Soviet/Russian Attack Helicopter tactics for the Hind?

I'll just leave this here. :music_whistling:

 

"Szokatlan légiharc" [unusual air combat]. Airbase.blog.hu (in Hungarian).

Thank you - very interesting article!

IIRC in the Russian forum they said it will be a part of the manual dedicated to tactics. Looking forward to read it!

I can use Google search too...

Afghanistan’s storied history of anti-aircraft weapons (known as Man-portable Air Defense Systems — MANPADS) centers around the American Stinger missile, which played a decisive role in the U.S.-funded insurgency that ended nine brutal years of Soviet occupation in the 1980s. Prior to the arrival of the Stinger, none of the weapons procured and distributed to the Afghan rebels by their three main benefactors — the United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia — had proven effective against Soviet aircraft, which bombed villages, attacked rebel strongholds, and strafed supply caravans with impunity.

 

That all changed in September 1986, when a newly trained mujahideen missile team fired its first Stingers at three Soviet Mi-24 Hind helicopter gunships attempting to land at Jalalabad airfield. Locked onto the infra-red signatures of their targets, the five-foot-long, 35-pound missiles raced after the ill-fated helicopters at speeds of over 1,500 mph, smashing into them with "the kinetic force of a mid-sized car traveling at sixty miles per hour," according to a 1987 article in the Arizona Republic. The stricken helicopters fell to the ground and burst into flames, marking the advent of a new chapter in the war.

 

Over the next three years, the mujahideen, who received Stingers from Washington and extensive training on their use in Pakistan, staged dozens of attacks that brought down nearly 270 aircraft, contributing in no small part to the Soviet Union’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1989. While no single factor can be credited for the triumph of a rag-tag militia over the formidable Soviet military, the Stinger missile was a game-changer, destroying hundreds of multi-million-dollar Soviet aircraft, killing dozens of highly trained pilots, and disrupting and degrading Soviet counter insurgency operations throughout the country. So pervasive was the Stinger’s influence on events in Afghanistan that analysts coined a term around it: "the Stinger effect."

 

BY MATTHEW SCHROEDER | JULY 28, 2010, 8:52 PM

Very precise numbers of soviet losses in Afghanistan War are known since 90's. No need read some colorized, tabloid style stories. Through 10 years of war Soviets loss 118 aircrafts and 333 helicopters, these numbers include everything: combat losses, accidents, machines destroyed on ground etc. From 1979 to 1989, and Stingers were in use from 1986...., even in first days of use, one aircraft/helicopter was hit ( which not means automatically being a shot down ) for every 20 fired missiles, when all Soviet aircrafts operated in Afghanistan have been equipped with flare dispensers this ratio goes down 1 to 600. So any stories about "Stinger effect" are exagerated, this is kind of American myth from that time. Soviets pilots were more affraid 12,7 and 14,5 mm AA, like all these Stingers, Red Eyes, Strielas and chinese copies of everything.

Yeah it was flown more like a a10 or harrier than western helos is my understanding.

Yeah, that pilots for sure got to clean the mud in their canopies after the flight:

Yeah, that pilots for sure got to clean the mud in their canopies after the flight:

 

Look like gunner did some burst shots to the side with 12mm on the ground to dust cover itself. Smart.

Combined with the fact it was pretty much bullet-proof - potent indeed..

Not so much likely. There were reports that Mi-24 that East-Germany loaned to some combat use came back with 7,62 bullet holes all over the places. The cockpit is partially armored for pilots, but they still wear bullet proof vests because otherwise they got hit. From the canopy only flat front windshield is armored, rest is just plastic so all bullets goes nicely through and hit you.

The cargo space is not armored, bullet holes all over the places there.

So if one wants to be better protected from the small arms fire, it is full forward attack at them, or stay further than 600 meters away. But 1500-2500 meters is dangerous against units self-defense with 12,7 mm.

Конечно же, вот так у Ми-35М

 

 

У 24-го так же если не ошибаюсь

 

Upd. Вот нашел, прикрепил

 

[ATTACH]150702[/ATTACH]

БРОНИРОВАНИЕ МИ-24

 

□ Стальная броня толщиной 4 мм

<…>

Бронеплита кабины на фотографии разбившегося вертолёта и на его схеме.

 

К боковым панелям между шп. 1Н и 5Н (по бокам кабины экипажа) крепятся бронеплиты, являющиеся частью силовой конструкции. Фонари состоят из литых рам, остекления из оргстекла и лобовых бронестёкол. Дверь кабины лётчика (правый борт, шп. 3Н–5Н) бронирована. Кресло снабжено откидной бронеспинкой (для прохода в грузовую кабину при заклинении двери) и бронезаголовником. Кресло оператора не бронировано. Бронеплиты также установлены на капотах двигателя, защищают коробку приводов и маслобаки двигателя, редуктор и гидробак.

гораздо "броневей", чем у AH-64D. В практике вполне спасает от осколков и пуль с расстояний от 600..800м (12.7). 7.62 АК-74 лобовое стекло держит с расстояния 10м. Оно конечно уже не совсем стекло потом..но жизнь спасает.

не-не, схема не подробная. Пол даже у Ми-8МТх бронирован. На полу Ми-24 прикреплены бронеплиты (6 мм ЕМНП) тоже. Иначе смысла нет...

:rolleyes:

http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/auth_article416.html

Also if you look at the soviet losses the vast majority occurred in the several months after the stinger made its surprise appearance. after that losses drop... drastically

im no soviet fanboi but it wasnt worth the PR price in helping the taliban - if revenge was our motive we didnt get much really

if one were to compare say Soviet SAM aid to VN vs US SAM aid to Afghanistan... the difference in lossses and deaths is staggering. and not in the US favor

My guess is that the appearance of the stinger changed only everything when it came to the aggressive deployment of hinds. Each and every hind pilot never knew whether a "single" stinger missile was in the field of operation and therefore caution was observed regardless of whether the "single" stinger was there or not.

A thug like the Hind should know no caution when entering the battlefield, it was designed as a spearhead along with tanks and infantry rolling forward and killing.... killing anything that resists.

It was very successful in Syria where no such high tech AA wizardry existed.... just guns.... Hinds are not scared of guns.... it is why they are riddled with bullet holes and lived to tell the tale. :)

In the specific case of the Mi-24, the Stinger's appearance created a mild change in tactics but nothing revolutionary - the main thing was to fly fast at or below 10m AGL on the radalt, that way the enemy didn't have a firing window good enough. When not hugging the ground, preventive use of flares by the whole formation was often enough to deny Stinger shots, particularly if the IR jammer was installed.

Ok...

Если интересно посмотрите это. 

On 8/18/2020 at 4:38 AM, Nodak said:

That cannon sounds terrifying

Soviet Air Land Battle is worth a read for an American analysis of the expected WARPAC combined arms tactics of the day.

soviet air land battle | eBay

I search for books and docs on scribd.com. 
 

just found “The Bear went over the Mountain”. 

If I remember correctly the Russians got their ass handed to them in Afghanistan by troops with stinger missiles

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/08/18/soviet-aircraft-shot-down-by-stingers/

So I would be really interested to learn some tactics to prevent this in DCS

1 hour ago, tusler said:

If I remember correctly the Russians got their ass handed to them in Afghanistan by troops with stinger missiles

https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/08/18/soviet-aircraft-shot-down-by-stingers/

 

So I would be really interested to learn some tactics to prevent this in DCS

 

 

https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/theorie.html

On 8/4/2020 at 12:41 AM, VampireNZ said:

 

Combined with the fact it was pretty much bullet-proof - potent indeed.

 

....not particularly Stinger-proof thou..

 

No... not at all stinger proof.

For the amount of stingers fired, I would say the stinger pretty much changed everything the Hind was really good at, when looking at Afghanistan....

Without Stingers it is a pretty good chopper, as we saw in the stinger-less Syrian war!

It is a bully boy chopper! 

I cant wait to get my hands on her!

16 hours ago, Rogue Trooper said:

No... not at all stinger proof.

For the amount of stingers fired, I would say the stinger pretty much changed everything the Hind was really good at, when looking at Afghanistan....

Without Stingers it is a pretty good chopper, as we saw in the stinger-less Syrian war!

 

It is a bully boy chopper! 

I cant wait to get my hands on her!

 

All helicopters are allergic to MANPADs if you can ambush with them. Look at US losses in Iraq. Apaches and Cobras are not immune.

That and combined with getting close to ground fire, obstructions, and having no ejection systems, military helicopter pilots have a fairly high casualty rate compared to all other aircraft.

16 hours ago, Rogue Trooper said:

No... not at all stinger proof.

For the amount of stingers fired, I would say the stinger pretty much changed everything the Hind was really good at, when looking at Afghanistan....

Without Stingers it is a pretty good chopper, as we saw in the stinger-less Syrian war!

 

It is a bully boy chopper! 

I cant wait to get my hands on her!

 

Maybe not stingers but lots of MANPADS and more modern ones then the ones used in Soviet Afgahnistan war.