|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(1 of 40)
Navy Seals---what's the point?
Mar 25, 2009 12:25 PM
|
|
The "Op Iraq" forum has become rather unstable in a lot of ways but I hope we can engage in a real discussion about an important Military organization. I just finished Marcus Luttrell's remarkable best seller "Lone Survivor" about the training of a Navy Seal and his combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I am in awe of the commitment and endurance of Navy Seals I find myself questioning the reason for their existence. The Seal training is so difficult that most of the well qualified officers and Navy enlisted wash out and Seals keep the numbers low. Seals were created in the early 60's by president JFK. The unique Navy type of training called "BUD's" means "basic underwater demolition". The problem is that there are few missions today that require underwater demolition. There even fewer missions that require underwater reconnisance as there was when UDT teams were sent out during WW2 in preparation for massive Marine beach landings. In short there are no real Seal missions left so they are used as "ordinary" Troops and as Recon teams but there is no shortage of Recon teams in the Marines or the Army and Army Special Forces either. The Seals can afford to keep their numbers low by using training methods which are so severe that they routinely cause border line hypothermia and even hallucinations in otherwise healthy young men due to lack of sleep and incredible physical exertion. Luttrell's experience in Iraq was the same as most Soldiers and Marines and his experience in Afghanistan is an example of trying to fit a small elite Military unit into a large operation. A well armed four man team of Seals was sent out with cameras on a Recon mission in a hostile environment and found themselves with little or no cover and surrounded by a force of about 200 hundred Taliband. They held out under impossible odds and Luttrell was the only survivor. Why were they sent out on such a mission when drone planes and satelite technology could have done as well as hand held cameras? Because they deserved the chance to be used in combat situations and there was no other job for them to do? Army Rangers finally rescued Luttrell and recovered the bodies of the Seal Team. .
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(2 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Mar 26, 2009 4:18 PM
|
|
There is an interesting civilian comparison to the tough Seal training. In 1954 Paul "Bear" Bryant took over as head coach of the mediocre Texas A&M football program. Immediately he decided that the players were weak and needed heavy duty training so he took the team out to an abandoned camp called the "Junction". He beat hell out of the kids for an entire summer in ways that might be considered criminal today. After the weaklings quit or became too ill from sunstroke and dehydration the survivors ended up calling themselves the "Junction Boys" and they even made a movie about it. The Junction Boys were the toughest bunch ever to wear the Tx. A&M football uniform and they went on to loose every game but one the next season. If there is a moral to the story it might be that Bryant lost a lot of talent by being too tough.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(3 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Mar 30, 2009 7:39 PM
|
|
I wish I didn't have to critique the Seal mission that Luttrell describes in his book. What does it tell you about leadership when Seal officers grabbed their guns and piled on a helicopter to rescue Luttrell's seal team without taking the time to evaluate the situation? The chopper was blown up as soon as it landed in broad daylight within the effective range of RPG's.
|
|
|
Posts:
726
From:
Georgia
Registered:
1/18/08
|
|
(4 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Apr 2, 2009 7:16 PM
|
|
The SEALS were formed from UDT teams. When they arrived in Vietnam they still went by UDT. Guess they did it to prevent much talk of them. UDT did beach recon and such in World War Two and were expected to do much of the same in Vietnam. As you stated there was not much of a demand blowing up beach obstacles in Vietnam. Still they could be used as recon in rivers and islands near the coast. From what I read they are more of a commando than recon. Remember Recon is to go and check things out them come back without anyone seeing you. Commando's are bit different. I'm a bit like you. What is the point of the Navy doing things you expect the Army and Marines to do? Then again many question the need of a Marine Corps. Why not let the Army do it? They even talked about that after World War Two. The Army wanted to do away with the Marines and so did President Truman. The reorganization that formed the Air Force also prevented them from doing away with the Corps. Truman went so far as to prevent any Marine on active duty speaking before Congress in Uniform. Several Senior Marines retired so they could appear in Uniform. Truman had a grudge against the Marines going back to World War One. Some writer wrote about a battle the Marines were in and Truman believed the Marines were given all the credit for the victory.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(5 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Apr 3, 2009 12:52 PM
|
|
Thanks for the comment Red. The Marines have been around for about 250 years and while the Marine Corps does duplicate the Army mission in a lot of ways the tradition has been well established and earned in several World Wars. Seals have been around for about 50 years and it seems they are still looking for a niche in the scheme of things.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(6 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Apr 9, 2009 10:49 AM
|
|
I would love to see the Seals succeed in a mission the unit was designed for. The piracy hostage situation is just such a mission isn't it? In another forum a poster said his ship was "boarded" by Seals during an exercise off San Diego during the VietNam war. Meanwhile, according to Luttrell's book, we continue to send them out on fruitless recon missions that nobody needs.
|
|
|
Posts:
726
From:
Georgia
Registered:
1/18/08
|
|
(7 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Apr 10, 2009 5:46 PM
|
|
The Marines were formed as the boarding party from Navy ships. Granted they would also need the help of many of the sailors. Pirates seems to be and old problem. Note the Marine Hymn. To the Shores of Tripoli. The Horn of Africa should get more nations involved. It want be long till someone sinks one of them loaded ships of oil and it will be a real mess. It seems to be a choke point and my guess if a lot of military ships showed up the pirate problem would died down. Then when the ships leave it will spring back to life. Still several nations could take turns policing the waters. Several African Nations and some of the Arab Nations also should step forward. Several nations could all provide one ship with crews who have some abilities to board and take down pirates. Some E. D.s and a few smaller ships seems to be the answer because of speed.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(8 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Apr 12, 2009 9:19 AM
|
|
Marines were formed before the Nation was created as you say as boarding parties and to protect ships. The Marines however have evolved into a specialized infantry smaller than an Army and hence called a "Corps". I would imagine that there are certain units within the USMC which would be effective in such a situation but the SEALS are specifically trained for just such missions. Using SEALS as recon is a mistake especially if they, as Marcus Luttrell says, have such an elitist mentality that they refuse to be billeted with other Troops. .
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(9 of 40)
Re: Navy Seals---what's the point?
Apr 16, 2009 5:21 PM
|
|
SEALS finally got a mission they were born for. Piracy on the high seas and stealthy rescue of international hostages. One shot one kill. Will Obama take it away from them? It looks like the Navy is mired in bureaucracy having to clear every shot with an incredible chain of command from the president on down. The captain of the merchant ship deliberately escaped from his pirate captors thinking that the Navy would blow the bastards out of the water but It seems that the Navy didn't have clearence to pull the trigger and the captain was re-captured. Will the SEALS continue to kick down doors in Baghdad and take pictures of Afghan warriors or will they get the mission they have been waiting for for fifty years?
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(10 of 40)
lots of hits but not much talk so I'll up the ante...elitism
Apr 28, 2009 1:57 PM
|
|
Page 72 of Luttrell's remarkable book indicates that SEALS are never billieted with other branches of the US Military. "We didn't worry about whom we'd have to share with". "SEALS are always billeted together, separate from everyone else, thus avoiding loose talk about highly classified missions". Loose talk to whom? Other Recon units that are doing the same job? It brings up the question whether or not it is healthy to encourage such elitism in the US Military. Does the fact that SEALS can hold their breath longer and can paddle rubber boats around set them apart from other branches of the Military which are doing the same damn job? The Army earned the right to be billeted with the elitist SEALS through the years, loose talk not withstanding. Army Rangers rescued the Seals from a mission that failed. It seems to me that Seals might benefit from association with other Recon units from time to time.
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(11 of 40)
May 13, 2009 8:01 PM
|
|
SEALS are a relatively modern weapon with an antiquated mission. What does the Military do when the weapon is no longer useful? Either faze out the weapon or change the mission. SEALS changed the mission. Instead of UDT they would become military advisors and recon teams. SEALS were created in 1962 and yet there isn't much evidence that they were of much use in VietNam. Language skills are useful in Military advisor situations and even in Recon units but apparently the SEALS place the ability to hold their breath and paddle rubber boats while unconcious above language and presumably every other skill usefull to stealth warfare. How many useful brains wash out of SEAL school in favor of guys who can withstand hypothermia? If it wasn't for media hype the SEALS would have been drydocked a long time ago. Luttrell hints that the SEAL team was surprised that the Taliban could maintain such fire that the SEAL team would be forced into a downhill run and a bad situation. What does that tell you? The elitist mentality at work. The people you would expect to correctly assess the situation when a SEAL team was in trouble are the officers. Yet they jumped on a helicopter and landed right in the middle of the situation and got themselves blown up before they fired a shot. Elitist mentality at work. In a combat situation I would take a Marine Recon Team or a Special Forces squad any day over a SEAL team.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,814
From:
North Carolina
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(12 of 40)
May 21, 2009 1:10 PM
|
there isn't much evidence that they were of much use in VietNam
whitehall. Bring it back to the Vietnam forum. Well discuss it further there. We did once before and you agreed with me. Now, again, you raise the issue.
--
Black Lions, Sir
http://www.28thinfantry.org/
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(13 of 40)
May 21, 2009 3:57 PM
|
|
Welcome aboard Leg. There seems to be a lot of interest in the subject but not much feedback. As a VietNam Vet what would you think about an elitist secret little unit of Recon types who refused to be billited with other Military personnel? CIA? Stupid? What if they weren't that good? What if they were sent out on a scouting mission and they got themselves surrounded? What if their leaders hopped aboard a chopper and landed right in the middle of the action and got blown up? Not too professional or am I being too picky? Apparently SEALS saw some action in VietNam as advisors but since their training tends to promote UDT skills it's hard to get a handle on their mission.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,814
From:
North Carolina
Registered:
2/11/03
|
|
(14 of 40)
May 21, 2009 4:21 PM
|
Apparently SEALS saw some action in VietNam as advisors but since their training tends to promote UDT skills it's hard to get a handle on their mission.
whitehall. As I suggested, this particular topic belongs on the Vietnam forum. Bring it on over.
Just a comment or two. In Vietnam the SEALS were not advisors. I worked with them personally. It's not all that hard to get a handle on their mission if you worked with them. As to BUDS/UDT etc., this skill was put to use in Vietnam. The VC would often try and mine the mother ship of the PBR's, usually a WWII LST, and the SEALS were the ones that went overboard, usually middle of the night, and disarmed them. Not their primary mission in Vietnam, but very useful.
--
Black Lions, Sir
http://www.28thinfantry.org/
|
|
|
Posts:
19,156
Registered:
1/14/03
|
|
(15 of 40)
May 21, 2009 4:49 PM
|
|
That's what they were trained to do. I guess the SEALS were entirely successful in their anti-mine campaign of US ships during VietNam and it was a relatively untold but important part of the Vietnam War. I don't recall a single incident of a US ship being blown up by an enemy explosive device until the USS Cole.
|
|
|
|
|
