PDA

View Full Version : ak47more powerful than m16


swabjocky
October 24, 2001, 12:06 PM
we know that a ak47 being shot by a group of men can bring down a soviet helocopter.do you think a group of men using m16 s can bring down a taliban helocopter?

dZ
October 24, 2001, 12:15 PM
what Taliban helicopter?

this one?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/expeditions/97/dispatches/images/downedheli.jpeg

Mike Irwin
October 24, 2001, 12:49 PM
I think the Taliban has several of the armored gunship helicopters, and that's about it. Hinds, I believe they're called?

Anyway, if that's the case, NO SMALL ARM is going to bring one of those creatures down.

Jake 98c/11b
October 24, 2001, 01:04 PM
Mike, they have more MI-8 Hip than MI-24 Hind. The Hind is armored but the Hip can carry more ordnance if it is set up that way. The Hip is a general utility helicopter but it is a durable airframe, bigger than our UH-1 but about as versatile. You CAN bring down a Hind with small arms fire but it is almost an academic question, I wouldn't want to try but it is possible and it has happened before, damn tough thing to do I would imagine. Our soldier manuals give targets but it they are small, hard targets.

Correia
October 24, 2001, 01:07 PM
I bet its kind of a moot point right about now anyway. We own the skies over Afghanistan. If they did have a Hind or Havoc hidden somewhere, the second it was airborne our fighter jocks would be racing to see who got it first.

scouter27
October 24, 2001, 01:49 PM
My only questions are: Why would a group of men be shooting [b]an AK-47[b]? How do they know when to switch? Do they carry their own ammo, or trade off on that too? :D

Destructo6
October 24, 2001, 01:52 PM
Didn't you guys every see, "Red Dawn"? Sheesh...

Well, if an AK could do it, why couldn't an AR?

Like Correia said, if they were able to get something airborne, you'd probably hear about a hundred pilots claim dibs on it.

Art Eatman
October 24, 2001, 03:04 PM
Hey, massed full-auto fire can make messes not expected by designers, armor or no. There are always oil lines, for instance, or lots of hickeys in rotor blades. Bearing housings come to mind; even a crack may allow a hydraulic leak. The chopper may not actually go down until far away from the scene of the crime, of course.

In high-elevation mountain country, the shooters might actually be firing down at a chopper, and there's no armor on top, SFAIK.

FWIW, Art

Nightcrawler
October 24, 2001, 03:14 PM
The AH-64 Apache is heavily armored. The rotor blades themselves are designed to withstand several hits of 23mm and not break.

the Mi-24 (NATO "Hind") helicopter is even tougher. It's WINDSHIELD is rated to stop .50BMG, from what I understand, and there are no exposed components that are vulnerable to small arms fire.

In other words, an M16 or a Kalashnikov of any variety isn't going to cut it against a dedicated attack helicopter.

Hueys, Mi-8s, Blackhawks, Bell Jetrangers, Lynxs, etc. are different stories, however. The older ones are made of aluminum, the newer ones are made of aluminum and fiberglass.

Shin-Tao
October 24, 2001, 03:48 PM
Jake.

That's only if you count M2s as small arms.

No intermediate cartridge firing automatic rifle will bring down an Mi-24.

Abominable No-Man
October 24, 2001, 04:54 PM
I'd like to pick up on something that Art said earlier, about
firing down on helicopters from mountains.

I don't remember where I heard this, but I was told some years
ago that when the Russians were still in Afghanistan, the Afghan
rebels used to climb up the hills to get at them from above. But
instead of firing on them from above, they would use long chains
and other things to tangle up the rotor system. That way, they
could cause the helo to crash without firing a shot.

ANM

Abominable No-Man
October 24, 2001, 04:56 PM
I forgot to mention something else. Enough massed small arms
fire could bring down a helo if enough bullets were sucked into
the intakes. This would cause the engine to "FOD out".

ANM

Keith J
October 24, 2001, 05:09 PM
The M16A2 can penetrate 3.2 mm of RHA at 550m, a feat M80 ball ammo from an M60 MG cannot do. Are you saying an Ak47 is better than an M60 MG?

Energy does not equate killing power. Period.

dZ
October 24, 2001, 05:36 PM
This will stop any heliocopter (http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/pictures/08-mooooo.jpg)

OkieCruffler
October 24, 2001, 05:43 PM
RUN AWAY!!!!


I wave my private parts at your auntie!


Nothing can withstand taunting a second time!

Hal
October 24, 2001, 07:19 PM
taliban helocopter?
With the way they fly? Shooting at one seems like a waste of good ammo. Just paint a picture of a tall building on the side of a cliff. They're stupid enough to fall for it.

Navy joe
October 24, 2001, 07:31 PM
You could do a lot smarter things than shoot at a helicopter. Even unarmored ones will take a lot of abuse due to small critical targets within and redundant systems. We puzzled this before.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77268&highlight=helicopter


Yes a M-16 could down a helicopter, but read any good helo pilot's combat accounts and its the crew served stuff that keeps 'em worried.

Further I would assume that any taliban helo has been bombed back into the stone age by now. Some of the airfield overheads showed very efficient destruction of everything sitting on the ramp.

KilgorII
October 24, 2001, 10:17 PM
The talking heads on the news seem to think that the Taliban can threaten our helicopters with shoulder fired (I believe) "Stinger" missles that we supplied to the Afgans during the Russian "occupation."

I'm sure the higher end helos such as the Apache have systems to avoid this. True?

Kilgorii

Navy joe
October 24, 2001, 10:38 PM
True, Supressed exhausts, flare pods, disco ball etc. IR countermeasures are rather common on modern helos.

C.R.Sam
October 24, 2001, 11:41 PM
Shrouded exhaust, flare drops etc do a pretty good job of screwin up hi tec arms. Beware the ex duck hunter with a m79 or RPG.....if he gets lucky the aircraft gets real unlucky.

Sam

Halo
October 25, 2001, 01:28 PM
What is the probability of those 1980's vintage Stingers still being useable? I read somewhere that they require periodic maintenance, so they don't have a limitless shelf life, so to speak.

Keith J
October 25, 2001, 02:34 PM
Highly unlikely for an early 1980's Stinger to be useable past 15 years. The batteries at best last 12 years (lithium technology) and the rocket motors lose their punch.

WilderBill
October 25, 2001, 05:19 PM
Not much chance with an AK or M 16.
RPGs sure worked in Somalia. More relible than a 20 year old Stinger and probobly more common.
Also, I beleive they have the quad 23mm.
That out to make a mess of most anything.

Turk
October 25, 2001, 05:48 PM
The best and simplest method to fight a gunship is to be in a fox hole with overhead cover. Stay there till it passes and hope someone has a Stringer, MaDuce or a Quad.

I've seen both Huey and Coba gunship work out and you may want to fire on one but I'll stay in my hole.

Turk

CWL
October 25, 2001, 08:56 PM
What kind of helos do you mean? Light observation craft aren't armored (not as much) and can be damaged with small arms fire. Assault craft are armored, once again, "ARMOURED".

Anyone trying to fire on Military assault helos with rifles are asking to eat an assortment of rocket & minigun.

The Afghan or Arab fighter wasn't trained by Hollywood movies, so he doesn't know that he's supposed to stand up and unload his weapon at passing aircraft. Being used to warfare, he knows that he can hide now, then creep up and mortar the pilot's camp later that night.

FXR
October 25, 2001, 09:31 PM
The batteries for the Stinger missile should still be fine. They use a unique type of one-shot battery technology known as a "thermal battery."

It uses a powdered eutectic lithium alloy that is formed into thin slices and stacked in a round can, with cells separated by pyrotechnic powder. All of it has a hole running down the center to allow activation by a squib charge. The battery is inert until used -- when the squib charge fires, the pyro melts the lithium alloy, allowing ion flow between the anode (lithium blend) and the cathode of the cells. It only provides power as long as the cells stay hot...for the Stinger missile, only long enough to track and hit an aircraft.

The batteries have a storage life (in some cases) of over 20 years.

I used to design these things, sat next to the guy who did the Stinger missile. I did the batteries used in the Javelin anti-tank weapon. Hope our guys knock out a few Taliban tanks with something I helped out with.

Dunno if the Stinger rocket propellants are still any good, but I'm sure the batteries will power up. Our military knows this and I'm sure they are taking appropriate countermeasures.

K

BUGS BUNNY
October 25, 2001, 09:45 PM
:p :p :p you guys really got me rollin with this post:p :p :p