1/4
ITT: we talk (and make examples) of operations gone awfully wrong and we do some armchair judgements as per whether they went wrong because of bad luck or because of big fuck ups.
Please post examples, links, videos, documentaries. Respond and contribute: I want to be enriched.
>>30079789
Russia sending anything that floats to Asia.
2/4
Dear /k/, how do you draw the line of an operation gone wrong because of chance and an operation that was just lousy, badly planned, and badly manned?
I have recently watched "the lone survivor".
Here is the former thread: >>30072395
What I found it interesting is not just the facts, but how they are interpreted by the anons who report them.
For example, the radio mishap:
>for some, it was just a mistake (failed to update encryption keys)
>for others, it was a calculated risk (they chose to go there with reduced weight, so no back up equipment, etc.)
My question, maybe too general, is:
>How do you draw the lines between idiots and pros during an OP gone wrong?
I am thinking of Black Hawk Down, Red Wings, but also some WW2 situations.
Black Hawk Down footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOcTkk8GQ3k
Red Wings footage: https://youtu.be/HF9ebIqitWw?t=38m2s
Lone Survivor Fact checking: http://entertainment.time.com/2014/01/10/lone-survivor-the-true-story/ [WARNING, THIS ARTICLE IS LEL-TIER BECAUSE IT TAKES FOR GRANTED THE BOOK IS THE TRUTH AND THE ONLY RELIABLE SOURCE AT HAND]
>Sometimes, against all the odds, people keep performing at max level, so that even if they all die, it can be said nobody can be blamed because all precautions were taken and all drills followed
>On other occasions, it appears to me that something (or more than something) goes wrong, so that the waste of lives is not really part of the calculated risk of conflict but it is just the result of various individuals fucking up at various levels.
4/4
A good normative framework to evaluate good ops might be something like:
An Operation is good when
>intelligence has been reasonably gathered
>mission has been reasonably planned
>procedures were reasonably followed
>all individuals involved put a reasonable effort towards the achievement of their goals
>all of the above can be reasonably considered to be optimal given the starting conditions of everyone involved
Example:
>We don't have state of the art technologies, but managed to obtain all possible intelligence with the means available to us
>The planning has been careful and thoughtful; possibly state of the art given the knowledge we have access to
>Procedures were appropriate to the context and they contributed substantially to minimizing randomness
>Everybody made an effort that is proportional to their physical and cognitive capabilities. Even if something goes wrong, they cannot blame themselves
>All things considered, and despite poor access to equipement, everything was done at its best or was at least good enough
Assuming all these boxes have been ticked, nobody can be blamed even if the mission was a failure, because once all these boxes have been ticked, the rest depends heavily on luck.
>>30079789
>>30079801
>>30079808
what the fuck are you doing op?
>>30079799
>Russia sending anything that floats to Asia.
Please elaborate.
>>30079821
>what the fuck are you doing op?
>Has never seen Opening Posts going 1/4, 2/4, 3/4, etc.
>Feels uneasy when OP tries to contribute to the discussion in a meaningful and reasonable way with links and shit rather than bantering around like cucks on /b/ and /pol/.
Apologies to the Millenniumfags for not attaching to my posts a handbook on how to use 4chan.
>>30079801
>>How do you draw the lines between idiots and pros during an OP gone wrong?
Or pros who make idiotic decisions due to excessive fatigue or other factors that degraded their mental capabilities, for that matter.
>>30079858
>Or pros who make idiotic decisions due to excessive fatigue or other factors that degraded their mental capabilities, for that matter.
But isn't this a calculated risk?
I mean, if you roughly know the odds someone will fuck up due to exertion, it is a risk you are taking. Namely, you are just choosing which lottery you would like to buy a ticket for. Literally:
>We know there is a 10% risk of someone fucking this up, but this is a risk we want to take
But if you overestimate people's capabilities to reason in stressful circumstances... now that's a true fuck up. Literally:
>No worries, SEALs are gonna manage no matter what; we don't need B plans
OP you're retarded and gay and your examples are retarded and gay because they've been rehashed so many times by people pushing an agenda or just plain interested in self-promotion rather than encouraging discussion or critical thought.
A less-gay example would be Custer getting rekt by teepee niggers because he left behind a bunch of Gatling gats and reinforcements just for muh glory.
Also the botched SEAL raid on a Panamanian radio station where two drowned after the jump then they had to swim like 2 miles out to sea after a long ass firefight with one of them shot or some shit.
Bottom line is you're gay and retarded
>>30079870
You're kind of just arguing semantics, way I see it.
In an OP gone wrong, it's not just decisions made in the planning phase, but decisions on the ground. Also, good luck putting actual numbers to the odds of particular people fucking up from fatigue.
>>30079915
>your examples are retarded and gay because they've been rehashed so many times by people pushing an agenda
Yeah, m8, but guess what? I am not even American. I'm not even Australian for fucks sake. I came across these things yesterday and this is why I opened the thread in first place: because the examples I provided sounded to me fishy at best and wanted somebody to make actual examples.
>A less-gay example would be Custer getting rekt by teepee niggers because he left behind a bunch of Gatling gats and reinforcements just for muh glory.
Implying this story hasn't been told a bazillion times by people pushing an agenda. I guess Custer's death is the epitome of propaganda. But maybe so far back in time we now know how things truly unfolded.
>Also the botched SEAL raid on a Panamanian radio station where two drowned after the jump then they had to swim like 2 miles out to sea after a long ass firefight with one of them shot or some shit.
I didn't know about that. Sauce? Is it something I can read on Wikipedia or do I need to get a specialized (no Walmart) book on the topic to get to know what actually happened?
>Bottom line is you're gay and retarded
I prefer to call myself ignorant of the topic and aware of my own ignorance.
>>30079943
>You're kind of just arguing semantics, way I see it.
I prefer to think I am arguing normative framework (of which semantics is just a subset). Like, say, suppose I am a policy-maker and have to draw a line at some point and say: >this is as far as planning must go;
>everything beyond this is just overkill
But I really wanted to have more examples at hand. I was hoping for some anons to share intelligence of, for example, French operations gone well and gone wrong. Just to be able to compare and avoid this: >>30079915
