LZs were a problem in Viet Nam? I sure missed that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
If you listen to those with VN experience that talk much about LZs because they were a problem there.
Huh? not so -- I probably made somewhere betwen 40 and 60 combat assaults, only two were into hot LZs and only one was really bad. By far the vast majority of LZs were not hot, at a guess, I'd say 90+% were clean, a simple product of decent planning. More could've been with better planning and the trendline on hitting hot LZs was generally downward from 1962 until 1972 as we developed the process. Eagle Flights were often hot due to landing close to prevent an escape but they were opposing an enemy element that was generally trying to escape so LZ fire was usually not overpowering.
Hot LZs are a problem anywhere and there are degrees of hot; AKs don't do as much damage as RPGs and they in turn aren't as dangerous as a Dushka or two, much less a ZSU 23. The Talibs have all those less the ZSU 23 (so far...).
Quote:
There are those without Afghanistan experience who see to be greatly concerned about RPG7s.
Probably because most of the US helicopters downed in Afghanistan by enemy action were hit with RPGs and the reports make the US newspapers...
Quote:
There are terrain concerns what for I not sure being more open than VN certainly assists the attacker.
You aren't sure why the terrain in Afghanistan is a problem?
First, Viet Nam is mostly scrub and agricultural land, the real jungle isn't all that prevalent. It is generally open and the few mountains that exist are generally small, isolated and few in south topped 1,200 meters. Secondly, in Afghanistan, the vast open spaces aren't a problem, they're in the north and the southwest. The primary operational areas for most of ISAF is in the south and east -- dominated by the Hindu Kush where mountains typically run in the 3-6000 meter range and many ridges are 500 to 1,000 meters above their associated valleys. Look at the pictures below.
Picture 1 is typical operational area. Open space for the birds -- but it is dominated by the high ground which is where the bad guys will be...
Picture 2 is also typical, open area to land in but no sense in doing so because there's nothing there. The mountains are steep enough that few if any enemy will be there...
Picture 3 offers lower hills -- but still dominating the open ground. If you believe that landing a helicopter in any of that open ground against a known enemy "favors the attacker" you and I fought in very different wars.
Not to mention that if one landed far enough away to avoid being hit, one would have to walk or fight across a lot of open ground to get to the objective...:rolleyes:
Good point. Terrain definitely impacts. It's notable that I and II CTZs were
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
LZs weren't much of an issue in the III Corps and IV Corps areas, but they did become problematic in some parts of II Corps (especially the Central Highlands) and I Corps (mainly as you got away from the coast). Eagle Flight type stuff worked really well in the first two CTZs, but not so well in II Corps or I Corps (at least away from the coast and much of the DMZ).
the most Afghan-like. Both also offered far greater enemy force density than did the other two CTZs, mostly due to proximity to Laos and the narrowing of the country placing the Annamite Range of minor mountains into play and offering concealed route for movement of the NVA to the populated coastal areas. The generally rougher terrain also offered fewer hearts and minds for gathering and thus offered opposing forces more maneuver and fire capability for larger units. A lot of the I Corps problem CAs were incurred during the Khe Sanh and A Shau campaigns -- both of which were wars within a war... :wry:
Problems with Eagle Flight success in those areas were range / time and available concealment...
Proving that clean living pays, I spent most of '66 in II Corps, '68 in I Corps. :D