AH-1 S or W? What do you want?

[shagrat]

You can use trees to hide from view, change vector to target, attack, change vector under tree cover again, and pop up for the next attack... just as an example. Each pop up requires the tank crews to spot you, aim and fire before they are dead. Now, use more than one helicopter and switch between them. As far as I know standard tactics for PAH-1 wings against an armor column. Apache of course is different, total different armament and capabilities...

EDIT of course Germany with its pretty wooded country side favors such tactics... in a desert or mediterranean country side would be different. :D

Edited October 16, 2014 by shagrat

[GGTharos]

They are employed with AIM-9 only when escorting another heli into a contested area with limited air support, on missions such as insertion/extraction of special forces or rescue operations. They don't normally haul AIM-9's into CAS.

 

To put this all in context with the upcomming AH-1W, I think the fact that Cobras have been employed operationally with AIM-9 on their primary hardpoints tells us that helicopter air-combat is a real possibility. The frequency of such actions is highly dependet on the specific circumstances. Historically it has been rare, most likely by the fact that the USA and the USSR have never gone to open war between each other.

[MBot]

They are employed with AIM-9 only when escorting another heli into a contested area with limited air support, on missions such as insertion/extraction of special forces or rescue operations. They don't normally haul AIM-9's into CAS.

 

Yes, that was exactly what I ment with limited offensive operations such escort in deep operations.

[shagrat]

...to scare enemy away, but they will evade together with the escorted transports.

That's what I meant.

[Bushmanni]

You can use trees to hide from view, change vector to target, attack, change vector under tree cover again, and pop up for the next attack... just as an example. Each pop up requires the tank crews to spot you, aim and fire before they are dead. Now, use more than one helicopter and switch between them. As far as I know standard tactics for PAH-1 wings against an armor column. Apache of course is different, total different armament and capabilities...

EDIT of course Germany with its pretty wooded country side favors such tactics... in a desert or mediterranean country side would be different. :D

 

You can't attack a target surrounded by forest from standoff range unless you get very high. Your sensors including radar requires LOS to the target but the ground target is much harder to see with any sensor than a skylined helicopter so the spotting and reaction time advantage is on the ground unit. Tactics you describe are used to counter the problems trees pose not to take advantage of them.

[shagrat]

Just look at the German countryside... besides, the BO105 PAH-1 doctrine is based around this concept. Treelines, rolling hills, small woods etc. In such an area it makes sense...

[shagrat]

I'm talking from experience here. 1. PzDivision... you trained helicopter doctrine. Know your enemy! :D

I've seen PAH-1 live in a combined arms excercise. It works pretty well... ;)

[Nedum]

Trees have never been considered a primary source of cover or concealment for helicopters. Terrain features are used as cover, meaning hills.

 

The big problem in DCS is not so much the lack of collision detection with trees, it's the fact that the AI can see through them while players cannot.

 

Wrong wrong wrong aaaaand... what? Yes! Wrong!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNWCSE9BaW0

 

 

This is a demo flight but all BO-105 and Tiger Pilots are trained to use trees as cover!

Edited October 18, 2014 by Nedum

[genbrien]

Funny but I would trust more AlphaOneSix than those youtube videos...

[Rogue Trooper]

In the 80s and 90s, trees were the bread and butter of attack choppers in pier wars.

 

The two greatest super powers; East V West (+ Europe) going toe to toe.

The shear HELL that would be unleashed in the sky alone would been the thing of nightmares.

 

The bladed warriors would go in the only way they could: FAST, Low and Fu$cking hard!!!!

That was the way of the Tornado, A10As, Cobras and apaches.

 

It was because they knew.

You fly high... you die!

In Europe... we know how its done... we got some practice.

 

In the middle east.. it's high flying and it's target practice baby.

 

One should not confuse the two war zones.

[Flagrum]

You can't attack a target surrounded by forest from standoff range unless you get very high. Your sensors including radar requires LOS to the target but the ground target is much harder to see with any sensor than a skylined helicopter so the spotting and reaction time advantage is on the ground unit. Tactics you describe are used to counter the problems trees pose not to take advantage of them.

But you can't attack it neither from a position behind a hill - so that argument is not really valid.

 

Just look at the German countryside... besides, the BO105 PAH-1 doctrine is based around this concept. Treelines, rolling hills, small woods etc. In such an area it makes sense...

This.

 

While the Fulda Gap area is not exactly flat, there are probably more forrests and patches of forrest than suitable(!) hills. At least if you have to get close to the target, like it is necessary for employing the HOT ATGM. Hilltops in that area are probably something like 5+ ... 10+ km apart - and if you peek over such a (wooded!) hilltop, you have nothing but the blue sky behind you - while when you pop up behind a patch of forrest, chances are high that behind you is one of exactly those tree covered hills a few clicks away.

[Fri13]

Just they are supposed to not go into pursuit and "fight it out". Fire a AA missile to have the enemy break off his attack etc., but don't go into a dogfight and see who wins.

 

I believe you have misinterpret my messages as I have not said there would be missions where attack helicopters are sent to intercept enemy helicopters. Or that it is their main purpose above anything.

All that I have been saying, is that attack helicopters have capability to engage other helicopter in own limited capability and they can do it if it is required.

It isn't like in some fancy AAA games where players take helicopters so they can get to helicopter dog fights in small map, with limited flight modeling, limited weapon effects and so on.

 

Just like you wrote (that I have mentioned) is that there isn't often many attack helicopters on areas and destroying a single one can be huge impact to enemy capability to later defend against you.

 

For many the attack helicopter is like some kind ultimate unit that can destroy battalions from single overpass.

While it is fragile (how much it needs cover), easy to destroy (armor levels are even if can withstand few 23-30mm HEI, structurally weak) it still is very powerful when well used and flied.

 

How often in DCS we see large infantry placements and use? Small arms fire isn't such a threat often as mission designers don't want to place and command infantry so often if at all. It is still likely be designed from airplane point of view where biggest threat is a ground vehicle with its HMG or some kind anti-aircraft platforms.

 

But as currently the DCS physics engine and graphics engine are old by design and have limits, it has put biggest impact to helicopters functionality as there is no cover as would be.

Flying behind 300m deep forest doesn't protect against AI as it will fire at you and get you.

 

I have hopes that in future DCS maps have little more changes in terrain mesh altitude (even if mesh resolution would stay large as now, or as EDGE gives 2/4x better resolution to that too) so there is cover for ground forces against each other, there is possible cover for helicopters too as there can be 20-30m hills, but more like there are blind spots for AA and same way to helicopters so they can't just fly outside of enemy range so AI needs little changes too.

 

For helicopters and ground forces I hope we could get groups in sense of more higher level commanding where controlling a single unit isn't possible by default but requires zooming closer or "opening" the group to see individual units.

This would make example possible command in CA module a squads or platoons as single symbol on map. So MBT platoon or infantry platoon would be easy to control but have way to get command individuals if needed.

 

Then using infantry would become a threat to attack helicopters as we could use more often infantry in missions.

I like how infantry now looks and behaves, it is enough to me but still the CA side (and editor) is limited for their usage as each soldier is own unit on map.

 

I do have high hopes for these because CA module is so great and helicopter modules are so close to CA module that airplane modules are more distant.

 

I believe that if ED manages to improve CA module and then the maps and physics, way to handle squads and platoons opens a door to very wide audience, that is strategy game players. They might not be interested to fly aircrafts but do the ground combats. That opens more reasons to have human helicopter pilots as it is now.

 

And future co-op piloting sounds great for many as there are those who don't know how to fly or doesn't care it but are interested to know weapons systems and work as co-pilots.

That leads to more interesting helicopter usage and requires helicopter vs helicopter situations to be handles well by players too.

 

Right now the DCS has very large focus on fighters, and helicopters and ground forces play by fighters rules/exist for them. AH-1W module being more likely first co-op attack helicopter module does change the battlefield below fighters as requirement to have better LOS system for covers, radars, missiles, kinetic projectiles etc does affect greatly to players how to even fly a helicopter or A-10/SU-25.

 

At the moment (AFAIK) we don't even have Vikhr missiles modeled with A/A mode at all. Missing proximity fuse and fragments (in all missiles and bombs etc) has made helicopter vs helicopter engagements such that you need to thing is there sense to do so. Firing a Vikhr to UH-1 can often require two hits IF you can even hit one, as Vikhr doesn't like to hit anything that moves these days.

 

At same modeling AH-1W has no sense to engage helicopters from distance as it has limited amount of missiles, so it would be "knife fight" more likely and current terrain design doesn't support it much.

 

In future with EDGE and possible map mesh updates etc we can see how humans work together in co-op helicopters like AH-1W as they will do differently than AI ordered to not engage helicopters at all in mission editor.

 

As I hope there would come new players for CA module and new terrain and EDGE, co-op helicopters, it makes things just more interesting as human vs human is more challenging as humans can use any change they see to engage any target.

[Fri13]

I'm not saying trees don't make good cover. I'm saying that trees are NOT the primary source of cover and concealment for combat helicopters. Terrain features (i.e. hills) are. When my unit did planning for battle positions, they didn't choose them around forested areas, they chose them around terrain features. When they selected routes, they didn't plan on them using trees for cover, they planned on using terrain features. Trees are great cover and great concealment, I do not argue that point, but they just don't compare to hills.

I believe what you mean is that trees only give visual cover but not actual cover against projectiles, unless it is a deep forest and not a tree island or tree line.

 

And trees are not often mapped or are updated. A small forest can grow in 10-15 years or forest can be cut down in a week or two, but terrain doesn't change so much.

[MBot]

So everyone actually seems to agree with each other after all :)

 

 

airvectors.net has a pretty good overview about the history and variants of the second-generation Cobras:

 

http://www.airvectors.net/avcobra_2.html

 

This brings up two questions about the Super Cobra. The article does not mention an upgrade of the navigation system. Do the production AH-1W not feature a INS or doppler navigation (I strongly assume that they have been upgraded with GPS during their lifetime)?

 

It does not seem that the AH-1W has a Helmet Sighting System to aim the cannon, as has been introduced in the AH-1E and AH-1F. Correct?

 

 

 

Another interesting bit of information are the produced numbers:

 

Single engined Army Cobras:

AH-1G: 1116

AH-1Q: 101 (upgraded from AH-1G)

AH-1S: 290 (92 upgraded from AH-1Q, 198 upgraded from AH-1G)

AH-1P: 100 (new built)

AH-1E: 98 (new built)

AH-1F: 527 (149 new built, 378 upgraded from AH-1G)

 

Two engined Marines Cobras:

AH-1J: 69 (new built)

AH-1T: 59 (new built)

AH-1W: 117 (78 new built, 39 upgraded from AH-1T)

AH-1Z: 189 (58 new built, 131 upgraded from AH-1W)

 

Exports:

Iran: 202 AH-1J International

Israel: 50 ultimately upgraded to AH-1F standard

Japan: 2 AH-1E, 89 AH-1F (license production)

Bahrain: 24 AH-1E

Jordan: 33 AH-1F (9 ex-US Army)

Pakistan: 20 AH-1F

South Korea: 8 AH-1J International, 62 AH-1F

Spain: 8 AH-1G

Taiwan: 42 AH-1W

Thailand: 4 AH-1F

Turkey: 10 AH-1W, 32 AH-1F (ex US-Army)

[Bushmanni]

My point is that the ideal terrain for attack helicopter is flat desert as there it's easiest to take advantage of the standoff range of the missiles and avoid getting ambushed by air defences. When there's enough trees so that the ground units aren't visible in low angles it forces the chopper to get closer or higher which are both bad options if the enemy is well equipped. You can counter these problems with tactics described and it works but it's not ideal which was my point.

 

In a heavily forested area pretty much all the targets are close to treeline which typically makes them visible only in 10-20 degree angle upwards. 10 degree angle means that from 8km range you need to be 1400m high to see the target. Or if you fly at the treetops about 30m high you need to be 170m away to see the target. Basically you can only engage targets when they are in the open or along natural lines of fire. Hills (with no forests) typically can be found considerable distance away form the target so you get much more distance from the target and hence safety. Of course this isn't always the case but you usually (depending on terrain) have much better luck with hills than forests.

[shagrat]

Let's get this into perspective for a tanker: As a tank platoon/armor platoon leader I try to cross a wooded/forrest area.

What are my possible lines of approach?

I can't go through the forrest, as it is a natural obstacle for armor, sliwing me to a walking pace and giving me a really bad situational awareness.

I can try running along a forrest flank, giving me cover to one side, but also blocking my movement in that direction, so when engaged from the other side I have three bad options stop, turn and advance toward the threat in the hope to kill it, speed up and drive in a straight line along the woods running for cover, or stop dead, turn around and try to get back into cover!

I can go for open space, spread my units wide to minimize the chance of all getting engaged at once, try to use gentle slopes and hills as cover as much as possible and try moving as fast as possible, maybe with some element providing overwatch cover.

I dismiss the "take the narrow road through the forrest" option altogether, for obvious reason.

What approach would you chose and what does it mean for the helicopters?

[NeilWillis]

Well, for the forest track options, I'd suggest that you'll never find a situation where tanks should be unsupported by infantry in close terrain. Combined arms is always the key to battlefield survival.

 

So, you'd send the infantry eyes and ears forwards to recce the wood, and determine if there are any threats. Then use the woods rather than going round them. Two reasons really, first, you should always avoid any obvious routes that will undoubtedly be covered by enemy fire arcs, and have fire plans covering them. second, they provide visual cover.

 

But of course, there are woods, and there are woods. A lot I encountered on the North German plains were very open. Not much undergrowth, and not much of a handicap to line of sight for tens of metres into them either. The other kind were very very dense conifer woods, with fire breaks being the only viable route through them, and they would always be avoided by infantry and armour alike.

 

What we need is a combination of different woodland classes. Some genuinely are no hindrance to fire through them, or lines of sight. Others are totally impenetrable. Also, the slightest rise and fall in terrain can be a very effective cover for tanks and helicopters. Just a 5 metre rise in elevation can provide total protection on a seemingly wide open plain.

 

Without very high resolution terrain, there is always going to be a compromise. One of the most significant battles in European history was fought on terrain with very insignificant rises and falls in elevation, and yet the infantry, when laying down behind the ridge lines was very protected - as you'd see if you ever visit the battlefields of Waterloo. Also, check out the Bois de Boulogne - a very significant woodland directly behind the battlefield that was so open you could march cavalry in line straight through it. Many historians questioned Wellington's decision to fight with forest to his rear - but there was nothing stopping the entire force from retreating in good order if it had come to that.

 

It'd always be difficult to replicate the level of detail needed to fight at squad level on a map that covers the kind of area necessary for air operations. If they were developed, they'd take years to design unless you have generic tiles repeated over and over.

 

Also, how can you use woods or hills unless they are in the right place for you to engage a particular target? Tactics from my experience was about making use of whatever terrain you had, not about only doing one thing or another.

[McBlemmen]

This thread should be renamed : DCS : Forest Warfare discussion

[NeilWillis]

Yes, apologies :)

[McBlemmen]

It's fine it's pretty interesting to read , i'm just saying its not really on topic

[AlphaOneSix]

It's fine it's pretty interesting to read , i'm just saying its not really on topic

 

Agreed, I deleted my posts on the subject.

[shagrat]

Funny but I would trust more AlphaOneSix than those youtube videos...

I trust in the BO-105 PAH-1 pilots that explained antitank tactics and doctrine to us, while their buddies showed it live... at least for the BO-105 it simply is what they do/did in real live.

No more, no less.

[hansangb]

I believe what you mean is that trees only give visual cover but not actual cover against projectiles, unless it is a deep forest and not a tree island or tree line.

 

And trees are not often mapped or are updated. A small forest can grow in 10-15 years or forest can be cut down in a week or two, but terrain doesn't change so much.

 

 

That's why we (in the Infantry) use the word cover to mean protection from enemy fire, and concealment to mean "hiding from LOS of enemy"

 

The two are not synonymous. Pedantic, maybe. But the two words have two different meanings.

 

I'm thinking this whole debate could have been avoided if the two words were used more carefully! :D

 

hsb

[sirscorpion]

Late to the party but AH-1W or Z "a man can dream" will be a day 1 buy for me. I have no use for rocket only stuff. And i think DCS should Fill the 1980+- range with as much models as possible from both sides.

[TomOnSteam]

Man I'd love to fly a whiskey Cobra. Seems like you've got the best of everything, fire power, speed, and your still light enough to be maneuverable.