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

[Stratos]

18 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

I have just checked and we do have a report open with the team discussing unit skill level, I will pass on your thoughts,

 

thanks

That was fast, with such new level we all win, is still in the hands of mission editors to keep the current levels or to have a more survivable "dumb" skill set. Thanks!

[Lurker]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

 

I have just checked and we do have a report open with the team discussing unit skill level, I will pass on your thoughts,

 

thanks

 

This would indeed be great news. They don't even have to change the skill levels as they are named in the editor, just maybe make the AI miss more at lower skill levels. (Or at least miss with the first shots at lower levels) 

[Alligator]

And it's not a factor of being dumber. They are just too OP and it seems like there's no randomness on its target acquisition. It just knows where to shoot every time.

[Northstar98]

17 minutes ago, Alligator said:

And it's not a factor of being dumber. They are just too OP and it seems like there's no randomness on its target acquisition. It just knows where to shoot every time.

 

Plus there are things like the BMP-2 being more effective as an anti-aircraft unit, than dedicated anti-aircraft units (such as the ZSU-23-4), even though the latter is RADAR directed, has a FCS and has the optics for it. The BMP-2 on the other hand has no FCS to speak of and almost certainly doesn't have the optics for anti-aircraft work against anything more than slow flying aircraft, given the lack of an FCS. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Northstar98

[Volator]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Plus there are things like the BMP-2 being more effective as an anti-aircraft unit, than dedicated anti-aircraft units (such as the ZSU-23-4), even though the latter is RADAR directed, has a FCS and has the optics for it. The BMP-2 on the other hand has no FCS to speak of and almost certainly doesn't have the optics for anti-aircraft work against anything more than slow flying aircraft, given the lack of an FCS. 

 

 

True. The whole thing with the AI becomes apparent when you try tank commanding in Combined Arms. There you have the "cheat" to "lock" targets and get an excellent aiming solution with basically any vehicle, even if those vehicles have no means to actually "lock" an aircraft and have any serious chance to hit it. One might be able to hit a stationary helicopter in real life with an MBT main gun, but a moving one, I don't think so.

 

With the AI it's the same, it always has the perfect aiming solution at any time, which is why flying helicopters is only half the fun it could be. And yes, BMPs and T-72/80/90 are far more dangerous for helicopters in DCS than Shilkas. Even ZU-23 are more dangerous than the ZSU-23, because (with the Gazelle) you get a RWR warning with the latter. With the former, it kills you at really long distances very precisely, but without any warning, and it shouldn't be that way. Any vehicle that has real aiming aides should be more precise than the Eyeball Mk.1 systems.

[Rover]

So I know this is really long and I fully understand if Its too much but if someone has some free time maybe you could translate some of this?

 

[Lucas_From_Hell]

On 2/3/2021 at 10:37 AM, BIGNEWY said:

 

I have just checked and we do have a report open with the team discussing unit skill level, I will pass on your thoughts,

Another thing worth checking that would make a world of a difference - more than skill levels even - is to check the gun traverse and gunsight limits on certain ground units. Many of them like the BTR-80 have manually-operated turrets with very narrow fields of view in scopes, so they would usually not be able to keep up with aircraft coming from most angles or lead shots since they can't see the aircraft in the first place.

[Northstar98]

31 minutes ago, Lucas_From_Hell said:

Another thing worth checking that would make a world of a difference - more than skill levels even - is to check the gun traverse and gunsight limits on certain ground units. Many of them like the BTR-80 have manually-operated turrets with very narrow fields of view in scopes, so they would usually not be able to keep up with aircraft coming from most angles or lead shots since they can't see the aircraft in the first place.

 

Maybe not the traverse rate, but definitely the optics - they should only be usable against slow-flying aircraft at best, their FOV is far too narrow. Also these vehicles don't have rangefinders to my knowledge, nor have any FCS to speak of (though the BTR-82A does AFAIK).

Edited February 4, 2021 by Northstar98

[Lurker]

Not sure how this is implemented but I imagine that these kinds of limitations are extremely hard to simulate correctly, or at least they would be very taxing on any system with a significant number of these units placed on the map. Which is why I suspect that all AI regardless of skill level are such great sharpshooters. 

[Rabies]

On 2/5/2021 at 3:18 AM, Rover said:

So I know this is really long and I fully understand if Its too much but if someone has some free time maybe you could translate some of this?

 

I will try to summarise the video, even though I don’t speak Russian. “ Me and my wingmen fly the Mi-24, sometimes my wingman is on the left or on the right, but either way, if you are not flying a white flag, we are going to f*** you up” ..........

[CoBlue]

On 2/2/2021 at 12:34 AM, Lucas_From_Hell said:

I don't understand why everything is suddenly a problem with the Mi-24 survivability.

 

The game doesn't need to be redone for that to happen. Just fly it right and have fun.

 

On 2/3/2021 at 11:07 AM, BIGNEWY said:

 

Planning and tactics are required, if you dont have stand off weapons then a full frontal Leroy Jenkins probably is not going to be the best option  

As mentioned setting the skill level of the units lower will make a difference to their accuracy and detection, so it is in the hands of the mission creator. 

It's a ED/DCS problem, not mission-maker's. How can mission-makers change e.g. this ridiculous fragmentation-damage? (& AI snipery , as discussed earlier).

Mk-82 Bomb lands beside a truck convoy. Convoy continues to drive like nothing happen....this has been known for ages. Same with rockets & other weapons.

 

AI snipery & behavior, rockets/bombs fragmentation-damage has to be redone. Mi-24 will be just as "survivable" as Mi-8 & Uh-1 are, which is pretty bad & frustrating.

 

Mi-24 will be redundant in a semi-realistic A2G mission environment. I'm 100% sure it will be a wonderful module, but I'm also 100% sure it won't have a semi-realistic fun mission experience.

[Mars Exulte]

On 2/3/2021 at 11:09 AM, Pilot Ike said:

 One might be able to hit a stationary helicopter in real life with an MBT main gun, but a moving one, I don't think so.

 

 Entirely dependent on range. Helicopters are fairly big, and 200-300kmh isn't THAT fast. Meanwhile, a sabot round is about 5000fps, meaning out to a mile or two, you only have to lead a second or two. How far will a helo move at 200-300kmh in ''a second or two''? Not very damn far. It's pretty much ''aim at the nose and put the round through the fuselage'', and that's assuming he's moving at a 90' angle. At closer range or if moving toward/away from you, you don't even need to lead that much and it's practically a laser. Point is, if you're remotely anywhere nearby, and he can elevate the gun enough to get it on you (likely if you're a helo) it absolutely could shoot you, fancy FCS or not.

 

 

 As for the AI, it fires a direct leading shot at your current position and trajectory into a narrowish cone. Yes, it's unrealistic. I do not know why people say the BMP is more dangerous than a Shilka, aside from the Shilka tripping your RWR, it should, for practical purposes, be easier to dodge the BMP by virtue of lower fire rate and horrible elevation.

Edited February 8, 2021 by zhukov032186

[Weta43]

23 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

How far will a helo move at 200-300kmh in ''a second or two''

@ 300 km/h 83.3m/sec, so you'd have to lead a bit.

On the other hand, it's not going to change course a lot in a second, so you only have to lead the current course.

[muffler]

04.02.2021 в 20:18, Rover сказал:

So I know this is really long and I fully understand if Its too much but if someone has some free time maybe you could translate some of this?

 

I can try to do live translation. If you agree, send me PM, to coordinate convenient time.

[Lurker]

On 2/8/2021 at 3:05 AM, zhukov032186 said:

 

 Entirely dependent on range. Helicopters are fairly big, and 200-300kmh isn't THAT fast. Meanwhile, a sabot round is about 5000fps, meaning out to a mile or two, you only have to lead a second or two. How far will a helo move at 200-300kmh in ''a second or two''? Not very damn far. It's pretty much ''aim at the nose and put the round through the fuselage'', and that's assuming he's moving at a 90' angle. At closer range or if moving toward/away from you, you don't even need to lead that much and it's practically a laser. Point is, if you're remotely anywhere nearby, and he can elevate the gun enough to get it on you (likely if you're a helo) it absolutely could shoot you, fancy FCS or not.

 

 

 

How many times has this happened in real life? Not saying it couldn't happen, but for the most part as in 99/100 times, by the time a real tank crew even knows an enemy helicopter is upon them they are already dead. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Lurker

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Assuming the gunner has the crosshairs aimed perfectly at the helicopter, this is true. The main problem however is that tank main guns are heavy and move slowly, so usually the helicopter has come and gone before you ever get close to firing. However, when you fly The DCS Special™ firing missiles from a hover for fifteen minutes, they know exactly where you are and will absolutely try to shoot you down with the main gun.

 

This is why you fly fast attacks with pop-ups and change ingress directions for each pass.

[1stBEAST]

okay. but who would really attack a tank or BMP/BTR formation with a "close quarter" rocket attack?!

i mean there is always a dude who sees or hears you.or maybe has the gun already pointed in the general direction.

there is always a "lucky guy" it all comes down to recon and knowledge.

 

you could also do rocket strikes from far away. you got 80 of them so throw them in the general direction outside of the gun range of those pesky BMP-2  or use a shturm if you know were they are. or get a guy in gazelle to do the recon part for you.

[Lurker]

16 hours ago, 1stBEAST said:

okay. but who would really attack a tank or BMP/BTR formation with a "close quarter" rocket attack?!

i mean there is always a dude who sees or hears you.or maybe has the gun already pointed in the general direction.

there is always a "lucky guy" it all comes down to recon and knowledge.

 

you could also do rocket strikes from far away. you got 80 of them so throw them in the general direction outside of the gun range of those pesky BMP-2  or use a shturm if you know were they are. or get a guy in gazelle to do the recon part for you.

 

From this post it doesn't seem like you totally understand how rocket/gun attacks work in the Mi-24P. 

[1stBEAST]

yes i know how they "work" in real life. but i doubt if this would have been used in a symetrical conflict/high threat enviroment. so i suggest to adjust the tactics to fit the situation and not to adjust the situation to fit the tactics

[Lurker]

4 hours ago, 1stBEAST said:

yes i know how they "work" in real life. but i doubt if this would have been used in a symetrical conflict/high threat enviroment. so i suggest to adjust the tactics to fit the situation and not to adjust the situation to fit the tactics

 

How is that in any way realistic? I mean if real world ground units had the accuracy that they do in DCS World, combat helicopters would have never been developed or deployed in any fashion. No Hueys or Cobras in Vietnam, no Mi-8 or Mi-24 in Afghanistan, or anywhere else for that matter. (Until the invention of standoff weapons like the shturm, hellfire etc. combat helicopters simply would not exist) 

Edited February 12, 2021 by Lurker

[bies]

14 hours ago, 1stBEAST said:

yes i know how they "work" in real life. but i doubt if this would have been used in a symetrical conflict/high threat enviroment. so i suggest to adjust the tactics to fit the situation and not to adjust the situation to fit the tactics

 

Symmetrical conflict was considered very much possible during 1980s when Mi-24P operated.

Yes it was planned to be used like that performing rocket/guns strafes, just like i.e. Su-25, this was considered as optimal use of helicopter in high threat enviroment, yes it would suffer huge losses - just like nearly every othe weapon system.

Soviets were assuming some gigantic losses during frst days of all out assault, NATO would suffered some big losses also.

 

All out symmetrical war was completely different in any regard than shooting to some helpless terrorist on a desert when every lost helicopter very is significant, nobody would care about huge losses because there was no way to wage full scale war without them, only thing they could manage is how to use them in optimal way namely maximising enemy losses and relatively reducing their own, and even that was subordinate to achieving specific military objectives and purposes of operation, losses were considered secondary factor.

 

That's why Mi-24 was designed with lifting wings and high maximum speed - to give it the biggest possible chance to survive in high threat enviroment during low level fast strafing attack with rockets and guns.

That's why in Afganistan Hinds rarely transport infantry - infantry compartment wasn't armored and they didn't want to risk life of a soldier. I all out war nobody would care, Hinds would unload troops on the battlefield, suffered casualities, support them afterwards, rtb for the next mission or get shoot down. That's was it's design.

Even the most expensive weapons sytems like strategic bombers, tactical low level penetrating strike aircrafts, tactical fighter etc. were considered to suffer huge losses if the shit would hit the fan.

During Cold War nobody was developing weapon systems for low threat enviroment to kill some helpless terrorist on a desert.

 

Are ground units in DCS too accurate in many situations? Probably yes.

Is splash damage in DCS too small, especially against soft targets like infantry, radars etc.? Yes.

Is AI units behaviour with forgeting about target/instantly aiming at the target simplified and waiting for some revork? Yes.

 

But it doesn't mean Hind would't use their designed tactics in all out war.

Edited February 12, 2021 by bies

[molevitch]

29 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Symmetrical conflict was considered very much possible during 1980s when Mi-24P operated.

Yes it was planned to be used like that performing rocket/guns strafes, just like i.e. Su-25, this was considered as optimal use of helicopter in high threat enviroment, yes it would suffer huge losses - just like nearly every othe weapon system.

Soviets were assuming some gigantic losses during frst days of all out assault, NATO would suffered some big losses also.

 

All out symmetrical war was completely different in any regard than shooting to some helpless terrorist on a desert when every lost helicopter very is significant, nobody would care about huge losses because there was no way to wage full scale war without them, only thing they could manage is how to use them in optimal way namely maximising enemy losses and relatively reducing their own, and even that was subordinate to achieving specific military objectives and purposes of operation, losses were considered secondary factor.

 

That's why Mi-24 was designed with lifting wings and high maximum speed - to give it the biggest possible chance to survive in high threat enviroment during low level fast strafing attack with rockets and guns.

That's why in Afganistan Hinds rarely transport infantry - infantry compartment wasn't armored and thay didn't want to risk life of a sldier. I all out war nobody would care, Hinds would unload troops on the battlefield, suffered casualities, support them afterwards, rtb for the next mission or get shoot down. That's was it's design.

Even the most expensive weapons sytems like strategic bombers, tactical low level penetrating strike aircrafts, tactical fighter etc. were considered to suffer huge losses if the shit would hit the fan.

During Cold War nobody was developing weapon systems for low threat enviroment to kill some helpless terrorist on a desert.

 

Are ground units in DCS too accurate in many situations? Probably yes.

Is splash damage in DCS too small, especially against soft targets like infantry, radars etc.? Yes.

Is AI units behaviour with forgeting about target/instantly aiming at the target simplified and waiting for some revork? Yes.

 

But it doesn't mean Hind would't use their designed tactics in all out war.

 

This is the scenario perfectly illustrated in the Tom Clancy novel, Red Storm Rising. The casualties and losses of men and equipment is catastrophic on both sides. This was envisaged by both political sides in Cold War Europe. War-gamed sandbox recreations by professional military tacticians found that the Red Wave of tanks, armour and air assets crossing into Europe from a Warsaw Pact aggressor would be unstoppable by purely military means, hence the political arm of nuclear deterrence. 
In Red Storm Rising, the Mi-24 is featured quite often. It’s a great read, I have it on Audible, and return to it often. It’s a great resource for ideas for missions set at that time. 

[Northstar98]

Can confirm @molevitch Red Storm Rising in DCS World would be perfect for me.

[Cereus]

On 2/4/2021 at 7:18 PM, Rover said:

So I know this is really long and I fully understand if Its too much but if someone has some free time maybe you could translate some of this?

 

Here it is, in 2 parts.

 

I translated it - please turn on English subtitles. Let me know if anything is not clear.

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Cereus

[Stratos]

Thanks a lot for this translation, will be very useful!