A recent discussion of "Clusterfuck" noted that one of its definitions included too many people standing too closely together, making an attractive target.

Turns out, per aswatAlIraq, this might be a good rule for equipment as well:

Baghdad, May 17, (VOI) – A U.S. helicopter was destroyed, while damage was reported to nine others in an artillery attack on Sunday on the Taji Camp, north of Baghdad, a source close to the Multi-National Force in Iraq (MNF) said.

"The ten helicopters were landed at the camp," the source, who requested his name not be mentioned, told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI) today.

According to the source, an official spokesman for the U.S. defense department confirmed the attack today.This is the first time for the U.S. army to announce the destruction of some of its helicopters, which were landed at one of its bases, as a result of a missile or artillery attack since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.

Emphasis added. "Which were landed" is a clunky and/or evasive way to avoid saying that a whole lot of helicopters have been destroyed in flight. Read more…

I have a friend who is a student of Soviet history, and speaking to him I was reminded that in Afghanistan, the order of events in that war went something like "invade, experience increasing insurgent attacks, gradually lose control of invaded cities/territories, lose increasing numbers of heavy equipment like helicopters, discover that only barricades guarantee any semblence of control over remaining 'pacified' territories...

At one point, things were so out of hand that the Soviet military had no choice but to lower helicopters down from tremendous heights over barricaded military complexes, and only then after pacifying surrounding areas with sustained shelling and bombardment. Ironically, some of the artillery we sold the Afghans was specifically designed to be able to reach targets from positions outside the range of Soviet munitions that were used in defensive bombardment. Read more…