Does anyone have a copy of Zaloga's Anti-Tank Helicopters?

[Maury Markowitz]

I'm writing an article on Exercise Hell Tank and google tells me it's referenced in this work, but no preview etc. Does anyone here have a copy?

 

[jstar]

Anti Tank Helicopters Osprey Vanguard No 44 | PDF | Anti Tank Warfare | Military Science

OSPREY-VANGUARD 44 ANTI-TANK HELICOPTERS by Steven J. Zaloga and George J. Balin. No part of this publi cation may be reproduced, stored in a ret ri eval system, or transmitted without the prior permission of the copyri ght owner. The anti-tank heli copter has onl y emerged since the earl y 1970s.

www.scribd.com

Read it all with their 30 day free trial.

 

[Tony Williams]

I'm writing an article on Exercise Hell Tank and google tells me it's referenced in this work, but no preview etc. Does anyone here have a copy?

I have a copy. There is a brief note on Hell Tank, saying that it contradicted US findings about the effectiveness of anti-tank helos. It found that "the size of the attacking helicopter force did not dramatically change the exchange ratio between helicopters and tanks. This trial used a Scout AH Mk 1 which had been adapted in 1970 to carry four SS.11 missiles. Nevertheless, it did conclude that anti-tank helicopters could play a significant role in blunting tank attacks, even with the older generation missiles."

 

[Maury Markowitz]

"the size of the attacking helicopter force did not dramatically change the exchange ratio between helicopters and tanks"

Precisely why I wanted to read it. Hell Tank apparently racked up a 45-to-1 ratio in favour of the helicopter! But that bit about US findings is odd.

Given that Hell Tank took place in 1966/7, that was before the Ansbach tests, but I'm pretty sure that is the "US findings" he is referring to. In Ansbach they ran the tests with 2 scouts and 1 Cobra, and then just 2 Cobras, which might be what he's talking about? Ansbach showed that using separate scouts lowered overall losses, because the scouts always scouted and never tried to press an attack, whereas the gunships acting alone would sometimes try to approach a target they saw and fly over another tank. But this isn't really so much about the size of the force, just its composition, so I'm not certain this is what he means.

Is there any footnote or citation?

 

[Tony Williams]

This is what the book says about the US experiments:

"In 1972 an exercise was conducted by US and German forces near Ansbach, Germany, using AH-1G Cobras and Leopard 1 tanks simulating an aggressor force. The tests concluded that anti-tank helicopters were extremely successful in blunting an armoured attack, averaging 28 tank kills for every helicopter lost. The tests also stressed the use of hunter-killer tactics, with light scout helicopters like the Kiowa seeking out targets for the Cobra to attack. The tests suggested that anti-tank helicopters should carry at least eight missiles, as it was found that the number of recorded kills per missile dropped 28% when only four missiles were carried: the helicopters had to continually return to rear areas to reload. Some of the observers questioned the realism of the exercise, since the helicopters were not encumbered with real missiles, and the German tankers made no particular effort to mimic Soviet tactics; neither were any ground-based air defence assets present. As a result, in 1973-74, the US Army staged more controlled tests using AH-1G Cobras and simulated Soviet tank formations. These tests suggested that expected exchange ratios between tanks and helicopters would vary from 3:1 in favour of the helicopters up to more than 14:1, depending on the size of the attacking helicopter force. The trials suggested that a formation of five helicopters was dramatically more effective than a single machine, which could only expect an exchange ratio of 3:1."

Then it goes on to give the information about Hell Tank which I've already posted.

There are no footnotes or citations.

 

[CJGibson]

Air defence made the difference as TOW was found lacking in range (which was why the British Army second generation Helarm GST was written around HOT) and the Shilkas etc outranged the TOWs. Once TOW had been improved, the Shilkas became the primary targets and the GST was rewritten around TOW.

Methinks adding some Shilkas into the exercise would change the results with early TOW and taking out the Shilkas first would change the results with later TOW. The TOW model used in the exercise would be interesting to know.

Before you ask, GSATH is ready for layout.

Chris

 

[yasotay]

"taking out the Shilkas" (or their grandchildren) remains paramount to successful attack helicopter operations. Thus the US interest in the Spike NLOS and extended range artillery these days. Further, US Army doctrine makes a point of joint and combined arms operations. Rarely do attack helicopters operate by themselves (it usually does not work out well). Old attack helicopter pilots were unhappy when the Kiowa went out of inventory. They lost their "FEBA markers".

 

[Maury Markowitz]

Air defence made the difference as TOW was found lacking in range (which was why the British Army second generation Helarm GST was written around HOT) and the Shilkas etc outranged the TOWs.

Shilkas were specifically included in Ansbach - were they even in operation during Hell Tank?