Looks like there are going to be some important lessons learned from this – there’s that great problem of taking a relatively fragile box full of pers. and placing it on the ground in difficult terrain without ending up in your enemies KZ.
My first impression was that the MH-47’s might need more armament if they are going to fly missions like these – I don’t know much about the craft, and I first heard they carry a single door mounted 7.62mm GPMG.
It turns out they also carry two miniguns, which is a great leap in firepower, but probably not effective in suppressing multiple RPG/HMG pits – which is what you’d probably expect. I’m not too sure what arcs these things cover either – I recall hearing that Russian Hinds were fitted with rear facing guns to deal with ambushes.
I don’t know if observation can be bolstered, or more firepower added, but without knowing the full story, I think they may have to make a concession and stop operating these things in constricted terrain.
But is it possible they just didn't have the correct gauge of how strong a level of resistance to expect?
Stuff happens.
BTW, I saw the last half of one of my all-time favorite war films tonight: The Bridges at Toko-Ri with Grace Kelly (libido alert) and Bill Holden.
The last half-hour of that movie, especially the end-scene between the carrier skipper and the CAG, pretty much hits the nail on the head for this entire discussion.
"Where do we get such men?"