Lets talk hind variants (IRL)

Nah... 12.7 =/

Which is what they went with, so it must've been good for something. Or are you insinuating that they just went with it regardless?

I bet it's great at crowd control.

Well, 12.7mm / .50 cal isnt necessarily an insignificant round. The Marines have the GAU-19A which is a .50BMG minigun which is great for light armor and other soft skinned targets, with payload ammunition as well so the concept isnt nearly as bad as made out to be...unless the DSKh isnt up to snuff that is. Even Dillon is making a new attempt with the 503D minigun.

Which is what they went with, so it must've been good for something. Or are you insinuating that they just went with it regardless?

It was actually a requirement enforced by the Ministry of Defence bureucrats against Mikhail Mil's design. His concept was to have a 23mm cannon since the Mi-24A. Initial production variants used a single-barrelled 12.7mm machine gun, which was swapped for the YakB on the Mi-24V to get a more satisfactory volume of fire.

Now, 12.7mm is certainly not the worst thing in the world, but in theory it was adequate, so it was kept on the main production models. It was only when the Mi-24 began seeing combat that it became clear how inadequate the 12.7mm gun was, a fact aggravated by the rather primitive gunnery computer used to lead it.

Google Translate

… Initial production variants used a single-barrelled 12.7mm machine gun, which was swapped for the YakB on the Mi-24V to get a more satisfactory volume of fire…

On the Mi-24B, to be precise. :smilewink:

OK, so that's the backstory to it. Thanks Lucas.

Which is what they went with, so it must've been good for something. Or are you insinuating that they just went with it regardless?

Well, technically, militaries and governments around the world have been known to do EXACTLY that : ''Meh, just go with it''. I often see people say ''oh this isn't possible, nobody would ever authorise this or that''... yeah, they would, and often did lol

Sometimes in militaries, the person making the decision about a new weapon design, doesn't realise that he doesn't really know, but think's he's got the best answer... and has the final decision. It's only later, when the many many voices of the veteran troops gets louder, that a change gets made to correct the past mistakes.

Many capable and famous designs started their service with really significant flaws or omissions. One example would be the F-4 Phantom not having any internal cannon until the E variant... and the Navy never getting a cannon at all. Pylon cannons never really got enough accuracy due to issues with complexity to boresight, and also increased dispersion due to the pylon mount not being really meant for cannon recoil of a high rate gatling

yeah, they would, and often did lol

...and would then pass the buck when the proverbial hits the fan :D

So just so I understand this... there's some Hind's that have 30mm side mounted cannons... and other Hinds that have 23mm side cannons???

Anyone know why there's two different calibers? Which is newer?

So just so I understand this... there's some Hind's that have 30mm side mounted cannons... and other Hinds that have 23mm side cannons???

 

Anyone know why there's two different calibers? Which is newer?

Some have 30mm side cannon, some have a 12.7 chin gun, and some have 23mm chin gun. The 23s are (generally) newer, but there's a lot of overlap and it depends on country in question.

So just so I understand this... there's some Hind's that have 30mm side mounted cannons... and other Hinds that have 23mm side cannons???

 

Anyone know why there's two different calibers? Which is newer?

No, what zhukov032186 said.

The P is a more recent variant than the V.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mil_Mi-24_variants

Mi-24P

(Hind-F) The gunship version, which replaced the 12.7mm machine-gun with a fixed side-mounted 30mm GSh-30-2K twin-barrel autocannon.

Because design.

First of all, though unlikely, if we got variants in game theyd have to be really close, like the F14 A to B.

do any Mi24s fit that bill?

second. Mi35s. Is that just the name of export 24s? Can someone go over the major variants with me and some pluses and minuses

also interested in the hinds ATGMS

designed for one that didnt get used for a decade ( shturm right?) and now use ataka (right? )

yes yes I know wikipedias there. you dont find the same quality info there as here, and Im trying to generate convo

Well Mi-24P is pretty different version. I think they choose this one because they are unable to make 12.7mm gun turret work with satisfactory results in near time with multicrew as well as in single player.

So there is no close version to P.

You are right about Mi-35 it is export marking of Mi-24V.

Main versions I am familiar somehow with:

Mi-24A first production with different cockpit and without 12,7mm gun turret. Instead of torret it looks like id has only forward firing machinegun.

Mi-24D upgraded version. Modernized engines TV3-117MT with increased power, Phalanga ATGM, Doppler navigation system with moving cross over the paper map (russian style moving map)

Mi-24DU training version from D model- doubled controls without gun turret.

Mi-24V modernized version. Newer more powerful engines TV3-117VM (already modelled in Mi-8MTV2 and Ka-50) with electronic regulator ( only regulates limits not to damage the engine ). Shturm ATGM missiles.

Mi-24P version which has 30mm fixed cannon instead of 12,7mm turret

why is it so famously fast? youd think other attack helos would be close but its not really close

My theory why Mi-24 is so fast is that at max speed wings create 30% of lift. Thus it needs smaller main rotor Ø. This means that decrease in advancing blade tip airflow velocity . This means that advancing get to transsonic flow at wingtips at higher airspeed of the helicopter.

The Mi-24P has been planned for half a decade now, it's nothing to do with short term results. The 12.7mm just happens to be a very poor weapon for an assault helicopter.

There isn't much wrong with the 12,7 mm until you need to start shooting from long ranges at the enemy that takes cover behind a rocks. In a woodland 12,7 mm is terrific caliber, on desert or is as well again vehicles. But when each 30 mm grenade is like a hand grenade, you start to have far more effect in rocky mountains.

But all pilots didn't like the fixed gun, it was difficult to aim because requirement to aim with whole fuselage. You needed to fly dangerously straight at them to be very easy target.

Why later on in the VP model it was returned to rotating turret, but buffed caliber to 23 mm to get the HE effect. All were happier as now Mi-24 was again what it was supposed to be.

The P model made requirement to carry extra personnel at rear to use a side guns as it became more effective that way than just use a cannon.

The D and V variant being produced in a such numbers wasn't because no one couldn't adapt to a 30 mm cannon, but as there wasn't a requirement for it.

In DCS if we fly against trucks, IFV and APC, the 12,7 mm would be sufficient. Use rockets and missiles then against infantry and MBT's and other hard to reach targets. Equip with Ugroza laser guided rockets and you get very effective rocket platform.

Hmm...

It would be smart for ED to keep open the possibility of doing a second VP variant later down the road, kind of like what they're doing with BS3.

Hmm...

 

It would be smart for ED to keep open the possibility of doing a second VP variant later down the road, kind of like what they're doing with BS3.

If a V is almost identical with P except the front cockpit layout, it would be far easier to make it for a smaller price for P owners (or discount) than VP, that AFAIK is more different.

Sure the VP is interesting by it's 23mm cannon, but V goes backward in time and allows more interesting missions.

But how is the weapons, as modeling a new weapon for older Mi-24V might be more challenging than making a VP with similar weapons as P.

But point that everyone likely realise is as you say, Mi-24 opens up a great opportunity to make multiple variants that can bring income and variations to game.

Last thing I want is to see a L-39 repeated again, where player gets two variants for one price, as I am believer that studios should have a base model that is required to be owned before one can buy additional variants for lower price.

This does make up for years long research and development of the first module, and then lower priced additional variants to make up for maintenance and support for the future. Like example L-39C for 39,99 and ZA for 9,99 for it.

Now it is 59,99 for both. And while it can be in total price less than now, there likely would be more sales for people buying C and then additional that some wants to upgrade it to ZA for more performance.

It could open up a small fee prices for various other modules to make a small special versions and such that wouldn't otherwise warrant a full price.

Eventually each studio requires new income, as it is not after all a food they are producing that everyone needs. So limited market and limited consumption, that feeds the hobbyists minds than anything else. So no wonder that militaries are primary clients for training systems and such.

Mi-24 has so many variants that there is a nice income vain to tap into....

Same was with MiG-23 and same thing would be with MiG-29, Su-27 and so on.many would love to see various older F-16 and F-18 variants.

And as long required changes are not overwhelming, and target price is not too high, I would see potential to make new variants.