Attacking Helicopters seems to be too weak.

[whisper 0]

When western point of view meets eastern point of view? :)

[WhoCares 0]

I guess it was something like this:

Mujahedeen1/2/3/4 to CIA: I shot down a Mi-24 with a Stinger. Please send more.

And every fifth went like this:

Mujahedeen5 to CIA: Shot Stinger on Mi-24 but missed. Please send 10x more.

And out of that they made that 80% statistic. Like every Mujahedeen reported back right after he shot a stinger...

:rolleyes:

And if I wanted more support from someone that has an interest in me inflicting damage to his enemy I would just report hits, hits, and more hits... Maybe occasionally a miss to make it sound a bit more realistic.

[Ulanthorn 10]

If the Stinger had an 80% success rate the score could have been 800 from stingers alone. I think that figure is in the completely wrong ball park.

You seem to forget that a lot of these MANPADS from the 80's are now fired against US and Allied helikopters all over the middle east and Africa...and a lot were simply sold to other "organisations" ranging from simple terrorists to organised drug circles...and for sure a lot are still in warlords depots, waiting.

[liquidpinky 11]

Only 16 Hinds were shot down in that war.

According to this source it was actually 333 were lost over the course of ten years fighting in Afghanistan, a good few of those were mechanical failures as well. http://www.vectorsite.net/avhind_1.html

A few other sources concur with that amount also.

[maturin 12]

16 kills and 333 losses?

Maybe the Mujahedin filled the launchers with faulty gears and blown fuses.

[nkenny 1057]

Most modern sources agree that despite what western media was reporting at the time, the stinger made minimal impact on the war itself.

Fact is that aside from some technological improvements (general issue of NVGs and optics), the Russian occupation of Afghanistan-- from a broad military point of view --probably mirrored whats happening there right now. Insurgents are getting their asses kicked. The idea that poorly equipped rebels can ever hope to outright halt a modern superpower capable of bringing tanks, airplanes, and artillery remains the solely purview of imagination.

Much like today, perceived victory in Afghanistan was not in the (shackled) hands of the soldiers on the ground; but rather the political realities of the home state. Today the fate of Afghanistan will be determined by the next American presidential election much more than any improvements in Small Arms or tactics.

-k

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

According to this source it was actually 333 were lost over the course of ten years fighting in Afghanistan, a good few of those were mechanical failures as well. http://www.vectorsite.net/avhind_1.html

A few other sources concur with that amount also.

Skywar.ru actually mentions 333 total losses of helicopters (includes also non-combat losses). The first Mi-24 downed by a MANPOD (manpad) is mentioned on 15th November 1985. In total only 16 Mi-24 losses to manpads are reported till the end of the war.

[xman1 10]

This sounds wrong to me.

1,000 stingers were sent to Afghanistan (Also British and Russian MANPADS).

Only 16 Hinds were shot down in that war.

275 Soviet aircraft were shot down in total by a variety of weapon systems.

If the Stinger had an 80% success rate the score could have been 800 from stingers alone. I think that figure is in the completely wrong ball park.

Wiki of misinformation more like. This is exactly why they don't allow wikipedia as a valid source when quoting for college exercises. It is frequently wrong due to the fact that anyone, you or I, can edit it.

The official number:

The Mujaheddin soon nicknamed the Hind the "devil's chariot" and realized that their small guns were practically useless against its heavily armored hull. Bigger guns could bring down the Hind, but the real threat was from shoulder-launched, surface-to-air missiles, particularly the American heat-seeking Stinger, which the CIA began shipping to the Mujaheddin in large numbers starting in 1983. The Stinger could easily home in on either of the side-facing hot engine exhausts, located at the top of the fuselage near the rotor hub and bring down the helicopter. In response, the Soviets began fitting special covers over the exhausts to mix cooler air with the hot engine gases. This dramatically reduced losses but did not stop them completely and came with a price—the blocky covers slowed the helicopters down in flight, turning a fast, unmaneuverable helicopter into a slower, unmaneuverable helicopter. During the war, 333 Hinds were lost in combat; the number lost to operational accidents is not known.

333 sounds about right to have the result of Hinds forced to 5K to 7K foot operational altitudes as what they were at the end of the war. If only 16 were lost, the Russians would have never increased the operational altitude.

-X

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Rotary/Hind/HE18.htm

PS. Videa of Mi-24's going down to shoulder fired Sams are everywhere. Some examples:

Mi-24 getting hit in Sri Lanka by a Strella = Dead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4iBEbBcRxA

Mi-24 getting hit by an Igla shoulder fired SAM = Dead - (Are these guys crazy cuckoo? They sound like):

Better version without crazy people shouting - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy5UMCMjkN4

Edited October 8, 2010 by xman1

[maturin 12]

Yeesh. That thing fell like a big metal leaf.

Pretty sure the second video is of an Mi-8 and it was autorotating.

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

333 sounds about right to have the result of Hinds forced to 5K to 7K foot operational altitudes as what they were at the end of the war. If only 16 were lost, the Russians would have never increased the operational altitude.

This would mean that about 1/4 of all produced D and P versions got shot down (or were lost elsewise) which is way too much.

Pretty sure the second video is of an Mi-8 and it was autorotating.

No, it was a Mi-24 and I was told that the crew survived and got rescued by an other helicopter.

[liquidpinky 11]

This would mean that about 1/4 of all produced D and P versions got shot down (or were lost elsewise) which is way too much.

In that 333 were mechanical failures too, not just ones that were shot down. Mostly sand in the engines etc, so they developed better filters for them.

Similar to the lessons the allies have recently learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[nkenny 1057]

This would mean that about 1/4 of all produced D and P versions got shot down (or were lost elsewise) which is way too much.

No, it was a Mi-24 and I was told that the crew survived and got rescued by an other helicopter.

I've seen references that a number of the downed helicopters were repaired and made serviceable again.

Your second comment highlights another important fact. Helicopters rarely operate alone; shooting down one chopper in a wing of six... Well you'll be in a world of hurt.

-k

[rexehuk 16]

I've been shot down before in KA-50 blackshark by a tank... in real life if a tank is presented with an opportunity to bring down a chopper (if it was hovering for example), just a case of laser rangefinder > estimate movement > fire > bye bye chopper.

I think the reason choppers feel "weak" in Arma 2 is down to the radar not being modelled on the AH64-D, without its radar dome the helicopter loses a huge edge on the battlefield. While this is limited to the Apache, some of the other choppers are missing their sensors which make them what they are.

[Ulanthorn 10]

I've been shot down before in KA-50 blackshark by a tank... in real life if a tank is presented with an opportunity to bring down a chopper (if it was hovering for example), just a case of laser rangefinder > estimate movement > fire > bye bye chopper.

I think the reason choppers feel "weak" in Arma 2 is down to the radar not being modelled on the AH64-D, without its radar dome the helicopter loses a huge edge on the battlefield. While this is limited to the Apache, some of the other choppers are missing their sensors which make them what they are.

In post 80's modern tanks there is no need for estimating movement...the FCS can do it well beyond 300km/h target speed.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

I've been shot down before in KA-50 blackshark by a tank... in real life if a tank is presented with an opportunity to bring down a chopper (if it was hovering for example), just a case of laser rangefinder > estimate movement > fire > bye bye chopper.

I think the reason choppers feel "weak" in Arma 2 is down to the radar not being modelled on the AH64-D, without its radar dome the helicopter loses a huge edge on the battlefield. While this is limited to the Apache, some of the other choppers are missing their sensors which make them what they are.

Yeah, I agree with you.

[icebreakr 3159]

Yeah exactly. I usually finish a book written by a British soldier in 'Gan and I then recreate a scenario for my team... only to find out that AH64 cannot engage or observe enemy infantry from 2-3 clicks away ;) cannon is for example almost useless compared to the devastation the RL 30mm does - not to mention the accuracy.

[Baff1 0]

In that 333 were mechanical failures too, not just ones that were shot down. Mostly sand in the engines etc, so they developed better filters for them.

Similar to the lessons the allies have recently learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This.

If we look again at our helicopter losses in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can clearly see that the bulk of them are not being shot down but are crashing.

Very very few comparatively speaking are being shot down.

In 15 years of deployment in Afghanistan they lost 16 Hinds to enemy fire. About 1 per year.

Stingers are accredited with at least 3 of those shoot downs.

[rexehuk 16]

I know the solution here... someone code an addon that gives the AH64 full radar sensor with target prioritisation ;). Prioritising targets would not be too hard in terms of coding, could just be done by classname (t90 more of a threat than t72 etc). The radar modelling and dialog on screen is where I run out of ideas.

Unfortunately I can't do dialogs, but id love to help out with SQF where I can.

Edited October 8, 2010 by rexehuk

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

I know the solution here... someone code an addon that gives the AH64 full radar sensor with target prioritisation ;). Prioritising targets would not be too hard in terms of coding, could just be done by classname (t90 more of a threat than t72 etc). The radar modelling and dialog on screen is where I run out of ideas.

Unfortunately I can't do dialogs, but id love to help out with SQF where I can.

By dialogs? Actually, I also don't know how to write dialogs in sqf.

I've tryed several ways like write /dostop this; this flyinheight 300; Ah64 unableAI "Move"; this dotarget T90; this dofire T90; ect/ but all in vain. I still can't stop chopper joining the dogfight. I feel annoyed that Ai never follow my order when they are driving chopper......

[T.S.C.Plage 0]

In that 333 were mechanical failures too, not just ones that were shot down. Mostly sand in the engines etc, so they developed better filters for them.

Similar to the lessons the allies have recently learned in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like I already wrote Skywar.ru and also other sources say that it were 333 helicopters at all not only Mi-24s. Most of them were Mi-8s. But I've to correct myself because production numbers of D, V and P versions should be about 2000.

I've seen references that a number of the downed helicopters were repaired and made serviceable again.

Your second comment highlights another important fact. Helicopters rarely operate alone; shooting down one chopper in a wing of six... Well you'll be in a world of hurt.

-k

That's of course the case. I even heard stories that the former National Peoples Army of the German Democratic Republic had to "lend" some of their relativly new Mi-24s back to the SU because they needed them down their and that some they got back were badly shot up and only rudimentary repaired.

That's why they (started to) operate in pairs or even bigger numbers.

In 15 years of deployment in Afghanistan they lost 16 Hinds to enemy fire. About 1 per year.

Stingers are accredited with at least 3 of those shoot downs.

Can't you read? I wrote that 16 were lost to manpads from '85 on and not that only 16 were lost. It were much more.

http://www.skywar.ru/afghanistanen.html

[wolfbite 8]

Holy crap the Ka-52's radar is dire! I havent used it in ages. ( That ka-50 download took its place) I just noticed the detection range for the ka-52 on cherno is terrible..... And that the ka-52 doesnt have an armoured windscreen for some reason... Lucky shots from AAV-7 go through the windscreen and kill you.... :S

Now I know the Ka-52 has an armoured windscreen.

Plus the Kamov's maneuvrabilaty is severely damaged by the fact that it acts like a standard helicopter with tail rotor meaning you cannot circle strafe targets at high speed. (The ka-50 and 52 can perform a flat spin at any speed in its flight envelope)

Edited October 8, 2010 by wolfbite

[Ulanthorn 10]

This.

If we look again at our helicopter losses in Afghanistan and Iraq, we can clearly see that the bulk of them are not being shot down but are crashing.

Crashing out of unknown reasons...a bit to often...it is well know that the government tried to tame the bad news down as good as possible.

A bit too much crashes in a hostile environment with lots of old MANPADS around that where thought to be unable to harm the Ãœberchoppers...

Iraq has shown very well that whether the Propaganda of invulnerable US tanks nor Helocopters is true.

I said this much a while ago, but there is a reason why we where tought else in the german army about Russian euipment capability...it stood against us in visual range just across the border and we where told to better fear stuff like BMPs, T-72, T80 and Mi-24 in our Leopard IIs.

[xman1 10]

Crashing out of unknown reasons...a bit to often...it is well know that the government tried to tame the bad news down as good as possible.

A bit too much crashes in a hostile environment with lots of old MANPADS around that where thought to be unable to harm the Ãœberchoppers....

Have to agree with this assessment. It is propaganda in the way of reality. Helicopters just do not crash this often. In Russia or Pakistan or wherever, you maybe get a crash every year. Yet crashes go up in wartime? Seems hard to believe that they are due to accidents.

-X

[Windexglow 10]

Have to agree with this assessment. It is propaganda in the way of reality. Helicopters just do not crash this often. In Russia or Pakistan or wherever, you maybe get a crash every year. Yet crashes go up in wartime? Seems hard to believe that they are due to accidents.

-X

I agree, constant and heavy use is not a good explanation as to why so many helicopters go down. It's not like helicopters are complex or anything.

[vohk 10]

Yet crashes go up in wartime? Seems hard to believe that they are due to accidents.

Really? Maybe not enough to account for the entire increase, but it isn't hard to come up with ways a war could increase the rate of attrition. Smaller % of aircraft collecting dust, far more daily sorties, possibly harsher environmental conditions, more stressful and less forgiving situations leading to greater pilot fatigue, maintenance and rest schedules being stretched to meet the demands of fighting a war, shortages of proper/quality parts... Even at it's zenith, the Soviet Army wasn't exactly a model of efficiency and good practice.