small arms fire

[sjpateys]

Just for fun the other day I plonked a large group of infantry on the map with the ME and flew towards them to watch them start shooting.

 

I assumed wrongly that the (I presume AK-47s thats what they look like) they were carrying wouldn't penetrate my armour. i was soon down in flames.

 

I thought KA-50 armour could shrug off this type of fire?:gun_sniper:

[Kenta]

It can, for a while :)

[Bushmanni]

It depends where you get hit. Cockpit is armored similarly as in A-10 and in addition has bullet proof ( small arms ) glass on front and sides at least, I don't know about the top window. Fuel tanks are most likely self sealing and filled with nitrogen or something like that to prevent them from catching fire or exploding. Gearbox is also built like a tank as the helicopter is literally hanging from it. Engines, rotor linkages, tail and Shkval are pretty much the only vulnerable parts but fortunately the infantry doesn't purposely aim for these. Usually I don't get any damage from small arms fire that would affect performance as it usually hits the cockpit or the belly. But I have gotten Shkval destroyed few times and one of the engines killed and fuel tanks riddled once but that's about it. Someone who knows could tell more about the fuel tanks. My guess is based on how they are protected in Apache but Ka-50 might be different.

[Haukka81]

Just for fun the other day I plonked a large group of infantry on the map with the ME and flew towards them to watch them start shooting.

 

I assumed wrongly that the (I presume AK-47s thats what they look like) they were carrying wouldn't penetrate my armour. i was soon down in flames.

 

I thought KA-50 armour could shrug off this type of fire?:gun_sniper:

 

 

Attack choppers just can't be flying tanks... weight is broblem.

 

So only critical systems are covered with armor. And even then it can't cover 100% of those.

 

 

Apache is even more light armored :book:

[Auroraw]

Sometimes they are lucky and hit the engines or the rotors those are pretty much the only spots that are really vulnerable to small arms fire. I'm often unlucky too.

[sjpateys]

CRIKEY it must be like a flying crisp packet then.

 

I'd heard that the ka-50 carries more armour than the Apache, thanks for confirming it.

[sjpateys]

oops that was meant for the post above yours Auroraw..

[Squid_DK]

Helicopters even the heavily armoured ones like the Mi-24 and Apache are lightly armoured compared to vehicles. most of the apache is only armoured by Kevlar matting, the exception is the vital areas, on the Apache even the rotorblades are stressed to survive (Not withstand) 23mm HE impacts. from what I have heard, and remember this is orally, the KA-50 is better armoured in certain places like the cockpit area.

Most of the skin of helicopters are aluminium, and that offers the same protection as a motivated strand of grass at combat ranges. the best defense against damage in a helicopter is the range of the weapons and stealth.

 

Staffan

[sjpateys]

i knew that attack helos weren't flying tanks as such but i didn't realise they were as lightly armoured. Still, i guess it stands to reason, you have to lift the bird of the ground and you are't going to accomplish that with tank armour strapped to them. i see your point about surviving as opposed to withstanding impacts. i guess i thought surviving meant the bullets bounced off as opposed to being absorbed.

[AlphaOneSix]

Typically, only the cockpit area is armored. This is the case with the Apache as well as the Hind. I can assume it's the same for the Black Shark, but I don't know that firsthand. Some versions of the Hind (and even Mi-17) can be found with "add on" armor on the sides of the engine and main transmission deck, but this is an exception rather than the rule. The primary protection on a helicopter (once you start getting hit, that is) is system redundancy. This is why you see engines spaced on opposite sides of the aircraft, so that it's less likely to lose both at the same time. In the case of the Apache, not only do you have redundant hydraulic systems (which nearly every medium and larger helicopter has...some even have three hydraulic systems) but the hydraulic lines for each system are routed down different sides of the helicopter, to reduce the possibility of having both damaged at the same time.

[sjpateys]

sounds a lot like the A-10.

[NineLine]

Wasnt an Apache brought down with small arms fire in Iraq?

[Shein]

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago, that Kamov was boasting you could shoot an AK-47 (7.62 round) anywhere at the KA-50 and not damage it, if you were 100 yards away or farther.

Idk if I believe that or not, but interesting food for thought.

[sjpateys]

it looks to me like the standard russian infantry carry AK-47's, is this the case? if they do they certainly cause damage to the ka-50, though i'm not sure how close i got to them

[AlphaOneSix]

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago, that Kamov was boasting you could shoot an AK-47 (7.62 round) anywhere at the KA-50 and not damage it, if you were 100 yards away or farther.

 

That's because beyond 100 yards, you can't HIT a Ka-50 with an AK-47! I kid, I kid, I actually love the AK-47 very much.

 

Anyway, I guess it depends on what they mean by "damage" right? I mean, a hole in the skin is damage, isn't it? If that doesn't count, then what else doesn't count?

[AlphaOneSix]

Wasnt an Apache brought down with small arms fire in Iraq?

 

"Brought down" is one way to put it. The details of the incident have never (to my knowledge) been made public. What is known is that the crew was able to land the aircraft just fine and it had no apparent damage. It was admitted that the aircraft made a "precautionary landing", which just means any landing where you're not sure if the aircraft will continue to fly safely. So we have no idea what the damage was or its extent, but it was enough (or was imagined to be enough) that the crew made the decision to land. Hard to say what was going through their minds at the time.

 

Whatever was wrong with the aircraft (beyond what the crew has to say) will never be known since that aircraft was JDAM'd during transport.

[sjpateys]

HA HA! that is a good point. AK's are useless beyond a certain (very short )range. but you have to love their simplicity and robust reliability.

[martinistripes]

HA HA! that is a good point. AK's are useless beyond a certain (very short )range.

 

All rifles are 'useless beyond a certain range'.

 

The majority of rifles used today are effective out to approximately 300m, the AK-47 being no exception. Rifles are one thing I have experience with and, on the recieving end, I really wouldn't disregard the AK because of any particular ineffectiveness.

[seikdel]

JDAMd? As in, hit with a JDAM?

[xxJohnxx]

I don't know what happened exactly, but I think after the helicopter landed and the crew ran away or got caught Iraqis maybe tried to get the helicopter away from there. So that they can copy the systems or something similar.

And probably, the US JDAMd the transport, so that they don't get the helicopter.

That would make sense to me ;)

[seikdel]

So they had to land and then get away is what you're saying?

[NineLine]

So they had to land and then get away is what you're saying?

 

 

That's how I remember it, of course this was from CNN but the Apache had to ditch, the crew escaped and the way I remember it they sent a team (or something) in to destroy the Apache, I didnt think it was recovered...

 

I could be wrong, that was some time ago...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_shootdowns_and_accidents_during_the_Iraq_War

 

• July 31 - An AH-64 Apache goes down after coming under fire in eastern Baghdad. The two crew members were safely extracted.[51][52]
  

[AlphaOneSix]

Yeah, they landed and got out of the helicopter and were promptly captured. According to "the Internet" the hydraulics were damaged, although I do not know to what extent. The aircraft landed in one piece, and was placed on a flatbed trailer and transported, I think, into Baghdad. It was bombed by a U.S. aircraft (presumably with a JDAM, I actually don't know what was used) and destroyed while it was still on the truck.

[AlphaOneSix]

 

July 31 - An AH-64 Apache goes down after coming under fire in eastern Baghdad. The two crew members were safely extracted.

 

The one we're talking about was during the attack on the Medina division near Karbala.

 

March 23 - AH-64D Apache 85-25407 from C Company, 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 4th BCT, 1st Cavalry Division shot down during attack on Republican Guard; two pilots taken prisoner.[162] Helicopter was supposedly destroyed by Coalition forces, but Iraqi TV showed an AH-64 being taken to Baghdad on a low loader.[158]

 

EDIT: Let me rephrase...the incident I posted is the one I'm talking about, more than one Apache was "shot down" by small arms fire during OIF. We are probably talking about different events altogether.

[NineLine]

We are probably talking about different events altogether.

 

It's quite possible, looks like a few were brought down, I cant say which one I remember hearing about or if I heard more than one reported by CNN.