Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: US pilots: The Brits are good but they don't have the extreme aggression that we do.
reefdiver    4/30/2007 12:21:12 PM
Any comments about this quote yesterday from an article titled: "US Aircrews Show No Mercy To Taliban" from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/29/wafg29.xml&page=1 But (American) Capt Staley said he had no qualms about pressing home such attacks until no one was left standing and claimed that American pilots were more effective than their British Apache counterparts, who he said flew higher and were less ruthless in finishing off their targets. "The Brits are good but they don't have the extreme aggression that we do."
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
Softwar    No visual - Hobart Not the Target   5/1/2007 9:45:44 AM

It may be the same aggression that once caused a USAF pilot to attack an Australian destroyer (HMAS Hobart) off the Vietnamese coast despite:

 

1. The destroyer was a Charles F Adams class designed and built in the US.

2. The destroyer was in a US formation (gun line).

3. The destroyer was far larger than anything the North Vietnamese navy had at the time.

4. The destroyer was not in any way obscured by battlefield dust or smoke, nor fog.

 

http://www.gunplot.net/vietnam/hobartvietnam.html
" href_cetemp=">http://www.gunplot.net/vietnam/hobartvietnam.html
">link
 

Call this a bonehead comment if you please Softwar, but remember to include a rational explanation for the above episode.

 

Cheers.


Its my understanding - after reading of the Hobart incident - that the events occured at 3:30 AM so visual ID of the warship was impossible.  In addition, the missiles that struck the warship were SPARROW radar guided air-to-air missiles fired by USAF F-4 Phantoms trying to shoot down low flying un-identified aircraft at night.
 
The Sparrow was not designed for ground or anti-ship attack.  It does have a long range and can travel in excess of 20 miles.  In Vietnam, the Sparrow had a failure rate of over 80% with many missile simply not locking on target or locking onto false targets such as clouds.  I also understand that several other US warships were also the targets of miss-fired Sparrow missiles over the same period of time.
First, I can conclude that the incident was not intentional - in short the aircraft were not shooting at the warship.  Second, I can speculate that the Sparrows were either:
 
1 - fooled by Vietnamese ECM into locking onto a larger target or ...
2 - malfunctioned and locked onto the warships - the missile uses a Semi-active homing radar system - following emissions either from the F-4 air-to-air targeting radar or from a similar broadcast bandwidth that may have from the ship.
An anti-air variant of the Sparrow (Sea Sparrow) has locked onto and struck other warships by accident during exercises (Turkish Nato training in the Med).  We do not know if the Hobart was transmitting on frequencies used by the Sparrow to guide itself.
 
The USAF stood down after the second series of missile attacks and it appears that this type of incident did not re-occur.  Thus, this is classified as fratricide but not a targeted incident in that the aircraft were NOT shooting at warships but other aircraft.  Although, as I pointed out above it also could have been good ECM on the part of the NVA.
 
Finally, prevention of similar incidents requires good IFF, common communications, knowledge of weaponry being used so emissions that might be mistaken for targeting are minimized, and good equipment.  The Sparrow is no longer in service but modern missiles have just as many holes in their programming that could allow similar incidents to occur.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/1/2007 11:22:01 AM




You should read Patton's book



Er..... why?



 



Talk about outdated!  Vietnam showed the limits of the losses America can handle in the age of media.  WWII may as well have been the 1500's.



 




Clearly you have never been involved directly in military operations.  The decision to attack a defender is based on logical and pre-calculated odds of success.  There is a direct relationship between acceptable loss rates and attacking.  The McWar - no one dies - media driven stuff is a fantasy that simply does not work in the real world.

 

The cold-blooded decision of who lives and who dies is a requirement for both command as well as logistics.  For example - US tanks are not equipped with fire suppression systems but Israeli tanks are.  Ever wonder why?  Perhaps the answer lies in budget, size and acceptable loss rates. 

We are not the only ones to apply the same type of tactical and strategic thinking.  Here is a sample from an official PLA OCMC document...

 

LINK

 

"Our principle is "willing to sustain major losses of our armed forces to defend even just one square inch of land." If the US forces lose thousands or hundreds of men under our powerful strikes, the anti-war sentiment within the their country will force the US government to take the same path as they did in Viet Nam. "



That does not answer my arguing your statement that the US can handle more losses than the UK.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       5/1/2007 11:30:40 AM





That does not answer my arguing your statement that the US can handle more losses than the UK.

 

 


We already do - check Afghanistan and Iraq.  The Brits do not have the resources, both equipment and manpower, that we have.  The lionshare of casualties are US.  The largest number of choppers lost are US.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

reefdiver       5/1/2007 11:34:54 AM
This threads original article talked about the US pilots being more agressive in Afghanistan. The pilots admitted more civilians are being killed as a result. The article and others point out that the US found the British had been arranging small "ceasefires" in area and as a result the Taliban had moved back in.  The US has now gone back and is agressively pursuing the Taliban.  I found comments about leaving no enemy standing in attacks to be indicative. Thats more agressive.
 
The article also mentioned something about the pilots being allowed to make fire decision in some areas.  Thats more agressive.  In the A-10 incident discussions here I recall some conversation that mentioned a whole chain of command that had to be traversed for British aircraft to gain fire authority. 
 
Is the US approach more dangerous? I would think. Is it more deadly for an enemy? Undoubtly.
 
So I'm curious - are American pilots just trained to be more agressive than British pilots or are the British pilots being told to be more conservative?  I don't know that I've ever met a "conservative" American heli pilot unless we're talking politics.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       5/1/2007 1:18:33 PM








That does not answer my arguing your statement that the US can handle more losses than the UK.



 



 




We already do - check Afghanistan and Iraq.  The Brits do not have the resources, both equipment and manpower, that we have.  The lionshare of casualties are US.  The largest number of choppers lost are US.

 

 


You don't seem to understand this do you... you still are not producing any evidence to support your claim... more Americans being killed amounts to squat in itself.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       5/1/2007 2:13:48 PM


You don't seem to understand this do you... you still are not producing any evidence to support your claim... more Americans being killed amounts to squat in itself.

Perhaps we are talking past each other - I contend that the current doctrine and tactical employment supports my contention that the US has different tactics than the UK in part - based on the fact that we have a larger military and can absorb losses that the British cannot.  You seem to assert that this doctrine does not exist yet it is taught from the ground up to all three branches. 
We currently deploy aggressive search and destroy missions in Iraq that the UK will not perform because they do not have the man-power or logistics to support it.  They cannot sustain the losses in men and equipment.  We can. Simply saying that Patton's lessons do not apply does not change the fact that they are taught at West Point and employed on the battlefield in Iraq.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    I was too weak to defend, so I attacked   5/1/2007 3:00:45 PM
"I was too weak to defend, so I attacked."
—General Robert E. Lee
 
Here are a few snips from the USMC Combat Operations Manual 1995 FMFM6 - This details risk, offensive operations, losses as well as liberal quotes from Patton.  Certainly does not sound like his teachings have fallen by the wayside to me.
 
PCN 139 000423 00
 
Offensive
The offense alone brings victory; the defense can only avoid defeat.
In taking the offensive, an attacker seizes, retains, and exploits the
initiative and maintains freedom of action. The offense allows the
commander to impose his will on the enemy, to determine the
course of the battle, and to exploit enemy weaknesses. A defensive
posture should be only a temporary expedient until the means are
available to resume the offensive. Even in the conduct of a defense,
the commander seeks every opportunity to seize the initiative
by offensive action.
 
Offensive action can help the commander dictate the tempo of an
operation. Our goal is to deprive the enemy of opportunities relevant
to his operational objectives by putting him on a reactive footing.
The GCE commander can accomplish this through swift
decisionmaking coupled with rapid execution on the battlefield.
The faster we can operate, the less time the enemy has to react to
our actions and to plan actions of his own or according to General
Patton, ". . .when we are attacking, the enemy has to parry,
while, when we are defending or preparing to attack, he can attack
us."
 
Ground Combat Operations
1-7
Maneuver is the employment of forces on the battlefield through
movement in combination with fire and/or time to achieve a position
of advantage over the enemy to accomplish the mission. However,
gaining positional advantage may be inconsequential when not
quickly exploited by violent combat. A tough and dedicated opponent
will seldom capitulate when placed in an untenable position.
The enemy will accept the cost of maneuvering to another position
under indirect fires to avoid decisive combat on our terms. Once
an advantage is gained through maneuver, forces exploit that maneuver
with close combat to obtain a decisive victory.
 
Envelopment
An envelopment is an offensive maneuver in which the main effort
passes around or over the enemy's principal defensive positions to
attack the objective while avoiding the enemy's main combat
power. By nature, it requires surprise, superior mobility (ground
and/or air), and successful supporting efforts. An envelopment
generally—
 
Strikes the enemy where he is weakest.
Severs enemy lines of communication.
Disrupts enemy C2.
Interrupts enemy CSS.
Forces the enemy to fight on a reverse front.
Minimizes the attacker's losses.
Compels the defender to fight on ground of the attacker's
choosing.
 
"One look is worth one hundred reports."
—General Patton citing an old Japanese proverb
 
Offensive operations require the attacker to weight the main effort
with superior combat power. The requirement to concentrate and
the need to have sufficient forces available to exploit success imply
accepting risk elsewhere. Local superiority must be created by maneuver,
deception, speed, surprise, and economy of force.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       5/1/2007 7:58:01 PM


The US often trains to be more aggressive since we can take losses that the UK can't. 


That is an absurd comment, and has no truth in it.

 

 

Saying force availability does not affect strategy is even more absurd.

We send reinforcements by the squadron or wing, you send them in by the plane.

 
Quote    Reply

Jimme       5/2/2007 12:37:07 AM
Isn't the US being more aggressive the underlying  reason why  Americans won our independence from the UK in the first place?

These are 2 different fundamental approaches each with its own benefits and detriments, No guts no glory is a popular American slogan unique in the world. It is also probably what drives us to fight for our rights no matter the coast as well as for the rights of others. One thing i used to hear alot when ever i went abroad is how Americans are always causing a fuss thinking there entitled to something. It seams that we are aggressive by nature to do what we believe to be right. Sometimes that gets us in trouble.

The Brits on the other hand seem to be more reserved and conservative. look before you leap i guess would be the motto. This is also reflected by the majority of the EU.it seams.

I wonder what brought about such a difference in ideals considering we are descendents of Europe for the most part.

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       5/2/2007 6:45:06 AM
If this thread is indicative then its abundantly clear that the US still hasn't woken up and smelt the coffee.  They still think Iraq and Afg are conventional wars that can be won by destroying the enemy.  There are so many flaws in this approach it beggars believe, I wouldn't have believed some of the nonsense if I hadn't read it.  Wars are about psychology.  Unless you are going to do genocide they are not won by destruction.  One of the lessons of SVN was that body count was irrelevent, it seems to be creeping back in.  I like to think its just inadequate training of junior officers, I hope I'm right.
 
Iraq and Afg are not even wars in the traditional sense.  The role is to facilitate the emergence and development of a stable and reasonably democratic national govt and the lower levels that go with it.  In the end these govts have going to have to do a deal with the insurgents, most of whom are their citizens.  That's what democracy is about.  All the US antics are achieving are embedding and perpetuating the idea that power comes from the barrel of a gun and this inspires the insurgents. Instead of underminning insurgent morale the US tactics are reinforcing it!  I can't think of a better demonstration of military incompetance.  It will be interesting to see what line the new Afg SE Regional Comd takes.
 
Dealing with insurgents in support of govt is a matter of fine judgement in a state with weak democratic culture.  You have to get the people on side, and this means you sometimes have to pull the punches and be selective (which means being intelligence led, not barging around on the whiff of ill-founded suspicion).  They will accept the insurgent members of their families being killed, what they don't accept is 'civilian' casualties.  This is a good way to alienate the locals, which undermines the entire effort, killing each other is one thing, being killed by foreigners is different.  The primary role in Afg is not destroying the Taliban, they will melt away less a few hardliners, once they loose local support.  One of the ways of achieving this is reconstruction not destruction.  In Afg its also very important to play the tribal game, tactically it makes good sense to to do local deals.  If the locals don't keep their side of the bargain then it puts them in a position of moral inferiority, but you have to play this game by the local rules.
 
And in case anyone asks, I've been in 3 wars, none of them 'peacekeeping'.  Two were successful, the third a failure, that one was the only one run by the US - SVN. 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics