Jump to content

barundus

Members
  • Content Count

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About barundus

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS; IL2

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I dug around a bit and found an old vid in my archives showing some test footage of Hydra shots on a closed range. Here's two vids; one shows the payload deploy, and a tree happened to be in the way right after the darts deployed. The other vid shows the perspective in the impact area.
  2. The darts in the M255A1 (the current use type) are 60 grains. About 1200 of them. At 5000 meters they're still going about 225m/s. The old M255 used 28 grain darts. About 2500 of them.
  3. Hard to know whether the darts tumble initially on fuze-function. My "educated speculation" is no; they don't tumble drastically, but probably a bit. From a pilot's perspective, I don't care. When the expulsion charge actuates, the packed darts are forced out the front of the cargo tube, much like a shotgun. When ranged properly, the fuze is supposed to function at a certain distance from the target, with the standoff calculated to produce the desired "beaten zone" I mentioned above, enough time to stabilize, and arrive with the velocity to retain kinetic energy equal to a 5.56 round.
  4. Ballistically, each nail in the M255A1 is roughly equivalent to a 5.56mm round at its effective range (this is reliant on correct firing procedures, proper ranging and fuzing, and the fuze function at the proper distance). As designed, the beaten-zone of a M255A1 deployment is roughly a 30m square, with roughly one nail per square meter.
  5. Gross. That's sounds about as much fun as a virtual fuel sample before every flight.
  6. Hey! Someone interested in the most bad-assed unit structure in the Army! (RIP). First off; "1st CAV" is really a division, and retained it's lineage as per the explanations above. But it's not really an entire division-sized force of "cavalry". It's a heavy armor division, named after a historical cavalry unit. Per doctrine, the "Cavalry is the eyes and ears of the division commander" With COIN and the first ARI in 2005 timeframe, when the Div-Cavs consisting of mixed ground and air equipment went away (the heavy divisions lost their KWs in the DivCav squadrons, aviation create
  7. Hah. I promise, it would only take one time!
  8. Couple items: 1) The Apache doesn't provide a 10-digit grid. 1a) High-precision grid really doesn't matter for a Copperhead, as it's laser-guided. And, like you stated; retired/out of inventory 2) While (one of) the Apache digital systems had limited capability to do so (with A LOT of fiddle-fucking); No one ever called for a digital call-for-fire in combat. Never happened.
  9. Why on earth would you want to simulate this?
  10. Thanks for your thoughtful clarification! Agreed on all! I was attempting a "one-sentence" explanation to draw a simple differentiation between the two lines. 407 borrows much of it's dynamic components from the 58D, hence I connected the two in simplest terms. Same goes for the 206 to the OH58A/C - in simplest terms, I view 206/58A-C more similar in capability/dynamic components than to 407. As to the "406", acknowledged it was never type-classified as such. I referenced that, again, to attempt to describe linkage between the lines. Sure wish we'd had the C47 in the
  11. You may need to provide some context for "TACOPS types"...
  12. The 1999 and 2001 versions of the Operator's Manual floating around the web have Distribution Statements "Approved for Public Release"
  13. No, the Bell 206 is essentially the OH-58 A/C The Bell 406 is the OH-58D, and the 407 grew out of that.
×
×
  • Create New...