Post by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzPost by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzPost by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzYes. It was an ad hoc unit of which the ground component was Special
Forces, with people pulled from various deployed and headquarters units,
and even some air force types on the ground.
It was not conducted by a SF unit. Its personnel were primarily but not
exclusively SF-qualified, such as their surgeon LTC? Cataldo.
Please. You are gonna argue this one on the basis of where the *doc* came
from?
I was simply making an observation on other Army people involved. For
that matter, there were Air Force people on the ground, from the
helicopter that did the controlled crash into the courtyard.
Yeah, and when the SOF elements perform missions today they may even jump
from a C-130 flown by a USAF crew--so what? Does that mean that the mission
has not been tasked to the SOF element?
That's EXACTLY right, because the mission has been tasked to the SOF,
not the SF, element. If that C-130 is from AFSOC, the whole mission is
Special Operations, which is the point I have been trying to make.
Post by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzI repeat: SF-qualified people were indeed the great majority of the
ground troops.
Please name any of the ground assault force troops who were not SF. And
don't harken back to the helo crew for that HH-3--that dog won't hunt. In
that case you had an aircrew performing its air mission (they were not
subsequently tasked to go kick down doors and man the chainsaws that were
used to facilitate same).
Any dog that has the balls to do what that HH-3 did, and know they may
have to be grunts, is fine as infantry in my book.
Post by Kevin BrooksThe Son Tay raid (see, for example, Schlemmer's book) was
Post by Howard C. Berkowitznot conducted by a SF _unit_. It was a task force organized out of
JCS/SACSA.
Simons went to the SFG's at Bragg and asked for volunteers--he got 500 or so
volunteers for the 100 or so slots he had to fill. He filled those slots
from the SFG personnel. He created his own SF detachment, which was tasked
to perform the assault. End of story.
Post by Howard C. BerkowitzIndeed, the overall commander was then BG (later LTG) Leroy Manor, USAF.
Coincidentally, I just found his personal account of the mission at
http://home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/SONTAYRA1.htm.
Whoopie. IIRC the overall commander for the Iran rescue mission was also a
USAF type--does that mean that Delta was somehow not a US Army SOF element?
No. While it was a clusterfuck, it was a JOINT MISSION. For that
matter as well, can you say Ranger Company? As in Ranger Company that
guarded some of the landing strips in Eagle Pull? That wasn't Delta.
Were that to be done today, it would be under a joint Special Operations
Commander. The hostage rescue would probably still be Delta, the
support area ground security would probably still be Ranger, but the
helicopters would be either AFSOC or 160th Aviation Regiment, and the
C-130s would probably be MC-130s from AFSOC.
Post by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzFrom that source, Schlemmer, and others, the mission, as distinct from
the ground operation, had quite a number of planning and support
personnel from other Army, other services, and other agencies.
You keep acting as if the fact that this was a joint endeavor has any
bearing upon the fact that the assault element was made up of SF troopers,
formed into a temporary detachment with a direct action mission, but that
just is not the case.
It is not the case that the SF troopers were formed into a temporary
detachment? If that is so, what SF Group and Battalion, and probably
Company, was it? The ground element could have been made up of one or
two SF Companies. Was it?
Again not having _The Raid_ in front of me, there were people from
multiple groups. Again, it was NOT a TO&E, existing, SF Unit.
Post by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzBy that argument, the USMC units that engage in combat are not USMC
Post by Kevin Brooksorganizations because their medics are USN corpsmen?
You are overemphasizing one minor aspect. Should you want that argument,
I believe it's more significant that the senior commander of the
operation was Air Force. The reality is that it was task-organized and
not a SF unit action.
So what would you describe the assault element as being? A Boy Scout unit?
SF troops, recruited by design, formed into a detchment for a specific
mission, which in this case was indeed a direct action mission.
SF troops, agreed. A task organized unit or detachment, agreed. A
regular SF unit, as in Group, Battalion, Company, C/B/A/split-A
Detachment, no.
Post by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzPost by Kevin BrooksFrom what I recall
(been many years since I read/reread Schemer's book, "The Raid"), every
single member of Simons' assault group was an SF trooper. Those were SF
troops conducting a direct action mission, period.
Post by Howard C. BerkowitzPost by Kevin BrooksPost by Howard C. BerkowitzAt the time, Special Forces doctrine did not include direct
action
as a
primary mission of the basic Split A, B, or C detachments. That's
not
to
say they didn't do it, but FM 31-21 of the time didn't spell this
out
as
did more recent manuals.
The very first SADM's (not the latter W-54 model, but the interim capability
devices fielded in the late fifties/early sixties) were intended
solely
for
use by SF detachments in a direct action role--before the Vietnam conflict
heated up for the US.
Unfortunately, this is one of the areas where I can't go.
OFCS. Go where the gosh-darned open media sources have already gone. SF
Teams had ADM missions--it is not exactly a great big secret.
Whether the open media have gone into it or not, that area is one in
which I first encountered in outside open media, and I am not free to
discuss. My posting history will demonstrate that I have very rarely
claimed classification issues, but the area of "additional
capabilities"
of SF, not limited to ADM or not, is one where I can't honorably discuss.
Geeze. You claimed IIRC that the SF units during that era were not tasked
with direct action missions, and when shown that was not the case (something
now well established in open source documentation), you try and hide behind
an alleged classification curtain.
Big tip, hoss--if you are really
Post by Kevin Brooksknowledgable of classified info, you don't even *hint* about it, as you did
earlier--that usually sets my BS detector off (the ol' "I know some stuff,
but I really can't discuss it" crap that so many charlatans and grand
exaggerators have used). I have run into guys who have claimed (and were
proven not to be) to have been Delta and SEAL operators who have used this
same approach, so you may want to reevaluate.
Go right ahead and prove I was not at:
Center for Research in Social Systems, Army Contract Research Center
at American University, supporting Ft. Bragg and other units, 1967-ish
(it's been a long time)
Bunker-Ramo Corporation, tactical C3I engineer, 1970.
Technical advisory group to (FTSC) National Communications System,
1976-1980 (maybe 79).
To someone with a serious background in classification, it is a
perfectly rational thing to say "we have reached the limits that I can
discuss in that area." I deliberately phrased that SF have "additional
capabilities". I feel safe in saying that there is more than one.
Post by Kevin BrooksThe following reference
SADM
and Special Forces employment thereof, so you can dump the "its classified"
crap--heck, SADM (along with all other US Army tactical nuclear weapons) was
removed from the inventory more than ten years ago!
That the SADM existed is perfectly open and discussable, and has been
officially declassified. The full range of options for its tactical use
have been declassified in some areas and not in others.
Post by Kevin Brookswww.thehistorynet.com/vn/blbudop/index2.html
www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/over/lebedlg.htm
www.wlhoward.com/id526.htm
www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.html
www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap5.pdf
www.fivestardefense.com/advisory.html
Brooks