Lu the Helicopter Gunship tactics expert, I am very intrested in your descriptions of the ballistic testing for the AH-64 because they provide insight, and are made by someone with a solid background in the subject matter who was actually there, and I would love to hear more about that. I am also intrested in your comments on gunship tactics but from an entirely different perspective - humour! Because they are not insightful, and they are not made by someone with a background in the subject matter, and because, lets face it, they ARE funny!
I particularly enjoyed:
First of all I should never have even referenced RPGs. Just forget about that part.
which I think means: "I'm sorry guys, you are right of course, and the RPG bit was a bit over the top - forgive me" Perhaps you could add you ZSU 234 comments to that too! I dont know of ANYTHING flying that would survive a direct engagement by one of those bad boys. The ZSU is a very good reason for one of the Apache's other attributes Lu: weapon system standoff or overlap. Perhaps you have heard of it?
As for the conjecture about more survivability, I would ask everyone to choose what western helicopter they choose if they had to fly through a combat area infested with SA and RPGs.
How many choose anything other than the Apache?
I thought so.
There is however, some useful discussion about this topic to be had. As alluded to in the previous comments: are the weapon systems of the Apache accurately matched to these specific engagement scenarios, or are they being used because they are the most appropriate and available asset? For example - would the Apache have been a better platform for the engagements of Somalia where the Little birds went to work? Are the Iraqi engagements reminiscent of Somali?
There has been some renewed debate in Australia upon the eve of introduction of the Tiger that the team running fire tactics used for close-quater infantry support by the retiring UH-1 are not yet obsolete, but may in fact be the most appropriate engagenment tactic. It is recognised that running fire application in teams is a far more complex system to train for, use, and more importantly, to control during engagements in terms of weapon arcs and avoiding fratricide. in contrast, the new trend was to rely on standoff overlap, and fire from easily controlled fixed firing points - a la the Apache. Despite this complexity, the "Vietnam style" running fire is still practiced by Marine Cobras specifically because of the effort to reduce aircraft vulnerability, and there is some speculation as to the contribution this tactic has made to any reduction in shoot downs of Cobras. Perhaps it is just that the nature of the Iraqi conflict has produced no fixed fighting fronts, and thus no areas in which gunships can safely adopt fixed firing points. Sounds a bit Vietnam/Somalia like doesn't it?
Or was it the weapons system (cannon types, rounds used, rocket warhead selection, etc)?