What makes the Hind "the flying tank"?

[Milkyblue]

So yeah, how did the Hind get it's nickname? Special armor I should be aware of maybe? 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Milkyblue

[notproplayer3]

If I recall correctly this nickname was given by the soviet pilots operating this helo, a nickname that was also given to the il2.

I would guess it's because both the gunner and the pilot were protected up to 12.7mm ground fire. 

I also found this on wikipedia:

"The Mi-24 fuselage is armored and can resist impacts from 12.7 mm (0.50 in) rounds from all angles. The titanium rotor blades are resistant to 12.7 mm rounds. The cockpit is protected by ballistic-resistant windscreens and a titanium-armored tub.^[8] The cockpit and crew compartment are overpressurized to protect the crew in NBC conditions.^[9]"  

[МаксиM]

well, as far as I know, the mi24 is called a "flying infantry fighting vehicle(BMP)" because it can transport infantry and cover them with fire

[Yo-Yo]

5 hours ago, Milkyblue said:

So yeah, how did the Hind get it's nickname? Special armor I should be aware of maybe? 

"PRAVDA" and "Krasnaya Zvezda" newspapers...

[S.E.Bulba]

 

[Avimimus]

On 12/6/2020 at 10:26 AM, МаксиM said:

well, as far as I know, the mi24 is called a "flying infantry fighting vehicle(BMP)" because it can transport infantry and cover them with fire

 

Well... some people wanted it to do that... and maybe during an emergency in the European theatre it would have... but there have been good points made about how it lacked the power to carry armament, fuel, and people at the same time to truly fit the name.

[sublime]

its called that because 80% of nations populaces arent military nerds like us and need things explained VERY simply.

go on quora, americans there will have you thinking the P47 and A10 were aerial battleships meant to take severe hits all the way through their journey.

they go ape when you say that, or to russians the su25, is sheer nonsense as its an airplane and its just more protection for the pilot at worst and at best maybe let the plane limp home.

And of course the 'raa raa' about the gau 8 which is cool but even according to this 1977 training aid was fairly useless against modern warpac tanks

https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK

soo in my opinion its just an easy way for newspapers and journalists who really dont know what theyre talking about to interpret all the info given to them.

'da we have anti tank weapons'

'da this is more heavily armored than any helo yet'

'Opa! Is Flying tank!'

'well nyet but... ahh ok just say that and go away'

[rkk01]

One word...

 

Afghanistan

 

??

[Mogster]

No helicopter is a “flying tank”, weight is critical so armour is strictly limited otherwise they wouldn’t get off the ground. When armour and helicopters are mentioned it tends to mean the sort of materials an infantry soldier would wear, kevlar, ceramics, relatively thin metal. Consequently even combat specific helicopters are very vulnerable to ground fire of almost any type.

[sublime]

6 hours ago, Mogster said:

No helicopter is a “flying tank”, weight is critical so armour is strictly limited otherwise they wouldn’t get off the ground. When armour and helicopters are mentioned it tends to mean the sort of materials an infantry soldier would wear, kevlar, ceramics, relatively thin metal. Consequently even combat specific helicopters are very vulnerable to ground fire of almost any type.

*this*

I try endlessly explaining the concept that an A10 has to stil be able to fly... to my fellow countrymen, many of whom remain unconvinced by me and think the A10 is totally entirely built like an M1A2, I.E made to take direct hits and continue its mission, even repeatedly, and also they know almost nothing about the A10 but know about the gun. its allllll about the gun to them.  While the gun is 'cool' theres much more lethal stuff it carries.

[Weta43]

15 hours ago, Mogster said:

No helicopter is a “flying tank”, weight is critical so armour is strictly limited otherwise they wouldn’t get off the ground. When armour and helicopters are mentioned it tends to mean the sort of materials an infantry soldier would wear, kevlar, ceramics, relatively thin metal. Consequently even combat specific helicopters are very vulnerable to ground fire of almost any type.

I guess the difference is that if an infantry soldier takes a shot with a .50 cal at the engines of a Huey or Mi-8 and the cockpit & pilot are in the way the bullet will pass through the windscreen or skin, through the pilot / co-pilot if they're in the way then proceed on to punch a hole in the engine / gearbox.

If an infantry soldier takes a shot with a .50 cal at the engines of a Hind and the cockpit & pilot are in the way, the bullet stops at the bullet proof glass or the armour protecting the pilot & co-pilot.

The armour isn't to make the entire aircraft bullet / AAA proof, but let the pilot be reassured they aren't going to be killed by the golden BB, give them more of a sense of security, and let them concentrate on flying the aircraft / engaging the target.

Given that most of the armour is at the front, and that the hind tends to fly at  its targets, it's probably reasonably reassuring knowing that the tracers you can see coming at you are aimed at the only reasonably protected part of the aircraft...

[Rick50]

I suspect that originally, the nickname "flying tank" was less about it's armor, and more about it's ability to kill enemy tanks and give close support to friendly ground forces. "it's like having tank support, but it flies!". Over time, the thought behind it gets forgotten, until the average person thinks the Hind is a flying T-72, and the Apache is an M1A2 Abrams with rotors or something. 

 

It's funny, but in the wake of the Gulf War (1991), I was suddenly confronted with an article and series of pics of many Western aircraft that had taken damage and managed to limp home. A Hornet had a wrecked engine, it had been hit with a heater of some kind, but it limped home on the second engine. A Tornado had similar. I don't recall the others, but there was several surprises for me. But ulimtately, even the "armored" aircraft like Hinds, Apaches, Hogs and Frogs, they are still aircraft and still vulnerable. What armor they do have just gives the aircrew a fighting chance of getting back to base alive, really. 

 

And it gets even sillier once you consider that even full blown modern MBT's are themselves vulnerable to so so many battlefield threats, they are very far from invulnerable. But the newer the generation of tank, the better the chance of an enemy hit causing damage, but you and your crew have a better chance of surviving the day. Whether it's a M-60E3 compared to a WW2 tank, or an Armata T-14 compared to a Leopard 2A1, which is itself a vastly more survivable tank than the M-60E3.  

[Lucas_From_Hell]

A large part on the nickname comes from the comparisons with the previous holder of the nickname, the Il-2, due to its close support role, ungainly looks and high survivability compared to its peers.

[Apok]

"Flying tank" came from the west mostly not the soviets, same like with Su25. Russians just refered to this name later as a form of accolade. Mi24 was built with intention to be flying IFV. Pilots called it "Crocodile". There was story that someone in Afganistan painted Gena the cartoon crock on it iirc. Afganis called it "Devils chariot". It had other nicknames by other users : Bumblebee or turtle among others. "Hind" is wining the award for most mismatched name for a weapon system.

Tho it did take hits that would bring down other chopers of similar purpose, that could earn him "flying tank". Here is one that got his left wing blown by supposedly 57mm round in Syria.

[molevitch]

I have also seen it nicknamed "Hunchback"...!

 

[*Aquila*]

 

On 12/6/2020 at 12:04 PM, Milkyblue said:

So yeah, how did the Hind get it's nickname? Special armor I should be aware of maybe? 

 

It makes a very loud noise when crashing. That’s the point.

Edited December 15, 2020 by *Aquila*

[sublime]

On 12/13/2020 at 5:33 PM, Apok said:

"Flying tank" came from the west mostly not the soviets, same like with Su25. Russians just refered to this name later as a form of accolade. Mi24 was built with intention to be flying IFV. Pilots called it "Crocodile". There was story that someone in Afganistan painted Gena the cartoon crock on it iirc. Afganis called it "Devils chariot". It had other nicknames by other users : Bumblebee or turtle among others. "Hind" is wining the award for most mismatched name for a weapon system.

Tho it did take hits that would bring down other chopers of similar purpose, that could earn him "flying tank". Here is one that got his left wing blown by supposedly 57mm round in Syria.

I think that was more because the round probably hit the wing... 

If a 57mm had hit the body or anything forget it.

[Apok]

Probably. Tho there were cases of Mi8/17 being hit by MANPAD and survived. Recent one was in Syria and there is video of it. Other recent in Afganistan with a picture of extensive damage after it landed. 57mm depends on where it hits it. Its not a guarantied kill. Mi24 has similar engine layout. Point being it can take a punch.

[sylkhan]

On 12/15/2020 at 11:37 AM, *Aquila* said:

 

It makes a very loud noise when crashing. That’s the point.

 

Interesting, how did you call an AH-64D crashing into the water ?

The "plouf"

 

Your stupidity has no limit...

Edited December 20, 2020 by sylkhan

[*Aquila*]

Love you too, m8 

[МаксиM]

5 hours ago, Apok said:

Probably. Tho there were cases of Mi8/17 being hit by MANPAD and survived. Recent one was in Syria and there is video of it. Other recent in Afganistan with a picture of extensive damage after it landed. 57mm depends on where it hits it. Its not a guarantied kill. Mi24 has similar engine layout. Point being it can take a punch.

 

 

these are isolated cases and not a pattern, you should not hope that mi24 will survive after being hit by MANPADS

Edited December 20, 2020 by МаксиM

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Quote

Cross examination of Soviet and CIA data shows that around 60 Mi-24s were hit by a Stinger, for a total of 18 aircraft lost or written off. A 30% success rate in the case of impact, compounded with the rather poor hit rate (more or less 10% according to most sources) is nothing to write home about.

 

[sublime]

5 hours ago, МаксиM said:

these are isolated cases and not a pattern, you should not hope that mi24 will survive after being hit by MANPADS

 

just as I try to tell laymen about the A10 all the time. in america theres A LOT of people who (again ill harp on it) think the A10 is made to take several SAM hits and AAA hits and keep going to complete a mission.  And they wont be swayed.  they also seem to think that 'brrrt' changes everything.

whats also  pretty amusing is when the A10 was wayyyy newer in  the 90s relatively large amounts of people didnt know wtf it even was.  Its only been like the last 10 years that its gotten a 'mainstream' following.

[МаксиM]

1 minute ago, sublime said:

just as I try to tell laymen about the A10 all the time. in america theres A LOT of people who (again ill harp on it) think the A10 is made to take several SAM hits and AAA hits and keep going to complete a mission.  And they wont be swayed.  they also seem to think that 'brrrt' changes everything.

whats also  pretty amusing is when the A10 was wayyyy newer in  the 90s relatively large amounts of people didnt know wtf it even was.  Its only been like the last 10 years that its gotten a 'mainstream' following.

and 10 and mi 24 can withstand a couple of hits from cannon artillery, but not hit by a rocket that is designed to shoot down an aircraft / helicopter, that's why the main thing is to prevent hitting the plane

[sublime]

11 hours ago, Apok said:

Probably. Tho there were cases of Mi8/17 being hit by MANPAD and survived. Recent one was in Syria and there is video of it. Other recent in Afganistan with a picture of extensive damage after it landed. 57mm depends on where it hits it. Its not a guarantied kill. Mi24 has similar engine layout. Point being it can take a punch.

I highly doubt, unless it hits a wing stub, or very extremity on the front, (and doubtful then) any airframe around would survive a direct 57mm hit anywhere.  Yes there could be freak instances of a 57mm AP round perhaps flying through a open side door and hitting glass or some weirdness, but otherwise if it hits the body I dont see it man.  realistically not at all. front, pilots\body. middle the engine, body, rotor\ back the tail rotor or lines controlling it.

I can pull freak pictures of western airframes too - the Israeli F15 etc. does this mean that its common? Lol no. likely? nope.  more like 1 in a million

1 minute ago, МаксиM said:

and 10 and mi 24 can withstand a couple of hits from cannon artillery, but not hit by a rocket that is designed to shoot down an aircraft / helicopter, that's why the main thing is to prevent hitting the plane

depending where of course.  and part of the problem with the A10 is russia went to 30mm by the late 80s, so the windscreens would be penned.  Yes the stinger does go for heat sources, but we were talking a 57mm cannon as well.. thats a sizable AA round, and we also were saying *direct hit*

and 'yes dont let the bright thingies touch my plane 'is my standard operating procedure

Edited December 20, 2020 by sublime