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.

Lee Michaels wrote:
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.


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.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
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.


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.

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.

On Jun 24, 12:32*am, "DGDevin" wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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

R

On 2009-06-24, -MIKE- wrote:

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.

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

notwhack

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:33:45 -0500, -MIKE- wrote:

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.

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

Lee Michaels wrote:
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.

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.

DGDevin wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
Lee Michaels wrote:
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.

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.

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.


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


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

RicodJour wrote:

They sort of glossed over the tri-sniper thing without
much technical explanation, beyond a cursory description with some
fancy computer graphics.

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.

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

R

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.

-MIKE- wrote:

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

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-****, 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.

DGDevin wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

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

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-****, 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.



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.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:

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

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.

DGDevin wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

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

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.


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."


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On Jun 24, 5:09*pm, -MIKE- wrote:
DGDevin wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:

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

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.

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."

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

R

"HeyBub" wrote:


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

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.

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.

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

-- Doug