Fabulous flying & firing machines in ArmA?

[Jezz 0]

Quote[/b] ]Apparently they have to do straight bombing/strafing runs and can't behave the way more maneuverable helos do.

my understanding is that it was never designed to fly from tree to tree playing hide and seek, more fly in fast shoot off its load and get out .

[ricnunes 0]

The AH-1Z is just an attempt to make up for the AH-1s disadvantages to the AH-64 (quieter four-bladed rotor, targeting systems, etc...), but no matter how hard it tries, it can't be the Apache. Also, I've never heard anything about the AH-1Z being able to use the Longbow system, but even so, again the USMC's funding is considerably low, and Longbow radar is rather expensive.

As for the Longbow system, it was designed for the AH-64, opposed to the USMC upgrading their AH-1s to keep up with the AH-64.

Wether it's capable of doing something and wether it does something in practice are sperate issues. The USMC does not employ the same stealthy tactics as the US Army. Also, the USMC does not have the benefit that the Army has by using OH-58s alongside Apaches.

Anyways, wether or not the AH-1Z can match the AH-64s capability to remain stealthy while engaging targets isn't the point, my point was that the AH-64 is not an easier target than the AH-1, and I have read up on the AH-1Z and seen nothing to support your claims. The AH-1 can only go so far, the USMC isn't going to use it forever, and it's certainly not going to out-live the Apache. But the Cobra and Apache live in two different worlds, so competition is not even important. IMO, the AH-64 suits the Army better, and the AH-1 works well enough for the USMC.

KyleSarnik:

Well regarding the capability of the AH-1Z being able to carry the Longbow radar I just have to say this: You didn't give yourself the trouble of reading the docs in the links that I posted did you?

I'm saying this because if you read at the page 64 of the document in the following link:

http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en....web.pdf

You'll find every information you need about how the AH-1Z is capable of carrying the Longbow radar

Regarding the Cobra not "out-living" the Apache, I think you're wrong here. The AH-1Z is scheduled to enter in this year (2006) so it's a very recent helo and probably the most advanced attack helo in the world (the AH-1Z variant that is) or at least one of the most advanced so my guess is that it will be in service for very long time (at least as long as the Apache) and since the first Cobra versions date from the Vietnam war, I'll say that the Cobra already "out-lives" by at least a decade the Apache!

Regarding the tactics, I still don't know for sure what you mean. And by the way Franze is correct when he says that both the Apache and Cobra can't attack autonomously a target without being exposed (unless obviously someone else is "painting" the target). At best they like Franze said they can attack at "standoff" distances.

But if I undestand you correctly you're talking about the "pop-up" techniques (hiding behind tree or hills and poping up, engaging the enemy and hide again) so if this is what you're talking about I simply don't see why ANY Cobra version can't do this either. Anyway you're correct by saying that the USMC don't use this "pop-up" tactics often but in assymetrical warfare scenarios that we currently see today it seems a bad tactic to use. I remember in OIF where a group of Apache got their "asses kicked" when using a similar techique because they got ambushed by Iraqi soldiers while hovering behind what appeared to be "safe" cover. The result was one Apache downed (the "farmer incident") and another was destroyed in a crash land at home base and several were heavily damaged. So in a current war scenario using those pop-up tactics could mean an invitation for getting hit by an enemy RPG. This is why the AH-1W performed quite better than the Apache in OIF.

Anyway, what I want to say is that there is absolutelly NO reason (or lack of capability) why a Cobra can use such tactics even is they often don't use them.

Finally regarding the Apache being a easier target to get hit than the Cobra, well that's simple -> If the Cobra is smaller or have a smaller area than the Apache (this is specially true in the frontal area, even when comparing with the AH-Z) then it becomes harder for an enemy to hit it. The larger the target the easier is hit it!

For example it's much easier to hit a Chinook than AH-6 Little Bird because one is much bigger than the other. The same aplies to the Cobra and Apache even if the diferences aren't obviously so big!

[ricnunes 0]

Im sorry but this is simply wrong. I have spoken with many Afghan War veterans, and have read articles on their interviews. They all say that the Stinger barely did anything to turn the tide. Its simply American nationalism getting in the way of facts.

Honestly I doubt that many or most Afghan War veterans would admit that a single weapon system was the cause for their victory or defeat (depending on which side those veteran were fighting for).

But regarding the Stingers I'm not implying that they managed to turn the war by shooting down Hinds (or any other aircraft or Helo) by the thousands or that the Russian and their Afghans allies tactics weren't effective enough to prevent at maximum that their helos and aircraft would get should down by the Stingers. Those tactics where inded very good and effective against the Stingers but these tactics (like flying very low thru the valleys or very high altitudes) prevented those same helos and aircraft of being effective like they were before the Stingers came into the Afghan War.

For example before the Stingers the Hinds operated almost at will without any restrictions but when the Stinger came in they started to either fly either lower inside the Afghan valleys or very high altitudes which as you can imagine reduced it's offensive effectiveness since in those condition it's much harder to spot and therefore attack the enemy. So the Stingers weren't that effective in terms of shooting down enemy aircraft (Launch to Hit ratio) but they were effective in terms of reducing their offensive effectiveness and it was here that the war turned into the Afghan guerrilla favour (even because the Hind helicopter was the most important weapon system for the Russians in that war).

[stegman 3]

...strewth, you two can write!

[Scrub 0]

Maybe we need perspective to end the OT argument.

Hind:

Made of steel, titanium, aluminum, composites. In that order.

Limited hovering capability, massive armament, High top speed

Designed Purpose: To fly enmasse to battle, take hits, pound ground units sensless, and, as utility, drop troops at/behind front lines.

Apache:

Made of magnesium alloy/aluminium (almost same amounts of each) titanium & kevlar. In that order (magnesium burns hard and fast on a tarmac after an op with a few incendiary hits and an engine fire BTW )

High mobility, medium/high speed, good armament, protracted hover ability

Designed purpose: To flit from cover to cover to hunt, observe, and hit armor where it hurts from cover/distance and support ground troops. MUST move with ground troops as combined smallarms fire can down them.

My (exaggerated) take on it is y'all are discussing the difference between a Sledge hammer for smashing down a house, and a machinist's non-marring brass hammer to knock out all the pins and dissasemble it. Same end result, different technique (ok. I solemnly promise to not get drawn into O.T. again )

[Ukraineboy 0]

Alright, lets get back ontopic. Also did it say in the German translation Soviets? Who knows, maybe they'll still be there (most likely not, they probably mean the DRS forces but one can hope...)

Also this thread has really served its purpose...7 pages in answering the dumb question "Will there be Hinds?"

[NKVD 0]

For example before the Stingers the Hinds operated almost at will without any restrictions but when the Stinger came in they started to either fly either lower inside the Afghan valleys or very high altitudes which as you can imagine reduced it's offensive effectiveness since in those condition it's much harder to spot and therefore attack the enemy. So the Stingers weren't that effective in terms of shooting down enemy aircraft (Launch to Hit ratio) but they were effective in terms of reducing their offensive effectiveness and it was here that the war turned into the Afghan guerrilla favour (even because the Hind helicopter was the most important weapon system for the Russians in that war).

It's not exactly as there were thousands stingers available and afghans just waited for choppers to show up. Other than that the majority of kills were made near airbases when choppers and planes were taking off. With introduction of some of the anti-heat seeking measures the role of stingers became even less important. Favourable for afghans ? Ok, let's say chopper is ineffective now. What about soviet shilkas ? Artillery, grad systems, tanks, etc ?! All what stinger did is to make soviets work a lot more than they should have been. But in no way it allowed mudjahineen to counter offense the soviets. Also, after soviets left in 1989 the pro-communist puppet government was able to function and be in power until 1994 when Taliban came to power.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Also, after soviets left in 1989 the pro-communist puppet government was able to function and be in power until 1994 when Taliban came to power.

Exactly. The communist government collapsed not because they lost the war, but USSR collapsed and stopped funding Afghanistan.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

...the philosophy behind the Apache is...

ricnunes, maybe you don't understand that?

Anyway, every helicopter still in service today serves a purpose. Theories, calculations, and simulations will only get you so far, even the best predections can be wrong. Lets save a lot of trouble and just agree that they're all fine aircraft and we wouldn't have it any other way.

I think this thread no longer has a legitimate reason to remain active, what do you think?

[Spetz 0]

I'm assuming you're not literal as the Hind IS an attack chopper, but with some cargo space and transport space.

Its a transport and support helo with anti-armour capabilities.

It was designed with the Cobra and Huey UH-1 in mind, then combining the two. The odds of the Hind surviving an encounter with a pure killing machine (Apache, Cobra, Tiger, Havoc) looks grim at best.

I read somewhere that during the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi Mi-24s had shot down some AH-1s (don't know version, most likely pre 1979 models.) This is the only documented Air-to-Air combat between Mi-24s and AH-1s

[Ukraineboy 0]

...the philosophy behind the Apache is...

ricnunes, maybe you don't understand that?

Anyway, every helicopter still in service today serves a purpose. Theories, calculations, and simulations will only get you so far, even the best predections can be wrong. Lets save a lot of trouble and just agree that they're all fine aircraft and we wouldn't have it any other way.

I think this thread no longer has a legitimate reason to remain active, what do you think?

Finally, this is the smartest comment here. You guys sit here in your computer chairs critiquing each thing while REAL Engineers with experience, education and skill make these. All weaponry has to be balanced. You trade off different skils for what your army doctrine needs. US Army and Russian Army doctrine is different, and thus needs different purposes.

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

I read somewhere that during the Iran-Iraq war the Iraqi Mi-24s had shot down some AH-1s (don't know version, most likely pre 1979 models.) This is the only documented Air-to-Air combat between Mi-24s and AH-1s

This is true, Iraqi Mi-25s vs. Iranian AH-1Js. There is only one confirmed Iraqi kill on an Iranian AH-1J, and about 15 other claims of air kills by Mi-25s to other helicopters. There are however, 15 confirmed air kills on the part of Iranian AH-1Js, 3 of those kills being Mi-25s.

Quote[/b] ]

You guys sit here in your computer chairs critiquing each thing while REAL Engineers with experience, education and skill make these.

Begging your pardon, but you're judging a lot of books by their covers.

[ricnunes 0]

What about soviet shilkas ? Artillery, grad systems, tanks, etc ?!

Sure those are important military assets in the Soviet/Russian military (and in any other country) but the problem is that Afghanistan have a very mountainous landscape in which any land vehicle have great dificulties to travel (except for the very few road and valleys that exists in Afghanistan) and the nature of the Afghan conflict being a Guerrila (or assymetrical) Warfare makes the Helicopter the most important military asset that an armed force can have in such conflict/country. Obviously the helicopters aren't the only important assets (Artillery, is for example an another important asset in such conflict) but Helicopters are by far the most important assets of all.

The same happened in Vietnam, which like Afghanistan has a landscape which makes a hard time for land vehicles to travel and therefore the helicopter was also the most important military asset in that conflict. The same also happens today in Afghanistan with NATO intervention in which the Helicopter (such as the Chinooks) are a key player in this conflict.

So in such conflict if the "guerrilla side" can hamper the helicopter effectiveness (like the Afghan guerrilla managed with the Stingers) they have a very good chance to win that conflict.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Finally, this is the smartest comment here. You guys sit here in your computer chairs critiquing each thing while REAL Engineers with experience, education and skill make these. All weaponry has to be balanced. You trade off different skils for what your army doctrine needs. US Army and Russian Army doctrine is different, and thus needs different purposes.

Having PMS again? No that can't be, you are always grouchy.

[ricnunes 0]

Lets save a lot of trouble and just agree that they're all fine aircraft and we wouldn't have it any other way.

I think this thread no longer has a legitimate reason to remain active, what do you think?

Sure I agree that those aircraft (Apaches and Cobras) are both excelent. That's exactly what I was saying from the begining. The Apache does things better than the Cobra and the Cobra (specially the AH-1Z) does other things better and this was my argument since the begining of this discussion.

I do however disagree with your (and not only) sugestion to "deactivate" (or even lock) this thread since everyone here with all their diferent oppinions posted here without disrespecting anyone so if this discussion went (at least until now) in a civilized and orderly manner so why shouldn't it remain active?

Finally, I wanted to say that I wasn't the one that iniciated this Apache versus Cobra/AH-1Z. I just said that for once I'm happy to see the AH-1Z modeled in a game (or even a sim, in this case Armed Assault) and happy to see it being the attack-helo "star player" and not the Apache. Not that I don't like the Apache (the Apache is one of my favourite Attack Helos), It's just that I've seen the Apache modeled in almost every game that involves flying helicopters but even so I'll also be happy if the Apache is also modeled in Armed Assault (the more the merrier) but I also admit that I won't miss it that much if it isn't modeled (since the AH-1Z is modeled).

[Ukraineboy 0]

Finally, this is the smartest comment here. You guys sit here in your computer chairs critiquing each thing while REAL Engineers with experience, education and skill make these. All weaponry has to be balanced. You trade off different skils for what your army doctrine needs. US Army and Russian Army doctrine is different, and thus needs different purposes.

Having PMS again? No that can't be, you are always grouchy.

Very mature. Instead of actually bringing some points up in an argument against me you go for the insults.

[Guest Ti0n3r]

Close this damn thread already

[meyamoti 0]

Yeah its gettin to be like the Jerry Springer show,forum edition.

[kernriver 4]

We need some info ASAP, we are getting restless BIS!

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Very mature. Instead of actually bringing some points up in an argument against me you go for the insults.

You are constantly pissed off. Stop that.

[Ukraineboy 0]

Very mature. Instead of actually bringing some points up in an argument against me you go for the insults.

You are constantly pissed off. Stop that.

[ricnunes 0]

Ok, Ok I think that this thread should take a diferent course (or subject) or else it will risk of being closed.

So in order to change the subject (but not that much from this thread original subject, I think) I would like to hear some sugestions/comments of your of what you think should be the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" (or North Sahrani) order of battle and maybe this could "help" BIS in order to "design" the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" military units/organization!?

Anyway here's my idea:

Since and like someone previously sugested (and correctly, IMO) the imaginary "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" is a country that had very good relationship with the former USSR of the past (before it "felt") and since the USSR fall it lives with many economic problems so therefore the equipment should consist mainly in older Soviet-era weaponry. This therefore should leave behind any new/recent Russian equipment such as Mi-28, Ka-50 or T-90 Black Eagle tank. So even if BIS decides to model such vehicles (T-90, Ka-50 or Mi-28) I think that they shoudn't be included in the Armed Assault campaign.

Anyway here's my idea of how the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" order of battle should be:

First, the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" armed forces should by divided in Elite units (or Guards) and regular units (regular army) in a similar fashion as with see/saw in Soviet-backed countries such as Saddam's-era Iraq.

->So the "Elite Guard" units should be equiped with the best USSR-later era weaponry that was still exported in the USSR-era (before its fall) and this equipment should be in "simplified terms" the following:

-Mi-24 Hind Gunships (preferably the Hind-D)

-T-72 Main Battle Tanks

-BMP-2 APCs

-SA-13 SAMs (in case vehicle-based SAMs are modeled)

-ZSU-23 Shilka AAA

-AK-74s (a few of these could have grenade-launchers) as a rifle-baseline for elite soldiers

->Next, there would be the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" regular army units that should by "logic" by equiped with poorer weaponry than their "elite" counterparts. So the regular army order of battle which should be the bulk of all "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" armed forces should IMO be composed of:

-Mi-17 Hip helicopters

-T-55 and T-62 Medium Tanks

-BMP-1 APCs

-Supported by ZSU-23 Shilka AAA and SA-9 (in case vehicle-based SAMs are modeled).

-AK-47 as a rifle-baseline for regular soldiers (the best regular units could also have AK-74s).

Many other support units and weapory such as ZIL trucks, UAZ jeeps, BDRMs, RPG-7s, between others could equip both elite and regular units.

So what's your oppinion? Anyone care for comments on this?

Thanks in advance for replies...

[FW200 0]

If they would have been supported by the USSR in the past, they won't have Ak-47's but more likely AKM and AKMS rifles...

Ak-47's went out of production at the very start of the 60s.. then for 17 years AKM and AKMS rifles were produced, while in 1974 the Ak-74 was also put into production.

The AKM would be the most logical solution to me, mostly because the Ak-47 is basicly too old, and the Ak-74 uses an ammo which isn't used all that much outside of countries of the former USSR nowadays. The 7.62x39 has always been more popular...

[echo1 0]

Ok, Ok I think that this thread should take a diferent course (or subject) or else it will risk of being closed.

So in order to change the subject (but not that much from this thread original subject, I think) I would like to hear some sugestions/comments of your of what you think should be the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" (or North Sahrani) order of battle and maybe this could "help" BIS in order to "design" the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" military units/organization!?

Anyway here's my idea:

Since and like someone previously sugested (and correctly, IMO) the imaginary "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" is a country that had very good relationship with the former USSR of the past (before it "felt") and since the USSR fall it lives with many economic problems so therefore the equipment should consist mainly in older Soviet-era weaponry. This therefore should leave behind any new/recent Russian equipment such as Mi-28, Ka-50 or T-90 Black Eagle tank. So even if BIS decides to model such vehicles (T-90, Ka-50 or Mi-28) I think that they shoudn't be included in the Armed Assault campaign.

Anyway here's my idea of how the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" order of battle should be:

First, the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" armed forces should by divided in Elite units (or Guards) and regular units (regular army) in a similar fashion as with see/saw in Soviet-backed countries such as Saddam's-era Iraq.

->So the "Elite Guard" units should be equiped with the best USSR-later era weaponry that was still exported in the USSR-era (before its fall) and this equipment should be in "simplified terms" the following:

-Mi-24 Hind Gunships (preferably the Hind-D)

-T-72 Main Battle Tanks

-BMP-2 APCs

-SA-13 SAMs (in case vehicle-based SAMs are modeled)

-ZSU-23 Shilka AAA

-AK-74s (a few of these could have grenade-launchers) as a rifle-baseline for elite soldiers

->Next, there would be the "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" regular army units that should by "logic" by equiped with poorer weaponry than their "elite" counterparts. So the regular army order of battle which should be the bulk of all "Democratic Republic of Sahrani" armed forces should IMO be composed of:

-Mi-17 Hip helicopters

-T-55 and T-62 Medium Tanks

-BMP-1 APCs

-Supported by ZSU-23 Shilka AAA and SA-9 (in case vehicle-based SAMs are modeled).

-AK-47 as a rifle-baseline for regular soldiers (the best regular units could also have AK-74s).

Many other support units and weapory such as ZIL trucks, UAZ jeeps, BDRMs, RPG-7s, between others could equip both elite and regular units.

So what's your oppinion? Anyone care for comments on this?

Thanks in advance for replies...

Right, if the south is getting help from US maybe it might have some old American stuff? M16A1/A2 (for best units), M14 (sniper), Patton Tanks, M113s etc. plus old Russian stuff like BTRs, T-55, AKM, RPK/RPD, PKM, Dragunov and RPG.

As for North, it seems to be modeled along old Warsaw Pact lines, so AK-74, RPK-74, Dragunov, T-72, MiG-21, MiG-23/27, Hind-D/E, BMP-2 etc. Special Units armed with AKS-74Us with optical sights maybe.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Reckon both sides would use the PK(M) as their squad MG? Or maybe the South can have the M60?