Great Apache Video

[cabal23]

What do we have to do to get this in the game?

I would pay handsomely for this feature.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=206758&page=1

[YankeeDog]

Get what in the game? Strafing runs by Apaches? We already have that.

It's rare you get the opportunity, if troops are caught in the open like in that video, the strafing runs can be quite deadly; I've seen over 50% casualties to a platoon caught under such fire.

[Pandur]

i find it highly interessting what you see here. in particular that you can hide from top of the line thermals behind a brush or tree. you can see the guys passing behind a tree are not visible.

the way people brag about how great thermals are made me think not even this is possible but it is, wich is good to know

[c3k]

Notice the engagement is directed to run from north to south. We can't (but should) do that in-game. Also note the misses on the first burst. Most infantry on the ridge immediately run to cover on the downhill side of the ridge; the second burst gets two probable casualties, the rest have already run downhill.

Air support runs get commanded for which direction they come from and go towards; the effectiveness is not too good. Suppressive effect is high, casualty effect per run is not so good. (Surprised enemy, no incoming fire at Apache, high exposure on ridgeline, etc.)

Ken

[YankeeDog]

The "high exposure on ridgeline" is actually probably what saved the Taliban from more casualties on the first burst; this meant shots with any significant deviance in range either (a) landed downslope, where the side of the hill would catch most of the dangerous fragments, or ( flew high and landed some kms away in the valley below. On flatter terrain, shell fragments from near misses in the first burst might have caused significantly more casualties.

In any event, according to the text on the website (hard to say how reliable this is without a cite), 9 Taliban were confirmed dead after this attack, which is pretty darn good lethality in my book, and similar to what I see from this kind of attack in CMSF.

[c3k]

The "ubertech" is not as immediately effective. Examining the two runs in the video does not support 9 KIA. The difference may be what "attack" is defined as. I would assume that the two runs shown do not constitute the entire attack. After the initial run, when the enemy flees to the other side of the ridge, they are then pinned against it. As the Apache(s) reposition to that side of the ridge, it would be the matter of about 15 minutes to search for, find, and kill the remaining enemy.

I have no doubt about the lethality of the weapons, only the timeliness of the attack. Meaning, 9 were not killed in the first two bursts.

My "youtube-fu" is lacking. However, there was a link posted here about several Apaches prosecuting an attack against 5 enemy in a built up area. Yes, totally different situation. The salient point was that the attack was made using 3 Hellfires. One seemed to be a direct hit on 3 enemy, yet all three emerged from the IR imaged dust/debris cloud and ran to better cover. Later imagery shows a Hellfire impacting a shed containing all 5. One ran out. Another Hellfire impacted his location. So 5 men, 3 Hellfires. One missile caused 0 KIA (Unknown if any were wounded, but they were able to run). One missile presumably caused 4 KIA/WIA. (unknown because only 1 ran out. The other 4 could've been stunned - or vaporized. It would take occupation of the shed to determine if anyone was left. The debris and editing was inconclusive.) 1 Missile caused one casualty.

The explosions and debris from that strafing run are impressive. Examining the impact points PRIOR to impact show that the men have fled. Lots of noise and impressive dirt. Very hollywood. Not very effective.

Another video showed similar results. Apache gun film; delay between firing and impact means target was at least 1,000m away. A lot of dirt, debris. Then, a lot of men running out from the debris. Wounded? Possibly. But I would not assume so without evidence. (Parts and fluids do show up on IR depending on range.)

Ken

[YankeeDog]

I would not presume to extrapolate any such extensive conjectures.

A substantial amount of the ordnance impact is off-camera, and I for one can't see where all the Taliban are when the rounds impact. There are clearly more off-camera. I would estimate that 6-7 Taliban at the head of the column are completely off camera by the time the first burst impacts, and it does appear that rounds were targeted into that area. And even for the ones that are on-camera, it is often difficult to see them due to the vegetative cover. It also looks like some of the rounds are impacting just off the top of the camera frame, right in the area that the Taliban are running into. And a 30mm cannon round doesn't need to be a direct hit to kill or wound -- we don't know how many, if any, got winged by shrapnel some meters away from the impacts. On the one hand, it is in heavy terrain which would intercept a lot of fragments, but it looks like at least some of them are still up and running when the second round of shells hits, which is a very good way to catch shrapnel.

So I have no freakin' idea how many were caught in those two bursts shown in the clip. Maybe 0, maybe 9. Without access to an AAR, which would contain information about the exact location(s) and condition of casualties, we'll never know.

But I am very skeptical of a 15-minute hunt-and-kill follow-on, at least by air units. Any experienced irregular unit under air pursuit like that would have dropped heavy equipment (supported by the weapons and equipment found in the area after the engagement), and dispersed after the initial fusillade. Under heavy ground cover like that, they'd be difficult to spot at all. And if you did spot any, you'd be talking about ones and twos hiding and/or moving carefully across the terrain. Very difficult to hunt down via helicopter, especially given the ROE restrictions that I assume are in place regarding positively IDing combatants. Combatant, or local farmer out taking a piss and caught in the area? Hard to tell several minutes later, once you've circled around for another pass.

I suppose some of the casualties might be due to follow-on actions by ground forces, but we don't know anything about that.

As for the Hellfire stuff, that's apples to oranges. Different type of cover, different weapons system.

[souldierz]

Those Taliban are wiped out to the point that they wont be causing trouble anymore.That's an old video i believe and more then 70% of those taliban were killed if not 95-100%.To my knowledge Apaches and Cobras roam in pairs most of the time and would keep an eye on the area to clear any remaining threats and attack from all angles.I'm sure they wont go to base unless they got em all or the fuel is low.The other strikes were probably not posted but I'm sure they got them and recorded the aftermath of all the bodies that are dead for command to see and evaluate.

Attack hellos i hear are the most effective and that the taliban fear them more then any other vehicle.When the Gunships come around the firefight stops and Taliban hide until the gunships get low on fuel and leave.There's some very intense footage that comes from these air units and sometimes very spooky to watch.They see the enemy before the enemy knows they're there and the Apaches can zoom so close to the point they can tell what kind facial features you have and what kind of beard u got on even tho they might be a 1 kilometer out.Then the shot is fired and the taliban have no clue about the big bang or bangs coming their way.I guess you can hear the Gunships fire or the missile coming because in many videos some of the enemy duck or run while others are left clueless and dead.The ones that almost or did get away from these strikes were the ones who ran as fast as they could.Any1 who tried to hide would get the area sprayed with that cannon.Some Erie stuff especially when u see 20 enemy men cluttered together around some vehicles and u know whats going to happen and it does.

In game the Apache runs are cool but i learn not to trust their rocket fire.Hits me more then the enemy and that's where the ability to say from where they strike from would be very good to have in game.Watching the Apache do gun runs in game on buildings and troops is always entertaining.

[tyrspawn]

Some things sorely lacking in CMSF as opposed to real life:

Contact reports - apaches spotting and engaging targets in real life make this known to the controller, in CMSF... they can spot an armored company and not relay that to the controller. SURPRISE ARMORED COMPANY OVER THE HILL! At the very least there should be new LOS in the area while the Apache is attacking.

Interdict - there is no way to tell a apache "Hey patrol this area for tanks and engage," 400 meters is way too small an area for an effective interdiction sortie.

Hovering - why can't apaches hover over an area for 20 minutes or so?

[c3k]

Interesting. The video shows NO kills. I extrapolate a possible 2 kills due the imagery of multiple rounds impacting in/on 2 individuals. There is no imagery after the impact. It is obscured, then the video ends. You extrapolate 9 kills. Who is presuming what?

[Blackcat]

I would not presume to extrapolate any such extensive conjectures.

But I am very skeptical of a 15-minute hunt-and-kill follow-on, at least by air units. Any experienced irregular unit under air pursuit like that would have dropped heavy equipment (supported by the weapons and equipment found in the area after the engagement), and dispersed after the initial fusillade. Under heavy ground cover like that, they'd be difficult to spot at all. And if you did spot any, you'd be talking about ones and twos hiding and/or moving carefully across the terrain. Very difficult to hunt down via helicopter, especially given the ROE restrictions that I assume are in place regarding positively IDing combatants. Combatant, or local farmer out taking a piss and caught in the area? Hard to tell several minutes later, once you've circled around for another pass.

If you read "Apache Dawn" a book about the experiences of a AAC Apache squadron in Afghanistan, you will find numerous examples of hunt and kill follow-ons that lasted for more than 15 minutes. Indeed most of the engagements described last considerable periods, often as a result of the need to get positive ID that the intended target is not a "local farmer out taking a piss" and avoiding any chance of "friendly fire". So, whilst I commend your skepticism as a general principle, I think in this case it is misplaced.

Of course, in CMSF most everything happens much faster than in real life, but I do feel that the Apaches and Cobras could have been made more communicative with their ground controllers.

[bodkin]

Why do these sort of videos often show the targets to be completely oblivious to the threat to them? Are Apaches that quiet? What ranges are they firing from? Some videos seem to show the Apache almost on top of their targets yet always seem to take the doomed in the gunsights completely by suprise.

[SlowMotion]

... I do feel that the Apaches and Cobras could have been made more communicative with their ground controllers.

And what about UAVs like the Predator?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-1_Predator

[YankeeDog]

Interesting. The video shows NO kills. I extrapolate a possible 2 kills due the imagery of multiple rounds impacting in/on 2 individuals. There is no imagery after the impact. It is obscured, then the video ends. You extrapolate 9 kills. Who is presuming what?

Not sure if you're talking to me or not, but have not made *any* extrapolation of kills, based on the video evidence. I as I stated already, based on what I see on the video *only*, it could have been 0, 9, or even more. The figure of 9 I cited was from the text accompanying the video, and as I stated, I have no idea as to the reliability of this figure.

If you you want my extrapolation, here you go:

After carefully viewing the video, I see three Taliban that I would put better than 95% odds are killed or incapacitated in frame, on the video. I base this on the frames from around 0:55 - 1:00: Three bodies (two up, one prone, but all moving) are clearly in frame, and then these bodies and area around them get completely obliterated by incoming rounds. I don't see how these three could have possibly survived short of divine intervention; they appear to have little or no cover and the rounds detonate right on top of them. There is a fourth Taliban also in this area who I think is very likely at least wounded, but he moves out of view under some cover just before the rounds hit, so I can't extrapolate his fate with as much certainty; I'd probably put the odds of him being at least seriously wounded at about 70%

That's all I can say with reasonable certainty based on what's actually on the video. As I said, it's also clear that there's a lot going on outside of the frames of the actual video footage, so I think it's *likely* that the casualties from the two bursts shown on the video are higher than the 3 definite + 1 probable I can actually see. But how many more is impossible to say. 9 is, however, entirely plausible to me.

[BlackMoria]

Why do these sort of videos often show the targets to be completely oblivious to the threat to them? Are Apaches that quiet? What ranges are they firing from? Some videos seem to show the Apache almost on top of their targets yet always seem to take the doomed in the gunsights completely by suprise.

If you check the same site as the video in the original post, there is another video of Apaches doing engagement on 'technicals' (pickups with machine guns on back). During the zoom in, you can clearly see the truck and details on the people. During times of the video, they zoom out and it is apparent the technical is quite some distance out for the helicopter because it is just a dot on a hill and hard to see. 30X magnification can certainly give the illusion the helicopter is much closer than it really is.

Once you out a few kilometers, the helicopter visually is not that noticable (especially if it is taking pains to not be seen) and helicopter noise is not readily apparent, especially if the helo keeps downwind from the target.

The average Taliban fighter is not that familar with the capabilities of western high tech weapon systems that have a reach out 2-3 km as a norm and even longer range for some systems. Also with just how good western sensor/optical technology is.

Also, every rotor you hear in the distance isn't a gunship stalking you. The average Afghani probably hears helicopters all the time when they do hear them and the majority of those are transport, supply and medivac missions.

[MeatEtr]

If you check the same site as the video in the original post, there is another video of Apaches doing engagement on 'technicals' (pickups with machine guns on back).

Which is right here: http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=206735&page=1

On that last truck it seemed the guy waited for the enemy to dismount and then took it out. Why not just wipe them all out when they stopped and started to dismount. Just hate to see the bastards get away.

[YankeeDog]

Which is right here: http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=206735&page=1

On that last truck it seemed the guy waited for the enemy to dismount and then took it out. Why not just wipe them all out when they stopped and started to dismount. Just hate to see the bastards get away.

My SWAG from the chatter, it sounds like they were planning on taking it out with a Hellfire, then the switch to the gun when the vehicle stopped suddenly and everyone started to dismount. But it took a few seconds for the gunner to switch weapons (and for the rounds to fly to target), and by this time it looks like several of the fighters got far enough away from the vehicle to avoid being caught in the fire.

[BlackMoria]

Which is right here: http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=206735&page=1

On that last truck it seemed the guy waited for the enemy to dismount and then took it out. Why not just wipe them all out when they stopped and started to dismount. Just hate to see the bastards get away.

I suspect it is ROE issues. Despite being told ANA forces are not in the area, the gunner waited until he could visually identify that they were not a truck load of farmers or hostile action was directed at them. I suspect permission to engage is required on all targets unless ROEs are clearly met and can be clearly defended to the Afghan authority. Than means delays in determining if the bad guys are just that...bad guys and ideal opportunities are passed up.

I also suspect that the bad guys that bailed on the truck probably didn't get too far after the video end as they were most likely trying to run the 4 minute mile dodging 30mm shells. It would be nice to break the eggs while they are in one basket, but sometime you have to break 'em one at a time.

[Lethaface]

They should have people from the world guiness book of record around fighting zones. Im sure ill beat the world record dodging 30MM HE. Let alone trained Taliban who run (for cover) daily with heavy AK's on their back.

[Vark]

I cannot see how people can dispute the KIA figure by just watching the video, I guess ground troops scraped together various body parts and guestimated, or had nearly complete bodies to count. The 30mm shells can injure out to 4 metres and their HEDP warheads, exploding near, or on rocky surfaces/vegetation are quite capable of creating secondary fragments that can boost their PK probabilities. Secondly, the ROF of the M230 is approx 650 rpm and the spool up time is 0.2 seconds so the full impact of the two, three second bursts, (approx total 60-65 shells) is not shown. Finally, just because people are moving, after a strike, does not mean they are not seriously/mortally injured. I have seen quite a few extended clips, with survivors running away after Hellfire/30mm strikes, only for them to collapse, tens of metres away and not as a result of being out of breath!

[Bigduke6]

Well duh, the text that goes with the vid says so. Since it confirms the Apache guys did their job great, who are we to question the text?

More seriously, I pretty much agree with C3K. The first short burst missed, the second maybe got a couple of guys, but the helicopter was moving and the guys had great cover - the crest of the hill - to get behind.

As to awesome air, just let's remember, for every time the Apaches catch the ground dudes unawares, probably the ground dudes manage to hide from the Apaches dozens, if not hundreds of times.

Also let's remember, the vids that get released, almost all of them, those are the ones where the air guys look good and the system works. This is not the same thing as proof the system works even most of the time, or that the air guys aren't wasting (literally) tons of ammunition to blast empty terrain.

Air power is not omnipotent, it is not all-seeing, and there is little guys on the ground cannot do in the face of air power, if the ground guys are disciplined and know the limits of air.

Never, ever underestimate the ability of humans to survive under bombardment. It is one of the truisims of modern warfare, right up there with pilots always exaggerate their kills, and ground units always exaggerate the number of enemy they faced.

The US has had air superiority in every war since mid-WW2. Only once, against the Iraqis in 1991, arguably because the Iraqi army was incompetent, was air power decisive and able to overwhelm the ground forces.

Every other time the Americans went to war against a major enemy - Latter-half WW2 against the Germans and Japanese, Korea against the Chinese, Vietnam against the Vietnames, Kossovo against the Serbians, there was this huge awesome air offensive and somehow, the guys on the ground kept on keeping on. It is easy enough to hit a bridge or a factory, an inanimate object can't hide or think about what air can and cannot do.

So before we get all hot and bothered about the effectiveness of Apache strikes in Afghanistan, we need to ask ourselves, whom do the Afghan insurgents resemble more in terms of combat experience and discipline: Saddam Hussein's Army, or (for instance) the People's Volunteer Army?

I would say, never, ever underestimate the ability of humans to survive under bombardment. It is one of the truisims of modern warfare, right up there with pilots always exaggerate their kills, and ground units always exaggerate the number of enemy they faced.

[Vark]

Surviving is one thing, being combat effective, or not suffering various degredations in combat effectiveness is another. The human body is very resilient, yet very vulnerable to damage, especially mental damage. I know people who have faced gunships and are still shaken by their experience, so much so they feel physically sick when they hear civilian helicopters. As for the, you only see the weapons when they work, equally applies to the opposition, who regularly show videos of ambushes but not bored men sitting around doing nothing, or being counter-ambushed or cowering from Apaches.

[Bigduke6]

Vark,

Fair comment that the insurgent success vids are not proof the insurgents always succeed.

As to how well or poorly a man will fight after having being targeted by air, I would say that depends on a great deal, but most of all on his morale, and second the discipline imposed on him, be it by family, a military organization, his own mind-set, or society.

I would argue that the world view of a typical Afghan insurgent makes him, as a general thing, very resilient to the "mental shock" effects of being the target of an air attack. Being the target of air attack is not always traumatic, indeed, most of the time most people managing not to get injured in an air attack just get on with their lives.

Remember, these people fought the Soviets, who had gunships and much more liberal rules of engagement than the IASF, and the Soviets lost.

I read that McChrystal's plan is jack up the density of helicopters in theater, to improve infantry flexibility and bypass all the jingle trucks getting hijacked on roads the ANA hasn't a prayer of securing.

So the way I see it, it's only a matter of time before the insurgents get SA-14 or something like it. Anti-aircraft missiles are cheap, lots of countries make them, and between the poppy mafia and the insurgents there is plenty of money and incentive in the Afghan mountains, to obtain the means of shooting down the blue side's helicopters.

This is like a Greek tragedy, no matter what they do it gets more and more like Vietnam every day. You watch, pretty soon we're going to start reading about hot LZ's and emplaced blue AAA on the hills shooting down on the choppers in the valley.

[Pandur]

in the regard of after effects in civilian life like PTSD, i think the afghans are pretty immune to it when looked at the blue behaviour of commiting suicide or trieing to, in the thousends after deployment, over the time. actually when you count the suicides as succes for the insurgents they are suddenly much much more succesfull then a few hundred kills a year.

i mean afghans fought soviets, each other and the neighbours dog. even guys wich never fought probably heared or saw the effects of combat on landscape and its inhabitants at least a few times in their life. hell, these guys are subject to terror if they dont cooperate.

when comming out of such a society, you are in fact pretty immune to such things when compared to a blue soldiers life befor deployment, trained haveing fun and living in a highly restricted and controled environment, where the next law enforcement agency is just a phone call away.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every day, five U.S. soldiers try to kill themselves. Before the Iraq war began, that figure was less than one suicide attempt a day.

The dramatic increase is revealed in new U.S. Army figures, which show 2,100 soldiers tried to commit suicide in 2007.

"Suicide attempts are rising and have risen over the last five years," said Col. Elspeth Cameron-Ritchie, an Army psychiatrist.

Concern over the rate of suicide attempts prompted Sen. Jim Webb, D-Virginia, to introduce legislation Thursday to improve the military's suicide-prevention programs.

"Our troops and their families are under unprecedented levels of stress due to the pace and frequency of more than five years of deployments," Webb said in a written statement.

source -> http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/01/military.suicides/index.html

ouer troops and their families are under unprecedented levels of stess...this must be weird a joke of some sort? they should send guys to the taliban to learn how to combat PTSD and not whine about...

[cabal23]

We have no idea how many Afghans kill themselves each year due to PTSD. We have no idea how many go home and beat their wives and children. We have no idea how many descend into opium use. Western society is a little soft, and the Afghans have lived a more rugged experience, but it is my assumption that the new breed of Afghan fighter wasn't there when The Hind-E's were circling tearing up everything with rockets and guns. The Russians are another generations war. Trauma is trauma, you don't just walk away from it. No one is immune. Even the hardest veteran who has seen many wars will tell you PTSD does affect them. Even total BA's like Richard Marchinko, most likely have a prescription to help him sleep at night. Unfortunately the human condition is what it is. No one is immune from the horrors of war no matter what your environment is. Just because they have been waging tribal wars on ear other since the dawn of time doesn't make them immune. If anything their world view can be a bit depressing. (get up at the A$% crack of dawn, feed the goats, walk the goats, stop by weapons cache, grab a few AK's, head back to village, outrun Apache) And yes Afghan soldiers experience depression too. It wasn't invented by the Americans.