800 people evacuated on one C-17 flight

Velocity173 said:
Didn’t help that their Air Force was grounded in the last few days. Not gonna win any ground war without air support.

“And if the choppers stop coming, we all get slaughtered.”
Click to expand...

I agree it definitely did not help. But worth noting that the Taliban had zero aircraft, and they won.
 
Ed Haywood said:
These are military systemic issues, not some kind of inherent characteristic of Afghan men.
Click to expand...

Well put. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to argue over on TFTMNBN. I don’t characterize the average Afghan fighter as a coward without walking in his shoes just because he isn’t standing up to the current incarnation of the Taliban in the current situation. My goodness.
 
genna said:
Frankly, poor, uneducated, green soldiers make up vast majority of all human wars(even ours prior to becoming professional military), so that doesn't mean that much to me.
Click to expand...

While the typical 11B (infantry) isn’t exactly going to be on the high school honor roll and come from wealthy parents, there’s no comparing them to ANA. Our Soldiers can at least learn how to operate complex weaponry and for the most have the confidence and discipline to carry out their orders. ANA lack any common definition of what a Soldier is. These people weren’t exactly coming from the bloodlines of Tali or Mujahideen.

Again, ANA Soldiers for the most part were completely illiterate. We looked at them as if they were mentally impaired. But, we went on with the business of training them anyway. Now was that a mistake on our part to train people that were essentially untrainable? Just got done watching an ABC news vid with Martha Raddatz and she says it was. I disagree. It wasn’t that it was a mistake, it was the only option we had. What would have been better? I guess we should’ve Issued each of them a bow and arrow and said good luck.

It’s no different than a lot of the Middle Eastern countries where contract pilots and mechs from western civilization work there. That’s because they have a populace that as a whole lack the necessary traits to do those jobs effectively. Good story in the book “Viper Pilot” on how ate up the Egyptian AF is. That’s why they have American F-16 contractor pilots to train them. Seen the same thing with Saudis as well but I digress.
 
I think a big factor in these types of fights too is how they are fought. We fight in a civilized manner, we have the Geneva convention, Rules of Engagement, etc. The bad guy would rather behead your wife and kids in front of you. Which side would you rather be on?
 
Velocity173 said:
While the typical 11B (infantry) isn’t exactly going to be on the high school honor roll and come from wealthy parents, there’s no comparing them to ANA. Our Soldiers can at least learn how to operate complex weaponry and for the most have the confidence and discipline to carry out their orders. ANA lack any common definition of what a Soldier is. These people weren’t exactly coming from the bloodlines of Tali or Mujahideen.

Again, ANA Soldiers for the most part were completely illiterate. We looked at them as if they were mentally impaired. But, we went on with the business of training them anyway. Now was that a mistake on our part to train people that were essentially untrainable? Just got done watching an ABC news vid with Martha Raddatz and she says it was. I disagree. It wasn’t that it was a mistake, it was the only option we had. What would have been better? I guess we should’ve Issued each of them a bow and arrow and said good luck.

It’s no different than a lot of the Middle Eastern countries where contract pilots and mechs from western civilization work there. That’s because they have a populace that as a whole lack the necessary traits to do those jobs effectively. Good story in the book “Viper Pilot” on how ate up the Egyptian AF is. That’s why they have American F-16 contractor pilots to train them. Seen the same thing with Saudis as well but I digress.
Click to expand...


You are comparing a professional, volunteer, hundreds of billions per year, first world military to a A"N"A. Of course they will not measure up. What I am saying is that throughout entire human history including most of USA's history(think back to Vietnam even) armies were made up of mostly uneducated peasants(later industrial workers and peasants). Hasn't stopped them from fighting well and kicking some professional armies butts. I'm pretty sure Taliban fighters aren't exactly scholars
 
midwestpa24 said:
I think a big factor in these types of fights too is how they are fought. We fight in a civilized manner, we have the Geneva convention, Rules of Engagement, etc. The bad guy would rather behead your wife and kids in front of you. Which side would you rather be on?
Click to expand...

That's a caricature of what actually happens, mostly inaccurate, and mostly wrong.

An insurgent movement cannot survive without the support of the population. Period. The reason the Taliban can operate without air support is because they have complete freedom of movement within the populace. They can dress as civilians and drive around in Toyota pickup trucks and nobody points them out. They can hide weapons and ammo in houses and nobody turns it in. They can go to villages and ask for food, water, and shelter and nobody refuses them. When the US and ANA move up a valley, the Taliban get phone calls to warn them. The laborers in US and ANA camps report everything that happens.

You can't get that with fear, not reliably. The hard truth is that in most of the Pashtun areas, Taliban forces were seen as friends of the people, and indeed composed of the people. In the same way that Joe Soldier cannot pay for a beer in rural Alabama, Johnny Jihad doesn't have to go begging for goat and rice in the Peshawar valley. They give it willingly. In many cases their sons are in the Muj too.

Where there is some truth is that once they WIN and establish territorial control, the loons come out and establish Sharia. They tend to overplay their hand and pretty soon everyone gets sick of a bunch of outsiders running around chopping off the hands of everyone who plays tennis and banning air conditioning because The Prophet Muhammad did not have it in the sixth century.

That's pretty much how we accidentally won in Iraq, before we lost. The Al Qaeda spin offs in Sunni Iraq were so terrible to live under that eventually the same tribes that supported them got sick of them and started the "Anbar Awakening" in 2007. We armed the tribes and they turned against the outside Jihadi's trying to control them. I left in 2007 at the height of the surge; when I returned in 2009, US troops were watching Fox News and hitting the gym twice a day. Then of course ISIS came in, got some territory, started chopping off hands and seizing 9 year old wives, and the same cycle started all over again.

Same story line was propagated in Vietnam, and it was mostly BS there too. Viet Cong were almost entirely South Vietnamese citizens who joined willingly. The ugly reality is that the opposing cause (throw out the foreigners) appealed more than our cause (stopping global communism).

"The guerilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." - Mao Tse Tung
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
This is the part I don't understand. 300K trained soldiers, some highly trained, and they apparently just...disappeared into the mist.
Click to expand...

50,000 Afghan security forces have lost their lives since 2015.
 
Not sure Vietnam and Afghanistan are comparable. In VN we were fighting Vietcong who would fight to their last breath against the US, France, and the crooks in Saigon running things. Ho Chi Min was their George Washington and they would fight to the death for him. The Afghan "army" has no central beliefs around which they can coalesce. The Taliban are their equivalent to the VC.

My dad commanded a USAF commando squadron flying C-123's during the Vietnam war flying into Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive among others. After that war he said we shouldn't have been there. This from a guy who won a distinguished flying cross, air medal, bronze star and others. Maybe he was on to something.
 
I led a helicopter flight platoon in Vietnam, and volunteered for the whole thing. Serving one's country is what many good southern boys did in those days. Common theme is that we were there for the grunts, and to have each other's back. It was simple.

Gave the matter no further thought except to mourn our losses and cope with return to civilian life. Years later it started chewing on me. Still does. To say anything more would require more space and profanity than tolerable here.

Only one thing; I pray sincerely that someday before it's too late American politicians learn from (recent) history.
 
Archer Jack said:
My dad commanded a USAF commando squadron flying C-123's during the Vietnam war flying into Khe Sanh and the Tet Offensive among others. After that war he said we shouldn't have been there.
Click to expand...

My Dad served in Vietnam also, as an advisor to a Vietnamese Army Infantry Battalion, right in the middle of Tet. That's him, 2nd from right, after his first combat engagement. Note sergeant first class in center holding AK-47. Generally a sign of NVA or VC Main Force opposition, not local guerillas.

Dad vietnam resized.jpg

Most of his comments about advising ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) units could easily be applied to our later efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest similarity was that we half-assed all three efforts. We dumped a lot of money into equipment without building sustainment capability, we formed large units of troops without the institutions to support them, and we cobbled together advisory teams as a low priority effort. When I told him we were building advisory teams in Iraq, the first words out of his mouth were "I hope you do a better job than we did."

We were never going to win in Vietnam, because the outcome was much more important to the other side than it was to us. They were always going to be willing to fight harder and longer and sacrifice more than we were. Sadly we lost a whole lot of good men learning that lesson, including my Dad, who died last fall of Parkinsons caused by Agent Orange exposure.

That does not mean the cause was wrong. Global communism was not an imagined threat, it was real and it was an existential threat to Western Democracy. Just like Global Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to us now. But if you cannot figure out a viable method to achieve your goals with the resources at hand, then you have to adjust your goals or you will squander your resources. In war those resources are young mens' lives.
 
Last edited:
Ed Haywood said:
My Dad served in Vietnam also, as an advisor to a Vietnamese Army Infantry Battalion, right in the middle of Tet. That's him, 2nd from right, after his first combat engagement. Note sergeant first class in center holding AK-47. Generally a sign of NVA or VC Main Force opposition, not local guerillas.

View attachment 99277

Most of his comments about advising ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) units could easily be applied to our later efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest similarity was that we half-assed all three efforts. We dumped a lot of money into equipment without building sustainment capability, we formed large units of troops without the institutions to support them, and we cobbled together advisory teams as a low priority effort. When I told him we were building advisory teams in Iraq, the first words out of his mouth were "I hope they do a better job than we did."

We were never going to win in Vietnam, because the outcome was much more important to the other side than it was to us. They were always going to be willing to fight harder and longer and sacrifice more than we were. Sadly we lost a whole lot of good men learning that lesson, including my Dad, who died last fall of Parkinsons caused by Agent Orange exposure.

That does not mean the cause was wrong. Global communism was not an imagined threat, it was real and it was an existential threat to Western Democracy. Just like Global Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to us now. But if you cannot figure out a viable method to achieve your goals with the resources at hand, then you have to adjust your goals or you will squander your resources. In war those resources are young mens' lives.
Click to expand...

I guess I have to question exactly what the cause 'was.' Certainly, JFK and Robert McNamara sold the war on the basis of fighting expansive communism, but I don't think any of their predecessors believed that.

Ho Chi Minh wanted two things in life - eradicate the French, and he wanted to unify the South Vietnamese people with the North Vietnamese people, who, culturally, had been distant for many generations prior to the French occupation, and are still divided to this day. Ho Chi Minh did not espouse communism as an end, but as a means to bring a people together to fight a common enemy.

In 1941, Ho Chi Minh returned to Vietnam after a long hiatus, and formed the Viet Minh, who were a group of North Vietnamese that resisted the Japanese occupation during WWII. After the end of WWII, he expected that he would have an opening to take power after the Japanese left. Instead, the Japanese honored the agreement they had with the French to return power to them once the war was over, in exchange for them standing aside during the war.

In 1946 after the war ended, Ho Chi Minh appealed to the US to remove the French. But, of course, saying to the United States, 'Hey, US, we want your help in removing your own ally from power in Vietnam and by the way we want to replace them with a communist form of government' was a pretty hard sell. So, they went to war with the French, seizing Hanoi, and in 1954, defeated the French at Bien Din Phu. Treaties were drawn, and the countries were separated in to two countries, North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The French were allowed to stay in Southern Vietnam, but they saw the handwriting on the wall and left.

There was a power vacuum. Eisenhower decided that the US needed to get involved to help the South Vietnamese set up a form of government. But, the decision had been made not to get militarily involved with Vietnam, even though it was known that Ho Chi Minh eventually wanted to retake it.

Fast forward to 1963. The Soviet Union immediately went to work arming the North Vietnamese with a strong military, based on the core Viet Minh, who had endured the Japanese and the French since 1954. Well the Chinese initially but they bailed out pretty quick. So at the end of those ten years, the North Vietnamese had a strong presence.

When the North Vietnamese proceeded to move south past the 17th parallel, JFK, being in an election year, decided that he couldn't have a communist takeover on his watch, so he reversed the policy, and launched the war. The thing about it was, the North Vietnamese had a ten year head start. They had everything. Tanks. Artillery. Heavy mech Infantry. Everything a ground force needed and more of it. We were playing catch up, and the fact that we had to deal with the Viet Cong, insurgent guerillas with no real teeth but a huge nuisance factor, added to the problem. Sure, more troops would have worked. But how many more? We were an army of occupation. That means committing a lot more resources than the insurgent army.

Why did we do it? You can blame it on JFK's election crisis. But, the reality of the situation was, we did form an alliance with the South Vietnamese people and helped form their government. So, I will call it a just cause, but for a different reason than you might.
 
Rushie said:
Well put. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to argue over on TFTMNBN. I don’t characterize the average Afghan fighter as a coward without walking in his shoes just because he isn’t standing up to the current incarnation of the Taliban in the current situation. My goodness.
Click to expand...
TFTMNBN ??
 
luvflyin said:
?? cfiscreamsno.com
Click to expand...

I guess we can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink!

@Rushie was referencing the remnants of the Spin Zone (PilotSpin.com). Basically an echo chamber of about 10 regular posters who bash any viewpoint not expressly conservative and lurk over here to see when threads get locked/banned to revel in how "censored" PoA is.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I guess we can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink!

@Rushie was referencing the remnants of the Spin Zone (PilotSpin.com). Basically an echo chamber of about 10 regular posters who bash any viewpoint not expressly conservative and lurk over here to see when threads get locked/banned to revel in how "censored" PoA is.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I got that now. I just registered and surfed around a little.
 
Velocity173 said:
I’m hearing the PIC of the C-17 is being court martialed because none of his 640 pax were wearing PT belts while walking on the ramp at night. He’s screwed.
Click to expand...

Nah, that only counts for crossing Disney Ave...

When we did our awards ceremony on the ramp at Bagram, I came up with the idea to hide our reflector belts under our jackets. When the ceremony was closed, we all exposed our very bright belts and connected them all together to form long ropes that we wrapped around the helicopters behind us, which were positioned for the photo op.

Our intent was to make all the CSM's go nuts. There were always a few dozen of them around checking for empty chambers and reflector belts!
 
Ed Haywood said:
My Dad served in Vietnam also, as an advisor to a Vietnamese Army Infantry Battalion, right in the middle of Tet. That's him, 2nd from right, after his first combat engagement. Note sergeant first class in center holding AK-47. Generally a sign of NVA or VC Main Force opposition, not local guerillas.

View attachment 99277

Most of his comments about advising ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam) units could easily be applied to our later efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest similarity was that we half-assed all three efforts. We dumped a lot of money into equipment without building sustainment capability, we formed large units of troops without the institutions to support them, and we cobbled together advisory teams as a low priority effort. When I told him we were building advisory teams in Iraq, the first words out of his mouth were "I hope you do a better job than we did."

We were never going to win in Vietnam, because the outcome was much more important to the other side than it was to us. They were always going to be willing to fight harder and longer and sacrifice more than we were. Sadly we lost a whole lot of good men learning that lesson, including my Dad, who died last fall of Parkinsons caused by Agent Orange exposure.

That does not mean the cause was wrong. Global communism was not an imagined threat, it was real and it was an existential threat to Western Democracy. Just like Global Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to us now. But if you cannot figure out a viable method to achieve your goals with the resources at hand, then you have to adjust your goals or you will squander your resources. In war those resources are young mens' lives.
Click to expand...
Well said. I'm sorry for the loss of your dad. Sadly my dad may have contributed to it in some way since one of his main jobs was flying over the jungles spraying the agent orange. His loadmaster in charge of getting the spray in the tanks was LBJ's son in law, Patrick Nugent. Never heard if he was affected by the chemical.
 
I once loaded 108 women and babies in a CH-47 Chinook.

Cargo straps laced through the tiedown rings restrained them.

Somewhere around 50 Afghanis got a ride from a village high in the mountains to Kandahar a couple of times...
 
Rushie said:
Well put. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to argue over on TFTMNBN. I don’t characterize the average Afghan fighter as a coward without walking in his shoes just because he isn’t standing up to the current incarnation of the Taliban in the current situation. My goodness.
Click to expand...

wait, what? you are arguing on TFTMNBN? That doesn't fit the narrative ... how dare you!
 
Once upon a time I got a ride in a C-130. It featured "festival seating". Everybody got their square foot to sit down. As for the 800 aboard a C-17. Back of the envelope calculations: Estimated average weight per Afghan human: 150 lbs. Times 800 = 120,000 lbs or 60 tons. About the weight of an Abrams tank. Not sure, but can a C-17 carry more than one tank?
I once landed my "Dustoff" Huey at a Field Hospital back in the day, with people literally stacked to the ceiling. The count was 28 getting off. Did not do a W&B, but the old girl did OK.
Fast fwd a few years and flying to vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, Many times, I was handed a passenger manifest that listed passenger and bags in US pounds, Brit Stone (about 16 lb per Stone) and Kilos (2.2 lbs per K.) It was possible to calc T.O. wt, CG and CG limits for a dozen passengers in about 3 minutes flat.
Just asking, How long would it take for a C-17?
 
IK04 said:
I once loaded 108 women and babies in a CH-47 Chinook.

Cargo straps laced through the tiedown rings restrained them.

Somewhere around 50 Afghanis got a ride from a village high in the mountains to Kandahar a couple of times...
Click to expand...

Think we had a UH-60 that did 30 in a avalanche evac in Afghanistan. Not sure if you all had the requirement but we had to get a 1 star approval for seats out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top