Sans.....you over look the common link in almost every one of the events....they were operated by Marines.
If we eliminated that one cause....think how short the list would be?
FH's comment was a bit over the top.....but so is your reply as it would suggest the Marines have problems operating their 53's which is not true either.
The 53 in all of its variants has been an excellent machine...starting clear back in the Vietnam War and continuing on today and with the new "K" model...well into the future.
The Osprey is just getting started and has yet to prove itself as have the 53....46, 47, 60, and other long serving aircraft.
A side note.....the Military Channel had a program on the introduction of the Osprey to Iraq and was filmed on site with the Marine Squadron that was deployed.
What was interesting was seeing how the first big OP they performed had been planned for three full days ahead of time, with dozens and dozens of hours of planning, briefings, and preparation. The security element was made up of Bell UH-1N's and AH-1W's from the same launch site. The Ospreys went off high and wide while the helicopters went to the LZ's and set up for the Ospreys.
Hard to see the real advantage in time or loads carried due to that. Perhaps by being high.....they Ospreys were out of range of small arms fire and light AAA or MANPADS....but that would be the only difference.
Much was made of the Osprey's ability to land in dusty conditions....but with the downwash it creates....it does need that capability.
Also I found it interesting to see the Ramp gun being the only defensive armament on the Osprey. I compare its arc of fire compared to the 53's setup of two side door guns and a ramp gun....meaning coverage from just aft of the nose of the aircraft all the way around to the other side of the nose of the aircraft.....which would be far more useful and effective than just the tail gun on the Osprey. But as we are told....Ospreys and the tactics employed by them doesn't plan for landings in Hot LZ's....right?