Replies

I think altitude had less to do with it than the effects of payloads carried to the fight, and that the battle had matured to our advantage by the time a relief of platforms occurred.. Given the choice, I would rather have AH-1Ws supporting me in a scenario like the one in Anaconda because it's a close fight and the aircraft are harder to engage by direct small arms fire head on during running fire

USMC attack pilots are trained specifically to support Marines on the ground in the close fight of amphibious operations. AH-64s, OTOH, are designed primarily as a tank killer, and units train primarily for this mission as the ground commander's attack force against enemy massed armor in the attack, defense or counter-attack mode.

AH1W Super Cobra

AH-64A/D Apache

**Note: Although the AH-64A and D models share the same powerplant, transmission and are similar in appearance, the D model is completely different in terms of detection (radar), survivability(fire and forget missiles) and communications (digital).

You hit the nail on the head.

It comes down to the focus and intent of pilot training.

We [The Corps] puts our pilots through infantry school first in order to lay the foundation that they're sole purpose is what is taking place groundwise.

They learn how to orientate themselves toward terrain and enemy from an infantrymen's perspective.

So as a former Marine on the ground in an offensive or defensive combat scenario...given my choice...100 times out of 100 I select the Marine Corps piloted Cobras.

But...if I were riding on top of a transport and a grip of T-80's came rumbling over the horizon...I'd rather have the Army piloted Apaches.

Given the circumstances in Anaconda...I would have rather had the Cobras.