LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Like hell it does.
You've said a lot of stupid shit over the years Zachowon, but this really takes the cake, given you're in the military, so you should know about this stuff.
Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion
- Thread starter Zachowon
- Start date
- Status
Like hell it does.
You've said a lot of stupid shit over the years Zachowon, but this really takes the cake, given you're in the military, so you should know about this stuff.
It does though.
This is something that is known in the risk of a paradrop. Like the normal height stuff, not low stuff.
And by combat we mean a hot drop, not the ones that is in uncontested space.
The point being, if a Airborne operation has to he used it is a situation that can make or break the war kinda thing.
King Arts
Well-known member
He's military intelligence. Don't be so hard on him, they are a special breed.
He's not really wrong in this case though.He's military intelligence. Don't be so hard on him, they are a special breed.
The paratroopers have ALWAYS expected an exceptionally high rate of casualties. It's why they train so heavily with the NCOs as team and squad leaders. The CoC is going to get hosed. Everyone must be able to step up to get the mission done.
Paradrops into contested hotzones can be absolute blood baths.
The fact that the United states has so many successful ones actually tells you just how fucking impressive we are you know when we put our minds to it.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Accepting that there will be heavier casualties, and that sometimes you need to make the assault anyways, is one thing.
Having a starting point of 60% and that being judged acceptable is a completely different thing. Units are generally expected to have been rendered combat ineffective at 10% KIA, and wounded/killed generally ends up somewhere between 3 and 5 to 1.
This is talking about going straight from 'fully fresh' to 'unit is so broken it needs to be withdrawn.'
Having a starting point of 60% and that being judged acceptable is a completely different thing. Units are generally expected to have been rendered combat ineffective at 10% KIA, and wounded/killed generally ends up somewhere between 3 and 5 to 1.
This is talking about going straight from 'fully fresh' to 'unit is so broken it needs to be withdrawn.'
That is what makes Paradrops risks.
You have to be able to send that many into the zine to do thier job.
For example: "Among Allied planners, casualty predictions for 82nd Airborne ranged as high as 75-percent. The most optimistic planners forecast 50-percent casualties, and by casualties, those planners meant deaths, not the generally accepted and all-inclusive definition of the word. But those losses were deemed acceptable in piercing Adolf Hitler’s Festung Europa, and Allied High Command agreed with near unanimity to sacrifice 82nd Airborne to that end."
There is a major difference in this consideration between some random war and decisive part of a world war, which implies that stakes are very high and you won't be needing them anytime soon afterwards.
For some sandbox adventure or other "special operation", especially in western countries, this kind of loss is scandalous, nevermind losing them in a stupidly fast offensive that didn't pan out after all.
In reality, through all the Cold War, even though by nature airborne takes part in most of wars, from COIN to large scale ones like Vietnam, US airborne never had this kind of losses as far as i'm aware. Nevermind that they had plenty of opportunities for similar screwups in Iraq and Vietnam if they were incompetent and happened to throw them at enemy conventional forces with little or no support.
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Perhaps they should have started asking themselves that question before they tried to extend to borders of NATO all the way up to Russia's doorstep. Maybe then, Russia wouldn't feel like they've been backed into a corner.
Is it an accident when they clearly don't care if they blow up innocent people? There are no consequences for doing so, after all; nobody was punished when they blew up that car full of children in Afghanistan, even when they tried to justify it afterwards with blatant lies. True, it's a lesser evil than if they were always deliberately targeting innocent people, as Russia is doing; but it's still evil. And it's not always an "accident" either; the Obama administration straight up admitted that they deliberately assassinated a child (who was also a US citizen) because of who his father was.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
It comes with the territory. Mind you those those that survive or witness it on the news remember.
Well yeah.
I just said 60% is considered acceptable in a WW3 scenario
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No you did not. Your statement had no such qualifier on it.
As Marduk said, there's a world of difference between 'getting a foothold on Europe during WWII' and the kinds of wars that have been fought since then, especially in the last forty years.
There is no kind of modern doctrine in the US military that would consider 60% casualties 'acceptable losses' for an offensive operation, unless we hit the point where nukes are/are about to fly or similar.
All that being said...when was the last time the 82nd actually did a combat drop?
I'm not sure they've really done one since WW2.
I'm not sure they've really done one since WW2.
In that case Russia would be triumphally announcing their return to peak power as they extended their doorstep up to NATO borders.
Stop treating the Russia controlling cynical, professional backstabber KGB veterans who got high on their own propaganda like they are some sort of scared animals operating on instinct. They understand deadly power games better than most western politicians and are looking down on their western equivalents not having the guts to play as hard as they are playing. It's part of the reason why they afford themselves such bold moves. If they were truly scared of western leaders, they would shut up, bunker down and not even think about having ambitions to restore the empire.
What are they supposed to do? Commit seppuku? Send a gift basket to the family? What kind of caring do you expect? Was there ever a major war by anyone where this didn't accidentally happen?
Seems you are describing a fine way to get your military one hell of a recruitment\retention crisis. If we could only put you in charge of the Russian, Iranian or Chinese one...
Nah, that's just war, shit happens, there is no war in which shit didn't happen, setting completely unrealistic expectations on that is not something any half sane military will ever do.
No they didn't, you have read some well spun news about that one it seems.
This "totally innocent american child" in reality was not targeted, he was just the 16 year old son of an AQ honcho, being groomed to take up the family craft, and so after daddy died from another drone strike he was hanging out with daddy's work buddies, who happened to be targeted by a drone strike at a time, because being an AQ honcho apparently is not a very safe career that definitely shouldn't have a "bring co-worker's kid to work meetings" day and yet it did. Go sue AQ for extreme child endangerment and radicalising a minor while at it.
Last edited:
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
How successful were those Iranian drones again?
It is acceptable if the battle space marks the point of winning the campaign or the war
Terthna
Professional Lurker
People are always at their most dangerous when they're cornered; you drive them there at your peril.
Except there was no war. Unless you count the "war against terrorism" as a war; in which case you're essentially arguing that there is never a time when such actions are immoral.
I'm pretty sure you'd be much better at it than I would. "Join the military; no one will ever hold you accountable for your actions ever again, or even acknowledge them, because you kill people for the government".
Again; there was no war going on.
And that is partly why the West gets away with it; because people like you, people with their own agendas and enemies they'd like to point them at, keep making excuses for them.
They are cheap, they are many, and as such they come in many variants.
Technologically, absolutely nothing special.
They are as successful as that implies.
People who own the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet and the largest country on the planet are never cornered.
Compare to norks who own barely few possibly functional nukes, but aren't neighbored by quick victory grabs, just countries who are both willing and able to kick their ass if they push too far.
Chad yes.
Yes, that's the only option in reality as long as fog of war exists, doubly so with terrorists.
No military can function on the principle of "fight with limited intel, if it turns out the intel missed some civilians some of you go to prison, no ifs and buts."
Seriously, the best use of such a doctrine of implied inaction is to somehow get your enemies to adopt it.
Except the mentioned war on terror, and the civil war in Yemen, where this strike happened.
Ah, so you would prefer if the West didn't get away with it, but everyone else did like they do anyway? Why do you hate the West so much?
Last edited:
- Status