It seems I have started a firestorm and as a result my known detractors have chimed in and used confusing facts such as I don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground and further offering that I am not to be believed..
What I stated was that the Apache was designed with a high degree of invulnerability. That is a fact.
I got the following from the Internet and it supports what I said.
"Grease filled gearboxes designed for substantial ballistic tolerance to 14.5 mm and 23-mm fire. Twin T700 engines with sufficient reserve power to limp home on one powerplant. A tailshaft designed to absorb hits and if cut by fire, not to chop the tail off. Extensive use of composite armor to absorb low caliber fire, shrapnel and spall. Seat shock absorbers and structural design to absorb extremely high sink rates. A dual redundant 3000-psi hydraulic system and a host of other less evident design features provided the AH-64A with unprecedented damage tolerance". This is also a fact.
Regarding the “Lie” if you feel that a military organization would not lie to or deceive the troops you are either in denial or, you are naïve.
As far as where the lie came from I believe it came from TRADOC Bulletin 4: Soviet ZSU-23-4: Capabilities and Countermeasures
I am checking into it to determine if this was the source.
Since it is a proven fact that the AH-64 was designed to be invulnerable to a 23mm HEI or HE round (1) or, a tumbled 50 cal round (several) or a whole lot of small arms fire then what other than an RPG caused the loss of so many Apaches. The D model was supposedly more invulnerable to this threat so why were they shot down? I am just asking a question. I am not in any way addressing combat tactics other than the AH-64 was designed for direct contact with an enemy.
It seems that this thread has diverged into those of you (and you know who you are) trying to convince the other guy all about combat tactics and not discuss what strange forces downed so many Apache helicopters. And that too is a fact.
