one more thing, i thought it was shot by an AK, not some bolt action rifle. i remember i saw it in TV that the farmers hold the AK in his hand. i find it hard to believe if it's some bolt action rifle. he might score against an old Dragonfly but we talking about Apache here.
Ah-64 Apache, can small arms knock down it?
- Thread starter giangnguyen
- Start date
No way! Apache was designed from the start, with emphasis to survivalability. Examples:
1. Afghanistan: AH:64As got a lot of shots during a mission, one of them with RPG. One lost one engine. An other flew back to base (30' flight) without oil in the main transmition.
2. Iraq: 36 (I think) AH-64Ds/Longbows was getting ground fire for about 2 hours. 35 of them had been hit. All of them return safely back.
So no question about if someone with a rifle can put down an Apache.
1. Afghanistan: AH:64As got a lot of shots during a mission, one of them with RPG. One lost one engine. An other flew back to base (30' flight) without oil in the main transmition.
2. Iraq: 36 (I think) AH-64Ds/Longbows was getting ground fire for about 2 hours. 35 of them had been hit. All of them return safely back.
So no question about if someone with a rifle can put down an Apache.
No that is not possible. He was on the ground. He had to shoot upwards. Put the Apache to an altitude of, let say at least, 100 feet. If you create a triangle, you'll see that he must be too long away to can hit the cockpit. To shoot straight in the cockpit, you must be at the same altitude, and shoot the million dollar shot! Clear Iraqi propaganda.Pendekar said:
Actually Hot222 it's not at all impossible to hit the cockpit side window with small arms fire. For starters, it would be unusual for the Apache to that high, 50 feet AGL or lower is normal. Secondly, the aircraft could have been executing a turn whereby the aircraft would be banked over making the side window even more easily hit. Like I said earlier, it would be a one in a million shot for a single bullet to cause a failure or percieved failure in which the pilot would land. These aren't cars and trucks we are talking about, pilots have to consider getting on the ground safely sometimes, even if what's on the ground isn't all that friendly. Now to give you guys some perspective, take a look at the link I'm providing. This is an OH-58 D that sustained a ton of small arms fire and returned to base. Usually it takes more than one or two critical hits to bring a bird down, even a lightweight ship like the little OH-58. An AH-64 can take a heck of alot more abuse than the OH-58 in the photo's.
http://www.simflite.com/SF_Photos/Aviation_Photos.htm
http://www.simflite.com/SF_Photos/Aviation_Photos.htm
"Here's one of our OH-58D Combat Scouts from Iraq.
Needless to say, they got into a little hostile territory. This thing took hundreds of rounds and yet returned its crew back to base, including direct hits into the engine, transmission, control systems, avionics, flight computers, and both main and tail rotor. The 2-man crew sustained multiple injuries, but survived."
Hundreds of rounds on a 58 and manage to return.
1 shot knock down an Apache? Come on!
Needless to say, they got into a little hostile territory. This thing took hundreds of rounds and yet returned its crew back to base, including direct hits into the engine, transmission, control systems, avionics, flight computers, and both main and tail rotor. The 2-man crew sustained multiple injuries, but survived."
Hundreds of rounds on a 58 and manage to return.
1 shot knock down an Apache? Come on!
What about fire from a large caliber sniper rifle? I'm thinking of something like Russian KSbK or OSB-96 (using 12.7 x 108mm ammo) or a US Barrett M99 or Armalite AR-50 (using 12.7x99mm ammo). The new Mi-28N has an armored cockpit which can take direct hits from 12.7mm ammo. What about the Ah-64?
An Apache was shot down by the Iraqis. It was on the news. The video showed a downed Apache, with little visible damage (indicating that small arms fire was the cause of its failure), and a few iraqi villagers with AK-47 celebrating. If I recall correctly, the helicopter was downed near a river, and the video showed the villagers shooting at the river banks, where presumably the crew of Apache was hiding.
I suspect this kind of videos are not shown to the american public.
I suspect this kind of videos are not shown to the american public.
On the contrary, something like that would make a good news item here in the states. Little visible damage would be used as an excuse for a possible technical failure and the scene of Iraqis firing AKs would be usefull in mustering public support for the war.
P.S. Little visible damage does not automatically mean that it was downed by small arms fire -- it could have been a technical issue also.
P.S. Little visible damage does not automatically mean that it was downed by small arms fire -- it could have been a technical issue also.
Last edited:
Actually we all saw the footage, and there's no way to conclude the Apache was even shot down much less shot down by a single bullet from an old bolt action rifle fired by a farmer. We did see Iraqi state run media report that this was the case, but we all remember Baghdad Bob (the official spokesman for Saddam) claim on television that the Americans were being killed by the 10's of thousands and that they were nowhere near Baghdad when in fact, the Americans were only a few blocks away 
Saddly it seems that even the most obviously rediculous lies are believed by those desperate enough to believe any news that would make the American military seem less mighty than it is.
Saddly it seems that even the most obviously rediculous lies are believed by those desperate enough to believe any news that would make the American military seem less mighty than it is.I've heard that few hours later, a US fighter, bombed Apache. That propably happened because, at this point of war, it couldn't be recovered. That way Apache wasn't available to Iraqis to aquire infos from it or use it for extra propaganda.
That, also, made it unavailable to US Army, to find out what real happened.
Here is a link to that story:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0507/p04s01-woiq.html
My point of view: A mulfaction that had made them to land immediatelly, or fuel problem. Maybe the second is look like a stupid...mistake, but at the "fog of war" have been happened before.
mod edit: highsea: hot222, please just edit your post when you want to add something. No need to double post just to add a link.
That, also, made it unavailable to US Army, to find out what real happened.
Here is a link to that story:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0507/p04s01-woiq.html
My point of view: A mulfaction that had made them to land immediatelly, or fuel problem. Maybe the second is look like a stupid...mistake, but at the "fog of war" have been happened before.
mod edit: highsea: hot222, please just edit your post when you want to add something. No need to double post just to add a link.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lightndattic
New Member
The Golden BB theory has been proven true countless times.
Thank you for contributing to enemy open source intel...
If you are a professional intel analyst, military personnel and/or have access to secret information, and your stories and info. can be considered secret you are making a serious violation. This site is not the site for you. No one that this information directly affects is impressed by your knowledge. The only benefit that comes from your foaming at the mouth is a perfect open source resource for the enemies of the United States to ask you questions such as "Ah-64 Apache, can small arms knock down it?" and have you naively answer as if you are contributing in some way - when it is in fact highly likely that you are being dooped into providing information that is vital for the enemy. Unless you are an insurgent seeking to improve your tactics, you might consider a little dose of discretion in light of the recent events in Iraq. There is no argument in opposition to my position listed above that validates your writing in these blogs...so don't waste your time. If the enemy has access to the info. - YOU ARE HELPING THEM!!!
If you are a professional intel analyst, military personnel and/or have access to secret information, and your stories and info. can be considered secret you are making a serious violation. This site is not the site for you. No one that this information directly affects is impressed by your knowledge. The only benefit that comes from your foaming at the mouth is a perfect open source resource for the enemies of the United States to ask you questions such as "Ah-64 Apache, can small arms knock down it?" and have you naively answer as if you are contributing in some way - when it is in fact highly likely that you are being dooped into providing information that is vital for the enemy. Unless you are an insurgent seeking to improve your tactics, you might consider a little dose of discretion in light of the recent events in Iraq. There is no argument in opposition to my position listed above that validates your writing in these blogs...so don't waste your time. If the enemy has access to the info. - YOU ARE HELPING THEM!!!
I think the enemy would have worked out by themselves if small arms fire can bring down the Apache,they are the ones shooting at them.
I think they already did work out an efficient way to bring down the helicopters. Any one with a head could. Its obvious that AH-64 has inadequate armor protection for the role its playing right now. There are many videos showing helicopters being shot down on youtube.
The most vulnerable parts of AH-64 are IMO the cockpit glass, rear rotor transmission and the entire rear. The engine compartment is also poorly armored but the engine themselves probably can take a bullet or two. The main transmission is pretty well protected by the two engines and the main hub is very strong.
The best tactics seems to be having few HMG points set up a few hundred meters from each other and wait for the helicopters to pass, one fires at the rear of the middle helicopter then hide. when the choppers are making a circle to attack the first the rest could engage them from the side which are week and have a very good chance of surviving as the pilots probably wouldn't be looking for them unless there are quite a few of them - above 4. Still they are hard to spot in urban areas. Similarly one can use portable SAMs as the first and second shot. But I think that the pilots are not that stupid to circle around waiting for more.
Agreed
How deadly is RPG towards Apache still a myth. But if you ever seen how a RPG penetrate armor vehicles even tanks, you will have no doubt for them to blow a way Apache's armor. Only that RPGs are not guided. So if there is a choice, I would say MANPADS is more effective.
RPGs from USSR are designed to self-explode after 800m (I read somewhere) and that would be a pretty good shrapnel charge there and luckily for the Russians the rebel didn't learn this in Chechnya. I don't think its very hard to hit a hovering helicopter or even one thats moving slowly - I've seen videos of very accurate hits on moving tanks etc. so I guess a well trained soldier could hit a helicopter with an RPG though probably need some luck and a big helicopter.
About the resistance of Apache, I have to say that the myth of withstanding 12.7mm of Apache is false. Please note that a 12.7mm round is perfectly capable of penetrating 5mm thick steel plate from >300m and Apache definitely dont have that kind of armor everywhere. otherwise it would weight much more. and its proven that side glass are hardly capable of handling 7.62mm - thats why there are armors in the seats. I think several well aimed 23mm rounds would shred it just like every other helicopter.
Someone here believe what sensor-busted 30-40mm AAA shells are effective against helos/aircrafts. Well, IF you accept that, then surery even 5.56 ammo will have a good chance bringing any helo down...
For my part i'm sure the chances of anything less than 0.50 calibre to damage combat helo's are not worth mentioning, same as said AAA shells if they dont score direct hit.
For my part i'm sure the chances of anything less than 0.50 calibre to damage combat helo's are not worth mentioning, same as said AAA shells if they dont score direct hit.
The problem is that for example the Apache's cockpit is not safe against russian or NATO 7,62mm.
And there is always the golden bullet.
You are right when stating that a normal guy with a 5,56mm or 7,62mm rifle is normally not going to down an attacking helicopter but if you have a company of guys putting metal in the air the chance for one golden bullet rises.
And when you have a bad intelligence and mission planning together with an uncomfortable environment (Flying over a city) like during the mentioned Iraq incident or in A-stan (mountains with many tunnels, bunkers,...) you have a good chance to be right in the middle of a bunch of flying bullets from every calibre.
And there is always the golden bullet.
You are right when stating that a normal guy with a 5,56mm or 7,62mm rifle is normally not going to down an attacking helicopter but if you have a company of guys putting metal in the air the chance for one golden bullet rises.
And when you have a bad intelligence and mission planning together with an uncomfortable environment (Flying over a city) like during the mentioned Iraq incident or in A-stan (mountains with many tunnels, bunkers,...) you have a good chance to be right in the middle of a bunch of flying bullets from every calibre.