/k/ - Weapons

lol thats the scout helicopter with a chin gun pasted on with double sided tape

>>552533

>T129

Isn't that just an Augusta Mangusta painted in roach colors?

>>552592

Yes and no. The original Mangusta is A129. The Roach version is T129 with various improvements and tweaks, not just new paintjob. Kind of like AH-1 Cobra vs AH-1Z Viper.

Why did those retards fly so low? Too much Arma I guess

>T129 ATAK aka Mangusta

Turkroaches are a joke. Not only are they completely incompetent as their little adventure in Syria has shown, their military industry is just foreign stuff built under license and rebranded or simply foreign components assembled in Roachland (their "indigenous" tank project).

Fuck these clowns.

>>552607

The jews at Stratfor once claimed that Turkey has the strongest military in Europe HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>552599

There are a lot of things wrong with that bird, but the M197 20mm cannon itself is not one of them. I wouldn't want to be in any civilian structure being raked by one of those. Of course, that thing looks like it only has enough ammo stapled to the side for maybe 8 seconds of continuous firing, but its not the gun's fault. As terrible as it is, I would still rather be flying an Italian A129 than that pathetic tiger eurocopter that lacks any form of autocanon at all. And tried to fix the problem by stapling a single, non gimballed, MG3 to the front. Even after we all found that the rotary .50 on the hind was insufficient in Afghanistan.

>>552657

Don't you know that brown people are afraid of flying through clouds? this is an actual issue with the Saudi airforce

>>552590

>>552533

When will turkey get kicked outta nato?

>>552664

>Of course, that thing looks like it only has enough ammo stapled to the side for maybe 8 seconds of continuous firing, but its not the gun's fault.

I personally don't have a problem with the bullets being carried externally, provided more would be carried (on both sides of the helo).

>As terrible as it is, I would still rather be flying an Italian A129 than that pathetic tiger eurocopter that lacks any form of autocanon at all. And tried to fix the problem by stapling a single, non gimballed, MG3 to the front.

The Tiger uses a 30mm gun but yes it truly is pathetic if the gun can't aim sideways, in an attack helo. This may be a growing trend, look at the Chinese Z-10. Apparently from the photos it has a fixed gun too.

And not to veer this thread more off-topic than it is, but my personal favorite is the AH-2 Rooivalk, which nobody and I mean nobody seems to give a hoot about. Maybe it's inferior in ways I don't know about?

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/denel_ah2_rooivalk.htm

http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/z10.htm

>>552677

>When will turkey get kicked outta nato?

Never. NATO is purely an anti-Russian (ex anti-Soviet) organization. For as long as there is Russia, there will be NATO and any new member is welcome, the closer they are to Russia (geographically) the better. Don't be surprised if WW3 breaks out in Ukraine after it joins NATO.

Stupid question: are attack helicopters even useful in modern warfare anymore? Where they ever useful or were they never more than a meme?

>>552695

>Stupid question: are attack helicopters even useful in modern warfare anymore?

A pragmatic (but equally stupid) answer would be: yes, anything that helps kill the enemy is useful in warfare, modern or otherwise.

There is a foodchain in modern warfare:

Infantryman gets eaten by AFV

AFV gets eaten by MBT

MBT gets eaten by attack helo

attack helo gets eaten by attack plane

attack plane gets eaten by air superiority fighter

manned ASF will get eaten by UCAV, in the future

You'd think that because of this foodchain, everything except UCAV is obsolete. But just like in nature, if you get rid of a mid-point predator, its prey will flourish. So we still have MBTs. And until super drones replace anything that flies, we'll still have manned attack helos. Because they help kill the enemy.

Of course the "foodchain" above is oversimplified for humor. In reality, things are more complicated.

>>552696

You forgot:

>American Navy gets eaten by random commercial vessels

>>552696

>>552695

Not very usefull in Ukraine as they goes againts decently armed and commited enemies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_aircraft_losses_during_the_Ukrainian_crisis

>>552698

That’s what we get for letting diversity hires be helmsmen.

>>552599

>buying weapons designed by italians

Even the Romans couldn't make good weapons, they ripped the gladius off from the Spanish.

>>552982

Gas the Kurds, Saddam did nothing wrong. 1987 best year of globe's life.

>>552695

There are two strategies for attack helicopter design.

One is to build a very light helicopter with lots of sensors, that can pop out from behind the tree line and kill.the enemy at extreme range. More training for pilots, expensive due to sensors etc.

The other option is to build a heavily armed, heavily armored helicopter that bullies its way into held territory and spooges weapons at short range. Less training for pilots, cheaper and more expendable.

What the turks did was build #1, and use it like #2.

>>553031

So you're saying they should have gotten Ka-50 or AH-64? Or the ugliest of them all, Mi-28?

You got me confused and curious, could you give examples of #1 and #2 helicopters on a spectrum from alien tech (Comanche) to caveman (Hind)?

>>552736

A few things of note:

1. The numbers of shot down helicopters are low, acceptably so if they served their purpose.

2. As much as it wants to be, a Mi-24 is not an attack helicopter. It's an armed transport.

3. Ukraine is also using them very badly.

The more helicopters you have in the air, the better chance someone will find an enemy AAA site (or MANPAD) before it fires, which is the optimal solution. Once they do start firing, you're going to lose aircraft regardless of armor or countermeasures.

The right way to conduct a helicopter raid is (all this happens in <12 hrs):

1. Identify a target you want to hit.

2. Send in scouts. Airborne drones or helicopters, a ground based scout car, some scouts on foot.

3. Let the expendable scouts give you a fuller picture of what kind of defenses you would be up against.

4. Do a bomber raid based on scout data, taking out the most visible static defenses.

5. Send in all thirty of the Mi-24, shoot up any less visible defenses.

6. Land two-by-two and disgorge all 240 carried troops to set up an LZ.

7. Take off and provide air support for the landed troops.

8. Send in all 30 Mi-8 into prepared LZ with their 780 carried troops.

9. Rendezvous the troops and proceed to disturb enemy operations.

10. Then the armored brigade moves in for a longer term occupation.

Instead Ukraine is using Mi-8 helicopters to ship small caches of ammunition that a truck can do, and their Mi-24s only work in teams of two if at all, with zero bomber support and often not carrying a single troop.

>>553041

A good rule of thumb is, is the cockpit glass armored? Is the cockpit glass large, or very limited in size? Two or one crew?

Rooivalk, Apache, Euro etc have either a plexiglass cockpit or glass backed by a vinyl sticker. Now at decent ranges, this can stop bomb fragments and pistol rounds, but it isn't really armored. A rifle of any kind, even a intermediate bullet, can easily penetrate it. They have two crew and a large cockpit because they need to maintain situational awareness to know when to run away or if someone approaches them, even a dude with an RPK can bring them down. Most of their weapons are expensive as shit missiles that are fire and forget, because they may have to leave in the middle of the missiles flight time.

Compare with Mi-28 and Ka50 which has tiny armored windows, because they mostly already know where the enemy is, and they don't care if anyone approaches them. They are fine with getting hit a few times if they do the mission. Their missiles aren't fire and forget, because they expect to stay in the fight and see the target long enough to guide missiles home. Situational awareness isn't important because they can take a few hits from insignificant combatants (infantry, truck guns etc), so they don't need a second crewman usually and the pilot is allowed to get tunnel vision on a target.

>>553054

Why did the Turks even build a light helicopter considering they're literally orcs? Those are for elves.

>>553067

Because their IQ is <80

>>553072

> that couldn't defeat a 100% isolated nation of 1 million

>couldn't defeat

Though their performance was typical by Ottoman standards aka pathetic while outnumbering their opponent by orders of magnitude it was unquestionably a military victory for durkey. They managed to steal away nearly half the territory of a sovereign nation and make its inhabitants disappear with next to zero repercussions from the international community.