AH-64 vs P-51

[Charles Talleyrand]

Should some day some how a P-51 come to fight an AH-64, who would
win the fight?

Assume the combat starts with both sides seeing the other at beyond
gun range. Assume equal pilot skill. Assume the only missiles on the
AH-64 are some TOWs.

-Thanks

[Paul F Austin]

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote
> Should some day some how a P-51 come to fight an AH-64, who would
> win the fight?
>
> Assume the combat starts with both sides seeing the other at beyond
> gun range. Assume equal pilot skill. Assume the only missiles on the
> AH-64 are some TOWs.

The AH is probably toast but it's certainly no easy engagement. A propeller
driven gun fighter is effective for engaging attack helos flying in NOE but
they are tough targets. Because the AH will be operating at very low
altitude, the fighter is pretty much limited to staying within the plane of
the helo. High side runs have the real possiblity of an Airframe-Ground
Intersection.

The reason the P-51 probably wins is because the AH doesn't make a very
precise gun platform. I understand that there's considerable flexing between
the helmet sight and the chain gun, making alignment difficult. I hope
someone who actually knows will contribute.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:26:45 -0500, "Paul F Austin"
> wrote:

>
>"Charles Talleyrand" wrote
>> Should some day some how a P-51 come to fight an AH-64, who would
>> win the fight?
>>
>> Assume the combat starts with both sides seeing the other at beyond
>> gun range. Assume equal pilot skill. Assume the only missiles on the
>> AH-64 are some TOWs.
>
>The AH is probably toast but it's certainly no easy engagement. A propeller
>driven gun fighter is effective for engaging attack helos flying in NOE but
>they are tough targets. Because the AH will be operating at very low
>altitude, the fighter is pretty much limited to staying within the plane of
>the helo. High side runs have the real possiblity of an Airframe-Ground
>Intersection.
>
>The reason the P-51 probably wins is because the AH doesn't make a very
>precise gun platform. I understand that there's considerable flexing between
>the helmet sight and the chain gun, making alignment difficult. I hope
>someone who actually knows will contribute.


Guns only I don't pretend to know but based on the cockpit video I've
seen of them trying to shoot a guy on the ground with it. . .well it's
definitely not a sniper rifle :-) But I sure as hell wouldn't want to
be the guy on the ground doing the chaingun cha-cha.

[Vygg]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

> Should some day some how a P-51 come to fight an AH-64, who would
> win the fight?
>
> Assume the combat starts with both sides seeing the other at beyond
> gun range. Assume equal pilot skill. Assume the only missiles on the
> AH-64 are some TOWs.
>
> -Thanks
>
>
> Based on the ROE that you've laid down, such an engagement wouldn't occur at all.

The Apache isn't capable of firing TOWs (no controller in the cockpit to
steer the missile). Hellfire might be able to hit the Mustang within a
very narrow set of circumstances. Same thing with gun. If it's a
tail-away or head-on shot, the Apache might be able to hit the P-51. The
gun's ballistics and computer sight could handle it. If the Mustang were
crossing the AH-64's line of sight, then the slew rate on the gun
wouldn't be able to keep up.

Air-to-air engagements aren't in the training syllabus for Apache
pilots. If the AH-64 encounters hostile fast-movers its SOP is to dodge
and run and call for friendly air cover.

Vygg

[Tony Williams]

"Paul F Austin" > wrote in message >...
> "Charles Talleyrand" wrote
> > Should some day some how a P-51 come to fight an AH-64, who would
> > win the fight?
> >
> > Assume the combat starts with both sides seeing the other at beyond
> > gun range. Assume equal pilot skill. Assume the only missiles on the
> > AH-64 are some TOWs.
>
> The AH is probably toast but it's certainly no easy engagement.

Isn't the AH-64 supposed to be armoured against 12.7mm ammo? The P-51
certainly wouldn't be protected against the 30mm HEDP fired by the
helo. It would be a question of whether the helo could land a hit
before being slowly chewed to pieces by multiple .50 strikes.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Dave Kearton]

"Tony Williams" > wrote in message
m...

> Isn't the AH-64 supposed to be armoured against 12.7mm ammo? The P-51
> certainly wouldn't be protected against the 30mm HEDP fired by the
> helo. It would be a question of whether the helo could land a hit
> before being slowly chewed to pieces by multiple .50 strikes.
>
> Tony Williams



You'd also wonder how many hits the rotor blades and hub could sustain
before coming apart.


Odds are the Mustang would be firing down on the helo, towards the more
exposed critical components. Most of the armour would be
positioned for protection from ground fire underneath.




Cheers


Dave Kearton

[Abe]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Tony Williams" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > Isn't the AH-64 supposed to be armoured against 12.7mm ammo? The P-51
> > certainly wouldn't be protected against the 30mm HEDP fired by the
> > helo. It would be a question of whether the helo could land a hit
> > before being slowly chewed to pieces by multiple .50 strikes.
> >
> > Tony Williams
>
>
>
> You'd also wonder how many hits the rotor blades and hub could sustain
> before coming apart.
>
>
> Odds are the Mustang would be firing down on the helo, towards the more
> exposed critical components. Most of the armour would be
> positioned for protection from ground fire underneath.

If the helo was flying low/NOE, it'd be a brave Mustang pilot who made a
diving attack.

[Howard Austin]

"I believe Abe wrote the following;
If the helo was flying low/NOE, it'd be a brave Mustang pilot who made
a
diving attack.


Why do you say this? How in the world do you think we attacked ground
targets? And we weren't all brave.

Howard Austin

[B2431]

>From: Abe

>>
>> Odds are the Mustang would be firing down on the helo, towards the more
>> exposed critical components. Most of the armour would be
>> positioned for protection from ground fire underneath.
>
>If the helo was flying low/NOE, it'd be a brave Mustang pilot who made a
>diving attack.
>
It happened many times during WW2 and Korea just not against helicopters. Have
you never heard of a strafing run? P-51s made a lot of runs against low flying
aircraft as well as stationary targets.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Ron]

>>If the helo was flying low/NOE, it'd be a brave Mustang pilot who made a
>>diving attack.
>>
>It happened many times during WW2 and Korea just not against helicopters.
>Have
>you never heard of a strafing run? P-51s made a lot of runs against low
>flying
>aircraft as well as stationary targets.

Well at least one AN-2 has been shot down from a UH-1


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[MLenoch]

>Well at least one AN-2 has been shot down from a UH-1

Well, with a strong headwind, you can out run an AN-2..........on foot!!
VL

[WaltBJ]

Sit over the top of the helo and wait for the right time. Fire down at
him from above. Know your dive recovery limits. High speed isn't
needed unless his air cover is around. 50 cal rain a'coming.
FWIW here's a funy air anti-helo story. I was in the 307th TFS at
Homestead in 1969 when an Army colonel dropped in from Fort Hood. He
wanted some F4s to come out and make unannounced (!) gun passes on
their Hueys. We thought about this for oh maybe ten seconds and then
cautiously asked him if he'd discussed it with the Huey pilots. No, he
hadn't. We said gently that in combat we'd be doing at least 450 knots
in the gun passes and pulling up sharply over them to avoid getting in
their sights (no matter how rudimentary). We also commented that heavy
jets like the F4 churned up a very strong vortex during such a pull-up
and we wondered if that would give their rotor blades any problems. He
left and we never heard any more about that program . . .
Walt BJ

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(WaltBJ) writes:
> Sit over the top of the helo and wait for the right time. Fire down at
> him from above. Know your dive recovery limits. High speed isn't
> needed unless his air cover is around. 50 cal rain a'coming.
> FWIW here's a funy air anti-helo story. I was in the 307th TFS at
> Homestead in 1969 when an Army colonel dropped in from Fort Hood. He
> wanted some F4s to come out and make unannounced (!) gun passes on
> their Hueys. We thought about this for oh maybe ten seconds and then
> cautiously asked him if he'd discussed it with the Huey pilots. No, he
> hadn't. We said gently that in combat we'd be doing at least 450 knots
> in the gun passes and pulling up sharply over them to avoid getting in
> their sights (no matter how rudimentary). We also commented that heavy
> jets like the F4 churned up a very strong vortex during such a pull-up
> and we wondered if that would give their rotor blades any problems. He
> left and we never heard any more about that program . . .

Why argue - drop a bomb on it. (Seriously). A helicopter can be a
difficult target for a relativeily accurate system like a gun, but it
sure as hell isn't going to outrun a 2-3,000' radius of lethal (to a
helicopter) fragments. It worked well enough in '91.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Tony Volk]

> Why argue - drop a bomb on it. (Seriously). A helicopter can be a
> difficult target for a relativeily accurate system like a gun, but it
> sure as hell isn't going to outrun a 2-3,000' radius of lethal (to a
> helicopter) fragments. It worked well enough in '91.

That actually sounds like a really good idea if you've got the
ordinance.

Tony

[John Mullen]

Tony Volk wrote:

>>Why argue - drop a bomb on it. (Seriously). A helicopter can be a
>>difficult target for a relativeily accurate system like a gun, but it
>>sure as hell isn't going to outrun a 2-3,000' radius of lethal (to a
>>helicopter) fragments. It worked well enough in '91.
>
>
> That actually sounds like a really good idea if you've got the
> ordinance.
>
> Tony
>
>
Depends of course on the helo staying (reasonably) still.

John

[Tony Volk]

> Depends of course on the helo staying (reasonably) still.

Or even just not maneuvering very much (e.g., could be traveling in a
straight line). Attack from the sun to limit visual warning, and the
helicopter would only have a few seconds (at best) to evade the bomb. Any
way you look at it, I'd hate to be in a helicopter vs. a fixed wing,
high-performance jet.

Tony

[Peter Stickney]

John Mullen > wrote in message >...
> Tony Volk wrote:
>
> >>Why argue - drop a bomb on it. (Seriously). A helicopter can be a
> >>difficult target for a relativeily accurate system like a gun, but it
> >>sure as hell isn't going to outrun a 2-3,000' radius of lethal (to a
> >>helicopter) fragments. It worked well enough in '91.
> >
> >
> > That actually sounds like a really good idea if you've got the
> > ordinance.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> Depends of course on the helo staying (reasonably) still.

Actually, it doesn't matter what the helicopter is doing. That's the
beauty of teh technique. Even if your helicopter is tootling directly
away at 200 ft/sec (60 m/sec), or 130 mph (pretty good for a NOE
helicopter), i'll take you 15 horrible long seconds to clear the danger
zone. A helicopter can change the direction that it is pointed very
quickly, but it can't change its position very fast. If you're jinking
a helicopter, just stirring the stick around won't do anything but make
you wobble a bit around the flight path. A gun firing solution might be
a bit hard to come by, but the bomb fragments don't care how clever you
are.

The miss distance doesn't have to be very large, either. The one time
that it was tried for real, (1991 Gulf War), an F-15E nailed an airborne
Iraqi helicopter with a Laser Guided Bomb. (The helicopter was on the
ground, but took off as the Beagle approached. The F-15's WSO kept
tracking the helicopter, and the bomb faithfully followed the spot to
the helicopter's rotor mast.

--
Pete Stickney

[Vygg]

WaltBJ wrote:

> Sit over the top of the helo and wait for the right time. Fire down
> at him from above. Know your dive recovery limits. High speed isn't
needed
> unless his air cover is around. 50 cal rain a'coming. FWIW here's
> a funy air anti-helo story. I was in the 307th TFS at Homestead in
> 1969 when an Army colonel dropped in from Fort Hood. He wanted some
> F4s to come out and make unannounced (!) gun passes on their
> Hueys. We thought about this for oh maybe ten seconds and then cautiously
> asked him if he'd discussed it with the Huey pilots. No, he hadn't.
> We said gently that in combat we'd be doing at least 450 knots in
> the gun passes and pulling up sharply over them to avoid getting in their
> sights (no matter how rudimentary). We also commented that heavy jets
> like the F4 churned up a very strong vortex during such a pull-up and
> we wondered if that would give their rotor blades any problems. He left
> and we never heard any more about that program . . . Walt BJ
>
Most of the folks that I work with are retired Army aviators (Huey
gunship, Cobra, Apache, and Longbow). All but one with combat
experience. My boss (Col., USA (ret.)) has lots of stories of
non-aviator staff officers that had screwball ideas of what an attack
helicopter is really for. The disastrous Apache raid during GF II is
proof that the Army still has an abundance of planners with no concept
of how to use TACAIR on the battlefield.

Vygg