Safer to be a tanker or anti-tank chopper?

[Destraex]

What are the anti-chopper methods in practice atm as carried by a tank platoon or common support units?

http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=950&scr=default&lang=en

I will be purchasing Lockon - Black Shark when it comes out. This will be fun I think, I enjoy lockon. But are tanks really as defenceless as chopper games seem to portray. Whats a 50cal going to do to an attack helicopter?

Lets talk Kamov Ka-50 "Black Shark",Mil Mi-28N "Night Hunter", Mil Mi-24P "Krokodil", Boeing AH-64A "Apache",Bell AH-1W "SuperCobra",Eurocopter Tiger HAP / UHT / HAC.

Is their any point putting these tank hunters in the game? Would it be pointless for the simulations sake?

I know their are already choppers in the game but from the footage I have seen they do not act like tank hunters, you know the longbow hiding below the treeline. The scout chopper encounter at ground level or choppers dropping off troops?

[cobrabase]

What are the anti-chopper methods in practice atm as carried by a tank platoon or common support units?

http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=950&scr=default&lang=en

I will be purchasing Lockon - Black Shark when it comes out. This will be fun I think, I enjoy lockon. But are tanks really as defenceless as chopper games seem to portray. Whats a 50cal going to do to an attack helicopter?

Lets talk Kamov Ka-50 "Black Shark",Mil Mi-28N "Night Hunter", Mil Mi-24P "Krokodil", Boeing AH-64A "Apache",Bell AH-1W "SuperCobra",Eurocopter Tiger HAP / UHT / HAC.

Is their any point putting these tank hunters in the game? Would it be pointless for the simulations sake?

I know their are already choppers in the game but from the footage I have seen they do not act like tank hunters, you know the longbow hiding below the treeline. The scout chopper encounter at ground level or choppers dropping off troops?

It all depends on the number of air defense units in the area, their level of coordination, their experience level and the terrain. Believe me... the battle can quickly shift in favor of the "gomers" on the ground if the experience level of the pilots is low... I flew the AH-64A in Korea and was later an IP.

[Captmatt]

Is their any point putting these tank hunters in the game? Would it be pointless for the simulations sake?

I know their are already choppers in the game but from the footage I have seen they do not act like tank hunters, you know the longbow hiding below the treeline. The scout chopper encounter at ground level or choppers dropping off troops?

This question seems to get asked alot. From what I understand the only reason the Hinds are in the sim is because they were specifically requested, by clients in the military sector, to be put in as targets. From what I have seen that is their only function.

And seeing how SB Pro PE is a by product of a training tool for the military to teach their tankers how to be good tankers, the emphasis will be on the ground and everything it entails i.e. manuevering ground forces (large and small), scouting, calling arty, communication, the confusion of battle etc. There really is no place for air assets (other than targets).

Besides,me personally, at this point, I have enough to worry on the ground. I dont need to worry about death from above. :shock:
:wink:

[Rogue6g]

Destraex:
Whats a 50cal going to do to an attack helicopter?

It's going to knock it out of the sky or severely damage it. 1 burst in the tailrotor is all it takes.

I own Lock-On Flaming Clifs and I'll tell you that if you like Mud Movin you'd love the A-10 and Su-25T. If the air defense is set up properly, most choppers won't make it through to make any real impact on large(bat level +)units. I will be buying BlackShark though because I like the possibilities.

[cobrabase]

Is their any point putting these tank hunters in the game? Would it be pointless for the simulations sake?

I know their are already choppers in the game but from the footage I have seen they do not act like tank hunters, you know the longbow hiding below the treeline. The scout chopper encounter at ground level or choppers dropping off troops?

This question seems to get asked alot. From what I understand the only reason the Hinds are in the sim is because they were specifically requested, by clients in the military sector, to be put in as targets. From what I have seen that is their only function.

And seeing how SB Pro PE is a by product of a training tool for the military to teach their tankers how to be good tankers, the emphasis will be on the ground and everything it entails i.e. manuevering ground forces (large and small), scouting, calling arty, communication, the confusion of battle etc. There really is no place for air assets (other than targets).

Besides,me personally, at this point, I have enough to worry on the ground. I dont need to worry about death from above. :shock:
:wink:

Flying for the Army I am fairly convinced that the old AH-1S Cobra would NOT have survived WWIII... the Apache had a real chance but it would all depend on how daring commanders would be during the Russian race towards Paris. I KNOW that I would have made it :wink: but it would have been a horrible experience.

FORGET many air assaults (troop drops) in a WWIII scenario in Europe... Blackhawk kindling is all that would result. COs are getting more daring with such operations esp. when working with special operations forces (Rangers, USAF Special Ops, SF insertion) but usually such forces (if THEY HAVE to be deployed by helo) will be inserted with the help of the 160th SOAR... the finest helo fliers in the world.... Not that I was in the unit or anything...

[Rogue6g]

Capt. Matt:
From what I understand the only reason the Hinds are in the sim is because they were specifically requested, by clients in the military sector, to be put in as targets. From what I have seen that is their only function.

In Vietnam many Cos used choppers to lead assaults and coordinate airstrikes,arty, etc. It would make perfect sense to do so in this game also IMO because they can Scout the terrain and see farther.

[Rogue6g]

What would be nice would be if the Helos in the sim had the capability to offload a squad or 2 behind enemy lines(harrassment) or as LRRP to scout an enemies advance at the beginning of the sce. The Hind does have the capacity for such actions also.

[Destraex]

When a tank assault is advancing the air defences proper would take some time to catch up. This is where helos ambushing the tanks would be at their best. Especially when working with their own tanks and other defences.
WHat defences apart from .50 cal do tank battalions carry with them in a rapid advance?

[Double_L]

they've got track mounted vulcan cannons - at least they did in M1TP2. :lol:

[DrDevice]

WHat defences apart from .50 cal do tank battalions carry with them in a rapid advance?
Depends on the nation.

For the US:
M163s are no longer active duty, IIRC. Maybe still in NG units. Stinger is the primary maneuver force protector. Avenger systems on HMMWV and BSFV teams. I'm not sure on the operational status of the M6 Linebacker. I believe it was a victim of budget cuts.

The US organizes ADA assets at a higher level than battalion, although any given battalion may have assets attached to them for maneuver. Divisional air defense has been sorely lacking for 20+ years. We rely on the USAF as the best ADA money can buy.

For DE, DK, and a few others:
Gepard. Not sure on current missile systems.


When a tank assault is advancing the air defences proper would take some time to catch up.

Any commander who outstrips his ADA on a modern battlefield where enemy air power is a threat is a fool. No one in his right mind would let the "ambush" scenario you mentioned happen. It would take a major swing of air power to enable the shift happen.

And if you think tanks are vulnerable on a modern battlefield, ask the helo pilots just how challenging staying alive is when fast-movers are around.

[1stADCavScout]

I used to think Apache's were the way to go. Now, I'm not so sure. I remember hearing about a battalion or 2 coys of Apaches flying a mission in Iraq in ought three that had 4 birds shot down by ground fire, all small arms and RPG's. The rest of the group aborted the mission because of the further threat.

I also read during GW I that the Apache battalions had about a 50% rediness rate from the harsh conditions. We all saw how the Blackhawks faired in Somalia. In a European environment, they might still be able to do considerable damage, but I don't think helo's are the answer in the desert. In my opinion, helicopters are much more vulnerable to ground fire, even basic assault rifles, than we originally thought.

[cobrabase]

I used to think Apache's were the way to go. Now, I'm not so sure. I remember hearing about a battalion or 2 coys of Apaches flying a mission in Iraq in ought three that had 4 birds shot down by ground fire, all small arms and RPG's. The rest of the group aborted the mission because of the further threat.

I also read during GW I that the Apache battalions had about a 50% rediness rate from the harsh conditions. We all saw how the Blackhawks faired in Somalia. In a European environment, they might still be able to do considerable damage, but I don't think helo's are the answer in the desert. In my opinion, helicopters are much more vulnerable to ground fire, even basic assault rifles, than we originally thought.

You couldn't be more wrong about the RPGs and the rifle-fire. Blackhawks are virutally indestructible when it comes to 7.62 mm fire. The entire rotor-system is designed to take 23mm fire with honeycombed fiber and still keep turning. I know this from experience. It saved my life. I don't want to give TOO MUCH info on my crew's individual experience as it might put my brothers at risk but let's just say that the UH-60L is one tough bird. You can crash it and hopefully walk away from it as crew. Often the guys I would carry would get the short end of the stick in terms of crash protection as we had to usually remove the rear seats for their gear though. I know that the M-bird will make it safer.

From what I have heard from buddies... AH-64Ds were taking more damage due to the need to use them to replace the OH-58D in high threat areas. I would not know that much about the current Longbow version of the Apache in terms of how it feels. I know that it is heavier and a tad sluggish compared to my first generation A version the I flew.
The idea of the "golden BB" does NOT apply as much to Army avitators anymore as they do the Air Force boys. Yes in Vietnam the helicopters were REDICULOUSLY vulnerable and I STILL get the shakes thinking about what the 1st Cav did. Pure guts guys.

Believe me... you can manuever our aircraft like stuck snakes in an instant. Barrage fire... well... typically with our night vision we saw it way off and it can be solved with... well, let me just call them "fake troop drops" in the target area, suppression fire from the air or better yet arty along with various tactics that I don't want to get into. AFVs are slow and vulnerable with almost NO ability to disengage from a fight versus rotary-wing aircraft (aside from killing their attacker - which CAN happen). I CAN tell you that milimeter radar has revolutionized antitank warfare for my guys and that it is the most efficient armor killing system in the world. Sorry... it's still more dangeous to be in an AFV than a helo.

Oh... and the idea that helicopters not fighting well in the desert or fight without the ability to mask (hide behind trees) is not true. In Desert Storm my cavalry troop had no problem smacking targets out to nearly 6 kilometers well out of detection range of Iraqi forces. The real pros like Volcano will tell you that deserts are ideal for tank warfare as you are typically shooting across a flat plain... well.. the AH-64A (and now D) are even more accurate at long range with nothing for tanks to hide behind. Think about it.

I took up this sim for two reasons: 1. because I wanted to see what it was like to be on the other side of my profession and 2. my Dad was a tanker and I simply was curious. :D Hooah.

[Captmatt]

I always thought the Hinds got too close to the action and not only that but when they did get so close...they stop!

[dejawolf]

i thought you were a challenger 2 tanker, and now all of a sudden its your father? are you sure its not your cousin who has been flying blackhawks, and your brother who flew apaches or something, and you in the middle just talking about things you heard from them?

[1stADCavScout]

Oh... and the idea that helicopters not fighting well in the desert or fight without the ability to mask (hide behind trees) is not true. In Desert Storm my cavalry troop had no problem smacking targets out to nearly 6 kilometers well out of detection range of Iraqi forces. The real pros like Volcano will tell you that deserts are ideal for tank warfare as you are typically shooting across a flat plain... well.. the AH-64A (and now D) are even more accurate at long range with nothing for tanks to hide behind. Think about it.

Ya, all I'm saying is that it really doesn't seem to work out that way. My division in the 1st gulf war(1st Armored Division) had 2 Apache battalions. 2-1 Avn was tasked with day missions, 3-1 Avn was tasked with night missions. Fully half of the 89 hours my division was in action, ALL the helos were grounded due to sandstorms. The other half of the time, half of the birds were grounded from maintenence issues due to sand.

Yes, the Apaches did very well and smacked down a few tanks with their hellfires while they were able to fly. For maybe a quarter of the duration of the 58 M1A1's of my battalion(and 6 M3a2's of my platoon) that were in the fight and bringing it to the enemy for the entire duration.

[Destraex]

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15003

check this out, a similar debate on tank net

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830_h3.jpg
proximity rounds for anti chopper use

"In 1982, in a test of Helicopters in the Ft. Bliss Training area with MILES, a Tank Company from 3d Cav destroyed 24 Cobra helicopters with out the loss of a single M-60A3. (H Company, if I remember right). Eventually the test coordinators forbade the tanks from sitting in one spot for over 5 minutes, no camouflage and an orange marker panel on the front slope and back deck, threw the company commander and then the platoon leaders/platoon sgts out of the training area, eventually getting to the point where E-4-E5 Tank commanders exchanging one tank per 2 Cobras.

If the AFVs know helicopters are coming, helicopters are going to have problems, unless they can do the stand off. "

[Pillar]

Cobrabase,

Would you say the correct way for choppers to be used against tanks would be at long-range in standoff mode? To me that takes advantage of their primary strengths -- the ability to use elevation to expose the enemy and the ability to carry weapons which can hurt the enemy outside his own weapons envelope.

[cobrabase]

Cobrabase,

Would you say the correct way for choppers to be used against tanks would be at long-range in standoff mode? To me that takes advantage of their primary strengths -- the ability to use elevation to expose the enemy and the ability to carry weapons which can hurt the enemy outside his own weapons envelope.

This is the safest way to use them against armor but I believe that you are assuming using them in a defensive role with droves of armor approaching them from the front... helicopters are best used as airborne cavalry... using speed to attack the enemy's flank. Flank attacks can surprise for protection and speed to devastate an enemy tank battalion even at close range. A group of Longbow Apaches with weapons handoff to simply one with a milimeter wave radar can destroy a tank battalion in a matter of minutes... not hours or days. But I think you are talking about desert environments so yes... long range. Isn't that the best way to engage tanks? It worked for our Abrams crews in GW1. We were able to pick off T-72Ms long before they had the range on us.

It all comes back to the idea that, while less armored than a tank - helos can be just (if not more) deadly than armor when used AGAINST armor.

Hope this helps.

[Pillar]

Interesting stuff.

When I say "standoff" I don't mean strictly operationally defensive. Offensive operationally but defensive tactical stance is just fine. Advance to contact, stop - shoot - advance. I just don't see any reason for a choppper to be swooping around at close range. (If for some reason the tanks are well enough concealed that a chopper would need to fly right in on top of it, I'd just as soon forget about sending in a chopper. )

I think helicopter groups could be really useful as highly mobile anti-tank reserves, for use in defensive operations, but I'm not sure if they're used this way. (?)

The flank thing surprsises me. Why do you need to hit them in the flank? The weapons will penetrate from the front, is this correct? Speed, tactically, is useful for avoiding getting hit. But so is just sitting outside the enemy range and shooting him from there. One reduces the odds of getting hit, the other completely eliminates the possibility.

I don't know as much about this as you do, but my observations have been that helicopters suffer the most when they're used as if they were shock weapons. The airforce has the same results -- when they plink with LGB's from altitude, they do great. When they get in low, they start taking casualties and are none the better for kills.

Operationally a helicopter group can take full advantage of their fast movement, but tactical employment seems to suggest standoff methods.

How much do you guys worry about MPADS and AAA?

[Rogue6g]

Pillar:
I think helicopter groups could be really useful as highly mobile anti-tank reserves, for use in defensive operations, but I'm not sure if they're used this way. (?)

The best Defense is a Good Offense. If an Apache can out reach the enemy then by all means, use them to whittle down the Armor before it even gets into the range of any friendly armored forces. It doesn't matter whether the Apache attacks from the Front or the Flanks because the Hellfire missile is a Top Attack Projectile anyway. Their employment however will always be dictated by the terrain in which they are fighting. Optimal use would suggest max standoff range after the fast movers have taken out all Long--->medium ranged enemy ADA. That is if there are any left after the A-10s have at them. :3starsk2:

[Rogue6g]

Also a Fully Armed Apache most likely won't be fullyFueled,just so it can takeoff from the LZ or FARP and given this, it wouldn't be wasting fuel be pulling any kind of ridiculous "Airwolf" maneuvers. Most likely, IMO the strike force would fly NOE(Nap of the Earth) to the engagement area and utilize the Longbow or Kiowa scouts to spot targets while the rest just fire off missiles from behind a hill. (remember the Hellfire is Top Attack and the trajectory is a High Arc, which would effectively fly over the hill to the target)

Pillar:
The airforce has the same results -- when they plink with LGB's from altitude, they do great. When they get in low, they start taking casualties and are none the better for kills.

I'm no Air Force geek, but the use of LGBs would be dependent on the type of Target. Stationary targets such as Bridges, Cps, Bunkers or even slow movers like trains, ships, etc would be fine. In order to do this they have to be A) At a relatively high altitude(to avoid MAPADS and smaller crew-served weapons. and B) any Long-->Medium Ranged ADA Assets neeed to be already destroyed.

In order to destroy the LR ADA they would use TomaHawks with Cluster Munitions probably, or even a low level Tornado/ FA-18/ F-16 Strike. They need to fly low and fast and use terrain masking(NOE) to avoid the radar in order to get to the enemy radar instalation, which by the way would be multi-tiered with MANPADS, Tunguskas, Strelas, etc guarding the LR Radar itself. If the strike force made it to the target they would probably have ony a few moments to orient themselves, pop-up, release payload(I would think an area munition such as chute delayed cluster bombs) and then "beat feet" outa there because all hell is gonna break loose. The thing is, those pilots have to avoid the radar(s) themselves just to get to the target. So as you can see, a low level strike is always gonna be a risky Op if the target is well guarded. 8)

not to mention the weather, terrain avoidance, and the occasssional Power-line to pop over or under on the way there. :shock:

[chrisotto]

The best Defense is a Good Offense. If an Apache can out reach the enemy then by all means, use them to whittle down the Armor before it even gets into the range of any friendly armored forces.

The weakness of such tactics was shown in OIF: Remember that AH-64 that was downed by a farmer and his rifle? That was part of a air brigade assault on IIRC a Repulican Guard regiment. They fell into a trap, and had losses, from AAA. I wonder how such an attack might have fared vs. the far more coordinated and better equipped (Shilka, Tunguska) Soviet forces in 1985-1990; I guess that single, hunter-killer groups could have had better chances flying NOE in European terrain, than in the desert.

We all saw how the Blackhawks faired in Somalia.

Troop deployment in urban terrain? Isn't the typical tank country; I'd even doubt that the Blackhawks are used much in this way in Iraq right now. They are large, lumbering targets over a city full of small alleys and streets whilst deploying troops from the air.

[stuart666]

I used to think Apache's were the way to go. Now, I'm not so sure. I remember hearing about a battalion or 2 coys of Apaches flying a mission in Iraq in ought three that had 4 birds shot down by ground fire, all small arms and RPG's. The rest of the group aborted the mission because of the further threat.

I also read during GW I that the Apache battalions had about a 50% rediness rate from the harsh conditions. We all saw how the Blackhawks faired in Somalia. In a European environment, they might still be able to do considerable damage, but I don't think helo's are the answer in the desert. In my opinion, helicopters are much more vulnerable to ground fire, even basic assault rifles, than we originally thought.

Well I dont know how many were shot down (I think it was only one Apache Longbow which the Iraqis captured, and the US captured back) but it was certainly a mission kill as a number of them had critical battle damage. Considering this was little more than rifle fire, I think its a great concern as the Apache was originally designed to stand up to 23mm cannon fire. Of course this is very little than can be done for rotors. Of interest, there was speculation at the time the Iraqis had been communicating over mobile phones, in a kind of ersatz 'Royal Observer Corp'. A concern for slow flying aircraft like Helos which I dont think had been considered before.

There was a book by Hans Halberstadt about the US army helicopter forces, written about 1988, and there was a facinating interview with a Apache driver about tactics and doctrine at the time. He basically said they COULD do deep strike, but if they did they would be coming back in pieces. If it was worth the risk go for it, but otherwise its a job for the airforce. It may well be that after Desert Storm the US army (and other nations) drew conclusions on how effective rotorcraft could be in this role (particularly after that deep strike when they took out those radar stations). In many ways its taking over roles that are suited to fixed wing or guided missile attack. Thats my view anyway.

As for the Blackhawk, its a bloody fine aircraft, perhaps one of the finest troop carriers in the world today. But its a troop carrier and not really a gunship. In Somalia they lost 2 in one day to just RPGs and AK47 fire, which says something about survivablity in what wasnt even a really high threat enviroment. (The enemy had no Shilkas or Strelas) On the other hand, its a definate step up from the Huey (which for a troop carrier was also pretty damn well built in its day).

[Floydii]

The fact that few ATGM's fired from Helicopters are Fire and Forget (majority are laser/radio/wire guided) means that the stand off range advantage is whittled away in any landscape that isn't desert.
With tanks popping in and out of cover, even when they are unaware of an incoming missile, there is a pretty good chance that said missile will hit a tree or something before it reaches the tank. For an example, try to hit a crossing target in wooded terrain with a Bradley's TOW missile at over 2000 meters. The closer you are, the easier it is to get a hit, however, you are liable to be detected and wasted by the now in range targets.

However, if tanks can be caught moving in open country, or are parked up in a known assembly area, standoff/handoff tactics would decimate them.

A modern attack helicopter's strengths are it's speed, extreme firepower and sensors. in this regard, strikes on known targets (found by scout helo's or other means) are the best employment for them. pinwheeling around above hostile ADA or Kalishnikovs is not.

[cobrabase]

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=15003

check this out, a similar debate on tank net

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830_h3.jpg
proximity rounds for anti chopper use

"In 1982, in a test of Helicopters in the Ft. Bliss Training area with MILES, a Tank Company from 3d Cav destroyed 24 Cobra helicopters with out the loss of a single M-60A3. (H Company, if I remember right). Eventually the test coordinators forbade the tanks from sitting in one spot for over 5 minutes, no camouflage and an orange marker panel on the front slope and back deck, threw the company commander and then the platoon leaders/platoon sgts out of the training area, eventually getting to the point where E-4-E5 Tank commanders exchanging one tank per 2 Cobras.

If the AFVs know helicopters are coming, helicopters are going to have problems, unless they can do the stand off. "

(Beavis and Butthead laugh in background) Ummm... heh heh heh... ANY AFV with anything more than 20mm ammunition going up against TOW-carrying Cobras will win. Believe me. No debate here. heh heh heh.