Is this Attack Helicopter Tactic Effective? | INDIRECT ROCKET ATTACK ☄️💥

[@_Matsimus_]

What is your favorite attack helicopter and explain to me roughly why it is! I will go first! Apache Helicopter, it has legit saved my life. Your turn! Have a great day! 😎

[@44Bravo]

Hey Matsimus ! I think my favourite is the Mi-24 as this was used by Sri Lanka Air Force against the LTTE terrorists! From what I heard during the last phase of the war some of the Mi-24s were heavily upgraded with FLIR and air to air missiles in order to counter the terrorist used light aircraft and also to give it a night and day fighting capability! It saved many lives of pilots and soldiers and as I heard because of the armed cockpit pilots were able to fly low and attack enemy hideouts !

[@agungprasetyo2665]

Ka 52

[@spar1045]

Ka 50 because dcs

[@bombarderoazul]

Ka 52

[@StabbinJoeScarborough]

Apache , covered us in Baghdad

[@andrewscott8892]

I don't think this is a change in tactics, if I'm not mistaken this is part of Soviet helicopter doctrine

[@toshibami]

Exactly what I thought. Not just Soviet, all eastern block armies had this training. Soviet/russian helis are equipped to fire like this, with the use of their onboard computer.

[@patrick383ironworker]

They even have targeting solutions and procedure for this

[@harrisonc985]

i agree. this was done for planes also. both sides on the cold war used loop bombine where they pitched up while releasing and did a loop to escape a 1-5 kiloton nuke explosion.

[@hustensaftvernichter3785]

@@toshibami Western armies have adopted it, too, and I would argue from experience that it's not worth the bang except against dismounted infantry or anything unprotected in open terrain / forest. Unguided rockets shot on the fly are incredibly inaccurate already (every time I used them in training, they hit absolutely nothing, really!) and it only gets worse when firing them as means of indirect fire support on the go. In my opinion, they could scratch them altogether in favor of two more HOT or hellfire-pods or similar guided and AT-capable rockets. Especially from the view of an airborne FiST.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

A similar operation that was used during WWI, Canada as well as other commonwealth or British troops used indirect machine gun barrages ( Vickers Machine Guns with dial sights), being fired indirectly along fixed lines to provide harassment or supply lines or just to thicken up an artillery barrage. This is probably used as a means of harassment and maybe suppression.

[@TheTrueAdept]

The thing is, air defense is forcing helicopters in general to be glorified indirect missile carriers, whose only job is to sit well behind friendly lines, launch a barrage of missiles, and *_HOPE TO WHOMEVER THEY WORSHIP_* that enemy infantry with a MANPAD doesn't show up.

[@jantschierschky3461]

The difference is that you have a known beat zone. In a helicopter, you just toss rockets in a general direction

[@OntarioBearHunter]

This is what I was thinking and used as the " walking fire " tactics of artillery, where it's not so much to destroy the enemy but rather deny them an area as your troops move forward. Anything that keeps the enemy in place or forces a change in their actions is effective.

[@laughingowl7896]

It's called "plunging fire" and is still utilized, especially into dead zones in a sector of fire.

[@jantschierschky3461]

@laughingowl7896 is well true, but you do need to know where to hit. You fly helicopter pitch up and fire, and you have no idea where your rockets go. Just a direction.

[@schlirf]

If it sounds stupid, but works...well you know the rest. Most armies also use Tanks as artillery, and even machineguns as indirect plunging fire. So, whatever it takes to keep the other guys' heads down while you advance is good to go.

[@demun6065]

But cost/benefit, why not just mount the rocket tubes on a motorbike, drive 10km away from the front, launch, then gtfo?

[@alexdrockhound9497]

@@demun6065exactly.

[@schlirf]

@@demun6065 because not everyone is an 11b.

[@demun6065]

@@schlirf I doubt American spy satellites are great enough to pick up on every vehicle approaching the Ukraine front… And if a motorbike is too light, then surely a quad bike could carry the load on a trailer.

[@Tyrant_8053]

​@@demun6065 Because you can't fit any rocket that can fire 10km on a bike. The helo is in the air, that gives it a height advantage that allows those small rockets to reach that distance.

[@jeremyjackson8196]

Firing boom boom in the direction of the enemy is always effective

[@likemostthings]

lol

[@jkl9984]

I do remember reading that their FCS on the helos and SU-25's is capable of calculating such rocket loft attacks. In general these are perfect for suppressing infantry in the trenches. Load the S-13DF's and now you have a mini TOS-1 going after your people in the trenches. You can't use them for precision, but they weren't made for that in the first place. They are cheap, easy to manufacture and their main mission almost always is suppression of light vehicles and infantry to keep their heads down in the dirt.

[@ViolentCabbage-ym7ko]

It's basically a Multiple Launch Rocket System on air.

[@danielpetrucci8952]

Because if you get to close MANPADS will blow you out of the sky in the Ukrainian war both Russia and Ukraine have MANPADS equipped to thier Infantry units

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

Lately, we have seen quite a lot of footage from Ka-52 helicopters using their ATGMs from 10km away. That is fine when you have a valid target (a tank or IFV) and when enemy doesn't have any anti-air capabilities. But these rocket attacks... They are not that accurate, nobody can convince me of that. However, they do cover a bit wide area. So, if your target is a bunch of infantrymen, unarmored vehicles or trenches and they do have MANPADS, this is a valid strategy. Fire as many, loft them there and cover the entire area with shrapnels, kind of like an MLRS. And Russians have massive stockpiles of unguided rockets, so they don't really care about how much ammo they spend. I mean, yes. We have heard in May last year that Russia will be out of ammo in a month, maybe two, but I'd say that statement didn't age well...

[@likemostthings]

throw enough darts at the wall and eventually you'll hit a bullseye

[@f1aziz]

This is just area suppression/denial tactic, to harass the infantry holding out in trenches, combined with artillery barrages they're very effective in scaring the living hell out of anyone at the receiving end. I think of them as automatic bursts from assault rifles, they are not accurate but very effective to suppress enemy fire.

[@yacir]

They now use a Mi-8 equipped with EW to jamm all air defenses around., Also the new variant of alligator Ka-52M is having their own Electronic warfare pods.

[@danielpetrucci8952]

Apparently there was a wall street interview with a Ukrainian Soilder and he said the Russian EW Warfare is so good that the Ukrainian Army can only use its walkie talkies only 100m away when it's rated for 600m So the Russians are Jamming Comms of the Ukrainian Army and they are Jamming the Ukrainian Air Defense

[@tylerclayton6081]

⁠@@yacir​​⁠Over 40 Ka-52 helicopters have already been destroyed. And those are just the visually confirmed losses documented on oryx blog. Ka-52 is the most destroyed and most shot down attack helicopter in the 21st century. Russia has lost over 1/3 of their total Ka-52 fleet which took them over 15 years to build up People get excited about seeing footage of the Ka-52 destroying a few armored vehicles while ignoring the dozens of videos of Ka-52’s being taken down. Ka-52 is the most shot down aircraft of the war.

[@cerviche101]

Always respect the neutral perspective from you Matimus, great to see there are people with some sense of respect. I believe the Russians have a computer that calculates where those rockets will hit so it looks like its wasting rockets but they do land near or on where they want it... Apparently the indirect fire is also what they have been using the older model tanks for as mobile artillery, i imagine they have tons of those older types of ammunition in storage, why not use it out to make space for new things. Also, wishing you a speedy recovery.

[@zombielinkinpark]

DCS's KA50 have already implantmented the indirect fire mode inside the FCS. If anyone is interested, It fires automatedly once the helicopter reached the desired attitude and pitch angle and been existed since cold war. Edit: The FCS on DCS's AH64 also implantmented the rocking lofting featurers, and be more useful because it support APKWS laser-guided rocket which atleast hit accurately.

[@RobertCraft-re5sf]

anyone being 'neutral' about Russia's invasion are not cool at all...

[@citizenkane2349]

​@@RobertCraft-re5sfcry more

[@Tyrant_8053]

@@RobertCraft-re5sf I agree, no one should be supporting Ukraine either.

[@Max_Da_G]

@@RobertCraft-re5sf Anyone being a paid bot with Azov propaganda videos isn't cool at all.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

I first became aware of this indirect rocket attack method from seeing a video from the Chechen War when Russian Helos and fixed-wing aircraft were using the same method. It makes sense if you are losing too many rotary and fixed-wing aircraft to MANPADS and other SAM systems, and also when you do not have the sophisticated stand-off tactical weapon systems to employ against ground targets. This is only useful against area targets and maybe not precision pin point targets.

[@Hybris51129]

It should be noted that we in the west *especially* America have long been obsessed with making every weapon a "precision" weapon hence why this type of attack seems odd.

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

I don't think it's that they're losing too many, given the scale of the conflict helo losses are surprisingly low, especially compared to MANPAD missile consumption, but rather that a direct attack in this scenario cannot be decisive enough regardless. Even if the EW situation was optimal, and few manpads were present, why risk it if you're only facing static positions?

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

I am not sure what point you are making, sounds more like sour grapes. The Americans did a lot of conventional rocket attacks. Reminds me of an old saying, it isn't brave to sit out in teh rain and suffer, it is, in fact, stupid. If you can use precision munitions, then use them, otherwise, stick to rubbing 2 sticks together to make your fire @@Hybris51129

[@ownage11445]

@@vaclavjebavy5118given the first day of the invasion and the amount material support from the west I don’t think the Russian want to take that risk.

[@reginaldscot165]

Months ago when this tactic first appeared I watched a KZbin video where the guy used a computer game to demonstrate this tactic. It’s actually a little bit more complicated than just pointing up in the air and letting loose. They use some level of the map coordinates and the aiming system on-board the helicopter combined with the degrees of pitch to get a fairly accurate targeting. During the video it was demonstrated that you can hit a spread out group of vehicles or infantry quite effectively with these weapons used in this way.

[@roflchopter11]

Dont forget suppression and short term area denial.

[@king_kiff3969]

Hope you are doing well brother, the voice sounds a bit weak but good to see you still going!

[@Energine1]

How about adding primitive proximity sensors so that the rockets sense each other in order for accurate spacing and one master that carries a guidance payload to steer the heard?

[@vaclavjebavy5118]

seems finnicky, but it might work. Either way they have a targeting system that improves accuracy and long range ATGM's if they need it.

[@command_unit7792]

The advantage of these rockets is that they are cheap and plentiful...you lose their main advantage by upgrading them.

[@maxjohnson1758]

That would make them expensive missiles. The US has an add on kit for its 2.75 inch rockets that allows for laser guidance. Total cost about $80k. Actual Hellfire missile is about $100k. Why bother?

[@Energine1]

@@maxjohnson1758 Because those both solve different problems although the add on kit could be the more expensive guidance round I suppose.

[@Energine1]

@@command_unit7792 You could say the same of dumb bombs I suppose. The reason they are rarely used anymore is that the platforms used to launch them are expensive and rare so using them to launch cheap and plentiful (and extremely ineffective) munitions doesn't math well.

[@FitLovejoy]

I think that the major advantage of this tactic is mobility and rapidity. For instance, you need counter-battery fire at a location, but none of your ground artillery pieces are in range. It may not be as accurate or effective as a 155 barrage, but at least you can get something there. I don't think an artillery unit is going to hang around once rockets start raining down, even if they miss. It's a clear message to pack up and leave - which of course means that while you're doing that, you can't continue firing at the enemy.

[@berandal99]

I think the biggest advantage of helicopter indirect fire is it's mobility & flexibility. When you've vast frontline, limited boots on the ground and don't know where the enemy will attack, helicopter can be an instant boost to improve situation in tactical level. I think the main purpose is not to liquidates the enemy, but to distrub or delay till the reinforcement or the heavy hitter arrived.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

My favorite "attack helicopter" is the AT-802U Sky Warden. Short takeoff, large payload, cheap, reliable, simple to fly (compared to helicopter). Great for rocket lobbing attacks.

[@lml7763]

it is nice to see you back on your feet again... so to speak.... take it slow & steady... we are right here waiting....

[@garryb374]

The rockets we are talking about have a very specific flight range, normally 4-6km at the most so angling them up in a volley increases the spread of rockets, but they still land in a cluster. Now rockets are designed to be relatively accurate. The navigation attack computers and equipment are very sophisticated on the current Russian models, and so when you know the enemy are crossing a field 6km away then launching a volley means your rockets will land all over that field. The target is infantry spread out specifically so one bomb or one rocket wont take them all out, launching up at an angle of 30 degrees so the rockets will land 6km away means you never get within air defence range of the troops you are firing at. Getting a good random spread of rockets is actually a good thing for such targets. If you watch carefully rather old videos of Russians training with rockets will show lofting, this is not new. The west is fixated with precision and accuracy. The value of the 122mm Grad rocket is coverage of the target area. Are mortars and howitzers and Grad rocket launchers ineffective and wasting ammo because they fire indirectly? Gefest & T is a computerised navigation attack system upgrade for the use of dumb bombs from high altitude effectively, their new aircraft have such systems built in, and they work with unguided rockets. It is already standard for Russia. Remember the Russians have always flown helicopter missions where they fly and don't hover because the western tactic of hovering makes helicopters vulnerable to ATGMs and RPGs so they don't do that any more. It is not primitive... how western of you to think that. If it is not guided and smart then it is stupid? Multiple Rocket launchers and artillery are vastly more effective in that conflict than guided weapons most of the time. Machine guns and artillery killed more people in WWI than snipers ever did.

[@alpsalish]

Really a WWI comparison? Not apt.

[@Apeshaft]

Maybe the intent is also to cause confusion? If the enemy in the general area starts reporting about a bunch of explosions behind them, it could cause panic or the redeployment of troops and other assets?

[@Duvstep910]

get well soon mat

[@karakarakiri9568]

Some times ago there was a video where you can see the rockets being launched and then landing a little while later. It was impressive how precise the strike was. It's the balistic computer doing the job and it seem to work. Dont forgot that russians are doing this with mostly S8 and S13 rockets, which are very big rockets. With warheads that can be up to 8 times biggers for S8s compared the standard Hydra rocket or more than 30 times bigger for S13s (we also saw a few S24 and 25 being fired, which are more bombs than rockets at this point). Also, i know for fact that jet pilots also use this technique of flying low, then lobbing bombs or rockets on enemy positions, before flying away at low altitude again. NATO pilotes are trained to do it, i guess helicopter pilotes too.

[@JCtheMusicMan_]

If you want to guarantee that your projectiles are useful and not end up hitting the middle of an empty field you either need a forward observer that can paint a target or get better optics to see where you are aiming 😎

[@JohnDoe-ug3su]

well there are recon drones for both of those necessity

[@grapsch9573]

I've heard that using this method, there is a fairly high chance that the rockets loose so much speed that they are tremendously more likely to fail on impact... anyways, I wish you all the best on your process of recovery, I love your content!

[@paulcrusse7800]

Thank you for all of your hard work

[@HOTSHTMAN53]

@_Matsimus_ how are you feeling? Have your elbows healed?

[@woli6872]

Sadly I don't know the source of the information but the firing of the rockets isn't executed manually but automatically when reaching a certain angle for the desired distance. Using a ballistically flightpath the range is substantially increased compared to a direct engagement. The accuracy should be likely as a Grad MLRS. The only way bringing some effect against soft targets without bringing the scarce helicopters in unnecessarily danger and using the huge stockpiles of rockets to support the arty in lack of ammo.

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

It is not a change of tactic, it has been around for a very long time.

[@williamvorkosigan5151]

Feel better and wishing you a speedy recovery.

[@GrouchyHaggis]

Great video Mat, hope you're doing ok and healing well.

[@Altoar]

I think this is actually kinda genius. They have the helis, they have the rockets, assuming supply of rockets is no issue - leaving these assets idle in storage would be a waste, especially in a conflict that has become very high-stakes, for both sides now. They need every advantage they can scrape together and a bit of improvised rocket artillery, even if it's relatively inaccurate, has a reasonable chance (due to the HE) to get a lucky hit on something important (you miss every shot you don't take, after all). On top of this, it does keep heli crews and ground crews in good practice, for if the AA situation does suddenly change.

[@godzph6972]

Hey man! I hope you are doing ok and recovering well!!! I like how your channel and community interact with each other. We do have our own opinions but you are being neutral as much as possible . Keep up the good work bro!

[@YorktownUSA]

No BM-21? No problem comrade, we have Hind.

[@talpark8796]

kinda like *'toss bombing'* w airplanes?

[@Doosteroni]

Get well soon Mat. Great video btw

[@josephd.4890]

The American name for those unguided Finn stabilize rockets are Zuni rockets

[@TakNuke]

This type of attack was used during vietnam war era by US. And is part of tactics, manual and equipment of Russian attack helos. For direct attack, today attack helos need fire and forget missiles or better lock on after launch ones. For lock on before launch attack helos need its own rotor radar or targeting pod or both or through data by other platforms. Unguided rockets will be used as we have seen or the effect of them can be increased by giving them rudimentary guidence instead of just relying on helos CCIP. With moping off being done with the good old cannon.

[@jacobc722]

I forget the name of it but the Russians did develop laser guided warheads for the dumb fire rockets, so if they say had a drone up with a laser or a infantryman to paint a target you could easily put 80 of those rockets on a patch of woods with probably decent accuracy

[@ashtonbeaulieu7570]

It is a clever form of engagment, flying missle salvos spread over wide area indirectly could be used effectively gainst large swaths of infantry.

[@graveperil2169]

with all the manpads out there they either stay grounded or take on the role of mobile artillery they are faster and more mobile than any ground based system and not going to be hit with counter battery fire

[@Marinealver]

I mean have they developed computers to increase the accuracy of said tactic if they know where they want the rockets to land and can make the calculations?

[@mixmashandtinker3266]

You can calculate the trajectory quite easily. Your biggest problems are twofold. First of all you need a rocket that has the exact same characteristics every time with regards to thrust and burn time. As they are “stupid” (without guidance) any discrepancy means huge variations in track. Then you need to know the exact speed, angle and altitude of the chopper to get a precise aim. But coming in with a ground speed that is given with maybe .1 m/s accuracy, an altitude with .1 meter and an angle at .1° gives a very big impact area. The Russians is using the tactic as a terror weapon. Just get as much ordinance “in that direction” and hope that something important is hit. “Oh. We overshot the intended target by 1000 meters and demolished a hospital? Tough luck. Try again!”

[@jantschierschky3461]

Just loping rockets in a general direction, not even have precise locations and angle

[@Marinealver]

@@mixmashandtinker3266 yeah but even as a "terror tactic" it has to be able to hit something. The odds of it hitting a hospital by accident are less than hitting the target intentionally. If this is blind fire into open ground, the only thing they will be terrorizing is moles and field rabbits.

[@jeffslaven]

Rocket pods definitely have their place, and remain essential for a myriad of reasons, but fire and forget is without a doubt the future of helicopter combat. And yes, the Apache is the one ring to rule them all!

[@jeckol3200]

I hope for a fast recovery.

[@JWQweqOPDH]

This tactic is only advantageous if you neither have air superiority nor artillery superiority. Jets can lob bombs from a similar range or launch cruise missiles from much longer range (though at higher cost). Ground based artillery launch more at a lower cost, but are vulnerable to counter battery.

[@wstavis3135]

It sounds a lot like suppressive fire more than effective fire, but any fire that keeps the enemy's heads down is in reality effective fire.

[@necsoiub]

The targeting computer has a target lock on the target. At a certain distance(showed on the HUD) the pilot will lift the nose up and the targeting computer will fire automatically when the angle is right. It might sounds like a waste of rockets but its surprisingly effective.

[@KaliNCC-h1l]

Praying for your healing. Get some rest and take it easy.

[@Limescale12]

Helicopter bourne loitering munitions sound like a good idea

[@perapan7377]

Interesting videos. I discovered this channel recently. Get well and keep on.

[@PamweChete2503]

With regards the Russian SMO the primary reason for using these unguided rockets in indirect fire is to soften hardened enemy positions. The high velocity combined with small cross section area of the rocket gives them superior ground penetration. It has been demonstrated that the 76mm rocket can penetrate from 1 meter to 3 meters of ground depending on hardness. If you have 20 of these rockets landing in 100m2 of fortified trench systems and they penetrate 2 meters of earth before exploding, this softens up the ground and helps weaken the trench system. Follow the attack with an artillery bombardment and bingo.

[@SamBao]

Instead of tanks, this is what I see as potentially being obsolete, the roles of helicopters can be replaced by other forces on the battlefield: recon/transport => drones, indirect fire=>ground artillery, direct fire=>drones

[@waynepollard198]

get well soon mate 👍💉🩺🩹

[@laughingowl7896]

Reminds me of "bomb tossing." Come in low, execute a steep climb and release the payload thus "tossing" the bomb. Also was to be used when delivering nukes because the longer flight time gave the delivery vehicle more time to escape the blast zone.

[@nachtjager109e]

Sorry to hear about your injury, dude. Glad to hear it wasn't worse though -- better your elbows than your dome! Elbows they can fix. Pulverized brains? Not so much.

[@zrikizrikic9126]

It is Katyusha with wings..why confused?

[@laughingowl7896]

My favorite is the original... the AH-1 Cobra. Why? Dude, it's the Snake. A mini gun and a 40mm grenade launcher on the chin and four 2.75 inch Zuni rocket pods was a ground pounder's dream when it made a run. And find me a Marine who wouldn't prefer the AH-1Z Super Cobra over the Apache. It's a platform in service 55 years later. I'm an old Army grunt who served with the Cobra flying cover for me so I may be a bit biased.

[@diligentone-six2688]

As long as there's a threat of being shot down, you have to change tactics.

[@jarink1]

You don't need a helicopter to salvo rockets in an indirect role. Just strap the launchers on top of a truck or MTLB and do it from the ground (which they have been experimenting with).

[@Ludovit110]

Ground-based harassing fires can be useful, however: 1) The range of the rockets is pretty short, so you could be faced with artillery / counter-artillery fire / loitering munition. Delivering the rockets via air also extends their range. 2) You'd need an ammo dump close by to resupply, which would be subject to all of the above 3) To cover the entire front, you'd need hundreds of such vehicles, while with air assets you could just fly to wherever's needed

[@hansfossholt1016]

You fight with what you have

[@MichaelK.-xl2qk]

Matt, I think you're right that it's generally not cost effective compared to standard artillery use, and the benefits are mainly from a situation where ammunition is surplus to needs. However, this form of attack has one particular use that could be uniquely effective: The massed fires of several helicopters could 'take out a grid square,' of troops and thin skinned vehicles in the open, and their mobility makes it possible to surprise an opponent who is massed in such an open formation, believing that he is well beyond the range of the artillery, even HIMARS. Only intermediate range ballistic missiles would have a similar capability, qnd they, too might be more cost effective than sending a swarm of helicopters, but that might be debatable if missile pods are plentiful. Then there is the question of a combined operation where the helicopters, after thus attacking troops in thr open far to the rear of the enemy lines, conduct a direct fire mission to complete the ambush, using the shock effect of the massed fires to prep the area for their gun run.

[@shaider1982]

Perun disucssed this in his video asking if the attack helicopter is dead. Main issue is if this can be done more cost effetively by a ground vehicle (i.e. a pick up truck). But of course, if you need the mobilty of a helicopter, this is viable.

[@BluefootOnEire]

As with any other fire: if you don't hit the target then it's just suppression.

[@Brocambro1]

Russians aren't stupid, and history and actual events have demonstrated their advanced skills in Math. This being said, I am pretty sure they must have come up with a targeting system that computes the trajectory of these launched rockets to attain an acceptable probability of success and this is something that can be very easily achieved even by the most elementary computers in this day and age. I believe they aren't stupid, if they have continued doing so; this means it must be working.

[@boctopus9823]

Another point is that helicopters can quickly react to a threat and provide suppression on an advancing force when there isn’t an alternative available. Also like he said. If you have a shit ton of helicopters and rocket pods, you should find a way to use them.

[@cvdheyden]

As a suppressing fire I think its ok. When you want the enemy to "stay" down, you also use your machine gun and fire over their heads without aiming. Better than nothing. If you have these kind of resources it makes a lot of sense. Attacking columns of vehicles or trenches. Yeah, I would do it in combination with precise artillery and also to suppress attacks.

[@OverNine9ousend]

Odd that you didn't mention that other side of the world actually has a program for launching like this, yes an actual program in heli that is designed to fire in this roll and they been doing it for ages. I mean you have speed, range, height.... Whats stopping you to math out a firing position with "accurate" point of impact? Yes its a standard for them you can say.

[@rumi2367]

jeez, I hope you're alright now. appreciate this video

[@marcus3376]

When they switch to the Apache, they won't need to do that, seeing that they will have more standoffish distance.

[@tamahagane1700]

As you noticed, USSR and Russia had over time ammassed a huge stock of those pods (as well as rockets), so it seems practical to sacrifice precision (not brilliant anywayz) for enhanced protection of very expensive rotorcraft...

[@mmclaurin8035]

Damn dude, BOTH elbows? Get well soon Mat, I know that has to SUCK.

[@zinit22]

You can find thermal video how those rockets reach the ground, quite accurate

[@zinit22]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZSXaGWCr9Jlha8si=72NU7bpQHGp2csNX

[@evilfingers4302]

That tactic would be useful if the all Rockets were GPS Guided.

[@pex_the_unalivedrunk6785]

Firing an entire rocket pod salvo is still probably cheaper than a single guided missile, is probably equally demoralizing, and can still kill. But I'm thinking it may be more efficient for an army which has blown so much expensive weapons. 1 smart weapon cost about a million bucks and can kill only one target(like a tank or ifv) even if only 1 or 2 of 80 rockets score a kill, it's still more cost effective despite the low hit %. How many smart missiles can an attack helicopter carry max? The same chopper can carry a lot more rockets, and doesn't have to hang around in that danger zone to guide them. Using aircraft as hit & run artillery in the indirect fire role might be more sensible than it seems, especially while also doing recon at the same time like mentioned in the video.

[@Warspite03]

So are eScooters more dangerous than Indirect Rocket fire?

[@w0t3rdog]

I think we basically are gonna see two branches of helicopters. The ones made to drop/pick up people in low risk environments... and the kind to engage targets at long range. The 'fly up close and hammer people with canons and rockets' are probably going the way of the Dodo as they are way to expensive compared to the weapons capable of shooting them down.

[@shortbuslife3440]

This might be the new form of artillery, with artillery being easy targets for drones putting your artillery in the air means drones are no longer effective, so yes I could see this being a new tactic.

[@JTechWP]

Mats new JTAC Callsign "Elbows" hope you heel up fast :)

[@bitkarek]

depends if they have a way to aim those rockets or its just a pure guess.

[@mihajlovucinic011]

i don't understand the part where you say you are biiased. What does that have to do with this? Both sides use this method. Idk about Ukrainians but as for Russians they have certain launch waypoint on the gps and they know what speed heading and altitude they should be at, pop up at 20-30 degrees and shoot. Its effective enough. Ofc it's not like a direct shot but why would you risk the heli for no reason. If they need a direct hit on a vehicle or a bunker or whatever they can either do it from the ground or with a laser guided missile.

[@mihajlovucinic011]

Also whether it will be a standard or not i don't know but i feel it will be. USA/UK just didn't experience this type of war for a long time.

[@graveperil2169]

@@mihajlovucinic011 Helicopters are not armored or fast and being hidden looks like a lost cause on today's battlefield, Direct gun range combat for the helicopter maybe over just like the A10

[@mihajlovucinic011]

@@graveperil2169 true but what is the alternative? Don't use them at all? Russians especially have lots of them to be used some as glorified mlrs and the newer ones for proper anti tank stuff like they use ka52 on the southern front

[@Kroepoek82]

Traditional Attack Helicopter roles are fading and changing as the battles change. The standard gunship, that was meant to take down armour or clear landing zones, or suppress insurgents is going out of style. War is shifting more and more to indirect line-of-sight battles. As the combat thearte becomes an increasingly more digital evironment, and the average anti-air capabilties of militias, insurgents or professional armies becomes stronger, the platform is more at risk of being shot down. Political struggles always supply the ground forces with anti air weapons, as seen in Ukraine, afghanistan, iraq, vietnam, panama and israel/palestine. Using relatively cheap assets, you can destroy or disable extremely expensive military hardware, along with putting the pilot out of action. It's a lot less safe to operate helicopters on the front lines of combat theater. Like you said. I think attack helicopters are going to be phased out of combat gquickly. The lack of investments in this platform shows it as clear as day.. To be replaced with remote operated drones, possibly VTOL, to hover and communicate with other combat assets. The constant data stream, and on board calculations, in tandem with sattelite coverage can use hovering platforms to launch indirect attack munitions that would otherwise not be possible for atillery batteries or strike aircraft. "Firing without the risk of exposure or counter-battery" is the main idea. So long story short. I think attack helicopters are going to be replaced by drones with small munitions payload that can ferry to and from a firing position..or even remain in the area and get reloaded by other drones. Interesting afterthought is the cost of smart munitions, as the digital war, and the war for resources to make computer chiups intensifies, using less chips and simplke saturating an area with mutnions might be more cost effective in all out conflict, like Ukraine. But in areas with civilians and key infrastructure, you need to be precise. The helicopter might still serve a really good role in logistics, mine sweeping (electronically), sub hunting, or mountainous terain. In open country with lines of sight in every direction the attack heli is pretty much done.

[@descentmvm]

works pretty good on DCS in the hinde if im about 5 miles out i can loft them into the airbase

[@jantschierschky3461]

Reminds me of the spray and prey method seen in the Middle East. Unless you have an exact location, direction, and angle, it's all about luck.

[@watchthe1369]

I am guessing NO, or the USA would have been using it since Vietnam when they first introduced ARA to their portfolio. The Apache is the only one used effectively so far, and is far heavier in firepower than the Cobra used by the USMC, the only other one I would view as effectively used. The competence of the piolets in the world that uses the Hind and various others built and designed in Russia/ eastern bloc is in question, so there is no real combat comparison. That means 1 of the 2 American helos I mentioned are almost the only ones in the running.

[@kevinkant6817]

They seem to work

[@samoldfield5220]

A couple of points. First and foremost is the Russian fire control systems are designed to do indirect rocket attacks. This isn't a bodge job that they've just thought up as the need arose, this is SOP for Russian attack helicopters. Secondly there is another point of view that you're missing which is the point of view of the rocket artillerist. Going from the tracked MLRS based on the M113 to HIMARS came from the realization that on-road speed and standoff range are more important that off-road movement and protection. Heli-borne rocket artillery is the next logical step in that chain, just as a truck is faster than a track, a helicopter is faster than a truck. If you can fit one or two HIMARS pods onto a helicopter then it's mission becomes - fly to launch location, fire, return to base, reload, repeat. If you think about it that solves the biggest problem of rocket artillery which is logistics. By effectively eliminating the last leg of the journey since the launch vehicle can fly from the port or railhead directly to the launch location within an hour or two, that means a lot less reliance on trucks and ground vehicles to keep the rocket launcher fed. Thirdly a helicopter firing indirectly is all but immune to counter battery fire. A clever artillery commander with counter battery radar can make an educated guess on where a truck mounted MLRS system will go using shoot and scoot tactics based on terrain and such, and dial in fires on where the launcher will be when the counterbattery package arrives. He only needs to get lucky 1 time in 10 or even 1 time in 100 to make that pay off. A helicopter on the other hand is not constrained in it's movement by terrain and generally speaking is immune to howitzer fire, or even standoff guided munitions fire. Put all of that together and you get the specs for heli-borne rocket artillery. A medium or heavy lift helo, like a Chinook or even an Osprey, with ~300kms operational range, capable of carrying and firing the largest number of 227mm rockets possible at an angle of 45 degrees. This machine is not so much the future of attack helicopters, as it is the future of rocket artillery.

[@SnakewithaGun]

Man, E-Scooters are dangerous.

[@_Matsimus_]

yep lol

[@hushpuppykl]

I been very curious about ‘lobbing’ rockets at the target. Seen the SU 25s doing it too.

[@hakdov6496]

A better question is - are helicopters obsolete on the modern battlefield? Also, maybe helicopters need long range, stand off weapons.

[@shovelchop81bikeralex52]

OUCH!! Shattered one elbow twice lol, but at least I had the other arm to use!! Get well soon brah!

[@therocinante3443]

The attack computers some of these helos have are incredible.

[@davidnguyen467]

“Both my elbows are broken” 🥶

[@user-zn7tj3xc7k]

This tactic has been used since, at least the 90s, by a lot of aircrafts, with bombs. It allows for "stand off" launching of normal weapons. The av8b bravo had a mode in its computer called something like "constantly computed point of impact", that with al the constant data input from the aircraft (speed, angle, position thanks to gps) predicted where the bombs would hit in any given moment. I guess that the russians have this mode, too.

[@energyrepublic]

Sorry to hear about the E-Scooter Injury . Unfortunately it's the leading cause of 40 - 50 year olds ending up in emergency rooms currently . Rebel yell !

[@daemon7225]

This was in a NVA manual from the 70s/80s. It is a legitimate thing.

[@MARPHHH]

I´ve watched the whole video and came out with just one question: can you pick up your pants, if they drop, since you´ve brocken both elbows!?!

[@garryb374]

I have actually found a video of the Russians using the lofted rocket launch technique. The video is taken at night but is using thermals and is from a drone perhaps as it is a distance away from the helicopters and their targets and it shows the rockets launched and their entire flight to the target area and the pattern of impacts as they hit. The file is 2MB.

[@flexinclouds]

@6:27 Man look at that 'panel gap' shaking & vibrating apart😬😄

[@georgeantabi6025]

Love the unbiased opinion as usual, but don't you think the Russian side would just use drones (which can fly close to the target) to relay information to those helicopters? I'm saying this because we've seen the same drones being used to provide more accuracy to artillery systems like the Uragan and the Msta B.

[@bardylon]

Firing indirectly from a moving platform just seems like throwing rockets away. It’s the helicopter equivalent of blind firing. Bit like when you stick a gun around a corner and shoot, while you stay behind cover without looking where you are aiming. You might hit something if you get extremely lucky or fire enough rounds, but more likely you’ll hit a whole bunch of unintended targets & end up doing something stupid like raining rockets down on innocent civilians.

[@Ludovit110]

It's far from blind fire as some heli's have FCS specifically for this. And even without FCS, you can calculate the speed, position, attitude, angle, etc. necessary to hit approximate location of the target.

[@Limescale12]

Get well Matsimus 💪