Subject:
|
Re: Commanche helicopter
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:14:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Neb Okla wrote:
| |
“Mladen Pejic” mladenpejic@sympatico.ca wrote in message
news:Htnx0M.4Ex@lugnet.com...
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Neb Okla wrote:
| |
I’m not aware of any cases where military helicopters have been downed by
handheld rifles and machine guns.
|
|
<http://www.dailycamera.com/bdc/nation_world_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2420_25
75064,00.html
| |
This> is one of the articles I found using Google.
| |
| |
Now, if the “armoured” Blackhawks and Apaches can be hurt by shaped-charge
warheads, and 7.62mm+ calibre rounds, think what would happen if the thin
skinned Commanche was struck by them?
|
I’ve never seen an “armored” helicopter. They may offer some protection
against small arms fire, but any more than that and couldn’t get off the
ground.
|
Armoured is a poor word on my part. I should have saied protected. For
example the Boeing claims that the “Apache” is resistant to 12.7mm rounds,
and critical areas can withstand 23mm rounds. Compare that with a “Cheyenne”
from Vietnam which, according to this article, could be damaged even by AK47 fire.
|
Interesting that the helicopter cited in your Google article as being
brought down by “small arms fire” was an Apache. :)
I wonder which it is? Could it be that the news report was overly generous
in their determination of what arms are “small”, or is the Apache not
resistant to 12.7mm rounds? I’m guessing the former.
|
Taken from dictionary.com:
“Muskets, rifles, carbines, and fowling pieces are smaller guns, for hand use,
and are called small arms. Larger guns are called cannon, ordnance,
fieldpieces, carronades, howitzers, etc. See these terms in the Vocabulary.”
I’m pretty most people know what small arms implies. I dunno why you’re
questioning this, really a non-issue in my opinion.
But, since you obviously need more proof, here’s a few more articles...
New York Times
article
Christian Science Monitor
article
Jane’s consultant Nick
Cook gives some insight in this article
| |
...the article did describe a “hail” of gunfire though. The smart thing to
do in that situation is to leave the area.
|
My whole point was that ambushes, with either small arms or RPGs will down even
the most heavily protected helicopters. Now, a “Comanche”, which is made out of
lighter, stealthier, non-metal materials is probably even more likey to be
damaged. An article I linked to, but you probably didn’t care to read, mentions that even
when its weapons are stowed, they can be hit and explode inside the
helicopter.
BTW, doesn’t your advocation of “scoot & scoot” tactics for helicopters,
basically prove that the costly and stealthy “Comanche” is a superfluous weapon?
Yeah, it’s more agile and quick than the “Apache”, but does that necessarily
mean that it should be put into production, when it costs so much more than the
“Apache”, and carries less ordnance (and yes, I know it can have stub wings
attached, but that kinda ruins it’s stealth and agility, and even then it
carries like 14 hellfires, compared to the “Apache’s” 16)?
Anyways, I think you need to read some of the articles I posted.
Mladen Pejic
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Commanche helicopter
|
| "Mladen Pejic" <mladenpejic@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:Htnx0M.4Ex@lugnet.com... (...) by (...) (URL) This> is one of the articles I found using Google. (...) shaped-charge (...) thin (...) example (...) critical (...) Vietnam (...) could (...) (21 years ago, 27-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
