Talk:Operation Anaconda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Afghanistan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Operation Anaconda is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Australia / Military history (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Operation Anaconda is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Canada (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New Zealand  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

A-Team Link Removed[edit]

There shouldn't be a link to the A-Team TV show here.

SEAL Error[edit]

March 4, 2002"an additional SEAL was killed " is not a fact. Neil Roberts is the only SEAL killed in Operation Anaconda. The additional person killed was Tech Sgnt John Chapman of Air Force CCT

Moved from article page

Is that correct to put links which require identification ? Bon d'une cythare

Rather Lacking in Information[edit]

Seems less an encyclopedia article than a chance to snipe, unless phrases such as "well-worn trick from their American allies" are considered neutral. --Buckboard 10:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

victory[edit]

where's the proof this was a coalition victory?--TheFEARgod 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the german version of wikipedia sais it's under dispute... -ano. user

Yes, it was more like epic failure, and i dont know where they came up with the 500-800 "enemy" killed. They recovered something in order of remains of 30. "AQ" on the other hand in real world decimated a US heliborne landing by a comppany, made the ground assault to beat hasty retreat and used coalition IFF measures to mostly dodge any airstrikes so on, with great majority of them then escaping to pakistan unharmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The victors are those who hold the battleground at then end of the day. The Taliban either were killed or ran away to Pakistan as you yourself claim. Ergo, coalition victory. Divbis0 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Germans controlled the battlefield after the Battle of Kursk. History did not declare them the winner of that particular battle.Don Brunett (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Major Update[edit]

I just completed a major update to this article in terms of detail. I need to re-read for typos and add some citations. Elektrotek85 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Elektrotek85

Wow this is incomplete.[edit]

There is virtually no information on the conventional 10st/10th Mtn troops who faught in the valley for eight days. The TACP (ETACs) from the 20 ASOS where awarded two silver stars and three bronze stars w/valor for their part in controlling vital CAS missions in support of Army Light fighters. CAS saved 1/87 although the command structure will not admit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.31.182.72 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

There is also no information about the vehement criticism made of this operation - namely in the planning and preparation. The initial plan was allegedly air-light and the Marines refused outright to take part in it, due to fears that it would be a disaster. Seymour Hersh's book "Chain of Command" makes some very compelling points. Can someone correct this? Darkmind1970 08:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a fair amount of information here, perhaps too jargon filled. The article doesn't mention that SASR came down from observation and took part in the fighting when American special forces were trapped while waiting for helicopters. Hersh's book is good but only a few pages on Anaconda, not much detail. There is some information about the readiness of 10th Mountain Division here MOUNTAIN WARFARE IS NOT THE ONLY THING SLOWING DOWN THE U.S. ARMY By Jason Vest. KAM 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that there's a new book out about this battle, called "A Bad Day to Die" or something like that. I'll look it up. Darkmind1970 08:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Darkmind, the book you mention is titled Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda, written by Sean Naylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.62.41 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This article could use some point of view from other nations than just U.S. and Afghan (I saw a small entry on some heroic Australians). If anyone can find any information on other countries that participated in the Operation like New Zealand, Denmark, France, Canada, Norway, and some additional information for UK and Australia it would give the article a wider view of what happened and what each country contributed. Right now it's mostly just what Americans and Afghan forces did. Bretonnia (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to this, I would like to see the claim "Coalition victory" substantified. The estimates of "enemy body count" vary greatly, and it is evident that 1000 bodies were not found ; it seems that in fact, only a few dozens were, which makes the certain Taleban loss on par with those of the Coalition. Since the rest of the Taleban forces were not captured, not to mention Ben Laden himself, the operation, as far as the facts go, could also be described as a successful Taleban evacuation operation. Rama (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

there is ample information that has been released over the years to show that the facts of this entry are misleading and in dispute, it reads like a propaganda piece for USA home consumption —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.70.120 (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of sources[edit]

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Norway's contributions - Operation Anaconda / Enduring Freedom[edit]

If someone could add this to the appropriate place in the article, I would appreciate it:

In this first period of the war in Afghanistan, Norway's specialforces work, was alot of reconasence missions.

" When the first Norwegian specialforces ( MJK / FSK ) was deployed into Afghanistan in December ( 2001 )it was full scale winter in the country. Partly because of their physique and experience from seriously though mountain terrain the NORSOF Task Group was deployed into some of the most difficult accesible and dangerous areas. "

One of the Norwegian patrols, were put down by a Hellicopter at the wrong place. 5 minutes flying time from where the original dropsite had been pointed out. It took 48 hours of toil in steep Afghan mountains and terrain to reach the original drop site.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=55260

Using top secret methods and equipment, they managed to give allied forces life important information. The Norwegian niche contribution has gotten attention and admiration also amongst American commanders. It is regarded as a defence secret and will most likely be used again and developed further.

In an article from 2003, it is revealed that Norwegian specialforces were the ones of the allied forces in Afghaistan with the most 24 hours in and the most missions in the operating field. They were the only ones of the forces, that did not experience dehydration and had to get it's soldiers air lifted out.

With rucksach and weapons they carried a total of 100 Kg each. Water up to 70 liters weighed the most.

http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=5347112

This info is translated from Norwegian articles from the Norwegian newspaper VG.The information is confirmed in the article by top military personell. Mortyman (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

French and Afghan contributions[edit]

France and Afghanistan are listed among coalition members taking part, but no units are listed. Did smaller team participate? If yes, this should be documented. Else, these countries should be removed from the list of participants. Rama (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Afghan Forces : dozen of men in TF Hammer. French : some CAS aircrafts took part to this operation from a neighboring country (can't remeber if it was Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan or another). Rob1bureau (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Operation Anaconda[edit]

to add balance and POV to the page i added a another POV of anaconda Jack v1 (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Source?[edit]

The last paragraph discusses a rift between German and US troops, and how US troops are essentially trigger happy. The only cite for the entire paragraph is stern.de, and it is in German. I think an English source would be good on the English wiki. Also, additional sources would be appreciated given the severity of the claim being made. -Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.116.197 (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. I read the Stern article. It came from an unidentified german soldier, with no proof or substantiation from a second source. No pictures, or anything. It wasn't limited to this quote. He went on and on about how stupid and evil americans are. The eight imbed reporters on Op. Anaconda never reported anything like this. An allegation of genocide demands substantiation or immediate removal and it is utterly rediculous to even mention such tripe. However, I am leaving the section untouched, and I hope others do to, because it serves as a towering verbal monument to how subjective, ideological, useless and mean Wikipedia has become. Divbis0 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be better, if another source to the stern-report about a former KSK-soldier would be found. STERN is -usually- a reputable magazine, but STERN also failed with the Hitler-Diaries(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Diaries). Some few "dead shepherds" is not a genocide -maybe a reason why no other journalist was interested- but it might still would be a war crime. In the german article is written about a comment from an afgahnian civilist (in that sense):"There are no arabs here in this valley. [...] The British are wasting their time. But they are welcome, because when they determine, that nobody is here, the Americans will not bomb our villages." Many greetings ~~Vincent_Vega 06/18/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.6.154.161 (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sniper record?[edit]

Why is there an entire section on this. This is an article about a battle, not snipers setting records. Unless-- Did snipers play a significant role in the battle? If yes then the significance of this particular sniper should be explained. Otherwise, it belongs in a different article. Divbis0 (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Takur Ghar section drawn from MoH?[edit]

I'm not an expert on anything related to the War in Afghanistan, but I couldn't help notice that several paragraphs under the 3 March and 4 March 2002 section read exactly like a synopsis of the game Medal of Honor, which covers these very same events. One paragraph in particular has at least three citation tags, and describes events exactly as depicted in the video game:

Twelve Chinooks loaded with US Army Rangers from the 75th Ranger Regiment landed at Takur Ghar and were ambushed by Taliban fighters believed to be over a thousand, and three Chinooks taken out. The Rangers took cover in the dried up river bed and any other place they could find; a team of four Rangers moved off and flanked the Taliban securing weapon caches with enough ammunition to keep the fight up for weeks, and a heavy machine gun. They were ambushed while making their way to their extraction point by a few hundred Taliban, they held for over 30 minutes when two Apache Longbows came to their aid and made the enemy flee back into the mountains. The Apaches later destroyed two convoys of Taliban trucks, a city occupied by Taliban along with an ammo dump, and several anti-aircraft batteries and mortars.

I have a feeling much of this was added by an MoH buff, with no relation to actual events. Can anyone confirm this? Are there reliable references that can substantiate these accounts? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments. The only employment of the 75th Rangers was the QRF from Bagram who inserted in Razor 01 and 02 onto Takur Ghar. The above quoted paragraphs should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.131 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like MoH (lol). But, Ironically enough, it fits with the other unsubstantiated comment made by a german soldier who claimed americans annihilated an entire city on a blood crazed killing spree (see discussion above)? Okay seriously, I've wasted enough time using wikipedia trying to figure out what really happened in Op. Anaconda. I will have to look up the pictures, official army accounts, videos and writings of the 8 inbed reporters to get any semblance of truthDivbis0 (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree as well. I was reading this and thought "wow this game must be realistic" and then when itr got to the part about the seal that fell out of the helicopter I knew something was up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.118.166 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
You deleted the entire section, but only the first paragraph was bogus. Check Not a Good Day to Die, pp. 312-340; the events in the rest of the text you deleted (which left a huge hole in the article, if you'd bothered to read it - once that section is gone, who are Chapman and Roberts, the subjects of the next section?) are all there. I will put the section back (minus the bogus paragraph). Noel (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

NATO casualties?[edit]

Does anyone know the source for the supposed 15 NATO KIA stated under 'casualties and losses'? Using various sources, including Sean Naylor's book and icasualties.org, I only get to 8 KIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.25.218.239 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)