Off Topic: Somali Pirate Takedown

[Lee Michaels]

There was some discussion on this group about the rescue by USN Seals of the skipper kidnapped by Somali pirates.

There is a TV program called Somali Pirate Takedown playing tonight on the military channel. I haven't seen it yet and don't know how good it is. Personally, I find all the behind the scenes stuff to be most interesting. Things like logistics, decision making and the politics, etc.

Anyway, if the military channel does its usual thing, this program will be repeated continously for the next 4 years. Check out your local cable listings.

[-MIKE-]

It was on Discovery Channel, already. It was ok. It was much more focused on the ordeal the sailors and crew went though and their interaction with the pirates, that the military strategy and skills involved. They sort of glossed over the tri-sniper thing without much technical explanation, beyond a cursory description with some fancy computer graphics.

There will still be those whack-jobs who swear it was impossible, even though it was a fairly routine event for those marine snipers.

[DGDevin]

That's maybe because their explanation was made-up based on what they saw on the evening news and the computer graphics aren't remotely close to what actually happened. I am often astonished at how sloppy the research and production is on those shows, and how willing they are to use heavily-padded filler of doubtful history veracity.

[RicodJour]

I saw the documentary. What were the main points of inaccuracy?

R

[notbob]

Now that I've seen it on South Park, I know it's true. ;)

notwhack

[mac davis]

I thought it was interesting that there were actually FOUR snipers, but one (who probably drew the short straw) used a well-times shotgun blast to take out the glass just before the snipers fired through the window/porthole/whatever..

mac

Please remove splinters before emailing

[HeyBub]

Right. Ordinary historians study tactics - military historians study logistics.

When General Lee abandoned Richmond, he still commanded a force of almost

30,000 soldiers, but he left his supplies - such as they were - behind. Without food, ammunition, and the rest of the logistical train, he had no choice but to surrender a few days later.

[-MIKE-]

Right. Because that Navy ship captain/admiral or whatever he was, wouldn't know a thing about it, huh?

[DGDevin]

Please note my use of the word "maybe." I didn't claim any specific points of inaccuracy in this particular show (which I have not seen). I suggested an explanation for why they might have "glossed over the tri-sniper thing" based on seeing umpteen other History Channel-style documentaries in which anyone with a decent knowledge of the subject matter can spot numerous errors. I'll also suggest that if they glossed over details it's because the people who carried off this admirable rescue took pains not to provide such details, and understandably so.

[DGDevin]

Do you know how to tell if the guy you're talking to about sensitive special forces operations or intelligence matters was *really* there and knows what happened? If he won't tell you jack-shit, he's probably the real deal.

I've known a few folks from that line of work, and they'd rather cut off their own thumbs than say one word to anyone who lacks the right security clearance.

Of course if you want to believe that a naval officer was eager to reveal the actual details of how their team took out the pirates at risk of compromising future operations, okay, you go with that.

[-MIKE-]

I didn't say that. As long as your not a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracist nutjob who thinks those sniper shots were impossible, we don't have an argument.

[DGDevin]

A former USMC sniper used to work for me, and we went shooting together on occasion, so you won't hear me claiming those shots were impossible. I'm baffled as to how anyone could conclude I think so based on what I posted. All I questioned was the overall quality of History/Discovery Channel programming, I've heard too many examples of a narrator reading something that is either hugely simplified, if not howlingly wrong, accompanied by film footage that has nothing to do with the history being discussed. So if this show glossed over the technical details, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that was because they didn't know them.

[-MIKE-]

I wasn't pointing the finger at you, just hoping you weren't in that lot. Sorry if it seemed that way. I think we agree on this. And I'm in the same boat with you on the vast shortcomings in a lot of these "documentaries."

[RicodJour]

Only thing is that we're discussing one particular program, and not speaking in generalities...or, at least I thought we were.

R

[Douglas Johnson]

One of the things that impressed me from Grant's memoirs was when he talked tactics, he talked terrain. When he talked strategy, he talked logistics. Sherman's march to the sea and Sheridan's sacking of the Shenandoah (say that three times fast) weren't punitive, they were attacks on Lee's supplies.

Yep. Lee was racing Grant to a supply train west of Appomattox. Grant got there first.

-- Doug