My concern about the hind....

[flo57100]

...is not the hind itself, I am sure we will have an outstanding module.

No, my concern is hind vs AI. What I mean is we will have at release Shturm, which must guided within an engagement distance of 4km, which means we will have to fly straight on the target we want to kill. And 4km being within engagement of vehicle lanched ATGMs, and DCS AI being what it is (dumb as hell to do certain tasks, but have an eagle eye and sharpshooter skills), engagement may not have a happy end for the hind.

What do you think guys ?

[Sceptre]

sounds like a fun challenge instead of plinking targets from 8km perfectly safe in the ka50

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Sceptre said:

sounds like a fun challenge instead of plinking targets from 8km perfectly safe in the ka50

 

This

[Sarge55]

Nothing wrong with plinking... However, sounds like high speed rocket attacks maybe the go to for Hind.

[WinterH]

I think shturms, at least the later ones should have more than 4kms of range, and they are relatively fast missiles, it should outrange most ground targets that aren't actual air defense units, and then even some of the air defenses. At worst, I'd say it will be similar to Gazelle M with missiles, perhaps a bit better thanks to faster missiles. The "hind can not hover" thing is way overstated, and in most conditions we'll end up using it in DCS, it should hover enough to do peek-a-boo thing with missiles if you feel like.

 

Rockets, like many say, should prove to be a decent option too.

 

Edit: I personally see myself sending a whole load of rockets downrange from a fairly decent distance at high speed and then get out of the way as my most used attack method in Mi-24, but we shall see when it comes.

Edited April 3, 2021 by WinterH

[Mars Exulte]

I would say you're thinking ''western style tank plinking from a hover'' is the only way helicopters work. The Hind is not a dedicated anti-tank helicopter. Full stop. You should not try to USE IT as a dedicated anti-tank helicopter.

 

 It can carry guided missiles, yes, but that doesn't mean they're ideal for MBTs specifically. There are plenty of use cases for them without that, though. Taking out SPAAGs or short range SAMs from a safe distance/position, softening up a position from extreme range as you begin your run prior to entering rocket range, etc etc. Think outside the box a little bit.

 

  Now from a more practical standpoint, many servers/missions are setup in ridiculous, unrealistic fashion that put you in those ''suboptimal situations'' by default. This is true and unfortunately unavoidable. In real life units do not operate solo on their own, unsupported where they're instantly doomed to failure if they encounter certain situations ala rock paper scissors.

 

 That said, people use the Mi-8 all the time and don't seem to miss not being able to plink tanks from 8km, so I'm sure the infinitely more capable Hind will be able to eek out an existence in there somewhere with all the extra firepower it's bringing to bear.

  

[Apok]

Ofcourse you will be able perform same type of attacks as Ka50 but at shorter ranges. When we get atakas it will be at more comfortable 6km. Hind can hover and you can easily find videos of him doing just that type of attacks.

Iirc hind had 200h hover lifetime limit.

But then again, more fun to scream at 300km/h and fire storm of rockets at offending grid square.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Apok

[Andurula]

51 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

I would say you're thinking ''western style tank plinking from a hover'' is the only way helicopters work. The Hind is not a dedicated anti-tank helicopter. Full stop. You should not try to USE IT as a dedicated anti-tank helicopter.

 

 

My limited knowledge of the HIND is that it is used more like a close support airplane rather than "sniping tanks from the treetops" sort of thing that NATO attack helicopters seem to be portrayed as doing.  Fly fast, Hit hard, Maybe drop off some ground troops, Get out. Sort of a Sturmovik or Frogfoot that can hover and drop off troops.

 

I agree though that early functionality will most likely be limited (EA after all) , and I am bracing myself for a very limited AI gunner/pilot.  I expect to spend the first few months learning to fly the basic aircraft and shoot the 30mm perhaps.  I am only guessing but I suspect to make the HIND really shine is going to take  two human crewmembers and another year's development.   I do look forward to learning how the Soviets intended the HIND to work and seeing how it fits into the DCS battlefield.  I have heard from several sources that NATO feared the HIND in general.  I think it will bring something new and different and that is always good.

[Rick50]

 

Well I was in the Canadian Army in the late 1980's, and myself and my fellow soldiers did indeed fear the Hind. However, by the time I got deployed to Germany, the cold war was over, the Berlin Wall had just come down (partly) and we were gearing up for Desert Shield, that turned into Desert Storm. That's a lot of rockets in a single pass to rain down on us...

 

[Fri13]

Shturm missiles has ~5 km launch range when launched from stationary vehicle, and little further if you give it slight boost at high speed flight and extra altitude.

 

The DCS doesn't model the benefits that Shturm has over others like TOW or HOT missiles, that is it's radio guidance instead a wire. 

 

The wire is easy to snap off, why you can't fly toward targets or sideways and even sideways moving target can snap wire. The wire spool is behind a missile and is a thin copper wire. So after a launch the wire can get tangled with the terrain objects when helicopter moves and *snap*. 

You can't either fire the missile over unshielded power lines as you ground the wire with it and electrocute your helicopter and missile.The radio is jammable so it has own problem. (But you can't block the guidance like you can block laser with smoke and render missile lost, or block the IR seeker and render missile lost, so you are far superior against most common armored vehicles countermeasures).

 

But you are free to fly +/-60 degree from the target in Hind after launch, giving you a plenty of maneuvering capabilities as you are not restricted to hover like with wire guided missiles.

 

This gives you a lot of flexibility to be a hard target and approach target area quickly for rockets if so wanted. But you are not required to do so, as Mi-24 is completely capable to hover as any other helicopter. The challenge is that when operating from a high altitude bases 4000+ meters in hot environment (Afghanistan) you just don't have enough lift to hover in max weights, and when there are strong gusts you don't want to be hovering near ridges. Totally different case at lower altitudes and cooler environment like Caucasus or Europe.

 

The Mi-24 was first true attack helicopter, designed to be multipurpose helicopter, so capable be used as dedicated anti-tank, transport, anti-infantry and even anti-helo.

The anti-tank was one of primary features, why Shturm system was really important for it.

 

Because Mi-24 can fly fast (320 kph) at low, doesn't mean it is only way to do it. You can be stationary if wanted, but you wouldn't be firing rockets then and you would be easy target to be shot at. And you render your cannon almost useless because recoil and challenge to aim it easily. So considering the capability move when firing missiles, you as well benefit from it when firing rockets and cannon.

 

So you will get to point that you perform 1-2 missiles launches from 3-4 km and then put some rockets on area or maybe get to finish something off with cannon. You perform various maneuvers around target area before heading away.

 

When finally we get the Ataka missiles, the engagement ranges gets up to 6 km. But more importantly more penetration and higher accuracy. Still very limited by the sighting system in Mi-24.....

So likely we talk about 3-4 km anyways at max, more likely 1-2 km.

 

So it will be more about quick attacks and fly away for second attack.

[WinterH]

One important advantage will be apparent though: Sturm is about 50 percent faster than HOT, and Mi-24 will need to expose itself for a considerably shorter time guiding a missile compared to Gazelle.

 

Also don't write rockets off quickly folks. Russian rockets in DCS are more useful than people sometimes give them credit for. You can toss them to saturate an area about 4ish kms away, and that puts it a safe distance away from lots of ground based threats. S-8 OFP2 really makes a mess of infantry and light vehicles. And we'll have S-13 and S-24 too, though these latter two won't have CCIP I think. Yes, blast/frag in DCS is, what it is. But unlike Hydras, I often do get decent results with S-8, S-13, and S-24. They are more accurate and more destructive at least in DCS.

 

Since where gunner's optical sight is looking, is also marked on pilot's gunsight, with decent cooperation between two, I do think that Hind's rockets can be surprisingly useful even at decent distances.

[Rifter]

According to the English Wikipedia entry for the Mi-24 the Iraqi Army developed new gunship tactics for their Mi-25 because of the lack of anti-tank capabilities. With the help of East German advisors the Mi-25s would form hunter-killer teams with Aérospatiale Gazelles. The Mi-25s would lead the attack and use their massive firepower to suppress Iranian air defenses, and the Gazelles used their HOT missiles to engage armoured fighting vehicles.

For further reference

So all we would need is a Gazelle module in DCS to become a little creative with the MI-24 to overcome some of its possible disadvantages!

Uh, uhm - wait…

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

One important advantage will be apparent though: Sturm is about 50 percent faster than HOT, and Mi-24 will need to expose itself for a considerably shorter time guiding a missile compared to Gazelle.

 

That is a good point. ~37% Faster missile means about same less time to be exposed, or more time to acquire a target.

 

The Shturm problem is it requirement to get a direct impact as it doesn't have a proximity fuze like Vikhr does (5-7 meters on it). Why Shturm is not so capable against fast helicopters or low flying aircraft (neither is HOT3 etc without proximity fuze and fragmentation sleeves)

 

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Also don't write rockets off quickly folks. Russian rockets in DCS are more useful than people sometimes give them credit for. You can toss them to saturate an area about 4ish kms away, and that puts it a safe distance away from lots of ground based threats. S-8 OFP2 really makes a mess of infantry and light vehicles.

 

That is what I would like first to be improved by ground units gaining the purpose. A new AI, new functionality how units moves and are commanded (no more waypoints but objectives and goals), a new terrain engine support for units digging in, new terrain elements like small trees and rocks and ditches etc. The ground units should get more cover, so we can use more ground units as their capabilities becomes much better, so that we need to destroy them with artillery, rocket volleys and guns... While they try to take cover

 

 

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

And we'll have S-13 and S-24 too, though these latter two won't have CCIP I think.

 

I would think that all that you can fire has at least some kind sighting set, at least for S-13. 

 

But S-24 is such a monster that it takes a MBT out... It is like a maverick or a 500 kg bomb.

 

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Yes, blast/frag in DCS is, what it is. But unlike Hydras, I often do get decent results with S-8, S-13, and S-24. They are more accurate and more destructive at least in DCS.

 

S-5 and S-8 should become far more useful later on, and I find as well S-8 more useful than any hydra without laser guidance. Why I would love to see a Kor variant of S-5, S-8 and S-13 in as well (from 1999). As it would make nice pair to use KA-50 designating targets and Mi-24 firing rockets.

 

9 hours ago, WinterH said:

Since where gunner's optical sight is looking, is also marked on pilot's gunsight, with decent cooperation between two, I do think that Hind's rockets can be surprisingly useful even at decent distances.

 

That is good point. Being able to pin point targets for pilot as WSO with the sight will make easy to engage targets by just firing at the WSO crosshair.

 

At least that should help to acquire targets as well for gun run.

 

And considering a high speed pop-up attacks when one can get enough altitude to concentrate rockets on smaller area (flashlight effect) the S-8 will be very damaging against anything.

 

It is easy now to do in KA-50 (using Shkval as target on HUD and high speed) compared to Mi-8 that doesn't get easily past 200-250 km/h and does not like to climb for pop-up, get a easy targeting with controls and gunsight.

 

The rocket runs will be great on Mi-24 compared to Mi-8.

 

And if we get to perform a second rearming on the field from the cargo space, we don't need to get to FARP so often.

 

Flying KA-50 as flight is fun, but Mi-24 will be more fun.

[Rick50]

12 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The Mi-24 was first true attack helicopter,

 

Wut?!?!

 

Soooo the Cobra doesn't count?

 

The Bell AH-1 Cobra was in service nearly a decade earlier. It was a pure 100% dedicated attack helicopter, from day one. The UH-1 as gunship showed the promise of an attack helo, but like the Mi-8 as gunship showed it was wide, vulnerable, slow... so both the USA and Soviets decided to make narrower faster armored gunships... but the Americans at Bell got there first.

 

By the way, "transport" does not make an attack helo a "true" one. And, the earliest Cobras WERE used in anti-tank role in the end of Vietnam, shooting TOW missiles at tanks entering Saigon to delay the fall of the city.

 

 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Rick50 said:

 

Wut?!?!

 

Soooo the Cobra doesn't count?

 

So Cobra was Russian made?

 

1 minute ago, Rick50 said:

The UH-1 as gunship showed the promise of an attack helo, but like the Mi-8 as gunship showed it was wide, vulnerable, slow... so both the USA and Soviets decided to make narrower faster armored gunships... but the Americans at Bell got there first.

 

Two utility helicopters and one attack helicopter. Mi-24 is first dedicated attack helicopter from russia.

 

Before Mi-24 there was Mi-2 and Mi-4 with weapons as well. But they were not attack helicopters even when they had rockets and machine guns. Those were assault helicopter variants.

1 minute ago, Rick50 said:

By the way, "transport" does not make an attack helo a "true" one.

 

Weapons and capabilities does, didn't claim that transport capability does. The Mi-24 is as well a transport capable helicopter, just less used as such for infantry.

 

1 minute ago, Rick50 said:

And, the earliest Cobras WERE used in anti-tank role in the end of Vietnam, shooting TOW missiles at tanks entering Saigon to delay the fall of the city.

 

And? 

[sublime]

Dude brings a good point.  The AAA is robotically accurate often and idk.  I think a lot of people are gonna die a lot early on same as when they started flying a10s and people probably also thought an aerial battleship was a thing

[Rick50]

 

The statement I quoted did NOT limit your statement to Russia. It was an all encompassing false statement. Thus I debunked you. 

 

YES YOU DID claim that the Hind's ability to transport troops was part of why you considered the HIND was the 'first TRUE attack helicopter'.  Its in the same paragraph where you stated the Hind was the first true, without the qualifier "Russian".

 

13 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

The Mi-24 was first true attack helicopter, designed to be multipurpose helicopter, so capable be used as dedicated anti-tank, transport, anti-infantry and even anti-helo.

The anti-tank was one of primary features, why Shturm system was really important for it.

 

 

Check it out. Not once does the word Russia, or Soviet, or Commonwealth of Independent States appear in the paragraph. And listed in there is "transport" for some reason as justifying that it's a "first true attack helicopter". 

 

And yet look: you call it a "first true attack helicopter" and right afterwards call it a "multipurpose". Uh... really???

 

No, sorry, you can't have it both be a true attack AND a multipurpose at the same time. That's simply WRONG. If it's multipurpose, then it's NOT AN ATTACK HELO. If it's an attack heli, then it's not multipurpose, it's an attack helo. Being designated attack helo is by its nature, by design, SPECIALISED. 

 

But sure, if you want to label things incorrectly, then why not call the Apache Longbow a CSAR heli? I mean, it did in fact do a CSAR mission in Afghanistan, strapping the crew of a downed Cobra to it's wings to fly them to safety.  Maybe we could call Apaches "sport helis" because they often fly around not shooting things. 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Rick50

[Fri13]

57 minutes ago, sublime said:

Dude brings a good point.  The AAA is robotically accurate often and idk.  I think a lot of people are gonna die a lot early on same as when they started flying a10s and people probably also thought an aerial battleship was a thing

 

We need ground units (AI) behavior changed to support better all flying elements.

 

Like when the vehicle crew is required to get in and close their hatches, their corresponding duties and capabilities to see outside should be simulated.

 

That means multiple "radar scans" behavior for each vehicle for driver, commander and gunner in example a MBT and IFV. There is requirement to be the command structure, threat assessment / priorities and usage of terrain, concealment and cover properly. And then as well communications between other units in the platoon and supported ground troops as well HQ etc.

 

This means that external forces can spot the air threat and warn the platoon leader from it to seek cover etc. A company can receive a air threat information from elsewhere and issue alarm to platoon leaders to proceed with proper tasks. 

 

This would mean that ground vehicles wouldn't be sitting at wide open, they would utilize smoke screens and other cover predetermined manners, there would be infantry providing MANPAD tasking etc. So AI would autonomously and properly seek the locations to provide proper wide area cover for expected directions and so on.

 

A individual unit like a gunner in a BTR-60 wouldn't be cracking the turret around like a sniper and shooting aircraft down, unless it is a hovering helicopter or well known direction at low angle. Instead it would likely be infantry squad that APC transported to be scattering and defending their position and APC. There would be automatic unmounting, MANPADS teams scattered around and give a hell to anything that flies higher than tree tops in their vicinity.

 

But everyone should be morally feared when a rockets and shells start to drop at their direction. And not to fight back but seek cover. And be morally wasted with successive attacks.

 

A more advanced vehicles like a LAV-25A2 (2004-2005) would be real threat with their automatic Anti-Air capabilities with laser rangefinder to be able measure target range.

Considering that current LAV-25 is a real sniper without any means to measure ranges or even to track targets.

 

But at this moment we have APC/IFV units that provides a better AAA capabilities than dedicated AAA units with radars and and better guns. That is just crazy.

 

Even a MBT roof gun is a serious threat as the gunners shoot very long bursts with either a perfect aiming or then shoot 15 degree behind the aircraft (not even trying to hit a target).

 

And it will render helicopters close encounters just awful.

 

A random close-by shooting is far more dangerous and fearful than a laser beam with perfect aim. Because lateral you can avoid by flying with slight maneuver, while foremost you can't as you might fly in to the short stream of bullets, and you need to concentrate to get out of the area and not to try just pull small curve.

 

So popping up behind a ridge and every single turret points at you in couple seconds, almost all are going to put you full of holes in first shot if you do not pull slight maneuver on time they shoot.

 

This will render Mi-24 very much useless for rockets and gun as you can't utilize them properly, and it becomes just AT sniping from 5-5.5 km.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

The statement I quoted did NOT limit your statement to Russia. It was an all encompassing false statement. Thus I debunked you. 

 

This is Mi-24 thread, about russian aviation history as context. Not a pissing competition about what is world first combat helicopter.

You did not debunk anything than your own strawman argument. 

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

YES YOU DID claim that the Hind's ability to transport troops was part of why you considered the HIND was the 'first TRUE attack helicopter'. 

 

No, that is your strawman argument again.

Please quote where I say that Transport capability made Mi-24 a combat helicopter and without it it wouldn't be a such...

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

Its in the same paragraph where you stated the Hind was the first true, without the qualifier "Russian".

 

Strawman argument...

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

Check it out. Not once does the word Russia, or Soviet, or Commonwealth of Independent States appear in the paragraph.

 

Is a Mi-24 a Soviet Union made helicopter?

Is this thread about Mi-24 as a attack helicopter or is it about world history of attack helicopters?

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

And listed in there is "transport" for some reason as justifying that it's a "first true attack helicopter". 

 

Strawman argument.

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

And yet look: you call it a "first true attack helicopter" and right afterwards call it a "multipurpose". Uh... really???

 

It is their first true attack helicopter. Regardless it was designed to be able carry as well infantry and cargo and do many other things than just shoot missiles.

 

Of course if you think that it can't be used for anything else than attacking....

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

No, sorry, you can't have it both be a true attack AND a multipurpose at the same time.

 

Welcome the Mi-24.... Something that west doesn't have...

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

That's simply WRONG. If it's multipurpose, then it's NOT AN ATTACK HELO. If it's an attack heli, then it's not multipurpose, it's an attack helo. Being designated attack helo is by its nature, by design, SPECIALISED. 

 

Maybe you should go to check the history of the Mi-24.

 

 

 

And if you do not understand, multipurpose doesn't mean a Utility helicopter. It doesn't mean a Heavy Lift helicopter.... It means helicopter is capable for multiple roles than just one.

 

AH-1 is only a attack helicopter, it can't transport troops, equipment, own ammunition for rearming etc. 

Mi-24 is a multipurpose attack helicopter, capable for many things, unique at the time.

 

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

But sure, if you want to label things incorrectly, then why not call the Apache Longbow a CSAR heli?

 

Strawman argument.

 

1 hour ago, Rick50 said:

I mean, it did in fact do a CSAR mission in Afghanistan, strapping the crew of a downed Cobra to it's wings to fly them to safety.  Maybe we could call Apaches "sport helis" because they often fly around not shooting things. 

 

Strawman argument.

[Morrov]

Is this whole off topic argument really necessary?

[Fri13]

10 minutes ago, Morrov said:

Is this whole off topic argument really necessary?

 

Yes if You ask from Rick50, as if He wants to go making strawman arguments publicly then He deserve to be pointed out about it. If it can't understand such specifics that I didn't say "world first attack helicopter" (as it wouldn't been true) and gets angry about it, He should learn to read the context first. 

 

I try to keep on the topic of Mi-24 for the DCS current ground unit limits and how it can or can't be used like in reality because the game elements makes it challenging to be used such ways.

The AI is a problematic for everything in game, but especially helicopters. And as Mi-24 is used different ways than other helicopters in DCS, it will face them at different manner as well.

 

I already stated how in my opinion AI should be developed further in the future to solve these problems, as they are related to everything as well. Ground units can not be handled, commanded and scripted like they would be a air units.

 

[Mars Exulte]

16 hours ago, Fri13 said:

You can't either fire the missile over unshielded power lines as you ground the wire with it and electrocute your helicopter and missile.

  As they say, ''helluva way to die'' =D

43 minutes ago, Morrov said:

Is this whole off topic argument really necessary?

  You must be new here

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  As they say, ''helluva way to die'' =D

 

You don't (likely) die for it as the couple copper wires are too thin to deliver full voltage to before those will melt cut. But will nicely deliver enough to your computer system to fry it if the fuse system can not protect them. Again one reason more why properly working fuses would be nice to be simulated that you could possibly reset the power to the systems if so happens.

 

Although gotta say that I don't know is there a fuse between missile guidance system and the missile wires.... As I don't recall the portable missile systems to have one and same on ATGM vehicles. But on those it is not a such problem as you are not going to launch ATGM over powerlines as they are so high, and the ones next to roads etc are shielded anyways.

 

But this compared to small AT helicopters like SA342 or Bo-105, the Mi-24 will have more flexibility to engage targets because radio guided and faster missiles. But again you are not going to hover with Mi-24 as sneaky little bird and firing between openings.

 

https://youtube.com/tZQaqCNj4mM

 

 

 

[sublime]

20 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

This will render Mi-24 very much useless for rockets and gun as you can't utilize them properly, and it becomes just AT sniping from 5-5.5 km.

That's what I'm a little concerned about.  I just hope at least rocket and bomb splash damage and some things are looked at so hind aircrew aren't forced to go atgm or go home to be effective or competitive in many scenarios.

Regardless I'm excited about the module. I hope I get to play it but I may not be around to do so for awhile some real life stuff depending

[Fri13]

3 minutes ago, sublime said:

That's what I'm a little concerned about.  I just hope at least rocket and bomb splash damage and some things are looked at so hind aircrew aren't forced to go atgm or go home to be effective or competitive in many scenarios.

 

Once the new damage modeling starts to be added to ground units, that should change. As we should start to see a minor damages and multiple ways disable vehicles (blown tires, destroyed tracks, damaged engines, radios, optics etc) that can give up a means to have more effect from rockets.

 

But most important change if it would be, is vehicle crew moral and state of mind. Being under a attack is not something that one takes lightly/easily. When bullets hits armors and explosions happens nearby etc, you seek cover. Rockets like S-8KO are like a RPG-7 hitting at you, so you really do not want to take a such risk to be under volley of them.  

 

But I don't know when we can expect to see first implementation of it, as 2.7 is just in few days.

 

It would as well improve the 30 mm cannon effectiveness. But it is a fixed and not as effective as KA-50 has with slewable turret with HMS and/or Shkval.

 

But let's say you have 3/6 Mi-24P attacking a mechanized company, you get to cause a havoc if you can surprise them in first attack. But after that, or if they expect you, it will be deadly to you from close.

 

3 minutes ago, sublime said:

Regardless I'm excited about the module. I hope I get to play it but I may not be around to do so for awhile some real life stuff depending

 

It will be one of the most interesting helicopters for a years to come. Apache is like a A-10C where Mi-24P is like Su-25A, the hands on feeling is stronger in Mi-24P as you get to be close and dirty with it.

Especially when/if ground units gets to be more vulnerable (and same time more threatening).

 

We are getting so many fancy helicopters and capabilities to pair them with other modules that DCS World jumps in one year to another level (OH-58, AH-64D, Mi-24P) and when in future we get more (Gazelle redone and Bo-105) it will open even more low level combat scenarios. But all really requires ground units to be redone.