US helicopters downed in N Iraq

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 14:37

This is another two to add to the other three lost in the past few weeks!

Some might say it is getting dangerous to fly in Iraq if you're an American...

Something has to be done about this - more troops, not less...

Ned · November 15, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
This is another two to add to the other three lost in the past few weeks!

Some might say it is getting dangerous to fly in Iraq if you're an American...

Something has to be done about this - more troops, not less...

Whose troops? Not American!

GePap · November 15, 2003, 14:46

witnesses say it was an accident. no consolation, but still not enemy fire.

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 14:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Whose troops? Not American!

Why not, the US is responsible for this FUBAR, so they should clean it up...

KrazyHorse · November 15, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Whose troops? Not American!

Who else? You start a war, you finish it (unless you can find somebody dumb enough to take that responsibility on for you).

Nubclear · November 15, 2003, 16:09

I'm sure the (future) superpower of Poland would gladly take it on

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 16:29

Twelve dead so far

They say they're not sure how - and not discounting enemy action.

Either way it is more US lives and materiel lost.

I guess the prospect of grounding future troop movements is going to be a bit of a logistical nightmare...

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 16:46

Quote:

'Collision'

Reuters quoted and unnamed US officer at the scene saying "one of the helicopters was hit by an RPG on the tail wing".

The agency also quoted a local man, Mohammad Badran, who said he had seen the two helicopters collide after an explosion.

Seems like the enemy got a lucky two-for-one strike...

Which begs the question, why were they flying so closely in the 1st place!?

Sandman · November 15, 2003, 17:07

This month is turning into a right headache for the Coalition. And using Iraqis as cannon-fodder is unlikely to be a solution.

Dr Strangelove · November 15, 2003, 18:31

Since tranport helicopters seem to be such a big prize I think we should: (1)fly them at night without running lights, making them difficult to target, (2)station our helipads in unpopulated areas, denying the attackers cover, and/or (3)provide cover for them using drones to scout the surrounding territory.

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Since tranport helicopters seem to be such a big prize I think we should: (1)fly them at night without running lights, making them difficult to target, (2)station our helipads in unpopulated areas, denying the attackers cover, and/or (3)provide cover for them using drones to scout the surrounding territory.

Problem is if the US starts doing things like that it will be admitting they can't handle the 'desperate' enemy - much in the same way as to why they insist on reducing troop strength instead of increasing it!

The US govt is playing with US soldiers lives by pretending that the enemy is weaker than it actually is...

techumseh · November 15, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Since tranport helicopters seem to be such a big prize I think we should: (1)fly them at night without running lights, making them difficult to target, (2)station our helipads in unpopulated areas, denying the attackers cover, and/or (3)provide cover for them using drones to scout the surrounding territory.

Who's we?

Dr Strangelove · November 15, 2003, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by techumseh

Who's we?

Oh Ha Ha, you mean as in:
Lone Ranger: "It looks like the Commanches have got us surrounded, Tonto."
Tonto: "Who's we, white man?"

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 19:18

Seventeen dead now with one still unaccounted for!

This is worse than the Chinook now!

So within five days of each other the US has suffered the two deadliest attacks since the beginning of the war!!!

These 'desperate' forces seem better at killing US troops than Saddam's army ever was...

Chemical Ollie · November 15, 2003, 19:30

Another tragedy in a long series of them. "Blackhawk Down" again and again and again.

I hardly think an RPG did it. You must get within a 100 meters or so to be lucky enough to hit a helicopter with an RPG, and then only from behind if it's not hovering. The Somalis learned how to do that, but only when the helicopters were flying slow and low over dense urban areas. A heatseeking shoulder-held SAM would be more likely to have done this.

According to BBC, one helicopter was hit in the tail and caught fire. As it was trying to escape upwards, it hit another helicopter and both crashed.

Chemical Ollie · November 15, 2003, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS

So within five days of each other the US has suffered the two deadliest attacks since the beginning of the war!!!

Add the Italian massacre on top of that. And all the civilians killed by terrorists and jumpy coalition soldiers. 80+ wounded in the attack against the Italians, including a 3-year old who got the flesh in her face blown off

Having a girl in the same age sleeping 10 meters from me right now, that really makes my stomach turn.

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 19:39

Still, at least Saddam is no longer in power...

Chemical Ollie · November 15, 2003, 20:49

For some reason, even Fox use the word "Guerilla" instead of "Terrorist"

Quote:

Sixteen U.S. service members were killed on Nov. 2 when a Chinook (search) helicopter carrying dozens of soldiers on leave was apparently downed [by] guerrillas in the city of Fallujah west of Baghdad.

Pekka · November 15, 2003, 21:18

Chemical Ollie, well.. who would in their right minds do that.. after all that's combat and target was strictly military.. I mean sure they could call them that, but the word would lose too much credibility..

And what got them down or what didn't, should launched missile you can be in safe distance if the ground gives you some cover to move in and out. Easy to shoot, easy to hit if you're located correctly.. then again it's not guaranteed you get that 100% sure shot.. and you can shoot these babies cold too, if you are experienced and know your stuff, no problem, and the chopper will have minimum time to counter the problem. Then it won't go after new heat targets if the chopper decides to go for it. Then again that's not so easy anymore.. but you don't need to be inside 100 meter range.. well at least if you have proper stuff, and that stuff is still cheap.

I don't know what the solution to this is. Naturally it would be, that the routes used are safe and protected from the ground, but then again that's not very possible in Iraq, where resistance can move within the common people.... and the routes are not very short I'd suppose.
In that situation, I guess the flights just have to be risked. There are no sure things anyway, I guess.

But it's bad, because this gives motivation to resistance and maybe they are able to recruit more people faster when they see their small battles. Let's hope it doesn't become a trend.

For example in Afghanistan when SU fought there, guerillas brought down over 300 choppers as an aftermath. That was every chopper that was sent there. Last chopper was shot down when it was on its way back to SU because the war was kind of over. So none of the choppers came back. But then again, Afghani mountains are ideal to use those missiles. And they had plenty of them. But I suspect, that Iraqi resistance is not exactly lacking those either, and they should be able to get them more and more, from neighbouring countries that their supporters have maybe safe routes etc.
And there could be larger weapons stacks that the US didn't find, that was solely meant for the resistance to use. .. but let's hope this doesn't become a trend.

We had the opportunity to actually watch (well few of us from our group) videos from the 'library' in the army. It was interesting.. they had a video that showed mujahedins dropping those choppers there. It was very good video, and it showed how it was not very fun to fly there, when they didn't have control over the mountains. Hindis came down like blueberries.

Chemical Ollie · November 15, 2003, 21:45

Pekka, I don't understand exactly what you mean, or which of my posts you are replying to.

But in the matter of the weapon involved, someone still has to convince me that an RPG could hit a moving helicopter outside the 100 meters range except for a very lucky shot, while a shoulder-held SAM would do it any time.

The Sovjet Afghanistan comparison is excactly what I think of this war. An easy victory for the invasion army, but then a long grinding guerilla war that eventually wore down the agressor.

DanS · November 15, 2003, 21:52

MOBIUS: Stop gizzing on your keyboard over American deaths.

DinoDoc · November 15, 2003, 21:56

It's automatic for him at this point.

Pekka · November 15, 2003, 21:59

Chemical Ollie, I kind of mixed up some posts too

. I don't mean RPGs naturally, and I agree that you have to be a lucky shot to get a chopper down with that if it's not close and hovering. I meant the same stuff.

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 23:12

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
MOBIUS: Stop gizzing on your keyboard over American deaths.

Go f*ck yourself!

Its never the people that are actually responsible for this sh*t that actually have to suffer the consequences, but the pawns who have no say as to how their lives are frittered away! The only person I could have been accused of 'jizzing on my keyboard about' would have been if someone actually responsible for this crap like Wolfowitz had've had his clock cleaned the other week - that might've been a bit of actual justice if you ask me...

Because it is 'not cool' for the govt to admit it is having serious problems in Iraq, it is undermanning the occupation and leaving soldiers vulnerable to attack like sitting ducks - perhaps you don't care if you've lost 400+ men already (plenty more where they came from huh?) but I actually do because this whole occupation is a FUBAR!

Also, it has a knock on effect because any destabilisation in the US occupied areas affects the areas occupied by the other coalition forces - such as the British...

So get your f*cking head out of the sand, stop with the libellous attacks and shut the f*ck up if you have nothing to say like that other loser Dinodoc...

DinoDoc · November 15, 2003, 23:29

You're a sensetive little **** aren't you?

Sprayber · November 15, 2003, 23:33

Dan must have struck a nerve.

MOBIUS · November 15, 2003, 23:48

In your dreams!

And no, not in the slightest, I just take exception to having my character defamed and have defended it accordingly. DanS is the one here that appears to be supporting a policy in which US soldiers are getting killed - I was against the way this policy was pursued in the first place.

And you can't spell, Dino

DinoDoc · November 15, 2003, 23:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MOBIUS
And no, not in the slightest, I just take exception to having my character defamed and have defended it accordingly.

It's not defamation when it's true.

Don't worry though. You aren't alone in this respect. Check out the thread regarding Italian war dead for people just like you.

Quote:

And you can't spell, Dino

Sprayber · November 16, 2003, 00:14

In all seriousness Mobius, there are plenty of people here that didn't support the war that don't come across quiet like you do. Your posts come across as gloating. If it's intentional or not is unclear, but the impression is there. You can get all indigant if you want. It won't help much though.

DanS · November 16, 2003, 00:48

Good God. Libelling MOBIUS?

If there's one Apolytoner that I would expect to be seen in Iraq dancing on a burned out American humvee, it would be MOBIUS.