A-10C, much more vulnerable than it sounds to be ...

[Ganesh]

good discussion ;)

but normal Infantry without this dratted iglas

are to cheecky and above all to much accurately. :gun_sniper:

[maturin]

helo hovering almost stationary on the deck; 84mm HEAT or even and m72 would make for a really really bad day for them.

If a helicopter has entered a hover less than 300m from enemy infantry, something has gone horribly wrong.

 

Because it's almost impossible to eyeball the range to a flying object when you only have one shot with a very ballistic trajectory. If you land a hit on a chopper with a LAW over 300m you are probably the love child of Annie Oakley and Jesus.

[dumgrunt]

If a helicopter has entered a hover less than 300m from enemy infantry, something has gone horribly wrong.

 

Because it's almost impossible to eyeball the range to a flying object when you only have one shot with a very ballistic trajectory. If you land a hit on a chopper with a LAW over 300m you are probably the love child of Annie Oakley and Jesus.

 

Sorry champ, but you Obviously know nothing about individual camouflage and concealment, nor do you know the accuracy that can be attained with the 66 little lone the 84.

 

My main concern would not be about the enemy spotting me, or even scoring a hit. But the launch signature and if the fu**** had adequate cover from his wingman.

[Havoc175]

A little story sort of on topic. my platoon and i where in the middle of a training exercise at JRTC ( its a huge mock war. we use lasers mounted on our weapons. its kind of like a big laser tag game ). we where at the main HQ base getting some chow taking a break from running missions. all of a sudden a enemy HIND comes racing in from over the trees. all of us infantry guys went running for the wood line, trying to get out of site of the flying tank. all of the non combat guys ie. the cooks, support guys and transportation guys started firing there rifles at the helo. needles to say the hind started firing back ( using lasers ) and in about thirty seconds every one that was out in the open was dead. we knew not to engage a aircraft with small arms fire, if we had something bigger on hand like a mounted .50 cal. maybe...

[SkateZilla]

Yes, I'm fresh out of the training missions , and did my first combat missions those last days ...

 

How many times I had to come home for repair, because I was hit bit little arms ( even infantry 7.62 mm ... ) When one of your MFCD is out, you can say bye to the mission until it's repaired again !

 

In the manual and everywhere, it has the reputation to be really solid, well armored etc etc, with it's titanium bathtub ...

 

But now I have doubts, or I mis-did something

 

You can move functions between MFCD's... so if you lose the left, you can move the TAD, DSMS to the Right, and if you lose the right, you can move TGP, MAV etc to the left, your CDU Page can be seen on the CDU on the Right Panel

[dumgrunt]

A little story sort of on topic. my platoon and i where in the middle of a training exercise at JRTC ( its a huge mock war. we use lasers mounted on our weapons. its kind of like a big laser tag game ). we where at the main HQ base getting some chow taking a break from running missions. all of a sudden a enemy HIND comes racing in from over the trees. all of us infantry guys went running for the wood line, trying to get out of site of the flying tank. all of the non combat guys ie. the cooks, support guys and transportation guys started firing there rifles at the helo. needles to say the hind started firing back ( using lasers ) and in about thirty seconds every one that was out in the open was dead. we knew not to engage a aircraft with small arms fire, if we had something bigger on hand like a mounted .50 cal. maybe...

 

the hind armor from memory is rated to 23mm, at least in the crew compartment (assuppose to the cargo). still, if you are backed into a corner like that, a good burst from even a mag58 (if you are able to get it onto a stable firing platform at the likely high elevation) into the rotor hub should take his mind off breakfast. still i never had an actual hind pop on me in training. never ceases to amaze me the resources you guys get.

 

but i take your point. at basic training, I shared a room with a catering corps dude, who was a bit of a strange chap at the best of times. when someone asked him why he joined the army, his response was because he wanted (no joke) "to jump out of planes and kill cu***" it was pointed out to him that maybe he didnt join the best corps for his ambitions. and you never see gucci battle rigs quite like what medics and bandies sport (we often buy our own gear) with pounches hanging off eachother everywhere.

[Guest ppitm]

Sorry champ, but you Obviously know nothing about individual camouflage and concealment,

I don't know why you felt the need to be an ass just because you disagree.

 

Camouflage isn't the point here. No attack helicopter pilot ever wants to enter a low-level hover within 300m of enemy infantry. That was the first point. All the more so because he's not likely to spot anyone who's crawling around down there unless he's really thorough with the FLIR.

 

nor do you know the accuracy that can be attained with the 66 little lone the 84.

I'm waiting for you to share any information or experience to the contrary then.

 

I know the AT-4 has the mechanical accuracy necessary to strike a point target at 300m, but the average operator doesn't. It's universally accepted that at normal engagement ranges, human beings make range estimate errors that are large enough to miss the first shot with almost any AT weapon. That's why we have spotting rifles, rangefinders and PG-O style reticules.

 

So tell me, do you or any large number of soldiers you know have excellent hit rates with the AT-4 at maximum effective range against a target that is at a considerably different elevation (making your range estimate automatically wrong unless you can do trigonometry in your head), drifting sideways at a few mph and silhouetted against the sky to make range estimates even more difficult from lack of reference?

 

As for the M72...

 

• Stationary target: 200 m (220 yd)
  
• Moving target: 165 m (180 yd)
  
• Beyond these ranges there is less than a 50% chance of hitting the target.
  

The army thinks you can't do it.

 

 

That's my thinking. If you have any actual insight to share in a respectful manner, I'm waiting to learn something new.

[dumgrunt]

I don't know why you felt the need to be an ass just because you disagree.

 

Camouflage isn't the point here. No attack helicopter pilot ever wants to enter a low-level hover within 300m of enemy infantry. That was the first point. All the more so because he's not likely to spot anyone who's crawling around down there unless he's really thorough with the FLIR.

 

 

I'm waiting for you to share any information or experience to the contrary then.

 

I know the AT-4 has the mechanical accuracy necessary to strike a point target at 300m, but the average operator doesn't. It's universally accepted that at normal engagement ranges, human beings make range estimate errors that are large enough to miss the first shot with almost any AT weapon. That's why we have spotting rifles, rangefinders and PG-O style reticules.

 

So tell me, do you or any large number of soldiers you know have excellent hit rates with the AT-4 at maximum effective range against a target that is at a considerably different elevation (making your range estimate automatically wrong unless you can do trigonometry in your head), drifting sideways at a few mph and silhouetted against the sky to make range estimates even more difficult from lack of reference?

 

As for the M72...

 

• Stationary target: 200 m (220 yd)
  
• Moving target: 165 m (180 yd)
  
• Beyond these ranges there is less than a 50% chance of hitting the target.
  

The army thinks you can't do it.

 

 

That's my thinking. If you have any actual insight to share in a respectful manner, I'm waiting to learn something new.

 

the tone of my response to maturin was in kind.

 

firstly lets nail down the original scenario, a helicopter hovering doing what ever its doing presents an opportunity target. two assumptions; if its hovering, its stationary, or near stationary. opportunity target: it doesnt know of my presence, and its within the effective range of weapons that I have at my disposal, and there is no terrain or vegetation obscuring the shot. another consideration is whether shooting it would compromise my task. yes there are alot of parameters to be met here, the point was it can be done.

 

Firstly camouflage is relevant, as maturin asserted that a helo would never enter a hover that close to boots on the ground (i'm not a grunt anymore, so won't feed the god complex by refering to all boots on the ground as infantry). yes TI makes it harder to remain concealed but is not the be all and end all. as I'm sure you are aware, people can be right on top of you before they see you, littlelone with all of senses that are restricted by a cockpit. I'm not an avo so im not sure of what considerations they go through before entering a hover over the battlespace. ive never seen our blokes do it (probably for this very reason) but i have certainly seen footage from other NATO forces do it.

 

Secondly: gunnery with anti armor weapons.

 

judging distances: is something that is drummed into ALL CORPS from day dot. in my trade it is crucial; range finding binos aren't always available, and being able to accurately estimate and convey the range is inherit to our job. if a helo is entering a low hover, it wouldn't just be an object in the sky, the rotor wash for example provides a "fixed" point on the ground to reference off. it doest need to be exact either, your target is two meters in height and you are firing at the centre of seem mass, as suppose to aiming for a particular point as you would if firing at a AFV. so far as the chopper moving slightly, im sure that if you are a current or former user of anti armor weapons, that "leading" is taught for moving targets.

 

Ranges: how long has it been since the US used the M72? maybe your NG still uses it? our variant is the M72A6, and I will state its tab data that we go off is beyond the ranges that you have quoted. I will not give exact figures (although i am sure someone else has published it on the net somewhere).

 

Accuracy: the M72, or "66" as it is ordinarily refered to is popular for the very reason that it is an "accurate" "lightweight" DFSW (those words are all in the intro lesson for the description of the weapon). when i first qualified on the weapon i scored three out of three hits at a stationary centurion tank at 300m. certainly my experience as an instructor has yeilded that first time firers will score for the most part at least 2 out of 3 hits (this is after WTSS time obviously, kind of like a massive Xbox game with deactivated weapons). as people go through the training continuum the accuracy generally gets better. accuracy obviously goes down when you start talking about snap shots taken during live field fire exercises. the scenario implicitly states a deliberate shot... honestly the hardest part of training people to use it now is that it is one of the few weapons that still uses "iron" sights. few people are exposed to fire arms before they enter the military here. still it is taught generally in conjunction with the MAG58 which is also taught without optic sights.

 

the carl gustav "84" (MDFSW) is slightly different. most pers on their qualifying shoot will score maybe one out 3 hits. this is due to a number of reasons, firstly the amount of PPE you have to friggin wear at the range when firing the weapon, makes it hard to even get a steady sight picture. secondly is the sheer unpleasantness from firing it. if the no.2 has a cold, his nasal sinuses will have been evacuated from the concussion of the weapon. another problem is the m3 sight has 4 different range scales on two different range drums. in the "heat of the first firing" people frequently use the wrong scale, despite constant beration leading up to and on the firing point from the instructors. however in the hands of a more experienced user, it is very very accurate, especially with the new HEAT RAP (FFV551) ammo that is now fielded, which has a very flat trajectory out to even it max range against stationary targets. the last time i saw it fired ( i didnt fire it because i was a safety supivisor, but hence got a great view because everyone else is behind cover during firing) about 25% of users (mostly guys who have been around for a while) were scoring 100% with this type of ammunition near the limits of its effective range on a 6ft by 6ft target, this was on a day where there where gusts up to 10 kts, and this was well beyond the theoretical range we are discussing here. using something like the 441B or the 502 round is obviously different because they have the trajectory of a bag of cement. still accurate out to their respective ranges though.

 

both weapons are now all arms corps weapons, but the 84 was long taught as a dedicated anti armor team weapon, and in my trade it still is, hence a lot more time is spent teaching the tactical employment of it, including estimating ranges by using the reticle in the sight as another aide to judging distance, estimate vehicle speed, aspect, and which corresponding points of aim to use on the reticle of the optics. I cannot relate to the "AT4" since i have never used it, but my understanding is that it essentially uses a munition based on the old "84" heat round, which we did employ on stationary targets beyond 300m.

 

So, i will restate my original assertion, that is, if i had too, I (or certain members of my team) could with confidence hit a stationary helo hovering above the deck at 300m. and if it gets hit by an 84 round or even a 66, its only going one way...

[Havoc175]

the hind armor from memory is rated to 23mm.

I did not know it was rated that high !! good thing we decided to live to fight another day.

[maturin]

the tone of my response to maturin was in kind.

I didn't aim my tone at anyone, and it wasn't disrespectful.

 

two assumptions; if its hovering, its stationary, or near stationary.

If I'm not mistaken, in combat most choppers would "hover" at up to a few dozen kilometers per hour because it safer and easier. Enough that you would definitely consider it a moving target from an anti-tank perspective.

 

yes there are alot of parameters to be met here, the point was it can be done.

Certainly it can be, my point is that it probably wouldn't be.

 

 

judging distances: is something that is drummed into ALL CORPS from day dot. in my trade it is crucial; range finding binos aren't always available, and being able to accurately estimate and convey the range is inherit to our job.

Right, but everything I've been able to find talks about rather large errors that even trained soldiers will make because humans aren't perfect.

 

if a helo is entering a low hover, it wouldn't just be an object in the sky, the rotor wash for example provides a "fixed" point on the ground to reference off.

That's a good point that I didn't think of, but also highly conditional. The ground is often not even visible because defilade or vegetation at 300m, but the main counter-argument is that a hovering chopper isn't concerned about infantry. That's why he hovered. But he is more likely to be concerned about being spotted from the air, meaning he will hover high enough to prevent rotor wash. That added elevation would also add much more complex ranging errors to your shot. I admit that when I said 'Annie Oakley and Jesus' I wasn't thinking of the optimal chopper-shooting situation from the infantryman's perspective.

 

as suppose to aiming for a particular point as you would if firing at a AFV. so far as the chopper moving slightly, im sure that if you are a current or former user of anti armor weapons, that "leading" is taught for moving targets.

Ok, no matter what you tell me, I can't believe that you are going to expect to specifically hit the turret ring of a tank at 300m. And of course leading is taught, but with one slow, arcing shot it's probably the most difficult thing anyone does with a direct fire weapon ever.

 

Accuracy: the M72, or "66" as it is ordinarily refered to is popular for the very reason that it is an "accurate" "lightweight" DFSW (those words are all in the intro lesson for the description of the weapon). when i first qualified on the weapon i scored three out of three hits at a stationary centurion tank at 300m. certainly my experience as an instructor has yeilded that first time firers will score for the most part at least 2 out of 3 hits

That's surprisingly accurate; I won't lie.

 

On the range, though, don't you always have the exact distance to the target posted? Or if not, that sort of information has got to filter down by word of mouth, or guessed because of logical intervals in target placement.

 

I took such a negative view because I was envisioning human error in ranging (both laterally and vertically), with highly-likely drifting by the target in an extremely unfamiliar scenario training-wise (ranging a silhouette of unfamiliar shape and size is a lot harder).

[dumgrunt]

*sigh*

 

quote box 2: the post in question seemed to unambiguously describe a stationary hover. like i said i havent seen our guys do it, but i have seen many times other forces do it. besides i am led to believe that a stationary chopper will not show up on radar, since the most likely and most dangerous threat to the chopper is that of EN aircraft. and we could be anywhere on the FEBA...

 

quote box 3: yes and many of the parameters i described that needed to be met had nothing to do with making the shot, they were more concerns with doing so compromising the task, and cover from his wingman. or did you miss that bit?

 

quote box 4: yes people certainly do make errors, and at under 500m, in my 9 years of service, with experienced soldiers, you are generally talking about increments of +-25m being in that window of error. big problem at 400m with something like a 40mm gold top, not really a problem at 300m with a 2m tall target with a "66". next...

 

quote box 5: firing at an angle actually flattens the trajectory, at least that is how it works with small arms, i see no reason why the rules of physics would change for a heavier slower projectile, which would actually make the issue of range estimation LESS PERTINENT. Besides, the old "picture a football field" in front of you is only one aid to judging distance, there are many others too... and frankly, if there is that greater difference in elevation and shooting upwards, vegetation would most likely obscure the shot.

 

quote box 6: yes i will tell you that it is taught to aim for specific weak points of the tank, not the center of seen mass, and i will also tell you with enough practice soldiers do attain that level of proficiency. I couldn't give a rats ar*e what you think with your clearly vast experience of using hand held anti armor weapons.

 

quote box 7: im surprised that it surprises you that TRAINED soldiers could actually attain that level of accuracy. yes, on static ranges, ranges are known, but they are generally not revealed to the firers. it can be a safety issue though, it depends on how risk averse the OIC is on letting firers judge the distance. on a field firing range, for example; fire control orders are issued by the "team leader", "generally" the most experienced and competent team member, who will state the range the firer is to set. and certainly with something like a DELIBERATE shot, a small amount of time and consideration would go into getting the range right.

 

like i said, using a silhouette on a stadiametric sight is only one aid to judging distances, and you are near literally trying to hit the side of barn, which at 300m is not that greater range at all. motion is relevant to aspect too, so many pros and cons of different combinations for one to have a brain spin about...

 

in fact, bugger it, next time I am at the WTSS and my mate is running it, ill get him to set up the scenario and get back to you. :D

[Dejjvid]

That helicopter would be FUBAR if it hovered anywhere close to my squad in the National Guard.

 

I only need to say 8.4cm Carl Gustaf. And for the lulz we can send some At-4 and 40mm while we're at it.

 

I don't think any helicopter think its funny to have armed enemies within 300m. But I've seen German pilots flying CH-53 and doing infil/exfil and providing suppressive fire from 200ft with smoke flares, signal flares and what not flying everywhere. Hardcore pilots, considering it was in peace time ;)

[OutOnTheOP]

A little story sort of on topic. my platoon and i where in the middle of a training exercise at JRTC ( its a huge mock war. we use lasers mounted on our weapons. its kind of like a big laser tag game ). we where at the main HQ base getting some chow taking a break from running missions. all of a sudden a enemy HIND comes racing in from over the trees. all of us infantry guys went running for the wood line, trying to get out of site of the flying tank. all of the non combat guys ie. the cooks, support guys and transportation guys started firing there rifles at the helo. needles to say the hind started firing back ( using lasers ) and in about thirty seconds every one that was out in the open was dead. we knew not to engage a aircraft with small arms fire, if we had something bigger on hand like a mounted .50 cal. maybe...

 

You also have to keep in mind the "rules" the MILES system works by: it knows what type of weapon system is firing at it, and doesn't "kill" the target unless the weapon is assessed large enough to kill it. With MILES lasers, you could put infinite 5.56 or 7.62mm into a helicopter, but never kill it. Leaves and obscurants will also stop MILES lasers. Real life doesn't work that way.

 

...oh, and that's assuming OPFOR even had their sensors mounted. They've been known to not wear them (especially the head sensors for infantry. Do you have any idea how hard it is to kill OPFOR in bunkers, buildings, or fighting positions when they're not wearing their head sensors? #$(*&ing impossible, that's what)

[Havoc175]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to kill OPFOR in bunkers, buildings, or fighting positions when they're not wearing their head sensors?

 

Yea I have been there many times!

[Havoc175]

Real life doesn't work that way.

 

Well aware of that

[Hueyman]

Wow it's been busy here lately that's nice ;-)

[Dr. Yes]

Agreed! Don't forget you can change what MFCD pages are available by holding down one the bottom OSB buttons for a couple seconds

 

Huh, I didn't know that. I always wondered how to get some of the pages on the other MFD.

[Nume Noctre]

I would rather say that gunfire is much more dangerous than you thought!