Could 20 x Apache attack helicopters have defeated the Pearl

You are aware it was designed as a ground attack platform right? Regardless, its possible, depending on the number of enemy fighters and rearming time

Yeah brendan the apaches are badass hey can I come over soon my mom took away my Xbox stupid bitch

>>32825303
43 Zeros in the 1st wave, 35 Zeros in the 2nd.

>>32825314
Oh then for sure, you wouldnt even need 10 apaches

J-CATCH says that helicopters win vs. fixed wings when guns only, not sure if it applies to the rather slow cannon of the Apache tho

>>32825321
Missiles>rockets>gun

>>32825329
Not sure how effective the Hellfire is going to be against a Zero. The AGM-114L with it's active radar guidance might be useful, given that Zeros don't have RWR.

Now, if somehow you could guide an APKWS rocket through the Longbow radar, this might change things a lot.

>>32825367
L model missiles all the way, fire and forget.

You know, if they modified the 70mm hydra missile to be 70.1mm, it could accommodate a stinger missile in the pod. The Apache already has a radar, so I'm sure a stinger could be fired from an Apache.

>>32825378
I know, but what are the odds on a Zero potentially out turning it? Assuming the Zero sees the missile launch.

>>32825425
dunno, but the L model can track modern fighter aircraft so....

>>32825296
Honestly speaking? They'd do a lot of damage, but I'm not sure if they could have "defeated" it. Mitigated a lot of damage by forcing a lot of aborts and reducing Jap ability to aim? Probably. Actually destroying the majority of the bombers? Probably not.
>>32825367
>Now, if somehow you could guide an APKWS rocket through the Longbow radar,
Impossible. APKWS has a small SALH guidance package screwed on the front. It'd have to have an entirely new seeker head.

>>32825419
The Stinger doesn't use a radar. It's IR guided. And the Apache can fire them. At the moment, it can mount a pair of stingers on each wingtip.

>>32825296
Yes, 1 Longbow Radar would have allowed them to have the entire base at combat stations for the start of the attack

>>32825447
Source on that

no amerisharts cant into war

>>32825367
Can't Apaches carry Sidewinders?

File: IMG952273.jpg (70KB, 717x960px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 717x960px

>>32826160
I was a 64 pilot

>>32825296
yes.

>>32825425
Considering the Zero pilot wouldn't know that he needed to defeat the missile or how to do so, 0%

>What dat? Stupid roundeye try to use rocket against fighter? Stup-OH HORY SHEIT

>>32826239
They can carry Stingers, not AIM-9s. The Marines can have AIM-9s on the wingtip mounts of their AH-1s.

>>32826251
And my dad works at Nintendo.

Admittedly, a search on the internet reveals that as a unique picture, so it seems like you do have access to pictures from the cockpit of one that aren't posted elsewhere.

>>32826239
They were tested with them but they're usually equipped with the ATA variant of the Stinger.

File: SeaApache.jpg (36KB, 404x413px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 404x413px

>>32825296
2 Apaches would be enough if they're allowed to use harpoons.

File: IMAG0505.jpg (915KB, 3264x1952px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 3264x1952px

>>32826492
Wow, so I'm not lying? Thanks, random person on a taiwanese turtle growing forum. Guess where this was taken

>>32826675
If I guess airplane would I be wrong

>>32826708
You would.

>>32826495
They can carry both.

>>32826492

You act like you can't fuck with the data and change it so ppl can't reverse image your shit.

>>32826794
>implying I'd spend that much time for you people
Bro thats my picture but believe what you want.

>>32826730
magic carpet?

If they can adapt it to carry large numbers of a2a missiles under the wings maybe. I doubt the guns + 2x stingers would be able to do much.

Just going off dimensions they could potentially cram loads of Stingers under each wing but as far as I know there's no system for doing so.

>>32825296
Yes, with 2 tanks and 8 hellfires each they could reach sink the IJN carriers before they launched their zeros.

The Japanese Navy never really built a carrier with decent fire or damage control.

>>32826675
On some very tall stilts?

What would 20mm's do it?

>>32826873
You sure about that? Not sure if the Apache has legs for that.

>>32826251
how is that? is this your career choice still?
is it worth it going into it with an engineering degree, i read the pay isn't bad

>>32826947
Base range without tanks is 260NM the fleet was 230NM, and with a couple tanks she can extend her range to 1,000nm+. https://web.archive.org/web/20080225163847/http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml

But 2 tanks is all you really need to make it there and back with a few missiles.

File: 404715_10100569681520581_1788151366_n.jpg (32KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 720x540px

>>32826859
>>32826875
Epic bantz m8

>>32826983
>Base range without tanks is 260NM the fleet was 230NM
Don't look at range, look at combat radius. That is, unless you want to make a one way trip.

Everywhere I look has combat radius with no tanks at 150 km, or ~81 nmi.

>>32827042
>unless you want to make a one-way trip
To be fair, sacrificing 2 apaches to save every ship in Pearl Harbor is a sacrifice 99% of people would make.

>>32826873
how many hellfires would you even need to sink a Carrier.
I mean sure Hellfires pack a big punch, but Carriers a big ships(4me)

>>32826221
>What is Leyte Gulf
>What is Midway
>What is Coral Sea
>What is Phillipine Sea

we can into-naval ops pretty damn well, certainly against japs

>>32827042
That is combat radius, 260NM.

>>32827110
Well a IJN carrier isn't a tank, the deck armor wouldn't be able to stop a modern AGM, a few missiles in the hanger would be enough to start massive fires aboard, then the utter lack of training on damage control and the design with little to no prevention of fires would end the carrier.

So about 8 per carrier just to be sure.

>>32826873
While the IJN had shit damage control and carrier design they were not THAT bad. At Midway it took at least one 1000lb bomb hit and a 1000lb damaging very near miss to sink a carrier, a Hellfire is only 100lb. Even the Japanese could survive a couple of them.

The carriers could still be disabled by hitting the retardedly small islands and killing the command staff but sinking them would require more ordinance.

>>32827143
>That is combat radius
No it isn't.

File: AH64.png (55KB, 1209x648px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1209x648px

>>32827157
Well my initial link says it is, and thats Janes so you can debate the validity of the source all you want.

Here's the wiki screenshot because im an autist

>>32827147
True but a hellfire can be more accurate and specifically target the fuel stores on board. I'm assuming these time traveling apache drivers know where to hit the carriers.

>>32826972
You murican or british? It was a good experience overall, but the army is overloaded with political bullshit. Pay is p good deployed, i wouldve been making 6 figures

File: g4hb25n - Imgur.png (227KB, 1366x641px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1366x641px

>>32827184
Your initial link does not, in fact, mention combat radius anywhere inside of it. And I find it somewhat funny that the range and combat radius are the same. Almost as if it's not quite it.

So here, let's look at fas's page. Oh, what's this? Strange.

File: AH64 yet again.png (93KB, 1152x765px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1152x765px

>>32827239
>my link dosen't have combat radius

Wrong.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080225163847/http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml
read nigga

>>32827263
I don't see combat radius anywhere, anon. I see "range". Might your eyes be deceiving you?

>>32826871
Zeroes had 2 rifle caliber MGs and 2 600m/s 20mm cannons, An AH-64 has a head tracking 30 mm with a 800m/s muzzle velocity. why do you doubt the Apache would chew the zeroes up?

>>32827042
>>32827157
1 of you is looking at the Wiki page that says 260nmi Radius 1 line below it saying 257nmi range.

>>32827281
>implying

Read the whole article anon.

>>32827287
>lower total range than combat radius

>>32827263
>>32827239
>>32827184
Just to add some extra qualifiers the Augusta/ Westland AH-64 has a RANGE of 290nmi

>>32827298
I did. The word "radius" is not mentioned even once. All it has is range. Contrast this to the source I provided, where it clearly states combat radius. Which one do you want to believe is the combat radius?

>>32827361
So you didn't read it, alrighty.

they can carry sidewinders, the israeli model does. on the cyclic one of the weapon selection knob options is for A2A.

>>32827370
Go on, show me what you want instead of memeing at me. Oh wait, you can't, because what you want doesn't exist. I've read through the page four times now. I see nothing.

Whats cognitive dissonance like anon?

File: 1474501880392.gif (4MB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 512x384px

>>32826221

>>32827428
For
>>32827404

Another question, do you know what combat radius is?

>>32827455
Combat radius is the distance that the aircraft can fly, do what it is supposed to do, and then return back to its start location. This is different than range. But please, show me exactly where it says combat radius. I'm waiting.

>>32827514
Boeing and Janes figures it with additional fuel.

>>32827537
No, they don't. Just admit it, anon. You didn't know what combat radius was and you read incorrectly. See >>32827184 for proper statistics.

>>32825296
Yes, but then we would not have had an excuse to nuke Japan.

>>32827602
I see, you're just pretending to be retarded.

>>32825296
Well By 20x I'm assuming that you mean 20 times the amount of Apache helicopters that they had available.

They had 0 Apache helicopters sk
20 x 0 = 0

So no, 0 Apache helicopters would not have the Pearl Harbor attack.

File: 1484885156863.png (123KB, 222x336px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 222x336px

>>32827617

>>32827147
>>32827207
It wouldn't matter if the Apache's sank a carrier, the mere disruption of carrier operations would throw them in disarray and more than likely cause the entire attack to be called off due to a loss of surprise.

>>32825296
>helicopters
>stop airplanes and bombs from crashing into huge battleships

Lel no

>>32827896
>helicopters shoot planes down before they can drop bombs
Yes

>>32826492
>They can carry Stingers, not AIM-9s. The Marines can have AIM-9s on the wingtip mounts of their AH-1s.

the Apache can carry Sidewinders, Sidearms and the British use Starstreaks on them.

they just don't because they never NEED to carry a good A2A missile, stingers are cheaper and lighter.

>>32828888
They tested them with them, that does not mean they actually carry them. They don't.

File: ah105.jpg (159KB, 1264x739px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1264x739px

>>32828900

>>32828245
You mean
>helicopters shoot down the bombs since bombs dropped at that time fell very slowly, so the apache's gun could easily prevent any of the bombs from hitting the ships

>>32828943
What form of autism is this

>>32828943
u srs m8

>>32829099
underage autism

File: muh jcatch.jpg (227KB, 1654x687px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1654x687px

>>32825321
>J-CATCH says that helicopters win vs. fixed wings

Actually, it didnt. JCATCH was a joke, and literal reality in the decades since has proven it wrong time and time again.

>>32825296
>20 helicopters vs basically 100+ guided missiles

They would get annihilated even if the Japs aim was rearry bad.

How far out were the carriers? If they could have detected them beforehand with radar or patrols they could probably annihilate the fleet pretty easily.

If on the defense they would probably have a hard time shooting the planes down in time, the japs would probably just avoid them and continue hitting surface targets.

>>32829149
The fuck are you smoking? What guided missiles are you talking about?

File: ah104.jpg (148KB, 1245x739px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1245x739px

>>32828923

sure's an effective test

>>32829203

kamikaze

however the thing everyone forgets is that the helicopters have the TADS/PNVS which give them somewhat BVR capabilities to engage with their cannons

>>32829216
You dont need bvr when shooting a radar missile bud. And there were a very limited number of kamikazes at pearl harbor. Only 19% total would land a hit during the entire war

>>32829295
There were no Kamikazes at Pearl Harbor, what are you smoking?

File: 1331870600981.jpg (48KB, 321x353px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 321x353px

>>32829307
There weren't any Apaches either.

>>32825296
>>32825296

Considering that the Jap Zeros is a marvel of engineering and one of the greatest aircraft of all time, a wave of them could annihilate pretty much all apaches no matter how many of them.

>>32825367
Apaches have armament packages for 2x4 Stinger missiles, which would be plenty for Zeros.

And thats on top of 76 unguided Hydra rockets or 8 Hellfires, of which the -L should be able to lock and seek a Zero. Plus the chin gun.

>>32825447
Track yes. Close with and kill, probably not. They're slow and dont turn well.

>>32829173
It took the Jap waves like 5 hours to reach Pearl Harbor, if that helps.

>>32830036
>mach 1.4 is slow

>>32825982

/thread

>20 apaches show up to defend pearl harbor
>pilots tell the command staff there that they're about to get slapped by the jap
>they get their fighters up in the air to intercept the japanese.

While the Japanese had more and arguably better aircraft, the addition of an approximately equal number of American fighters into the fray would probably have put a stop to the attack pretty much immediately, without the apaches even participating.

>>32826251
>>32826675
Appreciate the work you did, even though we had Kiowa bros on our deployment.

it would probably be such a grave surprise to the IJN that helicopters of that caliber even existed they may pull off after a few AA missiles.

In the unlikely event the Apaches reach the IJN, its all ogre.

Even though the Apaches cant total-kill the carriers, it could likely screw over carrier ops enough to force a premature withdrawal. The advanced sensors of the apaches would likely give sufficient warning to the US to reduce losses further.

It probably wouldnt turn the battle into a US victory, but it would certainly help.

On the other hand, a single element of say, 2-3 Super Hornets would probably ass-blast the japs back to Tokyo Bay.

>>32830278
I honestly doubt the Hellfire could track an aircraft going ~250kts, but I don't think it has ever been tested

>>32830372
The Kido Butai was like 300 nm away so I don't think the Apaches are hitting the carriers.

>>32830036
>They're slow and dont turn well.


They're more than fast enough to shoot down fighter aircraft that move no faster than 330mph in absolute ideal circumstances, nevermind dive and torpedo bombers that could only fly at 250mph in, again, ideal circumstances. Reminder that Stingers shot down dozens of jet aircraft during the Soviet-Afghan war.

Modern Stingers can be used even be used against UAVs so there is literally no reason to think they would have trouble with WW2-era aircraft.

>>32830345

This is always the answer, however.

>US Navy sinks the IJN taskforce while their aircraft are getting shot down off the coast of Oahu

>>32830641
Hellfires and stungers are two entirely different missiles. A hellfire, at best, can hit an air target at equal or lower alitude at a 0 degree angle

>>32825313
lol

File: FinalCountdown.jpg (6KB, 638x273px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 638x273px

>>32825296
no, but f14's could

File: An American Tradition.png (3MB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1440x960px

>>32825296

Just send one Apache.
Preferably this one.

Japs don't stand a chance.

>>32829351
Ever see windtalkers?

File: 1483575576318.png (213KB, 432x324px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 432x324px

>>32825296
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH

Gun range = Helicopter wins

>>32825303
>You are aware it was designed as a ground attack platform right?

Yes the bizzare absurdity of the question is what makes it interesting.

Do you think you can kill a dragon with a tank?

>>32833026
>in literal bizarro world
>typical anime poster knows jack and shit about real world tactics, as usual

>>32833026
>cargo helicopters saying 'guns, guns, guns, I shot you' while flying straight and level across the ground while fixed wing fighters make actual diving attacks on them
>JCATCH is literally one of the most flawed and retarded military exercises the US Army has ever carried out

All these hypothetical situations.
The Autism is real.
I'm pretty sure if we had the tech from today, we would obliterate anything from the past. Let's just put stingers on everything.

>>32825296
If the pilots get them on air when the attack comes.
But by then the Japs have already bombed plenty of stuff so they can't really save the day.

>>32834329
I think zeros have a significant higher top speed also.