Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

I find it unlikely that the two front glass panels wouldn't be rated to stop rifle-caliber hits at the least. The side plexiglass panels and the one above the pilot are clearly not armored but those front panels look to be much sturdier.

The images I've seen of AH-64s with battle damage have shown holes through those side panels but I haven't seen any pictures with clear holes through those two flat glass panels.

From what I've read the idea behind the barrier between the pilot and copilot/gunner was to ensure a single penetrating hit couldn't kill both crew members. It was designed to stop something like the blast of a 23mm or 30mm HEI shell from getting them both.

Edited by MoarDakka
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MoarDakka said:

I find it unlikely that the two front glass panels wouldn't be rated to stop rifle-caliber hits at the least.

Well, they aren't, and they can't. They seem pretty good at preventing bird penetrations, though.

Edited by AlphaOneSix
Posted
10 hours ago, AlphaOneSix said:

Well, they aren't, and they can't. They seem pretty good at preventing bird penetrations, though.

 

I'm rather surprised by this. I would have thought crew casualties would have been higher over the years if that was not the case. The famous case of the CPG hit in the throat seemed to be hit by a projectile that went through one of the side panels for example.

I'm not doubting you but it seems unusual there are no public images of ballistic damage to those front panels. The front-facing glass panels on the A129 Mangusta are supposedly armored but they don't look any thicker than those panels on the Apache. It seems like it would be a good thing to have for a relatively small weight penalty.

Posted (edited)

You should be able to find bird strike images. I remember seeing pictures of a bird strike that came into the rear cockpit some time ago.

 

Also, I think you're underestimating how hard it is to hit those front windscreens with a weapon fired from the ground. From the front, you're far more likely to go through the floor (which has armor panels) or through the TADS/AIA.

Edited by AlphaOneSix
  • 3 months later...
Posted (edited)

 

Just HITTING a flying aircraft using ground smallarms is difficult. Maybe closer to almost impossible, for some circumstances/scenarios. That's why when they DO hit, it's probably a shocking and fairly rare event for the helo crew.  

I was Army for 10 years, and in none of those exercises did I ever raise rifle or LMG to "engage" any fixed or rotor wing aircraft, and that's in exercises with blanks!  In none of those instances I sawthem, were they close enough to even "possibly" get a hit if I'd already been lined up with them.  Again, not impossible, it has happened, but it's rare and very low probability.  We all know about ground fire and helis in the Vietnam war, probably the conflict with the highest threat to aircraft from infantry weapons (not counting MANPADS as that's a different kettle). Many were shot down, I think roughly 2000 American helos lost in action, some aircrew certainly died in the helo from ground fire... but that was a long war, and the enemies with AK's could be "invisible" to helo crews and take fire without seeing any enemies at all, unlike other wars.  Most of those downings from just light smallarms probably happened not while the helos were at speed, but when hovering, landed, or approaching or departing, still slow.  Much like "Black HAwk Down", the two that were downed were not cruising at 280km/h but were hovering for Fast Rope operations. 

 

Edited by Rick50
Posted
On 10/21/2021 at 8:07 PM, MoarDakka said:

I'm rather surprised by this. I would have thought crew casualties would have been higher over the years if that was not the case. The famous case of the CPG hit in the throat seemed to be hit by a projectile that went through one of the side panels for example.

I'm not doubting you but it seems unusual there are no public images of ballistic damage to those front panels. The front-facing glass panels on the A129 Mangusta are supposedly armored but they don't look any thicker than those panels on the Apache. It seems like it would be a good thing to have for a relatively small weight penalty.

I think you’re underestimating how thick and therefore heavy polycarbonate has to be to stop even small calibre bullets, it needs to be around 20mm or thicker. Weight is critical in helicopters, armour in helicopter terms tends to mean Kevlar or ceramics.

https://www.armormax.com/blog/how-thick-is-car-bulletproof-glass/

Posted
On 2/20/2022 at 6:48 AM, Mogster said:

I think you’re underestimating how thick and therefore heavy polycarbonate has to be to stop even small calibre bullets, it needs to be around 20mm or thicker. Weight is critical in helicopters, armour in helicopter terms tends to mean Kevlar or ceramics.

https://www.armormax.com/blog/how-thick-is-car-bulletproof-glass/

You are probably correct that I am underestimating how much weight it adds up to, but I still find it a surprising choice after the Vietnam experience and knowledge of Soviet helicopter design. The AH-1 Cobra prototype had armored glass that was deemed to be too heavy but the AH-64 would have had a lot more excess power to work with when first introduced. Of course by that time the main threat was going to be an armored regiment's supporting Shilkas and SAMs and not infantry small arms.

I've no experience trying to engage helicopters with small arms either so I'd wager I am also underestimating how difficult a target they are to hit.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...