OSPREY-VANGUARD 44

ANTI-TANK
HELICOPTERS

Steven J. Zaloga and George J. Balin

Colour plates by Steven J. Zaloga
Published in 1986 by
o prey Publi hing Ltd
Member compa ny of the George Philip Group
12- 14 Long Acre, London WC2E 9LP
© Copyright 1986 Osprey Publishing Ltd
Thi book is copyrighted under the Berne
Convention. All right reserved. Apart from a ny fair
dealing for the purpose of private stud y, research,
criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright
Act, 1956, no part of this publi cation may be
reproduced , stored in a retrieval system, or
tra nsmitted in a ny form or by a ny means, electroni c,
electrical, hemical mecha nical, optical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior perm is ion of th e copyright owner. Enquiries
should be addre ed to the Publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Zaloga, Steven J.
Anti-tank helicopters.- (Vangua rd
erie; 44)
I. Antita nk missiles 2. Helicopters
I. Title II . Balin , George III. Series
358' .18 UGI 3 12. A/
ISB 0-80545-69 7-5
Film et in Great Britain
Printed through Boo kbuilders Ltd , Hong Kong
Authors' Note
In a logical depart ure from the norm al subj ect of the
Vang uard series, this ti tle reviews the tank's newest,
a nd perh ap most deadl y, enemy. The a nti-ta nk
helicopter has onl y emerged sin ce the earl y 1970s,
though its basic element , the arm ed helicopter a nd
the a nti-ta nk missile, have been aro und for several
decad e. Anti-ta nk mis iles can be fitted to nearl y a ny
sort of helicopter; rather tha n present a ' Iawnmower
catalogue' of type , we have focu ed instead on the
maj or dedi cated a nti-ta nk heli copter , a nd the actual
combat u e of these machine to date.
The a uthors would like to tha nk a number of
fri ends for their in valuable help. J oe Bermud ez
provided his usual thorough help on Syrian affai rs.
Pa ul Boyer provided hi unique collection of photos of
the NU H-IB which permitted the detai led illustration
shown here. Jim Loop provid ed helpful materi al on
Soviet helicopters, Art Loder on French hel icopters,
Yoav Efrati on Israeli helicopters, a nd Leif H ellstrom
on I raqi helicopters. The a uthors would al 0 like to
tha nk the public affairs offi ces of the US Arm y,
e peciall y Col. Cha rles Steiner in ew York, a nd Bob
Lessels a t Aberdeen Proving Grou nd for their help in
obtai ning photos.

Introduction
On the morning of 2 May 1972, American a nd
South Vietnamese troops were reeling back towards
Kontum under the weight of the North Vi etnamese
Army's Easter offensive. Leading the NV A forces on
the road outside Kontum was an M41A3light tank
captured earlier from the AR VN (Army of the
R epublic of Vietna m). The Chaffee crew were
unaware of the appearance of a single NUH-IB
helicopter just above the horizon. The gunner on
board the Huey, Warrant Officer Carroll W . Lain,
gathered the tan k into the sights of his XM26
airborne TOW fire control system, and fired a
single TOW a nti-tank missile. The missile struck
the tank, gutting it in an enormous fireball. This
was the first record ed case ofa tank being destroyed
in combat by a gu ided missile-firing helicopter.
By 1972 neither helicopters nor guided anti-tank
missiles were particularl y novel. Primitive helicop-
ters were used during the last year of the Second
World War. In 1945 the Germans had developed
a n early guided anti-tank missile, the X -7
Rotkappchen, though it i unclear ifi t saw any combat
use. The mating of these two new weapons took
nearl y three decades, however, as the technologies
matur d a nd a their tactical virtues came to be
appreciated . Today, ma ny military analysts con-
sider the a nti-tank helicopter to be potentially the
mo t dangerous of all the AFV ' adver arie .
The earliest experitnents with anti-tank helicopters used the
French Nord Aviation SS.IO and SS.II missiles . Here, a US
Army HU.-I A Iroquois test-fires a brand new SS.II from the
experitnental XM-II mounting at Aberdeen Proving Ground,
MD in September 1960. (US Army )
Armed helicopte rs first began lo a ppea r in the
195os. ome US Army helicopter crew in Korea
lashed bazookas on to their machines. The Fre nch
Army's 2nd H elicopter Group began experim ent-
ing with machine gun-arm ed heli copters during the
fighting in Algeri a as a mean of protecting the
lumbering tran port helicopters. In 1956 Col. J ay
Vanderpool, who headed the Combat Develop-
ment Office at the US Army Aviation School at Ft.
Rucker, 'borrowed ' four helicopters to experiment
with a variety of armament combination in the
provisional Aerial Combat R econnaissance Pla-
toon. In the Soviet U nion, the Mil bureau began
efforts to develop a machine gun package to arm the
new M i-4 troop transport. Inter st in armed
helicopters grew in parallel with interest in the use
of helicopters for air mobile tactic .
The US Army was the most active advocate of
airmobile concept in the early 1960, a nd was the
first armed force to ex perim ent with, a nd to fi eld , a
divisional-sized airmobile unit. The role of armed
helicopters in this uni t was that of airborne arti llery.
It had become evident to the Howze Boa rd , which
was organised in 1962 to stud y Army requirements
in this fi eld, that a heliborne division wou ld suffer
from eriou fire support weaknesses if relying onl y
on conventional artillery. A certain amount of
towed artillery could be lifted by exi ting helicop-
3
ters, but this was hardly adequ ate. On the other
hand , helicopters could carry 2.75-in . unguided
rockets in large cluster pods which could substitute
for conventional artillery in ma ny roles. Neverthe-
less, the US Army did not a nti cipa te developing a
dedi cated attack heli copter, preferring instead an
adaptation of a normal utility machine. In 1962 Bell
H elicopters proposed the D 255 Iroquois Warrior,
a n attack helicopter based on HU-I Iroquois
components; a nd in 1963, Kam a n offered its UH-2
Tomahawk. The US Arm y showed only lukewarm
interest. The e early airmobile divi ion concepts did
not eriously consider the a nti-ta nk requirements of
the unit. The US involvement in the war in
Vietnam wa growing, and undoubtedly the US
Army had this role in mind for the new airmobile
unjts, ra ther than employm ent in a Central
European contingency.
The First Anti -Tank Helicopters
France was the pioneer of a nti-ta nk helicopters. In
the late 1950, as a result of their experiences in
Algeria, the Fr nch Army's ALOA (Aviation Legere
de l' Observation Artillerie) devised experimental
helicopter mountings for the ord Aviation SS.IO
missile. Nord Aviation was not entirely satisfied
with the r ults, leading to the development of the
improved SS.I 1 mi sile, which proved to be the first
practical heliborne anti-tank missile. The US Army
was very interested in the French programme, and
in 1958 a US team visited Camp de Mailly to
examin e th e SS. 10 helicopter missile systems. The
4
US Arm y decided to adopt the SS. 10 a nd SS. 1 I for
both ground and helicopter launcillng. In August
1958 the US Army received its first mi sile-firing
helicopters, a pair of Bell OH-1 3H machines with
four SS. IO missiles each. The main problem with
both the French and American helicopters was the
lack of an adequate sighting system . The US Army
delayed operational employm ent of anti-tank
helicopters until the SS. I I missile became available
in the early I 960s, and until an adeq uate sight could
be field ed. The French Army followed a similar
co urse.
The French Army was the first to field
operational anti-tank helicopters. In 1963 their [st
Armoured Division received Alouette Ills fitted
with the SS. I I and a new stabilised , roof-mounted
sight. The US Army began deploying the limited-
sta ndard XM-I I SS. I I launcher on HU-[As, but
the first standardised system did not become
available until July 1964 in the form of the
improved M22 system. Like the XM-I [, the M 22
mounted six SS. I IS (called AGM-22B in US Army
servi ce). The M 22 sys tem originally used an XM-
55 sight derived from the fur Force P-6I system, but
tills was later superseded by the XM-58 anti-
oscillation sight. This armament ys tem was
deployed to Vietnam in [965 on board UH - [B .
Huey , and was first used operationall y in O ctober
1965. Due to the absence of enemy tanks, it was used
mainly to attack bunkers and other small, hard
targets.
The AH-IG Cobra Gunship
The initial deployment of US airmobile units to
Vietnam in the early [960s qwckly revealed their
considerable combat value in an unconventional
war of this type. Likewise, th e armed helicopter
notion proved a successful adjunct to the use of the
helicopter in the troop carrying role. The most
common armed helicopters were the 'Hog ', ba ed
on Bell UH-I Hueys which carried a bewild ering
variety of gun, rocket- and grenade-launcher
systems. Although very useful , man y of the weapon
In Vietnam there was little call for anti-tank missiles, leading
to improvised mountings like this portion of an M22 launcher
attached to an XM-3 2.7S-in. rocket launcher called the
'Maxwell System' after its inventor. In this fashion, both the
SS.II and the more useful 2.7S-in. rocket launcher could be
carried. This was fitted to a UH-IB of the 1st Cavalry Division
at An Khe in January 1967. (US Army)
mountings were ma keshift, and US Army officers in
Vietnam began to feel that a heli copter built
expressly for this role was req uired .
The Army in Washing ton wanted a dedi cated
g unship tha t would be capable of carrying both a
rapid-fire m achin e gun sys tem a nd rocket pods, as
well as carrying soph isti cated sensors which would
nable it to carry out its mission at ni ght or in poor
weather. High speed was preferred to reduce its
vuln erability to ground fire, a nd it was expected to
be fairl y manoeuvrable. The Army's early pro-
posals were rej ec ted by th e Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD ), which considered th em overly
a mbitious a nd not sufficiently defin ed . This highly
ophi ticated attack heli copter idea eventu ally
emerged as the AAFSS as described below. The
Army realised th at th e AAFSS was several year off
in the future, and in view of the pressing need for
a ttack helicopters in Vietnam , decided instead to
look for a n ' Interim AAFSS'.
Bell H elicopters had been working on its own
private ventures which it hoped would attract
Army interest. In 1963 it had developed the Bell 207
Scout, a two- eat reconnaissance helicopter with a n
integral chin turret. This was really too sm all for the
gunship requirement; but in 1965 it led to a
resurrected version of the Iroquois Warrior,
trimmed down in size, called the Bell Model 209 or
UH-IG. The M odel 209 was based heavil y on the
A close-up view of an HU-IA Iroquois with the initial XM-II
mounting for the SS.II anti-tank missile. (US Army)
UH-I, but the no e wa reconfigured with a leeker
tandem eat a rra ngement, a chin-m ounted turret,
a nd weapo ns stowage on a stub winglet. This was
examin ed by the Army a nd was accepted in March
1966 as the AH-IG, better known as the Cobra.
The Army decided to buy an initial ord er of 11 0
Cobras in place ofU H- 1 Bs intend ed for the g un hip
role. The Cobra entered service in May 1967, and
the fir t operationa l uni t with Cobra attack
helicopters appeared in Vietnam in September
1967. Through 197 1, the US Army a nd Marine
Corps acquired 925 AH-IG Cobra and 49 AH-IJ
Seacobras (a Marine version with a different engine
a nd other cha nges), a nd the Cobra saw extensive
combat in Vietnam.
The AH-56 Cheyenne
The Cobra was viewed by U Army Aviation as a n
interim attack heli copter until a more specialised
aircraft could be developed. Army interest in a
larger, more capa ble aircraft was prompted in part
by long tanding di putes with the US Air Force.
Since the Air Force plit off from the rm y in ' 947,
there had been intermittent squ a bbling between
the two servi ces over control of aircra ft. The Army
wa supposed to limit its aircraft acquisitions to
types which it directl y needed to carry out its
5
tactical mission. The Air Force was to kee p control
of a ttack aircraft used to support Arm y troops in the
field . The Arm y had pla nned to use its OV-I a nd
OV - 10 scout aircraft for ground support, a nd a t one
time even co nsidered acquiring small j et trainer
aircraft for thi role. The Air Force compl ained th at
th e Army was wanderin g too fa r from its own turf;
a nd fin ally, after a long-simmering dispute, the
Arm y agreed to relinquish ma ny of its fix ed-wing
aircraft to the Air Force in 1966. H owever, this
agreement still left close-support helicopters und er
Arm y control. The Arm y was inten t on developing
its own support aircraft, as it was con vinced th a t Air
Force ai rcraft could not always be depend ed upon
to provide tactical air support when it was required .
The Arm y wa nted some form of air support tha t
would be availa ble to divisional comm and ers to
support their units in th e fi eld. (It is interes ting to
note th a t th e U S M a rine Corps had th e same
The first operational use of helicopter-fired anti-tank missiles
against tanks took place in VietnaDl in May 1972. This NUH-IB
was one of two helicopters involved in these early encounters.
These carried an experiDlental triple TOW missile launcher,
and on the front port nose can be seen the sight/tracking
system used with the TOW. (Paul Boyer)
6
a ttitude a bout avy air support, a nd persuaded
Congress to fund th e AV -8 H a rri er jump-j et for the
same type of requirement in this period .)
Development of this new helicopter had sta rted
in 1964 as th e HAX (H elicopter Armored
Experimental) but it was eventu ally re-christened
FAS, a nd subsequently AAFSS (Advanced Aerial
Fire Support System ). In 1965 Lockh eed a nd
Sikorsky developed initi al designs und er a n Arm y
contract, a nd Lockheed was elected in ovember
1966 to proceed with the engi neering design. This
emerged in 1967 as the AH-56 Cheyenne. The
Cheyenne was a n extremely unconventional de-
sign. It pioneered a uniqu e compound con-
figura tion, using a novel rigid rotor, tub winglets
a nd a rear tail a nd pusher propeller whi ch gave it
the exceptionally high speed of 420 km /h (260
mph ). Flight a nd weapons controls were ex tremel y
sophisticated for a helicopter. The AF CS (Auto-
ma ti c Flight Control System ) included a terrain-
avoiding rada r system to permit the helicopter to be
flown safel y a t ' na p-of-th e-earth ' altitudes even a t
night and in poor weather. The wea pons co ntrols
included night vision a nd a laser ra nge fi nd er. The
weapons were full y stabilised, a nd the gunner's seat
traver ed with th e weapons. The pilot used a
helmet-mounted sight with which he could direct
the fire of the turret machin e guns a nd grenade
lau ncher merely by turning his head (should the
gunner be disabled ). Although it was intend ed
mainly as a gunship, plans were laid to incorporate
the new TOW missile sys tem into th e Cheyenne at a
later date. T en prototypes were built and subjected
to Army trials. The crash of one prototype, and
seriou technical problems with the design, led the
Army to cancel its planned production in 1969, and
to acquire more AH-IG Cobras instead. The
Cheyenne was pushed back into development,
where its future was j eo pardised by continuing
contract disputes between Lockheed and the US
Army. As the Vietnam Wa r began to wind down ,
the US Congres began to show diminishing
enthusiasm for cos tl y new weapons programmes. It
question ed whether it was prudent to fund the Air
Force's AX (later to emerge as the A-Io attack
aircraft), the Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier jump-jet
a nd the Army AH-56, which all a ppeared to
envisage th e same rol es. The Army saw the writing
on the wall. It was not entirely ha ppy with the
Cheyenn e, and many felt that the experi ences with
helicopters in Vietnam should be more thoroughly
examined before the Army pressed a head with a
helicopter that would cost about $5.4 million
(programme unit cos t) each. In 1972, the trouble-
plagued Cheyenne progra mme was cancelled by
the Army.
Vietnam Anti-Tank Operations
While the Cheyenne debate was going on back in
th e United States, the US Arm y was making its first
efforts to develop heli copter anti -tank tactics in
Vietnam . The North Vietnam ese had made very
little use of tanks in South Vietn a m through most of
the 1960s. Small numbers ofUH-IBs were shipped
to Vietnam with missile la unch ystem for the
The AH-56 Cheyenne represented the '960s notion of an attack
helicopter. In the early '970s, the progranune ran into serious
fuqding and technical problelDs, and it was abandoned in '973.
By this tilDe, ArlDy interest had s hifted froID a high-speed
gunship to a tank destroyer incorporating 1D0re advanced
survivability features . (Lockheed)
7
Fren h-de igned SS. I I (US designation: AGMI proof, but it limited the speed of the missile. These
MGM-22 ). The SS.II-armed Hueys were oc- early MCLOS missiles proved modes tl y ucces ful
casionally used to attack hard targets like bunkers, in their ground-l a unched form s; la un ch from a
but shortcomings in the sys tem and a lack of helicopter was a trickier affair. The duration
a rmoured ta rgets lessened interest in th e concept. between mi sile launch a nd missile impact was
The SS.I I was a first generation MCLOS usually 20 seconds or more, and it was very difficult
(ma nu al co mm a nd-to-line-of-sight) wire-guided to keep the helicopter steady during this interlude.
missile. This guidance techniqu e was the same as Movement of the helicopter made the gunner's task
th a t us d on the original Germ a n X-7 Rotkappchen of all the more difficult, even though the system was
1945, though in a more mature and developed provided with an XM55 anti-osci llation sight.
form . The MCLOS guidance required a very Ea rly trial pointed to the need for a more
skill d gunn er to operate. Once the missile was satisfactory stabilised sigh t.
la unch d , the gunner had to gather both the missile The US Army had recognised thi problem
and the ta rgeted tank into his sighting device. Then, somewha t earlier, but ra ther than develop a n
using a joy tick control, he guided the missile into ex pensive gyro-stabilised sight for the SS.I I,
the ta rge t. These early systems could use a radio decided instead to pursue development of a second-
comm a nd link between th e gunner's fire controls generation missile with improved guid a nce. This
and th e missile, or a wire link- the latter, in the case emerged in 1967 as the Hughe MGM-71 TOW
of the SS. I I. The wire wa very fine, a bout the (Tube-launched , Optically-tracked , Wire-guid ed )
thi ckne of a hum a n hair, and spooled out behind missile. The TOW was one of the first missiles to
the mis ile. It had the advantage of being j a m- pioneer SACLOS (semi-a utomatic comm a nd to-
line-of- ight) guidance. On firin g a SACLOS
The Westland AH.I Scout is typical of the early adaptations of
light utility helicopters for the anti-tank role. Besides the SS. II missile, the gunner needs only to place the target in
missile mountings themselves, a s ight has been added on the the cross-hairs of his sight and keep it there. The
port fuselage roof for the gunner. These were 6rst adopted by
the British Army in 1970. (British Army) launcher fire controls contain a tracker which
follows th e missile after launch by means of a brigh t
infra-red fl are at the rear of the missile. The tracker
passes this on to the guidance system, which
automatically sends flight corrections to the mis ile
ba ed on where the gunner points the sight. While
developing the TOW mi sile, Hughes Aircraft
Company also decided to develop an associated
helicopter sighting system which incorporated one
of their new thermal-imaging FLIR (Forward
Looking Infra-red ) night sights. The sighting
In the mid-1970S the AH-IG and AH-IQ. Cobras were upgraded
to AH-IS standards with the TOW missile, engine, fire control
and other improvements. These initial conversions, called
Modified AH-IS, retained the curved canopy glass of the early-
model Cobras. (US Army)
The AH-IJ Seacobra was a development of the AH-IG Cobra
characterised by a new, more powerful engine. It was acquired
by the US Marine Corps, as well a s by Iranian ArDly Aviation
units, as here. These Iranian Cobras were later modified with
the M6S TOW sight and other features to permit use of the
TOW anti-tank missile. These helicopters have subsequently
been used in the Iran-Iraq war. (Bell)
sys tem had a daylight cha nnel th a t was full y
stabilised to compensate for helicopter movement
during the la unch-hit interlude, a nd the FLIR sight
permitted the helicopter to a ttack targets in the
dark by passively sensing the infra-red emissions
from the engine of the tank or other sources. Thi
package was fir t fitted to a UH-, B in ' 966 for
trials. In ' 97 ' the full y developed sy tem was

The TOW missile family tree. At the left is the basic BGM-71
TOW, used in VietnaDl and Dlany other conHicts.1n the centre
is the I-TOW (lDlproved TOW), which uses a stand-off probe in
the nose to increase artnour penetration. To the right is the
TOW-2, which has greater range, a larger diatneter warhead
and the extensible stand-off probe. (Hughes Aircraft)
One of the Dlain threats to attack helicopters flying ' nap-of-
the-earth' is the presence of telephone wires and electrical
powerlines. This has led to the developtnent of wire cutters,
which can be seen here being experitnentally fitted to an AH-IS
Cobra at Ft. Rucker, AL. This particular AH-IS is a Step I
tnodeI, with the flat canopy glass, but s till retaining the
original EDlerson chin turret. (US ArDly)
10
demonstrated in Germany to US a nd ATO
forces.
When the North Vietna mese struck in Apri l
1972, the US Army was unprepared for the la rge
number of tanks which took part in th e offensive.
Fortunately, a HEAT a nti-tank warhead had been
developed for the 2. 75-in . rocket used by th e AH-
I G Cobra. While difficult to use, the rocket did give
the Cobra a limited measure of a nti-ta nk capa biEty.
On 13 April 1973 AH- IG Cobras of th e 3rd
Brigade, I st Cavalry Division scored the first
record ed ta nk kill by a heli copter when they
knocked out four T-54A tanks near An Loc. The
Cobras managed to destroy a t leas t 15 PT -76 a nd
T-54A tanks and to damage a considera ble number
of others during the 1973 offensive. The number of
rockets required to des troy a ta nk varied from a
minimum of four to a maximum of 56.
A small number ofSS. I I missiles were still in th e
inventory in South Vietnam , and their launchers
were has til y refitted to six UH- I M helico pters. The
first kill of a T -54A tank wi th an SS. I I took place on
2 I May 1972, and a PT-76 was later destroyed.
During the 1972 fighting I 15 SS. I I missiles were
fired , claiming only two tank kills (though several
others were damaged ) as well as a number ofother
targe ts.
On 12 April 1972 the TOW Progra mme
Manager's office at the R edston e Arsenal in
Alabama was reques ted to send the two UH- IBj
XM26 TOW heli copters, whi ch it had used in the
' 97 ' NATO demon tration in Germany, to Vietnam
on a n urgent basis. The group included both mili-
tary and civilia n personnel and was named the
1St Airborne TOW Team or th e H eli co pter
Anti-Tank Platoon (Provisional ). It arrived on
24 April ' 972, a nd was initially scheduled to
support the ARVN troops who were besieged by
V tanks in An Loc. In the event, the team was
sent into the Central Highlands to help curb VA
attac ks towa rds Kontum.
s mention ed earlier, the first tank kill recorded
by the team occurred on 2 May 1972 on the
outskirt ofKontum , when a n VA M41 light tank
was destroyed . In the following two months of
fighting the two helicopters fired 81 TOW missiles,
knocking out 26 tanks and 33 other targets
(armoured per onnel carriers, trucks, barge,
bunkers a nd bridges ). The top scoring TOW
gunners were CW-2 Danny Rowe with ten tank
kills, a nd CW-3 Les ter Whiteis with eight kills.
When used against tanks, the helicopters averaged
one kill for every two missiles fired (abou t 50 per
A good exalDple of a Modernized AH-IS Step 3 during the
fighting in Grenada in IgII3. This lDodel is characterised by the
tuhular engine exhaust IR suppressor, the ' hot brick' IR
counterlDeasures device above the engine exhaust, the newer
GE Universal gun turret, and lDany other iIDprovelDents. (US
Air Force)
cent). A later stud y estima ted that the TOW had
proven itself at lea t five times more effec tive than
the earlier SS.I I, but this seem to be a gross
underestimation.
The Vietnaln Experience Reconsidered
For the US Army, the experiences aro und Kontum
of th e 1St Airborne TOW Team ma rked a
watershed in Army Aviation development. Not
only did the operations vivid ly demon trate the
effective ness of th e new generation of heli borne
missiles, but they came at a tim e when the Army
was seriously questioning the role th at armed
heli copters would play in the future. With the US
involvement in Vietnam winding down, the US
Army began to re-examin e its heli copter require-
ments. There was a ge nera l re-orientation away
,,
from unconventional warfare, a nd a revival of
interest in modernising the conventional forces
stationed in Central Europe. In a European
environm ent the gun hip as a surrogate artillery
sys tem was much less relevant: there was no lack of
artillery available to mechanised and armoured
divisions. But the idea of a gunship as a tank
destroye r struck a responsive chord . The re-
ori enta tion toward the Central European battle-
field inevita bl y led the Army to focus once again on
the gross di proportion of forces between NATO
a nd the Warsaw Pact, especially with regards to
ta nks a nd armoured vehicles. Helicopter ta nk
destroyers offered th e hope of being a ble to blunt
offen ive ta nk opera ti ons at relatively low costs.
A Marine AH-IT Seacobra taking off froITl USS Guam (LPH-g)
during Ope.r ation 'Urgent Fury' off Grenada in 1983. The AH-
IT i s readily distinguis hable froITl tbe earlier AH-IJ by the
presence of the M65 TOW s ight in tbe nose, instead of tbe
pointed nose of the AH-IJ. (US Navy)
12
Western Developments,
19705-805
The early 1970S saw a flowering of in terest in the use
of helicopters in the anti-tank role. This was in part
du e to the proven utility of armed helicopters on th e
battlefield as demonstrated by the US Army in
Vietnam , as well as by the a rri val of the more
effec tive second generation of anti-ta nk missiles like
the TOW, which made the helicopter/missile
combina tion more viable. Although there were only
a handful of heli copters configured to carry the
newer missiles, NATO and U S units began a series
of opera tional experiments to examine how effective
a nti-tank heli copters might be in a European
environment. In 1972 a n exercise was co nducted by
US and German forces near Ansbach, Germany,
using AH-IG Cobras, and Leopard 1 ta nks
simulating an 'aggressor' force. The tes ts concluded
that anti-tank helicopters were extremely successful
in blunting an armoured attack, averaging 28 tank
kill per helicopter lost. The tests also stressed the
u e of hunter-killer tactics, with light scout
helicopters like the Kiowa seeking ou t targets for the
Cobra to attack. The tes ts ugges ted that anti-tank
helicopters should each carry at least eight missiles,
as it was found that the number of recorded kills per
missile dropped 28 per cent when only four mi iles
w re carri ed: the heli copters had to continually
return to rear areas to reload. Some of the observers
ques tioned the realism of the exercise, since the
helicopters were not encumbered with real missiles,
a nd the. G rman tankers made no particular effort
to mimic oviet tactics; nor were any ground-ba ed
air defence assets present. As a result, in 1973- 74,
the US Army staged more controlled tests using
AH-IG Cobras and simulated Soviet tank for-
mations. These tests uggested tha t expected
excha nge · ratios between tanks and helicopters
wou ld vary from 3: I in favour of the helicopters up
to more than 14: I, depending on the size of the
a ttackin g helicopter force. The trials suggested that
a formation of five helicopters was drama tically
more effective than a single machine, which could
onl y expect a n excha nge ratio of 3: I.
The latest derivative of the AH-l Cobra family is the AH-IW
Supercobra developed for the US Marine Corps, which will
carry the Hellfire missile. (USMC)
European Programmes
A British exercise conducted a round the same tim e,
called 'H ell Tank', contradicted th e US findings,
a nd found that the size of the attacking helicopter
force did not dramaticall y cha nge th excha nge
ratio between helicopters and tanks. Thi trial used
the Sco ut AH Mk I helicopter, which had been
ada pted in 1970 to carry four SS . I 1 missile.
Nevertheless, it did conclud e that anti-tank
helicopters could playa significant role in blunting
tank a ttacks, even with the older g neration
missiles.
The TOW wa not the only second-generation
missile to appear during this period . The Franco-
German consortium Euromi sile, mad e up ofMBB
and Aerospatiale, began developing a similar
missile, the HOT (Haute subsonique Optiquement
teleguide tire d'un Tube) in 1964 as a replacement for
the SS.II . The Germ a n Army considered the AH -
IG, Wes tland WG. 13 a nd the MBB BO-105 a
possible contenders for their PH-I (Panzer Abwehr
Hubschrauber- I), fin all y ettling on the BO- I05P,
whi ch could carry six missiles. The Fr nch Arm y

This gaudily-painted Bell Helicopter YAH-63 was one of two
competitors in the AAH programme. It lost out to the Hughes
YAH-64- (US Army)
decided to acq uire the SA .342M Gazelle for the
ALAT (Aviation Legere de l' Armee du Terre ). The
French a nd German a pproache to anti-ta nk
helicopters showed a distinct tactical difference
from the contemporary American approach, which
was to go for a specialised attack heli copter with
light armour protection against mall a rm fire.
Such a helicopter also carried a gun armament to
suppress enemy infantry or soft targets, a nd could
thus be used both for close-range, direct attack with
guns a nd unguid ed rocket, or long-ra nge, stand-off
attack with a nti-ta nk missiles. The French and
German armies preferred the less versati le but more
economi cal a pproach of a completely unarmoured
helicopter, with no additi onal arm a ment, which
/
would be used excl usively in the long-range, stand-
off role. Thi tactic attempted to minimise damage
to the helico pter from small arms fire by keeping th e
machine well away from enemy line. The e
helicopters did not begi n entering service until the
late 1970S a nd early 1980s due to the prolonged
gestation of the HOT, whi ch did not enter full-scale
produ ction until 1977.
The US Approach
The US Army reached exactl y the opposite
conclusion as a result of the earl y ' 970S experi-
men ts, as well as the Vietnam ex peri ence. The
American were unimpressed with European
adaptation of light scout helicopters as a nti-ta nk
This photo shows the original conception of the Hughes YAH-
64 prototype, which eventually evolved into the AH-64 Apache.
(US Army)
mis ile carriers, feeling that the machines were too
small to carry a worthwhile load of missiles, a nd
that th e missiles that were carried seriously
degraded the performance of the helicopter.
Furthermore, the US Army felt that und er modern
battlefield cond itions a helicopter had to have at
leas t some protection against small arms to urvive.
During the period from September 1967 through to
Jun e 1969,563 AH- IG Cobras were hit by ground
fire during th e fighting in South-East Asia;
however, only 57 were lost. The US Arm y studi es
did not sugges t that these experiences would be
typical of encounters with contemporary Soviet
ground forces in Europe: indeed, they made it quite
clear that much higher loss rates could be expected
due to the pre ence of heavier weapons such as the
The AH-64 is a design of inspired ugliness. The device in the
nose is the T ADS/PNVS sensor used to fiy the helicopter and
target its weapons day or night. Under the winglets are eight
Hellfire missiles. Between the two forward landing gear is the
helicopter's 30nun cannon. (US Army)
ZSU-23-4 Shilka air defence gun vehicle. The S
Army clearly preferred a more versatil e attack
helicopter than that offered by simpl y strapping
anti-tank missil es to a sco ut machin e. Apart from
the need for armo ur the studies also concluded that
attack helicopter survivability ould be enhanced
by incorporating special featur into uch de igns
from the outset of development. Manoeuvrability
was stressed as a way to inhibit accurate hos tile
ground fire. Aural, rada r and infra-red signatures
should be redu ced to make it more diffi cult for
hosti le troops to detect a pproaching helicopter by
' .'1
 ound, or through the use of rada r or other
electronic sensors. A helicopter designed to operate
at ' nap-of-the-earth ' (NO E) reduced its vuln er-
ability, since it was nearly impo sible to detect by
radar. The studies also stressed the incorporation of
electronic countermeasure sys tems to baffle enemy
air defence radars and infra-red countermeasures to
protect against the new generation of man-portable
infra-red-guid ed anti-aircraft missiles like the
Soviet 9M32 Strela 2 (SA-7 'Grail ' ). Light utility
helicopters like those adopted in Europe could not
carry as exten ive a coun termeasures suite as a
d di ca ted attack helicopter.
The S Arm y decided to implement these
notions in two ways. First, the existing AH-IG
would be modernised and adapted to carry the
Left
A view from the pilot's seat of the AH-64A Apache. The pilot
s its behind and above the weapons operator: he can aim the
helicopter's weapons using a helmet-mounted sight system.
(Zaloga)
A view of the weapons operator's s tation in the AH-64A
Apache. At the centre is the main weapons fire control sight
and console. The helicopter can be Sown from this station as
well. (Zaloga)
TOW rrus ile. Second , a new attack helicopter
would be developed to provide a more capa ble anti -
tank helicop ter in the next d cade.
The AH-IG Modernisation
Modernisation of the H-IG Cobra too k place in a
number of phases. The AH- IQ improvement
incorporated a n upra ted engine, a nd the ICAP
(Improved Cobra Armament Package ) with TOW
launchers a nd a helmet-mounted sight. The AH-
IQ programme included both modification of 93
AH-IG Cobras a nd production of new AH-IQ
helicopters, taking place from 1973 through 1977.
The basic problem was that the new TOW
launchers taxed the powerpl a nt even with the
improvements, degrading the helicopter's
ma noeuvrabi lity. F urtherm ore, the fire control
Below
The crew of this AH-64 Apache are seen wearing the futuristic
Honeywell llIADSS (Integrated Helmet and Dis play Sight
Subsystem). This allows the Apache crew to aim and fire the
helicopter weapons merely by turning their head towards the
target. The helmet is electro-optically linked internally to the
fire control system, which s laves thebelicopter weapons to the
pilot's head motion. (Bob Lessels )
sys tem was limited to clear weather only, a nd in
some respects was inferior to that used on the
original H-IBs at Kontum . The AH-IQ was
viewed as a n interim solution until these problems
could be addressed. A more ex tensive modernis-
ation package was co mpl eted. The modernised
helicopters were to have furth er engine improve-
ments, but th e most dramatic changes came in the
aircraft elec tronics. The nose wa reconfigured with
the new M 65 TOW fire control sys tem, which
included a fully- tabili ed daylight sight. At first,
AH - I Gs wi th the new features were to be
designated AH-IR, and mod ernised AH-IQs were
to become AH-IS; but eventuall y, all upgraded
helicopters came to be known as AH- I S. The first
AH - I Cobras, called Modified AH - I S, were
modified from 37'2 AH- IG a nd AH-IQ Cobras in
1975- 1984, a nd retained the sta ndard Cobra
canopy. The new prod uction AH - I S Cobras, called
Step I, used a new fl at-plate canopy in order to
reduce refl ections, which could give away their
positions a t long ranges while hovering. The
production of the new AH- I S began in 1976, and
modifica tions were graduall y introduced into these
A production AH-6-tA Apache on initial trials along the
Colorado River in 1984. The elaborate engine exhaust systelD
is configured to cool the hot gas as lDuch as possible to reduce
its vulnerability to heat-seeking IDissiles. The Apache
incorporates other infra-red counterlDeasures which go a long
way towards elilDinating the threat ofIR-guided IDissiles such
as the Soviet SA-7 ' Grail'. (McDonnell Douglas)
new production Cobras as well. T he improved AH-
IS Step '2, also caned Up-Gun AH-IS, has the new
GE Universal Turret, a wings stores man agement
system and other improvements, and totals 98
aircraft. The Step 3, also called Modernized AH-
IS, includes fire control improvements, a n air data
sys tem, a Doppler navigation system, IFF tra ns-
ponder, a new infra-red j a mmer, an infra-red
suppressor over the engine exhaust, secure-voice
communications, a nd other improvements. Pro-
du ction of this batch of 99 helicopters was
completed for the US Army in 198 1, but a n
additional 55 were ordered for the US Army
National Guard in 1983.
Marine Cobras
After ordering a small batch of AH- I Gs for attack
helicopter familiarisa tion in Vietnam , the US
Marine Corps ordered a total of 69 AH-IJ
Seacobras, which were powered by twin Pratt &
Whitney PT6T-3 engin es. These were not con-
figured for the TOW missile, although AH- IJ
Seaco bras ordered later by Iran did have fittings for
the TOW . The Marines began ordering the
improved AH-IT Seacobra in 1974, totalling 57
aircraft to date. The AH-IT Seaco bra is a Marine
counterpart to the AH-IS, having a variety ot
engine and weapon improvements, including the
M65 TOW sight and provisions for the TOW
missile. The Marines did not become involved in
the U Army Apache programme (see below), and, One of the first of the US Army's anticipated 675 AH-64A
Apache attack helicopters. This particular machine is armed
a are ult, developed a furth er upgrade package for with Hellfire missiles and the newer Hydra 70 2.75-in. rocket
the Cobra in the early J 980s to take advantage of launchers. (McDonnell Douglas)
new defensive electronic developments, powerplant
upgrades, and the new H ellfire anti-tank missile. the earlier programme had been cancelled. The
These fea tures are incorporated into the new AH- new programme wa termed AAH (Advanced
1 W (form erl y AH-1 T + ) which wa fir t ordered in Attack Helico pter). In J 973 the rmy selected two
1985. firms to build competitive prototype of the AAH:
Bell Helicopters, offering the YAH-63, and Hughes
The AH-64 Apache Helicopters, offering the Y AH-64. The conception
Development of a successor to the ill-fated behind the AAH differed considerably f)'om the
Cheyenne began in September 1972, shortly after Cheyenne. The Cheyenne was intended as an
19

The Mi-24 ' Hind-A' was originally powered by the Isotov TV2-
"7 engine, and had the tail rotor on the starboard side of the
tail. This view shows one of these early 'Hind-As', armed with
two VB-32 rocket pods and launch rack s for the Falanga guided
anti-tank missile. (US Navy)
airborne a rtillery fire support aircraft which would
a ttack ta rge ts a t high speed , overhead , from an
altitude of several hundred fee t with rockets a nd
gunfire. T he A H was envisioned prima ril y as a n
a nti-ta nk helicopter, attacking its targe ts from
everal kilometres away in a very low altitude
hov r. Much less stre was placed on high speed ,
a nd in tead the mph a is was shifted to the
20
development of a sta ble la unch pla tform with
improved survivability features. This included
much more strenuous requirements for protection
against small arms fire; reduction of IR, a ural
a nd rada r signa tures; a nd the incorpora tion of
electronics and infra-red countermeasures sy terns.
Central to the design of the new AAH was the
H ellfire missile.
The H ellfire was a third-genera tion missile, using
semi-active laser guid ance. It was based on the
earlier but ill-fa ted Hornet progra mme. The
helicopter's fire control sys tem included a la er
designa tor which proj ected a narrow beam oflaser
light against the targeted tank. Some of this light
refl ects off the tank, and the H ellfire' ensluve
seeker picks up this light, a nd hom es in on it. The
target can be laser-illuminated either by the
helicopter la unching the missile, or by a ground
The mos t common series production model of the Mi-24
GO/·bach is called 'Hind-D' by NATO. This 'Hind-D' of the
Czechoslovak Air Force clearly shows the nose barbette with a
12.7mnt 'Gatling'-type machine gun, a radio antenna for
Falanga ntissile guidance, and the armour-covered port for the
infra-red night viewing system. This helicopter is not fitted
with the infra-red suppression gear seen on Mi-24s in
Afghanistan. (Eastfoto)
designa tor, or by a nother helicopter. The main
advantage tha t this sytem offers over a wire-guided
missile like the TOW is tha t, without the bu rden of
the trailing wire, the missile can be designed to
travel a t much higher speeds a nd for a greater
distance. The H ellfire is supersonic, having a
maxi mum speed of about 385 metres per second
and a maximum range proba bly in excess of fi ve
kilometres. (T he T OW has a maximum speed in
the high subsoni c range of about 280 m/sec, and a
maximum ra nge of 3. 7km .) From la unch to ta rge t
im pact at a ra nge of 2.5km, the TOW would ta ke
12 seconds, while the H ellfire wo uld ta ke seven
second . A ' fire-a nd-forget' version of the H ellfire,
the IIR H ellfire, was under development in the la te
1970S a nd early 1980s. This used a cooled infra-red
seeker tha t was sensitive enough to pick up a ta nk
even without its engi ne running. After locking the
eeker on to its targe t, the helicopter could fire it a nd
fl yaway, not having to loiter a nd guid e the missile
to ta rge t, as must be done with the TOW a nd la er-
guided H ellfi re. T his programme wa cancelled due
to costs a nd technical problems; but this type of
helicopter-la unched missile is likely to appear in the
next decade, using imaging infra-red (IIR) or
millimetre wave radar (mm wave) guida nce.
In December ' 976 the Hughes YAH-64 was
selected as the winner of th e AAH competition. The
new helicop ter was designa ted the AH-64 Apache,
in keeping with the US Army tradition of naming
helicopters after American Indian tribes. The AH-
64 was nearly cancelled in ' 978 during budget
battles in the US Congress, a nd again in ' 98 1 its
The p ilot s tation of an Mi-24 'Hind-D' . The pilot is protected b y
6mm of a r mou r, and the front p anel of the co ckpit is bullet-
res istan t glass . (Eas tfoto )
future wa in question. The U S Depa rtm ent of
Defense considered whether the European a p-
proach might not be better after all, a nd instead of
developing a n attack helicopter, a imp ler sta nd-off
a nti -tank helicopter might suffice: it was proposed
tha t a n a nti-ta nk version of the U H-60 Blackhawk
transport would be well suited to this role.
H owever, the US Army vehemently resisted this
suggestion, a nd contended tha t the Blackhawk
alterna tive was deficien t in terms of speed , mission
endura nce, vulnera bility to ground fire a nd other
factors, a nd tha t it would not save the Army
significan t costs through time. In pite of its high
price tag ($1 1.9 million unit co tin ' 984), the Army
succeeded in winning approval of the programme,
and the first production aircraft were fu nded by the
U S Congress in ' 982 a nd delivered in ' 985.
Training on the Apache began in ' 985, a nd th e first
uni t wa pla nned to become operational a t Ft.
H ood, T exas, in ' 986.
The Soviet Experience
Although helicop ter development in the Soviet
U nion has kept pace with th at in Europe a nd the
U SA, Soviet milita ry use of helicopters has been
conservative. According to a Soviet engi neer who
worked for the Mil Design Bureau, the development
of the first maj or Soviet milita ry tra n port
helicopter, the Mi-4, was initia ted in response to US
use of helicopters in K orea l . Likewise, Soviet Arm y
interest in a ttack helicopters was spurred on by U S
use of a ttack helicopters in Vietna m. H elicopters in
the Soviet Army are under the control of the Air
Force, not the G round Forces; and , not urpris-
ingly, the Air Force showed little interes t in
developing helicopters for a role alread y fulfill ed by
strike aircraft 2 •
In the early ' 960s there wa some experim ent-
a tion with very primitive gunship tacti cs. The Mi-
4A helicop ter developed a t this time had a single
Afanasyev TKB-48, machine gun mo unted in a
gondola below the fuselage. It had a very limited
J Lev C haiko, Heiico/Jler COllstrllctioll ill Ihe U R, (Delphi c Associa tes:
Lees burg, VA , 1985)
"The Soviets do not use the term 'Army' in th e European sense. The
Soviet Army consists of the Ground Forces (compa rable to th e British
or S Army), the Air Forces, th e Stratcgic Missile Force, the auo nal
Air Defcnce Force a nd the se mi-autonomou Air A sa ult Force
21
 T he programme a ppears to have been given a
significant boos t by the border fighti ng between
Soviet KGB Border Gu ards a nd the Chin ese Army
along the Ussuri River in the eastern USSR in
1969-the worst in a series of clashes which had
been going on for several years. I t was of special
concern to the Soviet Arm y, since the vital T rans-
Siberia n M agistral R ailway line was not far from
the Chinese frontier a t this poi nt. T he T ra ns-
Siberia n was the only maj or com m unication Link
between the central USSR and the Far Eastern
milita ry districts, and carried most of the maj or
milita ry supplies: Chinese border ac tions could
effectively cu t off the Pacific bases in a single lunge
for the railway. As a long-term solu tion to the
Another view inside the cockpit of an Mi-24 'Hind-D', looking
from the rear troop compartment forward towards the pilot's problem the Soviets began adding the Baikal-Amu r
station. Magistral (BAM ) railway spur, which took over 15
years to complete. In the short term , mili tary forces
field of fire, a nd was of dubious utility. The Mi-¢ in the region were bolstered.
could also be fitted to carry bombs. In pa rallel with
programmes in Fra nce a nd the U SA, there were A closeup of the nos e of an East German 'Hind-D' s howing the
also experiments to fit rockets, guided anti-tank rather massive fire control s ystem in the gunner's s tation
used for aiming the Falanga anti-tank miss ile and machine gun
missiles a nd gun pods to helicopters, including both barbette. The helmet flash is white on red.
the small Mi- 1 utility helicopter and the M i-4
transport. T hese proj ects do not seem to have borne
much fruit, a nd Soviet helicop ter doctrine re-
mained oriented mainly towards the transport role.
In the la te 1960s Soviet interest in attack
helicopters was stirred by the US AAFFS
programm e. The Mil bureau seems to have been
especiall y ena moured of the Sikorsky entry, which
eventually resulted in the S-67 Blackhawk proto-
type, and a ppears to have proposed developing a
Soviet counterpart. This initiall y met with little
interest. Mikhail Mil himself showed some personal
interest in this concept, a nd used the American
programme as a lure to entice the Soviet Army to
fund a similar effort. The H elicopter Directora te of
the Soviet Army's General Staff issued a T echnical-
Tactical R equirement (TTT) for the development
of an a ttack helicopter to the Mil bureau in the
summer of 1968. The programme had an air of
urgency a bout it, a nd the Mil bureau decided to use
modified elements of the new Mi-8 helicopter,
including the rotor system, with an upgraded
reduction gearbox a nd more powerful engines. T wo
types of tail rotor configurations were tested , a
conventional system and a fenestron system (like
tha t used on the Gazelle).
22
 The KGB, which is responsible for protecting the
Soviet frontier, became extremely interested in the
notion of an armed helicopter that could be used to
patrol along the distant Soviet-Chinese frontier a nd
repulse Chinese incursions. The KGB req uirement
that the helicopter carry a small sq uad of troops
may have been one of the factors in the Mil bureau's
decision to add a troop compartment to the new
attack helicopter design. This feature was also
present on the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, but is
otherwise unique in attack heli copter designs.
The first prototypes of the Mi-24 flew in 1970,
and were probably built in a small batch at the
Panki experimental facility. The original version
was intended mai nl y as a fast artillery rocket
platform. Its small stub wings could carry the usual
-5 57mm rocket in UB-32 pods. Surprisingly, it
was armed only with a single Afanasyev 12. 7mm
machine gun , flexibl y mounted in the front canopy.
Armour was rudimentary: the floor and seats were
protected by 6mm of steel arm our, but the canopy
was un armoured glass. As a result, side protection
was offered in the form of a sliding panel of steel
armo ur, which blocked off the crew's side view
when in use! This version of the Mi-24 was called
the 'Hind-B' by NATO . V ery small numbers of
A training zIIeno of four Mi-24s at the Syzran Air Force
Academy. It will be noted that this is a training version of the
'Hind-D' , lacking the machine gun barbette in the nose. These
helicopters still have the launch racks for the older Falanga
missile. (Sovfoto )
these entered Soviet Air Force (VVS ) service in the
earl y 1970s, probably only for operational tri als.
They were followed in 1972 by the first eri es
production version of the Mi-24, called the 'Hind-
A' by NATO . The ' Hind-A' had a reconfigured
stub wingl et with wider chord; this was a ppa rentl y
add ed to give the helicopter more lift a nd a higher
cruise speed . The 'Hind-A' was also the first version
to include a winglet end-plate for mounting the
Falanga guided a nti-tank missile (US/NATO
designation AT-2 'Swatter' ). Although the 'Hind-
A' was origi nall y powered by the Isotov TV 2- I 17,
these were soon replaced by the more powerful
TV 3- I 17 R , and the tail rotor was shifted from a
right-side pusher to a left-side tractor style.
Actual operational experience with th e 'Hind-A'
improved Soviet Air Force und erstanding of the
tactical requi rements of a ttack helicopter. In ma ny
respects, the 'Hind-A' had serious tactical short-
comings. The machine gun position offered very
little traverse, and was nearly useless. The armour
configuration was hopelessly inadequ a te, and
machine gun rounds could readily penetrate the
sides. The rotor was vulnerable to small arms fire ,
a nd the weak tail boom led to accidents. The main
rotor and power train, though nominally having a
life of 2,000 hours, had an effective life closer to a
tenth of that figure.
A major redesign of the Mi-24 began around
1972, with the aim of curing these deficiencies. By
this time the Mil bureau had received components
of American AH-Is from Vietnam, possibly even an
entire helicopter. It is not clear what effect this had
on the design effort. This redesign programme was
probably managed by Mil's successor, Marat
Tishchenko. The nose was redesigned in a tandem
configuration like that on the AH - 1 Cobra or AH-
56 Cheyenne. Armoured glass was added to the
forwa rd canopies, and the crew were enclosed in an
armoured 'bathtub', protected against small arms
fire. The new version was designed to be proof
against 7.62mm amm uniti on, with some ability to
survive heavier fire. The front armament system
was completely redesigned , adding a 12. 7mm
multi-barrel machine gun in a small traversing
A flight of Mi-24 Go,.bachi at the Syzran Air Force Academy
undergoing periodic maintenance. The considerable size of the
Go,.bach is very evident in this view. (Sovfoto)
barbette, flanked on either side by the Falanga radio
command antenna and a new night sensor port.
This version, dubbed 'Hind-D' by NATO, al 0 had
considerable improvements in infra-red suppression
and powertrain subsystem ballistic protection. The
'Hind-D' was first seen by the Wes t in 1976,
although it was probably in service earlier. It soon
earned the nickname Gorbach (, Hunchback' ) in
VVS service, due to its distinctive profile.
Concurrent with the development of the Gorbach
was a new helicopter-launched anti-tank missile.
The Falanga (AT -2 'Swatter' ) was a first generation
MCLOS guidance type using a radio command
link. For use on the Mi-24 it was upgrad ed with a
SACLOS guidance sys tem, resulting in the AT-2c
'Swatter-C'. The 'Swatter-C ' was an interim
solution until a new missile could be field ed. It was a
relatively old weapon which had first entered
service in 1960. It had a range of 3.Skm, but was
fairly slow, taking 23 seconds to reach its maximum
range. This long launch-hit interlud e is particularly
important on Soviet attack helicopters, since, unlike
US and most NATO attack helicopters, a nti-ta nk
missiles are launched during forward motion , not
from hover.
Indeed , due to the large stub winglet, which is
 1: Bell UH-1B, 2/20th Artillery, US 1st Air Cavalry Division; An Khe, Republic of Vietnam, July 1967
2: Bell NUH-1B, 1st TOW Team; Republic of Vietnam, May 1972

o
» Et
B
 1

1: Aerospatiale SA.342M Gazelle. Syrian Attack Helicopter Regt. ; Lebanon. 1982

2: Bell AH-1J Cobra. Iranian Army Aviation; Iran. 1979

()
o
 -----
1

1: WSL-Swidnik Mi-ZM • Polish Air Force. 1980

2, ... Mi... ' ....d. E', S."" FA-VVS, D""hb' .,,,ciH, ,982
f1

e
I: Mil
2: AerospatiaJe SA.342M
Mi-24 'Hind-A', Gazelle,
Libyan Arab 2AirRHC, French
Force, 1982 Army ALAT; Operation 'Manta', Chad, 1983

2
 1: Mil Mi-24 'Hind- D', Sandinista Air Force; Nicaragua, 1985
2: Bell AH-1 T, US Marine Corps HML-261; Operation 'Urgent Fury', Grenada, 1983

,~
<l~~

G)
I

I: MBB PAH-I, Bundesheer Panzer Abwehr Regt. 36; FRG, 1984

2: Westland Lynx AH.I, Lynx Conversion Flight ' Silver Eagles', British Army Air Corps, 1982

The only unclassified photo released, purportedly s howing a
'Hind-E' with the AT-6 'Spiral' anti-tank missile. This seems
extremely unlikely, as the missile tube pictured seems hardly
large enough for a missile with the performance attributed to
the 'Spiral'. (US Army)
right in the middle of the rotor downwash, th e Mi-
24 has virtually no ability to hover out of ground
effect. This is a conscious off-shoot of the Mi-24
design, which tres es high-speed performance (like
the AH -S6 Cheyenn e). The new missile, known by
the US/NATO codename AT-6 'Spiral', entered
service a round 1974 for operational trials. The
'Spiral' is a second generation SACLOS guidance
missile using a radio command link. Its main
adva ntage over the Falanga is higher speed , greater
accuracy and an improved warhead. The 'Spiral'
has a maximum range of skm, a nd can reach this
range in I I seconds. The Mi-24 was modified to
carry the guidance equipm ent for this missile, and
thi version is designated as 'Hind-E'. It was first
spotted in German y in 1978, but probably had been
in Soviet service since 1976.
The initial version of the 'Hind-E' was armed
with the same 12. 7mm machin e gun barbette as the
'Hind-D'. At the Druzhba-82 exercise in 1982 an
improved type, with the barbette removed and twin
23 mm autocannons added to the starboard fu selage
side, was first seen. The rationale for this new
a rma ment configuration is not clear. It has been
suggested that the new weapons presage the u e of
the Mi- 24 in helicopter-vs-helicopter fighting. It
may also have been adopted to give the Mi-24 some
ability to knock out light armoured vehicles,
including lightly armoured air defence gun vehicles
like the German Gepard.
Although the Mi-24 has been the centre of
attention in Soviet a nti-ta nk helicopter develop-
ment, other proj ec ts were und ertaken. In the 1970s,
some Mi-8 'Hip' helicopters were configured to
permit use of the 9MI4M MaLyutka (AT-3c 'Sagger-
C' ) SACLOS guid a nce a nti-ta nk missile: this
version is called 'Hip-F' by NATO. Produ ction of
the Soviet Mi- 2 is undertaken by WSK-Swidnik in
Poland , where some experimenta tion in anti-ta nk
deri vati ves was und ertaken in th e earl y 1970 . The
Mi-2 attack helicopter featured four 9M 14M
MaLyutka missiles on pylon launchers, a fl exibly
mounted PKM 7.62mm machine gun add ed to the
side cargo door, a nd a fixed , forwa rd-firing PKM
added to the lower port fu selage. These armed Mi-
2Ms were adopted by the Polish Air Force, a nd may
be in use elsewhere in the Warsaw Pact. It is
interesting to note that some ex port mod els of the
Mi- 24 are also fitted for the smaller a nd shorter-
ranged 'Sagger' instead of the 'Swatter', a nd this
may account for the Mi-2S d e ignation used for
certain export Mi-24S.
Anti-Tank Helicopters
in Combat
The first known comba t use of Soviet a nti-ta nk
helicopters came in 1979 in Afghanistan. In ugust
of that year a number of rebel Afghani soldiers
command eered some tanks and attempted to attack
the presidential palace in K a bul. A fli ght of Mi-24
Gorbachi were sent to stop the tanks, and d estroyed
th em using anti-tank missiles a nd S-S rockets. The
Mi-24 has subsequently been used with con ider-
able success in Afghanistan against the mujahideen,
but is seldom used in an anti-tank role in the
fighting there.
Israel acquired American attack helicopters in
the 1970s, including AH-IQ, AH-IS, a nd, later,
the Hughes sooMD Defend er. The Israeli helico p-
ters are controlled by the Hryl Ha'Avir (Air Force),
and are grouped in a nti-tank helicopter quadrons.
Israeli helicopter doctrine tre e the use of a nti-
tank helicopters in the defensi ve role. The prima ry
impetus for Israel acquiring these helicopter had
been the realisation , after the 1973 Golan H eights
fighting, that anti-tank helicopters could serve as a
very potent, highly mobile a nti-ta nk reserve to top
An Mi-24 ' Hind-E' of the later type with the twin 23m.rn
autocannon on the starboard fuselage s ide and launch
mountings for the AT-6 ' Spiral' anti-tank missile. This
helicopter was taking part in the .g85 Kavkaz-85 exercise. Note
that this version lacks the nose gun barbette, like the training
version of the 'Hind-D'.
armour that had broken through ground defences.
In pite of this doctrinal approach, the Israeli
armed forc decided to d eploy their attack
heli copters in the 1982 fighting in Lebanon, where
th e tactics inevi tably were of a more offensive
nature.
Details of the 1982 air war a re still ketchy, and
there is a good deal of conflicting information about
the numb r of losses suffered by both sides.
According to I raeli ources, the AH- 1S Cobras a nd
the Defend ers knocked out 28 ta nks (including
orne T-72M s), 16 armoured perso nnel carriers a nd
13 other vehicles, in addition to a number of
bunkers and other targets. The TOW missiles were
cr dited with a better than 70 per cent probability
of hit and kill during these operations. Some
accounts have indica ted that the helicopters
accounted for 60 per cent of the Syrian a rmoured
vehicles knocked out in the Bekaa valley fighting.
34
Israeli helicopter 10 ses have not been officially
disclosed , but are believed to have totalled four
a ttack helicopters: two to Syrian ground fire and
two to friend ly fire. One of the fri endly fire
casualties is believed to have bee n a Defender which
was mistaken for a Syrian Gazelle and was hit by
tank fire.
Israeli Heyl Ha' A vir officers have ex pressed mixed
feelings a bout the use of attack helicopters over
Lebanon. Many officers felt that co nventional
ground a ttack aircraft were more effective tha n
helicopters, since they could be used to attack
targets deep inside Syrian-held territory. The low-
flying attack helicopters were vulnerable to small
arms fire, especially the Defenders, a nd could only
be used along the periphery of the battleline,
attacking from stand-off distance . However, many
officers admitted that this is how Israeli doctrine
had planned to use them a nyway, and in Lebanon
they were often used over 'unswept' terri tory, which
was against normal tactical doctrine. Isra Ii tan kers
had a very different attitude to a ttack helicopters
after havi ng been subjected to Syria n a ttacks.
Tanks have a very hard time spotting helicopters;
and even the helicopter's Achille's heel- its easil y
identifi a ble sound- is of little help to tank crews
due to the din of a rmoured vehicles in motion.
Helicopter can appear from nowhere and hit
several tanks before their presence is even
recognised .
The Syrian Air Force first acquired attack
heli copters in 1977 in the form of 18 Aerospatiale
A.342L Gazelles. These were first fitted with the
AS. I 2 mi sile, a n improved version of the SS. I I , as
an interim measure pending production of the far
superior HOT missile. Earl y in 1978 th e Syri a ns
ordered two more squadrons of Gazelles, totalling
36 aircraft. In 198 I these were supplemented by 12
Mi- 24 'Hind-D' a ttack helicopters from the USSR.
They were first used in February 1982 to help
suppress the Hamah uprising in Syria. The attack
helicopters were first used in combat in the fighting
ror Mt. Lebanon on 25- 27 April 1982. (The Syrian
Air Force lost two 'Hinds' to Israeli aircraft prior to
the 1982 wa r in Lebanon.) Before the outbreak of
that war the attack helicopters were organised into
an attack helicopter regiment, with one squadron of
'Hinds' and four sq uadrons of Gazelles. It would
appear that mo t of the unit was based a t AI-
Mazzah airbase, with a single Gazelle squ adron at
Al-Ladhiqiyah.
Although the 'Hinds' probabl y saw orne action
in the 1982 Lebanon Wa r, it was the Gazelles which
made the greates t impres ion on the Israeli ta nkers
du e to th eir superior HOT missiles. Syrian tactics
called for co-ordina tion betwee n the helicopter
and Syrian Army units. The ai m was to ambush or
tie down Israeli armoured form ations with tank fire
or close range commando attack, a t which point the
Gazelles would be called in. The Gazelles operated
in flights of four, usually in two pairs. The
helicopters would pop up to fire, a nd usually
attempted to use Lebanon's hilly terrain to find
their way to the flanks or rear of the Israeli columns.
Because th e Gazelle has a roof-mounted sight, th e
helicopters could often use terrain obstruction to
hid e while guiding their missile to target. Actual
Israeli casualties from the Gazelles have not
officially been made public, but some source
indicate that only two ta nk a nd one M- I 13 w re
de troyed by HOT fire. Syrian Gazelle los es were
heavier than Israeli losses, with a t least ven
helicopters shot down by ground fire (both friendly
and hostile) a nd by aircraft. At leas t one of the
A Hughes 500 MD Defender of the Is raeli Air Force. This anti-
tank version of the Hughes 500 carries four TOW missiles, and
is fitted with the missile tracker/fire control in the sensor pod
on the port side of the nose. (Hughes Helicopter/McDonnell
Douglas)
35
An Israeli AH-IS armed with four T O W missiles. This view
underlines the small target that a n anti-tank h elicop ter
p resen ts during 'pop-up' attack. (Government P r ess Agen cy)
Gazelles was shot down by tank fire from a
Merkava of the Israeli 7th Armoured Brigade-
though th ere is some dispute as to whether this was
intentional, or simply the result of the Gazelle
happenin g to be in th e wrong place at the wrong
time. There are also reports that one of the Gazelles
was shot down by an AH-IS Cobra using a TOW
anti-tank missile. The Israelis found · two of the
Gazelles nearl y intact, and managed to salvage a
single machine from the wrecks by cannibalising
parts.
Probabl y the most ex tensive use of anti-tank
helicopters ha taken place in the Gulf War between
Iran and Iraq which has been dragging on since
1980. The Iraqi fur Force is equipped both with
Mi-24 'Hind-D ' and French SA.342M Gazelles.
The Iranian Islarruc R epublic fur Force is
equipped mainly with AH- IJ Seacobras acquired
during the Shah's reign. Very few details of the use
of these helicopters have been reported. Reputedly,
an Iraqi 'Hind ' shot down an Iraman F-4 Phantom
fighter which strayed too near. The Iraqis have also
claimed that they have brought down several
Cobras using Milan anti -tank missiles. The Iraqi
Gazelles and 'Hinds' a re used for fire support as well
as anti-tank operations; the Gazelles are sometimes
fitted with HOT missiles on one side and Matra
unguided rocket clusters on the other to cover either
even tuali ty.
Anti-tank helicopters have also figured in various
coup attempts and civil wars. In the earl y 1970S the
36
Spanish Army used Alouette III helico pters with
SS.II missiles in the fighting against guerillas in
Spanish Morocco. During an attempted co up by
the Republican Guard in Catneroon in 1984,
using Cadillac Gage V-I 50 armoured cars, loyalist
forces used the country's two SA.342M Gazelle
helicopters fitted with HOT missiles to attack and
destroy six of these vehicles. Mi-24 helicopters
apparently played a part in the short civil war in
Yetnen in Janua ry 1986.
Anti-tank helicopters have figured in a number of
other wars in the 1980s. The US Marine Corps used
four AH- 1T Cobras of HML-167 with TOWs in
Grenada, though these were not used against
armoured vehicles, but against such targets as
machine gun nests. The US Army also had AH-IS
Cobras in Grenada, but these too saw no a nti-
armour use. During operation ' Manta' in 1983 the
French Army sent small detachments of the 2e a nd
5 c RHC (Regiment d'HeLicopteres de Combat ) to Chad
to provide flank and anti-armour protection to
other elements of the French force. The SA.342M
Gazelles proved very effective in this role, being able
to range over considerable distances in the desert to
keep an eye out for Libyan armoured columns.
Although the Gazelles never engaged Libyan
armour, one Gazelle encountered a Toyota light
truck mounting a light automatic cannon in the
rear bed, and blew it in half with a single HOT
missile. The Libyan fur Force operated Mi-24S in
Chad, and at least one was shot down by French
forces. These two examples show the value of anti-
tank helicopters to expeditionary forces, which
seldom have enough transportation available to
hring in significant quantities of ta nks to deal with helicopters can then consider the optimum route or
whatever hostile a rmour might be encountered . attack.
In tead , the more easil y tra nsporta ble anti-ta nk Attacks from th e fl a nk a nd rear a re preferred , but
helicopters can provide a highl y fl exible defence the TOW missile can destroy mos t co ntempora ry
against tanks, as well as proving useful in general tanks even when used against the thick front
fire support a nd scouting missions. armour. Attack tactics stress the use of ' na p-of-the-
earth ' (NOE ) a pproaches to minimi e exposure to
air defences like ZSU- 23-4 Shilkas. The a ttack is
Contemporary usually executed from the hover, even though the
stabilised M 65 sight on the AH- I S permits a ttack
Anti-Tank Helicopter Tactics while evasive manoeuvres a re und erta ken. US
attack helicopter doctrine is more aggressive tha n
T he tactical co ncepts for the use of a nti-ta nk that of most other NATO a rmi es. This is made
helicopters vary widely from army to army, du e in possible by the use of more ro bust machines which
part to their relative novelty, and also to the variety
of helicopters used in these roles. The use of
unarmoured, lightweight helicopters like the
Gazelle, PAH-I or Defend er mand a te certain
tactics, while the use of larger and more versatile
attack helicopters such as the Mi-24, AH- 1S or AH-
64 ma ke other approaches more feasible. The better
to illustra te the considera ble diversity of approaches
in the use of attack helicopters, five armed forces
will be discussed here briefly.

US Anny Anti-Tank Helicopter Doctrine

T he US Army has long been in the forefront of An Iraqi SA'342M during the 1984 fighting with Iran. This
a ttack heli copter development, and deploys the helicopter is fitted to carry the HOT missile, which is not
loaded in this view.
largest a nd best-equipped force in ATO . Under
the AR CSA III organisation of Ig77, each
mechanised and armoured division was eq uipped also carry a much more ela borate defensive
with a combat aviation battalion a nd an a rmoured electronics suite. US a ttack heli copter have less to
cavalry squ adron , totalling 172 helicopters of which fear from man-porta ble a nti-helico pter missiles like
51 were AH-IS anti-ta nk helicopters. The Cobras the 9M 32 Strela 2 (SA-7 'Grail' ) than most other
were deployed in two attack helicopter companies ATO a nti-tank helicopters due to the provision of
in the combat aviation battalion (42 Cobras) a nd a exha ust cooling systems, ' hot brick' infra-red
furth er nine were attached to the air cavalry troop j amming systems, fl a re counterm ea ures a nd missile
of the armoured cavalry squ adron. The AH-I S warning systems. US attack helicopters also carry a
Cobras are norm ally teamed with the OH-56A more comprehensive ECM suite, including rada r
Kiowa scout helicopter: American doctrin e stresses warning devices to alert the crew to the presence of
th e need for scout-a ttack helicopter co-ordina tion. rada r-directed guns like the ZSU -23-4.
Thi tems in part from the Vietnam experience. In the early I g80s th e US Army began
T he US Arm y does not feel tha t it is tactically reorganising its heavy divisions und er the 'Division
justifiable to use the more expensive and capable 86' plan. This plan has not yet been completed in all
attack h licopters for scouting, since scout helicop- details, particula rly wi th regard to attack helicopter
ters traditionally suffer the highes t casualty ra te of deployments. The initial pla n called for the
h licopter in any milita ry role. R a ther, the sco ut deployment ofa combat avia tion brigade with each
heli opters, as well as neighbouring ground forces, armoured or mecha nised division. This brigade
locate a nd identify likely targets; the a ttack would include two attack helicopter battalions,
37
each with 21 AH -I S or AH-64 Apache attack
helicopters, 13 OH-58D AHIP scouts and three
U H-60 Blackh awk utility helicopters. The bat-
talions each have a headquarters company a nd
three attack helicopter companies, each attack
company havi ng seven attack helico pters a nd four
sco uts. There a re a furth er eight attack helicopters
in the divisional a rmoured cavalry squadron.
The US Arm y i currently deba ting whether it
might not be better to concentrate more attack
helicopters in larger corps-level units. These would
be used as operational reserves to smash armoured
breakthrou ghs, or to engage in massed a nti-armour
attacks. Under thi revised pla n, the divisional
combat aviation brigade wou ld be trimm ed back to
only a single attack helicopter battalion. T he
current configura tion of the corps-level aviation
brigade includes three a ttack helicopter battalions.
These brigades each have 23 I helicopters, including
63 attack helico pters a nd 54 scouts.
British Anti-Tank Helicopter Doctrine
The British Army is one of the few in NATO to
deploy a nti-tank helicopters in its division; how-
ever, these divisional helicopter units are tiny
A Hughes 500 MD Defender of the Kenyan 50th Air Cavalry.
Light anti-tank helicopters like this are popular in many
smaller armies, as they cost a fraction of the price of the
dedicated anti-tank helicopters such as the AH-64 Ap ach e or
Mi-24. (Hu gh es Helicopter)
compared to the US example. The British Army
was slow in adopting a nti-tank helicopters, and
prefers the economy approach of adapti ng a light
utility machine to this role. The Westl a nd Sco ut
fitted with SS. I I missiles is still in servi ce,
a ugmented by the newer Westland Lynx AH. I with
the TOW missile. An armoured division has an
organic army aviation regiment, with two helicop-
ter squadrons. One squadron, used for reco n-
naissance, is equipped with 12 Gazelles; the other
anti-tank squadron is equipped with Lynx AH.I
with TOW (or in some cases, with the earlier
Scout). As in most other ATO armies, th ere are
also army aviation regiments a t corps level. The
Lynx would be used in a defensive fashion, using
'pop-up' attack tactics at sta nd-off ra nge to
minimise casualties from ground fire. The Lynx
would perform its own scouting, as there are
minimal provisions to use the hunter-killer tactics
favoured by the US Army.
The British Army has suffered from very poor
funding of its army aviation branch, and is a mong
the most thinly equipped of the major ATO
armies in this respect. I t is embarrassing to note that
even the Italian Army is pursuing its own dedicated
anti-tank helicopter, the Agusta A.129 Mongoose,
while there are no comparable British programmes
beyond evolutionary developments of the Lynx, e.g.
Lynx 3. Some consideration has been given to
license-producing the Mongoose at Westl and .
French Attack Helicopter Doctrine
The French Army's aviation branch, ALAT, has
been one of the pioneers of anti-tank helico pters.
However, over the years it has not enjoyed the level
of funding received by US Army Aviation, and has
generally fall en behind both in the scale of
deployment and in th e development of new
equipment. ALAT had planned to replace the older
Alouette III (armed with the dated SS.II ) with the
newer SA' 342 M Gazelle. However, recent pla ns to
expand the number of attack helicopter regi ments
will probably mean that the Alouette will remain in
service until the next-generation HAC-3G helicop-
ter arrives. The French Army no longer deploys
anti-tank helicopters at divisional level, preferring
to concentrate them in corps-level combat helicop-
ter regiments, the regiment consisting of six
squ adrons with ten heli copters each. A modernised
regiment with new equipment would have one
transport qu adron with Puma helicopters; a
support squ adron with SA.34IF Gazelles; a
protection (gunship ) squadron with SA.34IF
Gazell es mounting twin 20mm guns; a nd three
anti-tank squ adron , either with Alouettes or with
the newer SA.342M Gazelle with six HOT
la unchers. Besides the regiments a ttached to each
corps, three combat helicopter regi ments belong to
the 4th Airmobi le Division. The 4th Airmobile
Division is one of th e form ations allotted to the new
strategic intervention force, the FAR (Force d' Action
Rapide) which could be employed overseas (a in
Chad ) or in a Central European contingency.
French tactical doctrine is fairly aggre sive
considering the modest capa bili ties of the Gazelle.
The French Army presum es that in the event of a
NATO engagement in Central Europe, it might
have to ma ke a fighting advance into Germany.
The a ttack helicopter squ adrons would be expected
to act in the vanguard of the force, and not be
limited to defensive, stand-off tactics as practiced in
most other NATO armies. In view of these tactical
preferences, it is not surprising that France has been
an active participa nt in the Franco-German
Aerospatiale/ MBB third generation attack helicop-
ter progra mme. The French Army plans to adopt
two versions of this new helicopter: the HAP
gunship (HeLicoptere d' Appui et de Protection: Support
and Defence Heli copter) to replace the SA.34IF,
A new trend in light anti-tank helicopters is the provision of a
mast-mounted sight, as on this Hughes 530MG Defender. This
type of sight enables the unarmoured helicopter to seek out
and attack targets while hiding behind trees and terrain
obstructions with only the sight projecting above the horizon.
This Defender has just fired a TOW missile. (McDonnell
Douglas)
and the HAC-3G a nti-tan k helico pter (HeLicoptere
Anti-Char-J' Generation: Third Generation Anti-
T ank H elicopter) to replace the SA.342M Gazelle.
These new helicopter, a nd their German counter-
pa rt the PAH-2, will be the equivalent of the AH-64
Apache in many respects. The a nti-ta nk versions
will be armed with the PARS-3/Trigat missile, a
replacement for the current HOT.
Gennan Anti-Tank Helicopter Doctrine
The German Bundeswehr was slower even th a n
th e British Army in adopting a nti-ta nk h licopters.
The BO-I05P wa selected for the PAH-I
requirement (Panzer Abwehr Hubschrauber-I: Anti-
tank H elicopter-I ), a nd entered service in the earl y
1980s. The fir t full y operational PAH-I unit, the
HFLgRgt 16 (Army Aviation R egiment 16) wa
deployed in 1984 as part of HFLgKdo I (Army
Aviation Command I) a t Celle-Wietzenbruch.
Bundeswehr tactical doctrin e represents th e other
tactical extreme from that of the US Army: the
Bundeswehr units use very light helicopters, with no
armour, very little defen ive electronics a nd no
night-fighting capability. The tactics are purely
39
defensive, a nd no sco ut helicopters a re used to a sist Anti-Tank R egimen t) has a to tal of60 helico pters
in targe ti ng. T he Germ a n doc trine stresses peace- consisting of 56 PAH-I a nd four un a rmed BO- I05
time training to fa miliarise the crews with local utili ty machines. The attack helicop ters are di vided
terrai n. The Bundeswehr feels tha t in tim e of war the into eight flights, each with seven helicopters. The
helicopter regiments would be very fa milia r with Bundeswehr has 170 PAH-I a nd 42 more on order
the local terrain, and would be a ble effec tively to from M BB.
exploit terrain features to a pproach hos tile ta nk The Bundeswehr pla ns to modernise its a nti- tank
unit . All a ttacks would be conducted from stand- force in the 1990S with th e PAH-2, the Germ an
off ra nge where small a rms fire would be equivalent of the French H AC-3G which is being
ineffective, a nd even ShiLka fire would be out of j ointl y developed between Aerospatiale in F rance
range. and MBB in Germ any. The PAH- 2 is a ligh tly
As is the case almo t everywhere else in Eu rope, armoured , dedicated a ttack helico pter along
the Bundeswehr deploys very few attack helicopters American lines. I ts a ppearance will ma rk a decided
at di visional level (in contrast to U S practice), a nd improvemen t in Bundeswehr a nti-ta nk helicopter
concen trate most of these asse ts a t corps level. The capabilities, and may signal a shift to a more
sole exce ption to this is the HFB 6, a helicopter aggressive a nti- tank doctrine.
squ adron with 21 PAH-I s a ttached to the
6. Panzergrenadier Division. T he corps level regiment, Soviet Anti-Tank Helicopter Doctrine
now designated PzAbwRgt (Panzer Abwehr Regiment: T he Soviet Arm y attaches most of its a ttack
helicopters to the Frontal Aviation branch of the
The new Lynx 3 dis plays many of the features being adopted
by the mos t recent generation of anti-tank helicopters. It is
Air Forces (F A-VVS ) in a n organisation ense,
fitted with a rnast-rnounted sight to assist in target tracking though they are usuall y under the control of the
while rnasked behind terrain feature s . Above the canopy is a
wire cutter to prevent entanglernent in powerlines. Beside the Ground Forces in a n operational setting. T he ba ic
rnain anti-tank missiles are a pair of podded anti-helicopter attack helicopter formation is the Attack H elicop ter
miss iles to deal with opposing attack helicopters . (Westland
Helicopters) R egiment, eq uipped with 40 M i- 24S a nd 20 M i-8T
armed tra nsports. These regi ments are deployed a t
arm y level (eq ui valent to NATO corps). The
regiment is divid ed into three squadrons, with the
two a ttack squ adrons each having 20 Mi- 24S. Until
r centl y, the a ttack squadrons had flights «veno ) of
four helico pter each, acting in pairs; however, in
re ent years the fli ghts have been reduced in ize to
three helicopters each.
Soviet attack helicopter tacti cs differ dra ma tic-
all y from tho e of NATO due to the technical
differences between Soviet and ATO designs.
earl y all NATO a rmies stress the use by attack
helicopters of sta nd-off, ' pop-up' tactics, with the
helicopters la unching their missiles from a low-
alti tude hover. Because the Mi-24 cannot easily be
hovered ou t of ground effec t, Soviet tactics stress the
use of a nti-ta nk missiles while the helicopter
continues in forward flight. In this respect, Soviet
tactics are somewha t more akin to traditional fi xed-
wing aircraft ground a ttack tactics. H owever, like
ATO, Soviet tactics tress ' nap-of-the-earth '
fl ying, a nd the Mi-24 is equipped with a radar
altimeter to assist in acc urate low-altitud e flying.
The shift in zveno organisation from four to three
machines was prompted in part by shifting tactical
considerations in Soviet helicopter doctrine. The
Soviet Air Force feels that in a Central European
confrontation one of the main enemies of anti-tank
helicopters would be other anti-tank helicopters.
Modern anti-tank helicopters are very difficult to
hoot down using most existing ground-based air
One of the most popular light anti-tank helicopters is the
Aerospatiale SA'342M Gazelle, configured for HOT missiles.
This particular Gazelle belongs to a Combat Helicopter
Regiment of the French Army's ALAT. (Aerospatiale)
defences, the dedicated attack helicopters like the
Mi- 24, AH- I S and AH-64 Apache being fitted with
infra-red suppre sion equipment which ma ke them
much less vulnera ble to infra-red guided an ti-
aircraft missiles. Radar-guid d a nti-aircraft missiles
are nearly useless at very low altitudes due both to
'ground clutter', which interfl res with their
guid a nce, a nd to their dependence on proxi mity
fu ses which cannot be used effecti vely too near to
the ground. Most gun sys tems, like the ZSU-23-4,
have ranges shorter than the stand-off ra nge of the
missiles carried by attack heli opters.
The new zveno organisation pres ume that two
helicopters wou ld be used to execute th e gro und
attack mission while the third wou ld maintain a
slightly higher altitude a nd act as cov r for the
attacking pair. Thi helicopter would probably be
configured like th e newer Mi-24 'Hind-E', with the
twin 23mm autocannons. The e guns co uld be used
again t enemy attack helicopters, or to attack other
a nti-helicopter weapons including man-porta ble
air defence missile teams, air d fence mi ile or gun
batteries, and other targe ts. The Soviets are likely to
have already tes ted air-to-air a nti-helicopter
missiles, perh ap derived from the new SA- I 4
'Gremlin' ma n-portable, laser-guided, air defence
missile.
This model shows the most recent configuration of the
proposed MBB PAH-2 for the German Bundel'Hlehr. MBB's
partner in this co-operative Franco-GerlDan venture, Aero-
spatiale, has designed a French anti-tank version, currently
known as the HAC-3G. (MBB Helicopter)
These tactics a re being studied with interest by
NATO , a nd pa rallel developments on this side of
the Iron C urtain . The US Army is developing an
air-to-air version of the Stinger missile for helicopter
fighting; France is developing a version of the
M istral, and Sweden is developing a version of the
RBS-7 0 .
Soviet experience with attack helicopters in
Afghanistan is likely to broaden Soviet a ppreciation
for this class of weapon. It would seem likely that
di visional attack helicopter units wi ll eventuall y be
strengthened . Throughout the 1970s, the Ground
Forces' Army Aviation service was limited to
divisional helico pter detachments with Mi-2s a nd
The German Bundesweh,. u ses a version of the BO-Io!)p arIDed
with HOT nUssiles for its PAH-I. This overhead view s hows
the related BO-IOSCB, which is configured with eight TOW
launchers and other changes froID the P AH-I . (MBB Helicopter
Corporation)
Mi -8s for utility duties. In the 1980s, some of the
tank a nd motor rifle divisions began to receive a
more pote nt helicopter squadron with 18 machines
divid ed into six fli ghts, each with three helicopters.
The composition seems evenly divid ed between Mi-
24 a ttack helicopters, Mi-2 utili ty /scou t helicopters,
and Mi-8T tra nsport/support heli co pters.
The Mi-24 has not been regarded as a complete
uccess by the Soviet Air Force. It aerodynamic
performance was constrained by basing it on the
Mi-8T transport. Furthermore, experience with the
Mi-24 has provided the Soviet FA-VVS with a
clearer a ppreciation of the technical features it
desires in an attack helicopter. In 1978 the design
bureau under Marat Tishchenko at the Moscow
Incr ea s ing a ttention i s b eing p aid to the u se of attack
Helicopter Factory (M.L.Mil ) began work on a h elicopter s t o figh t hos tile attack h elicopter s . This s hows a
uccessor, the Mi-28. Prototype tes ting began in test fitting o f t h e Swedis h Bofors RBS-70 anti-airc raft lDissile,
lDounted on a lDodified W estland L ynx h elicopter. (Bofors)
1980, initial series production in 1983, and
operational tri al (in Afghanistan and the USSR)
in 1985. The Mi-28 was designed from the outset as chrome yellow marking , and a black anti-glare
an a nti-tank helicopter, with considerable stress on panel. Some helicopters of this unit carried a
weapons fire control mod ernisation, and improved ba ttalion in ignia on the nose. The SS. I I missile is
aircraft survivability features. To date, very little also olive drab with yellow markings (indicating a
information has a ppeared on this new helicopter live high explosive warhead ), and the launch
except for the drawing which was relea ed by the assembly is light grey.
S Depa rtment of Defense in 1985 (and repro-
duced in this book). The Mil bureau has also A2: B ell NUH- IB , lSt TOW T eam; R epublic of
worked on a smaller two-to-four-man utility Vietnam , May 1972
helicopter to replace the Mi-2. One of its intend ed Trus NUH-IB (serial number 62-12553) is the
roles would be as a light-weight anti-tank highest-scoring anti-tank helicopter to date, having
heli copter. However, as far as is known , the Soviet knocked out 18 of the 26 tank des troyed by this
Air Force has not agreed to serie production of this provisional unit in 1972. The scheme is unique to
design. this unit, and a ppears to consist of forest green and
black on the upper surfaces and grey on the
undersurfaces. The other helicopter in this unit (64-
The Plates 12254) used a different scheme which seems to have
had additional fi eld drab patches. The unit insignia
(Because of the widely different dim ension of the was carried on the nose, and is shown here in the
helicopters illustrated on these pla tes, no true inset drawing to the left . On the front of the TOW
common scale can be adopted; but the two launchers was a small, stylised white kull and cross-
macrune on each single pla te are to common scale bones, wruch is shown in detai l in the inset drawing
in each case. ) to the ex treme right. This helicopter also carried a
red and white decal of the pop ul ar Crumb cartoon
A I : Bell UH-1B , 2/20th Artillery, US 1St Air Cavalry slogan 'K eep On Truckin ". The kill marking are
Division; An Khe, Republic of Vietnam , July 1967 red for tanks, and forest green outlines for trucks
This Huey is fini shed in th e more colourful style of and barges: these are shown in the three inset
Army markings common in the earl y days of the drawings on the right. The barge and truck
Vietnam War, b fore such markings were toned markings are almost invi ible; they are in two
down. The basic scheme is overall olive drab with vertical rows und er the tank marking , four barges
43
a nd eight trucks. The other helicopter used yellow
kill markings.
BI: Hughes 500MD Defender, Israeli Heyl Ha'Avir;
Lebanon, 1982
This Defender is finished in the pale sand-grey
common to all Israeli helicopters. The yellow 'V'
insignia was applied as a form of national
identification for Operation ' Peace for Galilee' . The
Israeli national insignia is shown in the inset
drawing.
B2: Bell AH-I S Cobra, Israeli Heyl Ha' A vir; Lebanon ,
1982
This Cobra is finished in much the same fashion as
the Defend er. The Israeli Air Force uses small
cartoon uni t insignias on the tai l of the AH-IS, but
One of the major advantages of a large and powerful
helicopter like the AH-64 Apache is that its configuration can
be readily modified to take advantage of changing tactical
conceptions. Here, an AH-64A has been modified to carry two
AIM-gL Sidewinder missiles besides its usual weaponry. This
configuration was developed in an effort to interest the US
Marine Corps in the Apache. (McDonnell Douglas)
44
these are classified and ce nsored from most photos:
hence, regretfully, the blank here. The individua l
aircraft number is repeated in black at the front 01
the engine fairing.
Cl: Aerospatiale SA.342M Gazelle, Syrian Attack
Helicopter Regiment; Lebanon, 1982
This Syrian Gazelle is finished in what a ppears to be
a standard Aerospatiale desert delivery scheme of
yellow sand and medium green, with pale grey
und ersurfaces. To this has been add ed th e Syrian
national insignia, and the helicopter number in
black. This is the helicopter recovered by Israeli
forces after the fighting.
C2: Bell AH-I J Cobra , iranian Army Aviation; iran,
1979
The Iranian Cobras were delivered in this scheme of
earth yellow and field drab with grey und er-
surfaces. The cres t on the nose is that of the Army
Aviation, and has 'Arm y Aviation ' in Arabic a t the
base of the insignia. Since the overthrow of the Shah
the Imperial Iranian Army Aviation acronym has
been replaced by IRIAA (Islamic R epublic oflra n The latest Soviet attack helicopter is the Mi-28, known to
NATO as the 'Havoc'. This artist's conception, released by the
Arm y Avi a tion ); but some photos would seem to US Departtnent of Defens e in 1985, is one of the few sources of
infortnation on this new helicopter. It is interesting to note
indica te th a t the old 'HAA' is still retained on some that its general configuration is not significandy different
Cobra . This Cobra is shown with the new M 65 frOID that of the current generation of NATO attack
helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache, A.129 Mongoose, PAH-2
TOW sight refitted. The Arm y Avia tion cres t is or HAC-3G. (US DoD)
shown in detail, in et, a bove righ t.
on some export delivery heli co pter , the tail
DI: Aerospatiale SA.J42M Gazelle, Iraqi Air Force, 1984 warning sign has been painted on in English.
This Iraqi Gazelle is fini shed in much th e same
fashion as the Syri a n machine illustrated as Plate E I : WSL-Swidnik Mi-2M, Polish Air Force, I¢O
CI , in a sta nd ard de ert deli very cherne, but with The Poli h Air Force uses thi colourful three-ton
dark green substituting for medium green. The camouflage scheme on orne of its helicopters. The
a pplica ti on of the Iraqi na tional insigni a seems to marking a re fairl y imple, including the na tional
vary somewha t from helicopter to helicopter: it is insigni a a nd helicopter tactical number.
shown inse t, right.
E2: Mil Mi-24 ' Hind-E', Soviet FA- VVS)· D ruzhba
D2: M il M i-24 ' Hind-D', Iraqi Air Force, 1¢4 Exercise, 1¢2
Thi Iraqi Mi-24 is finished in one of the stand a rd This Mil-24 is fini shed in one of th e tand a rd
oviet deli very schemes of earth yellow a nd fi eld delivery schemes for Mil-24s, earth yellow a nd dark
dra b with pale blue-grey undersides: to this ha green. Soviet tactical numb r on helicopters vary
been add ed th e Iraqi na tion al insigni a. Note th a t in colour, but th e significance of this is not known ,
45
 GI: Mil Mi-24 ' Hind-D" Sandinista Air Force;
The US Artny currently plans to develop a new light helicopter
to replace the current OH-58 AHIP. Unlike the AHIP, it will be
Nicaragua, 1985
manned by a single crewman, and will be configured for anti-
tank operations, as shown in this sketch of the Boeing Sikorsky
This Sandinista Mj-24 is painted in a variation of
entry in the LHX programme. The LHX will be optimised for
helicopter fighting as well as scouting. the usual Mi-24 delivery scheme, the green colour
being paler than is normall y the case. The tail
though it is suspected to be a squadron colour wa rning markjng is in Russia n, a nd the helicopter
system. Some Soviet 'Hinds' and other tactical carries the normal Sandinista national insignia a nd
aircraft carry the red insignia shown to the right of fin fl ash. Note tha t this helicopter is fitted with a
Plate Er: this may be a Frontal Aviation insignia 'hot-brick' sys tem to protect it against the SA-7
showing unit proficiency. missiles used by the Contra rebels.

FI: Aerospatiale SA.342M Gazelle, 2e RHC, French

The sting of an anti-tank helicopter comes from its missile,
Amry ALAT)· Operation ' Manta ), Chad, 1!Il3 with its massive shaped-charge warhead. The effect of this
The ALA T Gazelles arrived in Chad in their warhead against a tank is amply demons trated by this photo
of an impact on a derelict M.t7 at the White Sands Proving
normal metropolitan scheme of vert armee. This was Ground in the US. (US Army)
not altogether suitable for desert operations,
leading to improvised camouflage schemes like this
one, most of them applied by using mud, not paint.
The camouflage obscures the normal white
squadron tactical markings, leaving only the first
letter of th e three letter code, 'A', showing. To the
right of the helicopter is the insignia of th e Force
d' Action Rapide.

F2: Mil Mi-24 ' Hind-A ), Libyan Arab Air Force, 1982
This Libyan Mi-24 is shown in the normal delivery
scheme for the 'Hind-A', grey and dark green. Some
of th e Libyan 'Hinds' seem to use a different
scheme, with the upper surface camouflage
extending underneath. It carries the simple green
disc insignj a of the Libyan Air Force.
46
G2: BeLL AH-IT, USMC HM L-261; Operation' Urgent
Fwy', Grenada, 1983
US M a rine Bell AH-ITs in 1983 were fini shed in
this ve ry drab scheme of overall fores t green with
black markings. The unit insignia, a raging bull,
was painted on the side of the engine cowl, and is
shown in detail on the inset drawing. Other
markings include the rescue arrows near the
cockpit, black circles around refu elling points, the
national and service insignia, a nd the wa rning
chevron in front of the engi ne inta ke. The device
above the stub wing is a countermeasures dispenser,
and this helicopter ('3 1' ) is a rmed with twin TOW
launcher a nd 2.75-in. rocket launchers, the la tter
pain ted whi te.
HI : M BB PAH-I , Bundesheer Panzer Abwehr Regiment
36; Federal Republic oj Germany, 1984
PAH - I sand BO- I o5s of the Bundesheer Flieger
The Agusta A.129 Mongoose is the first dedicated European
attack/anti-tank helicopter. Its features bridge the gap
between the older and less capable AH-I Cobra and the larger
and more elaborate AH-64 Apache. (Agusta)
Kommando were finished in this stanqa rd pattern of
medium green a nd black. The na tion al insignia a nd
other markings a re in subdued black except for
warning markings.
H2: Westland Ly nx AH.I , Ly nx Conversion Flight ' Silver
Eagles British Army Air Corps, 1¢2
J
,
The Lynx is fini shed in the ta ndard arm y aviation
scheme of olive dra b a nd black. There are a variety
of red a nd yellow warning markings, as well as the
blue and red subdued na tional insignia. The Silver
Eagles insignia is shown in the inset, a bove right.
This marking is medium blue, with th e eagle' head
in silver a nd the trim in whi te.
47
OSPREY· V ANCUARD

A seri es of books d escribing ke y units and weapons syste ms of

201h cClllllry warfa re, prepa red by lead ing military expe rts
fo r th e en thusiast and modr lleL and illustrat ing au th en ti c d e ta ils
of a rm o ur and supponing veh icles, camou fl age, mar kings,
unilorms, insignia and weapons.

Avec annotations en francais sur les planches en couleur

Mit Aufzeichnungen auf deutsch uber die Farbtafeln

(3)US ,st Infantry Division '939- 45 (28) The 6th Panzer Division '93,...45
(6) The Lee/Grant Tanks in British Service (29) The M47 & ~8 Patton Tanks
(8) US 'st Marine Division '94'- 45 (30) Polish Armour '939- 45
('3) The Churchill Tank (3' ) US Half-Tracks of World War II
(15) The Sherman Tank in British Service (32) The SdKfz 25' Half-Track
'94 2 - 45 (33) German Light Panzers '93 ....42
(,6) The Panzerkampfwagen ill (34) M "3 Series
('7) The Stuart Light Tank Series (35) Armour of the Pacific War
(,8) The PanzerkalDpfwagen IV (36) Long Range Desert Group
('9) Annour of the Middle East Wars '9411-78 (37) Modern Soviet Comhat Tanks
(20) The Tiger Tanks (38) Mechanised Infantry
(2') The PzKpfw V Panther (39) US ArDlour CamouHage and Markings
(22) The Centurion Tank in Battle '9'7- 45
(23) British Tanks in N. Mrica '940- 42 (40) US Light Tanks '944-~; M24 Chaffee, M4'
(24) Soviet Heavy Tanks Walker Bulldog and M55' Sheridan
(25) German Annoured Cars and Recce Half- (4' ) The M, AhralDs Battle Tank
Tracks '939- 45 (42) Armour of the VietnaDl Wars
(26) The Sherman Tank in US and Allied Service (43) The M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle
(27) Armour of the Korean War '95<>-53 (44) Anti-Tank Helicopters

STEVEN J. ZALOGA was born in ' 952, received his
BA in his lOry fro m Union College, and hi s MA from
Columbia ni vc rsil Y. He has published ove r twe nt y
bonk .. "nn numero us a nicl es dea ling with mod ern
m . ~
velopme nl. His main area orint eres l is mi li tary a mlirs in
the Soviet U nion a nd Eastern Euro pe in th e Second
\-Vo rld \-Var, and he has wriLL cn as well on America n
armoured rorces. Sleven Za loga li ves in Conn cc ticut.