Any chance this could be a thing in DCS?

[IcedVenom]

Despite facing strong resistance from Afghan rebels, the Mi-24 proved to be very destructive. The rebels called the Mi-24 "Shaitan-Arba" (Satan's Chariot)". In one case, an Mi-24 pilot who was out of ammunition managed to rescue a company of infantry by maneuvering aggressively towards Mujahideen guerrillas and scaring them off."

 

Any chance the AI could be developed in a way where infantry could actually become scared of approaching aircraft and attempt to find cover or even run away if morale is too low? I know Total War has morale statistics, but why not DCS as well!

 

Also, it was found that during the Afghanistan-Soviet war, extra rounds of rocket ammunition were often carried internally in Mi-24's so that the crew could land and self-reload in the field. Will this be a possibility in the future?

Edited April 17, 2021 by IcedVenom

[molevitch]

3 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

 

Also, it was found that during the Afghanistan-Soviet war, extra rounds of rocket ammunition were often carried internally in Mi-24's so that the crew could land and self-reload in the field

This has been declared a theoretical myth over and over. It made no sense to risk a landing, have both pilots leave the aircraft requiring a full shut down, in order to be employed in reloading. The aircraft struggled in Afghanistan’s climate and conditions with a full load of weapons on the pylons. The idea that a second full load could be carried internally is flawed. To offset the weight, even less fuel would be carried, reducing the flight time or range even further. 
It was much simpler, quicker, and safer, for pilots to fly back to their (not too distant) base.... And let the ground crews do it, while the pilots had a break.

[Morrov]

It would be great if ground units had some sort of a morale/fear mechanic, it would make flying choppers much more realistic.

Suppression would be very welcome too.

 

I know for sure I'd be hiding if there were 2 Hinds charging at me at full speed lol

[shagrat]

8 minutes ago, Morrov said:

It would be great if ground units had some sort of a morale/fear mechanic, it would make flying choppers much more realistic.

Suppression would be very welcome too.

 

I know for sure I'd be hiding if there were 2 Hinds charging at me at full speed lol

That's something that mission designers currently add through scripting and/or triggers. From an interview with Wags there was a comment, that ED is working on morale as part of the dynamic campaign engine they develop. Though this isn't something that will happen over night...

[Blinky.ben]

1 hour ago, Morrov said:

It would be great if ground units had some sort of a morale/fear mechanic, it would make flying choppers much more realistic.

Suppression would be very welcome too.

 

I know for sure I'd be hiding if there were 2 Hinds charging at me at full speed lol

But being a game you also lack fear that a real world pilot would have in the battle field.

[Morrov]

3 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

But being a game you also lack fear that a real world pilot would have in the battle field.

 

Of course, but that's a limitation put on me, that I can change by immersing myself into the sim more (with VR for example).

I can't do much about the AI side of things.

 

But it is reassuring to hear that the dynamic campaigns will cover the morale part.

[Blinky.ben]

2 minutes ago, Morrov said:

But it is reassuring to hear that the dynamic campaigns will cover the morale part.

I’m not aware of such a thing? Could you enlighten me as to what’s planned?

[Morrov]

12 minutes ago, Blinky.ben said:

I’m not aware of such a thing? Could you enlighten me as to what’s planned?

 

Read shagrat's response just above:

 

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

From an interview with Wags there was a comment, that ED is working on morale as part of the dynamic campaign engine they develop. Though this isn't something that will happen over night...

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Morrov

[Rifter]

2 hours ago, Morrov said:

Suppression would be very welcome too.

There is a very old script done by MBot:

Though being from 2013 - it still works: Infantry stops returning fire for a certain amount of time after being fired at by for example the door gunner of the huey.

It can be included in every existing mission by simply calling it up once at mission start.

Does not scare off infantry by flying close over their heads of course...but at least you can scare them by firing at them. Which as I understand is the deeper meaning of fire suppression...

 

[Quadg]

1 hour ago, molevitch said:

This has been declared a theoretical myth over and over. It made no sense to risk a landing, have both pilots leave the aircraft requiring a full shut down, in order to be employed in reloading. The aircraft struggled in Afghanistan’s climate and conditions with a full load of weapons on the pylons. The idea that a second full load could be carried internally is flawed. To offset the weight, even less fuel would be carried, reducing the flight time or range even further. 
It was much simpler, quicker, and safer, for pilots to fly back to their (not too distant) base.... And let the ground crews do it, while the pilots had a break.

the huey battalions of the 1st air cav would often shutdown and wait in temporary LZ instead of returning to their bases. after dropping off the infantry.

these temporary locations did not have force protection or refuelling services.

because not flying home saved the fuel for the return. And gave a quicker response time when the infantry wanted picking up. they would reload the gunships from CH-47.

the crews were expected to provide their own protection.

and they could be there for hours. waiting on the infantry.

mason describes this in chickenhawk.

they didn't exactly like doing it but they were never attacked.

this was in the hot highlands of Vietnam.

30 huey sitting in a random field.

they avoided using the same locations twice.

and they didn't do it everywhere in every mission.

 

were the soviets less tactically flexible than the US?

anecdotal evidence says they were not.

 

 

 

[Lucas_From_Hell]

What you're describing is setting up a quick FARP using a large cargo helicopter to take the supplies, not having individual Mi-24s carrying reloads in the trunk and landing in the middle of nowhere to rearm. Broadly speaking, Soviet Mi-24 and Mi-8 units in Afghanistan operated from airfields or from Army forward bases. The ranges between those and the troops needing fire support were usually acceptable.

[IcedVenom]

9 hours ago, molevitch said:

This has been declared a theoretical myth over and over. It made no sense to risk a landing, have both pilots leave the aircraft requiring a full shut down, in order to be employed in reloading. The aircraft struggled in Afghanistan’s climate and conditions with a full load of weapons on the pylons. The idea that a second full load could be carried internally is flawed. To offset the weight, even less fuel would be carried, reducing the flight time or range even further. 
It was much simpler, quicker, and safer, for pilots to fly back to their (not too distant) base.... And let the ground crews do it, while the pilots had a break.

How would it be a risk to land in the middle of nowhere? If you had plenty of fuel, and Soviet soldiers needed your assistance, I don't see why not to load ammunition in the passenger compartment and load up again if it's not too far away. If you could post a source specifically saying this is a myth and never actually happened, then I would appreciate it. Until then, a myth should still be made possible in a videogame. Maybe some mission editor could make this happen with triggers or something.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Wrong way around. There is no solid evidence of it happening, so unless someone is able to provide a source proving it and also explaining the procedure (which munitions could be carried, how many rounds, was this done with the engine running or not, etc.) it won't be added to the game.

[IcedVenom]

58 minutes ago, Lucas_From_Hell said:

Wrong way around. There is no solid evidence of it happening, so unless someone is able to provide a source proving it and also explaining the procedure (which munitions could be carried, how many rounds, was this done with the engine running or not, etc.) it won't be added to the game.

Good point. Like I said though, maybe some mission maker could create some trigger which does something similar in a scripted mission.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Hmm, perhaps you can get it done with a script that allows the player to spawn an invisible FARP and the static units required to talk to the crew and rearm with an F10 radio option. Worth investigating.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Lucas_From_Hell

[IcedVenom]

On 4/17/2021 at 5:09 PM, Lucas_From_Hell said:

Wrong way around. There is no solid evidence of it happening, so unless someone is able to provide a source proving it and also explaining the procedure (which munitions could be carried, how many rounds, was this done with the engine running or not, etc.) it won't be added to the game.

Also, I mean wouldn't this be a sort of redneck approach anyways? What proof or source would exactly be needed for some pilots saying "fuck it" and loading a bunch of munitions in the cabin? It's not like these things are clocks and need to be delicately tuned. They're Soviet machines, you can do what you want with them. I'm sure something like this has happened at least once in its History. Maybe once around the less mountainous and lower altitude locations. I understand Afghanistan is high-altitude but not all parts. Specifically around the north it's low altitude. It's not unrealistic to assume maybe one group of crazy pilots thought of trying it out on a mission that didn't need so much fuel. Same thing with carrying troops. It was usually not done but that's because Afghanistan is such high altitude. Around the Baltic region and much in the north it's almost sea-level. I think the Hind is much more capable around these locations and could be utilized much more effectively.

Here we can see the movement path of Soviet soldiers. Notice how they mostly avoid the high-altitude mountainous region.

Now look at the Afghanistan topography. Notice anything? 

[Bananabrai]

On 4/17/2021 at 3:01 PM, Blinky.ben said:

But being a game you also lack fear that a real world pilot would have in the battle field.

 

Not necessarily.

If you've got perma death or "single life per XY hours" on a server for example, you think at least twice if you do a mission and how you do it.

 

And I have to say, on BlueFlag for examples where you have 5 Lifes per 4 hours or something, I almost sh*t my pants doing a low and fast mission in the Viggen,

doing a strike and knowing there are two Tomcats coming for me...

 

So getting the pilot sweaty in their simpit is the mission of the mission builder, but it is possible. Real fear of a real pilot is of course not possible, that's true.

[SuumCuique]

Even the low regions are in the 1000-2000m range, except a tiny part in the north. Maybe someone did it once, even if it is a pretty objectively terrible idea. If it was often done or soviet doctrine, I would see a point in adding this function. If you really want something like this, a normal FARP does the job.

[Rabies]

Hmmmm, flying a gunship into harms way, with a cargo area full of munitions, sitting on top of a fuel cell. If we have any Russian aviators or any one with military experience in working with the hind, how long would it take a crew of two, to unpack boxes of rockets, attach warheads and insert them into the launches. I doubt loading ammunition for the cannon wouldn’t be feasible, for the same reason for the Cobra mini guns in Vietnam, it took too long. 
 

Soviet propaganda in its day was intimidating but sometimes comical, we were no different. The British Army Lynx would be portrayed as having the ability to rearm its tow missiles by the two flight crew, with boxed missiles in the cargo area. In reality, it was nothing more than cheap propaganda, the helicopter had the capacity to, but feasibility was zero. 
 

I think DCS should instigate realistic arming turnaround times, as currently it is far to quick. And by requesting the cannon to be rearmed, increase that time drastically. Times could vary from base to say a FARP, available manpower and equipment. 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Rabies

[IcedVenom]

12 hours ago, SuumCuique said:

Even the low regions are in the 1000-2000m range, except a tiny part in the north. Maybe someone did it once, even if it is a pretty objectively terrible idea. If it was often done or soviet doctrine, I would see a point in adding this function. If you really want something like this, a normal FARP does the job.

Fair enough. Would be cool though to use the crew cabin in a variety of different ways though. Maybe like loading it with cargo and using it to drop supplies to troops and such.

[Fri13]

On 4/17/2021 at 1:40 PM, IcedVenom said:

Any chance the AI could be developed in a way where infantry could actually become scared of approaching aircraft and attempt to find cover or even run away if morale is too low? I know Total War has morale statistics, but why not DCS as well!

 

 

NM

 

Edited April 19, 2021 by Fri13

[shagrat]

On 4/18/2021 at 3:08 AM, IcedVenom said:

Good point. Like I said though, maybe some mission maker could create some trigger which does something similar in a scripted mission.

Hmm, depends. Currently it is difficult, as you cannot access the FARP/Warehouses through scripting. You could simulate it by placing an invisible FARP with limited resources (the carried weapons for the reload and delete all other ressources).

You need to have a preplanned (FARP) location and most importantly don't forget to add the WEIGHT for the Munition carried in the trunk to the Mi-24P and remove that weight after reloading at the FARP... That would "simulate" this kind of rearming.

Though, honestly with that much additional weight, you may understand why that maybe not one of the most brilliant tactics for an already heavy helicopter in hot and high conditions.

 

[lmp]

On 4/19/2021 at 3:52 AM, IcedVenom said:

Also, I mean wouldn't this be a sort of redneck approach anyways? What proof or source would exactly be needed for some pilots saying "fuck it" and loading a bunch of munitions in the cabin?

 

 

Pilots can't just take "a bunch of munitions" without anybody noticing or caring. It doesn't work like that, not in the US, not in Russia/Soviet Union. Maybe in a banana republic.

 

If you think a little bit beyond "it would be cool to do this", you'll realize how impractical and dangerous this idea is. I struggle to come up with a scenario where this would be the best approach available.

 

Firstly, how likely is it that you will expend all ammunition (that's up to 16 ATGMs) from TWO helicopters (because you're not flying alone if you expect that much fighting) and still have enough fuel to get to a safe location, reload, expend your newly reloaded ammunition and get back home in the first place? Keep in mind that in real life your targets will be much better hidden than in DCS and their reaction to being under fire will be a lot more intelligent.

 

Ok, let's say that's theoretically possible... At this point the problem is solved not on the crew level, but higher. Why not get the supplies to the safe landing location on trucks (together with personnel that's provide security, do the reloading)? If the location is safe, you should be able to get troops there in advance. Otherwise how do you know it's safe? Or just send two "fresh" helicopters to replace you?

 

There's pretty much always a safer, quicker, better way to accomplish what you want with none of the disadvantages.

[IcedVenom]

Look I'm not saying you guys are wrong. I'm just saying it would be cool.