DC Tom Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 who's the genius that puts that kind of asset all in one helo? Seriously? Maybe the mission requirements called for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowgirlsFan Posted August 7, 2011 Share Posted August 7, 2011 A sad moment . May we say a prayer for them and their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Blizzard Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 That would be the guys (maybe as some may rotate in and out) that killed Bin Laden. AP twitter: Horrible way to go out for a warrior. Put them on the ground and they take the guys at a 10-1 ratio easily. Eternal forever and my thanks. Big loss for America and for their families. Sad . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Big loss for America and for their families. Sad . . . The brave die never, though they sleep in dust: Their courage nerves a thousand living men. ~Minot J. Savage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 You know this OBL thing really reveals what a chicken s*** yellow piece of cowardly crap he was. Preaching death and sending out suicide killers to destroy in the name of Allah. Why did he not rig the building with explosives he could have detonated if capture was imminent? He single handily could have killed 20 or more of the most hated infidels. Wonder what his followers think of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 A huge loss...They were the best of the best...Godspeed shipmates...Your loss will not be forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Yeah, I was speaking to how they would have wanted to go out. The crash itself may not be that ideal death, but at the end of the day, they were killed while coming to the aid of fellow soldiers. If there really was some way they'd want to go out, I'd like to think it would be something along those lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Seriously? Maybe the mission requirements called for it. How many helos did they use to get Bin Laden? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 How many helos did they use to get Bin Laden? I think it was 3 going in left 1 behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Endless war brings endless tragedies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 How many helos did they use to get Bin Laden? Something like seven or eight. So what? Were they going to get him again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Something like seven or eight. So what? Were they going to get him again? Not really. President Obama insisted that we have two choppers on standby with troops in case there was a firefight. He knew what the military has apparently forgotten, that things go wrong and you have to have a back up. Apparently the military forgot the old rule about not bunching up in combat as well. I've seen enough choppers brought down by AK-47's to know that having one monster chopper going into a firefight to offload troops is not the best idea in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dib Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 Something like seven or eight. So what? Were they going to get him again? once again you ignore my point to make your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tomcat Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 I don't mean to go all conspiracy theory after such a tragedy, but... The Seal Team 6 part seems a little too convenient. If Seal Team 6 is dead, there's no need for America hating Muslims to go looking for revenge on them or their families First thing I thought of as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 8, 2011 Share Posted August 8, 2011 apparently questions are being raised. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14449165 HIGH RISK The usual American practice in Iraq and Afghanistan is for the QRF to be made up of US Army Rangers (less highly trained than the Tier 1 units) and for them to ride in one or two Chinooks, while the team carrying out the assault normally flies in a pair of Blackhawks. This way the Tier 1 men ride in two well protected helicopters, and the more vulnerable (and noisy) Chinooks are kept a little further from the target. On Saturday, for some operational reason, this usual practice was reversed and the Seals ended up flying into action as QRF to back up some Rangers carrying out a raid who had got into a heavy fire fight. British Special Forces commanders have long been dubious about sending an entire squadron into action in a single large helicopter like the Chinook. One SAS man told me that a raid he was on in Baghdad was cancelled because their commander did not want to take the risk of putting dozens of highly trained operators in one such aircraft. The SAS reluctance results in part from an incident during the 1982 Falklands war when a Sea King helicopter ditched, with the loss of 18 SAS men. In Iraq they switched to medium-sized Puma helicopters, two of which were lost on operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Not really. President Obama insisted that we have two choppers on standby with troops in case there was a firefight. He knew what the military has apparently forgotten, that things go wrong and you have to have a back up. Apparently the military forgot the old rule about not bunching up in combat as well. I've seen enough choppers brought down by AK-47's to know that having one monster chopper going into a firefight to offload troops is not the best idea in the world. But again...what where the mission requirements? (Funny thing is: the rest of you claim I think I know everything, when I'm the only one here claiming any sort of ignorance.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 But again...what where the mission requirements? (Funny thing is: the rest of you claim I think I know everything, when I'm the only one here claiming any sort of ignorance.) Good point. I just don't understand why the military would not have anticipated that a Chinook going into such a trap was foreseeable. The Afghans have well over twenty years experience in shooting down Russian and American helicopters.Seems crazy to put so many highly trained assets in one oversize target like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Good point. I just don't understand why the military would not have anticipated that a Chinook going into such a trap was foreseeable. The Afghans have well over twenty years experience in shooting down Russian and American helicopters.Seems crazy to put so many highly trained assets in one oversize target like that. Yes, but... Maybe a couple of the Blackhawks were down with a problem (or simply weren't available for whatever reason), and someone felt it was better to send the entire QRF in than just part. Not exactly practical to say "Sorry, we can't go, two of our helos are grounded." Maybe the Chinook was one of the combat-rated SF modifications (MH-47E, I think) considered as combat-survivable as a Blackhawk...and replacing them in service for that reason. Maybe speed/range/altitude needs were outside the Blackhawk's envelope and required the Chinook instead. Maybe the tactical situation on the ground dictated landing them as a unit (or terrain situation...no landing site big enough for 5 Blackhawks)? Lots of unknowns to be saying "they shouldn't have". Perhaps as a matter of doctrine or practice they shouldn't (which I agree with), but there are no absolute doctrinal rules. Unless you're fighting for Stalin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWVaBeach Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 Yes, but... Maybe speed/range/altitude needs were outside the Blackhawk's envelope and required the Chinook instead. I actually heard this reasoning today on the radio. Don't remember what I was listening to at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 This Time article addresses a number of the concerns. http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2011/08/09/second-guessing-the-doomed-chinook-mission/ I'm still not impressed with the decision and certainly no one is satisfied with the outcome, but I'd like more on whether the rangers involved were actually "pinned down", and I'd like to hear more about alternatives to sending so many seals on a mission in one big target. We will see in the next few weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts