Apache takes out 8 BGs — Video

[Trip_Wire]

Some awesome footage, of an Apache taking out 8 BG's with a Hellfire missile and 30 mm.  :skull:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=31d_1212789344

 

[OldSolduer]

Interesting. Hardly seems sporting old chap!!

Then again, war isn't a sport is it?

 

[GAP]

Amazing how they have no clue........sweet!!

 

[Bzzliteyr]

is that the one with the 8 guys around a fire by a truck??  With the resolution I found it hard to see if they had weapons or not.  I'd think they'd be a little more suspicious acting if they heard the Apache and had reason to hide... sometimes I wonder if the kills are legit or not..

 

[cavalryman]

Not sure they would necessarily have paid much attention to the Apache.  Count the time elapsed between firing the missile and moment of impact.  That Apache was a good distance away, not the distance apparent from the video.  Great optics on that thing  >

 

[ArmyRick]

i remember being in a TUA, firing the C6 using the 13X day sight at targets almost 1,600m away. hrough the sights they looked much closer. than when i stuck my melon out the hatch i waas shocked at just how far away the targets were.

I could imagine the apache was easily a good distance away and the enemy had no idea it was even watching. I have heard a lot of contrversy about the video and I am sure if it was not a legitamate kill then the US Army JAG would have dealt with by now.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Don't mistake this video for the original Apache one that had them engaging a potential enemy in a field.  That one raised a lot of stink about the "laws of war".  It seems more and more that I see beautiful thermal video of kills on liveleak, I just have my own thermal experience and sometimes can't see how they can physically identify a weapon on an individual at those distances...

The new Call of Duty game that is out has a whole "chapter" dedicated to thermal engagements from an AC-130...it's kind of interesting.

 

[Loachman]

Resolution through the actual sight system and of the original footage is far superior to what you are seeing. Weapons can be difficult to see, especially if an attempt is made to hide them, but much care is taken to positively identify potential targets as hostile. You are also only seeing the interesting piece of the engagement, not what was probably a lengthy period of time leading up to it, and several splices are evident.

Observation likely occurred from several kilometres initially. Possibly, depending upon ambient noise and wind direction (and one attempts to use that in one's favour), the targets would have heard the AH64 however at the distance involved they would have no reason to believe that they were under observation. I believe that I heard talk of closing to 1600 metres just prior to engagement. How many people can pick out every sound within such a radius and determine that one of them is a possible threat?

 

[aesop081]

is that the one with the 8 guys around a fire by a truck??  With the resolution I found it hard to see if they had weapons or not.  I'd think they'd be a little more suspicious acting if they heard the Apache and had reason to hide... sometimes I wonder if the kills are legit or not..

great armchair quarterbacking  :

Resolution through the actual sight system and of the original footage is far superior to what you are seeing.

Often the resolution of the recorder is far lower than that of the sighting system itself. Add to that the fact that the video processing softaware used to download the image often compresses the file and reduces its quality.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I admit I am working with having seen this liveleak video the other day and going off of memory here.  I recall them positively IDing the weapons and the internal comms stating "two weapons seen" then the external stating 5.. just found that suspicious as well.

All this assuming we are talking about the same video. Once I get home, I'll verify.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I watch many online videos, play with audio/video,  I understand all about compression and as a plus, I have been working with thermal systems since around 96, please explain to me about armchair quarterbacking?

Wanna know how many times on exercise I have seen friendly fire through thermal sights?? Thankfully we have WES and can prove that it happens more often than you'd expect.

Like I said, the comms were also suspicious.  IF we are talking about the same video...

More to follow.

 

[Loachman]

I admit I am working with having seen this liveleak video the other day and going off of memory here.  I recall them positively IDing the weapons and the internal comms stating "two weapons seen" then the external stating 5.. just found that suspicious as well.

What you are hearing is the intercom conversation between the crewmembers making their assessment and then one crewmember reporting the weapon count over the radio, which is why the "internal" and "external" voices sound different.

I watch many online videos,

I play with real helicopters and TUAVs for a living.

please explain to me about armchair quarterbacking?

Making assumptions without all of the facts.

Wanna know how many times on exercise I have seen friendly fire through thermal sights??

Yes. Include dates, times, grid references (you, and the donors and recipients of friendly fire), directions of observation and fire, phase of the moon, relative humidity, and Chinese horoscope signs of all involved.

Thankfully we have WES and can prove that it happens more often than you'd expect.

Yes, and they have the tape which will be examined by various people even if there's no doubt about the validity of the engagement, so they have plenty of additional incentive to get it right. They also have the luxury of more time to decide whether or not a planned engagement is valid than you guys do. Same for the TUAV - we'll watch for as long as it takes before anybody decides to engage, plus we're streaming a live feed to interested HQs and they're watching too. It's not usually the hel crews' lives at stake - and especially not the TUAV crews' lives - as it generally is for you in your engagements, and we're not paid by the kill, so there's no incentive to shoot until as absolutely certain as one could be without checking ID and weapon serial number.

Like I said, the comms were also suspicious.

Not to me.

Also, the first range from the target mentioned was 2500 metres, now that I've watched it again.

And yes, I'm kidding a bit with some of my replies; I'm not really being obnoxious.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Okay, just watched it at home.

2:13 mark "how many are armed?" then the guy counts off "one...two, got a weapon there, *mumble*(sitting?) around the fire"

2:31 mark "we got about eight individuals, at least five are armed"

I understand how it is overseas, which makes me realize that sometimes we see stuff that really isn't there, especially in stressful situations.

Ever been on an OP (ex or operations) and started to see boogey men?? You'll know what I mean if you have.  The power of suggestion is very strong overseas.

As for the Chinese horoscopes.. are we the year of the (secret)squirrel or is that one next year?

 

[Loachman]

2:13 mark "how many are armed?" then the guy counts off "one...two, got a weapon there, *mumble*(sitting?) around the fire"

Intercom discussion.

2:31 mark "we got about eight individuals, at least five are armed"

Radio report.

Ever been on an OP (ex or operations) and started to see boogey men?? You'll know what I mean if you have.

Exercise only, and yes, I know what you mean.

The power of suggestion is very strong overseas.

Indubitably. It's your nuts on the line, after all.

I'll be sitting in a nice chair in an airconditioned box in almost complete safety with three others in there watching and assessing and a couple of HQs' worth of staff and lawyers watching the live feed. We collectively have a better chance of getting it right, and the luxury of time to decide.

 

[aesop081]

I watch many online videos, play with audio/video,  I understand all about compression and as a plus, I have been working with thermal systems since around 96, please explain to me about armchair quarterbacking?

You watch videos online, i watch from altitude with one of the most sophisticated EO/IR systems available. Like Loachman, working from the air is what i do. When i say someone is armed, thats because they're armed. I understand what the implications of making that call are. If i am unsure or don't know, i say exactly that. You were armchair quarterbacking because you have less than all the facts of the engagements and then openly questioning the validity of the resulting kills.

Wanna know how many times on exercise I have seen friendly fire through thermal sights??

I've seen it all......from a much better vantage point than you, with a much better system.

Like I said, the comms were also suspicious. 

I dont see anything suspicious there........

I understand how it is overseas, which makes me realize that sometimes we see stuff that really isn't there, especially in stressful situations.

I never call a target individual as "armed" unless i'm sure he/she is armed. As for seeing things, well theres 2 of us there looking at the screen just like the Apache has a 2-man crew. Sressed or not, if theres nothing there, theres nothing there. When i work with the USMC and i call someone as "armed" they dont question it.

Ever been on an OP (ex or operations) and started to see boogey men?? You'll know what I mean if you have.  The power of suggestion is very strong overseas.

I have yes. Thats the beauty of video and 2 sets of eyes looking at it.

 

[TCBF]

... 2:13 mark "how many are armed?" then the guy counts off "one...two, got a weapon there, *mumble*(sitting?) around the fire"

2:31 mark "we got about eight individuals, at least five are armed"...

- What was said on Radio and what was said on Intercom? As well, we all know that a crew does not tie up the rad or ics with obvious chatter.  If a few more armed people appeared on the scene just before 2:31, there would be no ics, just rad.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Why does it seem that some of you taking my comments personally??

I was merely stating that some things I saw/heard in the video made me raise an eyebrow. 

I just don't like to think that sometimes, we do make mistakes and innocent people get killed in the process.  I don't think the armchair quarterback comment applies as I stated an opinion on what I saw, not on what the pilot/gunner saw.  Anyone else who has posted opinions on this thread is just as guilty of quarterbacking unless they were a part of that crew. I also mentioned that the resolution was crap. 

I suggested the contacts might be a little more suspicious IF they heard the Apache, I guess they didn't.

Me saying "suspicious" in regards to the crew might be what is triggering emotions here.  I am not in any way suggesting that the crew here did anything wrong, I just wanted to open the book for discussion on target IDing and how it's done. 

Now, off to the Alouettes pre-season game.

 

[aesop081]

I was merely stating that some things I saw/heard in the video made me raise an eyebrow. 

Has your eyebrow lowered now ?

I just wanted to open the book for discussion on target IDing and how it's done. 

I cant speak for everyone but for me.......i call what i see on the sensor. I dont always verbalize everything on intercom, theres just no need. Sometimes i start counting out loud and realize thet the crew knows i can count and just end up saying "one, two, three, five" or such situation, but the final product is what goes out over the radio. The AH-64 is a little different from us as well because we do alot of our crew coordination "offline" which means its not done on ICS but by simply talking to eachother. Anoher factor that sometimes eliminates some words from the recording as that pilots often have their microphone on "VOX" which is voice activated. Depending on the sesitivity setting of the microphone, some words dont make it to the ICS circuit.

As far as IDing targets, from my experience, every operation will have its own criteria for identification. Its not often we can be 100% sure but we tell the requesting organization what we see without filtering it. I know from pervious exercises what weapons look like from various altitudes and always add my level of confidence to an "armed" call.

 

[2 Cdo]

Looked like a good shoot from what I seen and heard!

 

[Loachman]

Why does it seem that some of you taking my comments personally??

I don't know, because I don't.

I do take some perverse delight in prodding some people upon occasion. This may have been your lucky day.

I was merely stating that some things I saw/heard in the video made me raise an eyebrow.

And we were trying to explain why they shouldn't.

I just don't like to think that sometimes, we do make mistakes and innocent people get killed in the process.

Neither do we, but it does happen occasionally despite a tremendous effort to avoid that.

Not in this case, though, from what I see.

I may not have followed the Hellfire with 30mm, but I say that without knowing the wider situation and who/what is living around that area. That's just a consideration, and not a criticism of the crew which would very well be "armchair quarterbacking".

I don't think the armchair quarterback comment applies as I stated an opinion on what I saw, not on what the pilot/gunner saw.

Some of us obviously did see some of that, whether you meant it as such or not. Not that I took any offence...

Anyone else who has posted opinions on this thread is just as guilty of quarterbacking unless they were a part of that crew.

Some of us do have a little more insight, though, and were trying to explain what was going on with that in mind.

Me saying "suspicious" in regards to the crew might be what is triggering emotions here.

I don't have any.

And I'm too easygoing for you to get a rise out of me.

I am not in any way suggesting that the crew here did anything wrong,

Again, not the impression that I got, although you weren't outright accusing. There was stuff in the video that you didn't pick up on or misinterpreted, but that's no big deal. Those of us with more familiarity with the kit and procedures saw nothing out of the ordinary.

I just wanted to open the book for discussion on target IDing and how it's done.  

Like my seized-wing back-seat buddy said.

And if any of us has doubts, we'll speak up.

We were looking for insurgent mortar baseplate locations one night on Maple Guardian. We were directed to several eight-figure grid locations from where fire supposedly originated, but never saw any sign of anything suspicious. Approaching the fourth or fifth such position of the night, we say a warm object right on the grid given. It was longer than it was high, and had two bumps on the bottom, one at either end. We reported it as a possible vehicle. After a minute or so of chat, it was determined by higher that there were no friendlies in the area and a fire mission was spun up. We could feel the excitement - almost bloodlust.

We began to get suspicious. Nearing the object, we could see that it was evenly heated, rather than having warm and cool areas as a truck would have. Then, we saw gaps appear between the bump parts at either end and the middle bit - cows huddling together, with a young one in between.

"It looks like cows. Definitely not a vehicle. No pers seen either", or words to that effect.

It took some convincing on our part - they really wanted to shoot something, even if the projectiles were completely notional.

After trying to get them to stand down a couple of times, I asked them to confirm that they were going to shoot the cows, and they finally backed off.

My next call was going to be "no weapons seen". They couldn't shoot unarmed people, and shouldn't be able to shoot unarmed cows either.

This was all, of course, and exercise artificiality - as was the lack of mortars and insurgents at each grid, these being injected by the Observer/Controllers (as we finally realized). I toss it in because of the mild humour value and to demonstrate how it all works: there has to be a general agreement on the required criteria or nothing happens.