? Unless it was an operation who must completed IN ANY COST! and i dont think it was...

!


The mission was sucessfull. The mission tasks were completed. Although the mission did not go as planned, (no mission ever does) they still completed it.

A mission failure would be if the mission tasks were not completed.

A mission can be a clusterf*ck and still be successful. A mission that goes off without a hitch, but failed to yield results is a failure.


Pretty basic stuff.

i disagree, the primary objective was achieved, but from there it went to ****...

in the end how many of the sand******s did they retrieve?

alot of guys lost their lives that day, and not to disrespect them - but the losses could have been much much much lower.

and that my friends is why career grunts hate and despise politicians and officers...

[Meph]

I know other Special Ops have had problems with Seals operating in Afghanistan, but I wish people would stop slamming them because they have died in Afghanistan. I don't see the problem being with them as much as their use being flawed. I ask any 4 person team of Special Operators to succeed when being inserted into a hostile LZ by a giant, hulking helicopter, which everyone can see or hear for miles. Those who choose to leap off are truly the bravest of the brave.


SAS has also had some problems with how SBS has performed outside of Maritime environments.


For those who died: RIP

[ibstolidude]

I know other Special Ops have had problems with Seals operating in Afghanistan, but I wish people would stop slamming them because they have died in Afghanistan. I don't see the problem being with them as much as their use being flawed. I ask any 4 person team of Special Operators to succeed when being inserted into a hostile LZ by a giant, hulking helicopter, which everyone can see or hear for miles. Those who choose to leap off are truly the bravest of the brave.


SAS has also had some problems with how SBS has performed outside of Maritime environments.


For those who died: RIP what does inserting a 4 man team in the manner you posted have to do with anything.

[charlie]

Bad intel can get you killed. I would like to know the ins and outs of this tragic story.

[Sergei]

I think it shows that special forces whether they be Seals or SAS are not immortal or super human and when faced with overwealming force, they can and do die.

I could have told you this like 15 years ago.
Damn, you had all the Spetsnaz experience in the mountain warfare to accumulate!

The SEALs should start taking notes on the experience of Spetsnaz in mountain warfare, there were failures of course, but that was the experience learned the hard way. The guys in SEALs can take an advantage in studying someone's else mistakes and not repeating them again.

[JoaMei]

I think it shows that special forces whether they be Seals or SAS are not immortal or super human and when faced with overwealming force, they can and do die.

I could have told you this like 15 years ago.
Damn, you had all the Spetsnaz experience in the mountain warfare to accumulate!

The SEALs should start taking notes on the experience of Spetsnaz in mountain warfare, there were failures of course, but that was the experience learned the hard way. The guys in SEALs can take an advantage in studying someone's else mistakes and not repeating them again.

This was not so much mountain warfare, the article states it was in the woods. This is more like jungle warfare with limited vision range and very difficult CAS. I think the US forces have had their experience in that kind of environment.

[Levan]

I think it shows that special forces whether they be Seals or SAS are not immortal or super human and when faced with overwealming force, they can and do die.

I could have told you this like 15 years ago.
Damn, you had all the Spetsnaz experience in the mountain warfare to accumulate!

The SEALs should start taking notes on the experience of Spetsnaz in mountain warfare, there were failures of course, but that was the experience learned the hard way. The guys in SEALs can take an advantage in studying someone's else mistakes and not repeating them again.

Oh **** me! Dissapear qiuckly Sergei :bash:

Past Spetsnaz expirience is accumulated more in US SpeOps than in spetsnaz itself.

[Levan]

Reagrding to loss of 4 man strong recconosance team I woukld like to say that nothing extraordinary had happaned. You dont have to be a specialist to understand what chances for surviving will have a small team with small firepower when ambushed in diffucult terrain by overwhelming force. This team will have no chance. It is amaizng that one operator escaped death. Much more interesting is a decision to send to hostile area heavy loaded choppers with more elite troops with no fire support.
but nevertheless I still think that this incident is more a tragic accident rather than a tactical failure.

[delta bravo]

y I Thik OF EW EM............ Imean.... hOW FAR DO DOE YOU PLAN ON TAKEDN THIS HOMAO


TELLL WHENN

[cold0]

Much more interesting is a decision to send to hostile area heavy loaded choppers with more elite troops with no fire support.


Well, they have 2 AH-64s as direct escort and the support of 2 A-10s. They have all the firepower needed; probably they were able to spot the ambushers that waited in the forest until the CH-47 was almost landed and then fired a salvo of RPGs.

[Levan]

as it is known to me only two Chinook helicopters where sent to extract recon team.
If there where gunships like Apache, it would be much easier to locate crash site and verify loss of chopper. In our case the search for lost chopper was underway for a few days. No immidiate reports where made about the faith of crew and other seals on board.

[kayaker]

Former special forces sources said that when facing a superior enemy, the commandos would give each other covering fire as they mounted a phased retreat.

DOH!

[Baboonass]

Moghadishu was a completed mission, but once those helos went down, it changed drastically. The objectives were still completed on both aspects though and I know that the Rangers consider that a victory considering what they were faced with. They are very proud of that fight and they actually have a little shrine of RPGS and various other memorabilia from that fight. They have it at Bravo 3/75 HQ.

If Moghadishu was a victory, then what is failure?
Come on man! No one is unbeatable, Maybe the objectives where completed but that makes it a victory? What about the cost? Unless it was an operation who must completed IN ANY COST! and i dont think it was...

!


The mission was sucessfull. The mission tasks were completed. Although the mission did not go as planned, (no mission ever does) they still completed it.

A mission failure would be if the mission tasks were not completed.

A mission can be a clusterf*ck and still be successful. A mission that goes off without a hitch, but failed to yield results is a failure.


Pretty basic stuff.

i disagree, the primary objective was achieved, but from there it went to ****...

in the end how many of the sand******s did they retrieve?

alot of guys lost their lives that day, and not to disrespect them - but the losses could have been much much much lower.

and that my friends is why career grunts hate and despise politicians and officers...

They occoplished their objective, that's all that needs to be said.

Losses could have been much lower? Do you have any idea what the avarage casualty percentage is for urban terrian? This was an outstanding victory if we follow past events of urban combat using any other force as a model.

Your assesment is laughable.

[Baboonass]

I know other Special Ops have had problems with Seals operating in Afghanistan,

Oh really, like who?

Nevermind, I already know the answer to that one. "I heard from someone who knows a friend who heard it from this dude that knows another guy who....."

:roll:


It's old and untrue. The relationships with other spec op units have been very good.

[bluffcove]

I know other Special Ops have had problems with Seals operating in Afghanistan, but I wish people would stop slamming them because they have died in Afghanistan. I don't see the problem being with them as much as their use being flawed. I ask any 4 person team of Special Operators to succeed when being inserted into a hostile LZ by a giant, hulking helicopter, which everyone can see or hear for miles. Those who choose to leap off are truly the bravest of the brave.


SAS has also had some problems with how SBS has performed outside of Maritime environments.


For those who died: RIP

Ok the UKSF have presuambly been facing similair problems, though they "generally" tab in and tab out, nullifying the problems with helo infiltration extraction - If the US chooses to make a noisy entrance it does so entirely of its own volition

I am aware Ill now take a load of inbound for the fact Im cmparing the two and saying the UKSF are "better" I am not saying that. I am saying they are different.

thirdly - why has the Special Air Service (a regiment in the British Army) had problems with the Special Boat Squadron, a detachment within the Royal Marines? A part of the Royal Navy. Two groups that are famed to have rivalry sufficient that they fought on the return from the Falkland Islands, swearing never to operate together again, when accusations of friendly fire and improper conduct abounded?

Regardless of whether they are in a maritime environment or not they are trained to excel, and entirely independent of one another! And specialisation following gaining the postion of "combat swimmer" mean that you are just as capable off the water as on it. Marines are Infantry! I will accept correction off Royal if any of that is wrong.

[cold0]

as it is known to me only two Chinook helicopters where sent to extract recon team.
If there where gunships like Apache, it would be much easier to locate crash site and verify loss of chopper. In our case the search for lost chopper was underway for a few days. No immidiate reports where made about the faith of crew and other seals on board.

Here, the article about the escort Apache and A-10s.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8443651/site/newsweek/

... As the helicopters lumbered overhead near the Afghan town of Asadabad, they encountered heavy fire from the ground. A guerrilla launched what is believed to be a rocket-propelled grenade, hitting the lead Chinook's fuselage, according to multiple military sources. Two Apache attack choppers and a pair of A-10 Warthog jets overhead were flying shotgun, but they could do nothing. As the other aircraft crew watched in horror, the pilots on the lead Chinook struggled to regain control. The Chinook finally crashed on the edge of a ravine, then rolled over the lip and down a steep slope, according to Pentagon briefings. In all, 16 U.S. soldiers onboard died.


Sad but true :( .

[ibstolidude]

I know other Special Ops have had problems with Seals operating in Afghanistan, but I wish people would stop slamming them because they have died in Afghanistan. I don't see the problem being with them as much as their use being flawed. I ask any 4 person team of Special Operators to succeed when being inserted into a hostile LZ by a giant, hulking helicopter, which everyone can see or hear for miles. Those who choose to leap off are truly the bravest of the brave.


SAS has also had some problems with how SBS has performed outside of Maritime environments.


For those who died: RIP

Ok the UKSF have presuambly been facing similair problems, though they "generally" tab in and tab out, nullifying the problems with helo infiltration extraction - If the US chooses to make a noisy entrance it does so entirely of its own volition

I am aware Ill now take a load of inbound for the fact Im cmparing the two and saying the UKSF are "better" I am not saying that. I am saying they are different.

No you will take a load of crap for speaking like a person who has no idea what they are talking about.

So a UKSF QRF will WALK into an area in that terrain?

Let's pretend this 4 man element was attacked during their insertion - So are you saying the UKSF didn't use helo inertions for SR missions in like terrain during OEF? - if so you have solidified my assessment.

[kayaker]

Bluffclove,
From reading your statement I notice it is written by someone who has more than one braincell, more than can be said about most posters here. However I believe that your statement is not strictly true. During 1942 the sass realised that tabbing in was not the way forward. After few missions into enemy territory the men started to team up with the LRDG and used their trucks to be inserted and extracted (although it is true that walking into an area did continue for some time on a smaller scale).

More recently during Gulf War one all sass BRAVO 00 patrols were inserted and extracted by helicopter/land vehicle (if everything went according to plan).

[Baboonass]

Former special forces sources said that when facing a superior enemy, the commandos would give each other covering fire as they mounted a phased retreat.

DOH!


???

I'm not seeing the problem here.

Breaking contact with a superior enemy force is fairly common within the special operations community. a small force of 4 men, with limited resources, cannot sustain a pitched battle.

[Midav]

As a friend in EUCOM told me once you become regular infantry then.

[kayaker]

Indeed, but because it is such a common technique within the SF tactics area it seemed also a cheesy line. However noticing the source I realise that the knowledge is probably not common amongst its readers.

[Baboonass]

Indeed, but because it is such a common technique within the SF tactics area it seemed also a cheesy line. However noticing the source I realise that the knowledge is probably not common amongst its readers.

Da, I understand what you are saying now.

[bluffcove]

SAS in my experience - the reading of books and talking with snady berets at various opportunities, place a higher regard on the ability to walk, in and walk out of regions of operations.

I appreciate that Helo insertion and the insertions by LRDG have occured in the past and will occur in the future, but..... This does not undermine the fact that as a matter of course, the British Forces (either through funding or) at a tactical level more commonly use shanks pony.

My initial critic is clearly speaking in someone elses BATCO, consequently I do not understand his TLA's and TBH I thought WTF? but Im not retarded or uninvolved or unaware of the military I just thought it was petty that your overuse of acronyms was evidently a ruse to confuse me.

Still I drew flack - despite the person I was responding too choosing to compare and affiliate the SAS and SBS? fair is fair, throw his some grief!

BLuff

[California Joe]

I'm pretty sure I agree with you but as you are British and I'm American and there's that whole language barrier I'm not 100% sure. p-)

[Argyll]

After working with some ex SAS blokes I have to say they're overated,most are good blokes but others are complete fcuking cocks with no idea's about man management whatsoever,they're excellent in CQB but dealing with people not badged they have a problem!!!

Not all SF/SOF are subhumans......despite the publics concept!!!

[California Joe]

I'm pretty sure you mean "superhuman" Like XMen and **** not "subhuman" which is what the Nazis labeled the Jews and all......Just a guess......How's that Jack and coke treatin' ya this evening highlander? I'm gonna drink a 12 pack and then start banning people left and right around here. p-)

[Aerosoul]

Sweeeeet....... woot

[ibstolidude]

My initial critic is clearly speaking in someone elses BATCO, consequently I do not understand his TLA's and TBH I thought WTF? but Im not retarded or uninvolved or unaware of the military I just thought it was petty that your overuse of acronyms was evidently a ruse to confuse me.

Lets try again and pretend that North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces wouldn't know these common acronyms.


No you will take a load of crap for speaking like a person who has no idea what they are talking about.

So a United Kingdom Special Forces Quick Reaction Force will WALK into an area in that terrain? (edited - as that is what the downed helicopter was doing - responding to a troops in contact call)

Let's pretend this four man element was attacked during their insertion - So are you saying the United Kingdom Special Forces didn't use helo insertions for special-reconnaissance missions in like terrain during Operation Enduring Freedom?

if your comments are that non-Brit Special forces or the US in particular rely to heavily on helicopters and not leather personnel carriers - then make that point. Quoting the poster as you did, whom I previously "gave flack to", certainly made your post relate to the comments. Previous SR (see above) missions by any number of nations have been conducted in a similiar fashion given the terrain of that region. - Given such terrain, a reaction force is severly limited in it's approach, especially given the time constraints of reacting to troops in contact. If you opinion is that US or others rely too much on helos - you are certainly entitled to it; however I should hope you understand how one could see your comments relating to the specific events you quoted.

[bluffcove]

I felt that a QRF is not likely to undertake an assasination therefore didnt follow what they would be doing in that scenario - assassinations not often being "quick" or "reactionary"

Equally I felt that an SRmission was more commonly called a CTR or jsut a long range standing patrol.

I never said that they relied on them too (sic) much, I said that they chose to operate differently, however there was no value positive/negative attached to the use of Helos, I specifically stated that they were merely different means not better means.
The misunderstanding appears to have arisen from the episodes we are referring to, I was posting regarding the initial group that had been contacted and called for extraction. It appears that you are posting regarding the arrival of support troops by helicopter (evidently the chosen and proven mode of operation)

Hope that that has cleared up any confusion.

Sorry for the aggro.

Bluff

[Argyll]

Given their(SEAL's) location within the Kunar province,the only option for a quick extraction under contact with superior numerical forces would have been a Helo,it makes sense to get them out of there by the quickest method...........and that happened to have been a Helo

[dsw]

"Not A Good Day To Die" does a very good job of going over the flaws of Op. Anaconda, the biggest of which was the limitations placed on the forces there -- no artillery, for one -- and the command and control issues. The book goes into the rivalry between Special Forces, 1st SFOD-D, and the SEALs but certainly one of the highest-performing special recce teams mentioned in the book is made up of SEALs. I'll leave it to others to detail how they feel about the book but I thought it was a pretty balanced view of things. The section dealing with Neil Roberts, God rest his soul, should leave most people with a sense of outrage because of all the mistakes that were made, mainly by people nowhere near the firefight. Anyhow, my two cents on the book.

[Royal]

Ok the UKSF have presuambly been facing similair problems, though they "generally" tab in and tab out, nullifying the problems with helo infiltration extraction - If the US chooses to make a noisy entrance it does so entirely of its own volition

I am aware Ill now take a load of inbound for the fact Im cmparing the two and saying the UKSF are "better" I am not saying that. I am saying they are different.

thirdly - why has the Special Air Service (a regiment in the British Army) had problems with the Special Boat Squadron, a detachment within the Royal Marines? A part of the Royal Navy. Two groups that are famed to have rivalry sufficient that they fought on the return from the Falkland Islands, swearing never to operate together again, when accusations of friendly fire and improper conduct abounded?

Regardless of whether they are in a maritime environment or not they are trained to excel, and entirely independent of one another! And specialisation following gaining the postion of "combat swimmer" mean that you are just as capable off the water as on it. Marines are Infantry! I will accept correction off Royal if any of that is wrong.

Bluff,

A few friendly corrections as you're a few years out of date mate!

UKSF make extensive use of both rotary and fixed wing assets - thats why the various RAF, RN and army rotary and fixed wing SF squadrons and flights exist (of course they also make use of non SF dedicated assets too).

The SBS are a Service (not a Squadron or Regiment) though largely ex-RM and administered under the RN they are (like the SAS and SRR) a DSF asset, so with certain J1 exceptions that is their reporting chain.

There is and was a certain amount of rivalry and even animonsity between the elements of UKSF, but there is also a huge amount of cooperation. The same thing applies to the foreign SF units with whom they work.

As Argyll has said SF Operators are much like any other element of society - some are tossers, some are diamonds and most are somewhere in the middle - BUT all made it through selection.