Fórum Defesa Brasil

Túlio escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 2:20 pm

joaolx escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 2:14 pm
Numa guerra deste tipo não há inocentes Túlio qual a surpresa?...Tenho a certeza que há atrocidades de parte a parte e nesta que mais parece uma guerra civil que outra coisa a tendencia é piorar...

Insisto, meu ponto não é nem nunca foi este, de quem é o bonzinho e quem é o malvadão: trata-se "apenas" da morte da Verdade, só isso.

joaolx escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 2:42 pm
A "verdade" ou as "verdades"

Túlio escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 2:47 pm

joaolx escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 2:42 pm
A "verdade" ou as "verdades"

Com letra maiúscula só tem uma, assim fui ensinado desde criança.

joaolx escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 2:48 pm
Depende do ponto de vista Túlio, por exemplo as nossas guerras coloniais para outros foram as guerras de libertação e por ai vai...

prp escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 1:43 pm Calma que o malvadao Putin atacou mais um shopping, deu em todas as midias.

O shopping:

Mazocam2 escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 3:18 pm

prp escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 1:43 pm Calma que o malvadao Putin atacou mais um shopping, deu em todas as midias.

O shopping:

O que seriam? Não consigo ver

Túlio escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 3:26 pm

Mazocam2 escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 3:18 pm

O que seriam? Não consigo ver

Fico mais curioso é pelo que estariam protegendo, olha o só estrago:

Mazocam2 escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 3:18 pm

prp escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 1:43 pm Calma que o malvadao Putin atacou mais um shopping, deu em todas as midias.

O shopping:

O que seriam? Não consigo ver

Viper PT escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 4:54 pm Porque não contam a história toda de forma clara,
em vez de estarem para aí a atirar pedras uns aos outros?

Ponto 1 O shopping foi bombardeado.

Ponto 2 Estavam lançadores de foguetes no parque de estacionamento.

Ponto 3 O shopping estava abandonado, não havia nem nunca houve civis lá a fazer compras desde o início da guerra.

Ponto final.

É difícil?

PS: Deixem de ser ridículos! Com essa guerrinha de propaganda! De um lado e de outro!

Túlio escreveu: Seg Mar 21, 2022 5:25 pm Senhores, vamos acalmar, sim?

On March 24, 2003 the 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment mounted a deep penetration raid, intending to engage Republican Guard armored formations south of Baghdad. Short of the target area, they overflew an area thick with infantry and were caught in a withering barrage of small arms, machine gun, and RPG fire. Only one Apache failed to make it home, but the other 32 helicopters were shredded, many barely making it back. The entire unit was rendered combat ineffective for weeks. The Army never attempted another deep penetration raid.

Yes, Virginia, you can definitely shoot down an Apache with small arms fire. It’s been done on other occasions, as well. It’s not because the Apache isn’t well configured and armored for combat, it’s that it is simply impossible to armor any aircraft sufficiently well to stand up to serious hits by enemy fire. This is the mistake that A-10 fanboys make. They assume that its very skin is armored. Trust me, it’s made of very thin aluminium. Only the vitals can be armored, and often, only from some aspects. Nothing gets covered completely in armor, not even the A-10’s vaunted cockpit “bathtub.” Usually, aircraft armor schemes are about putting a small piece of armor plate in position to intercept bullets/fragments coming from the most likely direction of threat. Bottom-line, bullets, shells, and fragments can often enter the structure from the opposite side of armor plating, and still take out a vital component.

The Apache is doubly cursed in this regard.

First, a helicopter will always require more power per unit of airframe mass, because of its aerodynamics vice those of a conventional airplane (wings are a really awesome cheat). Therefore, what armor it can carry will always be proportionally less that what a similarly -sized airplane could carry. If you look at the cockpit armor scheme in the Apache Technical Manual, you will quickly discover that while the crew has plates in strategic areas, they are by no means sealed in with total coverage. And certainly not for something bigger than 7.62x39mm. As for the canopy, well…fuggeddaboudit.

Second, the Apache goes into combat low and slow. Which means it’s a vastly easier target to hit than a jet moving two or three hundred knots faster and at higher altitude, even while flying at the jet’s idea of low. It’s historically been difficult to hit airplanes moving at speed, that’s why God invented surface-to-air missiles. Helicopters, on the other hand, get hit by RPGs. RPGs, for cryin’ out loud! If you can hit a helicopter with an RPG, you can certainly hit it with small arms and machine gun fire. Put enough bullets into a helicopter, and you’re guaranteed to eventually hit something it can’t fly without.

Some folks have remarked that the Apache’s weapons systems easily out range and are more lethal than infantry weapons. But this assumes that combat always occurs as a linear affair with combat always beginning at extreme range, and with the enemy always identifiable. Nothing could be further from the reality. Particularly when the tree you pick to hide your Apache behind happens to have an armed infantryman hiding under it.

The proof, however, is in the combat record, and the fact is, common infantry weapons have brought down Apaches, and will continue to do so if the helicopters get sloppy in their tactics.