What do you guys think of the prospect of helicopter rifles. Similar to how anti-tank rifles appeared in ww1/ww2, do you think that a modern equivalent could function. Imagine a single soldier being able to put down a helicopter with one good shot.
Or, is this just putting to much stock into one idea?
The ratio of economic cost/benefit for the rifle's deployer is attractive, but it seems as though it would very much be a right place/time thing.
Helos in a low hover would disappear in a battlespace where these were routinely employed.
Closest equivalent you are ever going to find would be 50cal machine guns. Depending on amount of ammo carried it's at minimum 3 guy job to move it around. MANPAD would be closest effective equivalent. Helicopters move rather fast, best way to hit one with unguided weapon is to fire at lot into general direction of it.
Id imagine something new chambered in between 20mm and 30mm. Not only that, but odds are it would need 2 people to set up. Combine that with virtually anyone being able to use one with the cost, then you have a new helo deterrent.
another idea that comes to mind would be to have a sort of high velocity shrapnel weapon that would fire a shitload of 50cal/20mm shots like birdshot.
WW1 armies literally employed this tactic to take down scout airplanes, but instead they used like 50 guys with bolt action rifles
Helicopters have little to no armor you would be better off just dumping some 308 AP rounds at one untill you hit a flight control or the engine. Sorce- helicopter mechanic
Hind here, why don't you make like a tree and fuck off.
How about some kind of brain implants for birds that receive radio signals and you can make the birds fly into enemy aircraft engines/rotors?
And like the dudes on the ground can just call it in, and they'll scramble a large amount of birds to the area above the caller's signal location.
If you get a round through the engine case it will cause catastrophic dammage . As soon as you introduce anything foreign object into a turbine they pretty much instaexplode. About 15 years ago a 1/8 diameter locknut got dropped into the intake of one of the helicopters I work on . As soon as it enter the engine after start up it took out a compressor blade that compressor blade took out the next compressor blade and so on and so on
With modern technology, it's certainly possible. With a fancy computerized sight it could automatically generate a firing solution that would actually give you a chance to hit it.
But, as others have said, it's not ever going to be better than a MANPADS. MANPADS are lighter, cheaper, more likely to hit, and generally more effective than an AA rifle would ever be. The most important consideration is that it's unlikely a soldier would be able to carry an assault rifle in addition to one these due to the weight/size/shape. That means we would have to have personnel who's only role in combat is to shoot down helicopters, an unlikely event. With a MANPADS, an air defense soldier can fight with an assault rifle as a light rifleman and carry the launcher as an auxiliary weapon system.
Attack helicopters generally have armored engine and cockpits. usually rated against HMG and 20-ish mm fragmentary rounds. Plus lots of redudnant systems, the ablity to fly on one operational engine or without oil for a limited time, etc.
All that said, helicopters are still fairly susceptible to ground fire and lots of missions are called off because they're taking so much ground fire that to continue flying would be very risky. It still takes them out of the fight, and can cause accidents later on, even if they don't immediately erupt in a fireball right then and there.
Utility and scout helicopters are generally much more lightly armored and more susceptible to damage.
To put things into perspective, we lost about as many Apaches in Iraq as we did M1 Abrams.
Helicopters have the advantage in sensors and range. You're probably not going to be ambushing them often enough to build a specialized weapon for it.
And even if you did figure out how to ambush helicopters, they'd just change their tactics anyway, as soon as you started having any success.
That said, I like big guns and I cannot lie. Got a chopper in range? Then, brother, let fly.
Which is pretty much how infantry handles helicopters these days anyway: Blaze away with machine guns or MANPADS to hold them off, and hope they don't snipe you before you see them or from too far away for you to stop them.
with a bullet diameter exceeding 20mm, you can start pushing very heavy bullets very, very quickly. picture a 90gram projectile haulin ass at 4200mps? Faster the bullet that can still damage the helo, easier it is to hit.
Are you serious?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to spot these two little fuckers from anywhere from 500 meatres to 3.5 kilometres away?
>Barrett toyed with the idea of an anti-heli rifle. Dunno how successful it ended up being though.
They're in MOPP 4 for a chem/bio/rad/nuc exercise, you fucking idiot. Like pretty much everyone anywhere remotely fucking dangerous in the actual suck, they would carry their masks, testing strips, and injectables at all fucking times on an actual op, while pants, boots, gloves, and tops would be back at fucking company or battalion. Do you even operate, nigger? How long you been outta So/k/, twenty minutes?
SHOW ME THE MATHEMATICAL EQUATION, THAT YOU FUCKIN' SOLVED, THAT PROVED TO YOU, THAT YOU SHOULD CYCLE THE EMPTY CARTRIDGES, BACK INTO THE FEED TRAY, 'CAUSE I FUCKIN' KNOW THAT WHEN YOU FIRE THE FUCKIN' CARTRIDGE, THAT IT DOESN'T COME BACK AS A LIVE ROUND. DID YOU JUST SOLVE OUR AMMUNITION CRISIS, MARINE?
Get the fuck out of here.
Spotter gets eyes on it from howeverthefuckfar away. Missileer takes it out with an ATGM. Or, you know, a helo takes it out with an ATGM, since what you're describing is basically an IFV that can't fucking move, minus the troops, minus the armour, and minus the secondary weapons, you fucking idiot.
No, they're the same (minus backblast... and scope glint if you wanna be a cunt). But there's a reason that nobody uses rifles for AA.
We teach automatic rifle fire at the platoon level for low-and-slow ships, whether fixed-wing or roto, as a last-ditch desperation measure, assuming the other guy is dumb enough to fucking hold still for it. Shit is done by the numbers as a unit on officer or NCO command. Other than that, we leave that shit to the fucking specialists. Line grunts are for killing other line grunts, not for fancy COD bullshit.
Even actual snipers generally have more important shit to do than shoot helos out of the sky, and if they spot one they're pretty much 100% likely to advise someone whose job it is to do so, rather than do it themselves and risk giving away their position - because snipers are expensive, and AA teams are less expensive. And hitting a fucking helo from fuckoff far away with a goddamn rifle basically means you're talking about sniper levels of expense, if not greater.
Why do you think they're trying so hard to develop a guided sniper rifle round? Because hard-to-hit shit is easier to hit with a guided munition. That's why we use guided munitinos against almost every moving target apart from individual soldiers, because doing otherwise is inviting failure. Sometimes we'll use e.g. AT4s/CGs or LAWs against light armour, if we have to, but best believe we prefer to engage that shit with a Javelin or whatever.
War is not about winning 100-99, it's about winning 100-0. Crushing walnuts with steamhammers.
and yet high projectile speed solves nothing about the fact that you need more than sub moa accuracy from the rifle and the shooter combined to have a somewhat remote chance at hitting a moving helicopter
now tell me, what is more practical and cost efficient
>training every soldier that carries a "helicopter rifle" to sharpshooter-tier accuracy
>buy a bunch of stingers that can be fired by everyone and be done with it
>Imagine a single soldier being able to put down a helicopter with one good shot.
one can only dream that one day such a technical feat may be possible....
You could do it with the self guiding smart bullets people are working on. At that point though it is easier to scale the system up top what are MANPADS today. Why hit it with with a gre grams of metal when you can hit it with 2lbs of HE?
>Id imagine something new chambered in between 20mm and 30mm.
The Halo sniper happened 20 years ago.
>What do you guys think of the prospect of helicopter rifles.
We already have weapons capable of downing helicopters, including firearms. The .50 BMG machine guns we already use would be more suited to this task than most any other firearm.
>virtually anyone being able to use one
yeah because noone can punch a couple of buttons on a MANPAD but everyone can snipe a moving helicopter fucking 4 miles away
you highschool dropouts really need to leave /k/ alone with your mindnumbingly retarded "ideas", you're contributing nothing but bullshit assumptions based on complete and utter ignorance
sneak someone /a small team near to where the helicopters are based. team best not be anyone you like though.
should be easy to nigrig giant puntguns.placing them properly and presenting a juicy target might work.
How much cheaper is a big rifle like that really going to be than MANPADs, considering how many more of them you'll need to field to actually hit a helicopter, and how much less damage it will actually do to the helicopter?
like if you need four or five of them to equal the amount of effective anti-helicopter defense as you'd get from one MANPAD, and they run a few thousand per rifle, and you need an extra three or four soliders to man them, you're going to be way behind on money. Sure, they can shoot other things with big rifles, but you would be much more effective against everything if you had, say, one fewer soldier and more specialized weapons for the others, say one MANPAD and two actual rocket launchers.