View Full Version : First MOH ever recorded on vid.
Qualified apparently for non one, but two MOH's. Shot 16 times and full of shrapnel did he fight on. If not captured on vid, would sound like a bad Rambo movie. Surprised it took so long, but it hits you in the allergies what Chapman did and gave his life in the process to earn the MOH:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oKMjTqdTYo&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0hIdctaIIakVf9eYqKusLE57RCv3at7qQStCS6XUcKkYZqZ9vnDU6J3po
Wow.
We salute you John Chapman.
Have you read the book??
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Wow.
We salute you John Chapman.
Have you read the book??
I have not. I knew the basic story
I met him, briefly, as we had a mutual friend with 24th STS, this was around 2000. He was a man among men. Stud, put teammates above himself.
Digital_Damage
06-27-19, 15:36
WTF....
So.... SEALS tucked tail and ran after saving their own...
But a AF Combat Controller rushed the bunker and survived multiple engagements for days...
WTF....
So.... SEALS tucked tail and ran after saving their own...
But a AF Combat Controller rushed the bunker and survived multiple engagements for days...
M4C readers and members include those who served in those units, and even direct participants in those events. Tread lightly and deferentially unless that describes you as well.
Digital_Damage
06-27-19, 16:40
M4C readers and members include those who served in those units, and even direct participants in those events. Tread lightly and deferentially unless that describes you as well.
Just stating the characterization of the chain of events as stated in the video, I personally know nothing of the incident. First time seeing this... someone in the know want to explain?
1) They climb hill to help/retrieve a team member under extreme fire
2) Team Leader falls in snow, Chapman throws himself at bunker securing access to teammate.
3) He gets shot twice.
4) Team grabs their member that I assume had already passed and leaves Chapman behind.
5) Chapman continues his fight for another two days. TWO DAYS?!
Can someone provide some clarity?
.. am I wrong here?
Where do warriors like that come from? It humbles me just to watch the video, and it makes me look at my own life and see how little I've accomplished in comparison. Then we read of millionaire athletes who take a knee during the National Anthem and they are called heroes for "taking a stand". God help us.
Just stating the characterization of the chain of events as stated in the video, I personally know nothing of the incident. First time seeing this... someone in the know want to explain?
1) They climb hill to help/retrieve a team member under extreme fire
2) Team Leader falls in snow, Chapman throws himself at bunker securing access to teammate.
3) He gets shot twice.
4) Team grabs their member that I assume had already passed and leaves Chapman behind.
5) Chapman continues his fight for another two days. TWO DAYS?!
Can someone provide some clarity?
.. am I wrong here?
From what I can tell the whole battle was only an hour or two, the SEAL's missed Chapman in the dark because he was inside bunker 1 passed out. The SEAL's retreated under fire with two of the three being wounded. The first CH-47 took a RPG before landing and one of the 6 SEAL's fell out, chopper went 8 klicks and landed where the 5 remaining SEAL's and Chapman immediately got on another CH-47 to go back and look for the missing team member. From watching the video it looks like only 3 of the SEAL's made it out but I am not sure.
What can you say about a man like this, words fail me, takes two hits from a PKM, goes out, comes too and continues the fight, hears another chopper coming in, leaves a protected position to provide covering fire. Goes down finally with 16 wounds, Some Gave All. I don't think there is a NFL player or politician in DC good enough to lick his boots.
Just stating the characterization of the chain of events as stated in the video, I personally know nothing of the incident. First time seeing this... someone in the know want to explain?
5) Chapman continues his fight for another two days. TWO DAYS?!
Where are you getting two days?
Please God, don't turn this into a pissing match.
One of the SEALs on that op, then Senior Chief Britt K. Slabinski also received the MOH.
NYH1.
Digital_Damage
06-27-19, 18:28
Where are you getting two days?
You are right, rewatched. Narrator said 40+ minutes, thought he said 40+ hours.
I met him, briefly, as we had a mutual friend with 24th STS, this was around 2000. He was a man among men. Stud, put teammates above himself.
From that vid, I'd say that goes without saying! Has anyone ever received two MOHs for the same battle?! If so, that must be a very small group.
I'm reminded of the quote from the movie The Bridges at Toko-Ri, where RAdm. George Tarrant asks "Where do we get such men?"
What mostly strikes me while watching the vid is why the AC 130 gun ship was not able to bring more CAS for them. My understanding is they can be pin point accurate under the right conditions.
Just stating the characterization of the chain of events as stated in the video, I personally know nothing of the incident. First time seeing this... someone in the know want to explain?
1) They climb hill to help/retrieve a team member under extreme fire
2) Team Leader falls in snow, Chapman throws himself at bunker securing access to teammate.
3) He gets shot twice.
4) Team grabs their member that I assume had already passed and leaves Chapman behind.
5) Chapman continues his fight for another two days. TWO DAYS?!
Can someone provide some clarity?
.. am I wrong here?
You really wanna go down that path in this thread? Just don't.
From that vid, I'd say that goes without saying! Has anyone ever received two MOHs for the same battle?! If so, that must be a very small group.
I'm reminded of the quote from the movie The Bridges at Toko-Ri, where RAdm. George Tarrant asks "Where do we get such men?"
What mostly strikes me while watching the vid is why the AC 130 gun ship was not able to bring more CAS for them. My understanding is they can be pin point accurate under the right conditions.
I read the book Operation Anaconda a long time ago. I recall it saying the Spectre crew stayed on station a lot longer then they were supposed to, as they only operate in the dark. They had to break contact and head back because it got too light out.
I also remember them getting CAS from a F15 or F16 but it missed it's mark and then a Predator that hit good. I can't remember if the jets were before or after the Spectre. I do remember the Predator was the last and IIRC, that ended the contact on Takur Ghar.
NYH1.
I read the book Operation Anaconda a long time ago. I recall it saying the Spectre crew stayed on station a lot longer then they were supposed to, as they only operate in the dark. They had to break contact and head back because it got too light out.
I also remember them getting CAS from a F15 or F16 but it missed it's mark and then a Predator that hit good. I can't remember if the jets were before or after the Spectre. I do remember the Predator was the last and IIRC, that ended the contact on Takur Ghar.
NYH1.
Thanx, hadn't considered that aspect.
I have followed this event, somewhat loosely, but from the early days of the information starting to come out. As I understand it, The members of the team were under extremely intense fire and he was believed dead by fellow teammates on the ground. Having known several members of the Special Operations community throughout my military career, and on civilian side, I have no doubt that had they believed him to be alive, they would have expended every effort to recover him. This was a tragedy of unintentional errors that unfolded during the heat of battle. It happens, but a sad loss nonetheless.
From that vid, I'd say that goes without saying! Has anyone ever received two MOHs for the same battle?! If so, that must be a very small group.
I'm reminded of the quote from the movie The Bridges at Toko-Ri, where RAdm. George Tarrant asks "Where do we get such men?"
What mostly strikes me while watching the vid is why the AC 130 gun ship was not able to bring more CAS for them. My understanding is they can be pin point accurate under the right conditions.
Mogadishu.
Gary Gordon
Randy Shughart
FOB Keating
Clint Romesha
Ty Carter
Personally, I believe he should get the MOH from the portion of his actions that resulted in the AF Cross; and an Oak Leaf Cluster for the actions that have since been brought to light.
What is sad about the whole affair is that the Navy pretty much actively fought the upgrade from the AF Cross to the MOH.
I'm reminded of the quote from the movie The Bridges at Toko-Ri, where RAdm. George Tarrant asks "Where do we get such men?"
That is always the first that comes to mind. That and the fact that we don't have any kind of infinite supply and IMO we spend them recklessly far too often. To me they are one of this countries most valuable commodities and should be treated accordingly.
Say what you want about Obama, but he was a big fan of sending drone strikes rather then men. I know sometimes you have to put boots on the ground, but a lot of times you could do ordnance instead of men. Unless you have to capture somebody alive at all costs, I'm a big fan of "drone the shit out of them, repeat."
As for Chapman, "****ing hell"...that's all that really comes to mind. I can't imagine how horrible it must be to realize you've been "left behind" and "probably dying" and also realizing your are the only person in position to prevent a terrible, horrible thing from being even worse so you literally aren't allowed to die yet because you still have shit to do.
Part of me wishes he survived long enough to see the success of his actions, part of me is glad he didn't survive to see everyone leave him behind for good. That's a lonely way to die, I really hope whatever the operation was...it was worth it. Because that one guy IMO was more valuable that almost all of Congress, both sides.
Personally, I believe he should get the MOH from the portion of his actions that resulted in the AF Cross; and an Oak Leaf Cluster for the actions that have since been brought to light.
What is sad about the whole affair is that the Navy pretty much actively fought the upgrade from the AF Cross to the MOH.
If true, that is a serious shitbird move. Why anyone is a position of seniority would shame the Navy by not honoring the guy who covered asses above and beyond is amazing. Anyone with knowledge of what happened, who stood in the way should be seriously evaluated for being removed from their current position of authority. I don't think there is much that is worse than disrespecting the war dead and I don't have time for any "Army vs. Navy vs. Air Force" fratboy nonsense.
Adrenaline_6
06-28-19, 08:02
What a total badass. Nothing else to say really.
That is always the first that comes to mind. That and the fact that we don't have any kind of infinite supply and IMO we spend them recklessly far too often. To me they are one of this countries most valuable commodities and should be treated accordingly.
Say what you want about Obama, but he was a big fan of sending drone strikes rather then men. I know sometimes you have to put boots on the ground, but a lot of times you could do ordnance instead of men. Unless you have to capture somebody alive at all costs, I'm a big fan of "drone the shit out of them, repeat."
As for Chapman, "****ing hell"...that's all that really comes to mind. I can't imagine how horrible it must be to realize you've been "left behind" and "probably dying" and also realizing your are the only person in position to prevent a terrible, horrible thing from being even worse so you literally aren't allowed to die yet because you still have shit to do.
Part of me wishes he survived long enough to see the success of his actions, part of me is glad he didn't survive to see everyone leave him behind for good. That's a lonely way to die, I really hope whatever the operation was...it was worth it. Because that one guy IMO was more valuable that almost all of Congress, both sides.
T
R
U
T
H
Mogadishu.
Gary Gordon
Randy Shughart
FOB Keating
Clint Romesha
Ty Carter
I don't believe they are multiple awarded MOH. If I understand correctly, he's the first in a long time:
https://www.history.com/news/has-anyone-won-two-medals-of-honor
He wouldn't be listed in that article was 2015.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not expert on the topic.
Personally, I believe he should get the MOH from the portion of his actions that resulted in the AF Cross; and an Oak Leaf Cluster for the actions that have since been brought to light.
What is sad about the whole affair is that the Navy pretty much actively fought the upgrade from the AF Cross to the MOH.
Do I even want to know why? Not my lane, but if anyone earned that MOH, he seems a very obvious choice.
Adrenaline_6
06-28-19, 08:22
Where is it say that he got 2 MOH? I can't find anything on it. Everywhere I look it says the AF Cross got upgraded to a MOH. Not doubting you, I just can't find anything on it.
If true, that is a serious shitbird move. Why anyone is a position of seniority would shame the Navy by not honoring the guy who covered asses above and beyond is amazing. Anyone with knowledge of what happened, who stood in the way should be seriously evaluated for being removed from their current position of authority. I don't think there is much that is worse than disrespecting the war dead and I don't have time for any "Army vs. Navy vs. Air Force" fratboy nonsense.
Lots of interesting info in this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/world/asia/seal-team-6-afghanistan-man-left-for-dead.html?
Where is it say that he got 2 MOH? I can't find anything on it. Everywhere I look it says the AF Cross got upgraded to a MOH. Not doubting you, I just can't find anything on it.
2 Medals of Honor were awarded for actions during the events on Takur Ghar - to Britt K. Slabinski and John Chapman.
Andy
2 Medals of Honor were awarded for actions during the events on Takur Ghar - to Britt K. Slabinski and John Chapman.
Andy
2.21 of the vid narrator says "these actions earned him his first Medal Of Honor"
Then at 8:51 "Thus qualifying for his second Medal of Honor"
Perhaps that indicates he qualified twice but awarded once?
It's confusing the way the narrator explains it.
Apologies, I didn't watch the video.
Andy
I don't believe they are multiple awarded MOH. If I understand correctly, he's the first in a long time:
https://www.history.com/news/has-anyone-won-two-medals-of-honor
He wouldn't be listed in that article was 2015.
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not expert on the topic.
Apologies. I misread what you wrote. I thought you were asking about multiple
People receiving the MOH from the same battle.
donlapalma
06-28-19, 09:43
Damn. Thanks for posting that. I'll think of him and men like him on this upcoming Independence Day. To them we owe eternal thanks and gratitude.
Apologies. I misread what you wrote. I thought you were asking about multiple
People receiving the MOH from the same battle.
No, the much rarer event that one person receives two of them. Vid is misleading on that one. See added comments.
platoonDaddy
06-28-19, 10:02
Graphical video representation, just friggin awesome!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07afctzR_y8
Digital_Damage
06-28-19, 11:06
You really wanna go down that path in this thread? Just don't.
Don't what? Ask for clarity on a subject that I knew nothing about?
I'm not a blind groupie that hands out free passes to anyone. I expect to be informed on a subject and form my own opinion regardless of the topic of discussions affiliation.
Digital_Damage
06-28-19, 11:06
Clifs? Not signing up to feed the NYT.
Clifs? Not signing up to feed the NYT.
Never mind bro. Follow mods warnings, proceed accordingly. Google fu brings up plenty of writings on the details of the op, controversies, etc, none of which need to be rehashed here, at least by me.
Do I even want to know why? Not my lane, but if anyone earned that MOH, he seems a very obvious choice.
https://taskandpurpose.com/theres-a-lot-of-controversy-around-the-most-recent-medal-of-honor-case
Here's a poostorm: (Intercept is left leaning - unsure how much is inflated)
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/22/medal-of-honor-navy-seal-team-6-britt-slabinski/
Adrenaline_6
06-28-19, 14:10
2 Medals of Honor were awarded for actions during the events on Takur Ghar - to Britt K. Slabinski and John Chapman.
Andy
Yes, from what I understand, 1 to each, not 2 to Chapman. I could be wrong, but I can't find mention of 2 MOH anywhere else but the video. Still badass nonetheless. Not trying to demean the accomplishment whatsoever.
Yes, from what I understand, 1 to each, not 2 to Chapman. I could be wrong, but I can't find mention of 2 MOH anywhere else but the video. Still badass nonetheless. Not trying to demean the accomplishment whatsoever.
Poorly worded in the vid. It's that two of his actions in that event made him eligible for the MOH, not that he was actually awarded two MOH's. That's my take after looking into it a tad more.
https://taskandpurpose.com/theres-a-lot-of-controversy-around-the-most-recent-medal-of-honor-case
Good read. Tough to read that stuff. It seems the controversy is more about Slabinski getting an MOH than Chapman per se, but the rest others can read and decide for themselves.
Digital_Damage
06-28-19, 15:06
https://taskandpurpose.com/theres-a-lot-of-controversy-around-the-most-recent-medal-of-honor-case
Here's a poostorm: (Intercept is left leaning - unsure how much is inflated)
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/22/medal-of-honor-navy-seal-team-6-britt-slabinski/
Jesus...
If true that is rough, if Slabinski was banned from team lead by his own peers someone should have taken notice when pushing for that honor.
It appears lots of poor choices were made.
Yes, from what I understand, 1 to each, not 2 to Chapman. I could be wrong, but I can't find mention of 2 MOH anywhere else but the video. Still badass nonetheless. Not trying to demean the accomplishment whatsoever.
Honestly, to me it would feel "gimmicky" to award the same person two MOH related to the same event. Once you cross the "You are now entering Valhalla" line in the sand, nothing else matters. If you are qualified for one, you are probably qualified for 10 so it is just prudent to simply give out one.
The only way anyone should get more than one MOH is to survive the first event and then redeploy and do the same kinds of things again.
Honestly, to me it would feel "gimmicky" to award the same person two MOH related to the same event. Once you cross the "You are now entering Valhalla" line in the sand, nothing else matters. If you are qualified for one, you are probably qualified for 10 so it is just prudent to simply give out one.
Per above, he qualified twice during the op, awarded once. Poor wording in the vid.
The only way anyone should get more than one MOH is to survive the first event and then redeploy and do the same kinds of things again.
Only happened 9 times one man awarded and MOH twice for two separate events, last one WWI.
Double Medal of Honor Winners
https://study.com/academy/lesson/double-medal-of-honor-winners.html
Five members of the Marine Corps received both the Army and Navy Medals for the same action, all in World War I.
Seven individuals received two Medals for different actions during the same conflict.
The final seven of the group received their Medals during different wars or periods.
platoonDaddy
06-28-19, 16:29
P
Only happened 9 times one man awarded and MOH twice for two separate events, last one WWI.
Will, should have not doubted you! All these years I thought a SF soldier with a Spanish surname received his 2nd MOH during Operation Ivory Coast. Plain as day, I can see him presented with his 2nd MOH. Bitch getting old! The POW's weren't there, at least they waxed some Ivan's.
Will, should have not doubted you! All these years I thought a SF soldier with a Spanish surname received his 2nd MOH during Operation Ivory Coast. Plain as day, I can see him presented with his 2nd MOH. Bitch getting old! The POW's weren't there, at least they waxed some Ivan's.
Ye is forgiven :thank_you2:
Holy cow... that was hard to watch. I've never heard of that before.
Outlander Systems
06-28-19, 19:58
https://i.ibb.co/qs138gg/AAEB0171-38-A4-4-F14-ABC1-62-D63718897-D.jpg
titsonritz
06-28-19, 20:41
https://taskandpurpose.com/theres-a-lot-of-controversy-around-the-most-recent-medal-of-honor-case
Here's a poostorm: (Intercept is left leaning - unsure how much is inflated)
https://theintercept.com/2018/05/22/medal-of-honor-navy-seal-team-6-britt-slabinski/
There’s “always some kind of solace sought in decorating someone with the award,” said one of Slabinski’s former leaders at SEAL Team 6, who spent more than 30 years in Special Operations. “A lot of it has to do with politics and rank and stature and always, in my opinion, the more dynamic and public the screw-up, the more likely it is that someone is going to get highly decorated.”
Another of Slabinski’s former teammates said 25 years of experience as a SEAL convinced him that the award system for valorous action has little integrity. “One of my commanders told me point-blank: The bigger the ****-up, the bigger the award.”
Wow, that sucks.
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
Another of Slabinski’s former teammates said 25 years of experience as a SEAL convinced him that the award system for valorous action has little integrity. “One of my commanders told me point-blank: The bigger the ****-up, the bigger the award.”
I don’t think that is anything new. I read years ago that JFK was initially going to be court martialed because he wasn’t where he was supposed to be and was sitting in an active shipping lane with his engines off when his PT boat got hit by the Japanese destroyer.
Belmont31R
06-29-19, 02:34
My understanding is the SEALs didn’t see movement from his PEQ so they assumed him KIA.
Also these weren’t dumb skinnies on that mountain. They were combat vets in their own right and Chechnya gave them experience fighting Russian mechanized troops. Foreign (experienced) fighters were a huge source of our KIA
Digital_Damage
06-29-19, 06:22
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
Not sure about this situation, but in many cases it has to do with elevation.
It’s interesting two men from the same battle are being awarded the same medal for what on video looks like very different actions, with quite different levels of honor.
Chapman’s was really a man amongst men. Watching him rush that bunker and take off ahead of everyone. It really sets him apart from the rest of the men on that mountain.
I can see where the bad blood comes from.
Is a non moving IR laser really a good sign of life or not? It would seem a very honorable and brave thing, in that situation, would have been for some closest to him to check his pulse? Just seems something a moh type person would naturally just do. Seems like something Chapman would have done. If I knew my team makes were just going to go “welp his laser isn’t moving, he’s dead” idk if I’d be volunteering to go out with them.
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
I was really waiting for OH-58D to chime in, but...
The Chinook can lift/carry more than the Blackhawk, and that really becomes a factor flying in the higher elevations required to operate in Afghanistan, where all the helicopters had down graded capabilities. I know the Army initially flew the older Apaches in AFG due to the weight of the upgraded TADS/PNVS.
Another factor is that helicopters simply did not have the ground fire threat in Afghanistan that they did in Iraq. All we flew there were Blackhawks and Apaches and I don't remember seeing a Chinook once in 2005 (in an aviation unit, not a pilot).
Andy
May God bless John Chapman and his family, friends. That footage is incredible. He must have had balls that clanged when he walked
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
As others have indicated, I believe it's a matter of the elevation. You'd think they'd have at least sent some CAS that could be on station separate from the AC 130 gun ship that had to leave once it got light out, but perhaps the air is too thin for the Apaches and other options?
For background, read "Robert's Ridge" and "Not A Good Day To Die."
This has been one of many things that has caused a lot of turmoil in NSW, and between NSW and other SOF. I have been out for quite a while now and people I knew involved are all out now and I've been away from the communications surrounding all of this, but suffice it to say Slab upgrading to The Medal was very contentious and not well received in the Air Force.
ramairthree
06-29-19, 13:51
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
Take a list of:
availabilities of aircraft
Altitudes required to operate over
Number of personnel to move
Distances required to travel, loiter, return, refuel points
Qualifications of pilots available for conditions
Lift capability
It’s interesting two men from the same battle are being awarded the same medal for what on video looks like very different actions, with quite different levels of honor.
Chapman’s was really a man amongst men. Watching him rush that bunker and take off ahead of everyone. It really sets him apart from the rest of the men on that mountain.
I can see where the bad blood comes from.
Is a non moving IR laser really a good sign of life or not? It would seem a very honorable and brave thing, in that situation, would have been for some closest to him to check his pulse? Just seems something a moh type person would naturally just do. Seems like something Chapman would have done. If I knew my team makes were just going to go “welp his laser isn’t moving, he’s dead” idk if I’d be volunteering to go out with them.
You don't know the coms on the ground. Plus we are looking from an elevated view. From about 30 seconds to 47 seconds you see the SEALS form what initially looks like a security star for 360 degree defensive coverage. At around 47 seconds they split, I would guess after receiving assignments from Slabiski. The split into two, two man groups, it looks like the plan is to lay fire into the bunker - from above it doesn'y look like they have split enough, at night, on the ground, who knows?
My candy ass, sitting behind the keyboard, with an aerial view, thinks they should have split further and attacked the bunker by simultaneous bounds from each flank - Once again, don't know terrain at ground level.
As it unfolds, at about 2:10 it looks as if the two SEALS at the rear are supposed to lay down a base of fire as the 4 others bound to the objective. Notice at about 1:57 two SEALS jump up and begin moving toward the two men forward (Slibiski and Chapman) it looks like Sibliski MAY have been close enough to Chapman for voice com if Chapmans inter-team coms were down.
At about 4:42 you see Lonesome George post out as flank security, Chapman and Slibiski, at bunker 1 are no doubt pouring it onto the rock, enabling the two SELAS lower left to assault the rock.
When you say Chapman was really a man amongst men. Watching him rush that bunker and take off ahead of everyone. It really sets him apart from the rest of the men on that mountain.
I agree about his courage. We don't know what we don't know, did Chapman have commo? If he had not taken off from the group, would Slibiski have use a three pronged attack on the objective.
It is obvious Slibiski was moving to catch Chapman, we might assume his (Slibiski's) momentary halt was due to incoming rounds.
These were, no doubt, all brave men. We don't know if the plan made while the helicopter was inbound lasted more than seconds after unassing the helicopter.
The video was fascinating to watch, until you remember that we are watching men die.
You don't know the coms on the ground. Plus we are looking from an elevated view. From about 30 seconds to 47 seconds you see the SEALS form what initially looks like a security star for 360 degree defensive coverage. At around 47 seconds they split, I would guess after receiving assignments from Slabiski. The split into two, two man groups, it looks like the plan is to lay fire into the bunker - from above it doesn'y look like they have split enough, at night, on the ground, who knows?
My candy ass, sitting behind the keyboard, with an aerial view, thinks they should have split further and attacked the bunker by simultaneous bounds from each flank - Once again, don't know terrain at ground level.
As it unfolds, at about 2:10 it looks as if the two SEALS at the rear are supposed to lay down a base of fire as the 4 others bound to the objective. Notice at about 1:57 two SEALS jump up and begin moving toward the two men forward (Slibiski and Chapman) it looks like Sibliski MAY have been close enough to Chapman for voice com if Chapmans inter-team coms were down.
At about 4:42 you see Lonesome George post out as flank security, Chapman and Slibiski, at bunker 1 are no doubt pouring it onto the rock, enabling the two SELAS lower left to assault the rock.
When you say Chapman was really a man amongst men. Watching him rush that bunker and take off ahead of everyone. It really sets him apart from the rest of the men on that mountain.
I agree about his courage. We don't know what we don't know, did Chapman have commo? If he had not taken off from the group, would Slibiski have use a three pronged attack on the objective.
It is obvious Slibiski was moving to catch Chapman, we might assume his (Slibiski's) momentary halt was due to incoming rounds.
These were, no doubt, all brave men. We don't know if the plan made while the helicopter was inbound lasted more than seconds after unassing the helicopter.
The video was fascinating to watch, until you remember that we are watching men die.
Only aspect that I think of that I feel qualified to question, is their landing where they did. Sibliski claimed his plan was to land a few miles away and hump in to see what was there, he claimed pressure from above forced him to change the plan and land right in the middle of armed and ready enemies as what happened. Some blamed Sibliski for that. The rest, I can't even fathom the chaos of such a thing and have no opinions on the matter. I can understand why some controversy would exist.
Guys like this are inspiring beyond measure. Will thanks for sharing. Never heard of this heroic and tragic event.
I cant imagine dropping into heavy enemy fire, that would SUCK.
PB
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
This article explains it better than I could. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/20080305.aspx I have an acquaintance that flew with the 160th and he loved the MH-47D and E.
This article explains it better than I could. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/20080305.aspx I have an acquaintance that flew with the 160th and he loved the MH-47D and E.I was going to say, from what I was told in my air defense days, the CH-47 is definitely not a slow ship
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
This article explains it better than I could. https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/20080305.aspx I have an acquaintance that flew with the 160th and he loved the MH-47D and E.
Interesting article, thanks for posting. I am surprised at the cost of those new, $35 million each!
Interesting article, thanks for posting. I am surprised at the cost of those new, $35 million each!
Ha, that's a steal the new USMC Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is over twice that amount at 87 mil, as much as an F35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion
I was going to say, from what I was told in my air defense days, the CH-47 is definitely not a slow ship
Sent from my SM-J727T using Tapatalk
No, it is not, VN era they had to slowdown for their gunship escorts - AH1 Cobras and Huey Gunships. Back in the late 70's and 80's my Pathfinder Platoon did a lot of support for the 190th Aviation Company, Spartans, a reserve CH-47 outfit out of Olathe, KS. Lots of VN vet pilots, they had stories.
They were a fun loving bunch, on cross country hops to and from AT we adopted the motto 'If you've got time to spare, fly Chinook Air.' I also learned which FBO's in the Southeast United States had loaner cars for flight crew.
Can someone in the know explain why the CH47, a large lumbering cargo helicopter, was used (and apparently frequently used in Afghanistan) for assaults into hot landings zones? It seems the Blackhawk is made for those situations and would have been a better choice.
The CH-47/MH-47 has a lot of power and a high service ceiling of @ 20,000 feet. Afghanistan has ranges of mountains that exceed even our Rockies - certain ranges in Afghanistan will average 16,000 feet to over 20,000 feet. I am guessing most of our special operations activities have been in mountain ranges there @ 10,000 feet in elevation. The Chinook handles heavier and larger loads and fly higher than the UH-60. With one inbound flight, the Chinook can put more equipment and personnel on location faster. That's why they're still in use.
During Iran-Contra, the CH-47 provided lots of weapons crate carrying capacity to jungle LZ's in Nicaragua, while a light aircraft like mine (MH-6/AH-6) were used for close air support during off loading and egress of the LZ. It was rare for me to be on the ground in Nicaragua.
What I hear via young officers at or headed to Rucker from USMA is the CH-47 is still the #1 platform pick for most and hardest to get. Reasons:
- optempo- you'll fly more missions
- considered "complex"- the most complex to fly (helps with post mil experience, many transition to commercial fixed wing as civvies)
- power, altitude, speed, capacity.
Apaches are next most desirable, but most end up with blackhawks. (Though blackhawk pilots usually get more hours)
Ha, that's a steal the new USMC Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is over twice that amount at 87 mil, as much as an F35.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion
It just struck me as high for a 60 year old design, although the CH-53 is almost as old.
The CH-47/MH-47 has a lot of power and a high service ceiling of @ 20,000 feet. Afghanistan has ranges of mountains that exceed even our Rockies - certain ranges in Afghanistan will average 16,000 feet to over 20,000 feet. I am guessing most of our special operations activities have been in mountain ranges there @ 10,000 feet in elevation. The Chinook handles heavier and larger loads and fly higher than the UH-60. With one inbound flight, the Chinook can put more equipment and personnel on location faster. That's why they're still in use.
During Iran-Contra, the CH-47 provided lots of weapons crate carrying capacity to jungle LZ's in Nicaragua, while a light aircraft like mine (MH-6/AH-6) were used for close air support during off loading and egress of the LZ. It was rare for me to be on the ground in Nicaragua.
Good explanation. I understand the greater lift capabilities it just seemed that the size would make it an easier target flying into a contested landing zone. I didn't know about the higher operating ceiling but that makes sense in that terrain.
What I hear via young officers at or headed to Rucker from USMA is the CH-47 is still the #1 platform pick for most and hardest to get. Reasons:
- optempo- you'll fly more missions
- considered "complex"- the most complex to fly (helps with post mil experience, many transition to commercial fixed wing as civvies)
- power, altitude, speed, capacity.
Apaches are next most desirable, but most end up with blackhawks. (Though blackhawk pilots usually get more hours)
But you don't get to pick the air frame - the Army does that for you. After flight school you do on average 3 months or more of air frame school. For me it was the OH-6 Loach. My first assignment flying was not with a combat aviation unit but to Fort Huachuca where new radar jamming gear was being tested in different air frames. We'd fly with this stuff from Libby AAF to Yuma Proving Grounds and Laguna AAF where we fly different patterns to test the effectiveness of the equipment. Myself and another pilot were recruited for what was then TF 158 at Fort Campbell while doing these test flights. We were interviewed and closely examined before being offered a role with that unit which was in the building phase - and to replace pilots recently killed in training accidents.
OH58D:
Thanks for explaining the capability of the CH47.
Grand58742
06-30-19, 09:08
My problem is it took the USAF over 15 years to finally push for something that should have been awarded in the first place.
My problem is it took the USAF over 15 years to finally push for something that should have been awarded in the first place.
Where did you read it took them that long to push for it vs taking that long to get through the process among the controversies, counter forces, etc? I mean, some don't get awarded an MOH for decades. It's a shame it took so long, but I'm unclear that's due to USAF end per se.
It just struck me as high for a 60 year old design, although the CH-53 is almost as old.
Like the -47, the CH-53 has gone through several iterations, and the newest version should be out pretty soon. It'll look like a -53, but that's where the comparison stops.
My problem is it took the USAF over 15 years to finally push for something that should have been awarded in the first place.
As I understand it, there was a concern that acts of individual heroism were not/have not been awarded appropriately.
Appropriately recognizing battlefield valor is important to the force and important to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, he said in a recent interview. .
The review of valor awards ordered by former Defense Secretary Ash Carter in January 2016 is important, the general said.
“It’s important to me that the award system is fair, that leaders do spend a lot of time on it, they take it seriously and they are committed to making sure that people get the right recognition,” he said.
Carter ordered the review in January 2016. The services looked at all valor awards to ensure service members who performed valorously were recognized at the appropriate level. Carter directed the military departments to review Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross and Silver Star medal recommendations made since Sept. 11, 2001.
Navy and Air Force officials have finished their reviews, while the Army is still working on its review. The Army has finished its first pass through the awards. The Awards and Decoration Board recommended eight percent of the awards be further examined for possible upgrade. A special Army awards and decorations board is examining those now.
The Navy and Marine Corps recommended the upgrade of 30 awards, including two to the Medal of Honor, and former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus presented some of them earlier this month.
The Air Force upgraded nine awards to eight individuals. In one of her last official major duties as Air Force secretary, Deborah Lee James presented two Silver Star awards last week to Air Force Col. Christopher Barnett for two separate actions in Afghanistan. Barnett, a former HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter pilot, had been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with valor for those actions.
The service secretaries can upgrade to the Silver Star and service cross awards, but must pass any request for upgrade to the Medal of Honor through the defense secretary to the president for approval.
As I understand it, there was a concern that acts of individual heroism were not/have not been awarded appropriately.
Appropriately recognizing battlefield valor is important to the force and important to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, he said in a recent interview. .
The review of valor awards ordered by former Defense Secretary Ash Carter in January 2016 is important, the general said.
“It’s important to me that the award system is fair, that leaders do spend a lot of time on it, they take it seriously and they are committed to making sure that people get the right recognition,” he said.
Carter ordered the review in January 2016. The services looked at all valor awards to ensure service members who performed valorously were recognized at the appropriate level. Carter directed the military departments to review Distinguished Service Cross, Navy Cross, Air Force Cross and Silver Star medal recommendations made since Sept. 11, 2001.
Navy and Air Force officials have finished their reviews, while the Army is still working on its review. The Army has finished its first pass through the awards. The Awards and Decoration Board recommended eight percent of the awards be further examined for possible upgrade. A special Army awards and decorations board is examining those now.
The Navy and Marine Corps recommended the upgrade of 30 awards, including two to the Medal of Honor, and former Navy Secretary Ray Mabus presented some of them earlier this month.
The Air Force upgraded nine awards to eight individuals. In one of her last official major duties as Air Force secretary, Deborah Lee James presented two Silver Star awards last week to Air Force Col. Christopher Barnett for two separate actions in Afghanistan. Barnett, a former HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter pilot, had been awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross with valor for those actions.
The service secretaries can upgrade to the Silver Star and service cross awards, but must pass any request for upgrade to the Medal of Honor through the defense secretary to the president for approval.
It is part of a much bigger problem across the board with an inappropriate decorations, up and down. It is no secret that Marines and sailors attached with Marines get decorations downgraded all the time. And it seems like some units in the army handout Bronze Stars like candy. Of course when it gets to the level of the Medal of Honor it gets very political and the ramifications get magnified.
Grand58742
06-30-19, 16:29
Where did you read it took them that long to push for it vs taking that long to get through the process among the controversies, counter forces, etc? I mean, some don't get awarded an MOH for decades. It's a shame it took so long, but I'm unclear that's due to USAF end per se.
There were a lot of us that said in the aftermath of it happening (or as the details came out) the situation warranted a fairly close look at awarding a MOH for both SrA Jason Cunningham's and TSgt Chapman's actions that day.
SrA Cunningham ran into a burning chopper to save the lives of his patients, drug them to safety twice and paid the ultimate price trying to save lives. TSgt Chapman held off the enemy forces so others could break out. Many of us felt politics were at play since they were enlisted as to why they weren't considered from the start. Politics be damned, both gave the ultimate sacrifice so others could live.
I'm not griping about them being awarded an Air Force Cross as it was a clear cut example of heroic service. But I've always felt had they been officers, the USAF would have pushed it.
My opinion, obviously.
But you don't get to pick the air frame - the Army does that for you. After flight school you do on average 3 months or more of air frame school. For me it was the OH-6 Loach. My first assignment flying was not with a combat aviation unit but to Fort Huachuca where new radar jamming gear was being tested in different air frames. We'd fly with this stuff from Libby AAF to Yuma Proving Grounds and Laguna AAF where we fly different patterns to test the effectiveness of the equipment. Myself and another pilot were recruited for what was then TF 158 at Fort Campbell while doing these test flights. We were interviewed and closely examined before being offered a role with that unit which was in the building phase - and to replace pilots recently killed in training accidents.Hmm, wonder if it has changed? Lots of discussion of OML (order of merit lists), what airframe they want, etc. I've not talked to them in detail about it but it sounded a lot like how branching and posting is done. (Combination of order of merit and needs of the army)
I have heard that occasionally needs of the Army means the only option for the entire class is one airframe. Also have heard that course instructors can override preference and indicate that particular students can only choose particular airframes.
In any case, the CH-47 is a desirable platform based on what I hear from the new LTs.
Used to hear some talk about wanting Kiowahs but that was before my son commissioned and that option went away. (Son is an IN CPT, but most of his buds went aviation)
Hmm, wonder if it has changed? Lots of discussion of OML (order of merit lists), what airframe they want, etc. I've not talked to them in detail about it but it sounded a lot like how branching and posting is done. (Combination of order of merit and needs of the army)
I have heard that occasionally needs of the Army means the only option for the entire class is one airframe. Also have heard that course instructors can override preference and indicate that particular students can only choose particular airframes.
In any case, the CH-47 is a desirable platform based on what I hear from the new LTs.
Used to hear some talk about wanting Kiowahs but that was before my son commissioned and that option went away. (Son is an IN CPT, but most of his buds went aviation)
Pinzgauer, you bring up some interesting points. Keep in mind that OML is used primarily for Branch Selection and Active Duty selection, not for particular air frames. That is usually determined by performance in flight school and certain aspects of your performance, and slots to fill determined by the Army. When I entered flight school in 1982, everyone wanted the UH-60. It was the hottest want in Army Aviation. When I arrived at Rucker, I took a ride with a Vietnam Vet Major and instructor and I told him I wanted something fast and light, describing my quarter horse history at home. Riding a fast Texas Cayuse requires both feet and good hand coordination. I was perfect for it.
I got my wish because not a lot of folks were wanting to fly light observation/scout recon birds. I was lucky, but I wanted a combat unit, and my first assignment was flying electronic test gear around. Even in 1983, the military was still recovering from the Carter years and trying to rebuild. A buddy of mine and fellow pilot from Fort Huachuca had just transferred to Fort Campbell and TF 158, and he put in a word for me. That's how I ended up at Fort Campbell. Unfortunately, he was killed while we were both in Grenada.
Another thing is the ratio between Warrant Officers and Commissioned Officers in Army Aviation - at one time it was about a 6 to 1 ratio or more in favor of the Warrant Officer. It's unique in Aviation - Congress sets limits on the number of Commissioned Officers but no limit on Warrant Officers. By time the officer reaches O-3, they're either finishing their 6-8 year hitch and leaving or moving on to a staff position. Warrant Officers remain and just move up from W-2 to W-5, and usually the W-5 has been moved to a staff level position.
And congrats on your Infantry CPT son. Mine finished his Sophomore year at West Point and in the early summer did some mountain training with the 10th MTN at Fort Drum. He then went to Fort Knox and did some Cadre' work with Advanced Camp ROTC cadets in their 1st Regiment, which just graduated yesterday.
Digital_Damage
07-03-19, 06:55
Deleted by request.
Can't disagree with that statement strongly enough... The military represents and serves at the will of civilian authority.
Unless the release of such information can cause significant harm or great loss to life and property, it is my duty as a voting member of this country to be informed on the actions of the military.
Can't disagree with that statement strongly enough... The military represents and serves at the will of civilian authority.
Unless the release of such information can cause significant harm or great loss to life and property, it is my duty as a voting member of this country to be informed on the actions of the military.
I’ve got a few years in the army at this point, all of which were in infantry BDEs and BNs. I have four trips to a national training center and zero deployments. That resume really doesn’t mean shit nowadays after almost two decades of constant conflict but, one of the biggest things those training rotations did was help me to imagine what real chaos must be like. I’ve been in several situations where I didn’t know if there were friendlies or enemies in truck 30m in front of me. Obviously real dead people are easier to identify, so “dead” badguy role players make it more complicated than real life, but this is still the most controlled training can be. If it’s hard to have a clear picture of what’s going on there, then I can only imagine what that mountain would’ve been like. It doesn’t sound that complicated, but it really can be. Being inside of a command post is just as bad, and actually, often worse.
As far as the civilian authority and all of that - there is a difference between serving the American citizens and answering to them IMO. Sure, we elect the Commander in Chief, who appoints the secretary of the each branch, but that doesn’t mean that the public is owed every bit of info (aside from classified material) regarding the military.
That last part is all IMO since it really doesn’t get heavily discussed until higher levels IME. There are a few guys here who are more qualified to talk on it, and I’d be happy to hear if they have a differing perspective.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
damaged.... not even a sophomoric level of reasoning, not surprising. ill-informed cheap shots on peoples character ("tail tucking) from afar seem to be your forte.
Neither do you as an individual have an obligation(duty) nor explicit right to see how the sausage is made in any number of governmental organizations. There is certainly oversight provided inside the departments culminating at the various secretaries and outside by the assorted oversight committees. You are most welcome to call the public affairs office of any organ of government and see where that gets you.
The problem is that the military wants to play both sides against the middle. They will declassify drone footage and put it out there with no context or no information, claiming that most everything surrounding it as classified it is, and then they have the temerity to get pissed when people start questioning it. If they don't want to have the discussion, don't put it out there.
Generally speaking I agree with most everything you have said.
Digital_Damage
07-03-19, 11:04
damaged.... not even a sophomoric level of reasoning, not surprising. ill-informed cheap shots on peoples character ("tail tucking) from afar seem to be your forte.
Neither do you as an individual have an obligation(duty) nor explicit right to see how the sausage is made in any number of governmental organizations. There is certainly oversight provided inside the departments culminating at the various secretaries and outside by the assorted oversight committees. You are most welcome to call the public affairs office of any organ of government and see where that gets you.
Considering the constitution and numerous Acts (FOIA) support my position and yours is coming from what appears to just be an emotional outburst I'm not really correlating what your point here is.
You are asking for the Citizens of the United States of America to basically stay in their lane and accept what the .mil is pushing down regardless of questions, concerns or request for clarity on how our countries representatives are executing the collective will of the people.
Dangerous point of view...
You are saying "how dare you say that", then when I ask why.... you throw up an "You don't need to know".
As stated, if the information does not pose high risk to the country or involves intelligence activities it is the law to hand that information over.
M4C readers and members include those who served in those units, and even direct participants in those events. Tread lightly and deferentially unless that describes you as well.
Lane check, and last opportunity for this thread.
FromMyColdDeadHand
07-03-19, 12:16
Hell, this is not only out of my lane, I'm not in the same pool. If the military wants people to appreciate what they do, they have to explain what is actually happening- but there are more and less polite ways asking those questions. That most citations for medals are written fairly dryly doesn't paint the most realistic picture. Frankly, I'd like to know more about the combat air controllers role. I thought these were pilots that got stuck in a jeep with a radio helping to translate the ground reality to pilots in their native 'tongue'. There has been a lot of sharing about air assets and their deployment, that was really informative. The amazing thing to me is that even with the overhead imagery, it is hard to discern the actual lay of the land. You get a bit of a sense of it as the platform orbits and relative positioning changes denoting that there is some significant profile to the terrain. Are there any other online videos or illustrations?
Hell, this is not only out of my lane, I'm not in the same pool. If the military wants people to appreciate what they do, they have to explain what is actually happening- but there are more and less polite ways asking those questions. That most citations for medals are written fairly dryly doesn't paint the most realistic picture. Frankly, I'd like to know more about the combat air controllers role. I thought these were pilots that got stuck in a jeep with a radio helping to translate the ground reality to pilots in their native 'tongue'. There has been a lot of sharing about air assets and their deployment, that was really informative. The amazing thing to me is that even with the overhead imagery, it is hard to discern the actual lay of the land. You get a bit of a sense of it as the platform orbits and relative positioning changes denoting that there is some significant profile to the terrain. Are there any other online videos or illustrations?
The pilots are forward air controllers, not to be confused with the enlisted combat air controllers.
I loved having pilots attached to the unit, they never shrunk from the role, and always embraced the suck.
Frankly, I'd like to know more about the combat air controllers role.
I was a working Pathfinder and worked with combat controllers a lot during the early eighties because at the time we weren't authorized to control Air Force aircraft during airborne operations.
The Combat Controllers were FAA certified air traffic controllers, so they could set up and provide terminal guidance on rough terrain air fields, or run a captured air base, etc. They can also direct CAS when need be. They often work solo as an attachment to larger units, often SOF, as was the cause with MSGT Chapman.
Because of the need to be able to infiltrate and exfiltrate with these units, the combat controllers are basic airborne, and generally, HALO, and SCUBA qualified.
Lots of good info that helps explain some things we all wondered about via Retired Special Operations member Chuck Pressburg. Good news is, a lot was learned from the event and changes made. Worth a listen for sure!
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/fieldcraft-survival/e/60833101
Lots of good info that helps explain some things we all wondered about via Retired Special Operations member Chuck Pressburg. Good news is, a lot was learned from the event and changes made. Worth a listen for sure!
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/fieldcraft-survival/e/60833101
I completely forgot Chuck did a podcast on this. He is one of the better guys to listen to IMO.
I completely forgot Chuck did a podcast on this. He is one of the better guys to listen to IMO.
Lots of details I didn't know from that event that explained a lot of Qs etc I had. Anyone interested in that event should listen to that.
hotrodder636
07-04-19, 15:16
Damn. Every man on that hill, some shined more than others.
FWFS to all who gave all.
I was a working Pathfinder and worked with combat controllers a lot during the early eighties because at the time we weren't authorized to control Air Force aircraft during airborne operations.
The Combat Controllers were FAA certified air traffic controllers, so they could set up and provide terminal guidance on rough terrain air fields, or run a captured air base, etc. They can also direct CAS when need be. They often work solo as an attachment to larger units, often SOF, as was the cause with MSGT Chapman.
Because of the need to be able to infiltrate and exfiltrate with these units, the combat controllers are basic airborne, and generally, HALO, and SCUBA qualified.
I was stunned to know CAS/TACP wasn't an essential skill, it was an "add-on" for CCT. Today very few CCTs do TACP work....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.