• UK moves to stop a cargo vessel carrying Russian attack helicopters to Syria.
    91 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;36400556]The best attack helicopter for killing civilians are the cheap ones. Just ask the United States! We love our Kiowas these days! I'd say the Mi-24 is actually probably one of the worst. Mechanically complicated, needs huge amounts of fuel, not as maneuverable at low altitudes, cannon (the cheapest weapon to operate) is either limited in functionality or in reliability. Oh wait, you wanted to [I]stop[/I] discussing this. Ooooh, okay sorry.[/QUOTE] well, while we're on the topic, isn't artillery the most cost effective for killing civilians?
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;36400596]well, while we're on the topic, isn't artillery the most cost effective for killing civilians?[/QUOTE] On a really grand scale, probably. On a smaller scale, they can flee. Inconsiderate [I]bastards. [/I]
Hind is more suitable for ferrying troops to go kill civilians (if for some bizarre reason walking or taking the battle bus is too plebian for them) than actually doing it itself tbh.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;36400758]Hind is more suitable for ferrying troops to go kill civilians (if for some bizarre reason walking or taking the battle bus is too plebian for them) than actually doing it itself tbh.[/QUOTE] Actually, once it's up in the air, it can do pretty well, saw that myself (I've covered military exercises back when I was a reporter). It's not about flying or combat performance, it's making it take off that's painful. It's flying cow that attracts anything that can be fired at it at the moment, but if there's no AA, it can do well. Or at least, ferrying troops is just a waste. If you managed to take off, why not use rockets or bombs (fuck yeah, FABs on the helicopter).
[QUOTE=GunFox;36400556]The best attack helicopter for killing civilians are the cheap ones. Just ask the United States! We love our Kiowas these days! I'd say the Mi-24 is actually probably one of the worst. Mechanically complicated, needs huge amounts of fuel, not as maneuverable at low altitudes, cannon (the cheapest weapon to operate) is either limited in functionality or in reliability. Oh wait, you wanted to [I]stop[/I] discussing this. Ooooh, okay sorry.[/QUOTE] As a Kiowa crew chief I can confirm that the Kiowa is comparatively cheap. However, Kiowas have a great track record of not killing civilians.
[QUOTE=Chief Martini;36397553]Glad to be living in The Netherlands, also known as 'Neutraltopia'.[/QUOTE] No we are not. Relevant: We (the netherlands) are one of the bigges weapon [U]trans[/U]porters in the world.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;36401832]As a Kiowa crew chief I can confirm that the Kiowa is comparatively cheap. However, Kiowas have a great track record of not killing civilians.[/QUOTE] Yeah mostly I was just poking fun. From what I have seen, Kiowas fight from extremely close range in helicopter terms. Gunships like to orbit at range and lob rounds from a serious distance, while the Warriors stick to low altitude gun runs. Great for civilians, not so great for the mortality rates of the pilots. Pilot error seems to be higher than most military aircraft in warzones.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36402033]Yeah mostly I was just poking fun. From what I have seen, Kiowas fight from extremely close range in helicopter terms. Gunships like to orbit at range and lob rounds from a serious distance, while the Warriors stick to low altitude gun runs. Great for civilians, not so great for the mortality rates of the pilots. Pilot error seems to be higher than most military aircraft in warzones.[/QUOTE] aren't low-altitude gunruns the realm of the OH-6?
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;36402079]aren't low-altitude gunruns the realm of the OH-6?[/QUOTE] Yeah, but I believe there are very few AH-6's in service. As far as I know, the 160th SOAR were the only ones using them. The 160th (the Nightstalkers) are basically special forces helicopter pilots. They get used frequently, but are relatively limited in number. Their helicopters are often special variants specifically designed for their purposes. They are pretty hardcore. They even operate the MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator, which is a a blackhawk helicopter with the ability to transport troops stripped out and replaced with lots and lots of firepower. I have heard that early on when deciding on a proper gunship, they pitted a gunship modified blackhawk vs the Apache and saw the Apache lose miserably for what the nightstalkers wanted to do with their gunship. They are a weird bunch. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Special_Operations_Aviation_Regiment_(Airborne)[/url]
AH64D master chopper.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36402289]Yeah, but I believe there are very few AH-6's in service. As far as I know, the 160th SOAR were the only ones using them. The 160th (the Nightstalkers) are basically special forces helicopter pilots. They get used frequently, but are relatively limited in number. Their helicopters are often special variants specifically designed for their purposes. They are pretty hardcore. They even operate the MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator, which is a a blackhawk helicopter with the ability to transport troops stripped out and replaced with lots and lots of firepower. I have heard that early on when deciding on a proper gunship, they pitted a gunship modified blackhawk vs the Apache and saw the Apache lose miserably for what the nightstalkers wanted to do with their gunship. They are a weird bunch. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Special_Operations_Aviation_Regiment_(Airborne)[/url][/QUOTE] yeah but I remember reading a lot about the application of the AH-6 in the US's operation in Somalia, which was primarily SF so that makes sense. 160th SOAR are pretty crazy though, I find it funny how CoD just has all these minigun AH-6s all over the place in their campaign.
I like how this devolved into talking about helicopters.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;36402364]I like how this devolved into talking about helicopters.[/QUOTE] helicopters is in the title you know. I find the name "The Standard Club" to sound very upper class and snooty though.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;36402364]I like how this devolved into talking about helicopters.[/QUOTE] It's evolved, because the future of Syrian people is depressing, and helicopters are fun. Yeah, I know I shouldn't have joked about that, but I'm precisely that only kind of person who [i]can[/i] post that kind of dumb shit.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;36397888]durrr WW3!!!!!!![/QUOTE] new world order one world government illuminati
[QUOTE=gudman;36398536]Anything's deadly against civilians. Takes one bullet.[/QUOTE] you might need a gun too
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;36402678]you might need a gun too[/QUOTE] Yeah, I believe that killing a civillian with one bullet will be one hell of a lot faster if some kind of firearm is involved.
[QUOTE=download;36397313]This is not going to end well, well, I guess it will be ok for the Syrians, not getting shot at[/QUOTE] How is this not going to end well? The UK revoked the ships insurance coverage, forcing it back to Russia on a technicality. It's not like they seized the cargo or scared her off with gunboats, quit exaggerating.
ITT: Facepunchers pretend they are experts in military helicopters and tactics.
[QUOTE=Mr.T;36404056]ITT: Facepunchers pretend they are experts in military helicopters and tactics.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the crew chief of a Kiowa (not me) knows more than something about military helicopters and tactics...
Fuck sake UK stop putting your fingers into other peoples pies. Hague needs to get back in the fucking kitchen.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;36400089]the dual GSh cannon on the Mi-24VP has feed issues. most variants retain the Yak-B minigun (that's actually not externally powered, russian inguenity!) Plus the most commonly mounted autocannon on the hind is non-flexible, unlike the apache's which can fire off centerline. Are we really discussing which attack helicopter is best at killing civilians? I feel like a horrible person now.[/QUOTE] Weren't Hinds more likely to be effective in combat against irregular militias though? Since they could take enemy fire somewhat better than more traditional attack helicopters.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36405858]Weren't Hinds more likely to be effective in combat against irregular militias though? Since they could take enemy fire somewhat better than more traditional attack helicopters.[/QUOTE] Huge targets though. If they have any sort of air to air missiles then its going to be a short flight.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;36405980]Huge targets though. If they have any sort of air to air missiles then its going to be a short flight.[/QUOTE] Wel hence the irregular militias. Does usually tend to have dumb ground to air and other direct fire. Air to air far less commonly. And Hinds are known as the flying tank :P The a-10 uses the same aproach I think. Just on a plane.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36405858]Weren't Hinds more likely to be effective in combat against irregular militias though? Since they could take enemy fire somewhat better than more traditional attack helicopters.[/QUOTE] The most effective ones would likely be more like the AH-6. Helicopter rotors, by themselves, produce a weird noise that is difficult to determine the direction it is coming from. The sound that clearly determines its direction, and produces a large amount of the sound overall that you hear on the ground, is the sound of the rotor wash colliding with the wash from the tail rotor. The term "chopper" comes from the chopping sound made by the two bladed UH-1 during Vietnam. The blade would pass through the wash from the tail rotor and chop the wash in two, which would then slap back together and create the sound. Two bladed helicopters make a lot of noise. Four make less. Then you have five bladed rotors, like on the MD500 and the MH-6/AH-6. At that point the rotor passes through the rotor wash from the tail rotor so often that the sound is drastically reduced. This creates a bizarre effect where it is really hard to tell what direction the sound is coming from when one of these helicopters is approaching you. It also decreases the distance from which you can hear it significantly. So an AH-6 can basically get right on top of your position, before you even realize he is there, and drop a whole lot of hurt in a hurry.
A-10 simply does not give a fuck as to what hits it. It'll keep flying as long as it has a wing and an engine.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36406150]Wel hence the irregular militias. Does usually tend to have dumb ground to air and other direct fire. Air to air far less commonly. And Hinds are known as the flying tank :P The a-10 uses the same aproach I think. Just on a plane.[/QUOTE] In this day and age, I wouldn't think it too hard for any sort of irregular group to acquire some low end should launched missile. A launcher like this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SA-7_Grail[/url]
I wonder what an RPG-29 would do to a Hind.
[QUOTE=Mr.T;36404056]ITT: Facepunchers pretend they are experts in military helicopters and tactics.[/QUOTE] "all facepunchers are teenage skinny male white nerds, AM I FUNNY YET??//"
[QUOTE=cpt.armadillo;36406314]I wonder what an RPG-29 would do to a Hind.[/QUOTE] considering the army stinger-on-a-kiowa test blew a hind in half, their probably would be no hind w/a rpg29
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.