The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > Conflict posts > Vietnam

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-21-2010, 10:12 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Helicopter losses report

Tuesday, December 21, 2010
AFA members, Congressional staff members, Civic leaders, DOCA members, my last note to you listed aircraft losses in VN. [see: http://www.afa.org/PresidentsCorner/Notes/Notes_12-18-10.pdf]

Many of you rightly took me to task for not including helicopter losses. I left them out because the data were too overwhelming. Much of the following comes, again, from Dr. Richard Hallion.



There are several statistical sources for helicopter losses that are readily available, and each are discussed below.



(1) The most extensive listing of VN helicopter losses is from a study done by Gary Roush of the Vietnam Helicopter Pilots Association. His study shows that there were at least 11,827 helicopters from all services deployed to SEA, and of these 5,086 were lost (fully 43%). This study includes, of course, all Army, Navy, Marine, and Air Force, and Air America helicopters. The data is sobering—for example, of 7,013 UH-1s in SEA, fully 3,305 were destroyed, with 2,177 crew fatalities. Not all of these were combat losses, of course.



(2) Based on data in Office of the Secretary of Defense, SEA Statistical Summary (Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, April 1973), Table 353, the U.S. Army, from January 1962 through March 1973, lost 4,867 helicopters, an average of 1.19 helicopters lost per day. Of these, 2,587--fully 53%--were combat losses, the remaining 2,280 being operational losses.



(3) For the USAF, we are fortunate that Jim Henthorn, a former Sgt with the 21st SOS, has assembled a data base both on USAF Helicopter losses, and losses of USAF Helicopter crews. He shows the following data:
USAF SOS or Rescue Helicopter Losses/Causes in SEA
Type
Combat
Operational
Logistical
Unknown
CH-3
15
5
0
9
HH-3
10
4
0
3
HH-53B
2
0
0
0
HH-53C
9
9
4
0
CH-53C
6
1
0
0
HH-43
8
4
1
0
UH-1F/P/N
8
4
1
0
Subtotal
58 27 6 12
TOTAL 103

(Incidentally, since his listing is concerned with SAR, he also includes 4 Grumman HU-16 Albatross that were tragically lost, it being, of course, a fixed-wing amphibian).



(4) It is important in context to remember that this is about people, and that while the USAF lost a total of 2,254 aircraft in SEA combat and routine operations, together with 1,763 aircrew killed, captured, or missing, fully 3,883 lives were saved, at the price of those 103 losses, involving 106 killed. [Source: Earl H. Tilford, Search and Rescue in Southeast Asia (Washington: Center for Air Force History, 1992 ed.), p. 155; human casualties from Henthorn, “USAF Helicopter Crew Losses—the Southeast Asian War 1962-1975,” (2007) p. 32.



(5) I would add that my observation on the last note that low and slow is a dangerous environment ... is further solidified based on this data.



(6) Some of the other observations are relevant here. Namely that fleet size has to accommodate attrition reserve and must account for non operational losses. Further, CSAR is an important mission area -- one for which there has to be a dedicated (in my view) force. It is not a pick-up game. It is important for the safety and morale of the force ... especially when fighting an enemy that does not believe in POW camps.
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn
President/CEO
Air Force Association
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 02-12-2011, 05:00 AM
rotorwash rotorwash is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 133
Default

Your thesis here seems to be that combat effectiveness is measured in aircraft and crew losses and that "low and slow" is not the way to conduct war.

If that is the case, this is exactly what I would expect from the Air Force - my father-in-law was an AF MG, so this discussion is not new to me.

You can say anything you want about the Air Force and the way they did things, but your thesis doesn't work when talking about Army helicopters in Viet Nam.

I was a crewchief in an assault helicopter company and spent 19 months in Vietnam. The mission of Army aviation in Vietnam was to support ground troops, not to worry about the cost of helicopters getting shot down. Grunts were dying every day, it was our job to be where they needed us when they needed us to minimize losses to the infantry. If we lost one helicopter a day, so what, as long as the infantry thought we were doing the job.

The 1/9th Cav of the 1st Cav Division killed more enemy then any other battalion sized unit in Vietnam and they had more aircraft losses then any other battalion sized unit. They also lost more aircraft crewmen then any other battalion sized unit, but they did the job, and they did it with small recon helicopters backed up by gunships and infantry delivered quickly to exploit a situation. Rarely more then 500 feet AGL. And they never lacked for volunteers.

The Marines were tied to some strict aviation doctrine that the Army felt was ludicrous, like restrictions against flying when the weather was below VFR minimums. This was an embarrassment when the first Marine wounded at Hue were brought out by Army Medevacs. When the Cav first went north prior to the excursion down Hgihway 9, they were astounded by the way the Marines operated. A Marine patrol was pinned down south of Phu Bai and needed extraction, the Marines got together 2 CH-46's, 2 gunships and fast movers, this took almost an hour. When they got on station, the gunships at 1500 feet, the patrol had already been picked up by a 1/9th slick escorted by 2 gunships. In another situation, a Marine general's aircraft went missing. It took the Marines over an hour to determine it was missing and then another hour to organize a search. A Cav officer at the briefing said, "If I get shot down and it takes an hour for you guys to come find me, don't bother, because if I'm still alive, I'm shooting you."

The Marines were stunned by the effectiveness of the Cav. In the first place, they had never seen so many helicopters. The Cav didn't need tarmac, any old field would do. On more then one occasion Cav Pink teams came upon large groups of NVA who simply stared in amazement at the low flying scout ships and literally stood and allowed themselves to be shot up by gunships.

The Marines realized they had no scout capabilities and coordinated an exchange with our battalion to evaluate the situation (read about it in the 16th CAG entry in this forum) but quickly concluded that not only did they not have an aircraft capable of scout duties, but that the Navy was not going to buy them one. The upshot ended when they criticized the Army for being willing to accept 25% losses on an operation. OK, you tell me, how many grunts die before you justify a helicopter loss?

Not that all Marine aviation was bad, there was the case of the CH-46 pilot who hovered up a completely socked in canyon to rescue some guys in trouble. SOG used the Marine E model Hueys as crossborder escorts because they did not carry the weaponry of an Army gunship, therefore, they could carry more fuel.

During Lam Son 719, probably the operation that was the costliest to Army aviation, 21 aircraft were lost for every 100,000 sorties, a loss rate of 1 quarter of 1 percent, or, to put it another way, 1 aircraft lost for every 963 flying hours. True, the observation helicopters were pulled back, but the 17th Cav commander just added more Cobras and the scouting mission continued. Low and slow works.

Regards,
Rotorwash
__________________
We get heavier as we get older because there is a lot more information in our heads. So I\'m just really intelligent and my head coudn\'t hold anymore so it started filling up the rest of me. That\'s my story and I\'m sticking to it.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2011, 06:21 AM
DMZ-LT DMZ-LT is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta , Ga
Posts: 5,599
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Thumbs up

Was a platoon leader with 3/5 Cav during Lam Son 719. Would not be here without you guys. Thank you.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2011, 07:05 AM
1CAVCCO15MED's Avatar
1CAVCCO15MED 1CAVCCO15MED is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,857
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

I'd say the 15th Med Battallion Medevac platoon of the 1st Cav set some kind of record, too. They lost 82 aircraft and 30% of their crews were KIA. One crew was shot down three times in one day.
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2011, 07:55 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

The Air Force Association, and its President (Michael Dunn), often come out with these analyses of military aviation which I find puzzling, but also fascinating.

It takes someone who was "also there" to bring other points of view (which they are not shy about sharing in print, either by the way) to give perspective.

Something I recall from the early Vietnam period is that, if I can state it correctly, there was quite a huff between Army and Air Force in deciding which of the two would be "responsible for" low and slow aviation (e.g. helicopters). I wasn't part of the discussion personally, but most major USAF history texts I've read pretty much gloss over that, if it gets any mention at all.

One remembers, too, that the USAF as such was less than 20 years of age at the start of Vietnam - which may have something to do with turf battles.

The Air Force obsesses about machinery, without doubt.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2011, 02:42 PM
rotorwash rotorwash is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 133
Default

I was there during the last part of the dust-up involving logistic support of SF camps. As SF was setting up more and more camps, the logisitic requirement increased and the Air Force started trying to push thier weight around.

The Air force and the CIA had lost a major round when the Arrmy was given counter-guerilla responsibilities and it looked like the Army was winning the helicopter debate, so the AF saw an opportunity to rub it in the Army's eye. When the AF began dictating terms as to which SF camps they would deliver to and under what conditions, the Army lobbied to buy the C-7A Caribou's and Kennedy supported them. The AF had to concede the helicopter issue or lose the entire ball game. This wasn't settled until late 66, early 67 when the C-7A's went to the Air Force and the L-20/U-6 Beavers all went to the Army.

Rotorwash
__________________
We get heavier as we get older because there is a lot more information in our heads. So I\'m just really intelligent and my head coudn\'t hold anymore so it started filling up the rest of me. That\'s my story and I\'m sticking to it.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-13-2011, 10:17 AM
reconeil's Avatar
reconeil reconeil is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Avenel, New Jersey
Posts: 5,967
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default Rotorwash,

Don't know diddly-squat about choppers, and even less about Vietnam. Quite Fortunately never been there. Plus, all fire power & weapons platforms during my 7th Cav days travelled solely by jeeps, tanks & APCs.

Still, I find it hard believing that 1/9th Cav logged-in more confirmed enemy kills than similar 395 man: "Battalion size" HHT 1/7 SQDN did at: "LZ-Xray"?

Both Garroway book & Gibson movie: "We Were Soldiers" showed that the 3 day battle against about 10 to 1 odds produced quite some record breaking North Vietnamese Enemy BODY COUNT,...by: "The First of The Seventh" or; "Those GarryOwen Boys". 1/9th actually killed more VC, NVA or: "Charlie"?

Regardless, my compliments & salute to all having served Bravely & Courageously in Vietnam.
You were all WINNERS!

Solely political zealots & war protester zealots were (still are) America's Perpetual LOOSERS.

Neil
__________________
My Salute & "GarryOwen" to all TRUE Patriots.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-14-2011, 10:26 AM
1CAVCCO15MED's Avatar
1CAVCCO15MED 1CAVCCO15MED is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,857
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

I rode in a US Army Caribou in 68 or 69. I remember wondering why the Army had such transports. I figured it was because they were so slow. They could take off and land in less than the distance of two football fields.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Army caribou.jpg (82.4 KB, 2 views)
__________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." John Adams
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-14-2011, 01:18 PM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1CAVCCO15MED View Post
... They could take off and land in less than the distance of two football fields.
That was the thing.

Moving small units of personnel or stuff into bumpy places with short distances involved.

Cruising speed was about 150 with about 1000 mile range carrying up to 25 or so paratroops.

The C-123 (I worked on this one) by comparison (similar configuration of aircraft frame etc) was only a little bit better on speed, range or altitude, but could carry twice the loads. Needed JATO for severely short take-offs, but could get up and go like a Bou.

Basically, flying Jeeps.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-14-2011, 04:25 PM
rotorwash rotorwash is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 133
Default

I have no argument with medevac, and my experience with medevac units was that they got first priority on new equipment, and by all rights, they should have. Getting shot down three times in one day is an achievement, but not unique, it happened to other crews. We had great respect for medevac crews, to the point that we were especially aggressive when escorting them, and as far as crew losses go, they were a close second to scout crews whose loss rate was pushing 50%.

Concerning Caribous, I submit this quote from Wikipedia:

"Under the Johnson-McConnell agreement of 1966, the Army relinquished the fixed wing Caribou to the United States Air Force in exchange for an end to restrictions on Army rotary wing operations. On 1 January 1967, the 17th, 57th, 61st, 92nd, 134th, and 135th Aviation Companies of the U.S. Army were inactivated and their aircraft transferred respectively to the newly-activated 537th, 535th, 536th, 459th, 457th, and 458th Troop Carrier Squadrons of the USAF. . . ."

The Army was pushing this just a little in early 1966, they were evaluating the Buffalo, an improved, turbine engined version that I personally saw scrape the paint off the underside of the tail on takeoff. Empty, it could take off from a football field over the goal posts, although I am told it would have a problem on a rugby pitch.

If you rode in an Army Caribou in 68 or 69, it was certainly not the usual situation.

The 1/9 Cav started the whole episode days before the LZ X-Ray insertion. They killed 99 NVA when they overran a hospital and this was before the real battle started. 1/9 gunship doorgunners killed on average, over a hundred enemy a month. This does not include those killed by the main gunship armament, the scouts or the blues. Most of those kills were face to face at less then 50 feet distance.

Rotorwash
__________________
We get heavier as we get older because there is a lot more information in our heads. So I\'m just really intelligent and my head coudn\'t hold anymore so it started filling up the rest of me. That\'s my story and I\'m sticking to it.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Report faults air traffic control for Coast Guard plane, Marine helicopter crash that The Patriot Coast Guard 0 08-24-2010 01:28 PM
MESS Report / Crash raises questions over Israel's ageing helicopter fleet - Ha'aretz The Patriot Air Force 0 07-26-2010 02:39 PM
Unions to blame for job losses SuperScout General Posts 5 02-11-2006 04:30 PM
I regret the troop losses yesterday Boats Iraqi Freedom 1 12-22-2004 09:48 AM
Bluehawk commented on our was losses. Boats General Posts 3 08-11-2003 08:49 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.