Attack helicopter poll

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Chronicles @ Mar. 02 2003,06:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">From Aaron Kane

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But you forgot to mention the MI-24's terrible ingame AT-6 missiles!  Those things are simply dreadful!   I'd take a Hellfire anyday <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry , i talked about them there

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the AH-64 have just a tank hunter job , and it does it very bad (the hellfires hit only when you are at a great distance of the target) , the Mi-24 missiles are not very good too in term of accuracy, but their number will help to touch <span id='postcolor'>

I just didnt remember the name "AT-6" and prefered to write missiles

That is too bad the AH-64 and Mi-24 primary missiles are awfully inaccurate, the AH-1 Tow are so much effective and the Mi-17 rockets are so numerous that you cant miss your target : )<span id='postcolor'>

Oops, sorry, must've missed that part.

[Aaron Kane 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LoneSoldier @ Mar. 02 2003,10:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AH-64

Has more style.  

BTW, what is the Australian equivalent of the Mi-24 and AH-64?<span id='postcolor'>

I *THINK* the Aussies are going to use the Tiger attack helicopter, which is supposedly extremely capable. I have no evidence to back up my claims though

[B@ZOOkA 0]

the problem what i see about this poll is that the two choppers are from two different epochs. the hind is from the 60s and the apache from the 80s/90s. so you may compare the max.speed of those two choppers or the armour... but the main differences are the navigation systems and the targetting systems and so on, i think. the ones of the apache are much more modern. all the electronics are much more advanced. thats not the point if youre only talking about the apache and hind in ofp, but if youre talking about these choppers at all, i think you should mention this.

correct me if im wrong

btw: i like the hind more... in my eyes, it has a real character...a soul. the apache is only a machine.

[Jamesia 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Mar. 01 2003,10:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sgt. Milkman @ Feb. 28 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice house man. <span id='postcolor'>

this is my wife and I posing outside our house

<span id='postcolor'>

When you poll....... think about how much of a nice house the Hind makes. Its beautiful isnt it.

[RMATICH 0]

I vote Hind. Why?

A: Having 60+ rockets is like a "rain of death" on the enemy in anything except a heavily armored vehicle [tank] or a fortified bunker or cave.

b. It can not only kick mucho booty but also get troops to the battlefield at the same time.

c. Just as fast as Apachie

d. Can take heavier ordance hits and still keep going.

Its just a warhorse of a bird and built like a old 50s car. Built to last with much style. Hind all the way.

[HellToupee 0]

ild like to see a modernised Hind, it would probly kik all kinds of arse, stronger faster than the apache, and can carry troops and more ordinance, i wounder if u could have the twin rotor layout lke the hokum then u wouldnt need a tail rotor.

[shadow 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (B@ZOOkA @ Mar. 02 2003,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the problem what i see about this poll is that the two choppers are from two different epochs. the hind is from the 60s and the apache from the 80s/90s. so you may compare the max.speed of those two choppers or the armour... but the main differences are the navigation systems and the targetting systems and so on, i think. the ones of the apache are much more modern. all the electronics are much more advanced. thats not the point if youre only talking about the apache and hind in ofp, but if youre talking about these choppers at all, i think you should mention this.

correct me if im wrong

btw: i like the hind more... in my eyes, it has a real character...a soul. the apache is only a machine.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe the E-model Hind (the one in OFP I think) had its maiden voyage in 73. The Apache A-model had its maiden voyage in 77. Not sure when the final Hind E-model was finished. The Apache A-model was finalized and flew its first flight january 27th'84.

I think its fair to put the two against each other. They are the two largest contenders of helicopter gunships. I've also heard from interviews on Apache-pilots that the only real air-threat to them is the Hind. They can't outrun a Hind, they can't outgun a Hind (in quantity), but they only need that one precise hit, and that's a major advantage for the Apache.

Whatever you've heard on the behalf of the Hind's armour. They were superior in Afghanistand untill the US started delivering Stingers. Then the Hinds dropped like flies.

I heard a statement in an interview from some top-brass or something: the B-2s operates with a sledge, the <insert fighter-plane here> operates with a scalpel, the Apaches operates with a laser.

I enterpet that to the Apache being the most precise weaponry.

Such a shame it is not reflected on the OFP-model

I still love the Apache (A & D-model) over any other aircraft and nothing is going to change my mind

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Mar. 02 2003,22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Mar. 01 2003,10:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sgt. Milkman @ Feb. 28 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice house man. <span id='postcolor'>

this is my wife and I posing outside our house

<span id='postcolor'>

When you poll....... think about how much of a nice house the Hind makes. Its beautiful isnt it.<span id='postcolor'>

Nice house where did you get it.

STGN

Ps. get a new car

[stgn 39]

Oh forgot I would take the AH64 the AH1 is like flying a pice of paper goes whit the wind, the Hind is like flying a armed bus and it is very hard to not get hit, whit the Apache you make akrobatics and can avoide the fu ing Shilka.

When I want to kill I take the Mil17 lots of fire power and you dont run out of it just by clicking on the mouse.

STGN

[Gaswell 1]

Anyone ever played that old classic "Hind"? Great sim.

[STS_SolidSnake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Mar. 01 2003,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sgt. Milkman @ Feb. 28 2003,22:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nice house man. <span id='postcolor'>

this is my wife and I posing outside our house

http://members.fortunecity.com/jamesia999/house.jpg<span id='postcolor'>

Does your wife always bitch "Where are you" when you are right next to her?

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 03 2003,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ild like to see a modernised Hind, it would probly kik all kinds of arse<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a bit modernised version (Mi-35) http://www.flying-display.de/2002/DIEILA_1/Mi-35-01/Mi-35-01.JPG

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N.o.R.S.u @ Mar. 03 2003,12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 03 2003,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ild like to see a modernised Hind, it would probly kik all kinds of arse<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a bit modernised version (Mi-35) http://www.flying-display.de/2002/DIEILA_1/Mi-35-01/Mi-35-01.JPG<span id='postcolor'>

Actually that's just a downgraded export version

[Jinef 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 03 2003,08:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They were superior in Afghanistand untill the US started delivering Stingers. Then the Hinds dropped like flies.<span id='postcolor'>

Bollox m8

The first batch of stingers hardly ever worked and when they did they had premature cut outs etc.

Before the Stingers the Mujaheedin or whatever had to throw rocks at the hinds only real weak spot, it's tail rotor. Hit that with a nice aimed rock and it's crunch time for the guys flying.

I like also the survivability of the Hind's crew when it goes crunch. Almost 60 % survived!

*cough*then they faced the greeting of the Afghanis*cough*

[RMATICH 0]

The Afgans had to be careful about that though. The soviets liked to retaleate against any down helicoptors or dead troops by sending out squads and rocket attacking or invading whole villages. This from Tom Carew's [brittish SAS] book Jihad. You are right on about the rocks though. Aslo any significant machinegun fire on that tail rotor [correct me if I'm wrong] and that also could bring one down? Of course it had a 60% survival rate. The structure of it is so strong. Like I said before its as tough as a 1950 U.S. car.

[shadow 6]

60% survival rate?

What speeds/heights are you talking about?

Or are you talking about that particular war?

btw I've always heard that the American Stingers were the turning-point in that war. I was'nt there so I can't confirm that ofcourse

[HellToupee 0]

the sucess rates for the stinger and streala are very low, my country uses strelas and at a airshow it had a stand on them, i think over in chili its best percent rate was 8% at sum certian alt of the target. 8% probilty of hit, helecopters be a higher percent but these things arnt super accurate, from what ive read su25s and mi24s could take multiple hits.

[Jinef 2]

Well put it this way, i would not want to be shot at with with a stinger now!

When they were first really combat used (Afghanistan) like all new hardware they had a shitload of probs and of course they could get broken really easy.

The americans at first wanted the Rebels to carry them in shock proof cases! lol

The Hind's flight crew (not the people in back) had a 60% survival rate if they crashed from a combat flight profile in to Afghanistan terrain. That's a good rate for that era.

The Hinds technically should be deathtraps, as they've got titanium fuselages and the shock should all be transferred to the pilots. But the Russians built it so of course it will defy all western science principles and still be better.

As you can tell i like the hinds.

Indeed, machine gun fire directed at the tail rotor will definitely take it down, but it would take a while to establish a lead and you could well be on the other end of a few 30mm shells quite quickly. But by throwing rocks the civvies could join in and the pilots would consider it less of a threat.

[N.o.R.S.u 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Mar. 03 2003,12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N.o.R.S.u @ Mar. 03 2003,12:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ Mar. 03 2003,09:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ild like to see a modernised Hind, it would probly kik all kinds of arse<span id='postcolor'>

Here's a bit modernised version (Mi-35) http://www.flying-display.de/2002/DIEILA_1/Mi-35-01/Mi-35-01.JPG<span id='postcolor'>

Actually that's just a downgraded export version<span id='postcolor'>

Well duh , this should be the one:

(Mi-24 Mk. III)

I would like to see OFP Hind painted in this scheme:

[LaPoieto 0]

I did a trial of 10 fights the Hind won 6 out of 10

[MOMO 0]

AI vs AI or was it you flying the Apache  

EDIT: I think the Apache is the nicer heli, the weapons are neat and it's easy to fly, though the Hind is one tough bastard

[bn880 5]

I don't understand anyones reasoning for saying the Apache is nicer. What is nice about it??? The only thing it has is avionics/weapons systems and a small bit of manouverability.

It's the ugliest piece of equipment.. lol

[Winters 1]

I don't think that something thats capable of inflicting heavy casualties can be classified as "Nice"

But anyway,

I voted for the Apache just because.....

[MOMO 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 07 2003,20:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's the ugliest piece of equipment..  lol<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, maybe I used the word nice in the wrong context, but I don't agree with you that the Apache is ugly, in my view it's pretty nice;

WOW! I fixed the link: http://home.planet.nl/~ender047/Apache.jpg

The AH-1 sure looks better though, the Apache is a little fat.

OK, correction, I prefer the Apache's weapons and manoevarability (   )

[Jamesia 0]

How do i tell you that your pic doesnt work WITHOUT placebo thinking im spamming........ hmmmmmmm

ummmmmm

Yes the apache is very nice.

On a side note, that picture does not appear to be working.