++++BREAKING US HELO SHOT DOWN IN A-STAN ++++

Storm on the horizon

Tim Kennedy nooooooo

>>28437247
jabbering

File: isis-flag.jpg (419KB, 2500x1726px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 2500x1726px

>>28437247
Absolutely halal

>US Special Forces
>it costs millions to train even 1 soldier
>get fucked by Ahmet and Mohammad and their Rusty AKs

lmao

why are we doing this gay modern war shit

why not ww1 or ww2 style? That was good, we killed a fuckton of people

>>28437335
Because a lot fucking more people died on our side. Modern war is us trying to have minimal casulties so that home population doesn't go too hippy.

>>28437325
If they're in a position where that happens it's due to commands incompetence.

>>28437419
nobody went hippy in ww1 senpai

just dig trenches in syria and artillery everything

>>28437247
>shot down
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35231408
>landed safely
>1kia
>2wia
Nothing to see here. Move along.

File: 1428945817741.jpg (52KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x365px

>>28437265
What? Tim Kennedy is kill? I thought he was retired

>>28437325
>be man with flesh and blood
>get shot by metal projectile going high speeds
>man dies

LOL!!!

>>28437427
Syria ≠ Afghanistan
They are actually two different countries.

>>28437493
implying i was talking about afghanistan

>>28437427

nobody went hippy in ww1 because no one at home knew how fucking terrible it was.

File: 3754497+_a8abb5f1e0c7a3a6fd56fc13f7c37446.png (7KB, 214x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 214x200px

>the US military confirmed it had landed, but said it had experienced "mechanical malfunctions".
>"It was not shot down. It intentionally landed safely"

>>28437514
>

>>28437427
people did go hippy.

Many pacifists, many anti war groups, many people became enraged around christmas when their troops visited home and they heard of the horrors.

Plus they aso had vastly well made propoganda systems based on the lack of things like telephones and internet.

Propoganda on such a scale is not really possible anymore.

I don't think you appreciate that it took the most powerful nations on the planet, combined with total war based societies, much less well trained troops, much worse conditions, much simpler logistics, much more voluntary populations and a strict land border to make trench warfare even possible.

In syria our troops are too well trained and equiped to be so mass produces, logistics are much harder, it's too far away, the enemy isn't conventional forces, the borders of the land area no adheared to by the enemy etc.

Trench warfare is not good for anyone.

>>28437520
kill them all

>>28437518
Shot down and forced to land are two very different things.

>>28437529
The best thing a military can do in conflicts in the middle east is to give incredibly easy ROE.
Every counter guerilla warfare that has had strict ROE has been lost.

Conversley those that don't mind getting their hand dirty often succeed.

>>28437247
Random guess: it's Seals.

>>28437427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_let_live_%28World_War_I%29

You really need some fucking history

>>28437586
british desu

i know about ww1

le quakers and le conscientious objectors were jsut thought of as faggots senpai

>>28437581
sf not sof

>dumbfucks flying around in helicopters getting themselves & other people killed

Why do we still do this?
How many hundreds die every year in helicopter shootdowns/accidents?

At how many tens of billions?

>>28437838

Unfortunately its cheaper for the government to send out career guys who won't quit the military in helicopters than it is to run a 'safer approach'.

>>28437718
so Rangers then?

>>28437569
>Conversley those that don't mind getting their hand dirty often succeed.
You mean like the Soviets in Afghanistan? It doesn't help with more widespread media now days where the insurgent groups can easily get recordings of that shit and use it as recruitment material.

>>28437247
FUCK YES

Good hunting, Taliban brothers!

>>28437883
>You mean like the Soviets in Afghanistan
The ones who were doing very well until america started supporting the mujahadeen?
Yes.

But more specifically I meant things like the second boer war, brunei revolt, Malayan emergency etc.

File: 1451928005151.jpg (72KB, 600x684px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x684px

>>28437883
Its working for the Chinese fighting the Uighurs, hardly anything gets out about those operations. At most some propaganda pics of squinty eyed manlets holding fancy new PEOPRE'S ASSAURT RIFRE

>>28437434

this desu

>>28437518
>military aircraft never experience malfunctions

>>28437954
>civilian choppers manage to operate fine without malfunctions & crashes
>military choppers kill 100 times as many people in the same period
hmmm

File: 1447157647011.jpg (94KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 640x640px

>>28437989
Breaking news: new studies show that there major technical and mechanical differences between helos in Bumfuck, Illinois and helos in Dirtistan.
Sand and dirt get fucking everywhere man, I shouldn't have to tell you that maintenance and repairs in a fucking desert with people shooting at the helo afterwards, are different from maintenance and repairs here in America where the worst we have to think about is minor corrosion. Shit can go wrong anywhere, dumbass, doesn't matter who is working on it or how good of a job they do. Murphy's Law.

>>28438043
Then maybe its time to stop flying choppers that are easily shot down, or a mechanical malfunction gets everyone killed?

The military has way more helicopter accidents in the US than the civilian sector too

>>28437923
>lists older wars before more modern media existed
You don't honestly think that a country could actually get away with what the British did in the second Boer war today now that modern media exists, do you? Look what the media did to public opinion during the Vietnam war because everyone was finally able to see what was going on, do you honestly think a country could get away with worse now days when phones have had cameras on them for years and the internet is a thing?

File: 1451162540283s.jpg (11KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 225x225px

>>28438073
I'm going to assume you don't know how fucking retarded you are right now and risk taking the bait.
Helicopters are fucking fragile. Airplanes are fucking fragile too, but they generally fly high enough they don't have to worry about small arms fire. By all the laws and sciences of the universe these things should not fucking fly but somehow we manage to bend the laws of physics to our will every time we send one up. In short, helos are fucking black magic.
Now take in to consideration how we USE said helos. We send them into known combat zones where bullets are flying and they could get absolutely fucked at any second by Hakim's Magic Bullet that manages to strike just the right spot where it kills an important instrument or worse, takes out the rotors. Saying we should send in tougher choppers is like saying we should send in tougher troops who quit dying everytime Ackbar magdumps into them with his 300 year old AK he dug up underneath his dirt farm.
You could slap some more armor on sure, you could turn that bitch into a fucking tank. But it wouldn't fly. I shouldn't have to explain to you how more armor means a heavier flying machine, and how heavier flying machines have a tendency to... Not fly. More weight also means less weapons they can carry, meaning lower efficiency in actual combat.

Alright, so here's my question.

Is this purely SEALs and Delta, or does this mean the Ranger Battalions are still doing rotations over there?

>>28438149
There are much better ways to do things.
Such as gliders, which we used extensively in WW2
If they need to fly back, they can have a rocket booster to take off.

But of course, America is infatuated with their air assault strategy that has proven to be a failure in every single war/conflict its been tried in.

>>28437247
One SF solider died in total , probably green beret. This is the new way of warfare. We'll rarely see regular army units involved. It's going be SF/ dem drones/helios for years to come.

File: special forces.webm (3MB, 362x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 362x480px

I love how the Americans call basically everyone special forces.

>>28438198
Gliders? You are mentally handicapped.

>>28438074
I never said it's doable by the west today though.

You're right, the only reason they were able to do those is because the home population wouldn't really find out about it too much. Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible.

I said that fighting guerillas with brutality works, not that it's fesable anymore.
You just assumed that.

>>28438234
If the Russians were supplying the taliban, like the US supplied the mujahideen.
The US would have LOST afghanistan due to their helicopter fetish.

There must be a different way, a better way.

>>28438198
>Such as gliders, which we used extensively in WW2
>If they need to fly back, they can have a rocket booster to take off.
>If they need to fly back
>fly back
>rocket booster to take off
>Glider
Seriously, stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking.
It's bad shit.

>>28437989
Civilian choppers manage to fly very few flight hours in well documented and marked flight corridors with a nation wide governmental authority overseeing everything with the fury of a gorillion autists
>there are about 1/6th as many civilian helos flying about 1/1000th the hours
>they still manage to ficking crash
There is a difference between crashing a Life Flight bird into the side of a house in good weather and catching a lucky RPG in the middle of a firefight in the middle of a sandstorm in the middle of the night.

>>28438279
Sure, a better way. But gliders are not the answer. Especially when it's a possible one way trip that relies on rockets to return home.

>>28438244
>I said that fighting guerillas with brutality works, not that it's fesable anymore.
>You just assumed that.
If it wouldn't actually work then why even bother bringing it up as a better alternative?

>>28438073
Military aircraft mechanic here the military doesn't have to follow FAA rules like everyone else. We are rushed to meet deadlines even if something isn't right or safe. Why? Because we work on aircraft that either save lives or drop bombs and taking away that aircraft can literally be the death of someone.

>>28438198
>Helicopters are too dangerous because they crash all the time!
>Let's switch to an obsolete vehicle that does nothing BUT crash and hope it doesn't kill everybody on board when it does!

>>28438332
Civilian aircraft mechanic here, how many crashes have you fucks caused with your duct tape patchwork repairs

>>28438322
I didn't bring it up as an alternative you halfwit.
I mentioned it to highlight that roe restrict our ability to fight.

>>28438343
The problem is helicopters cost a shitton, and get people killed when they are shot down(which is VERY easy if the enemy had weaponry made this millenium)
They are also loud as hell, you can hear them coming miles away.

A glider designed to crashland won't be getting people killed, it won't be heard, and it could carry armor to the fight, which will also save lives.

>>28438198
>Gliders

I have a hard time believing someone is this utterly retarded

>>28437247
I estimate the movie will come out in November.

>>28437935
>hardly anything gets out about those operations
Probably because the people shooting the vids end up being riddled with bullets and said footage obtained by the PLA. There are also lot of things that don't end up online either besides the fight against the Uighurs, mainly because people for whatever reason people don't record and are ignorant about how to get the videos outside of China, or it's too difficult and they don't want to get in trouble when the police comes knocking.

>>28438319
It would be like C-130's taking off with JATO
Also plenty of helicopter trips ARE one way.

OSPREY
Flies high and fast. Fast climb rate. Already solved most of your helo problems.

>>28438210
Oh god, even with no sound I hear her huffing and wheezing.

>>28437520
Propaganda on that scale is perfectly possible if you know how to use social media; look at the presidential race right now. Bernie, Hillary, Trump and Jeb are all pathological liars, yet they've all got massive support thanks to their social media team playing to the prejudices of their target audience.

>>28438384
What makes gliders bad, in your opinion?

>>28438353
That's strange, the post I started responding to specifically said:
>The best thing a military can do in conflicts in the middle east is to give incredibly easy ROE.
Given that this is a discussion about the US in the Middle East, loosening the ROE most certainly was brought up as not just an alternative but a superior method, which is wrong.

>>28438349
Honestly man most crashes are either pilot error or some sort of problem that goes unseen even in hourly phases and becomes a TCTO. There are very few maintenance fuck ups because when we sign anything we know its our name and we will go to jail. I will say a Quick Turn inspection is not a fucking inspection it is literally recover aircraft put on gas launch it and when a fighter jet flies for 8 hours you are gonna want to look at it.

>>28438399
>No autorotation
>Engine failure results in severe dysymmetry of lift
>Man-hours of maintenance required to keep aircraft safe while aloft more than a traditional helicopter

Tiltrotors aren't good where lead is flying, my main man

>>28437325
>get fucked by Ahmet and Mohammad and their Rusty AKs
Who were born and grew up in war.

>>28438198
COMBATREFORM.ORG

File: 1451468614875.gif (2MB, 342x277px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 342x277px

>>28438450
>my main man

>>28438450
not to mention it can't even land at high altitudes like in afghanistan

>>28438429
>Require a long stretch of flat, open space to safely land
>No engine
>Not recoverable
>Fragile
>Expecting a pilot to hunt for thermals in the mountains of Afghanistan
>Waste of resources (how are you going to resupply or reinforce the guys on the ground? More gliders?)
>Proven shitty 70 years ago

>>28438367
>carry armor to the fight

"Some general thought it was a good idea to put a steel plate under his jeep. We just came down like a fuckin' meteor."

>>28438210
Special Forces doesn't neccesarily mean 'muh elite battle hardened troops'. Special Forces just have a different chain of command, being organized under the branches various special operations commands and oversaeen by socom.

>>28438287
It's called a "motor glider"

>>28438489
>Require a long stretch of flat, open space to safely land
So the same as helicopters, V-22's, parachuters, etc?

>No engine
You can have an engine

>Not recoverable
They are in fact recoverable

>Expecting a pilot to hunt for thermals in the mountains of Afghanistan
Either a tow by another aircraft, or just making the thing a motor "glider". Military gliders are too heavy to for that sorta shit anyways.

>Waste of resources (how are you going to resupply or reinforce the guys on the ground? More gliders?)
How is this different from any other airborne operation?
If the helicopter is flying back empty to pick up more supplies/men, then it could have been a disposable glider in the first place.

File: street-sword.jpg (57KB, 282x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 282x400px

>>28438541
>Sparks is on /k/
Don't forgot to attach the Gavins to the gliders Mike.

File: Front-Pinnacle-UH-60.jpg (188KB, 789x558px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 789x558px

>>28438541
If it has an engine, it's not exactly a glider, now then, is it?

Oh, and point me to the bountiful landing strips of Afghanistan, that would be great. Find a glider that can pinnacle land while you're at it. And tell me how a slinging a single $100,000 glider is somehow cheaper than burning $3,000 worth of fuel per flight hour on multiple runs to resupply a platoon with the same amount of cargo. And do you even know what a thermal is? Why would you risk two aircraft by towing a fucking glider?

>>28438430
Loosening the ROE does not mean copying the methods of brutalityin the afformentioned wars.

There has repeatedly been people returning from tours who complained that they couldn't engage with the enemy despite knowing they were there.

If you want to kill guerillas then let your troops kill them is the basic point.

>>28438541
>It's called a "motor glider"
Yes, and at that point you might as well use a normal light transport aircraft.
That is if you manage to find somewhere to land without causing enough damage to the aircraft that it can not take off again.

>>Require a long stretch of flat, open space to safely land
>So the same as helicopters, V-22's, parachuters, etc?

Helicopter do in fact not require much space to land.
And they can drop off personnel even at a slope if needed.

>If the helicopter is flying back empty to pick up more supplies/men, then it could have been a disposable glider in the first place.
The difference is that the helicopter is still usable once it has returned to base for resupply and picking up more personnel.
A "disposable glider" is not.

>>28438632
Well if all your doing is playing tag in the mountain tops with goat herders, then maybe helicopters are more suitable.

But eventually these COIN operations will end, and the next war the enemy might actually have weapons more advanced than 100 year old rusted mosin's.

Betcha you could land a glider right on that slope, then take off later, btw.

>>28438726
Not with all those rocks, it would break that glider right open. And exactly how would it take off? Just start flying immediately from that three-foot runway straight off a mountain?

>>28438675
So you say "might as well use a normal transport aircraft", and then mention exactly why you would NOT want to use a normal transport aircraft...
Is this a mental hangup for you?

>Helicopter do in fact not require much space to land.
If you are using multiple helicopters in a large landing, then yes, you do need a lot of space.

If the helicopter got shot up and crashed, like it would vs any semi-competent opponent, it would not be reusable.

>>28438779
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97rSobuKBxI
Something like this.

File: 1448583438711.jpg (19KB, 382x346px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 382x346px

>>28438844
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97rSobuKBxI [Embed]
>Something like this

Hey I've got an idea. Its shocking I know but stay with me here. Why don't we use a helicopter, that doesn't need extra equipment just to get off the ground again, and doesn't even have to touch ground to drop off troops?

>>28437427
>nobody went hippy in ww1
yes they did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd2t55kuyiU

>>28438887
because manpads were invented in the 60's and eventually the US is going to fight someone who has them?

Not to mention they are extremely loud, range & payload limited, and starting to get very expensive.

File: Hvcurve.png (16KB, 473x506px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 473x506px

>>28438675
>Helicopter do in fact not require much space to land.
They do when you want to do it safely

What isn't being reported is the SAS were involved, before the event providing recon and afterwards to clear up the mess the seals made during the operation.

>>28438844
>So you say "might as well use a normal transport aircraft", and then mention exactly why you would NOT want to use a normal transport aircraft
And how would a motor glider perform better than a traditional aircraft in this case?
If it breaks on impact it sure as hell is not going to take off again?

>If the helicopter got shot up and crashed, like it would vs any semi-competent opponent, it would not be reusable.
And a glider would?

>>28439043
And a glider would perform better how?

>>28439300
>And a glider would perform better how?
Different anon

>>28439378
Ah, my bad.

>>28437915
Why don't you come to my trailer park and say that?

>>28439300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDo7hkmCNY

Imagine a larger militarized version of this.
The hell do you need helicopters for.

>And how would a motor glider perform better than a traditional aircraft in this case?
Glider has silent entry.
>If it breaks on impact it sure as hell is not going to take off again?
Glider doesn't have the noise or IR signature, like a helicopter does.
And a cheap disposable one for assault on potentially "hot" LZ's would always be preferable to risking helicopters.

Obviously, I'm not saying "scrap the helicopter" fleet. But there are other ways of doing things.

>>28439043
I don't think you understand that graph like you think you understand that graph.

> protip from a pilot. If your rotors are clear and your not in a bowl. You can go upwards.

If you honestly think a vehicle able to vertically take off and land will require the same size runway as a crash land and rocket take off glider, you are retarded.

Wait your honestly recommending the USA uses gliders in combat again. Yepp your retarded.

>>28439705
How can your glider have an engine and be silent at the same time?

>>28439829
It turns it off and glides in.
Which is why it's called a glider.

>>28439746
>If you honestly think a vehicle able to vertically take off and land will require the same size runway as a crash land and rocket take off glider, you are retarded.
And if the mission explicitly calls for that sort of vtol performance, then yes, the helicopter would be necessary.

For example: The airborne need/want an armored vehicle capable of being airdropped.

When the obvious solution is just buying a towable glider that can carry an abrams, or a bradley, or strykers/AMPV's...

>>28437325
It's wasn't shot down by an RPG?

1 US SF solider died today assisting Afghan forces who were in trouble and the helio was hit by fire. That's all that happened.
There are times when US special operations are complete utter disasters like when the Seals did a hostage rescue in Afghanistan by tossing grenades in killing everyone after loudly landing next to the house or the Lone survivor shit. They deserve all the critics. OP is overreacting over nothing.

>>28438938
Anti aircraft guns have been around since the 10s and eventually the US is going to fight some one that has them. Why are we still using airplanes??

Anti tank measures have been around since the 20s and eventually the US is going to fight some one that has them. Why are we still using armored fighting vehicles?

Anti personnel Mines and gernades have been around since the 1800s and eventually the US is going to fight someone with them. Why are we still using men?

Not to mention they are extremely loud, range & payload limited, and starting to get very expensive.

Dude stfu about things you know nothing about. Obviously gliders are also range and payload limited. More so than a helicopter. Also helicopters have counter measures like flares. They also have a degree of armor against small arms fire. They usually also have a way to shoot back. Things a glider would be without, making it more vunerable. The glider also cannot maneuver without reducing it's range. The glider can not provide support. The glider is dependant on having a smooth enough field to crash in as to not kill it's occupants.
>>28439705
But still not undetectable to radar. And still not invisible.
>>28439378
Different ie worse.

I mean honestly I figured out you were a dipshit when you opened with let's add rockets so they can take back off. Everything you add to a glider reduces it's range, meaning the tow plane would have to drag it farther into danger and burning more fuel.

If you could make a glider with the capacity and range capabilities of a chinook. I'd take the chinook everyday.

>>28439705
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDo7hkmCNY
>Imagine a larger militarized version of this.
The hell do you need helicopters for.
That is not a glider...
And if you make it larger (And most of all heavier) you can not land in the same type of places, it requires more engine power, which requires a larger engine, which adds even more weight.

>Glider has silent entry.
It also has to be large to carry any sort of reasonable payload, and has to be towed within gliding distance of the target by a even bigger transport aircraft.
A glider also has to maintain a very predictable flight path to its landing zone, and if it takes fire on approach past a certain point it can not abort and return to base or land at a secondary landing site.

>>28440318
>Different ie worse.
I think he means he is a different poster than the "rocket glider" nutcase.

>>28439902
So any mission in an urban environment? As well as any mission conducted by professionals not fools.

DUDE GLIDERS LMAO

>>28437325
>get fucked by Ahmet and Muhammad and their rusty AKs

>after killing all 20 of their cousins

3/10 I kinda replied I guess

File: k spaceprogram.jpg (62KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x360px

>>28440449

>>28440428
urban environments have parks, roads, rooftops of buildings, etc
That you could land on.

>>28440424
>It also has to be large to carry any sort of reasonable payload,
Depends what payload you are talking about.
Whether a squad of men, 10,000 lbs of supplies, or an abrams tank. Obviously the glider would have to be sized appropriately.

>A glider also has to maintain a very predictable flight path to its landing zone
The whole point of a disposable glider is that you don't have a "landing zone", you land directly at your target in overwhelming force.
Silently and stealthily.

>>28440701
Hahahahahahahaha okay yeah your a troll. 10/10 my good sir.

>>28440701
>The whole point of a disposable glider is that you don't have a "landing zone", you land directly at your target in overwhelming force.
>Silently and stealthily.
You still have to have enough area to safely land the damn thing, do you think they should just fly straight into a building and come charging out through the hole in the wall?

>inb4 hurr durr merely pretending

>>28438541
Do you have a single fact to back any of that up? Any proofs? Studies? Scientific Journals? Military tests?

>>28440774
It's a glider moving at less than 100 mph
You don't need much space.
Some sort of drag anchor could be developed as well, for ultra short landings.

File: k spaceprogram 2.0.jpg (33KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x360px

>>28440912

>>28440701
>urban environments have parks, roads, rooftops of buildings, etc
Yeah sure landing on a rooftop wouldn't be easier with vtol, have you ever seen a rooftop? Roads filled with cars/people/rubble/power lines/signs/ traffic signals. Maybe you'd have a small chance of survival from the smallest of gliders. Parks maybe if they are level and treeless.

> don't have a "landing zone", you land directly at your target in overwhelming force. Silently and stealthily.
You have a landing zone you just renamed it because your an idiot. Stealthily and silently. Unless they have radar, or forward observers, or look up and see the slow moving formation of balsa wood coming twards you.

>>28440912
So let's add more weight to a glider. God damn it this glider your building will drop like a ton of bricks

>>28440912
How many people do you plan to put in this glider?
Keep in mind a fully loaded soldier will average 250 pounds with all their stuff, and some can get to 300 depending on their size and what they're carrying.
Then add on the weight of the glider itself, and the rockets you want to take off with/ engine you want to put on it and do some math to figure out how fucking big that wingspan will have to be to keep the fucking thing from killing everyone on impact because it fell like a rock.

>>28441059
>Yeah sure landing on a rooftop wouldn't be easier with vtol,
Sure vtol is wonderful, except you inform everyone within 5 miles that you are there, compromising surprise and probably compromising your mission
see: Somalia 1993

The US lost over 5000 helicopters in vietnam
You are only able to play fast & loose with helicopters now, because they are fighting goat herders without modern weaponry.

>>28441160
WW2 glider the hamilcar carried 7 tons, and was 110 feet wide.

With a modern blended wing design, i'm sure you could drastically improve that.

>>28441073
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOxZsbyjSb8

File: 1778340.jpg (38KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 562x437px

>>28437923

>The ones who were doing very well until america started supporting the mujahadeen?

Lol and we were winning in Vietnam until the Russians and the Chinese started supplying the NVA, right?

No, things went very bad very quickly for the soviets when they arrived in Afghanistan. Logistics were a nightmare from the start, mainly because the slavs barely understood the concept, and it only got worse from there. The vaunted T72 and T64 were so mechanically unreliable they had to be withdrawn almost immediatly, and replaced with inferior T54/T55/T62s which were by that time effectively obsolete due to presence of RPG 7s among the rebels. As much as the US Army gets mocked by vatniks for relying heavily on airpower, Soviet infantry had a "bunker" mentality, where they would essentially cower in their APCS during combat, and wouldn't get out and fight. The same thing would be repeated years later with the Maikop Brigade in Chechnya. Only the Airborne Units were worth a damn.

The Afghans still would have driven out the Slavs, it would have just taken longer without US support.

>>28441177
>Sure vtol is wonderful, except you inform everyone within 5 miles that you are there, compromising surprise and probably compromising your mission
see: Somalia 1993
And crashing gliders onto a roof won't alert everyone (even though it's very unlikely the people on the glider survived)? "Hey did anyone hear that" "sounded like someone just dropped a bus on our building" or the guy outside the building that looks up and sees the slow moving monstrosity.

You sound like a tacticool retard that's also an amature RC pilot.

>The US lost over 5000 helicopters in vietnam You are only able to play fast & loose with helicopters now, because they are fighting goat herders without modern weaponry.

Helicopters now are not what they were in Vietnam. We used them in desert storm against a professional modern army and it worked well.

You honestly think gliders would fare well against goat herders? They are more vunerable and less capable than helicopters. And what do you think would happen to your technologically inferior gliders if we faced a real opponent? They'd get fucked up beyond all recognition.

Doesn't even need to be a real opponent. A rocky field, a ditch, a stump, even puddles we're known to hang up gliders on landing in ww2, killing and injuring the crew.

>>28441468
>Even with the speed of dropping in from orbit it glides like a brick.

>>28441500
Not to mention the Soviets didn't pressure Afghan groups until they started airborne assaults much later in the war. Helicopter operations were still successful even with stingers around. Not that it mattered. The Afghans would just come back after the raid was over.

>>28441500
Well, you're wrong.

The Russians stopped attack heli operations when they started to lose aircraft overall. The Muj would have died out, the Russians would just massacre entire villages in order to make sure there would be no further attacks, and they lost that ability to do so when they lost air superiority.

Had the NVA not received Chinese or Russian support they would have surrendered, one of the major things Col Olds wanted to do was actually bomb the bridges and logistics lines from China into Vietnam.

>>28437434
Also would like to add that one helicopter pulled out and the other one was grounded by damage it received while landing. I think they mentioned the rotor hit a wall or something.

>>28441574
That's utter bullshit. Just read "the bear went over the mountain" and it's sister book. The Ruskis increased their helicopter raids in the later stages of the war because they were the most successful. In the early 80s the Soviet army just rode around in convoys and got shot to pieces than they brought in the specialized airborne/ air assault troops, a lot of times for night raids in the mid 80s and onward.

>>28438367
> a glider will loose less to enemy fire.
Maybe. Big fucking maybe. But what about all those troops you loose flying them into street lights and buildings and crashing into rocks or just crashing at the wrong angle.

>>28437989
They probably killed thousands of times more considering all those machine guns and missiles.

I actually feel bad for the Taliban on this one. They are going to get absolute wrecked. Every fucking attack aircraft is probably over the AO.

>>28438192
yes

I know I'm going to catch fucking hell about this source but Glenn Beck has been posting crap about this on facebook. The latest one says it is Rangers and they are being "trapped and slaughtered" so guess we'll see what happens.

>>28437427
>nobody went hippy in ww1 senpai
do you even know why we have a draft in the U.S.?

because nobody wanted to fucking sign up

>>28437881
>SF not SOF
>DERP THIS OTHER SOF?
Daily reminder that SF refers only and specifically to the Green Berets. Everyone else is SOF/SOC.