What makes the Hind "the flying tank"?

[CrazyGman]

As stated before it's a bit if a misnomer. There isn't a whole lot of armor on the aircraft. Even the canopy glass is only armored on the front, and the crew wore thick helmets to help deflect stray non-straight shots. There is armor around the cockpit and the chopper is robustly designed compared to contemporaries, enough that it can go into a area and take some small arms fire, and have a decent chance of coming back but it's still an aircraft. reduction of weight is essential and the Mi-24 were used to surpress landing areas for Mi-8/17s or act as mobile artillery with high speed passes, so that usually only stray small arms fire would be the majority of what they would be facing, having hopefully supressed any dedicateed AA

Edited December 21, 2020 by CrazyGman

[Iron Sights]

I just just remember that we were told to never shoot at it with anything less than a missile. 

[Rick50]

I'm sure that's true, but it's not because less that a missile wouldn't "hurt" a HIND, it's because it probably wouldn't "kill" it outright instantly, and so after being hit by several .50cal rounds, might be fatally damaged, could still turn around and vaporize your position with you. Then, as it lumbers home, maybe it loses hydraulics or lubricants, and either decides to do a preventative emergency landing while calling for CSAR pickup, or suffers a failure and does a hard landing... that might be fatal for one or more of the crew. 

 

I very much doubt that either the manufacturer, designers, or aircrews of either Hind Apache or Warthogs see their aircraft as having "tank-like armor", they probably think more that the protections designed in, just make the difference between "guaranteed death" Vs. "oh sh!t! ok gotta put this bird down NOW and I MIGHT live to tell the story!". 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

On 12/12/2020 at 5:28 PM, sublime said:

*this*

I try endlessly explaining the concept that an A10 has to stil be able to fly... to my fellow countrymen, many of whom remain unconvinced by me and think the A10 is totally entirely built like an M1A2, I.E made to take direct hits and continue its mission, even repeatedly, and also they know almost nothing about the A10 but know about the gun. its allllll about the gun to them.  While the gun is 'cool' theres much more lethal stuff it carries.

 

In the DCS context, I love how the A-10C takes a single hit and I am very high change returning back to base because it just made my MFCD's scrambled and HUD is gone. I am alive but it doesn't make me happy that I just spent time from cold start and 30-45 minutes to fly to combat area and first engagement ended so.

But with Su-25 I am likely for three things: hydraulics leak (limited time for maneuver or actions take landing gear down, use air brakes or flaps etc), laser designator broken, one or two engines in fire. Anyways required very likely to return to base, but much better change to be able deliver the one weapon or two before RTB, but time and actions spent on battlefield means I am either likely landing nicely on airbase, or I am crashing near the airbase.

 

In the Mi-8 it is likely taking a hit or two, see the windshields go crystal and maybe one engine fire. I get to perform emergency landing further outside of battlefield or then get back to base.

 

What to expect from the Mi-24? To get alive in and out from small arms fire etc. Dead with any autocannon or HMG. And maybe survive a MANPADS exploding near by.

Sadly the DCS doesn't model infantry properly and vehicles self-defense weapons, why helicopter pilots can't really use proper tactics or are required to. This allows ridiculous time and amount exposed to vehicles in DCS to fly in Mi-8 or UH-1 when you should be flying away in panic and hoping that next bullet hit doesn't take you down or kill you by coming through the side windows.

 

Too many thinks "X is a flying tank" by its weapon or armor. While it is really scary how little there really can be as protection to important internal parts.

[Fri13]

On 12/22/2020 at 1:14 PM, Iron Sights said:

I just just remember that we were told to never shoot at it with anything less than a missile. 

 

We have opposite, up to 600-800 meters you are effective depending target speed and attitude. You do not get high propability
 to down helicopter, but no one will stay there under fire (except maybe KA-50/Mi-28 that are fully armored) as pilots are not fully protected and aircraft does have too many vulnerable partsz like you can even lodge bullet inside turbine and destroy it.

 

You can hit on rotor blades and other minor
parts that no one want to risk for.

 

A squad (7-14 soldiers) is very effective to provide self-defense and to get the helicopters away from the area, at least disturbed from their mission. Considering you have a platoon ready to engage a helicopter and you can have 50-70 men shooting the helicopter with few rounds.