Project Reality Forums

I respectfully disagree.

Flying low and fast is harder for the gunner, but if you watched that video a very good gunner can more than cope.


Hovering is just not an option at any altitude that I can promise you from experience both on the ground and the air.

Being lower gives you more cover, apc behind you? You are already blocked by a building in 1 second at low altitude if you are moving.

Target acquisition is much easier, since the pilot has an excellent view can can always 100% react faster too a threat (sees it first, no delay in voice transmission and ping etc).

You also have 2 pairs of yes on the lookout.

If you watch the video again you will see that was when the BTR-90 rapemobile and the vodnicks were spammed all over the place yet you can see how flying low worked.

At the beginning the mosque roof. That had an AA site and all on top of it, we came in low from the north and they had no idea we were coming. If you edge closer from high up, you are just asking to be shot down.

I agree with Alex. Flying low on Muttrah is really the best way to survive, but it almost always entails flying fast, as well. It allows you to percieve things that much quicker, though usually it's hard to engage on the first run. But then you can always make your way back and hit it from a different direction.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rhino;1033045']muttrah is probably the best map to fly low on (thou the hardest), other than Qinling (which is very easy to fly though the valleys).

If you fly low on muttrah, you have loads and loads of buildings etc to cover you.[/quote]

And to ambush you. Low flying aircraft are the easiest to kill for me in PR.

When you fly low, gunner can't do **** about threat behind you, if a .50 open on you, you are history and you cannot evade most threat.

If you fly high, your gunner get a much better view of the battlefield and you can evade missile lock much easier and its the only threat to you... While at low altitude, almost everything is a threat...

With that said, if you have a very good pilot/gunner and very bad ennemy, of course, you can fly at the altitude you want.

[quote="amazing_retard""]Funny nobody mentions how important a CO is for CAS. You can't fly low and go blindly into combat. This is what your suppose to do.
1. Put marker on target not just shitty coordinates.
2. Tell CO
3. Inform CO of obstacles such as AA.
4. CO decides if CAS should be sent in.
5. CO puts EXACT marker on target.
6. CAS rapes it.
Here is a revolutionary idea for pubbers. Go CO is you want the cobra. In the end of the day, flying low or high, CAS will work a lot better with a CO. I wish the devs can make it so that if you don't have a CO, you don't get any air support.[/quote]

Thats a very good point. The best way to use CAS is still to use it only when requested by ground troops/CO with markers and informations.

Taken from wikipedia; Attack helicopter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lessons learned about limitations of independent attack helicopters

On March 24, 2003, US V Corps launched a raid, by 32 Apache helicopters, against Medina Division armor in Karbala, with an attack plan that would fly through the Karbala area. "Army officials now believe that the aviation assembly areas the Army established in the Iraqi desert had been under surveillance by enemy observers, who noticed battle preparations on the night of the 24th." The corps commander told reporters that post-strike analysis revealed that the Iraqi observers had alerted the defense using cellular telephones.[7][3]

As they approached, the power grid in Karbala was shut off, and the night went dark. The Apaches were taken under heavy antiaircraft fire. One was shot down (with the crew captured by Iraqi forces. They were later recovered by US forces), and enough of the others were damaged such that the raid was aborted.

Two days later, the Army again used Apaches to carry out another nighttime deep attack. Tactics used, however, were quite different than those on March 24.[4] The damage done, "The results of the attack were respectable, if not spectacular: seven Iraqi air defense guns destroyed, along with three artillery systems, five radars, and 25 vehicles or other weapons systems. Not one Apache was shot down. Shortly afterward, the 3rd Infantry Division slashed through the Medina on its way toward Baghdad."[7]

On March 26, other systems supported the attack, beginning with a four-minute artillery bombardment to distract the gunners. As the helicopters moved through the Najaf area, the lights again went off, and the intensity of antiaircraft fire increased as they approached the target.

Two different things were done. "The Apaches fired back on the move—rather than using the Army’s typical tactic of hovering over the battlefield. That made them harder to hit from the ground but reduced their accuracy." Also, fixed-wing fighters protected the Apaches' flanks and suppressed more air defense. As the helicopters moved in, they radioed the locations of air defense targets to the fighters.[7]

The March 24 raid is still being analyzed, with Air Force officers suggesting that the AH-64 alone is simply not effective for deep attack without support from conventional aircraft. Other analysts think this mission was poorly planned and the Iraqis had good intelligence on their route of attack. Nevertheless, the Apache mission generally changed from deep attack to direct support of troops.

One of the most important lessons learned about the abortive raid on Iraqi tanks in Karbala, Iraq, was that the AH-64 is resilient enough to function effectively even when damaged. It was also made clear, however, that attack helicopters, without coordinated SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), cannot penetrate an alerted defense.

roob wrote:Taken from wikipedia; Attack helicopter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lessons learned about limitations of independent attack helicopters

On March 24, 2003, US V Corps launched a raid, by 32 Apache helicopters, against Medina Division armor in Karbala, with an attack plan that would fly through the Karbala area. "Army officials now believe that the aviation assembly areas the Army established in the Iraqi desert had been under surveillance by enemy observers, who noticed battle preparations on the night of the 24th." The corps commander told reporters that post-strike analysis revealed that the Iraqi observers had alerted the defense using cellular telephones.[7][3]

As they approached, the power grid in Karbala was shut off, and the night went dark. The Apaches were taken under heavy antiaircraft fire. One was shot down (with the crew captured by Iraqi forces. They were later recovered by US forces), and enough of the others were damaged such that the raid was aborted.

Two days later, the Army again used Apaches to carry out another nighttime deep attack. Tactics used, however, were quite different than those on March 24.[4] The damage done, "The results of the attack were respectable, if not spectacular: seven Iraqi air defense guns destroyed, along with three artillery systems, five radars, and 25 vehicles or other weapons systems. Not one Apache was shot down. Shortly afterward, the 3rd Infantry Division slashed through the Medina on its way toward Baghdad."[7]

On March 26, other systems supported the attack, beginning with a four-minute artillery bombardment to distract the gunners. As the helicopters moved through the Najaf area, the lights again went off, and the intensity of antiaircraft fire increased as they approached the target.

Two different things were done. "The Apaches fired back on the move—rather than using the Army’s typical tactic of hovering over the battlefield. That made them harder to hit from the ground but reduced their accuracy." Also, fixed-wing fighters protected the Apaches' flanks and suppressed more air defense. As the helicopters moved in, they radioed the locations of air defense targets to the fighters.[7]

The March 24 raid is still being analyzed, with Air Force officers suggesting that the AH-64 alone is simply not effective for deep attack without support from conventional aircraft. Other analysts think this mission was poorly planned and the Iraqis had good intelligence on their route of attack. Nevertheless, the Apache mission generally changed from deep attack to direct support of troops.

One of the most important lessons learned about the abortive raid on Iraqi tanks in Karbala, Iraq, was that the AH-64 is resilient enough to function effectively even when damaged. It was also made clear, however, that attack helicopters, without coordinated SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defense), cannot penetrate an alerted defense.

Interesting read, but I still dont think the apaches where flying on the streets between the houses in the attack. All I see is they did some manouvering which is a good idea ingame too but it didnt mention flying low. And they also recieved additional support from artillery and also suppression and intelligence from fixed wings. They didnt fly hollywood style on street level shooting things left and right. Or did they?

TheLean wrote:Interesting read, but I still dont think the apaches where flying on the streets between the houses in the attack. All I see is they did some manouvering which is a good idea ingame too but it didnt mention flying low. And they also recieved additional support from artillery and also suppression and intelligence from fixed wings. They didnt fly hollywood style on street level shooting things left and right. Or did they?

They probably had 10x the visual distance and 8x the engagement distance aswell.

Very little hovering out of view distance as high as you can go here.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=14c03_4307

LiveLeak.com - Cobra Gun Runs in Mogadishu Part 2

But in game its relative.

TheLean wrote:I want to clarify my previous post, the transport hueys should go low, but the cobra should not. It is hard to hit anything for the gunner when moving fast at low level and if you happen to get an apc behind you are probably dead. And if you move slowly through the streets you are an easy targets for almost everything. Howering high and as far away from the front as the view distance allows can be a great way to rack up kills. The HAT kit is a danger though, preferrably you should always be sliding to the side.

Edit: Target aquisition is also much harder from a ground perspective, the top down view makes it easy to find enemies on rooftops also.

Not to mention, when the Cobra goes low, it runs a risk of hitting a building. I once watch an inexperienced pilot pretty much wrap the tail boom around the minaret of the mosque, leaving us CAS-less for around 25 mins. Flying high does have it's risks, but so does flying low. At least when you fly high, you have more time before the projectile hits your aircraft, and thus, more time to counter it.

Basic principles - the higher you go, the more territory you can be seen from (this applies from low to mid altitudes), and therefore the more things that can shoot at you. Also, flying low in an AH on Barracuda makes you virtually undetected by AA when done right.

Most PR pubbers aren't skilled AA gunners, simply come in low and from the direction they don't expect, flare just as you pop up and pound them. Even on Kashan with a good gunner (and a retarded NME team with no AA) you can fly low and still dominate, without the Havok threat. Lastly, even having a spotter on the ground helps a lot. The said spotter can process all the team's incoming information and mark the attack coordinate, which makes it a lot easier to absorb and faster to react to.

And the cobra isn't a hover-APC. In other words, dont hide in the streets, but fly above the rooftops. Only fly above the streets if you're sneaking up on an AA post or something.

I think a lot of this might have to do with the type of attack that is being conducted too. I never saw a Cobra hovering and firing in Iraq, they were always doing "Gun runs" where they would fly in low, gain altitude really quick, then dive in with rockets, followed up by the cannon.

Then again, they are typically given intel by ground troops which does not happen often enough in PR.

I can only possibly see a helo hovering when it needs to take a hellfire shot at a known armor location.

Also, the doctrine makes a difference too, every job in the Marine Corps revolves around supporting us (infantry) including air. So from the get-go Cobras and Harriers sole purpose is to support ground troops, not deep strike attacks, thats for the Air Force and I guess...Apaches used to?

Anyways, the moral of the story is, in my real life experience, helos never hover and shoot, I always see them moving, seems to be a good rule of thumb even in PR.