DCS: Mi-24P - What we know + Discussion

I'm very much enjoying the reading, so I also believe you guys can keep this 'technical'.

As far as I can remember from another recent Mi-24 Hind sim, the chin-turret moveable gun does indeed have its own appeal... but this is a somewhat subjective aspect, as some of us are more into these 'avioncs quirks' and others not so much.

It was a nice feature, with the gun being aimed through it own sights on the cockpit and all that stuf.

However this has been talked about here before, and is obviously down to each one's personal preference.

That said, I must admit that playing it in single player wasn't very easy / practical though.

As I barely recall, to aim and employ effectively the gun, one had to give commands to the AI back-seater constantly, or to the auto-pilot, or something like that, to try keep the enemy on your forward quarter FOV... which isn't much convenient when trying to shoot down a moving target (i.e. enemy helicopter) which is also shooting back at you.

Also: using the 12.7mm gun at enemy helos, took a considerable amount of rounds to cause some damage; very probably because of what has been said here: the 12.7mm gun not being powerful enough.

(To the point that, sometimes I even questioned myself if I was hitting the target at all.)

57 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

No.

Is the A-10 same as the Mi-24?

 

Well. Both the Hind and the A-10 are used in the same way. Why would the Hind and the A-10 use different weapon systems then? If both carry a big gun for straight line strafing, how is the Hind any different from the A-10? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the literal best ground pounder in the world to use a clearly superior weapon system, like a flex-mount 12.7mm instead of a fixed 30mm?

3 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

I'm very much enjoying the reading, so I also believe you guys can keep this 'technical'.

 

As far as I can remember from another recent Mi-24 Hind sim, the chin-turret moveable gun does indeed have its own appeal... but this is a somewhat subjective aspect, as some of us are more into these 'avioncs quirks' and others not so much.

It does have its uses against unarmored and lightly armored targets that you could find and that you can approach from the distance. You get more time to destroy those in various flight tactics. 

In DCS there are limitations for the many parts, especially related to ground units behavior and capabilities. Example terrain is relative flat, there is nothing really to offer any cover if not counting some buildings and hills. But in reality there are plenty of all kind ditches and places where you get hidden. That is one of the key advances now in other military simulators that has taken a sub-meter terrain engine, as they get to simulate more realistic battlefields where engagement ranges are very short. 

That is a topic for the Combined Arms module, but not limited to it. As helicopters that fly at low altitudes and needs to operate with the ground units (friendly or hostile) it becomes important feature how can unit hide against air threats, and how air units needs to find ground threats.

In the context of DCS World, the 30 mm fixed cannon is more pleasant decision for the single-player in mind. Having a good AI to engage targets is anyways important for the anti-tank missiles, but it would be same for the YakB gun at closer ranges.

  As many has asked that can the front-pilot fly etc. Sure, it makes it possible to fly from front seat and use rockets and gun as well the anti-tank missiles. So considering that the P is just nicer for flexibility from the front seat than the V would have been as you can't control gun same time as you would be flying like you can with P. 

3 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

It was a nice feature, with the gun being aimed through it own sights on the cockpit and all that stuf.

However this has been talked about here before, and is obviously down to each one's personal preference.

It is still fun in UH-1H and Mi-8MTv2 to use those controlled weapons. It just needs more polishing as example in VR the gun becomes often blocked by itself and it feels bad to turn head for aiming. Sure it is easier than having extra controller for it but it would just need polishing for it. 

3 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

That said, I must admit that playing it in single player wasn't very easy / practical though.

As I barely recall, to aim and employ effectively the gun, one had to give commands to the AI back-seater constantly, or to the auto-pilot, or something like that, to try keep the enemy on your forward quarter FOV... which isn't much convenient when trying to shoot down a moving target (i.e. enemy helicopter) which is also shooting back at you.

That is the challenge for the upcoming AI. To get it fly fluently and expected style. Example the current mentioned helicopters in DCS has at least that AI try to maintain level flight or even slight roll angle if you start at such. But it forces you to do lots of jumping in and out from the gunner position to actually operate helicopter as well.

It is very nice to get to use those door guns and such, but without human player piloting it is just less. 

3 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

Also: using the 12.7mm gun at enemy helos, took a considerable amount of rounds to cause some damage; very probably because of what has been said here: the 12.7mm gun not being powerful enough.

There are few different things that needs to be mentioned:

1) Caliber effectiveness. 

This is pure technical value. The cartridges for the caliber offering different muzzle velocity ranges, bullet weights and ballistics etc. It is just matter of that if the specific cartridge is fired and bullet impacts specified target at X distance, then what will happen. Example, a 12.7 mm caliber AP round can impact an 1.5" steel armor at 1500 meters without penetration, but it will cause spalling that will injure or kill infantry behind that armor as the spalling fragments are flying at the velocities of the bullet on impact. This lead later on the anti-spalling armors inside the APC's. There are as well multiple different ways how penetrations are calculated and evaluated, example West calculated penetration to happen if from 100 impacts one made a hole where light shined through. In Russia the penetration was that over 50% of the impacts were required to pass through the armor, not just make a hole but fly through.

2) Weapon effectiveness.

The cartridge is just the start. The weapon firing it is other part of the triangle. Like one can have amazing cartridge that offers excellent ballistics and penetration, but weapon that has very high recoil or spread. That naturally changes the capabilities of the caliber or cartridge for the given task. With example autocannons one doesn't want too little spread as it makes hitting more difficult as one needs to be more accurate in aiming. So the weapon precision is adjusted so that good compromise in the spread is achieved for the need. 

3) Maximum effective range.

That is the third main part of the triangle. The person who is handling the weapon, or where the weapon is mounted and expected capabilities.

The maximum effective range is always lower than the maximum range. The maximum effective range is simply where a average soldier is capable to hit a target with 50% probability. Example a soldier is expected to hit a enemy from 300 meters with first two rounds. It doesn't mean that the caliber is ineffective past 300 meters, but that the person using it.

This example here is that the Mi-24 has maximum effective range at the 2000 meters for manual ranging as S.E.Bulba explained. That is when it is expected that the average gunner is capable to hit a target with common burst length. It is nothing about the effectiveness of the caliber or the specific cartridge.

In reality as well spotting is extremely difficult. That is one of the major challenges in any simulator to achieve. In real life spotting a person under 30 meters that has camouflaged and tries to hide is almost impossible. If the person doesn't care and wears example a bright red jumper in a green forest and jumps around, it is obvious to spot one. 

Now put yourself to position where you fly at the high speed, at low altitude and try to spot enemies that try to hide and surprise you. In reality it becomes almost impossible. It was as well found by Mujahideen in Afghanistan that as long you didn't run and move, pilots didn't find you. If you ran, they spotted you almost certainly.

This same technique is in the military, movement reveals your position, lights reveal your position, sounds reveals your position, tracks reveals your position....

The whole western modern military training is about hiding. You want to hide yourself, your position and limit all the possible information that can reveal where your troops are on the battlefield.

If you are trying to find someone on forested area, you will have very hard time. When the terrain is such that you can limit the visibility to very short ranges, you are not going to be engaged from the distance but only from the short ranges.

This leads that engagement ranges are short, far shorter than what the weapon maximum ranges or effective ranges are. Like IIRC in border of West and East Germany it was 97% or less of possible engagement ranges for MBT's that were under 1000 meters. There were just a few percentage of the areas where ranges were past 1500 meters. This lead to serious challenges in the armor-cannon designs as when other could maintain high armor protection at under 1000 meters but could penetrate you up to 1500 meters, it was serious problem, as in assault situation the one who has the range wins. 

 That same thing is with the stealth technologies in fighters, it doesn't matter if enemy knows you are there if they can not launch weapon at you, but you can launch at them and they can't do anything else than run away.  So it is not about "stealth" like "You don't know am I there" but "You can not get lock-on me!".

And what happens when you have two sides that both can not get a lock from distance? The engagement distance shrinks. 

3 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

(To the point that, sometimes I even questioned myself if I was hitting the target at all.)

If you are talking about some other game, I can bet you that there are the same problems as in DCS where sometimes you have aircrafts flying without wings etc. Luckily to us the new damage modeling is under work and partially released already and it should fix such problems.

You need to as well remember that penetration is not successful if you have nothing behind the penetrated surface. It is literally like shooting through a tarp on truck that is empty and expecting that something would happen.

Large part of the Mi-24 is empty cargo space. Rear of it there is some fuel cells but relative to its huge size it is just empty. The tail is very vulnerable, but otherwise it really has very small areas that are "high targets". 

In the future if we get proper damage modeling to ground vehicles, there are good and bad sides. Great thing is that one should not need to destroy much in the vehicle to get mobility kill or something else. Like destroy a truck front wheel with single 5.56 mm and it is pretty much done on battlefield. Shoot through a empty cargo compartment and you don't achieve anything. Put a single 30 mm HE shell inside that same cargo compartment when it is full of troops, and you likely kill 2/3 of them right there.

Right now in DCS we need too many direct impacts. Where < 50-100 meters should be effective depending weapon. So one can be questioning many times "Did I hit it?" when not even smoke start to come. 

But if we get good vehicle crew simulation and moral system etc, we should see plenty of different kind behaviors if AI is up to it.

Like if there are troops on the ground and they know that A-10 is attacking them, no one is sitting relaxed anywhere. And you can replace A-10 with Mi-24 or anything else, and the result is same that no one will want to be the target.

38 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

 

Well. Both the Hind and the A-10 are used in the same way.

No they are not. 

A-10 does not perform low altitude attacks as pop-up methods.

Mi-24 does not fly at high altitude.

The A-10 is already slow, it is not going to be put on the frontlines where there are fighters and SAM's etc.

Mi-24 is a frontline attack helicopter, it is directly put to operate where there are ground threats. 

38 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Why would the Hind and the A-10 use different weapon systems then?

Different vehicles. 

38 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

If both carry a big gun for straight line strafing, how is the Hind any different from the A-10?

Really? How?

Other is slow, capable to hover and utilize its agility to move around terrain.

Another is faster, incapable to hover and utilize its altitude and range. 

The 30 mm cannon does give Mi-24 option to fly higher and engage targets from further distance, but it doesn't make it A-10. 

38 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the literal best ground pounder in the world to use a clearly superior weapon system, like a flex-mount 12.7mm instead of a fixed 30mm?

No. As YakB is not superior, neither is the Gsh-30-2. GAU-8 is not superior, neither is GAU-12 etc.

That is like asking that should a A-10 mount a new Rheinmetal 130mm/L51 cannon if you want to go "pound the ground"?

If you think that higher caliber is just better, then welcome the AC-130. 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/080-ac-130-gunship/

That is the literally best ground pounder there is, and A-10 is nothing compared to that.

(In fact, artillery has always been the best tanks killing weapon system, as well ground pounder). 

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

It does have its uses against unarmored and lightly armored targets that you could find and that you can approach from the distance. You get more time to destroy those in various flight tactics. 

 

In DCS there are limitations for the many parts, especially related to ground units behavior and capabilities. Example terrain is relative flat, there is nothing really to offer any cover if not counting some buildings and hills. But in reality there are plenty of all kind ditches and places where you get hidden. That is one of the key advances now in other military simulators that has taken a sub-meter terrain engine, as they get to simulate more realistic battlefields where engagement ranges are very short. 

That is a topic for the Combined Arms module, but not limited to it. As helicopters that fly at low altitudes and needs to operate with the ground units (friendly or hostile) it becomes important feature how can unit hide against air threats, and how air units needs to find ground threats.

 

In the context of DCS World, the 30 mm fixed cannon is more pleasant decision for the single-player in mind. Having a good AI to engage targets is anyways important for the anti-tank missiles, but it would be same for the YakB gun at closer ranges.

  As many has asked that can the front-pilot fly etc. Sure, it makes it possible to fly from front seat and use rockets and gun as well the anti-tank missiles. So considering that the P is just nicer for flexibility from the front seat than the V would have been as you can't control gun same time as you would be flying like you can with P. 

 

 

It is still fun in UH-1H and Mi-8MTv2 to use those controlled weapons. It just needs more polishing as example in VR the gun becomes often blocked by itself and it feels bad to turn head for aiming. Sure it is easier than having extra controller for it but it would just need polishing for it. 

 

 

That is the challenge for the upcoming AI. To get it fly fluently and expected style. Example the current mentioned helicopters in DCS has at least that AI try to maintain level flight or even slight roll angle if you start at such. But it forces you to do lots of jumping in and out from the gunner position to actually operate helicopter as well.

It is very nice to get to use those door guns and such, but without human player piloting it is just less. 

 

 

 

There are few different things that needs to be mentioned:

 

1) Caliber effectiveness. 

This is pure technical value. The cartridges for the caliber offering different muzzle velocity ranges, bullet weights and ballistics etc. It is just matter of that if the specific cartridge is fired and bullet impacts specified target at X distance, then what will happen. Example, a 12.7 mm caliber AP round can impact an 1.5" steel armor at 1500 meters without penetration, but it will cause spalling that will injure or kill infantry behind that armor as the spalling fragments are flying at the velocities of the bullet on impact. This lead later on the anti-spalling armors inside the APC's. There are as well multiple different ways how penetrations are calculated and evaluated, example West calculated penetration to happen if from 100 impacts one made a hole where light shined through. In Russia the penetration was that over 50% of the impacts were required to pass through the armor, not just make a hole but fly through.

 

2) Weapon effectiveness.

The cartridge is just the start. The weapon firing it is other part of the triangle. Like one can have amazing cartridge that offers excellent ballistics and penetration, but weapon that has very high recoil or spread. That naturally changes the capabilities of the caliber or cartridge for the given task. With example autocannons one doesn't want too little spread as it makes hitting more difficult as one needs to be more accurate in aiming. So the weapon precision is adjusted so that good compromise in the spread is achieved for the need. 

 

3) Maximum effective range.

That is the third main part of the triangle. The person who is handling the weapon, or where the weapon is mounted and expected capabilities.

The maximum effective range is always lower than the maximum range. The maximum effective range is simply where a average soldier is capable to hit a target with 50% probability. Example a soldier is expected to hit a enemy from 300 meters with first two rounds. It doesn't mean that the caliber is ineffective past 300 meters, but that the person using it.

This example here is that the Mi-24 has maximum effective range at the 2000 meters for manual ranging as S.E.Bulba explained. That is when it is expected that the average gunner is capable to hit a target with common burst length. It is nothing about the effectiveness of the caliber or the specific cartridge.

In reality as well spotting is extremely difficult. That is one of the major challenges in any simulator to achieve. In real life spotting a person under 30 meters that has camouflaged and tries to hide is almost impossible. If the person doesn't care and wears example a bright red jumper in a green forest and jumps around, it is obvious to spot one. 

 

Now put yourself to position where you fly at the high speed, at low altitude and try to spot enemies that try to hide and surprise you. In reality it becomes almost impossible. It was as well found by Mujahideen in Afghanistan that as long you didn't run and move, pilots didn't find you. If you ran, they spotted you almost certainly.

This same technique is in the military, movement reveals your position, lights reveal your position, sounds reveals your position, tracks reveals your position....

The whole western modern military training is about hiding. You want to hide yourself, your position and limit all the possible information that can reveal where your troops are on the battlefield.

 

If you are trying to find someone on forested area, you will have very hard time. When the terrain is such that you can limit the visibility to very short ranges, you are not going to be engaged from the distance but only from the short ranges.

This leads that engagement ranges are short, far shorter than what the weapon maximum ranges or effective ranges are. Like IIRC in border of West and East Germany it was 97% or less of possible engagement ranges for MBT's that were under 1000 meters. There were just a few percentage of the areas where ranges were past 1500 meters. This lead to serious challenges in the armor-cannon designs as when other could maintain high armor protection at under 1000 meters but could penetrate you up to 1500 meters, it was serious problem, as in assault situation the one who has the range wins. 

 That same thing is with the stealth technologies in fighters, it doesn't matter if enemy knows you are there if they can not launch weapon at you, but you can launch at them and they can't do anything else than run away.  So it is not about "stealth" like "You don't know am I there" but "You can not get lock-on me!".

And what happens when you have two sides that both can not get a lock from distance? The engagement distance shrinks. 

 

 

If you are talking about some other game, I can bet you that there are the same problems as in DCS where sometimes you have aircrafts flying without wings etc. Luckily to us the new damage modeling is under work and partially released already and it should fix such problems.

You need to as well remember that penetration is not successful if you have nothing behind the penetrated surface. It is literally like shooting through a tarp on truck that is empty and expecting that something would happen.

Large part of the Mi-24 is empty cargo space. Rear of it there is some fuel cells but relative to its huge size it is just empty. The tail is very vulnerable, but otherwise it really has very small areas that are "high targets". 

 

In the future if we get proper damage modeling to ground vehicles, there are good and bad sides. Great thing is that one should not need to destroy much in the vehicle to get mobility kill or something else. Like destroy a truck front wheel with single 5.56 mm and it is pretty much done on battlefield. Shoot through a empty cargo compartment and you don't achieve anything. Put a single 30 mm HE shell inside that same cargo compartment when it is full of troops, and you likely kill 2/3 of them right there.

 

Right now in DCS we need too many direct impacts. Where < 50-100 meters should be effective depending weapon. So one can be questioning many times "Did I hit it?" when not even smoke start to come. 

But if we get good vehicle crew simulation and moral system etc, we should see plenty of different kind behaviors if AI is up to it.

Like if there are troops on the ground and they know that A-10 is attacking them, no one is sitting relaxed anywhere. And you can replace A-10 with Mi-24 or anything else, and the result is same that no one will want to be the target.

Very good !

Thank you for the insight.

03.12.2020 в 05:01, Fri13 сказал:

… This example here is that the Mi-24 has maximum effective range at the 2000 meters for manual ranging as S.E.Bulba explained…

Since you referred to me, I have to clarify that this is not entirely true. Literally, I wrote the following.

03.12.2020 в 00:45, S.E.Bulba сказал:

… The maximum sighting range of the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) using the KPS-53 reflector sighting station = 2000m (when using the VSB-24 firing and bombing calculator).

1500m is the recommended maximum sighting range without using the VSB-24 firing and bombing calculator (for duplex rounds = 1000m)…

The maximum sighting range (NOT effective) means that the range of the KPS-53AV reflector sighting station is 200–2000m. Accordingly, as I mentioned above, the YakB-12.7 range tables for 12.7×108mm cartridges are also compiled at a ranges of up to 2000m. Shooting from the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) at a distance of more than 2000m is considered ineffective because of the too large dispersion of bullets, as well as because of the difficulty in visually adjusting the aimed fire.

IRL, the maximum effective firing range of the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) on the Mi-24V was ~1000±200m. This made it possible to effectively inflict damage to the enemy (with minimal expenditure of ammunition and maximum damaging effect), while remaining out of the reach of small arms of standard caliber.

10 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Literally, I wrote the following.

The maximum sighting range (NOT effective) means that the range of the KPS-53AV reflector sighting station is 200–2000m. Accordingly, as I mentioned above, the YakB-12.7 range tables for 12.7×108mm cartridges are also compiled at a ranges of up to 2000m. Shooting from the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) at a distance of more than 2000m is considered ineffective because of the too large dispersion of bullets, as well as because of the difficulty in visually adjusting the aimed fire.

And if you read my posts, i have already explained all that.... You confirm my explanations and disagree with yourself.

Here are your claimed "untrue" stories:

"It is effective caliber, it can't be denied. But it is not meant to penetrate protected targets like bunkers, very modern APC's / IFV at long distances or even get through a rocks."

"It is very accurate for its purpose. Please, remember the context and purpose of the weapon. No one wants a weapon that has a 0.5 mil spread like a sharpshooting rifle, because you don't really hit anything with it as the effective range is the limiting factor. The maximum range is nothing more than a ballistic capability, but that is still the one of most used value in DCS. But that is as well point of cover, that you are protected by the cover. A enemy soldier dig in the ground is still protected against mortars, artillery, air launched rockets and especially autocannons etc. You need almost direct hit from those to get soldiers injured or killed, and more likely the soldiers will withdraw before that."

"You need to as well accept that the most vehicles you will ever face in the combat, are not armored. They are unarmored vehicles and other that are lightly armored. Be it a transport, rocket launchers, mortar, supply etc. Then for the older era the APC are vulnerable for the 12.7 mm caliber. And even a MBT crew does not want to be under 12.7 mm fire, as under any fire really than small calibers. And when more armored targets are faced, it is time to use a 80 mm rockets or AT missiles as 30 mm is not enough."

"12.7 mm is often as a vehicles self-defense weapon, and for couple kilometers you are effective against helicopters and other low flying targets, and even further against ground targets. It is not as effective as a modern autocannon with all fancy computerized automatic tracking and kill probability of 0.8 with a first round, but such will as well cause fear among pilots not to fly straight at such. And that brings back the rockets and AT missiles as you want range and area of effect."

"The spread is a benefit for the aiming and effect, but will shorten the effective range by increasing time of fire. Why you don't want a "laser beam" but good spread for an higher effect. "

"The real challenge is that in reality you can't spot any infantry if they don't reveal themselves, and to hit a APC you need to spot it and that again is something they truly do all they can to avoid it. When you can find the target, it becomes very effective weapon to use.....

.....In DCS there are no such challenges as it is unrealistically easy to spot ground (or air) units from tens of kilometers distances."

"And if you would carefully read, I said "up to" and that means if you get hit by the 12.7 mm bullet even past that range, YOU DIE! The 2000 meters is effective range, but not maximum range. And if someone doesn't have skills or talent to fire weapon past the sighting it has set, then it is own personal disadvantage"

If you read my posts, I don't talk about YakB. I do not talk about specific aiming devices. I talk about the caliber, by the experience and by the results it can do.

Quote

IRL, the maximum effective firing range of the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) on the Mi-24V was ~1000±200m. This made it possible to effectively inflict damage to the enemy (with minimal expenditure of ammunition and maximum damaging effect), while remaining out of the reach of small arms of standard caliber.

If you read my posts, I have already explained that. You confirm my explanations and disagree with yourself.

Again, I have not talked about the YakB gun, or the targeting systems. Only about the caliber potentials itself.

You just went from the start to full personal attack mode, insults, strawman arguments etc. 

And small arms calibers can "reach" helicopter far further than you now imply with "~1000±200m.". Is it a penetrating caliber at that range? That is other question, but a 5.56 will fly easily few kilometers, there is no kinematically nothing stopping it "reaching" a target at "~1000±200m." range.

The Mi-24 bubble windows is not armored as you know, just plastic. It get penetrated. When a helicopter receives any fire, it is not there to sit down. Depending it protection level it can be dangerous to be there. There is big difference between UH-1 and Mi-28, almost as opposite sides of the protection.

  Infantry is well capable to engage moving helicopters from 600-800 meters, hovering or slow moving ones up to 1500 meters. That is again where a squad/platoon firepower comes from the amount of guns shot approximately on the target if so required. It is up to the situation if such command is required to be made but it is not worthless if situation demands for self-protection.

On 12/3/2020 at 3:23 AM, ResonantCard1 said:

 

Well. Both the Hind and the A-10 are used in the same way. Why would the Hind and the A-10 use different weapon systems then? If both carry a big gun for straight line strafing, how is the Hind any different from the A-10? Wouldn't it be more reasonable for the literal best ground pounder in the world to use a clearly superior weapon system, like a flex-mount 12.7mm instead of a fixed 30mm?

But I can shoot anything with A-10's gun like a sniper, whereas I can only strafe an approximate area of the targets with mi-8 or huey. If hind's handling like them, it would be very hard to shoot things too

5 часов назад, Fri13 сказал:

Here are your claimed "untrue" stories…

"My"?! Can you quote?

5 часов назад, Fri13 сказал:

If you read my posts, I don't talk about YakB. I do not talk about specific aiming devices. I talk about the caliber, by the experience and by the results it can do.

So it was not you who wrote the following?

03.12.2020 в 05:01, Fri13 сказал:

This example here is that the Mi-24 has maximum effective range at the 2000 meters for manual ranging as S.E.Bulba explained. That is when it is expected that the average gunner is capable to hit a target with common burst length. It is nothing about the effectiveness of the caliber or the specific cartridge.

5 часов назад, Fri13 сказал:

If you read my posts, I have already explained that. You confirm my explanations and disagree with yourself.

Again, I have not talked about the YakB gun, or the targeting systems. Only about the caliber potentials itself.

You just went from the start to full personal attack mode, insults, strawman arguments etc.

I have no desire to discuss your 'compositions' with you, because I have no time to enter into meaningless disputes with forum's sophists. I just want you not to distort my words when you refer to me. To do this, the forum has a 'Quote' function, which apparently you know how to use.

5 часов назад, Fri13 сказал:

And small arms calibers can "reach" helicopter far further than you now imply with "~1000±200m.". Is it a penetrating caliber at that range? That is other question, but a 5.56 will fly easily few kilometers, there is no kinematically nothing stopping it "reaching" a target at "~1000±200m." range.

The Mi-24 bubble windows is not armored as you know, just plastic. It get penetrated. When a helicopter receives any fire, it is not there to sit down. Depending it protection level it can be dangerous to be there. There is big difference between UH-1 and Mi-28, almost as opposite sides of the protection.

I did not talk about the invulnerability of helicopters, I talked about "reach" in the context of the fact that IRL it is very difficult, almost impossible, without anti-aircraft sights to hit by small arms an aircraft moving at a speed of ~250km/h at a distance of ~1000m. If you wish to prove otherwise, then I look forward to your proof.

5 часов назад, Fri13 сказал:

Infantry is well capable to engage moving helicopters from 600-800 meters, hovering or slow moving ones up to 1500 meters. That is again where a squad/platoon firepower comes from the amount of guns shot approximately on the target if so required. It is up to the situation if such command is required to be made but it is not worthless if situation demands for self-protection.

Frankly speaking, it would be interesting for me to see how you will show miracles of heroism, trying to aim from the AKM/PKM and hit the helicopter at a distance of ~1500m, at the moment when, for example, a sheaf of S-8 rockets is flying at you. 
 

3 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

"My"?! Can you quote?

You do not anymore remember calling me telling untrue stories, or and I quote:

"while you often try to convince inexperienced readers that, about which you actually have a rather vague idea, based only on your personal speculations, usually far from reality."

Personal attacks, all of it. 

Quote

So it was not you who wrote the following?

Yes, but you did wrote that the correction tables were up to 2000 meters, so that is the weapon maximum effective range then.

"The maximum sighting range of the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) using the KPS-53 reflector sighting station = 2000m (when using the VSB-24 firing and bombing calculator)."

You do remember that "maximum effective range" is when an average shooter is expected to hit a target at most on that range?

And as I wrote: "It is nothing about the effectiveness of the caliber or the specific cartridge.". 

Quote

I have no desire to discuss your 'compositions' with you, because I have no time to enter into meaningless disputes with forum's sophists.

You have plenty of desire to do personal attacks, but go a head.

I wait you to apology all the personal attacks and accusations you have done at me, publically in this thread by explaining each. And promise that you will stop it such unrespectful behavior. 

Quote

I just want you not to distort my words when you refer to me. To do this, the forum has a 'Quote' function, which apparently you know how to use.

You do not want to, but you want to lie about others and make ad hominems....

You are clever to avoid getting quotes everything as I explained, just doing ad hominems so that you do not need to explain anything like how a 12.7 mm caliber becomes ineffective against anything past 2000 meters. 

Quote

I did not talk about the invulnerability of helicopters, I talked about "reach" in the context of the fact that IRL it is very difficult, almost impossible, without anti-aircraft sights to hit by small arms an aircraft moving at a speed of ~250km/h at a distance of ~1000m. If you wish to prove otherwise, then I look forward to your proof.

I wrote:

"Infantry is well capable to engage moving helicopters from 600-800 meters, hovering or slow moving ones up to 1500 meters."

And now you try make it my claim that it is possible to hit high speed targets moving at ~250 km/H at distance of ~1000 meters and I need to prove that!

That is strawman argument!

Quote

Frankly speaking, it would be interesting for me to see how you will show miracles of heroism, trying to aim from the AKM/PKM and hit the helicopter at a distance of ~1500m, at the moment when, for example, a sheaf of S-8 rockets is flying at you. 

Strawman argument, and ad hominem via sarcasm.

You can't really do anything else. That you have shown.

3 hours ago, ebabil said:

 

But I can shoot anything with A-10's gun like a sniper, whereas I can only strafe an approximate area of the targets with mi-8 or huey. If hind's handling like them, it would be very hard to shoot things too

The Mi-24 should be more "stable" to fly than Mi-8. Similar flight characteristics but you have more stable flying for aiming and firing. The 30 mm cannon will recoil nicely, similar way as rockets too. 

By no means it is not recoiless weapon, and its stabilization is far more difficult/almost impossible considering pendulum effect of the helicopter. In A-10 the whole airframe was designed around the gun. And the flight surfaces allows easy firing because PAC (Precision Attitude Control) that simply just on the moment of firing adjust proper elevator angle to maintain nose attitude level. Brilliant system. 

The recoil effects are not so properly simulated in the DCS. It is a common problem with the various aircrafts, even the current A-10C II doesn't have that kind vibrations/shaking there should be, and some say that MiG-29 etc has even less. But there is just limitation of feedbacks that can be done for player and what is wanted for a game or what game engine can produce. 

Likely for a good gun attack you want to have high speed and come in nice dive to utilize more of a helicopter mass, and not to use the gun while at hover.

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

You do not anymore remember calling me telling untrue stories, or and I quote:

"while you often try to convince inexperienced readers that, about which you actually have a rather vague idea, based only on your personal speculations, usually far from reality."

Personal attacks, all of it.

You still can't calm down? In my opinion, that conversation has long been over thanks to the intervention of the forum's moderators. And nevertheless, you persistently continue 'to beat the air'.

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

Yes, but you did wrote that the correction tables were up to 2000 meters, so that is the weapon maximum effective range then.

"The maximum sighting range of the USPU-24 gun emplacement (YakB-12.7) using the KPS-53 reflector sighting station = 2000m (when using the VSB-24 firing and bombing calculator)."

 

You do remember that "maximum effective range" is when an average shooter is expected to hit a target at most on that range?

And as I wrote: "It is nothing about the effectiveness of the caliber or the specific cartridge.".

I am not sure that Google Translate will allow me to translate my question in the most understandable way, but do you understand what is the difference between "maximum (ie limiting) sighting range" and "maximum (ie more) effective range"?

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

You have plenty of desire to do personal attacks, but go a head.

I wait you to apology all the personal attacks and accusations you have done at me, publically in this thread by explaining each. And promise that you will stop it such unrespectful behavior. 

 

You do not want to, but you want to lie about others and make ad hominems....

You are clever to avoid getting quotes everything as I explained, just doing ad hominems so that you do not need to explain anything like how a 12.7 mm caliber becomes ineffective against anything past 2000 meters.

Do you even read what they write to you? One gets the impression that you are talking to yourself.

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

I wrote:

"Infantry is well capable to engage moving helicopters from 600-800 meters, hovering or slow moving ones up to 1500 meters."

 

And now you try make it my claim that it is possible to hit high speed targets moving at ~250 km/H at distance of ~1000 meters and I need to prove that!

That is strawman argument!

So this is how you imagine the tactics of attack helicopters when attacking enemy positions, etc.? It's funny. 

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

Strawman argument, and ad hominem via sarcasm.

You can't really do anything else. That you have shown.

"The end." © 
 

I thought this thread is supposed to be about “What we know about the ED DCS Mi-24”, no? What do you think @BIGNEWY? 

(I’m with you on this @S.E.Bulba...) 

20 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

You still can't calm down? In my opinion, that conversation has long been over thanks to the intervention of the forum's moderators. And nevertheless, you persistently continue 'to beat the air'.

You still can't apology from doing personal attacks?

You tried to poison the well, meaning everything that I wrote is false, wrong, untrue stories, fantasies etc.

I am completely calm because You didn't even heat me up. You try now by all means to avoid admitting your personal attacks, you being wrong and and yet you continue doing so, after your now claimed that "I persistently continue to beat the air". 

 Stop it.

Apologize and admit doing wrong on each case, and being wrong. 

You have not managed to provide any single evidence for your opinion that 12.7 mm calibers are not harmful/damaging/dangerous to infantry, unarmored and lightly armored vehicles up to 2500 meters. That is your position!

20 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

I am not sure that Google Translate will allow me to translate my question in the most understandable way, but do you understand what is the difference between "maximum (ie limiting) sighting range" and "maximum (ie more) effective range"?

As I wrote. 

I wrote before you, explaining everything of that. 

You come after me, telling me that what I wrote are lies.

Now, you try to tell me, what I wrote before you, and use it as your argument to be right?

I say "There are many colors, red is one of them".

You say "You tell untrue stories, you are wrong"

Then later you come "do you happen to know that red is a color?"

Quote me to say where I have said that the targeting system in the Mi-24V:

1) Disallows gunner to aim higher than the sight reticle position.

2) Does allow gunner to set sight range with laser ranger to adjust its aiming correction further than 2000 meters?

3) What are MI-24V targeting system maximum of effective settings?

As I already quoted, I have already explained that it is shooter personal problem if they can not shoot further than the sighting system has a ranging.

Let me bend it to you from the railway track.

Let's take a assault rifle that uses 7.62x39 caliber, the gun has a rear sight for various distances with 100 meter adjustments all the way up to 1000 meters.

The maximum effective range for that weapon is 300-350 meters.

Does one need to adjust the sight to shoot at that distance or further than it?

No.

Does the caliber become ineffective past 1000 meters as limit in the sight?

No.

Can the cartridge be used accurately hit targets past 1000 meters?

Yes. By using another gun or sight.

Can someone make that weapon to have longer effective range by using additional sighting system?

Yes.

When does the gun become ineffective?

When a average shooter is not expected to hit a target reliably at given range.

When does the cartridge become ineffective?

Depends the purpose of shooting at target and it range.

When does the caliber become ineffective?

When it can not anymore cause damage/harm on the target by any available cartridge and weapon.

So I ask again. 

If you are standing 2500 meters from the shooter who has a 12.7 mm caliber weapon, can you be 100% sure that bullet will never be harmful on you even if it hits you?

If you have an unarmored vehicle like a truck next to you, can you be 100% sure that 12.7 mm caliber weapon can never cause any damage to it by any means?

How about when it is a common APC used at the 80's and even 90's? Are you 100% sure that there are not a single part in them that is vulnerable for that 12.7 mm caliber bullet?

20 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Do you even read what they write to you? One gets the impression that you are talking to yourself.

Explain how a 12.7 mm calibers become completely ineffective past 2000 meters up to 2500 meters.

EXPLAIN WHY IT IS "UNTRUE STORIES"!
And stop ad hominems!

20 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

So this is how you imagine the tactics of attack helicopters when attacking enemy positions, etc.? It's funny. 

Ad Hominem.

20 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

"The end." © 

You don't have valid arguments. You just want to do personal attacks and you can not provide any evidence that 12.7 mm caliber is ineffective past 2000 meters.

If you do not understand the argument, a 12.7 mm is not ineffective, uless, unharmful caliber at much further distances than one would be shooting at it.

All the time I have been saying that the limiting factors for the Mi-24V is not the 12.7 mm caliber, but other parts of the whole concept in it, like the sighting system, gun spread etc.

If someone would want to argue that when the target is a modern APC or IFV that has much beefed up armors and it is question about penetration at those at long ranges, as I already said (before you) that it is another case.

So apologize each of your personal attacks and insults at me, and promise you stop that.

21 hours ago, molevitch said:

I thought this thread is supposed to be about “What we know about the ED DCS Mi-24”, no? What do you think @BIGNEWY? 

(I’m with you on this @S.E.Bulba...) 

So do You support S.E.Bulba behavior being insulting and disrespectful?

Forum rules:

1.2 Forum members must treat each other with respect and tolerance.

Do you really want to go through that, where He is allowed to insult others and being disrespectful by saying how others lie, using ad hominems and not capable answer for direct questions and even trying to use other assumed ethnic, race etc as his leverage to win a arguments?

So are you really with him on that behavior?

@BIGNEWY There is a racists signs here against some forum members (me). This needs to be dealt here and now in this discussion thread by discussing it. Not deleting posts or just warning everyone. I have given S.E.Bulba respect to answer to his claims, told him directly when he is doing ad hominems and asked to stop it. I have not gone after his race, his ethnic, his history on the forums or called him by names. 

31 минуту назад, Fri13 сказал:

Let's take a assault rifle that uses 7.62x39 caliber, the gun has a rear sight for various distances with 100 meter adjustments all the way up to 1000 meters.

The maximum effective range for that weapon is 300-350 meters.

So what's the difference between "maximum sighting range" and "maximum effective range"? 

34 минуты назад, Fri13 сказал:

Can the cartridge be used accurately hit targets past 1000 meters?

Yes. By using another gun or sight.

Can someone make that weapon to have longer effective range by using additional sighting system?

Yes.

Personally, will you be able to install an "another" machine gun or an "additional" sighting system on the Mi-24V in order to increase the maximum effective range? 

35 минут назад, Fri13 сказал:

So apologize each of your personal attacks and insults at me, and promise you stop that.

I see that you either really do not understand, or you don't want to understand anything. I'm not going to change my mind, and even more so I'm not going to apologize to anyone. Besides, I'm not going to continue this stupid and senseless argument with you anymore.
 

32 минуты назад, Fri13 сказал:

and even trying to use other assumed ethnic, race etc as his leverage to win a arguments?

 

So are you really with him on that behavior?

 

@BIGNEWY There is a racists signs here against some forum members (me). This needs to be dealt here and now in this discussion thread by discussing it. Not deleting posts or just warning everyone. I have given S.E.Bulba respect to answer to his claims, told him directly when he is doing ad hominems and asked to stop it. I have not gone after his race, his ethnic, his history on the forums or called him by names.

Are you out of your mind?! Apparently, you did not even understand the meaning of my phrase, but already in a hurry to accuse me of some kind of "racism"! 

1 minute ago, S.E.Bulba said:

So what's the difference between "maximum sighting range" and "maximum effective range"? 

Already explained. Read the answers instead leaving them out! If you do not understand difference between the caliber, and the sighting system, you can keep using your tactics moving goal posts. 

1 minute ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Personally, will you be able to install an "another" machine gun or an "additional" sighting system on the Mi-24V in order to increase the maximum effective range? 

No. But I have not claimed such thing!

If I would have the necessary resources available to me, then Yes. But such things are already done, so I don't need to.

I repeat, again. I have been talking about 12.7 mm caliber itself and its effectiveness, not the sighting system in Mi-24V, nor the YakB value for the caliber effectiveness. 

But I will repeat, again a third time about YakB:

"It is very accurate for its purpose. Please, remember the context and purpose of the weapon. No one wants a weapon that has a 0.5 mil spread like a sharpshooting rifle, because you don't really hit anything with it as the effective range is the limiting factor. The maximum range is nothing more than a ballistic capability, "

So what is the purpose of the YakB in Mi-24V?

Engagements up to 1500 meters. capability fire at targets off-center, quickly reacting to targets at closer ranges when performing near attacks etc.

With laser ranging system, KPS-53AV stabilized gun sight system with ballistic calculator (VSB-24) that was linked to flight parameters, offering the aiming correction for WSO to fire YakB and drop bombs. 

1 minute ago, S.E.Bulba said:

I see that you either really do not understand, or you don't want to understand anything.

I understand very well your tactics and your insults, but You just don't understand that they don't work but you keep doing so.

1 minute ago, S.E.Bulba said:

I'm not going to change my mind, and even more so I'm not going to apologize to anyone.

That's it. You expect that you can be disrespectful, dishonest, and everything toward other forum members and then have a discussion.

You do not understand at all how you behave and that your argumentary tactic is invalid.

1 minute ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Besides, I'm not going to continue this stupid and senseless argument with you anymore.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Original in Russian

Так в чём же разница между «максимальной прицельной дальностью» и «максимально эффективной дальностью»? 

Лично Вы на Ми-24В тоже сможете установить «другой» пулемёт или «дополнительную» прицельную систему, чтобы увеличить максимально эффективную дальность? 

Я вижу, что Вы либо действительно не понимаете, либо не хотите ничего понимать. Я не собираюсь менять своё мнение, и уж тем более я не собираюсь извиняться перед кем бы то ни было. Кроме того, я вообще не собираюсь более продолжать этот глупый и бессмысленный спор с Вами.

 

Yes, start with the insults, stop with the insults.

All the time you have not wanted to do anything else than just ad hominems.

I have countered your arguments, regardless your tactics.

I am just going to ignore you, I will read your posts by respect, but if you try to do personal attacks, I will call you out for those. 

Can the wing hardpoints be selected individually? or they work in pairs ala Ka-50? I mean for example carrying one pod of illuminating rockets on one station and ordinary HE rockets on the other side. Can this be done?

Another question, a more tactical one. During Vietnam war the Pink teams consited in one OH-6 for scout and enemy marking + one AH-1 Cobra to attack the enemy. In Chechnya the Ka-50 were used in pairs together with a Ka-29 finding targets to them, were the Hinds used in the same fashion?

27 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Can the wing hardpoints be selected individually? or they work in pairs ala Ka-50? I mean for example carrying one pod of illuminating rockets on one station and ordinary HE rockets on the other side. Can this be done?

You can select loads individually in the MI-8 module, and I believe it's the same team working on the hind, so possibly.  I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

The DCS Mi-24P weapons panel has 2 x 3 way switches in the top centre. Same as the single 3 way switch above the pilot’s head in the Mi8, for selecting the GUV ordnance. But in the 24, I believe these are for selecting active weapon pylon. So, Left 1, 2, and 3, and Right 1, 2, and 3.

That’s what I think anyway...

3 hours ago, Stratos said:

Another question, a more tactical one. During Vietnam war the Pink teams consited in one OH-6 for scout and enemy marking + one AH-1 Cobra to attack the enemy. In Chechnya the Ka-50 were used in pairs together with a Ka-29 finding targets to them, were the Hinds used in the same fashion?

You mean that did the Hind's have a other type of helicopter like Mi-2 or Mi-4 to do the spotting for them and draw a fire at him, so Hinds were able to engage attacker? Or the attack pattern where one flight member goes to attack and others stays back observing the surroundings and attacks then those who attack first one. And then the circle repeats from various directions after each other passes?

As an aeroscout, the other chopper find the enemy and draw fire, then calls the big guys to do the gun/rocket passes.

3 часа назад, molevitch сказал:

The DCS Mi-24P weapons panel has 2 x 3 way switches in the top centre. Same as the single 3 way switch above the pilot’s head in the Mi8, for selecting the GUV ordnance. But in the 24, I believe these are for selecting active weapon pylon. So, Left 1, 2, and 3, and Right 1, 2, and 3.

That’s what I think anyway...

 

Yes you are right. The Mi-24 pilot has the ability to fire unguided weapons either individually from the left or individually from the right.

At the same time, one should take into account the peculiarities of aiming, due to the limited number of ballistic characteristics of weapons embedded in the ATsVU analog-digital computing device (IIRC, for example, on the Mi-24V only for the S-5KO & S-8M rockets and for the YakB-12.7 & GShG-7.62 machine guns).

That is, if you have different types of rockets hinged on the 1st and 4th weapon stations (S-5KO and S-5KP, respectively), then, for example, when firing rockets, you can first launch the S-5KO from the 1st weapon station in automatic mode using the ATsVU. Then switch to the right side and launch the S-5KP rockets from the 4th weapon station, switching to manual mode, introducing ballistic corrections into the ASP-17V gunsight.

4 часа назад, Stratos сказал:

Another question, a more tactical one. During Vietnam war the Pink teams consited in one OH-6 for scout and enemy marking + one AH-1 Cobra to attack the enemy. In Chechnya the Ka-50 were used in pairs together with a Ka-29 finding targets to them, were the Hinds used in the same fashion?

AFAIK, no. From time to time, only the JTACs were used, who corrected the attacks of the Mi-24 by radio.