C130 Gunship Footage from Afghanistan

[saabcaptain]

incredible... no question you can take all the smart bombs in the world but it will never compare to a helicopter or plane that can loiter and nail bad guys from above.

 

[ms6073]

Edited

 

[saabcaptain]

No argument from me being I have never been in the forces but I do have one question... in this case where individual "soft targets" are terrorists capable of extreme individual potential damage to the United States and also assuming using the small munition chain gun produced tracers which can point out the exact location of the C-130 in the sky wasn't the crew being prudent and making sure 1) the targets didn't escape and 2) they used the means which kept them the safest?

 

[Snoopy58]

Being a veteran myself, I hope no one assumes that I am trying to be un-patriotic by shedding a little rain on this victory parade, but isnt using a 40mm boffers or 105mm cannon on soft targets retreating from the AO a little bit of an over kill.

No, it is not.

It's less "overkill" than dropping a 500# bomb on their building, and the laws of war don't differentiate between killing a guy with a handgun, a howitzer, or a 2000# bomb on his noggin. They're all allowed. Tactical choice by the commander involved. No violation of LOAC. Would you care to quote some part of the Law of Armed Conflict that you feel would prohibit the use of artillery against ground combatants?

Or would you feel better if it had to be a guy on the ground with a handgun shooting at the terrorists? Would that be more fair and more sporting for you?

And where on earth did you (ms6073) get the silly line about "targets retreating from the AO"? Do you have insight on the location of this target & the date it was attacked & the previous movements of those particular terrorists? If not, then please keep your stupid perjorative remarks to yourself.

 

[ms6073]

Edited

 

[DJS]

I want to see us take down ever last one of those SOB's but lets do it the right way! We are supposed to be the good guys - the ones who take the moral high ground and do the right thing after all.

You've got to be kidding, right? Are you seriously asserting that it matters whether we kill terrorists with bombs or machine guns?

One way, we've got little terrorist body parts all shot to he!!. The other way, we've got littler terrorist body parts all blown to he!!.

Or what, specifically, am I misunderstanding?

 

[Freight Dog]

If we nuked them, maybe that'd be a slight overkill, using 40mm and 105mm ammunition is definitely not.

What about the use of daisy-cutters? I absolutely LOVED those..

I also love the grouchy media videos too...


www.grouchymedia.com

-----
George W. Bush: "... we will smoke them out of their holes.."

 

[Snoopy58]

A guy from the Rangers has a problem with a gunship using 40mm & 105mm on the bad guys? I must be missing something here!

My question regarding what part of LOAC frowns upon using artillery against ground combatants wasn't answered (and it won't be -- it doesn't).

My question about the validity of the remark about "retreating" targets wasn't answered, and I continue to maintain that it was a stupid, baseless comment.

I have all kinds of admiration for the men of the Ranger batallions & the 82nd airborne & plenty of other Army units who make vast sacrifices serving our country. I take issue with the post that suggested that using airborne artillery against ground combatants is a bad idea. I take issue with the suggestion that the terrorists in Afghanistan (or this video) were "retreating."

What exactly WOULD be the "right way" to kill the terrorists in Afghanistan?

 

[Typhoon1244]

Holy cow.

How could you not develop a twisted sense of humor doing work like this?

"Okay, kill that guy. No, not that guy, the guy by the jeep. He's got a hat on. Yeah, that's him." Bzhrrrrrrrrrrrt! "Okay, nice job. Now the guy by the latrine--no wait, get that Volkswagon first...."

 

[Draginass]

ms6073's post is about the most idiotic thing I've read all month.