It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Not all of the hits in Somalia were of helicopters hovering at 10 metres. In fact, only one was. And it was fighters with experience from Afghanistan who showed the Somalis how to modify RPGs so the back-blast wouldn't kill the user when firing AA.
Again, I ask you, have you seen combat footage of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? I have.
ind D is the most heavily armoured gunship of all time, hence the nickname "flying tank". It still has a tail rotor. Which is not proof against .50cal. And where do I say .50 cal was the weapon used?
ument is this: How effective have helicopter gunships been since their invention in VN when machine guns were bolted on the side of the UH1? Not very and good proof of this is Afghanistan where Hind became a favourite target of the Mujahideen because it was such an obvious symbol of Soviet power and such a good kill to celebrate.
It is still extemely easy to kill helicopters with small arms and any scenario in which gunships will be used against a first-world equipped and trained army will always have fast jets flying overhead to protect helicopters. ALWAYS. Because helicopters are too vulnerable on their own. Just as Tanks will ALWAYS have infantry escort.
How many Hind Ds were lost in Afghanistan? How effective were they?
How many Apaches were lost in the Balkans? How effective were they?
How many helicopters were lost in VN?
Helicopters are good for hunting tanks, they're good for transporting troops very quickly across the jungle and they're excellent for CT ops. They're not designed for a complex combined operation against an equally well-equipped and well-trained enemy, that's what GR Harriers are for. The first thing the soldiers will fire at is the helicopter.
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Uh huh, all that (no most of it) is accepted.
Now, how many successful combined operations have you seen?
I've seen four, San Carlos Water, Panama, Mogadishu and Iraq (I don't count Grenada as Clint Eastwood films don't count as "seeing").
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Uh huh, all that (no most of it) is accepted.
Now, how many successful combined operations have you seen?
I've seen four, San Carlos Water, Panama, Mogadishu and Iraq (I don't count Grenada as Clint Eastwood films don't count as "seeing").
LOL, so you've seen a few shows on The History Channel and now you're an expert ? lol
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
ument is this: How effective have helicopter gunships been since their invention in VN when machine guns were bolted on the side of the UH1? Not very and good proof of this is Afghanistan where Hind became a favourite target of the Mujahideen because it was such an obvious symbol of Soviet power and such a good kill to celebrate.
LOl, as I said before. The stinger is what made the Soviet hinds vunerable. The Pakistani ISI ( Inter Services Intelligence ), who ran the war, knew that without stingers the war was lost. So helicopters were highly effective in Afghanistan before the advent of MANPADS.
PS. As an aside, the first stinger kill in Afghanistan was video recorded and sent to Ronny Reagan.
Originally posted by Odium
You also make out like the Taiwanese wouldn't accept them. When from some of the sources posted earlier on in this thread it's about 50/50.
Originally posted by Odium
Actually, you are missing some major important factors HowlrunnerIV.
The distance between Taiwan and China allows for their transport helicopters to make two-returns trips in 80minutes.
Modern Warfare compaired to World War Two and their beach landing, will allow missiles to destory the air-fields while the transport ships are on route.
The large number of Chinese Anti-Missile/Aeroplane equipment which can over-shoot Taiwan.
Modern advances in equipment, etc.
You also make out like the Taiwanese wouldn't accept them. When from some of the sources posted earlier on in this thread it's about 50/50 as well as the way the Chinese will crack-down on any level of terrorism unlike how America do it probably in a very brutal way if they have to.
AS for my own experience? Well I was trained by the T.A. but I never did see service however several friends of mine (I live within 30minutes of 4 Army bases) were invovled in Iraq including the mission I am speaking of. From on the ground to those directing the mission from the U.K.
Iraq and the invasion, is similar to Taiwan compaired to World War Two.
Source
Today, the PLA Air Force consists of 330,000 personnel, operating some 3,500 aircraft, over 1,000 surface-to-air missile systems, and several thousand anti-aircraft artillery. As a result of China’s ongoing force reduction and military modernisation, the size of the PLA Air Force has been decreasing since the mid-1980s, with most of its obsolete aircraft based on the 1950s-era Soviet designs being retired from service.
Republic of China 1998] National Defense Report,
"At the 13 military-civilian airports within 250 NM away from Taiwan proper, the PRC's Air Force can station 1,200 combat aircraft.... At present, stationed on the air bases within 500 nautical miles from Taiwan are 1,300 aircraft, of which some 600 airplanes have a radius of operation over Taiwan proper."
Originally posted by devilwasp
Oh, you mean travel time....not deployment time like getting the aircraft prepped , etc.
BTW, do you really think china will deploy over 1000 planes in the air....damm the air controllers are going to have a head ache...
[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]
Originally posted by Odium
Very much so.
Get the job done and get it done quickly.
That many air-craft, would give amazing cover to their boats, helicopters, troops on the ground while being able to blitz the military bases and of course put pressure on America not to get involved.
[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]
[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by Odium
Very much so.
Get the job done and get it done quickly.
That many air-craft, would give amazing cover to their boats, helicopters, troops on the ground while being able to blitz the military bases and of course put pressure on America not to get involved.
[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]
[edit on 23/8/2005 by Odium]
Umm ok...you do relise that a very small amount of the PLAAF are ground bombers right?
Originally posted by Odium
Of course, but you only need a hundred or so that can drop bombs to do massive amounts of damage to Taiwan.
It's a small Island Nation the other planes will be able to do what was done in vietnam to fly support and use the front-mounted guns to take care of troops and even bases. Those bullets will rip through most things, even tanks.
Originally posted by Odium
Of course, but you only need a hundred or so that can drop bombs to do massive amounts of damage to Taiwan.
Originally posted by devilwasp
I dont think you under stand, these bombers hold like 4 bombs each; 400 bombs dont do so much damage.
It's a small Island Nation the other planes will be able to do what was done in vietnam to fly support and use the front-mounted guns to take care of troops and even bases. Those bullets will rip through most things, even tanks.
Originally posted by devilwasp
Umm ok, air defence using cannons to take out bunkers?
Originally posted by rogue1
Hmmm, Odium you seem to be drastically overstating the effectiveness of the PLAAF. If the Chinese put 1000 planes in the air over Taiwan then they would lose more to mid air collisions than to hostile fire.
Not to mention they have bugger all experience using AWACS, with more than a few planes.
Source
Russia and China are the dominant countries in the Shanghai Co-operation Organization, a grouping that includes four former Soviet republics of Central Asia and which this year took on Iran, India and Pakistan as observers.
At a summit in July, the group called on Washington to set a date for the withdrawal of its forces from Central Asia, where they have been deployed since late 2001 to help support operations in neighbouring Afghanistan. Representatives from the organization's countries have been invited to watch the exercises
Originally posted by Odium
Plus what's soon to be 1000 missiles.
That is enough to take out 17 air-fields.
Along with enough to drop on several bases. Bunkers or not they'll do a lot of damage and the guns tend to be used for front-line assault like in Vietnam.
Also the amount of bombers Russia is selling. 72 Sukhoi-30MK which can hold roughly 8000 kg worth of bombs. (Agreed in 1999)
Start of this year Russia seemed to O.K. the sale of Tu-22M3's to China as well which has a load of 24,000kg.
Runways are not that hard to destory.
No, tanks, people, etc. Barracks tend to be above ground, air-craft control, etc, etc.