Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a preventable disaster killed six marines

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#41

Post by TeMPOraL »

eaandkw wrote: post #38
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That question is too broad. It depends on the situation. If you know in advance where you're going to need the extra firepower (i.e. "we're gonna take that village over there") then you set up artillery. It's accurate gets where you need it quick, is cheap and can't be shot down en-route. If you are fighting a war of occupation and patrolling basically everywhere and don't know where you'll run into a fight then you…

Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF. The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.

I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#42

Post by eaandkw »

aspaceman wrote: post #5
salex89 wrote: post #3

I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look up US air units/forces, there is a bunch of stuff left to the national guards, marines etc. and flying is obviously something to be taken seriously. And it looks like they are more likely to screw it up or take it less seriously.

The various forces do different things in the air. I'm not super knowledgeable about this, so someone might have more details. Air Force is general flight missions. They tend towards support and recon. Navy is focused on carrier support and sea missions. Marines are focused on CAS and both land and sea missions. Lot of helicopters as well. So each branch takes different responsibilities. I don't think this is an issu…

You should look up the MAGTF concept. Pilots are pilots and they are all very well trained. The Marines generally deploy in a fully functional unit that has a ground element, support element, and air element. There are different sizes of MAGTFs that can support various levels of operations anywhere in the world. One of the many advantages of the MAGTF is that everyone is speaking the same "language" and using the same playbook making communication a lot easier.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#43

Post by ethbro »

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

That they have many flaws does not mean that they don't have strengths.

For some use cases the strengths outweigh the flaws.

Combat operations are certainly such a use case.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#44

Post by cafard »

thrower123 wrote: post #34
pjc50 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the original post said they were flying aircraft while still impaired afterwards ...

All the Airforce personnel that I've drunk with tell me that a couple minutes on pure oxygen do wonders to clear up a hangover.

Pure oxygen may clear up a hangover, but as far as I know the body metabolizes alcohol at a fixed rate unaffected by oxygen, exercise, etc.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#45

Post by JoeAltmaier »

cafard wrote: post #44
thrower123 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the Airforce personnel that I've drunk with tell me that a couple minutes on pure oxygen do wonders to clear up a hangover.

Pure oxygen may clear up a hangover, but as far as I know the body metabolizes alcohol at a fixed rate unaffected by oxygen, exercise, etc.

Seems reasonable that oxygen should affect metabolic rates.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#46

Post by jonstewart »

The preventable disaster—and one that’s cost taxpayers maybe a trillion dollars with the F-35–is that the Marines have fighter jets. The argument we should be having is whether the Navy should have its own fighter jet capabilities in addition to the Air Force... but the argument we’re having is that the Marines also have fight jets and impose silly requirements on their jets.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#47

Post by 0xBA5ED »

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

>I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences

This is not an open problem at all. It is a _well_ explained phenomenon.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#48

Post by neurobashing »

salex89 wrote: post #3

I'm not really into military doctrine, but why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? When you look up US air units/forces, there is a bunch of stuff left to the national guards, marines etc. and flying is obviously something to be taken seriously. And it looks like they are more likely to screw it up or take it less seriously.

It makes for better unit cohesion - Marines can train with Marines, and at least in theory everyone will eg know everyone's radio freqs and call signs and so on. (In practice, lol no not even close)

Also specific to the Marines is the idea of delivering a fully-operational fighting force anywhere in the world in a short time: infantry, armor, artillery, CAS. Marines even have their own specops (Recon). So while the Marines rely on the Navy for transport (the Marines are a part of the Navy, after all) their land warfare doctrine calls for combined arms. Can't have CAS if the wingwipers are busy doing top-cover 100 miles out from your beach assault.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#49

Post by ceejayoz »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #45
cafard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure oxygen may clear up a hangover, but as far as I know the body metabolizes alcohol at a fixed rate unaffected by oxygen, exercise, etc.

Seems reasonable that oxygen should affect metabolic rates.

Not enough to sober up in a matter of minutes.

It may wake you up a bit, you're still impaired relative to where you'd have been without the alcohol in your system (or lack of sleep or whatever other impairment is present).

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#50

Post by ceejayoz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #41
eaandkw wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surface to surface missiles are basically just indirect fire. I believe that the Army's MLRSs would qualify for IDF. The difference between IDF and direct fire is mostly to reduce collateral damage. Direct fire can be more accurate and limit damage to surrounding areas. It is also easier to hit moving targets with direct fire.

I don't know all that much about what weapons the US currently uses on the battlefield, but I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough? Also, wouldn't CAS be better handled by UAVs anyway? They're cheaper, they have much better payload-to-weight ratio, and don't put a trained pilot in harm's way.

> I'd imagine that missiles laser-guided by ground troops would be accurate enough?

Ground troops have a hard time lasing a target they can't see due to being pinned down in a ditch by a machine gun.

Post reply on HN