First Casulties

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-20 09:40pm

Damn, there is a report that a Sea Knight crashed with 12 US Marines and 4 British aboard, they are saying all were killed. Does not say if it was an operational loss or from enemy fire.

This is very sad if it is true.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2003-03-20 09:41pm

I heard that it was mechanical failure.

Wouldn't that make this the second helicopter lost in this way in two days?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-20 09:45pm

I thought I heard something about a helicopter last night landing and the crew and passangers being recoverd, but that was it. I was only half listening to the radio at the time.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-20 09:49pm

Appears to be an operational loss, at least from what CNN's netradio stream is indicating.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-20 09:51pm

There have already been two hard landings, a Pave Low which had to be destroyed and the crew evaced, and an Apache which managed to get back into the air after putting down. The Ch-46 is the first real crash. If all three had been Army I might chalk it up to same damage from the sand storms. But that seems unlikely.

Well, freak accidents do happen. Could have been a lot of things.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-03-20 09:56pm

In the Kosove campaign weren't the only Allied casualties from chopper crashes?

Anarchist Bunny · Post by **Anarchist Bunny** » 2003-03-20 09:58pm

The copter crashed near the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, while they might have taken fire they say it isn't likely.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-20 10:09pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:There have already been two hard landings, a Pave Low which had to be destroyed and the crew evaced, and an Apache which managed to get back into the air after putting down. The Ch-46 is the first real crash. If all three had been Army I might chalk it up to same damage from the sand storms. But that seems unlikely.

Well, freak accidents do happen. Could have been a lot of things.

The Sea Knights are rather old birds, might have been mechanical failture.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-20 10:13pm

Is anybody aware of whether or not three incidents within the span of a forty-eight hour period is normal in terms of prolonged military operations?

And do we think any of them actually took fire? I'd say the Apache was the most likely recipient of ground fire. The others? Mech. failure.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-20 10:18pm

Iraq claims to have shot down the Apache. But if that happened the thing wouldn't have taken back off. US army says it was mechanical and I see no reason not to believe it. The number of crashes doesn’t seem all that high. One managed to recover its self, and the Pave Low evidently could have been but was too far inside or Iraqi territory. With more then 500 helicopters in the area, I don’t think one serious crash is all that bad.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-03-20 10:20pm

I'd say yes especially in this sort of offensive lightening. Perhaps after the initial weeks of the attack and a lack of mantainence we may have too slow down for a few days too fix up and let supplies catch up for our regroup. Usually stuff like this happens it's just not reported because in bloodly war you report of fighting losses.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-03-20 10:24pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Iraq claims to have shot down the Apache. But if that happened the thing wouldn't have taken back off. US army says it was mechanical and I see no reason not to believe it. The number of crashes doesn’t seem all that high. One managed to recover its self, and the Pave Low evidently could have been but was too far inside or Iraqi territory. With more then 500 helicopters in the area, I don’t think one serious crash is all that bad.

Destroying the Pave Low was prudent, and a single bad crash so far is not unexpected, its just sad.

I agree I dont think the army would lie about the Apache getting shot down. What would they gain.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-03-20 10:24pm

The Apache might have been temporarily disabled by the fire - as in the pilot might have been stunned into landing, unable to control his vehicle. But I agree - mechanical failure now seems the most likely culprit in each of these incidents.

Enlightenment · Post by **Enlightenment** » 2003-03-20 10:40pm

Keep in mind that these guys are flying in the dark with NVGs in a part of the world with very few ground reference lights. This kind of flying is very dangerous period even without enemy fire to contend with. Until the heavy fighting begins there may well be more US deaths due to accidents and mistakes than from enemy fire.

For those keeping score for the other side, Iraq claims five military and one civilian killed so far. Take with however many grains of salt one desires...

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-20 10:41pm

Numbers reversed. According to CNN at least, the helicopter had a four man US crew, but had twelve British troops onboard.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-20 11:33pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Numbers reversed. According to CNN at least, the helicopter had a four man US crew, but had twelve British troops onboard.

BBC, CNN, FNC and MSNBC are corraborating this report.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-20 11:37pm

Axis Kast wrote:The Apache might have been temporarily disabled by the fire - as in the pilot might have been stunned into landing, unable to control his vehicle. But I agree - mechanical failure now seems the most likely culprit in each of these incidents.

No way. If damage is sufficient to force you to land you wouldn't try and lift back off. Anyway, the US Army also reported no opposite in the area of the incident.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2003-03-21 12:06am

Found a link: http://www.msnbc.com/news/888496_asp.htm

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-21 12:08am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Damn, there is a report that a Sea Knight crashed with 12 US Marines and 4 British aboard, they are saying all were killed. Does not say if it was an operational loss or from enemy fire.

This is very sad if it is true.

Not that it makes it any better or worse, but my reporters are saying that the national break-down of the incident was slightly different, with 12 British commandoes and 4 American aviators being on board the helicopter when it crashed.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-21 12:12am

Master of Ossus wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Damn, there is a report that a Sea Knight crashed with 12 US Marines and 4 British aboard, they are saying all were killed. Does not say if it was an operational loss or from enemy fire.

This is very sad if it is true.
Not that it makes it any better or worse, but my reporters are saying that the national break-down of the incident was slightly different, with 12 British commandoes and 4 American aviators being on board the helicopter when it crashed.

See the above couple posts

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-21 12:36am

.. I'm shocked by the amount of.. "teary" sympathy. We're at WAR people! 16 deaths are not a bad thing during war, theyre a GOOD thing, because normally it would be 1,600 deaths, or 16,000! Shit, during the first world war the brits lots 60,000 people in a single day.

16 deaths is incredibly low and we should be glad its only 16. Stop being such pussies about 16 deaths. Mourn for the people who die by the thousands from pathetically simple things like alcohol or motorvehicle accidents, not 16 soldiers whos jobs it was to do exactly what they did.

If it was mechanical failure, they'll triple check helis in the future and ensure that noone else dies needlessly, but the soldiers know this is nothing and shouldn't be cried over, as should you.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-03-21 12:38am

I hate to break it to you guys, but they weren't the first casualties.

Anyone watch the footage of the bombings and cruise missile strikes?

The poor fuckers on the receiving end of those were the first casualties.

And on a sidenote, I see that the Apache is continuing its fine legacy of falling out of the air for no apparent reason.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-03-21 12:40am

kojikun wrote:.. I'm shocked by the amount of.. "teary" sympathy. We're at WAR people! 16 deaths are not a bad thing during war, theyre a GOOD thing, because normally it would be 1,600 deaths, or 16,000! Shit, during the first world war the brits lots 60,000 people in a single day.

16 deaths is incredibly low and we should be glad its only 16. Stop being such pussies about 16 deaths. Mourn for the people who die by the thousands from pathetically simple things like alcohol or motorvehicle accidents, not 16 soldiers whos jobs it was to do exactly what they did.

If it was mechanical failure, they'll triple check helis in the future and ensure that noone else dies needlessly, but the soldiers know this is nothing and shouldn't be cried over, as should you.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's GOOD that 16 people died? Obviously we're thankful that the number isn't far greater, but to claim that others cannot be sympathetic towards the people who died is to shamlessly ignore their sacrifice. Everyone there has had to make a personal decision to put their lives on the line. These people now represent the courage, dedication, and commitment of everyone who died over there. It is possible to mourn for the few, while being glad that there are still many others who are safe. What part of these positions are mutually exclusive?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-21 12:48am

I'm saying that its GOOD that ONLY 16 people died. I'm saying that people here should be cheering the fact that we've gotten so good at fighting wars that we can not get thousands killed in the first day alone. I'm saying that people shouldn't be virtual weeping over a meager 16 people and should save their tears for the thousands of dead, should they come.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-03-21 01:18am

damnit stupid double post >_<

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

First Casulties

First Casulties

Re: First Casulties

Re: First Casulties