Regarding helicopter shoot-downs and the history we forget.

[WilliamPitt]

Somewhere between seven and eight US helicopters have been downed in Iraq over the last couple of weeks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/middleeast/12copters.html

The tactical purpose of helicopters, and air superiority over a battle theater in general, is three-fold:

1. Close fire support/evac/resupply for soldiers on the ground;

2. Direct firepower upon targets;

3. Easy, rapid movement from base to battleground or other zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_helicopter

During the Afghan war, the US supplied the mujeheddin with some 600 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, as well as training on their use. Those missiles essentially paralyzed Soviet military capabilities and led to their ultimate defeat. When a modern army can't move in the manner it has become accustomed to, it can be destroyed in place or check-mated.

The mujeheddin got really, really good at blasting Russian choppers out of the sky, especially when those choppers would go into "hover mode," necessary for the delivery of fire, but which made them stationary targets for the Stingers. This, as much as anything else, bled the Soviets dry.

We are suddenly losing helicopters over in Iraq, which both requires new strategies and imperils our fighting forces by leaving them with shaky or shot-down fire support in a hot zone.

Sound familiar?

It should.

The Afghan mujeheddin was the 80's version of what we now call the Taliban and al Qaeda. When they were allies, we taught them how to defeat a superpwer, and how to defeat a modern army. They are now applying our lessons against us in Iraq.

The helicopters are only the beginning.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Karma. n/t

[KittyWampus]

26. Blowback.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Never thought about how someday they would use those missiles

against us. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

[benEzra]

29. I don't think they're using those missiles, but they are using the KNOWLEDGE.

I don't think the seeker units on the missiles we sent to Afghanistan have a shelf life this long. Knowledge, on the other hand, does.

20-year-old Stingers aren't the only MANPADs in existence. I think a lot of the missiles being used here are ex-Iraqi-army stuff, which was mostly Warsaw Pact pattern.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I was trying to find the numbers of downed choppers in Vietnam.

According to wikipedia and answers, we only lost 59 choppers in combat. Seems low.

[Dr.Phool]

4. Also in Vietnam.

The Viet Cong first started becoming a force to be reckoned with, when they were taught how to shoot down helicopters.

[Bandit]

7. Not just helicopters but fighter jets and even the occasional B-52

NVA were quite remarkable in their capabilities...

[WillyT]

5. Which Raises The Question...

What happens when we find smuggled-in U.S. weaponry being used to kill Iraqi citizens and American soldiers?

Who goes to the U.N. on THAT one?

:shrug:

[Giant Robot]

28. Nothing happens

Because we will never hear of it. Maybe some disgruntled soldiers returning from Iraq will talk about it, but they will be dismissed by politicians and the media as malcontents, disturbed, or serving some other agenda. Nothing will happen, because I am sure US weaponry is in use over there already.

[ourbluenation]

6. the biggest question I have is where are they getting this weaponry?

Josh at TPM wrote last week that it was the saudi's. you know, the place where most of the 9-11 dudes came from. This whole thing is so fubar.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. If it's coming from the Saudis...

then it's being paid for with our gas money.

[Selatius]

11. I guarantee black market arms smugglers all over the world are swarming around Iraq

If there's money to be made on arms sales, you can bet arms dealers are not far behind regardless if foreign governments like the Saudis get involved.

[motocicleta]

16. True, but

it is very, very important where these weapons are coming from since we are currently being drumbeaten into war with Iran right now on the premise that they are the boogiemen causing all of our hassles in Iraq. If the weapons are coming from our allies, or anywhere but Iran, this news needs to be front and center to stop another disastrous conflict.

[Sammy Pepys]

9. Eh...

The Soviets were losing aircraft at a much greater clip than we are currently, and not just helos.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. The Soviets averaged less than 1 helicopter down per week.

Less than the US has in the last three weeks. Of course, it remains to be seen if the Iraqis will keep this rate up.

[WilliamPitt]

13. There was the first one, the second one, the third one, etc...

...or do you think they all fell out of the Afghan sky at once?

It was a building process then, and may well be so again.

[Beetwasher]

14. Oh, Well In That Case, Who Cares?

Right? :eyes:

Gee, it's not as bad (yet) as Afghanistan was, so what the hell! Pathetic.

[zbdent]

12. Any video making the rounds of the bodies of the servicemen and/or women

being dragged through the streets?

Oh, wait ... that's only shown in the US when the "liberal media" wants to demoralize the population into hating a humanitarian mission under a DEMOCRATIC (and ELECTED) President ...

[Alcibiades]

15. Helicopters are quite vulnerable to ground fire

Hey, something I actually know something about. My Dad served as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam for two tours, plus three additional rotations (short tours) beyond that. During that time, he was shot down three times by small arms fire (and had his aircraft hit too many times to count on other occasions).

No, it's not that he was a bad pilot--the fact that he survived these shootdowns testifies to that. The fact is that helicopters were (and are) extremely vulnerable to ground fire. In Vietnam, Hueys and other aircraft had to land troops and evacuate wounded into/and out of landing zones. The NVA and VC would scout these landing zones and set up ambushes. They soon learned, as the enemy in Iraq have apparently learned, that a helicopter is most vulnerable to ground fire when it is hovering. Attack helicopters are also vulnerable, as they hover to fire their weaponry, particularly when fighting in an urban environment. Contrary to those of you who seem surprised that the insurgents are capable of shooting down our helicopters would imagine, there are lots of vulnerable parts on a helicopter: the rotors (main & tail), the fuel lines, the fuel tank, parts of the engine, all those sophisticated electronics that keep a modern chopper aloft, and, naturally, the pilot. Small arms fire can, and will, shoot down a helicopter.

So, where are they getting these arms? Well, they had them already, plus I understand that we keep shipping arms to Iraq as our effort to "stand up" the Iraqi Army. I wouldn't be surprised at all if a hell of a lot more US weapons wind up in Iraqi hands than any supposed Iranian weapons. They don't need 20mm cannons to shoot down our helicopters, and if they did have them in numbers, the casualties would be worse.

Yes, the number of fifty is far too low. According to the best estimate I can find, we lost 5,086 out of 11,827 total helicopters that were sent to Vietnam during the entire war. The US had 2,202 helicopter pilots and 2,704 crew KIA, with many more wounded, for sure. This information I got from the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association at http://www.vhpa.org/heliloss.pdf , which was the first document that comes up when you google "vietnam helicopter losses."

I am skeptical of the claim that only seasoned afghan veterans would know about the vulnerability of helicopters to ground fire. After all, the Iraqi Army Bremer disbanded had a large antiaircraft component, the officers and soldiers of which would all know about how to bring down a helicopter. All it takes is a bit of common sense (i.e. if the Americans are using helicopters, I cannot imagine why insurgents wouldn't shoot at them). Anybody who has ever watched any of the various Vietnam War movies knows choppers can be brought down. In this type of war, it is inevitable that helicopters will be shot down. The only defense we have is to bring them all home.

[maine_raptor]

18. Good post.

About the only thing I would add is this:

Military pilots refer to something called "The Golden BB": a round that hits a vital part. A single .22 round can bring down the most sophisticated of military jets if it hits the right spot.

In Iraq our helicopters are flying low and fast. They can be heard coming before they arrive overhead. While the time between when you hear them and when they are overhead is short, it is still enough time to raise a weapon and fire. Sooner or later the law of averages strikes and a chopper pilot meets the Golden BB.

As more weapons get into the hands of more and more pissed off Iraqis, more and more Golden BB's will be in the air.

[NewJeffCT]

21. good post - I heard thousands of weapons we sent over

are unaccounted for... I heard a teaser for (I think) Ed Schultz during the Thom Hartmann show and it had Schultz saying how 13,000 weapons we shipped over there are missing.

Gee, I wonder where those weapons ended up?

[northernsoul]

30. Thanks for the insight!

I love it when a DUer with some modicum of expertise can provide empirical data to us ignoramuses. Greatly appreciated, Alcibiades!

[Hubert Flottz]

17. AND...

We are bleeding the country DRY, with the military spending, just like the USSR did before she fell apart!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

20. I feel as if I'm living in the former Soviet Union as it was about 20-25 years ago.

The state run media, the ridiculous "war" shoved down our throats, the enormous gap between the mega rich and powerful and the rest of us, who are working too hard just to survive to really comprehend the depth of Soviet style corruption in our government, the suppression of free speech, secret prisons, "rounding up" of citizens(who, at this point in time, are labeled as illegal immigrants, child pornographers or wanted criminals), the draining of the treasury into defense spending, the glorification of all things military...

MKJ

[KittyWampus]

27. Yes, the comparison to Soviets is more apt than Nazi Germany

[Doondoo]

19. K&R

[KurtNYC]

22. During the LAPD riots in 1992, helicopter were shot down within hours

From the time Reginald Denny was beaten at Florence and Normandie to the time the first helicopters were shot down was a matter of hours (~2 hours). This was with small arms by civilians. So I just don't believe it is all that hard to shoot down a helicopter.

Possibly we are using more helicopters, using them in closer proximity to battles, or the war is escalating more generally.

Edit to add: 4/29/1992 Reginald Denny beaten 6:45pm -- LAPD helicopters hit by gunfire 9:05pm and flights into LAX are suspended.

[ThomWV]

23. Side Point: The Missiles We Gave Them Are No Longer Usable

I have no doubt that there are still stingers in the region that we supplied the mujeheddin, but they are not being used against our forces today. The reason is the non-replaceable batteries that operate them had a useful life of about 11 years. They are all dead puppies now.

[KittyWampus]

24. You boiled it down to its essence, Will.

[JacksonWest]

25. Your observations as talking points.( Rovian Theater)

"During the Afghan war, the US supplied the mujeheddin with some 600 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, as well as training on their use."

Begs the comparison: What other country is supplying the insurgents with these arms? If the US intervened in Afghanistan, who is intervening here? Allows us to escape into the mentality that the ONLY REASON WE ARE LOSING IS BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES(Iran) are involved. We need to attack Iran! Yeah, that's the ticket!


"The Afghan mujeheddin was the 80's version of what we now call the Taliban and al Qaeda. When they were allies, we taught them how to defeat a superpower, and how to defeat a modern army. They are now applying our lessons against us in Iraq."

Really? Shit, if that's true, we better stay and finish the job, yessirree Bob. I mean, you just said that if we don't defeat them now, they're going to grow more powerful and we'll have another 9-11. Or something even worse, like 18-22.

"The helicopters are only the beginning".

Leave the audience fearful, hanging on your every word. Only you can deliver us from this...well, I'm not sure what it is, but it sounds scary. I know it begins with helicopters.



Yes, Helicopters are being shot down at a greater rate now then ever before. This would suggest that there have been a series of successful seminars at the Kiwanis Club on how to shoot down "iron infidels", or an influx of new technology.

Logic would suggest that there is an influx of new technology, being used by the Iraqis. The question is where it came from, and who provided it? If you watch the news, every talking head and talking point is making the case that these are literally "smoking guns" from Iran. Slowly but surely.

Every helicopter that gets shot down just beats that war drum harder. This isn't going to lead to our defeat. In endless war, the only defeat is ending the war. Slowly, the media is building a case on why we should attack Iran. They're the reason we're losing...they are shooting down our helicopters....they're the crazy ones.....

Maybe Iran is supplying stinger missiles or the moder day equivalent. Maybe we're letting the missiles go to where they need to go. It just seems odd that we can prevent the influx of these weapons for three years, and now, they're everywhere. It's not like the war was going well before. It seems odd that Iran would provoke the US at this juncture.

So, before I put too much tinfoil on,...I need to go. But this is only the beginning.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

31. So, were your responses supposed to be Rovian.

Because I thought he favored two, no more than three, word phrases with hopefully only one syllable in each word.

Are you really a Rove scholar? MKJ