Z-10 thread

[Totoro]

a shot in the back could surely do damage, there was an instance where 14,5mm shots in the back of an abrams disabled its engine. Shots on the top - i guess that depends on the tank. Top surfaces did get more attention in the last 20 years and are better protected. Extreme example would be merkava iv which should be able to withstand such an attack. Leo2 and abrams have gotten kits that include better top protection but i don't know the details and i imgine those are not standard equipment on all tanks. Sides, however, are pretty well protected against 30mm rounds. Turret sides are almost as protected as the front, and body, back in the seventies, on mbt70 prototype, had 70mm armor from the inside wall. When one adds outside wall and protection people use these days, it amounts to quite a bit more.

Most important thing to add here is that (western) helicopter guns aren't even made to combat armored vehicles. If they were, they would have different armament. Instead, they pretty much all have low velocity guns. That 30mm gun on apache has worse penetration performance than a dedicated high velocity 20mm gun.

Then there is distance. How close one wants to get to shoot? Difference in penetration between a shot from 500 meters and shot from 2000 meters is considerable and is usually over 30%.

 

[Franklin]

For true anti-armour warfare wouldn't China also need to develop a A-10 Thunderbolt or SU-25 Frogfoot like platform. And not only attack helo's. (Correction after Delft's mention thanks.)

 

[delft]

For true anti-armour warfare wouldn't China also need to develop a A-10 Thunderbolt or MiG-25 Frogfoot like platform. And not only attack helo's.

You mean Su-25 Frogfoot.

 

[Lion]

For true anti-armour warfare wouldn't China also need to develop a A-10 Thunderbolt or SU-25 Frogfoot like platform. And not only attack helo's. (Correction after Delft's mention thanks.)

I thought they are outdated? With JADM and many precision ground attack ammunition. CAS plane is needed no more...

 

[plawolf]

Dedicated mud movers like the A10 and Su25 are indeed outdated and obsolete today even against light infantry with MANPADS, against a modern large mechanised armed fighting formation with integrated dedicated mobile air defence assets (the kind of prey these planes were designed to go after), their chances would not be good.

This was illustrated to good effect in the second Iraq war, when 33 Apaches tried to take on a large Republican Guard formation and ended up with 1 shot down and 30 more badly damaged, many of which were declared non-mission capable. That was against an enemy with hopelessly outdated weaponry and zero air cover.

If you want to take on large modern armoured formations, the ideal weapon would be sensor fused weapons that can take out huge numbers of armoured vehicles and support infantry with a single weapon.

Attack helos are like the light cavalry of old, they are a swift rapid reaction strike force best used for flanking and scouting or to counter unexpected moves by the enemy and buy time for your ground force to reposition/redeploy to face the new threat. However, just like traditional light cavalry, they will struggle if you pitch them against properly equipped and dug in enemy infantry.

The guns of attack helos need to be of high cal because they need the extra flexibility that would give them in terms of munitions loads. HE frag shells are far more effective at taking out and suppressing enemy infantry than solid slugs, HEAT shells can also give the guns better armour penetration than just relying purely on the kinetic force of a sabot round. The extra reach a heavier cannon gives the helo can also be invaluable.

So in summary, attack helos need a large cal cannon because of the superior all round capability that offers over a smaller cal HMG that can only fire solid slugs. That applies to the whole spectrum of missions an attack helo might fly, and not just for anti-armour work.

 

[PanAsian]

This was illustrated to good effect in the second Iraq war, when 33 Apaches tried to take on a large Republican Guard formation and ended up with 1 shot down and 30 more badly damaged, many of which were declared non-mission capable. That was against an enemy with hopelessly outdated weaponry and zero air cover.

Just off hand from memory I thought the Apaches mauled that armor formation pretty good. Not sure if the formation included AA vehicles.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

In the March 24 2003 Attack on Karbala, PLA just mentioned they used a Flak trap. having set up recon to Watch the US FOB where the AH64D's were being fueled and Armed the Republican Guard waited for word of them launching and dug in.
The Terrain was Urban not open Terrain. Choppers in Urban fighting are at a disadvantage. the location had power meaning they could light up the Choppers, and the Fighters who would normally have moved in looking for just this kind of thing were gone.
When the Apaches were in the Air and the Iraqi's heard them in range of sound they fired Ak's, S60's, HMG's, RPK's, PKM's, RPG's, Aksu's, Pistols, SMGs, Crossbows, Bows and Arrows, Sling shots, Rocks, Inappropriate hand gestures, and Foul language.... Okay may be not Some of those but you get the Idea. Throw enough Lead in the Air and you're Going too do Some damage even if it's only small arms.

Now As too the A10 and Su25 Although Dated platforms They are tough and can get in close like AH platforms they can pack larger payloads then AH types and are more maneuverable. If you can secure Air superiority these platforms will do a lot of work. Faster then Turboprop Coin types they can loiter just as long and have the legs too work from afar. they lay down a lot of Fire. Troops love them.

I like too think of it like this, Sure Swords get the glory and the good pictures but when you really want too mess up an enemy nothing beats a Halberd. A10 is a Halberd.

The PLA does not however need a Platform like the A10, Europe never designed anything like it there closest counterpart was and Is the Tornado IDS. The PLA does have two platforms that seem close too Tornado in role and mission Q5 and JH7A.

 

[MwRYum]

The PLA does not however need a Platform like the A10, Europe never designed anything like it there closest counterpart was and Is the Tornado IDS. The PLA does have two platforms that seem close too Tornado in role and mission Q5 and JH7A.

Q-5 is an old and outdated platform, which its attack profiles (with the exception of tactical nuke delivery) can now be better shouldered by Z-10 and JH-7A; though a better replacement would be something like the Su-25, but the kind of ground wars that such platform calls for is long gone, not to mention mobile air defense that China's neighbors possess further complicates the situation.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Q5 may be old but is still in service last time I checked.

 

[plawolf]

Q5 may be old but is still in service last time I checked.

But just because it's still in service does not mean it's effective at what it does, and iirc, there are not that many Q5s left, and those Q5s remaining have mostly been upgraded to carry laser pods and PGMs.

I do not expect the Q5s to stay in PLAAF inventory for much longer, nor do I expect the PLAAF to devote resources into purchasing a like-for-like replacement once they are gone.

Against modern enemies with good integrated air defense in their armored formations, getting close enough to thing about strafing them is just asking for trouble as you will get a face full of radar-guided AAA and have SAMs swarming up your backside if you survive that.

Attack helos can at least take advantage of cover and terrain to clutter up enemy radars or hide from retaliatory fire. Attack planes like Q5s and A10s can only use their speed and agility, but against a remotely modern SAM or even MANPAD, what speed and agility those planes have will not be nearly enough.

Attack planes only really come into their own in counter-insurgency operations, where you have small bases scattered across a large territory and fighting a largely pre-missile tech enemy. The speed and heavier munitions load attack planes have over attack helos would then be useful in rapid reaction responses to attacks on your bases, and the speed and agility of attack planes would help them to avoid the bulk of any retaliatory fire, and it's armor plating should see off most of what little fire it does take.

Think about it, the Su25 made it's name in Afghanistan, and the A10 is popular again because of Afghanistan. When NATO was bombing Kosovo, A10s were staying high, well outside of MANPAD and the vast majority of enemy SAM range and using PGMs rather than it's famous cannon, and so was little different from any other fast jet.

Unless China has some secret plan to have a go at taming Afghanistan, it just doesn't need a dedicated mud mover any more.