A question for the professional Military

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Last night I was watching some video on You tube, about helicopter cover for ground troops in

Afghanistan and Iraq. They pack a lot of ordnance on those critters. But it appeared that they were

using rockets to take out individual troops. Seems a bit of overkill and not to mention a waste of

ordnance. I am certain that they are equipped with machine guns. Would that not be a better choice of ordnance?

 

[Utah Bob #35998]

I am no longer a professional but missles are more accurate. And in combat there is no such thing as overkill.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

I am also retired Professional Military. I second Utah Bob. In a combat situation there is no such thing as "overkill." However, in answer to your further question, yes attack helicopters carry machine guns. Some 20mm, some 30mm, some 50Cal, some 7.62. Further agreement,

when supporting ground troops, there is no such thing as a waste of ordinance.

 

Coffinmaker

[Sedalia Dave]

I am no longer a professional but missles are more accurate. And in combat there is no such thing as overkill.

+100

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Thanks for enlighting me.

Those chain guns sure make a difference.

[Bad Hand]

Bad guys are like cockroaches,if you see one, there's probably a dozen more. Missles take care of the unseen ones too.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Former pilot in an Apache unit here. The 30mm chain gun has a max effective range of 2000 meters or so. It is a good suppression weapon when facing a large group of targets at close range.

 

2.75" rockets have greater range and carry a larger warhead. Accuracy is marginal, but they're good for their purpose. Also, a variety of warheads can be attached based upon the anticipated mission. Multi-purpose sub munitions. High explosive. Smoke. Willie Pete. Lots of good stuff goes down range on the cigarettes.

 

Missiles against individual people are used at very long range. The Hellfire on the Apache has pinpoint accuracy at 9km. At that range, the launching aircraft is completely silent to the target. They know nothing until they're looking around and seeing they're ain't no virgins at the end of the rainbow. And the warhead is large enough that there's a good chance the target's buddies will join him in looking for virgins.

 

Hellfires are not normal anti-personnel weapons, but at long range for precise work, they're the ultimate sniper weapon.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Thanks Charlie. These videos were apparently at long range. So what you say makes a world of sense.

The bad guys were oblivious to the choppers until the sky fell on them.

 

 

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Former pilot in an Apache unit here. The 30mm chain gun has a max effective range of 2000 meters or so. It is a good suppression weapon when facing a large group of targets at close range.

 

2.75" rockets have greater range and carry a larger warhead. Accuracy is marginal, but they're good for their purpose. Also, a variety of warheads can be attached based upon the anticipated mission. Multi-purpose sub munitions. High explosive. Smoke. Willie Pete. Lots of good stuff goes down range on the cigarettes.

 

Missiles against individual people are used at very long range. The Hellfire on the Apache has pinpoint accuracy at 9km. At that range, the launching aircraft is completely silent to the target. They know nothing until they're looking around and seeing they're ain't no virgins at the end of the rainbow. And the warhead is large enough that there's a good chance the target's buddies will join him in looking for virgins.

 

Hellfires are not normal anti-personnel weapons, but at long range for precise work, they're the ultimate sniper weapon.

I can't top that explanation, as I do my fighting on the ground. I do recall once, however, where an Apache launched a hellfire at two dismounted personnel because they were preparing to launch a Russian 107mm rocket at me. I was rather thankful and echo the "there's no such thing as overkill" comments.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

if the target is moving, the aircraft is not a sniper, 50 cal might need more that one shot. The pilot wants to shoot and move on to the next target.

[Tex Jones, SASS 2263]

Ammo is cheaper than lives.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Ammo is cheaper than lives.

Except to the Chinese in Korea.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

I can't top that explanation, as I do my fighting on the ground. I do recall once, however, where an Apache launched a hellfire at two dismounted personnel because they were preparing to launch a Russian 107mm rocket at me. I was rather thankful and echo the "there's no such thing as overkill" comments.

I see your point.

[Smoken D]

They also fire something called Hope. When having a bad day there is nothing like their sound coming from above.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Outgoing always sounds better than incoming, SD.

[Papa Irish]

The old SAC (Strategic Air Command) was jokingly referred to "peace is our profession, mass annihilation is our specialty".

[Utah Bob #35998]

Come to think of it, Willie Peter grenades are kinda overkill.

When you fling one, not only will it kill the bad guys, the WP might come back over and kill you too.

[Ramblin Gambler]

Topics like this make me glad I read the saloon. My first thought was that the rockets might hit the fellers you're trying to support, but I guess that's not a real concern if you have the right ordinance. This is the one thing I'm learning today. Time to go back to bed.

 

I remember seeing a video of guys in a chopper using machine guns to take people out from so far away that the bad guys didn't know where the shots came from till after a couple were dead. In that video, it clearly took a number of rounds per target and I think one almost got away.

[Sedalia Dave]

The old SAC (Strategic Air Command) was jokingly referred to "peace is our profession, mass annihilation is our specialty".

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Come to think of it, Willie Peter grenades are kinda overkill.

When you fling one, not only will it kill the bad guys, the WP might come back over and kill you too.

Prezactly why I prefer the use of the 81 mm WP round to the WP grenade. Distance is your friend.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Come to think of it, Willie Peter grenades are kinda overkill.

When you fling one, not only will it kill the bad guys, the WP might come back over and kill you too.

These are rare birds now, anyway. We can no longer use them against personnel. They can only be used to destroy equipment (one will melt right through an engine block!). So we don't even carry them in our combat loads. If one is needed, they can get the command post to send one forward.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

These are rare birds now, anyway. We can no longer use them against personnel. They can only be used to destroy equipment (one will melt right through an engine block!). So we don't even carry them in our combat loads. If one is needed, they can get the command post to send one forward.

I remember "Set it on top of the safe, activate, and Hotel Alpha."

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

Will white phosphorous melt engine blocks? I thought that was more for igniting flammable materials.

 

Thermite was the grenade of choice for destroying safes, engines, and breech blocks.

 

But then, a lot has probably changed since I last pulled a pin.

[Utah Bob #35998]

Will white phosphorous melt engine blocks? I thought that was more for igniting flammable materials.

 

Thermite was the grenade of choice for destroying safes, engines, and breech blocks.

 

But then, a lot has probably changed since I last pulled a pin.

The WP we had (back before Cyrus was born) wouldn't melt an engine block. Burn up everything flammable on the truck though so it wouldn't matter. Thermite is less...spectacular.

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

I am not an engine block, maybe a block head, but I want no part of WP in any form.

[Sedalia Dave]

Both WP and Thermite burn hot enough to melt steel. The biggest difference is that WP is self igniting but can be extinguished by immersing in water. Thermite is not self igniting and is actually it is pretty hard to ignite. However once ignited, it is all but impossible to extinguish because it produces its own oxygen.

 

Because of its self ignition properties, WP can be dispersed via an explosive charge and the individual pieces will contain enough thermal energy to ignite most combustibles. To melt steel, destroy safes, equipment and the like WP needs to be in a single mass so that the thermal energy is concentrated.

 

Thermite on the other hand does not lend itself to being easily dispersed by an explosive charge. Being hard to ignite it is very difficult to first ignite and then disperse with all the dispersed pieces also ignited.

 

Both WP and Thermite are effective at melting steel, destroying safes and equipment when ignited in sufficient quantities to create the necessary thermal energy. Thermite is much safer to handle and transport than WP.

[Cyrus Cassidy #45437]

Will white phosphorous melt engine blocks? I thought that was more for igniting flammable materials.

 

Thermite was the grenade of choice for destroying safes, engines, and breech blocks.

 

But then, a lot has probably changed since I last pulled a pin.

Oh yes, beautifully. If you set it on top of the engine, pull pin, and run, the engine will have a hole about the size of a WP grenade all the way through. It will never run again. You can destroy anything made of metal that way -- captured artillery pieces, machine guns, etc.

 

The only problem is the vehicle does not appear destroyed from a distance; it looks whole, because the only damage is to the engine block. So when another unit follows behind you they tend to shoot it a second time It doesn't matter much, other than they expend more ammunition that way.