# AC 130 Gun Ship Attack



## Spr.Earl (25 Dec 2003)

Go to the site below and hit the AC 130 Gun Ship Video for 7 min.‘s of Gun Camara footage of the Herc.‘s Attack.It has audio with it.
I used to have it on file untill my P.C. crashed. 
A good watch!!   

 http://www.sftt.org/index2.html


----------



## Evan (26 Dec 2003)

i hope its not what made ur computer crash      , its pretty cool      .


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (15 Jan 2004)

whoa..plastered. heres a similar one...only this is an AH-64 Apache in iraq. many may have already seen it.

 http://www.btinternet.com/~scuzi/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg


----------



## stukirkpatrick (16 Jan 2004)

I just watched the AC130 footage, and I am quite startled.  Truly, in a modern war this makes most previous tactics irrevalent.  Short of shooting the gunship down with ground launched missiles, is there any form of defence that can employed if an infantry unit comes under attack from artillary cannons flying over your head?  You can‘t run, and you can‘t hide...

This surely proves that if there is ever a third world war - non-nuclear - the infantry, and pretty much any other ground forces have no chance.  :skull:


----------



## nbk (17 Jan 2004)

Aye I watch this video and feel undecided.

On one hand, it is good that you can take out your enemy without risking your own tail, or any of your buddies...

But on the other hand, where is the honour or even fairness of blowing someone away in the middle of the night as they take a crap, and they don‘t even know what hit them.

I realize snipers have this role in the battlefield, but even they are much more exposed then hiding in some Apache from 2 kilometers away on the other side of a mountian. And snipers play such a small role in combat, they are an acceptable cause. Not to mention the enemy has snipers as well. Does Joe Iraqi have counter-attack choppers to face his enemy man to man, vehicle to vehicle? No. He does not stand a chance of fighting for whatever he is fighting for...weather you agree with it or not.


----------



## Korus (17 Jan 2004)

> But on the other hand, where is the honour or even fairness of blowing someone away in the middle of the night as they take a crap, and they don‘t even know what hit them.


When guns first began to appear in warfare, many people dismissed them as cowards weapons. Anyone with a weeks training could take down a well trained and experienced calvaryman from his horse before he could get within lancing range.



> Would to heaven that this cursed invention had never been invented... so many valiant men [have] been slain for the most part by the most pitiful fellow and the greatest cowards; poltroons that had not daredto look those men in the face at close hand, which at distance they laid dead with their confounded bullets
> -- Blaise de Monluc 1502-1577


An interesting quote I came accross in my readings the other day.. It‘s amazing how much warfare evolves. People curse a weapon when it comes out and is used against them, but if it‘e effective, eventually it‘s adopted by all who have the technological and fiscal means.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2004)

Alls fair in love and war.  Would you be saying that if you were a troop on the ground?  Where is the honor of taking a 7.62 round to the gut because more suitable methods were ignored.

Honor is best reserved for the vanquished foe.  I am trying to find the source of the motto "Never Fight Fair".




> I just watched the AC130 footage, and I am quite startled. Truly, in a modern war this makes most previous tactics irrevalent. Short of shooting the gunship down with ground launched missiles, is there any form of defence that can employed if an infantry unit comes under attack from artillary cannons flying over your head? You can‘t run, and you can‘t hide...
> 
> This surely proves that if there is ever a third world war - non-nuclear - the infantry, and pretty much any other ground forces have no chance.


Hmm...hide in a cave?  There are limitations to those weapons platforms (eg weather, ground).
If anything, they vindicate the role of infantry as the diffuse nature of a modern unit offers no center of mass to provide these weapons to be used decisively (think tactical bound vs. Napoleonic line of battle).


----------



## AL (17 Jan 2004)

NBK-Who the **** cares whats fair,its war and they attacked the US first.As far as im concerned, everyone of those basterds deserves to die.
Do you think they thought about the fairness of flying 2 airliners in to the Towers? I doubt it,i hope they like it in ****.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2004)

> I just watched the AC130 footage, and I am quite startled. Truly, in a modern war this makes most previous tactics irrevalent. Short of shooting the gunship down with ground launched missiles, is there any form of defence that can employed if an infantry unit comes under attack from artillary cannons flying over your head? You can‘t run, and you can‘t hide...
> 
> This surely proves that if there is ever a third world war - non-nuclear - the infantry, and pretty much any other ground forces have no chance.


Kirkpatrick you raise an interesting point.  The role of the infantry in particular and the army in general.

The role of the infantry is doctrinally defined as "to close with the enemy, by day or by night, regardless of season, terrain or climate".

Other sources will substitute "kill" to "close with".  The difference is important.  

The real role of the infantry is what it has always been since before the days of the Pharaohs.  To stand on the corner with a pointy stick as a visible symbol of authority.  This establishes control over people and borders.  This is closing with enemies, potential enemies/friends and friends.  Enemies can be killed if the government so desires.

If the authority is not contested he can put away the pointy stick and be called a policeman.  If the authority is contested he better have access to more killing power than the other chap.

The role of everybody else on the battlefield is a: to kill those poor, kind infanteers or b: to kill the people trying to kill them.  Better weapons,  better organization, greater numbers win.  

After the fighting there is a guy with a pointy stick standing on the corner.  Either old guy‘s infanteer or new guy‘s infanteer. Either with or without the approval of the locals.

The real point here is that your observation about the unprotected infantry being vulnerable to other weapons systems is valid.  The role of the Army and the Government is to make sure they aren‘t unprotected.

Frankly as vulnerable as a civilian sitting on his throne with a copy of the Baghdad Times on hand is, I for one would not like to be flying AC-130 missions,  orbiting defended localities at 200 mph at low level.

While Javelin will not take down an AC-130, the charge is too small and the aircraft too robust, an ADATs or two would probably have a decidedly different impact on the Crew‘s willingness to continue the engagement.

Infantry supplies government‘s the ability to control.  Everything else is there to keep our infantry on the ground our government chooses.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2004)

Geez, the thing is only a Herc, not a stealth bomber.

_another Infanteer quote of the Week_
*Maybe they‘ll be able to do without us someday. Maybe some mad genius with myopia, a bulging forehead, and a cybernetic mind will devise a weapon that can go down a hole, pick out the opposition, and force it to surrender - without killing the gang of your own people they‘ve got imprisoned down there....In the meantime, until they build a machine to replace us, [the infantry] can handle that job.
Robert Heinlein*


----------



## nbk (18 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Korus:
> When guns first began to appear in warfare, many people dismissed them as cowards weapons. Anyone with a weeks training could take down a well trained and experienced calvaryman from his horse before he could get within lancing range.
> 
> 
> ...


I fully see your point, and let me state again that my feelings are *conflicted* about this. I am not outright denouncing it.

When firearms first appeared they were crude sticks that shot out balls at random angles. No rifling in the barrels, or practical way to accurately aim them. Although they were an advantage over hand to hand combat, the battle would eventually finish off in hand to hand combat with giant bayonets that make what we use today look like toothpicks. Not to mention armies at that time were somewhat equal. If one country got defeated by firearms one battle, next month his army would be outfitted with his own rifles.

In WW1 when the French got mowed down line after line in the opening days of war, they figured that they better develop a machinegun if they want to have a chance, which was not that hard to do with the technology readily available to them. The sides had more or less the same technology, and the winner was who was able to utilize it best. If there is a just way to wage war this is it.

That is in stark contrast to the gap between the yank forces and the Iraqis. The Iraqis have nothing even comparable to the technology that the yanks have. Iraqis are using the same munitions which have been used and abused throught the wars they have fought for the last 25 years. AK-47s, old RPGs, soviet era tanks, choppers and intelligence equipent vs technologies that most of the public could not even fathom.

If you look at that video, the people on the ground do not appear to be firing at the chopper, or shooting at any ground forces. They are running around like a pigeon with its wings clipped off. They have no idea who is shooting at them or where from. No matter which way you cut it, you must acknowledge that it is not fair, weather that means anything to you or not.

I do see how it would be appealing if you were on the side with all the technology, but mind you, in this country, we do not have the absolutely latest military technologies, so I can‘t help but think that we could very well be in the same position, having the scales tipped drastically against us. I can put myself into their shoes, because I don‘t forget, we are an underdog nation as well.


----------



## nbk (18 Jan 2004)

By the way, I know someone is going to take my comment and say that "WW1 was not a just war, but a horrible war that dragged on for years in a stalemate" and this is true. I simply meant that wars were actual armies fought actual armies, who were more or less at the same level is more just then one superpower stomping on a few settlers who are fighting for their land and their lives.

Napoleanic lines as someone mentioned, where the armies lined up, the generals on the hills and they fought until one side did not want to loose any more soldiers.

What is wrong with wanting to shake your enemy‘s hand and sit down for a beer after fighting him for the day? Discussing how the battle went like Gentlemen.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2004)

> That is in stark contrast to the gap between the yank forces and the Iraqis. The Iraqis have nothing even comparable to the technology that the yanks have. Iraqis are using the same munitions which have been used and abused throught the wars they have fought for the last 25 years. AK-47s, old RPGs, soviet era tanks, choppers and intelligence equipent vs technologies that most of the public could not even fathom.


Tell that to the Iranians, the Kurds, or the Kuwaitis.



> If you look at that video, the people on the ground do not appear to be firing at the chopper, or shooting at any ground forces. They are running around like a pigeon with its wings clipped off. They have no idea who is shooting at them or where from. No matter which way you cut it, you must acknowledge that it is not fair, weather that means anything to you or not.


Well, they should have been walking toward Basra with a white flag then, shouldn‘t they?  Piss on them, they knew what was coming. 



> What is wrong with wanting to shake your enemy‘s hand and sit down for a beer after fighting him for the day? Discussing how the battle went like Gentlemen.


That‘s what started World War I in the first place.

What is wrong with destroying you enemy so thoroughly with decisive maneuveur and firepower that you avoid a long, drawn out war and avoid large amounts of (most importantly your own) casulties? 

You‘re confusing empathy and victory.  It is something I or the other soldiers on the board cannot afford to do.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Jan 2004)

Yowzerrr!!!

I never thought that the gun camara footage would cause such a debate.

Those of us  who have been over seas have used high tech N.O.D.‘s .
Early day‘s was Star Light‘s etc.
Monoculer,Binoculer etc.

I‘d like to see the same ship fly over a position that is dug in and every one following light,heat diisipline‘s as we all carry out in the field,or should do!!!   :threat:   

What would the footage be on a real Army?
Not on a bunch of Burnoos,flip flop wearing Wog‘s?

Wog = Western Oriental Gentlman.


----------



## nbk (19 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> Tell that to the Iranians, the Kurds, or the Kuwaitis.


Yes, those were equal battles. If "might equals right" as you say, why is it not ok for Saddam Hussein to invade the dictatorship of Kuwait, but perfectly ok for the yanks to invade the dictatorship of Iraq? Is "might equals right" only applicable when "white equals right"?



> Well, they should have been walking toward Basra with a white flag then, shouldn‘t they?  Piss on them, they knew what was coming.


And once again, picture it for yourself. The yanks have set up a command base on Parliment hill. Abrams tanks are rolling up your street, blowing away all your neighbours. The CN tower has been knocked over. Your family and friends are all dead. Your country that you grew up and love is no longer "your" country at all. 

If your first instinct to wave the white flag and give up your decency as well?



> What is wrong with destroying you enemy so thoroughly with decisive maneuveur and firepower that you avoid a long, drawn out war and avoid large amounts of (most importantly your own) casulties?


Because thats how you create a bunch of Osama bin Ladens who feel they never had a fair fight, so they will use the same "unfair" tactics against you, when you are vulneurable.



> You‘re confusing empathy and victory.  It is something I or the other soldiers on the board cannot afford to do.


And you are confusing victory with mercilessness. There is such a thing as being honourable in victory, even if your enemy is not willing to do the same. You may teach him something. 

I may be wrong, but I believe most soldiers on this board are decent men and women, who recognize their enemies as humans and would treat them with the same dignity that they would wish to be treated, even if they are the enemy. Showing respect to the enemy is not akin to sympathizing with the enemy.


----------



## nbk (19 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Spr.Earl:
> [qb] Yowzerrr!!!
> 
> I never thought that the gun camara footage would cause such a debate.
> [/qb]


No worries mate...nothing wrong with a healthy debate.

*bows head in Orential sign of respect*


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jan 2004)

> Yes, those were equal battles.


Are you reading from the Marxism Book of Revisionist History?  Quit talking out of your ***.  The Iran-Iraq war consisted of Iraqi divisions equipped with modern Soviet equipment taking on revolutionary formations launching wave attacks.  It was the Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the field and medium range missles against Tehran that forced Iran to take an unfair peace agreement.
The Kurds were an ill-equipped guerilla force pinched by two military regimes and eventually gassed while Kuwait possessed what amounted to a police force that was run over by these same mechanized forces.

I don‘t see your romantized idea of fair battle in any of these examples.



> If "might equals right" as you say, why is it not ok for Saddam Hussein to invade the dictatorship of Kuwait, but perfectly ok for the yanks to invade the dictatorship of Iraq? Is "might equals right" only applicable when "white equals right"?


"Might equals right".  Iraq felt that they had the power to turn themselves into a regional powerhouse.  The might of the coalition showed them that they were wrong.  I don‘t see what is so complicated about a simple power equation.



> And once again, picture it for yourself. The yanks have set up a command base on Parliment hill. Abrams tanks are rolling up your street, blowing away all your neighbours. The CN tower has been knocked over. Your family and friends are all dead. Your country that you grew up and love is no longer "your" country at all.
> 
> If your first instinct to wave the white flag and give up your decency as well?


If I was serving a tin-pot dictator who was stealing my countries money and letting his sons run rampant, I probably would.
I am a serving soldier and a professional because I have full conviction in the fact that my country and its government ultimatly stands for an absolute good, not any of this moral relatavist crap.  If you want proof, open up the worlds borders and see what happens.



> Because thats how you create a bunch of Osama bin Ladens who feel they never had a fair fight, so they will use the same "unfair" tactics against you, when you are vulneurable.


Wrong...that comes from living in a society whose backward political structure is not capable of competing with the West, thus forcing the few who benefit from the society to find release valve for all their own inadequacies.

My solution is military, not political...and simply deals with getting rid of the Osama bin Ladin‘s with the least amount of mess.



> And you are confusing victory with mercilessness. There is such a thing as being honourable in victory, even if your enemy is not willing to do the same. You may teach him something.


What are you advocating those soldiers do then, walk up to armed Iraqi soldiers and challenge them to a pistol duel?
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about.  Battle is broken down into phases.  The assault is a basic principle that every grunt worth his salt knows.
In the assault, maximum speed, violence, and aggression are used to not only kill as many of the bad guys as possible, thus reducing your chances of getting shipped home in a box, but to psychologically scare the piss out of the foe so you do not have to fight him anymore.
If we have to use an Apache gunship to get the point across, then so be it.
Mercy doesn‘t belong here because it will only get you killed.

When the enemy decides that your show of the above principle demonstrates your ability and will to grind him into dust and does the smart thing and surrenders, then we as profesional soldiers and human beings are obligated to accept it.

Sherman‘s march through Georgia worked, didn‘t it?


----------



## Pikache (19 Jan 2004)

> What are you advocating those soldiers do then, walk up to armed Iraqi soldiers and challenge them to a pistol duel?
> You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. Battle is broken down into phases. The assault is a basic principle that every grunt worth his salt knows.
> In the assault, maximum speed, violence, and aggression are used to not only kill as many of the bad guys as possible, thus reducing your chances of getting shipped home in a box, but to psychologically scare the piss out of the foe so you do not have to fight him anymore.
> If we have to use an Apache gunship to get the point across, then so be it.
> ...


What Infanteer said. Mercy is for those who have surrendered. If we don‘t want ourselves and our mates to go home in a bag, we‘ll do anything short of violation of international law and QR&O  to do it.

nbk, you speak of being ‘honourable‘ and such, except what is ‘honour‘? 

If some schmuck gets wasted by Tomahawk or Spectre or what not and he‘s a hostile enemy, sucks to be him and his family who probably loves him very much. That schmuck was playing for the wrong team.

Life sucks. It applies to other side also.


----------



## Gambler (20 Jan 2004)

That boy is obviously under the delusion that "fairness" has anything to do with fighting a war.


----------



## nbk (20 Jan 2004)

Infanteer & RoyalHighlandFusilier: I see your points and understand them fully. We could go back and forth for a while here, but we are unlikely ever going to see eye to eye on this issue.   :warstory:


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jan 2004)

> Infanteer & RoyalHighlandFusilier: I see your points and understand them fully. We could go back and forth for a while here, but we are unlikely ever going to see eye to eye on this issue.


Yes, that is true.  However, we one day will have to live with the consequences, while you won‘t.

Cheers


----------



## nbk (20 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [qb] Yes, that is true.  However, we one day will have to live with the consequences, while you won‘t.
> 
> Cheers [/qb]


----------



## karpovage (23 Jan 2004)

Infanteer and RHF, just watched the video and my heart was pumping watching those indivuduals running for their lives and absolutely naked to attack. To be honest it was very emotional. But as it ended I said to a co-worker (his brother is a captain with the first Stryker brigade in Iraq) that they (Al Queda) shouldn‘t have ****ed with the U.S. - what were they thinking. Because this is the brutal response that we can deliver. And thus the whole purpose of a strong Army, to defend but also to hopefully deter potential aggessors. It does suck to be those victims on the ground and it sucks for their families but they signed up for their cause and knew what to expect. So, no sympathy here and to **** with fighting fair in war. I believe SunTzu‘s Art of War has an excerpt directly related to not fighting fair or balanced on the battlefield. You go in expecting to fulfill your mission in any way possible. And having an edge or an advantage whether it‘s NODs or Spectre Gunships or the biggest tank on the block is a good thing.


----------



## koalorka (23 Jan 2004)

Holy ***t, That is hot stuff! I sure love watching some stupid innocent goat-herders get ripped to pieces by artillery from the air. Sounds like the guys in the AC-130 were having a ball too. Great clip.
America has left a smoldering crater of freedom.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jan 2004)

Fubar,

Your an idiot.  Go to France.


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by FUBAR:
> [qb] Holy ***t, That is hot stuff! I sure love watching some stupid innocent goat-herders get ripped to pieces by artillery from the air. Sounds like the guys in the AC-130 were having a ball too. Great clip.
> America has left a smoldering crater of freedom. [/qb]


Did you realy hear the Air Crew having "A BALL" ?
Your Quote!

Well I‘ll tell you somthing now!
Those Men were not having "A BALL!!"
What you listened to was WAR!!

It‘s not "HOT STUFF"!!

I posted it here for those of us who are mature enough to see the value in the Lesson.


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (31 Jan 2004)

The one guy going "BOOM" all the time was a lil annoying...but a pretty good video...shows why you shouldn‘t attack people with big guns and night vision...perhaps this video will make  jim or joe taliban think twice before piloting a large airliner


----------



## scm77 (5 Feb 2004)

> Originally posted by nbk:
> [qb]
> But on the other hand, where is the honour or even fairness of blowing someone away in the middle of the night as they take a crap, and they don‘t even know what hit them.
> 
> I realize snipers have this role in the battlefield, but even they are much more exposed then hiding in some Apache from 2 kilometers away on the other side of a mountian. And snipers play such a small role in combat, they are an acceptable cause. Not to mention the enemy has snipers as well. Does Joe Iraqi have counter-attack choppers to face his enemy man to man, vehicle to vehicle? No. He does not stand a chance of fighting for whatever he is fighting for...weather you agree with it or not. [/qb]


Dude, this video was shot over Afghanistan.  Those were Al Qaeda or Taliban targets.  Where is the honour in flying planes into buildings, killing thousands of innocent people?


----------



## koalorka (6 Feb 2004)

No Afghani took part in the 9-11 attacks. Most highjackers were Egyptian and Saudi, the U.S. can‘t afford to upset these key strategic allies.

O yeah, those Yanks sure can identify targets well, don‘t you remember that they killed most of our men in Afghanistan ? the brits are also weary from incidents in Iraq. Any vehicle with tracks and a turret is a Republican Guard T-72 for a US pilot.


----------



## Korus (6 Feb 2004)

If you fight a fair fight, It‘ll come down to a war of attrition. If you take advantage, and exploit an enemy‘s weakness, chances stand that there will be less losses on both sides.

As for no Afghani taking part in the attacks.. well.. I remember hearing about something called "Al Qaeda Training Camps" in Afghanistan. And something else about these guys called the "Taliban" harbouring this terrorist group. Is the US justified to go and take them out in order to protect their own people from future attacks?

Oh wait, it was all about Afghanistan‘s vast oil supply. I forgot.


----------



## koalorka (11 Feb 2004)

How the **** did the AC-130 operator know those were Taliban warriors, might as well been another wedding "blessed" with JDAM munitions like last time.


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2004)

> How the **** did the AC-130 operator know those were Taliban warriors, might as well been another wedding "blessed" with JDAM munitions like last time.


If you believe the US sends its assets blindly into these situations, then I guess we‘ll leave it at that.


----------



## Korus (11 Feb 2004)

And how do you know they are NOT? How do you know something beforehand did not happen that tagged them as enemy?


----------

