how many US forces ppl have been killed in afghanistan?

[rbhawcroft]

I have read a few reports saying that there have been quite a few recently, that werent widely reported, but the sources werent that credible.

 

[Kadarin]

I haven't heard anything. It's definitely possible, as when you have small groups on patrol you can come under enemy fire, and if the bad guys get in a good shot, yes, soldiers can die.

If you look at Afghanistan and Desert Storm and Serbia, you notice that the casualty rate is phenominally low as compared to prior conflicts. Amazingly so. In World War 1, the battle at Verdun cost the lives of about 1 million people. Look also at the invasion of Normandy, and at much of the fighting in the Pacific..

By contrast, we lost, what, maybe 8 people in Operation Anaconda, taking out the mountain fortress in the Shah-i-Kot mountains of eastern Afghanistan..

 

[Red Dawn]

I wonder if the Coalition Forces refrain from using Troop Carrier Helicopters. If I recall correctly the Soviets paid a high price as far as causulties go with the Afghans knocking them out of the sky with Stinger Missles.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder if the Coalition Forces refrain from using Troop Carrier Helicopters. If I recall correctly the Soviets paid a high price as far as causulties go with the Afghans knocking them out of the sky with Stinger Missles.

In some cases, they wouldn't even need Stingers; Operation Anaconda had trouble with the enemy firing RPGs at the Chinook helicopters, forcing at least one into a "hard landing".

 

[Red Dawn]

In some cases, they wouldn't even need Stingers; Operation Anaconda had trouble with the enemy firing RPGs at the Chinook helicopters, forcing at least one into a "hard landing".

Even more reason not to use those giant troop transport Helicopters like the Russians have. In fact they(the Russians) just had one shot down in Chechnya with over 100 causulties

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

In some cases, they wouldn't even need Stingers; Operation Anaconda had trouble with the enemy firing RPGs at the Chinook helicopters, forcing at least one into a "hard landing".

Even more reason not to use those giant troop transport Helicopters like the Russians have. In fact they(the Russians) just had one shot down in Chechnya with over 100 causulties

I saw a news article that mentioned the number of US casualties was under 40. I do not know if this is combat and logistics casualties, or just combat casualties.

 

[rbhawcroft]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder if the Coalition Forces refrain from using Troop Carrier Helicopters. If I recall correctly the Soviets paid a high price as far as causulties go with the Afghans knocking them out of the sky with Stinger Missles.

they did, but another favorite was HE/ Shrapnel Fused RPGs aimed near the tail rotor which was lightly armoured. stingers would be conserved i imagine. also the russians engaged in a confrontation with an aggressive populous as in vietnam where you would inevitably have to fight hand to hand and no matter what americas agvatages are that means dead ppl. fortunately they can buy the afghans support, for now.

at the end of the day if troops are coming under fire some are going to get hit even with body armour and fire support.

 

[woodie1]

I thought I read in the last day or two that the death toll was 18 so far.

No breakdown was given.