[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by hoot72

I have had this on going debate with a school teacher who is now working as a historian and book writer about the merits of sending 2000 men into enemy held territory via an airborne parachute drop in World War Two to rescue over 2000 prisoners of war who were ill, and in some cases on the verge of death due to diseases and malnutrition and poor hygienic conditions with very little logistical support in the way of extracting not only the airborne assault force but also moving the prisoners from a bombed out air strip and pow camp to the coast some 8 kilometers-10 kilometers away and to evacuate them by sea with an enemy suicide boat squadron located on an island nearby.

She has this idea that the leadership chickened out of this rescue and they were responsible for the deaths of 2000-3000 prisoners of war.

I wonder if senior commanders here on the forums would have a take on this...sending men into a combat zone on very little intelligence, difficult rescue to conduct, insufficient medical support, limited long range transport planes and no Plan B in the event Plan A fails.

Comments?

Every one of those soldiers would be willing to sacrifice to rescue POW's, commanders are responsible for the lives of those men who would willingly do the mission as well as the POW's if given the mission. The commander weighs the risk vs the gain of mission success and in this case success is defined as rescue of all POW's returned to U.S. alive if possible, his decision includes risking the lives of 2000 men for a mission with a low chance of success ending in the deaths of the men he would send in and in effect doubling the loss of life. U.S. military policy today is a 3-1 fire superiority in other words if their are 2000 known enemy in the area he wants to be successful meaning he would send in U.S. 3- to 1 enemy ratio to reduce the threat...not sure if they had that luxury during WW2