Operation Anaconda: American Troops DEAD

[Wiglaf]

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/04/ret.afghan.fighting/index.html

Two US choppers were shot down, one was forced to crash land directly into enemy teroritory. In the gun battle that followed all the grounded American troops involved were killed. Another copter had an onboard soldier fall to his death after swinging to avoid a close incoming missile. A full and massive battle has taken place.

Once and for all: what sort of COMBAT casualty numbers is the BBC reporting for you guys, especially in Anaconda? It's time I asked for some hard figures to find out if I'm right or not to settle this.

[Provost Harrison]

War is messy I am afraid, if you go into other countries, you have to expect casualties alas. If you can't take the casualties, don't go into war.

[Asher]

Here in Canada I've heard 9 US soldiers were killed, along with at least 3 Afghani soldiers fighting with them.

There are also Canadians involved in Operation Anaconda, but none of them have been injured so far.

[DinoDoc]

We don't need them right now, Wiglaf. Stop trying to shove it in thier faces. It is considered rude.

[Chowlett]

From the bbc site - http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1854750.stm

The Americans have suffered their highest casualties in combat since the war in Afghanistan began, with as many as nine soldiers killed during operations in the east of the country.

[Giancarlo]

I can't wait until they release the casualities for the Al Qaeda/Taliban resistance... fourty... fifty? Sixty?

Sure, 9 deaths is tragic.... but the US has had worse. And war is war.

[Seeker]

Using the helicopters is a bad move at that altitude.

I can't think of any alternative though. There's probably all kinds of mines and **** around up there.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Seeker
Using the helicopters is a bad move at that altitude.

I can't think of any alternative though. There's probably all kinds of mines and **** around up there.

The Ecuadorian Airforce has 100 Light Attack Helicopters they use at an air-base at 9000 feet... maybe the Americans should ask advice. Some countries have to fly helicopters at high altitudes. I was thinking the US should ask these countries how they do it well.

[Case]

Interestingly, the choppers which were lost were MH-47s, the same kind as the one which crashed off the Philipines a week ago.
I wonder if this is a coincidence, or wether there's something wrong with the choppers... (they are very big and would make easy targets).

[MichaeltheGreat]

Flying light attack helos hasn't got **** to do with air assault tactics.

Elevation of the LZ does not matter - you have to adjust the loading of the helo for lift factors (temp and humidity) anyway, regardless of the elevation.

The simple fact of life is that insertion / extraction in and out of LZ's is 95% of the danger of air assault ops.

And the mother****ers on the ground know the wind direction and how the helos have to go in for the insertion - and how long (once you've seen a few do it) it takes to get translational lift and extract.

The one big question that isn't answered in any of the press reports is how much gunship support is onhand for any of these insert / extract sorties, and how much (if any) prepping of the LZ is done prior to insertion.

Air assault gives you a big edge in mobility and is a huge force multiplier for light forces in difficult terrain, but there is a big vulnerability whenever an LZ is hot.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Case
Interestingly, the choppers which were lost were MH-47s, the same kind as the one which crashed off the Philipines a week ago.
I wonder if this is a coincidence, or wether there's something wrong with the choppers... (they are very big and would make easy targets).

MH-47's are an updated version of old birds. They are big and slow, but they're the long range heavy lift component of army SOFs - they can carry more payload than UH-60s, and have mid-air refuelability, and have some mods specific to SOF operations - they are better suited for fastrope operations, undersling transport of mission cargo, etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a war... deal with it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Its sad but even sadder is this war is going exactly the way some of us predicted it would from the start i.e. guerilla war, escalating casualties and no end in sight.

[Wiglaf]

Imran, I realize it's a war for us, but what about for the coalition? Someone please provide me with the non-US casualty figures for Enduring Freedom.

[Asher]

Wiglaf, buddy, the US has more casualties because they commit far more troops. They commit far more troops because it IS largely your war, and you have a budget about 100x that Canada has, for example.

You're winning, deal with it and stop whining.

And go join the military for yourself, you little chicken****.