Fabulous flying & firing machines in ArmA?

[shadow 6]

I'm glad that the dev decided to put an another western attack helicopter diferent from the Apache...

Nothing new there. Cobra came in OFP 1.0, the Apache in 1.2.

Ofcourse, I was only joking. Its all just personal prefs.

[ricnunes 0]

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. For example I remember to have read that the AH-1W performed quite better than the Apache during Operation Iraqi Freedom and this wasn't even the AH-1Z which is in fact an entirely new and much improved helicopter (I advise you to check the links that I previosuly posted, they are inded a great source of information about the AH-1Z).

With this I don't mean to say that the AH-1Z (or even the AH-1W) is better than the Apache and I guess it's also wrong to say the otherwise since both helicopters have their advantages and disadvantages when compared with each other (for example the AH-1Z have better agility and better optical targeting systems while the Apache has better armour and a more powerfull cannon).

[ricnunes 0]

Nothing new there. Cobra came in OFP 1.0, the Apache in 1.2.

Sure, but the Cobra in OPF 1.0 was the AH-1F which was exclusively an US Army helicopter.

Since the Armed Assault happens is a "current day" or "near future" scenario and since currently there aren't Cobras in the US Army inventory I was "affraid" that no Cobra was to be included in Armed Assault since today and in the future all existing US Cobras belong to the US Marines.

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).

[stegman 3]

...interesting to see how this has changed from "will there be a hind" to "the Cobra/Apache is better".

We've all gone way offtopic.

I'd like to continue this though so, what would stand a better chance against a Hind: AH1 or AH64?

[aus_twisted 0]

I'd like to continue this though so, what would stand a better chance against a Hind: AH1 or AH64?

A IRAQI farmer lol.

[Eidron 0]

Off topic: What is the optimal jump height?

Whatever this height is...

[shadow 6]

I'd like to continue this though so, what would stand a better chance against a Hind: AH1 or AH64?

A IRAQI farmer lol.

No, we're not talking Iraqi farmers and Apaches

Seriously, I'd say both the Cobra and the Apache can do pretty much what they want with a Hind. The Hind has speed but zero maneuverability and probably outdated weapons systems.

The Hind is'nt an attack-helo, its a transport helo (with limited helo flight-characteristics ) with guns.

[Eidron 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Hind is'nt an attack-helo, its a transport helo (with limited helo flight-characteristics ) with guns.

Hence my piccies of soldier jumping out of one .

[stegman 3]

OK, i think we have that sorted now.

So, will there be a hind in ArmA? And what about Mi28?

[shadow 6]

Might as well go with a Mi-35 instead of a 24.

Probably just as little in use as the AH-1z.

[Ukraineboy 0]

I'd like to continue this though so, what would stand a better chance against a Hind: AH1 or AH64?

A IRAQI farmer lol.

The Hind is'nt an attack-helo, its a transport helo (with limited helo flight-characteristics ) with guns.

I'm assuming you're not literal as the Hind IS an attack chopper, but with some cargo space and transport space. Soldiers rarely travelled inside the Hind because it was too cramp. It wasnt a feature of the Hind, merely a nice quirk.

Anyways you have to understand what the Hind was made for. Never made for Helicopter-to-Helicopter combat. Such a thing would rarely happen if there was a full blown out war. Hind was designed as a tough flying tank helicopter gunship that could take a lot of punishment from ground fire. Contrary to popular belief, the Stingers Reagan sent in the Afghan war did little. It got hits but many a times did the Hind just take it. The Hind is designed what it's designed for. Its stupid to compare it to an AH-64, which is a totally different design, using different doctrines and different strategies in different armies. Also, as for inferior weapons systems, possibly the ones from 1976. But same as Apache, they are updating them. The newest version, the Mi-24PN has TV and FLIR in the dome at the front of the aircraft, the rotors from the Mi-28, and fixed wheels instead of retractable ones. They also continually update Mi-24s with newer ATGMs.

[codarl 1]

OK, i think we have that sorted now.

So, will there be a hind in ArmA? And what about Mi28?

for the sake of god, there will be star wars units, zombies, armies in different flavours, over a hundred M4's, and effect replacements.

and yes, a MI24 and MI28 will make their way to Armed Assault, thesame goes for the KA50, KA52, MI-26, MI35, MI8....

[franze 196]

I get pretty tired of the "flying tank" myth surrounding the Hind.

When you lose your main rotor or tail rotor, it's game over in any kind of helicopter. You are not in the fight anymore, period. 20mm weapons are not pop guns, and are one of the more common calibers for aerial weapons. With the rates of fire you can get out of a lot of modern gatling guns, a Hind won't be feeling too happy after a close encounter with one - especially if its up high on the six o'clock.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I get pretty tired of the "flying tank" myth surrounding the Hind.

When you lose your main rotor or tail rotor, it's game over in any kind of helicopter. You are not in the fight anymore, period. 20mm weapons are not pop guns, and are one of the more common calibers for aerial weapons. With the rates of fire you can get out of a lot of modern gatling guns, a Hind won't be feeling too happy after a close encounter with one - especially if its up high on the six o'clock.

How many 20 mm AA guns do you think the hind encountered in the service area it was designed for.

Thats like saying an leopard II isnt a tank, because it cannot withstand nukes.

The hind IS very hard to shoot down, but if you have the right weapons, anything can be done.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]The pilot can parachute from the Mi-24 and i know it has happened in Chechnya.[

 I'm sorry but there is not possible way that could be a true story. Helicopter pilots do not carry parachutes, the only exception is the Hokum which has an ejection system and it hasn't even entered service.

 The pictures people show of Ukrainian soldiers parachuting out the back Hips are training shots. They just fly up real high hover in spot and let the trainee jump. Helicopters will never ever be used to paradrop troops in battle. Why?

1. If the chopper has the range to make it to the paradrop zone, then they will land.

2. Ground too obstructed to land you say? Then they'll fast rope them in.

3. Choppers fly too low for safely paradroping troops.

4. Choppers don't carry enough troops. One transport plane can carry the amount of troops and equipment that would take several choppers.

 You say  a Hind pilot bailed out over Chechnya? I'm sorry but that is just incredibly hard to swallow. Do you know how high you have to be to safely parachute? It's over 500 feet if I remember correctly. No helicopter is going to fly that high in a warzone. The reason being the higher a chopper flies the more eyes can see it, the more eyes that see it the more MANPADs that see it. So they fly low and follow the terrain.

 There is no ejection seat in a Hind, to bail out the pilot would have to bail out old school style, basically open the canopy and jump free. At the altitude a chopper flies the pilot would have no time between taking a critical hit and hitting the ground to open the canopy and jump. Even in a hypothetical where a chopper is flying 1,000 feet or more the pilot would kill himself trying to jump out of a helicopter, the canopy is not made to opened in flight and if the pilot managed to jump out there would be the slight inconvenience of the main rotor spinning over head.

 If a chopper is critically hit the pilots have two options, either make a controlled crash or an autorotation if possible. I guess they could try to bail out but the fact remains they'd be dead and spread across the terrain with the rest of the chopper before they could ever open the canopy.

 Finally, a pilot wearing a parachute likely will not fit in the pilot or weapons officer seats of a Hind or any chopper for that matter.

[NKVD 0]

If they use ropes I think it's possible to jump from hind. Also, it is not unusual for chopper to fly high. For example, in Afghanistan Soviets used to fly very high in order to avoid stinger fire. All who think that stingers changed the war during Soviet invasion are fools. As soon as stingers were introduced Soviets changed their flying tactics, thats all.

[orange juice 0]

hm... why do they train paratroopers to jump from CH-53 choppers in Bundeswehr then?

[sputnik monroe 102]

Interesting, I'm looking for information in case I'm wrong and did find this...

Quote[/b] ]A Russian Army Mi-24 assault helicopter was shot down by Chechen rebels on August 15, 2001, at 10:35 local time 2.5 km to the north of Tsa-Vedeno. According to the deputy commander of the joint group of federal forces in the Northern Caucasus, Gen. Aleksey Kuznetsov, the helicopter was downed by a grenade launched from a Kalashnikov submachine-gun.

The pilot and the navigator of the Mi-24 bailed out of the helicopter using their parachutes, but were killed on landing due to insufficient altitude for the parachutes to fully deploy. This is the only known incident when a Russian military helicopter was shot down by a submachine-gun-mounted grenade launcher. The official inquiry into the incident is being led by Col. Gen. Valeriy Baranov.

I did also read the bailing out of the Mi28 is possible if it is flying high enough. However it mentioned that the Mi28 pilots would only be assigned parachutes if the mission they were flying involved altitudes high enough to bail out.

[shadow 6]

I'm assuming you're not literal as the Hind IS an attack chopper, but with some cargo space and transport space.

Its a transport and support helo with anti-armour capabilities.

It was designed with the Cobra and Huey UH-1 in mind, then combining the two. The odds of the Hind surviving an encounter with a pure killing machine (Apache, Cobra, Tiger, Havoc) looks grim at best.

[franze 196]

How many 20 mm AA guns do you think the hind encountered in the service area it was designed for.

Thats like saying an leopard II isnt a tank, because it cannot withstand nukes.

The hind IS very hard to shoot down, but if you have the right weapons, anything can be done.

When the Hind was designed in the 60s, the west was already deploying a variety of 20mm systems based on the Vulcan and other 20mm guns. This would be especially true for units stationed in Europe, I'm sure.

And, dare I ask, what's your evidence that the Hind is "very hard" to shoot down? Keep in mind I can find a few other quotes that say otherwise, as well as quotes that say many other helicopters are that much more survivable.

[shadow 6]

I thought the Stingers that were shipped to Afghanistan was the turning point in the conflict because the Russians based all their engagements with the Hind-support in mind. But as soon as the Stingers started launching the Hinds dropped like flies.

The only reason I can see the Hind withstanding a Stinger is if it missed.

[Ukraineboy 0]

I thought the Stingers that were shipped to Afghanistan was the turning point in the conflict because the Russians based all their engagements with the Hind-support in mind. But as soon as the Stingers started launching the Hinds dropped like flies.

The only reason I can see the Hind withstanding a Stinger is if it missed.

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.

[shadow 6]

Its cramped and uncomfortable.

Last I checked, that did'nt matter when it comes to the military.

Quote[/b] ]Its not designed like the UH-1.

Sorry, I meant AH-1. I did'nt say it was designed like it. I said it was inspired by.

Quote[/b] ]Also, no a Hind is NOT a transport helicopter. Get that through your head.

So what are all the seats for? Reserves if the pilot seat breaks?

[FriketMonkey 0]

So what are all the seats for? Reserves if the pilot seat breaks?

Russian Hinds were equiped with seats that were specially adapted to load boxes of vodka on it. So if a chopper was downed behind enemy lines, the pilots could keep themselfs alive with 200 bottles of vodka.

[ebns72 0]

I thought the hind is actually classified as a transport helicopter because the warsaw pact...or maybe soviet military doctrine or something prohibited dedicated attack helicopters?