View Full Version : APACHES taking out the bad guys
platoonDaddy
10-04-13, 05:00
Awesome display of technology.
http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=f213b73d647e
Yes, that was awesome ! Thanks for posting that.
Can never get enough of those wonderful clips. Amazing how calm the livestock appears to be while all hell breaks loose around them.
Amazing how calm the livestock appears to be while all hell breaks loose around them. Isn't it just weird that 30MM cannons don't seem to phase horses or donkeys?
skijunkie55
10-04-13, 10:15
Isn't it just weird that 30MM cannons don't seem to phase horses or donkeys?
I would imagine the donkeys are thinking something along the lines of "finally I can give this tired ass a break!"
pun intended... :blink:
but that is an exceptional display of technology and firepower.
When I see such vids: I wonder where they come from? Does the mil approve them posted to public access after download from the choppers drive? Guy in the chopper downloads the vid feed to a thumb drive and send off without permission, which seems unlikely to get away with more than once before you're busted.
If mil approves, is it considered good PR to show the tech and just how selective it can be? The source of such vids always interests me almost as much as the vids.
I have conflicting feelings when watching such a vid. Turning BGs setting up on US troops into red mist, check. But, it starts to seem like a scene from Iron Man or something and in our modern world, there's a % of people watching them that simply can't differentiate between the results of vid games and movies and what's happening to actual human beings in these vids I feel.
Thoughts?
skijunkie55
10-04-13, 11:01
I have conflicting feelings when watching such a vid. Turning BGs setting up on US troops into red mist, check. But, it starts to seem like a scene from Iron Man or something and in our modern world, there's a % of people watching them that simply can't differentiate between the results of vid games and movies and what's happening to actual human beings in these vids I feel.
Thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8aJjgXKjA
Take away the gaming HUD, voice over, and "+100" for enemies killed and you could play this in the same Live Leak channel. I think it starts to desensitize us to the fact that a human life can be snuffed out just like that... With the creation of social media, we at home can now watch from the comfort of our desk chair what our troops, as well as the enemy, see in almost real time. The footage coming out of syria especially is just astounding. Looking back 40 years from now, our kids are going to see pretty much every facet of modern war.
I have conflicting feelings when watching such a vid. Turning BGs setting up on US troops into red mist, check. But, it starts to seem like a scene from Iron Man or something and in our modern world, there's a % of people watching them that simply can't differentiate between the results of vid games and movies and what's happening to actual human beings in these vids I feel.
Thoughts?
I'm conflicted with this also, very cool on one hand, disturbing on the other. I'm not in the % that can't differentiate. But I do realize these things need to be done.
What they don't see is operating rooms, amputations, plastic surgery, changing gauze dressings, weeks of rehab and physical therapy, burns, worried families, psychologist sessions, bureaucracy and paperwork, etc. It's interesting that the movie M*A*S*H (and later the TV show) was intended to show the unglamorous, immediate real consequences.
Interesting video. I am impressed by the technology and how much more effective ground fire support is compared to 30 years ago.
I have concerns about releasing this type of video in that it may expose our personnel to further risk.
Interesting video. I am impressed by the technology and how much more effective ground fire support is compared to 30 years ago.
I have concerns about releasing this type of video in that it may expose our personnel to further risk.
Secondary to that legit concern, where do such vids actually come from?
Secondary to that legit concern, where do such vids actually come from?
That also concerns me greatly. You have to protect your people.
I am dating myself, but we did not have small video cameras or cell phones when I was on active duty. We did have a few people in our area who had expensive Nikon cameras. If I saw one of them taking photographs at an inopportune moment, the Nikon would have turned into an instant suppository.
That also concerns me greatly. You have to protect your people.
I am dating myself, but we did not have small video cameras or cell phones when I was on active duty. We did have a few people in our area who had expensive Nikon cameras. If I saw one of them taking photographs at an inopportune moment, the Nikon would have turned into an instant suppository.
The vids from the Apaches do not appear to my eye as of the homemade variety as they contain all the HUD info and audio feeds, so it would seem to be a direct download from what I gather. That leads me to think those at least are released with permission/intentionally, but I don't know enough about the security of the vids from those birds to be sure however.
Wow, I agree as to how this type of video would surface, who gives the ok ? Although necessary I can't help but think how it must feel for the individual behind the trigger, in one hand your helping your country, saving your brothers lives on the other hand I am sure it is not easy having just ended 50 + humans lives in 5 minutes. As I said I know its necessary and I am proud of the military. The toll that takes on them, I cannot fathom and yet I sometimes wish I was there. If it meant my wife and hopefully soon children to continue a safe life, it would be a decision that would have only one option and that would be for me to be there. I feel guilty that I screwed around when I was in my early 20s, I feel I should have enlisted and it's something that's weighed hard on me at times.
I appreciate that you posted this video, it's shows the raw and hard decisions these individuals have to make on a constant basis, on that note thank you all who have served and those that are still, you all are truly Hero's, gratitude and hats off.
I guess I have to wonder why the bad guys don't dress up like donkeys. Or keep planes of glass to hide under (FLIR will not see through glass, tried it, many times).
I guess I have to wonder why the bad guys don't dress up like donkeys. Or keep planes of glass to hide under (FLIR will not see through glass, tried it, many times).
At the very least the BGs watching such vids might take away lessons at what does fool the FLIR, what movements, etc might be more effective to avoid the Apache, etc.
Maybe I'm getting my panties in a bind over nothing here, but I wonder what the OPSEC issues may be for such a vid, and there's many of them out there I have seen and wondered same.
7.62WildBill
10-04-13, 12:51
My guess on the glass ( other than being awkward to carry and difficult to keep unbroken strapped to a donkey) is that if you don't know where the fire is coming from, you don't know which side of the glass to cower behind. :D
platoonDaddy
10-04-13, 13:00
What I found interesting, that one of the birds ran out of 30 mike mike.
unable to get the correct alignment. For example on an
Anti-Armor mission there are 16 Hellfires and 1200 30MM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache
Mission HellFire 30mm
Anti-Armor 16 1200
Covering Force 81 1200
Escort 0 1200
My guess on the glass ( other than being awkward to carry and difficult to keep unbroken strapped to a donkey) is that if you don't know where the fire is coming from, you don't know which side of the glass to cower behind. :D
Glass box. Problem solved.
Spurholder
10-04-13, 13:34
What I found interesting, that one of the birds ran out of 30 mike mike.
unable to get the correct alignment. For example on an
Anti-Armor mission there are 161 Hellfires and 1200 30MM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache
Mission HellFire 30mm
Anti-Armor 16 1200
Covering Force 8 1200
Escort 0 1200
Fixed it for you. 161 Hellfires would be one helluva combat load, though. :)
platoonDaddy
10-04-13, 13:44
Fixed it for you. 161 Hellfires would be one helluva combat load, though. :)
Thanks, screwed up attempting to align the text. 16 vs 161 for sure is one helluva pay load.
Maybe all part of Wiki Leaks?
ForTehNguyen
10-04-13, 15:28
reminds me of a fun time in Battlefield 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ8aJjgXKjA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Z_TQ0AVMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypPH84IGuJY
...there's a % of people watching them that simply can't differentiate between the results of vid games and movies and what's happening to actual human beings in these vids I feel.
Thoughts?
Couldn't possibly care less. Was far more concerned about the donkeys than the supposed "human beings". Wish they killed them off in mass numbers like that on a daily basis.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-04-13, 16:07
Do all Apache pilots have the same voice? I think I have seen this one before.
Those Hellfires are Amazingly accurate, 30MM less so. Just shooting a gun off a eggbeater airframe causing jitter. Seems like 30mm guns are never zeroed right?
Didn't know 'Winchester' was an official military term...
Like how they whack a guy and the pilot says "He's no longer with us."
Grab a stick and start walking like an old lady- your only hope.
Do all Apache pilots have the same voice?
This is an excellent question. In fact at some point it may be worth taking a little time and doing some comparison because I am almost positive I have heard that voice in more than one of these sort of clips.
Moose-Knuckle
10-04-13, 16:27
Oldie but a goodie, posted here back in '08 (original link is tango uniform).
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=13616
Little pieces of still-warm (glowing) meat after those 30mm hits. Too bad so sad Taliban.
I have no problem whatsoever watching these enemies of ours get whacked. Kinda scary though when you think that someday (hopefully never) someone will be redefining the enemy and we may not like it.
sandman99and9
10-04-13, 18:06
1 shot 1 kill plus a wounded insurgent. 2 for 1 is pretty good shooting in my book :)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=613_1380196192
S.M.
When I see such vids: I wonder where they come from? Does the mil approve them posted to public access after download from the choppers drive? Guy in the chopper downloads the vid feed to a thumb drive and send off without permission, which seems unlikely to get away with more than once before you're busted.
If mil approves, is it considered good PR to show the tech and just how selective it can be? The source of such vids always interests me almost as much as the vids.
I have conflicting feelings when watching such a vid. Turning BGs setting up on US troops into red mist, check. But, it starts to seem like a scene from Iron Man or something and in our modern world, there's a % of people watching them that simply can't differentiate between the results of vid games and movies and what's happening to actual human beings in these vids I feel.
Thoughts?
Is it any worse than what was done at Dresden? Does the existence of footage really alter anything.
The only thing I'm conflicted about is it seems like we should have a much more cost effective way to turn bad guys into jelly.
At the very least the BGs watching such vids might take away lessons at what does fool the FLIR, what movements, etc might be more effective to avoid the Apache, etc.
Maybe I'm getting my panties in a bind over nothing here, but I wonder what the OPSEC issues may be for such a vid, and there's many of them out there I have seen and wondered same.
Probably washes out about even. Taliban may learn some tricks, others learn to avoid hanging out with the Taliban.
Is it any worse than what was done at Dresden?
Errr, I'm not tracking that one.
Does the existence of footage really alter anything.
Possibly yes.
The only thing I'm conflicted about is it seems like we should have a much more cost effective way to turn bad guys into jelly.
30mm uranium depleted rnds and HF missiles aint cheap for sure, but no one is better at killing BGs in as expensive a manner as possible than the US military. At least they didn't send cruise missiles.
But they used the tool that was on site at the time I guess and I bet those birds are a least favorite tool to be on the receiving end of for those who our forces meet in battle.
I vote for AC130 gun ships for cost effective converters of BGs to red mist. :cool:
militarymoron
10-04-13, 19:45
The only thing I'm conflicted about is it seems like we should have a much more cost effective way to turn bad guys into jelly.
it's not that expensive when you consider the alternatives. unless you're suggesting some other cheaper technology (smaller caliber weapons?) that doesn't involve putting boots on the ground.
The only thing I'm conflicted about is it seems like we should have a much more cost effective way to turn bad guys into jelly.
That is the way some in the Pentagon think and it gets people on the ground killed.
The most cost effective way to fight the enemy is to go to the source and eliminate their support structure including human support, but that is politically incorrect.
This video should have never been made public.
These are the guys that the home land security and the police will hire keep the citizens down. Wonder why the suicide rate is so high? Not that I really care about the Taliban or Al cia da or much else . This is not a knock but the truth of the matter.
This video should have never been made public. Actually it is good for people to see what war is like. Never is the history of this country has there been so many ignorant people as there are today.
Errr, I'm not tracking that one.
I'm saying nothing in these kinds of attacks comes even close to the wholesale carnage we inflicted on places like Dresden.
Possibly yes.
I think it breaks out even.
30mm uranium depleted rnds and HF missiles aint cheap for sure, but no one is better at killing BGs in as expensive a manner as possible than the US military. At least they didn't send cruise missiles.
But they used the tool that was on site at the time I guess and I bet those birds are a least favorite tool to be on the receiving end of for those who our forces meet in battle.
I vote for AC130 gun ships for cost effective converters of BGs to red mist. :cool:
I'm there with you. While I enjoy seeing Apaches light up a camp full of jihadis with RPGs, I'd much rather do it with AC130s.
That is the way some in the Pentagon think and it gets people on the ground killed.
The most cost effective way to fight the enemy is to go to the source and eliminate their support structure including human support, but that is politically incorrect.
This video should have never been made public.
Wouldn't napalm has been as effective?
platoonDaddy
10-05-13, 03:36
Wouldn't napalm has been as effective?
Didn't obama on his first full day in office sign some treaty to limit its use?
Didn't obama on his first full day in office sign some treaty to limit its use?
His comment was probably not an advocation of using napalm (although like myself not so sure he would mind in certain related cases). If I understand correctly it could have been substituted with carpet bombing, chemical weapons or anything else inflicting mass, indiscriminate damage. In other words although it seems brutal to some of soft character there are far more destructive options.
Plus then the donkeys would have been killed as well. :)
These are the guys that the home land security and the police will hire keep the citizens down.
Soldiers becoming LE after returning from a conflict may be the worlds second oldest profession.
Wonder why the suicide rate is so high? Not that I really care about the Taliban or Al cia da or much else . This is not a knock but my version of the truth of the matter.
Fix it for ya. :rolleyes:
I'm saying nothing in these kinds of attacks comes even close to the wholesale carnage we inflicted on places like Dresden.
I don't recall claiming it did. It's also shows clearly how tech allows highly selective targeting vs carpet bombing an area, but it also comes with a cost.
I'm there with you. While I enjoy seeing Apaches light up a camp full of jihadis with RPGs, I'd much rather do it with AC130s.
They used what was on station there and then to prevent an attack on US troops. What's on station and able to engage always beats what you want on station but is not there when seconds count.
The issue may be more about what's in the arsenal is designed to deal with tanks and cold war style war. The AC130 gun ships for example was a retro fit to quickly fill a need at the time, and it worked extremely well and no doubt happiness is knowing one is on station overhead of your position.
That's the ongoing debate, focusing $$$ on weapons systems that address the asymmetrical conflicts we are in and are likely to be in for the foreseeable future or keep making systems that cost trillions for a possible conflict against a future adversary.
Wouldn't napalm has been as effective?
I don't know about cost, but the application of napalm would be less precise. How close to the enemy our troops were when they requested and directed ground fire support is a huge consideration.
I don't know about cost, but the application of napalm would be less precise. How close to the enemy our troops were when they requested and directed ground fire support is a huge consideration.
My understanding is, death by friendly fire is more an issue of mistaken identity these days vs collateral due to low precision of weapons such as dumb bombs or napalm, etc, which obviously greatly assists in less friendly fire deaths.
It would seem one universal truth exists: precision costs $$$
I really doubt the 30 mm guns are still being loaded with DU. They probably switched over to full HE loads after the invasion. The took all our DU 25mm rounds from the Brads after we took Baghdad. No armor, no need for DU.
I really doubt the 30 mm guns are still being loaded with DU. They probably switched over to full HE loads after the invasion. The took all our DU 25mm rounds from the Brads after we took Baghdad. No armor, no need for DU.
Makes sense, thanx. I hadn't considered the different options available to them.
They used what was on station there and then to prevent an attack on US troops. What's on station and able to engage always beats what you want on station but is not there when seconds count.
No argument here. I was just wishing for a more cost effective means. But if we have to spend tax dollars, doing it protecting those in harms way is about at the very top of the list.
I don't know about cost, but the application of napalm would be less precise. How close to the enemy our troops were when they requested and directed ground fire support is a huge consideration.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's primary role is anti armor and it almost seemed limited in an anti personnel role. It's almost clumsy like trying to clear a room full of mice with a large sledge hammer.
Certainly if it's all that is available at the moment, go ahead.
I'm assuming the main issue is they have to stand off out of RPG range while they engage or are operating from a distance to avoid detection at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.