American Soldiers Captured?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Custor
Am I reading this right or skipping over an important paragraph?

We posted at the same time. More than one don't make 4 out of 5. Get someone who know about battle fatalities. If your dead what the potential of it being a head shot?
:confused: If I know. One would several wounds also important.
Click to expand...


I read four dead and assume they were executed my bad.

Either way it is two or more according to the article with bullet holes in their head.

I dont quite get what your saying in the second part but it sounds like your saying that there is a small chance that if you are shot that it would be in the head, which again only makes me belive they were executed.
 
There will be plenty more to follow......

In the next weeks and probably months there will be much more brutality than this.
Its a hard fact of life and unethical stuff will be done and received by all involved in this war - and we probably won't hear the half of it..........:eek:
 
dirtydog - in an interview with discovery channel with one of the survivors (NOT mcnab)


-not given right equipment
-the generals screwed up and things weren't their at departure
-radio frequencys they were given were wrong
-they did kill a lot of men
-400 men behind lines
-iraqis thought there were 10000
-this is from discovery channelwere mcnab was not included :)
 
ffs we don't know what the SAS do on a day to day basis, I ver much doubt we know the full story of Bravo to zero. :rolleyes:

Same goes for the dead hostages; we don't know they were executed, there's no sense in the Iraqis executing them, we do know there was a gunfight though, so let's not jump to conclusions.

fearby is right too; some Iraqi guards will not give a crap about the geneva convention, neither will the regime; they're losing, they're going to lose and probably won't care about what we call "war crimes". :(
 
Originally posted by Robert
dirtydog - in an interview with discovery channel with one of the survivors (NOT mcnab)


-not given right equipment
-the generals screwed up and things weren't their at departure
-radio frequencys they were given were wrong
-they did kill a lot of men
-400 men behind lines
-iraqis thought there were 10000
-this is from discovery channelwere mcnab was not included :)
Click to expand...


either way you look at it someone didnt do their job properly and **** hit the fan.

Hopefully lessons have been learned
 
Originally posted by Robert
dirtydog - in an interview with discovery channel with one of the survivors (NOT mcnab)


-not given right equipment
-the generals screwed up and things weren't their at departure
-radio frequencys they were given were wrong
-they did kill a lot of men
-400 men behind lines
-iraqis thought there were 10000
-this is from discovery channelwere mcnab was not included :)
Click to expand...

Suffice to say there were a range of **** ups. But the biggest one was going in without vehicles. If they had had Land Rovers, the other problems like lack of warm clothing and radios not working wouldn't have mattered, as they could have driven across the border.

And as for all the soldiers they killed, all I can say is, why didn't they mention them when their SAS commanders debriefed them. Read 'Eye of the Storm'.
 
Originally posted by silverpaw
ffs we don't know what the SAS do on a day to day basis, I ver much doubt we know the full story of Bravo to zero. :rolleyes:

Same goes for the dead hostages; we don't know they were executed, there's no sense in the Iraqis executing them, we do know there was a gunfight though, so let's not jump to conclusions.

fearby is right too; some Iraqi guards will not give a crap about the geneva convention, neither will the regime; they're losing, they're going to lose and probably won't care about what we call "war crimes". :(
Click to expand...

did i say i do ? did i say ANYTHING about their movements in this war ? did i ******* hint at day to day things ?no , so kindly go away :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by Robert
did i say i do ? did i say ANYTHING about their movements in this war ? did i ******* hint at day to day things ?no , so kindly go away :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Er, well actually I was still composing my post when you posted so my message wasn't at all aimed at you. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
not trying to start anti american thing-quite like america but:

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfield said Iraq was in breach of the Geneva conventions governing the accepted rules of war by showing the film.

and

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the video was propaganda which violated the Geneva Convention for the treatment of prisoners of war.

i dont think they are in a position to point out iraq are not following the geenva conventions! what will they say next!?
 
Originally posted by Stiff_Cookie
I read four dead and assume they were executed my bad.

Either way it is two or more according to the article with bullet holes in their head.

I dont quite get what your saying in the second part but it sounds like your saying that there is a small chance that if you are shot that it would be in the head, which again only makes me belive they were executed.
Click to expand...

There must be someone who knows about this stuff.
Tried to find something on web but can't yet. Studies of the location of wounds leading to battle fatalities by small arms.
If your're killed then its likely that it was due to a upper torso or head wound(?). ie that's its critical.
If your injured but not fatal then its unlikely to be head wound.
So out of four dead to small arms what are the chances that at least one was included a head wound would be pretty high(?).

Absolutely right if all four have head wounds then it seems highly unlikely that they were shoot out fatalities.
 
Originally posted by Custor
There must be someone who knows about this stuff.
Tried to find something on web but can't yet. Studies of the location of wounds leading to battle fatalities by small arms.
If your're killed then its likely that it was due to a upper torso or head wound(?). ie that's its critical.
If your injured but not fatal then its unlikely to be head wound.
So out of four dead to small arms what are the chances that at least one was included a head wound would be pretty high(?).

Absolutely right if all four have head wounds then it seems highly unlikely that they were shoot out fatalities.
Click to expand...


What does small arms mean? Is that just pistols or is it rifles as well?

I know that soldiers in the US/UK, IIRC, are trained to aim for mass, ie the torso. That is because the likely hood of hitting the head (bar snipers etc) is very small. I dont know about Iraqis but it would make sense that if they are trained at all they are trained to aim for mass as well. If they arent trained than a head shot from an unaimed weapon is DAMN lucky. but that is on the assumption that the Iraqis are trained to aim for mass
 
Originally posted by dirtydog
Suffice to say there were a range of **** ups. But the biggest one was going in without vehicles. If they had had Land Rovers, the other problems like lack of warm clothing and radios not working wouldn't have mattered, as they could have driven across the border.

And as for all the soldiers they killed, all I can say is, why didn't they mention them when their SAS commanders debriefed them. Read 'Eye of the Storm'.
Click to expand...

Wrong - the biggest one was that they had incorrect radio fequencies - if they had been okay - they would all have been okay.

I also would not read 'Eye of the Storm' - I find it very fishy that an ex-SAS solider would write a book for the sole purpose of discrediting other SAS - what is the point? Apart from Money.


Anyway on BBC they say
Iraqi Defence Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed tells a news conference that Baghdad will respect the Geneva Convention and will not harm captured US soldiers.
Click to expand...

-- Bit late if they have already executed half of them :mad:

Stiff_cookie - It means pistols, rifles or machine guns.
 
TABLE 7.- LOCATION OF WOUNDS IN HOSPITALIZED CASUALTIES, BY PERCENT, US ARMY, IN THREE WARS: WORLD WAR II, KOREA, AND VIETNAM

Anatomical location
World War II
Korea
Vietnam 1

Head and neck 17
17
14

Thorax 7
7
7

Abdomen 8
7
5

Upper Extremities 25
30
18

Lower Extremities 40
37
36

Other Sites 3
2
20

The distribution of fatal wounds by location differed from that for total wounds since some areas were much more likely to involve mortal injuries than others thus the 14 percent of the wounds located in the head and neck region accounted for 39 percent of the fatalities. This was followed by 19.3 percent fatal wounds in the thorax; 17.9 percent, abdomen; 16.1 percent, multiple sites; 6.8 percent, lower extremities; and 0.9 percent, upper extremities.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietnam/MedSpt/chpt3.htm

Yes your very likely to be injured by a mass hit. But if you're killed then the % goes up that its a head or neck hit that caused it.
 
Originally posted by Bungee

Anyway on BBC they say

-- Bit late if they have already executed half of them :mad:
Click to expand...


and can we really trust him? A massive bunker of missles has just been discovered, in another thread somewhere, I dont know what type of missles but from the hype of it maybe it is banned or missles that Saddam said he didnt have.


thanks for the clear up:)
 
'Eye of the Storm' is not about Bravo two zero but the author does talk about it in one chapter. It is the autobiography of Peter Ratcliffe (real name) who was the SAS's RSM - and to reach the rank of RSM in the SAS should tell you all you need to know about him. The book in no way slags off the SAS, quite the opposite. But it does debunk some of the myths of B-2-0.

Bungee, you seem to know more about the operation than people who were there, like Chris Ryan and Peter Ratcliffe.
 
I have read 'The one that got away' by Chris Ryan - very very good

and B20 by Andy McNabe - very very entertaining

I think both books are very very good and both highlight that mistakes were made in the planning of the mission by both the soldiers and the superiors.
 
Originally posted by Stiff_Cookie
and can we really trust him? A massive bunker of missles has just been discovered, in another thread somewhere, I dont know what type of missles but from the hype of it maybe it is banned or missles that Saddam said he didnt have.
Click to expand...
Sky News
British troops securing the outskirts of Basra have discovered missiles and warheads hidden inside fortified bunkers, reports say.
Click to expand...
They are not proscribed weapons
 
Originally posted by Robert
dirtydog - in an interview with discovery channel with one of the survivors (NOT mcnab)


-not given right equipment
-the generals screwed up and things weren't their at departure
-radio frequencys they were given were wrong
-they did kill a lot of men
-400 men behind lines
-iraqis thought there were 10000
-this is from discovery channelwere mcnab was not included :)
Click to expand...

Well, there is actually one acount of the "Bravo two zero" escapade that claims they didnt actually kill anybody.
Or indeed fire their weapons in anger at all.
 
Andy Mc Nab were let down by there own commnad aswell as the frequencys being wrong for contact, they made it to the pick up point were a helicopter was supposed to pick them up if they were out of contact for 48 hours, which they were, but at the pick up point on the required time the command decided to not send the helicopter so if the command had of done its job properly they all would have made it out 48 hours after going in.

also Mc Nab relied on intelligence given to him from central commnad that were they would be dropped was deserted it turned out it was not.

McNab did nothing wrong, infact they done pretty well considering the incompetance of the British command over them
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom