Mi-24 vs. AH-1 (1970s era)

I figured this might be fun as it is a comparison to a design which was more contemporary to it and also developed from a family of transport helicopters (instead of more recent attack helicopter designs).

Thoughts? Payload at range?

A much better comparison would be the UH-1C, which the Mi-24 concept seems to be a reaction to, more or less. Well, armed Hueys in general. In other words, the Cobra was a design that took an armed Huey and removed its ability to perform utility/cargo missions and instead made it into a pure armed helicopter without any other mission. The Mi-24 seems like they looked at armed Hueys and thought they'd just make it bigger and better, which I think they accomplished. I think the Cobra and Mi-24 can only be compared to the extent that they were in service around the same time, everything else about the Mi-24 seems more comparable to the "Huey Hog" concept.

Why not compare it against the AH-64A early versions ?

While they have similar origins, the final concept was quite different. The Mi-24 was built on top of the UH-1's shortcomings in terms of engine power, survivability and firepower, and it exceeds the single-engined AH-1 variants by quite a margin in these aspects.

Strictly within the 1970s, it was no contest. while a few later Cobra variants in that decade already got the 20mm chin turret, it could only carry up one pair of large rocket pods and one small one on the outboard pylons. ATGM capability was up to eight TOW missiles with only two-thirds of the Shturm's range, and most pods that could be loaded were small calibre machine guns or grenade launchers. Compare that with four UB-32 pods and four Shturms, or eight Shturms and two large rocket pods, plus the option to carry a variety of bombs and heavier rockets like the S-24, all while having one of the best crew and system protections on a helicopter (still holding up today) and two very beefy engines to do the lifting.

The AH-1J fixed the powerplant problem in 1979, but the attack capability only really caught up close to the late 1980s with the AH-1W with IR imaging sensors and Hellfires to replace the rather underwhelming TOW missiles.

Why not compare it against the AH-64A early versions ?

Well, there is the time frame which puts the first twin engined AH-1 as much more contemporary:

First Flight:

1965 AH-1 (4 years before Mi-24)

1969 AH-1J

1969 Mi-24

1975 AH-64 (6 years after Mi-24)

Service introduction:

1967 AH-1 (9 years before Mi-24)

1971 AH-1J

1976 Mi-24D

1987 AH-64 (11 years after Mi-24)

However, I think the bigger reason is that the AH-1 and Mi-24 represent first generation attack helicopters developed directly out of transport helicopters (UH-1 & Mi-8 ).

The AH-64 is a dedicated second-generation anti-tank helicopter which was designed from the ground up with that in mind. The Mi-28 is a better comparison point to the AH-64, as it was also designed from scratch as a second generation attack helicopter (and which first flew about five years before the service introduction of the AH-64... albeit with an even more delayed service entry due to the fall of the Soviet Union).

Strictly within the 1970s, it was no contest. while a few later Cobra variants in that decade already got the 20mm chin turret, it could only carry up one pair of large rocket pods and one small one on the outboard pylons.

The actual reason for this thread was that we were cued onto the Russian language forum discussions which were talking about how the Mi-24 couldn't carry both troops and its weapon load effectively as it would have to shed a lot of its fuel to make up for the extra weight.

This reminded me about how the payloads of the AH-1 and the OH-58 begin to converge near the AH-1's maximum range (it simply can't carry a full fuel load and rocket load as well).

The early AH-1G to AH-1J were carrying SACLOS guided anti-tank missiles as well, which makes them much more comparable in effectiveness (compared to the later Hellfire equipped versions).

Well, there is the time frame which puts the first twin engined AH-1 as much more contemporary:

 

First Flight:

1965 AH-1 (4 years before Mi-24)

1969 AH-1J

1969 Mi-24

1975 AH-64 (6 years after Mi-24)

 

Service introduction:

1967 AH-1 (5 years before Mi-24)

1971 AH-1J

1972 Mi-24

1987 AH-64 (15 years after Mi-24)

 

However, I think the bigger reason is that the AH-1 and Mi-24 represent first generation attack helicopters developed directly out of transport helicopters (UH-1 & Mi-8).

 

The AH-64 is a dedicated second-generation anti-tank helicopter which was designed from the ground up with that in mind. The Mi-28 is a better comparison point to the AH-64, as it was also designed from scratch as a second generation attack helicopter (and which first flew about five years before the service introduction of the AH-64... albeit with an even more delayed service entry due to the fall of the Soviet Union).

Thank you for the insight!

If you have a gunship vs gunship fight prior to the service entry date for the AH-64, there are only two helicopters that will show up: the AH-1 and Mi-24. It doesn't matter that the design philosophies were different. On the front lines, it is these two helos that will face each other head to head. No different than the F-4 and MiG-21, which couldn't be any more different other than having both been designed to be Mach 2 interceptors. Yet, despite differences in their size and roles, they actually had very close performance numbers with any advantages being marginal and dependent on altitude, speed, and the specific variants. Again, much like the AH-1 and Mi-24 which both evolved quite a bit over time. I love all four: F-4, MiG-21, AH-1, and Mi-24. But I am partial to the home team since I grew up with two of them flying over my head.

But to be fair, the AH-1 was a cheap interim solution to the failure to produce proper attack helo. But it was so cost effective and so easy to upgrade over time that variants are still on the front line today. Even after the AH-64 was available, the single engine Army AH-1s continued to be numerous and very capable.

If you want a fair comparison based on size and roles, an optionally armed UH-60 variant is much more comparable in size and performance to the Mi-24. In fact, when F-15s mistakenly shot down UH-60s, they thought they had visually identified Mi-24s before firing.

Interestingly, the only air-combat between the AH-1 and the Mi-24 reportedly involved opportunistic surprise attacks using anti-tank missiles... the defender didn't even get a chance to respond.

 

Well, there is the time frame which puts the first twin engined AH-1 as much more contemporary:

 

First Flight:

1965 AH-1 (4 years before Mi-24)

1969 AH-1J

1969 Mi-24

1975 AH-64 (6 years after Mi-24)

 

Service introduction:

1967 AH-1 (9 years before Mi-24)

1971 AH-1J

1976 Mi-24D

1987 AH-64 (11 years after Mi-24)

 

However, I think the bigger reason is that the AH-1 and Mi-24 represent first generation attack helicopters developed directly out of transport helicopters (UH-1 & Mi-8 ).

 

The AH-64 is a dedicated second-generation anti-tank helicopter which was designed from the ground up with that in mind. The Mi-28 is a better comparison point to the AH-64, as it was also designed from scratch as a second generation attack helicopter (and which first flew about five years before the service introduction of the AH-64... albeit with an even more delayed service entry due to the fall of the Soviet Union).

Mi-24D was the first Mi-24 variant accepted by the Soviet Army in 1976.

Prior to that it was only low serie Mi-24/A production with many shortcomings, not accepted by the Soviet Army.

 

Mi-24D was the first Mi-24 variant accepted by the Soviet Army in 1976.

Prior to that it was only low serie Mi-24/A production with many shortcomings, not accepted by the Soviet Army.

Thanks. Updated.

what kills me about this is Id bet good money more than once in iran v iraq there were Cobra/Hind battles. Id kill for an AAR or vid of it

Interestingly, the only air-combat between the AH-1 and the Mi-24 reportedly involved opportunistic surprise attacks using anti-tank missiles... the defender didn't even get a chance to respond.

can you tell me more ? sources?

 

Mi-24D was the first Mi-24 variant accepted by the Soviet Army in 1976.

Prior to that it was only low serie Mi-24/A production with many shortcomings, not accepted by the Soviet Army.

wait though, I saw a lot of diff As in pictures over the years with that horrible greenhouse in Soviet service.. so whats the story? Wings of the red star soviet rotors claims they used As first... I never heard the A was rejected. not calling you a liar but you have a source I can read about this on?

Wikipedia says Mi-24A was accepted into Soviet service in 1972. Not only that, it served in sufficient numbers to get a nickname, "stakan" (a kind of Russian drinking glass) because of that greenhouse canopy (and presumably toughness, stakans are surprisingly indestructible for a piece of glass). It was a bit of a dog, more of a Mi-8 with ATGMs than a proper Hind, but it saw some use in Afghan.

Mi-24/A entered service in Soviet military but Mi-24D - 29 March 1976 - has been accepted.

It was very common practice in Soviet military to start production of pre-production variant which enters service requiring developement and modification to become effective, even test it in combat and then, after few years of developement the upgraded variant is accepted by the military.

Similar story with i.e. MiG-23, MiG-25 and many more Soviet weapon type.

Ok. we seem to have major confusion now. i understand what youre saying, but Im certain I recall Mi24As were used in combat in afghanistan. I recall pix. Also I def saw warpac propaganda of exercises with A models being used... tho maybe I understand what you mean. is this like how theres 1 unit of BMP2Ms or (terminators I think theyre not 2ms anymore) and how theres a few su25ts floating around being actively used though they never were adopted?

if so seems the soviet and russian militaries handle a lot very similarly

for example.. hows this afghan boy walking by a destroyed A model.. ? https://images.app.goo.gl/yvceMXbFHhaoNm2NA

this points to them being made and used.

The Mi-24A was exported to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

 

can you tell me more ? sources?

Some accounts can be found here: http://www.airvectors.net/avhind_2.html

It might have been something I read over at ACIG.

You might also try: Yakubovich, Nikolay. Boevye vertolety Rossii. Ot "Omegi" do "Alligatora"

The Mi-24A was exported to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan

Fair nuff... however give me a day or two, as Im almost certain Ive seen Mi24As with Soviet stars, not DRA markings. of course theres always the strong possibility the soviets just manned DRA aircraft. i wouldnt be surprised.

 

Some accounts can be found here: http://www.airvectors.net/avhind_2.html

 

It might have been something I read over at ACIG.

 

You might also try: Yakubovich, Nikolay. Boevye vertolety Rossii. Ot "Omegi" do "Alligatora"

 

oo thx im excited to read this

 

Some accounts can be found here: http://www.airvectors.net/avhind_2.html

 

It might have been something I read over at ACIG.

 

You might also try: Yakubovich, Nikolay. Boevye vertolety Rossii. Ot "Omegi" do "Alligatora"

 

reading this I cant help but wonder how this would play out slightly more modern - as in like with the E Germany modified hinds that had R60s for small aircraft etc, and I think by the 80s the US was putting sidewinders on apaches at least..

reading your link though thanks! I wonder if the germany border incident cobra pilot was a Nam vet.

very interesting the soviets concluded the helo that could turn tighter would win - considering that meant in their estimation the cobra was superior for helo on helo fighting. i really dont know how the hind flies irl, but one would think their fast speed would be a huge ace up their sleeve, and im surprised the sov test didnt state the obvious - that seeing the enemy helos first seems far more important than all the other factors

Hind vs Cobra in the Iran-Iraq war:

[...]and im surprised the sov test didnt state the obvious - that seeing the enemy helos first seems far more important than all the other factors

Yes... that was the impression I got too - spotting the enemy first and engaging it with ATGMs seems to be the biggest factor (beyond the aircraft themselves)!

The deployment of the Hind was a completely different tactic to that of the Cobra. Russian tactics back then was to overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers of equipment, regardless of losses. Manufacturing was about quantity rather than quality.

When the Hind fist appeared, NATO in Europe crapped itself, they had nothing to combat such an aircraft on a modern day 1970-1980’s battlefield. The Hinds tactic was to fly at speed firing mass amount of rockets while Russian tanks and infantry armour raced below. While patrolling the East German border, by air, we would be on occasions shadowed by a Hind. Our official defence at the time was to hide if you weren’t spotted, or, to fire all of our TOW missiles in the general direction if he had seen us( immediately wire cutting each one) and hopefully this on coming barrage would give us time to escape.

The two main things we feared most at the time of the Cold War apart from the sheer number of tanks, was the Hind and Russia’s battlefield air defence regiments.