I’m really, really sorry to say this, but there is a couple incoherences on this page. If we are indeed dealing with the crème de la crème of the UN, I think even a transport would have at least a ballistic countermeasure system, and not rely solely on drones for protection. I simply can’t believe that UN would use a troop transport that ANY maniac could take down with a good aim and a rocket launcher. (Except those countermeasures are the thing we’re spotting in the last picture… In that case, just ignore what I just said.
From what we’re shown here, the whole MANPADS section managed to take down one Atlas transport, and another landed quite safely. Now we need to see what happens with the last one.
Mostly the commander/mission planners fault for sending transports into a LZ without any prep.
The planners may have thought it was a cold LZ but they should have expected and planned for a hot LZ.
Should have been, 12 drones on overwatch for AA and the other 8 with the AH to soften the target before the transports enter the danger space.
As Pinky said transports are at their most vulnerable as they transition for deployment, whether it’s when your LCA/LCVP/LCM/LCAC beaches and the door goes down, your UH-1/UH-60 goes into hover for troops to dive out or rappel down or your Osprey transitions and lands, then, transports become easy stationary targets.
There is nothing that a grunt likes more, than arriving at a battle to find everything on the other side is already burning.
You’re right, and I edited the page for better flow, but also to show both remaining transports touching down safely. As for the mission planning, it was brought together probably in a panic, under extreme time pressure. Another reader suggested that they should have used flares or lasers targeting the optics of the missiles, like he said such devices exist today. But I suspect missiles might be able to defeat such counter-measures in the future, and the only reliable way to stop them is to brute force shoot them to little bits 🙂
Pinkys troops are supposed to be posing as PLA SpecOps so they would be using Chinese equipment.
Which means the MANPADs would be FN-16 launchers (or a later model) which have IR/UV seekers and a high resistance to flares. They also have proximity fusing like most SAMs.
With the transports unable to maneouvre, deploying flares would just give the missiles a bigger hotspot to target.
One counter I can see would be to WP the MANPAD site. Disrupting their fire, causing casualties and laying a thermal blanket down to foil IR targetting. Operationally, Pinky should have separated the MANPAD teams to facilitate fire from different aspects and have security from one strike killing all the teams. Looks better all in a row though.
Yes I know WP is “supposed” to be outlawed, doesn’t mean it doesn’t still get used.
The UN troops may not have expected AA at the LZ but they should still have allowed for it.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
33% casualties BEFORE engaging the enemy, that planner is getting a reaming in the AAR.
White Phosphorus rounds, incendiary/smoke rounds. Geneva contravention to us e against personnel, sort of allowed to lay smoke screens.
I had a better idea though.
Forget the WP, use more canaries. They worked really well at the other site.
Dominic
Gross. Nothing worse than american military nerds using euphemisms like: “softening the target” and suggesting the use of white phosphorous. Truly reprehensible nerdery.
No, no, I am heartened to see that Dominic is offended by the thought of WP.
WP is a bad thing, one of the many bad things that the military have and use.
Things that must be mentioned at times to refresh everyones memories of how bad and offensive these things were/are. Lest We Forget.
There was some nerdery in what I said, mostly however I said what I said in amusement at how the military (not only the military) have a slew of TLAs for “moving people and equipment from one place to another”. They just cant call a boot a boot or a spade a spade.
I have, many years ago, jumped from a Huey into a swamp and rapelled from one into a small clearing. Exciting stuff, flying NOE behind ridgelines, jumping out at low hover or jumping off the skids on a rope. What came after, not so much. Ancient history.
The only thing I really took offense to in Dominics post was being called a Septic Tank.
(for those not in the know: Septic Tank -> Yank -> American. Overpaid, Oversexed and Over Here)
Yes well, am american. It’s on target imho for when the phrase first was used. The list of ‘that which must not be used’ is rather short imho. And yes, whilst not for combat I’ve ridden NOE in an old UH-1(H model as I recall) with a warrant who used to play that in the jungle. Got a few branches doing that. A decade later and I’m feeling the concusions of an arclight strike and feeling bad for the guys whose leadership was so bad that was called in on them. WP used to mark is one thing, the other use. Not good.
I’m really, really sorry to say this, but there is a couple incoherences on this page. If we are indeed dealing with the crème de la crème of the UN, I think even a transport would have at least a ballistic countermeasure system, and not rely solely on drones for protection. I simply can’t believe that UN would use a troop transport that ANY maniac could take down with a good aim and a rocket launcher. (Except those countermeasures are the thing we’re spotting in the last picture… In that case, just ignore what I just said.
From what we’re shown here, the whole MANPADS section managed to take down one Atlas transport, and another landed quite safely. Now we need to see what happens with the last one.
Mostly the commander/mission planners fault for sending transports into a LZ without any prep.
The planners may have thought it was a cold LZ but they should have expected and planned for a hot LZ.
Should have been, 12 drones on overwatch for AA and the other 8 with the AH to soften the target before the transports enter the danger space.
As Pinky said transports are at their most vulnerable as they transition for deployment, whether it’s when your LCA/LCVP/LCM/LCAC beaches and the door goes down, your UH-1/UH-60 goes into hover for troops to dive out or rappel down or your Osprey transitions and lands, then, transports become easy stationary targets.
There is nothing that a grunt likes more, than arriving at a battle to find everything on the other side is already burning.
You’re right, and I edited the page for better flow, but also to show both remaining transports touching down safely. As for the mission planning, it was brought together probably in a panic, under extreme time pressure. Another reader suggested that they should have used flares or lasers targeting the optics of the missiles, like he said such devices exist today. But I suspect missiles might be able to defeat such counter-measures in the future, and the only reliable way to stop them is to brute force shoot them to little bits 🙂
Pinkys troops are supposed to be posing as PLA SpecOps so they would be using Chinese equipment.
Which means the MANPADs would be FN-16 launchers (or a later model) which have IR/UV seekers and a high resistance to flares. They also have proximity fusing like most SAMs.
With the transports unable to maneouvre, deploying flares would just give the missiles a bigger hotspot to target.
One counter I can see would be to WP the MANPAD site. Disrupting their fire, causing casualties and laying a thermal blanket down to foil IR targetting. Operationally, Pinky should have separated the MANPAD teams to facilitate fire from different aspects and have security from one strike killing all the teams. Looks better all in a row though.
Yes I know WP is “supposed” to be outlawed, doesn’t mean it doesn’t still get used.
The UN troops may not have expected AA at the LZ but they should still have allowed for it.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst.
33% casualties BEFORE engaging the enemy, that planner is getting a reaming in the AAR.
what’s a WP?
White Phosphorus rounds, incendiary/smoke rounds. Geneva contravention to us e against personnel, sort of allowed to lay smoke screens.
I had a better idea though.
Forget the WP, use more canaries. They worked really well at the other site.
Gross. Nothing worse than american military nerds using euphemisms like: “softening the target” and suggesting the use of white phosphorous. Truly reprehensible nerdery.
Maybe if you’d studied your Von Clausewitz you’d understand. Doing those things actually saves lives in the long run.
No, no, I am heartened to see that Dominic is offended by the thought of WP.
WP is a bad thing, one of the many bad things that the military have and use.
Things that must be mentioned at times to refresh everyones memories of how bad and offensive these things were/are. Lest We Forget.
There was some nerdery in what I said, mostly however I said what I said in amusement at how the military (not only the military) have a slew of TLAs for “moving people and equipment from one place to another”. They just cant call a boot a boot or a spade a spade.
I have, many years ago, jumped from a Huey into a swamp and rapelled from one into a small clearing. Exciting stuff, flying NOE behind ridgelines, jumping out at low hover or jumping off the skids on a rope. What came after, not so much. Ancient history.
The only thing I really took offense to in Dominics post was being called a Septic Tank.
(for those not in the know: Septic Tank -> Yank -> American. Overpaid, Oversexed and Over Here)
Yes well, am american. It’s on target imho for when the phrase first was used. The list of ‘that which must not be used’ is rather short imho. And yes, whilst not for combat I’ve ridden NOE in an old UH-1(H model as I recall) with a warrant who used to play that in the jungle. Got a few branches doing that. A decade later and I’m feeling the concusions of an arclight strike and feeling bad for the guys whose leadership was so bad that was called in on them. WP used to mark is one thing, the other use. Not good.