Rescue Attempt in Afghanistan

Fratton Fred

I thought this may be of interest

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6269613.stm

I’m not sure what strapping yourself to the wings of an Apache involves, but it sounds pretty scary stuff.

Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of news coverage from Afghanisatan. Is it because it is not going as NATO would lik, or is it becuse it is too dangerous for journos?

mike65

What channel are you watching for news? All the UK stations had significant coverage in recent weeks, its tailed off now but there was a fair bit.

Mike.

The Americans have done similar things, strapping themselves to helicopter gunships not personnel carriers, in the past.
You will find coverage of Afghanistan from British news but if you have a read the british army forums you will find some angry troops annoyed at how Big brother gains more interest and gets more coverage than Afghanistan!!

www.arrse.co.uk

Fratton Fred

mike65 wrote:

What channel are you watching for news? All the UK stations had significant coverage in recent weeks, its tailed off now but there was a fair bit.

Mike.

The wrong ones obviously!

What I mean is, in Iraq, there were cameras everywhere. Every tank had it's own camercrew and reporter, every smart bomb hitting it's target was shown in a news confeence, but in Afghanistan there seems to be a lot less.

Maybe it's because the yanks aren't there in the numbers.

Manic Moran

Although the balls of the Marines in questino are without doubt, the whole story is a lot more worrying.

1) We have a position which a company (+) with artillery and air support could not take. The attack was beaten back after a single loss. Either this means that (i) the military is getting too casualty averse ("Egads, lads, they have guns that they can actually kill us! Run away! Run away!" With a policy like that 25 years ago the Falklands would still be the Malvinas) or (ii) If the position was so lightly defended that four blokes and two helicopters could effect a landing and search, what was going wrong in the initial attack?

2) Where's the Navy/Army/RAF transport helicopter ability? Sea Kings, Lynxes or Pumas. Marines should not need to strap themselves to a helicopter to get from A to B. Yes, the US has flown people around while clinging to the outside of Apaches as well, but usually they were going out, not going in.

NTM

we are definately not getting the full story of what is going on

Fratton Fred

Manic Moran wrote:

Although the balls of the Marines in questino are without doubt, the whole story is a lot more worrying.

1) We have a position which a company (+) with artillery and air support could not take. The attack was beaten back after a single loss. Either this means that (i) the military is getting too casualty averse ("Egads, lads, they have guns that they can actually kill us! Run away! Run away!" With a policy like that 25 years ago the Falklands would still be the Malvinas) or (ii) If the position was so lightly defended that four blokes and two helicopters could effect a landing and search, what was going wrong in the initial attack?

2) Where's the Navy/Army/RAF transport helicopter ability? Sea Kings, Lynxes or Pumas. Marines should not need to strap themselves to a helicopter to get from A to B. Yes, the US has flown people around while clinging to the outside of Apaches as well, but usually they were going out, not going in.

NTM

I was thinking how did they get out in the first place?

Maybe because there were no helicopters in the Falklands they could not run away:rolleyes:

Seriously though, from the bits I have seen on tv, there is some pretty heavy stuff going on out there.

Victor

Fratton Fred wrote:

Is it just me, or is there a distinct lack of news coverage from Afghanisatan. Is it because it is not going as NATO would lik, or is it becuse it is too dangerous for journos?

Its the middle of winter, most wars tend to slow down in winter and anyway journalists don't like the cold.

This shows one advantage of the Hind over the Apache.

DublinWriter

Manic Moran wrote:

Where's the Navy/Army/RAF transport helicopter ability? Sea Kings, Lynxes or Pumas. Marines should not need to strap themselves to a helicopter to get from A to B. Yes, the US has flown people around while clinging to the outside of Apaches as well, but usually they were going out, not going in.

I was thinking that myself. Why fly just two Apaches in when you could fly in a Blackhawk type helicopter with them as well?, unless the Apaches can fly a lot faster and/or have less of a radar footprint than a conventional troop carrying helicopter.

Victor

Maybe thats all they had to hand.

DublinWriter

Fratton Fred wrote:

Maybe because there were no helicopters in the Falklands they could not run away:rolleyes:

Yes there was.

Fratton Fred

DublinWriter wrote:

Yes there was.

very few. The bulk of the Helicoptors was lost on the Atlantic Conveyor (and, according to Andy McNab, the entire consignment of Mars Bars) which i why they had to walk to Stanley and were forced to make a landing in Bluff Cove.

Steyr

Victor wrote:

Maybe thats all they had to hand.

Exactly and this mans life was at stake so they got 2 Apaches ( 4 Commando's ) 2 commando's and as quick as possible under fire 1 commando on either side went back in in 2 apaches with another apache providing covering fire they got to the guy on the ground but they brought home his body as he had already been killed..

Manic Moran

Fratton Fred wrote:

very few. The bulk of the Helicoptors was lost on the Atlantic Conveyor (and, according to Andy McNab, the entire consignment of Mars Bars) which i why they had to walk to Stanley and were forced to make a landing in Bluff Cove.

Considering the amount of helicopters that the British had down there, the loss of three of the four Chinooks was not the end of the world. There were plenty of Sea King HC.4s (The troop carrier variant) and Wessexes to carry troops around, and they were used for such on a fair few occasions, though admittedly the Wessexes took a few losses, notably in South Georgia. If the worst came to the worst, they could also use the Gazelles, Wasps and Scouts for carrying a couple of troops: It's still better than hanging to the outside of Apaches!

NTM

Moriarty

I'd have thought that squad/company commanders would attempt to be more aware of when they lose people after a battle. Would it be normal for missing people to only be noticed once everyone regroups a fair distance back at the formation point?

Del2005

I read a book a good while back that the reason why the English had to walk across the Falklands, was cause they had used the helicopters when the armada jioned up for transfering stores and personell between ships ready for the attack and the helicopters where nearly at their service limit after that. They didn't have enough spares to service all the helicopters. Therefore they couldn't move enough troops by helicopter to make any large attacks, so everyone had to walk.

Before you ask I can't back it up with facts as I don't have the book and can't remember the name.

Ronan Raver77

Video of incident,
Ronan
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-afghan_modpics1500,00.html

Hard Larry

Moriarty wrote:

I'd have thought that squad/company commanders would attempt to be more aware of when they lose people after a battle. Would it be normal for missing people to only be noticed once everyone regroups a fair distance back at the formation point?

In there defence they realised he was missing on the re-org which is where you would do a head count etc. They were still in the general area of the compound they were probing and had Apaches in support. Not wanting to wait for troop carring helis (chinnocks make great targets, whereas Apaches can go in low and fast) they used the tools they had at hand. From what I saw in footage the guy was located behind a large ruined wall giving the Apaches enough cover from fire.

What got my goat is the MoD said that troops practice this technique all the time...utter horse****.

To quote Francis Tusa Sky News's Military Advisor "Can you imagine trying to justify that to a health and safety offical" And when armies train at home they are swamped by H&S and Risk Assessment.

That tatic is talked about as a 'it could be used for' etc etc I would doubt its widely practiced anywhere.

the_syco

The choppers used had some sort of catches in the sides of them for such rescue missions.