It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


LIght-arms tactics against Helicopter Gunship Warfare

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 12:50 PM
I would like to add that one should not overlook the proper use of obscurants such as smoke grenades. There are smoke grenades that are specially formulated to be opaque to infrared, making FLIR equipment useless. Small, remotely operated vehicles could carry these smoke grenades safely to forward areas where you want them deployed, so you don't have to risk being targeted by the enemy. I'm sure with some basic research, you can find out the proper formula for the smoke mix that blocks far infrared wavelengths. Most likely they aren't hard to replicate, and just as importantly, would probably not be illegal to possess (you are allowed standard smoke grenades).

I think also research should be done into making dummy targets like manequins that would have embedded basic wire heating elements in them. Nothing fancy would really be needed - just wires looped back and forth in a basic paper mache type dummy. The wires only need enough current going through them to heat up slightly so the paper machet dummy has a similar enough thermal signature to a real human. These would be handy to use to bait helos into kill zones, while your ambush force is setup nearby, cloaked in IR obscuring smoke. Preferably at NIGHT. Then nail the chopper!

I think that using decoys and dummies have huge potential in being a force multiplier against a well equipped oppressive force (for the sake of argument, say Libyan or Syrian army against rebels). Another decoy that I think has potential would be remotely operated blank firing guns or propane fueled gun simulator devices. If you had a machine shop you could crank those babies out cheaply and use them to take up the enemies attention and stockpiles of fancy munitions.

You wouldn't even have to deploy ambush tactics if you can create distractions cheaply enough, and they are effective at luring a response. Helos use up fuel, the supply of which is finite. Every so many hours, helos must be given maintenance which uses up time and spare parts. Basically, every hour of flight time of the helo that is wasted chasing wild geese is an hour that can't be used gainfully by your enemy.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:10 PM
What's ridiculous is you. You play BF3 and now you're an expert on a anti chopper tactics? Too funny!

Originally posted by Wertdagf
LOL this is all rediculous.

Ive played alot of bf3 and if you dont have anti-air against a good helo pilot and gunner then your screwed. Running will only make you die tired. If your fighting somone who sends in a %&*^ing cobra then your way over your head and should go back to your basement and eat some wheaties.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:17 PM
I feel a need to defend the point of the last poster. He was correct, even if he offended some.

Attacking a modern purpose built gunship with small arms will get you killed. Dying valiantly is still losing.

The only logical response to them without SAMs is evasion.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:28 PM
reply to post by justwokeup

I would agree with you that without SAMs, mounted or handheld, it would be suicidale.

However, as the saying goes - luck often favors the bold, espacially when under dire circumstances whereby surrender and submitting to the powerful is STILL death, many would rather take that chance.

These were the guys, some with sams, but some were not, whom you would have adviced, but ignored by them, and their results....

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 01:48 PM
There is a world of difference between the Support Helicopters in the video (armed with unguided rockets though the old MIL-17 was) and an attack helicopter.

Support helicopters are usually a different softer proposition entirely for a number of reasons.

Though there are exceptions, i wouldn't be keen on tackling some of the Israeli or SOCOM adapted Blackhawks either.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:34 PM
This thread has been good for a few laughs, but other than that it's chock full of advice that can get you killed.

Taking on an attack helicopter without modern sam's, anti helicopter mines, or at least RPG's is so difficult as to be basically impossible.

But what the heck I'll add in my two cents since the subject has came up.

Historically the best low tech ways to take out helicopters has been through mining LZ's. The Vietnamese used explosives planted in the treetops surrounding likely LZ's tied to various fusing mechanisms designed to respond to the rotor wash.

More recently with the advent of better more intelligent triggering systems there has been a development which is referred to as anti helicopter mines. These mines take an EFP warhead warhead mounted on a turntable slaved to a set of sensors designed to orient the EFP towards the sound or other signature of a low flying helicopter and detonate the weapon when it gets close enough to do damage. Below is a link explaining one anti helo mine design in depth and showing you a picture of the package:
Anti helicopter Mine

my basic point here is this: IF you are going to fight an attack helicopter you cannot make it a fair fight where it knows you are fighting. YOU must do everything you can to hit it when it doesn't know you are even around much less ready to fight.

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:36 PM

Infrared smoke grenades render FLIR obsolete, as you can totally mask the movement of your troops.

I guess the shills like to try to bury this point with multiple responses of "LOL ITS SUICIDE AND HOPELESS DON'T TRY IT".

Oh yea, I would also like to point out that the IR obscurant smokes are also effective against laser targeted weapons systems. If you can't get the targeting laser to light up your target, you can't hit it with laser guided ordnance. This goes for 99% of AGM-114 hellfire missiles (used on predator and reaper drones and APACHE AH-64 ATTACK HELOS). I bet the shills will come out and try to bury this post with a bunch of "LOLOLPOOPOOPY POO" type posts.
edit on 29-7-2012 by graybox because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 02:57 PM
I just realized what the hell we are doing

I erased the post because.....well, I dont want people to use these tactics on ours.
edit on 29-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 07:59 PM

That is a link to a National Air Intelligence document that details the jamming of laser guided weaponry. There was an anecdote in there about the North Vietnamese using smoke to great effect to drastically reduce the effectiveness of laser guided bombs in the bombing of the Fu'an power station in Hanoi.

So far in my research, AGM-114 types that are used on targets that are not armored vehicles all employ the semi active laser homing method of guidance. AGM-114K is the type that is used on drone aircraft. This variant uses SALH. Deployment of capable infrared obscurant on the battlefield could potentially shield one's forces from menacing drone strikes. Drones are vulnerable to detection by ESM/EW techniques, and even primitive techniques have demonstrated the ability to detect proximity of drone aircraft (use of COTS hardware to view unencrypted video streams). More sophisticated techniques could easily pinpoint and track drone location by way of TDOA, DF, and other MASINT techniques. Coordination of such ESM/EW techniques with teams employing IR obscurants could mean the development of tactics which severely limit the effectiveness of drones to fulfill their mission roles.

Also, I'll be waiting patiently for the inevitable shill reply of "LOLOPOOPY POOP, IT WONT WORK, BECAUSE I HAVE A DIRTY DIAPER"

posted on Jul, 29 2012 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

not rope
a Bola made with thick chain and some locks

funny how the OP and others haven't mentioned that one
the afghans downed many a Russian attack helicopter this way

Sorry friend, never happened but by all means post your proof of Afghans destroying 'many' USSR attack helicopters by throwing Bola...

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:06 PM
attack the supply train

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by BIHOTZ
I just realized what the hell we are doing

I erased the post because.....well, I dont want people to use these tactics on ours.
edit on 29-7-2012 by BIHOTZ because: (no reason given)

Thanks for contributing. I respect your opinion and I would like to share an insight with you.

Our REAL enemies already LONG knew the tactics - strengths and weaknesses that can be exploited with any weapon. Heck! they already are working out how to deal with the space stealth craft X-37 !

It would be foolish and sheer complacency to think one can keep secrets in this modern day and age.

The greatest military general that ever walked on Earth was Julius Caesar. Intellectuals are awed by him, not because of his successes in military campaigns that probably a village idiot today could have won, but by his courage and intelligence to go against then military doctrines, to think out of the box can come out with concepts NO man then knew how to solve.

And one of his greatest feat was to inform EVERY soldier of the plan of any fight on the eve of battles, so that the rank and file know what they were to do,what they were fighting for, and how to achieve it. And he never ignored any worthwhile suggestiongs from them, such as their serf knowledge of goat tracks across seemingly insurmountable mountains.

Sadly, his methods were seldom used anymore, as elites thought themselves the only ones with brains. But like all flawed mortals, none is perfect. At times the commander failed to see the glimmer of dawn on darkest nights which the rank and file does, and gives up easily. This is evident in many tragic wars even during our times.

It is often and comprehensible that it may not be possible in the course of battles for commanders to open up for discussions due to time constrains, but at the planning stages, if more voices are heard, the chance for success may be there. As it is often said, more heads are better than one.

And it is such concepts that free societies will always win over tyrannies and dictatorships, for the price of failure by commanders in authoritarian dogmatic societies is always death with them, with pansies, bootlickers, cronies and relatives to take over.

But in free societies, chances are always given to commanders whom had failed, to prove themselves again provided they don't make or repeat the same mistakes.

Failures only lays the groundwork to success for the wise. Only idiots would cut down failures and let another with no INTIMATE comprehensions of existing failures to change them, to take over

My post's intention was for those rank and file freedom fighters lacking in opportunities of life in education but sacrificing their blood for their loved ones in just causes, and for the public to know. Much of the information here is thus mostly second or even fifth rate information, nothing new that would harm national security. Our REAL enemies would never need ATS to tell them what to do. Only perhaps aspiring fiction novelists would....

edit on 30-7-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:21 PM
Sun Tzu said not to attack an enemy's strength---attack his weaknesses.

Fuel depots, supply shipments of replacement parts, and aircrew barracks.

That said, there is a game changer as well: Drones.

Drones didn't exist in Vietnam; or Afghanistan for that matter. You can get them in the USA at Toys-R-Us (TM) or Sharper Image(TM). They are called radio controlled helicopters. They cost less than a hundred bucks. They barely work outdoors. If they ever got anywhere near the chopper, they'd be sucked up into the rotors......

Another thing. Helicopter pilots prefer the desert. That's because woods have an understory that their telemetry cannot penetrate. So they cannot see things shot up at them. The VC had success in the jungles of Vietnam using altered mortar rounds fired from below, in the jungle.

With remote controls found on every garage and car alarm in the US, such things could be rigged with minimal loss of life...

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by tovenar

Drones didn't exist in Vietnam;

Drones were used during Vietnam.

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 06:32 PM
Hit the airfield they are based at.

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 07:43 PM
reply to post by tommyjo

Right, thanks. I was thinking about the insurgents using them. Sorry I didn't express myself better. Did the VC ever use them? Or have insurgents in the middle east tries using them? That'd be interesting to know.
edit on 30-7-2012 by tovenar because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:41 PM
My background is in Special Forces both enlisted and as an officer. While we have mostly conducted counter insurgency operations in the past few years running an insurgency is SF's bread and butter.

That said fighting against a technologically superior force is not as hard as it all sounds. Certainly the technology especially air assets and the superiority it brings is an advantage but it can be used against them. Forces with technology tend to be heavily reliant on that technology. Anyone who is honest and has served in our post 1985 military will tell you our Soldiers are not necessarily the best because they are good at what they do but rather they know how to use their technology to do it for them.

Take marksmanship, land navigation and gunnery skills for instance. We do train on marksmanship nowadays but it's heavily reliant on the use of scopes, peep sights and other tech that relies on batteries and such. Take away their supply lines and you can mitigate their advantage... GPS is an awesome skill but again, batteries are required. You can further mitigate the use of GPS reliant forces by maneuvering them into areas that they don't have good line of sight to the satellites. Urban terrain, mountain valley's etc.... We do teach the map and compass nowadays but it is a dying art.

The key to defeating gunships is taking away their ability to maneuver again, in valleys and urban terrain etc. Using weather is also a good thing, night vision relies on ambient light so a zero illumination night is better for operations than one with a full moon etc. Some aircraft fly in inclement weather others not so much – fog socks em all in the risk is too great for the payoff. Conduct your missions during inclement weather if at all possible.
Gunships are expensive to operate and tend to be a high level asset authorized by a high echelon in a command structure. Part of the planning process for them is to determine if the cost to benefit ratio of risk of losing the airframe is worth the target they are going to engage. Key is to not give them a large target. Limit movements to squad size elements or lower. If you are doing a platoon or higher size attack use multiple squad infiltration routes to a link up point to protect your troops from being a target of opportunity.

Also, all airframes have points of vulnerability some are available online others are not. Using a heavy caliber weapon with AP rounds is good. Even a 7.62 AP round in the right place can take out a key component a rotor or engine or turbine.

Most modern anti tank weapons will take out a gunship but there is an art to it and it takes either a very trained operator or so a high volume of rounds focused ( in as kill zone) on the area that you simply can’t miss.

The key like someone said is to have a "bait" element lead the pilot into a kill box that allows multiple shooters to engage the lesser armored areas of the platform. Getting above the aircraft is ideal if possible. i.e. shooting from a higher ridgeline or higher building than the aircraft.

Obviously the best place to engage aircraft is when they are on the ground or refueling - fuel is very volatile and will make a great IED taking out the airframe along with many mechanics and tech personnel.

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:47 AM
I very much doubt we will ever see a hostile US Army without a nasty counter force to remove them.They have to shoot first,them we go.

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:25 PM
There is a book, Citizen Soldier: How to Protect Your Home, Family & Freedom When the Government Can't by Robert Bradley (1994). It has some prepper ideas, and was an outgrowth of the who "Red Dawn" era of thinking. It is basically reprints of old military manuals, strung together---especially the ones the School of the Americas provided to counter-insurgency militias in the 1980s.

It has several pages and pictures regarding small arms fire against helicopter and fixed wing aircraft. The text basically mirrors cavscout's comments; but by way of suggestion for dealing with crisis and ambush, suggests the following:

For slow aircraft, mentally visualize a football field ahead of the helicopter, as if it were sitting at the goal posts, and were about to travel down the length of the field. Aim for the 50 yard line, especially at the main rotor or air intake. The text notes that much better success is achieved by having heavier weapons steadied on a support, even on the shoulders or uplifted hands of an assistant. Fixed-wing non-proppeller driven craft are supposed to be countered by aiming two full football fields ahead of them., when they are at extremely low altitude, i.e., strafing or bombing mode.

(I tried to upload pictures from my phone, but it didn't work....image size is too many pixels?)

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
First of all, wait , only of all, never ever ever ever engage a gunship. You will die. You better be equiped to engage CAS units or you better be ready to hide.

Engaging CAS is suicidal, it is made to find you and kill you, if you shoot at it , you already did the hard part for it.

Thermal is your worst enemy. Go ahead and fire off some rounds, youll popup like white on rice.

Good job on wasting men and equipment and most importantly, moral.
edit on 6-8-2012 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in