Fabulous flying & firing machines in ArmA?

[codarl 1]

In my eyes the MI-24 is a chopper fit for air to ground combat. you can hung it up with missiles till the point the hind needs a rolling start!

The fact the cargo compartment is there illustrates that it has the option to transport infantry. wether this was done with the idea of "multiple hinds inserting a few squads and provide cover" , or "exfiltrate the remains of squads while keeping enough firepower to defend itself" is unknown to me, as I am not the MI24's designer . In Flashpoint it serves as my favorite chopper, because of it's tough armor and offensive capabilities. And it can transport eight troops! what else do you need?

[Big Dawg KS 6]

skinny, flimsy + week

Skinny and even flimsy means that it's harder to hit and that sure isn't a weakness.

Sure that the Apache is better armoured than the Cobra (even than the AH-1Z) but it's also a bigger target and easier to hit. Which phylosophy is "better"? Well that depends on the very diferent combat situations which an attack helicopter may face on a battlefield.

Actually, the philosophy behind the Apache is that, with the use of stealthy tactics and the aid of high tech equipment (especially the presence of an AH-64D with Longbow radar, and/or an OH-58 Kiowa), by the time an enemy target spots it, it will have already identified him, targeted him, and fired - and that's if the target ever sees it. The point is, the AH-64 doesn't need to expose itself like the Cobra does to suppress enemy threats, therefore (so long as proper tactics are utilized) making it LESS of a target/HARDER to hit. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that the USMC gets the crap portion of defense funds, the Cobra would be long since retired by now and Marines would be flying AH-64s. In other words, the USMC is stuck with the Cobra, not that they necessarily prefer it.

As far as helicopter vs helicopter conflicts, the AH-64D's Longbow radar (if equipped), better cannon, ATAS capacity, better survivability and stealthiness, and strength in numbers make it superior to the AH-1, and probably anything else born around the same time period - and most definatly the Hind. Under the right circumstances, however, the Hind could probably hold its own (I'm not saying defeat, but simply survive) against the AH-64 if it were head on, one on one.

Quote[/b] ]So I'm not only happy to see the AH-1Z included in Armed Assault because it's my favourite attack helicopter but also because and since the AH-1Z is included it means that US Marines units (not only the CObra) will be included in Armed Assault (while in OPF 1.0, only US Army existed).

Or it just means that BIS made another little faux pas... after all, they just wouldn't be BIS if they didn't.  

[ricnunes 0]

That's wrong. It was barely a turning point. Ask any veteran, whom I have talked to personally, and they will say that it only changed their tactics. That is all.

Also, no a Hind is NOT a transport helicopter. Get that through your head. They RARELY have troops in there! Its cramped and uncomfortable. Its not designed like the UH-1. And its not designed for Helicopter to Helicopter fighting.

I wish to make a few comments:

First about the Hind itself. You're right by saying that the Hind is more a Gunship than a transport helicopter, Hind is inded a gunship (despite having transport capability).

But Shadow also made some good points specially considering the Hind design. The first Hind version the Hind-A was in fact designed as a transport helicopter with some armour and some gunship capability (well in fact the Mi-8/17 also have gunship capacility) but it was later decided to "convert" or "transform" the Hind (Hind-A) into a "real" gunship helicopter and the result was the Hind-D which has the "tandem" pilot/gunner configuration that we see today (in Hind-A the pilot and gunner were seated side by side) but while the Hind-D was designed as gunship it was still decided to retain the troop transport capability (8 x equiped soldiers). All other Hind version that we get to know today are updates or modifications from the Hind-D.

Next, I would like to talk about the Stinger use in Afeghanistan. The Stinger certainly wasn't an 100% accurate weapon but it turned inded the fight in favour to the Afeghan guerrillas and it was really a turning point. There are many sources that indicates that the Afeghan guerrilla was in the verge of being defeated until the Stingers arrived.

I guess that in our current days it's kinda of a cool thing to say or claim that things that were previously well known are all wrong. I guess this results in many book being sold and certainly many "mediatic" attention.

But obviously your right when you claim that the Russians changed their tactics when the Stinger missiles arrived specially when manning their Hind helicopters since they were by far the most used and important Russian weapon system in the Afeghan campaign. These tactics involved flying either extremely low into the valleys since the Afeghan Guerrilas operated mainly on the mountains and the Stinger missiles simply couldn't get a lock if the target was flying lower than the missile launcher or either by flying very high where the Stingers couldn't reach or have great dificulties in reaching. Anyway flying extremely low into the valleys or at very high altitudes made the Hind a much less effective helicopter gunship than before since in it was much harder to find enemy targets (which consisted mainly of people - the Guerrilas) even because the targeting system of the Hind were (and still are in most models) quite basic and not that effective if the helo is very far off from their targets.

Finally, I think there's a little doubt that the Hind is in fact very well armored helicopter specially in the frontal and cockpit area (they trully have all around bullet-proof glass) and I'm sure they were a nightmare against any man armed with an assault rifle or even with heavier caliber machine guns. Once I saw a footage of some Afeghan guerrilas firing a 12,7mm DSK machine gun at a flying Russian Hind and after some hits were seen the Hind just continued unarmed like nothing happened to it.

So I guess that's "safe" to say that the Hind is quite resistant to infantry guns (rifles and machine guns), but even so there are some achilles heel like for example the Hind's tail section which from what I read appears to be unarmored. Also the Hind is very vulnerable helicopter against Stinger or other MANPADS missile since it's engines and specially the engines exausts are very near to the helicopter's main rotor and since MANPADS missile trend to follow the engines exaust (it's the hottest part in a helo or aircraft) a hit from this kind missiles usually proves fatal for a Hind since it's likelly that the main rotor also gets hit. The Apache for example isn't so vulnerable to MANPADS because it's engines and exausts are quite afar from the main rotor.

Well, my 2 cents....

[codarl 1]

but even so there are some achilles heel like for example the Hind's tail section which from what I read appears to be unarmored. Also the Hind is very vulnerable helicopter against Stinger or other MANPADS missile since it's engines and specially the engines exausts are very near to the helicopter's main rotor and since MANPADS missile trend to follow the engines exaust (it's the hottest part in a helo or aircraft) a hit from this kind missiles usually proves fatal for a Hind since it's likelly that the main rotor also gets hit. The Apache for example isn't so vulnerable to MANPADS because it's engines and exausts are quite afar from the main rotor.

Well, my 2 cents....

Afaik, Manpads (or any AA missile) works by getting generally "close" to the target, after wich it creates a big shockwave, putting the gas turbines out of action . I dont think one meter more or less will have a big impact on a shockwave...

[ricnunes 0]

The point is, the AH-64 doesn't need to expose itself like the Cobra does to suppress enemy threats, therefore (so long as proper tactics are utilized) making it LESS of a target/HARDER to hit. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that the USMC gets the crap portion of defense funds, the Cobra would be long since retired by now and Marines would be flying AH-64s. In other words, the USMC is stuck with the Cobra, not that they necessarily prefer it.

Could you explain why the AH-1Z can't surpress targets without being exposed??

The AH-1Z has better optical targeting systems than the Apache and it will also be able to carry a Longbow radar (and Hellfire radar missiles) so I don't see why it can't attack targets without being exposed.

Again, don't confuse the former Cobra versions (even the AH-1W) with the AH-1Z. It's true that the previous Cobra versions weren't as capable in some terms as the Apache but the AH-1Z it's a tottaly diferent "ball game". Really you should read more about the AH-1Z (hint: I advise you to read carefully the docs in the links that I previously posted).

[ricnunes 0]

Afaik, Manpads (or any AA missile) works by getting generally "close" to the target, after wich it creates a big shockwave, putting the gas turbines out of action   . I dont think one meter more or less will have a big impact on a shockwave...

Nope, when a MANPADS explode near a target (an aircraft for exampel) it isn't the shockwave that downs the aircraft but it's instead several sort of "darts" or shrapnel that hits a considereable area of the aircraft (the effect is kinda similar to a shotgun hit) so in the case of helicopters such as the Apache if you have the other engine and the main rotor quite afar from the engine that was hit by the MANPADS the probabilites of both engines and/or main rotor of being hit are more remote than otherwise.

[shadow 6]

But is the AH-1Z in use today?

[franze 196]

@KyleSarnik

Quote[/b] ]

The point is, the AH-64 doesn't need to expose itself like the Cobra does to suppress enemy threats...

Both Apache and Cobra will need to expose themselves to attack targets - even the DWI. That only changes if someone else is exposed and giving them target data, a la MULE. The key difference is the standoff ranges offered between the two aircraft.

Quote[/b] ]

Under the right circumstances, however, the Hind could probably hold its own (I'm not saying defeat, but simply survive) against the AH-64 if it were head on, one on one.

The right circumstances would be to avoid engagement altogether. If Hind doesn't have some form of AAM, it won't last long in a traditional gunfight. A Hind has absolutely no capability against an Apache in a gunfight. It would need some tactical advantage to even pose a challenge, which would include suprise and altitude. If no advantage is present - it's in for a tough time.

Now if a Hind were going up a traditional Cobra, pre-Z variant, it might have a few options. But it's still an awful big risk for the handling it's got.

@ricnunes

Your post is spot-on, you managed to sum up almost every point of view.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Could you explain why the AH-1Z can't surpress targets without being exposed??

The AH-1Z has better optical targeting systems than the Apache and it will also be able to carry a Longbow radar (and Hellfire radar missiles) so I don't see why it can't attack targets without being exposed.  

Again, don't confuse the former Cobra versions (even the AH-1W) with the AH-1Z. It's true that the previous Cobra versions weren't as capable in some terms as the Apache but the AH-1Z it's a tottaly diferent "ball game". Really you should read more about the AH-1Z (hint: I advise you to read carefully the docs in the links that I previously posted).

The AH-1Z is just an attempt to make up for the AH-1s disadvantages to the AH-64 (quieter four-bladed rotor, targeting systems, etc...), but no matter how hard it tries, it can't be the Apache. Also, I've never heard anything about the AH-1Z being able to use the Longbow system, but even so, again the USMC's funding is considerably low, and Longbow radar is rather expensive.

As for the Longbow system, it was designed for the AH-64, opposed to the USMC upgrading their AH-1s to keep up with the AH-64.

Wether it's capable of doing something and wether it does something in practice are sperate issues. The USMC does not employ the same stealthy tactics as the US Army. Also, the USMC does not have the benefit that the Army has by using OH-58s alongside Apaches.

Anyways, wether or not the AH-1Z can match the AH-64s capability to remain stealthy while engaging targets isn't the point, my point was that the AH-64 is not an easier target than the AH-1, and I have read up on the AH-1Z and seen nothing to support your claims. The AH-1 can only go so far, the USMC isn't going to use it forever, and it's certainly not going to out-live the Apache. But the Cobra and Apache live in two different worlds, so competition is not even important. IMO, the AH-64 suits the Army better, and the AH-1 works well enough for the USMC.

[killerwhale 1]

Will Armed Assault have Artillery? It would make it neat!

[bravo 6 0]

Will Armed Assault have Artillery? It would make it neat!

what does this have to do with the topic?

[martinovic 0]

Yes arty will be in i think, i read something about it somewhere... (i don't remember which one of the myriad of interviews/report/articles it was i said in).

[Ukraineboy 0]

That's wrong. It was barely a turning point. Ask any veteran, whom I have talked to personally, and they will say that it only changed their tactics. That is all.

Also, no a Hind is NOT a transport helicopter. Get that through your head. They RARELY have troops in there! Its cramped and uncomfortable. Its not designed like the UH-1. And its not designed for Helicopter to Helicopter fighting.

I wish to make a few comments:

First about the Hind itself. You're right by saying that the Hind is more a Gunship than a transport helicopter, Hind is inded a gunship (despite having transport capability).

But Shadow also made some good points specially considering the Hind design. The first Hind version the Hind-A was in fact designed as a transport helicopter with some armour and some gunship capability (well in fact the Mi-8/17 also have gunship capacility) but it was later decided to "convert" or "transform" the Hind (Hind-A) into a "real" gunship helicopter and the result was the Hind-D which has the "tandem" pilot/gunner configuration that we see today (in Hind-A the pilot and gunner were seated side by side) but while the Hind-D was designed as gunship it was still decided to retain the troop transport capability (8 x equiped soldiers). All other Hind version that we get to know today are updates or modifications from the Hind-D.

Exactly, this is the Hind-A so my point still stands

Next, I would like to talk about the Stinger use in Afeghanistan. The Stinger certainly wasn't an 100% accurate weapon but it turned inded the fight in favour to the Afeghan guerrillas and it was really a turning point. There are many sources that indicates that the Afeghan guerrilla was in the verge of being defeated until the Stingers arrived.

Im sorry but this is simply wrong. I have spoken with many Afghan War veterans, and have read articles on their interviews. They all say that the Stinger barely did anything to turn the tide. Its simply American nationalism getting in the way of facts.

....

[sputnik monroe 102]

Keep in mind you can probably store more skinny Cobras on a Tarawa class than you could Apache's.

[shadow 6]

Keep in mind you can probably store more skinny Cobras on a Tarawa class than you could Apache's.

The Apache was tested. Yes, you can stack more of the slim AH-1W (and previous models) on a carrier, but the Z-model is not that much slimmer than an Apache.

Anyway, the Apache was tested on carriers and with minor adjustments and great success. Problem was when it came down to the money... there was'nt enough of it. Otherwise we'd probably see quite a few Apaches on carriers today.

I read here that the Hind's weapons systems has been upgraded and is supposedly on par with the Apaches. Are there any info, preferably photos too, of the more recent weapon systems on the Hind? Cockpits, MFDs...

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

@CsonkaPityu

Quote[/b] ]

Bah! even the hungarian military has hinds and we have a military thats in absolutely horrible shape.

http://stargate.eik.bme.hu/foto/ptsg1/03sg.jpg

So i would assume that the north of sahrani that's preparing for an invasion has them too.

Your military might be in bad shape...but at least your choppers look pretty when painted as some kind of large bird.

They should paint one like a giant locust / grasshopper. I saw some Bible prophecy program try to tie Hind helicopters into the flying locust symbolism.

[Talyn 33]

I read here that the Hind's weapons systems has been upgraded and is supposedly on par with the Apaches. Are there any info, preferably photos too, of the more recent weapon systems on the Hind? Cockpits, MFDs...

I believe that the MI-24P (MI-25 AND MI-35) is the latest variant of the hind. You can find info on it here.

[Uziyahu--IDF 0]

I was reading that the pylon wings would sometimes result in a crash, since each one provided lift. If a Hind try to do a fast bank, the bottom wing wouldn't have lift (no air across it) and the top wing would have more (more air across it). This would cause it to basically dump right out of the air.

Apparently they have to do straight bombing/strafing runs and can't behave the way more maneuverable helos do.

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

Im sorry but this is simply wrong. I have spoken with many Afghan War veterans, and have read articles on their interviews. They all say that the Stinger barely did anything to turn the tide. Its simply American nationalism getting in the way of facts.

"American nationalism" or not, a Stinger will be threatening to any aircraft within the parameters of the missile. I don't believe that many Stingers were present in Afghanistan - my guess is the older Redeye was there in more numbers than Stinger.

Quote[/b] ]

I read here that the Hind's weapons systems has been upgraded and is supposedly on par with the Apaches. Are there any info, preferably photos too, of the more recent weapon systems on the Hind? Cockpits, MFDs...

The most recent model I'm aware of is Mi-24VM:

Which has fixed undercarriage and (judging by the image) two less hardpoints than HIND-E. It cuts the helicopter's weight back by 600kg with various modifications, and includes some equipment from Mi-28. As from the picture, it can carry Atakas in groups of 8 for a total of 16 missiles. It's also suggested that Mi-24VM can employ Igla missiles.

There's also the Mi-24N cockpit modification:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/img002/mi24n-cockpit.jpg

I'm uncertain how widespread this modification is/will be, since the variant refers to a nighttime capable version.

[killerwhale 1]

Will Armed Assault have Artillery? It would make it neat!

what does this have to do with the topic?

Quote[/b] ]what does this have to do with the topic?

I dont care.

[meyamoti 0]

Then don't post something uselses like "I don't care",put that stuff in "what do you hope will be in armed assault" or make a different thread.

[killerwhale 1]

topic IS "Will there be a Hind in Armed Assault?"

so from my point of view, this is where u ask what is included or not

and for some reason some people love to criticize. or simbly should i have started a whole thread about the question i had

[Ramius 0]

or simbly should i have  started a  whole thread about the question i had

Khalid, please use the SEARCH-function and you will find the answer you're looking for or at least links to the answer. Anyway to stop the flaming and stuff and preventing that this topic gets closed this is part of an English translation from a German magazine (credit to skeletor for translating):

Mission Planner

Once again an Island is in danger and American and Soviet troops meet. The developers are shy about revealing all the details of the story, only that the beginning is similar to the Flashpoint addon Resistance. ‘As before the players will find themselves playing as a US troop’

Throughout the single player campaign (with about 15-20 hours of playtime is not as considerable as the former), the mission planner lays explains the weapons, vehicles, soldiers and battlelines. In order to improve the situation, you can choose in the 12 main missions automatically generated side tasks to complete. When you for example in a preparatory operation conceal an artillery piece, you no longer have to fear cannon fire.

To me it sounds that there will be artillery available. Hope this helps and let's stay now stay on the topic regarding the Hind, ok?

[shadow 6]

Quote[/b] ]what does this have to do with the topic?  

  I dont care.

You better start caring as of right now.

I suggest you go and read the rules.

[codarl 1]

I was reading that the pylon wings would sometimes result in a crash, since each one provided lift. If a Hind try to do a fast bank, the bottom wing wouldn't have lift (no air across it) and the top wing would have more (more air across it). This would cause it to basically dump right out of the air.

Apparently they have to do straight bombing/strafing runs and can't behave the way more maneuverable helos do.

semi-true. If one wing stalls, the helicopter will get into an uncontrolled bank. This is thesame reason why the V22 has suffered so many crashes, because one rotor had more lift then the other.

Either way, I thinka solution for this would be some sort of flap system in the wings. When completely retracted the wing would provide no lift, yet while extended the wings would get more and more lift. However, this system would be prone to jamming from ground fire, and expensive. either way, russians never liked creative ideas afaik, and there must be a reason why no chopper uses it