Talk:160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne)/Archive 1

NPOV dispute - January 2004
Moved to: Talk:160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne)/NPOV disputes

Regarding 160th SOAR Helicopters
Please, do not change the links to where the helicopters point to.


 * The UH-60 Black Hawk and the MH-60 Black Hawk are DIFFERENT helicopters.
 * The CH-47 Chinook and MH-47 Chinook are DIFFERENT helicopters.

I will be copy/pasting the information from the 160th SOAR USASOC website about the helicopters used by the unit. On the meanwhile, please leave the wiki links as they are.

--Maio 03:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "The UH-60 Black Hawk and the MH-60 Black Hawk are DIFFERENT helicopters."


 * Kind of depends on your point of view. You could easily say they were different variants of the same helicopter - for example the airframes are the same, the engines are the same, the performance is pretty much the same; the only things different are the equipment specification. I changed the links from red ones to blue ones. Feel free to change them back when there is an actual MH-60 link. Incidentally, the page on 3rd battalion says half its MH-60s are "configured as AH-60". See GlobalSecurity.org, which consider all *H-60s to be 'variants'. DJ Clayworth 16:06, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. I beleive the best way would be to create an article named "H-60 Black Hawk helicopter" where we describe and give a picture of all the variants of the helicopter model. That way we avoid visitors' confussion and eliminate future issues regarding wikifies; as we will redirect all helicopter variations to that article. What do you think of this? --Maio 00:55, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent idea. We can put the generic info in there, and details of the variants in individual articles. In fact I think we should suggest this as the standard approach. For less popular helicopters we can have one article for the generic copter, and add articles oneach variant as required. Thanks for the suggestion. DJ Clayworth 15:29, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Aight, I'm gonna start editing the article on Talk:Black Hawk helicopter/Sandbox to avoid vandalizing the current article. If you could work with me, that would be awesome. --Maio 12:19, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

Night vision equipment
The article makes mention of the Nightstlakers being the first to use nightvision equipment in night combat operations in 1987. I'm wondering about the validity of this considering British helicopter pilots were reported as using Night vision goggles in the Falklands war when flying SAS/SBS/Commando units into their operating areas. TasDave 08:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very much possible, however, the 160th was created in the smoking debris of Operation: Eagle Claw. The first combat operations could very well have been covert actions throughout the 1980's as well as possibly Grenada. We cannot be sure. As I understood it, the 160th was the first to use NVG's during low level deep penetrator strikes or insertions.
 * If anyone can back the early validity of these statements with an excerpt from "Company Of Heroes" would be great.
 * Mcase07 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

4th Battalion
I believe the forth battalion is located at Fort Lewis (like the introduction states) but towards the bottom of the page, it has conflicting information about the fourth battalion. Can someone please research and correct that?yalepilot 10:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 4th Battalion was moved up to Ft. Lewis Wa, about 2 years back. They have also moved the company that was in pacom back to the states to help start 4th Bn.
 * Rick 10:17 20 NOV 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.51.224.90 (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Past vs Present Tense
Much of this article is written in the past tense ("the force was headquartered.." etc). Am I right in thinking the regiment still exists? In that case I'll change it to present tense. Thom2002 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

alright I've taken silence as agreement! Thom2002 (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference in Second Paragraph of History Section
In the second paragraph of the History section, it states, "The Army looked to the 101st Aviation Battalion..." The linked reference should be "101st Aviation Group."

In 1979, the 158th Aviation Battalion and 101st Aviation Battalion were sister units within the 101st Aviation Group, providing helicopter lift assets to the division. D Company, 158th Aviation Battalion was the primary source of pilots and crew, and those individuals were the first active unit to receive the new UH-60A aircraft. The parent organization for all the aviation assets within the 101st Airborne Division was the 101st Aviation Group.

Hickory 1199 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.campbell.army.mil/newinternet/UnitPages/SpecialForces/greenplatoon.htm
 * In 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) on 2011-05-25 01:51:18, 404 NOT FOUND
 * In 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) on 2011-06-01 18:49:39, 404 NOT FOUND

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.campbell.army.mil/NewInternet/unitpages/SpecialForces/FAQ.htm
 * In 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) on 2011-05-25 01:51:18, 404 NOT FOUND
 * In 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) on 2011-06-01 18:49:47, 404 NOT FOUND

--JeffGBot (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Task Force
Something is missing in this. I was an officer in the 101st Airborne Division and attended Division meetings in the 1982-84 time frame. During these years the 160th was known as the "160th Task Force." I remember distributing paperwork to various units with copies under the "CC" column marked "160th TF." I forget the commander's name, but he was a colonel who didn't wear the Division patch. In fact, I don't even think he wore anything on his uniform other than his rank. At the time there wasn't a lot of discussion about the 160th other than it was some kind of a "spook" outfit.

Somewhere, the article on the 160th should reflect this naming. I'm sure I'm correct, and betting I still have some papers filed which show 160th TF. Mnpd (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Motto change?
WHEN DID THE MOTTO CHANGE FROM "DEATH WAITS IN THE DARK" TO NSDQ? CWO4, JIM HUDSON, C/158, TF160th, 1980-83. mcjph997@yahoo.com i was there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.130.27.104 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Ref needed
There is a request for reference regarding the claim that a shepherd/goat herder revealed the team's presence to the Taliban. The book (Lone Survivor) alludes to the event. The Wiki-summary of the book talks about the shepherd incident. I don't have the book with me, but maybe someone else can site that book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.150.15 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh?
"This Support and Maintenance company will flying UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) The types of drones are unknown. They are currently taking in 15W MOS." Please write this in English.211.225.33.104 (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

...borne?
Why's there "Airborne" in the brackets in title of this article? Are there some kind of other 160th SOARs, like Seaborne? I'm not American and I don't get this... Tekogi (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

2007 helicopter crash kills eight, wounds fourteen
I'm not a writer so I'll leave that up to someone else. Here's the link to several articles reference the February 18, 2007 Chinook crash - 173.23.176.11 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

US-UK exercise
https://www.dvidshub.net/news/169928/160th-soar-trains-with-british-royal-air-force#.Vkh4MXYrLDd

Phd8511 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Discrepancies in Little Bird, Chinook, and Black Hawk inventory numbers
The Equipment section reports that the 160th has:
 * 51 MH/AH-6M Little Birds
 * 61 MH-47G Chinooks
 * 72 MH-60M Black Hawks

However, the Wikipedia List of equipment of the United States Army reports that the entire US Army has:
 * 47 AH-6 Little Birds (this table designates the AH model only, with no account of the MH, and does not display an M suffix, or any other suffix.)
 * 27 MH-47 Chinooks (the table further clarifies that all 27 are G-models)
 * 58 MH-60 Black Hawks (the table further breaks it down as 23 K-models and 35 L-models – it makes no mention of the M-model)

The Wikipedia List of active United States military aircraft reports that the entire US Army has:
 * 47 MH/AH-6 Little Birds
 * 61 MH-47 Chinooks (the table further breaks it down into 11 D-models, 23 E-models, and 27 G-models)
 * 58 MH-60 Black Hawks (the table further breaks it down as 23 K-models and 35 L-models – it makes no mention of the M-model)

One big discrepancy is the 72 MH-60s reported by this page (all M-models) vs. the 58 reported on the other two pages (all K- and L-models). Where did the 72 figure come from?

The other big discrepancy is the 61 MH-47s vs. the 27 reported in the List of equipment of the United States Army, but in that case at least there's agreement with List of active United States military aircraft.

Note: I realize that it may be irresponsible to publicly disclose accurate inventory figures for the Army's special operations birds, or any other weapons – I personally think this sort of information should be classified, and I'd support legislation to that effect. However, it's my understanding that the status quo situation is that these figures are public. I'm not sure what or where the authoritative reference source is for Army inventory, but they must have it somewhere, and they probably report it to Congress as well. If the accurate figures are public already, then Wikipedia should report the accurate figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSingularity (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Originating as "Task Force 160" and its covert operations in the 1980s
There is no mention anywhere in the article about the units origin as Task Force 160 and its covert operations in foreign countries in the 1980s and the casualty rate it was experiencing at the time, unusually another part of wikipedia does mention this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD_Helicopters_MH-6_Little_Bird#Nicaragua, and here is an LA Times article to hopefully get the ball rolling https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-10-05-op-4529-story.html. LamontCranston (talk) 03:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

In Popular Culture Section
The only two movies in which the 160th is shown to be in are Black Hawk Down & Zero Dark Thirty. In fact they are in five movies, 12 Strong, Lone Survivor. Act of Valor, Black Hawk Down & Zero Dark Thirty. One fictional and four based on true events. The edit should be shown as follows:
 * Black Hawk Down by Ridley Scott
 * Act of Valor by Mike McCoy & Scott Waugh
 * Zero Dark Thirty by Kathryn Bigelow
 * Lone Survivor by Peter Berg
 * 12 Strong by Nicolai Fuglsig

I served in the unit from 83-85 (Pachyderms) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknownusertoo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * and all other interested parties. I took another look at WP:MILPOP, this article, the films and book listed and films proposed for listing. It seemed to me the appropriate course was to remove the "pop culture" section altogether. WP seems to be generally against these list/sections, the preference being that if a work of arts & entertainment (films, books, etc) has a significant and accurate portrayal of the article's subject, supported by refs, and it aids the reader in understanding the article's subject, then it could/should be included but, written into the prose, in a relevant (typically chronologically ordered) section. *this is my understanding of WP's stance, paraphrased*
 * A perfect example is the film "Black Hawk Down". It was already included in this article's prose. The film ticks all the boxes (that I paraphrased) so it is good to stay in the prose and there is no need for it in the "pop culture" list. Basically the same does for "Zero Dark Thirty". The bin Laden raid was already mentioned in the article. I added some additional content, along with some sourcing, and then removed it from the list.
 * That just left the book, "Night Stalkers", by M. L. Buchman (with a link to the author's website as a ref). It was added by, who's 25 edits total thus far are mostly the creation of the author's BLP and several more, identical "in fiction" additions to military-related articles that serve as the background for said author's books, (from which I understand are fictional romances with military characters... please correct me if I have that wrong) but with that, I didn't see it belonging, so it was removed, and there was then no more "pop culture" section.
 * That just left the proposed films; "12 Strong", "Act of Valor" and "Lone Survivor". I've seen these films, while there were some helicopter scenes, I don't recall any strong connection to the 160th that would inform the reader about the unit or any of it's notable members. But that is for the proposer, Unknownusertoo to explain. That's it for now. Sorry about the length, but wanted to give a full explanation. - wolf  13:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)