MovieChat Forums > We Were Soldiers (2002) Discussion > Lost platoon?

Lost platoon?

posted 11 years ago by lobbotekka2019
3 replies | jump to latest

In the book, Col. Hal Moore stated that the lost platoon might have saved the day. The lost platoon had gone so far ahead of the main force that when they were initially engaged it made it difficult for the PAVN/NVA to accurately locate and place the main US forces that had landed. They thought they were nearer to the lost platoon and more widely spread out. This bought enough time for Col. Hal Moore to get in more of his troops to the LZ before the fighting got really hectic around the LZ.

Does anyone agree with that statement? I do...

[–] jasidwell 10 years ago

Well im not sure, but I can see why the lost patrol would give them more time to get move troops in. But you think the NVA could see from the hill top what was going on, unless the forest was so thick. But I wasn't there I cant say.

[–] lobbotekka2019 10 years ago

It was not so easy to see the whole area considering the thick brush forest that most of the fighting took place in. They could see the LZ but not the outer perimeters. They had to use troops to engage the outer perimeters to assess the strength and shape/spread of the forces there.

[–] joekinplaya 10 years ago

I don't know how efficient they would have been compared to if they didn't go out on that patrol vs if they did. Pretty much the guys who went on that patrol (if they had stayed in position and not chased the scout) could have still dealt effectively in choking off that area of flanking missions from the NVA.

I'm not doubting that sentiment though. It's hard to compliment the action of going out on that patrol because the platoon leader was over-ambitious and prob saw too many war movies. When in war, at least for me, the only two things that should be on your mind is (in the following order) the safety of your men and how crucial it is to complete your objective. For instance, if I am cut off from reinforcement and supply and in front of me is the blunt force of the whole army of the enemy and behind me are civilians still evacuating, then I would commit everything I have to giving those civilians time. That would mean committing the men's lives and my own life. Or if I don't hurry and bust through the enemy lines, my buddies will die from artillery/anti aircraft/etc. However, if there is no immediate and crucial objective such as that, then the safety of my men would be priority. However I'd like to note that I am not an officer or NCO or even in the military. I should hope if I am ever in that situation I would act/behave like I just wrote.

Moore was probably right though. Lt Col Moore is a proven man who clearly has amazing strategy and great decision making skills. If he says the lost platoon being lost actually saved them, then it's probably true.