Question to the gun loadout of the Mi-24P

[Lurker]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

AFAIK the Mi-24V was the most produced, not the P.

The majority of Hinds and Hind variants have trainable turrets.

 

 

Ok, I guess my information was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. I too would have preferred a variant with a chin turret, but not because I think it's better or anything. It's just one more task that the guy in the front seat can do in DCS, which is always a good thing. 

As far as the effectiveness of the gun in DCS world and the vulnerability of flying directly at targets instead of at an angle, I think that depends on a lot of things. The main being terrain and cover which can be used, knowing where the targets are, enemy AI accuracy, and time-on-target with the gun itself and it's damage against units in DCS World. 

Hopefully it will not lead to a lot of virtual deaths on strafing attacks, and maybe we even get some videos by Wags before release demonstrating how the helicopter is employed in these situations

 

[Northstar98]

On 2/17/2021 at 9:26 AM, Lurker said:

Ok, I guess my information was wrong. Thanks for pointing that out. I too would have preferred a variant with a chin turret, but not because I think it's better or anything. It's just one more task that the guy in the front seat can do in DCS, which is always a good thing.

 

True, and same for me, plus it looks cooler, and there's some potential there for situations where having a gun that can train independently from the aircraft might be useful.

 

Spoiler

Plus I also want to try and recreate something like this scene, but using a Hind instead of a boat - which I think would look super cool.

 

Yes, I am a child.

 

Quote

As far as the effectiveness of the gun in DCS world and the vulnerability of flying directly at targets instead of at an angle, I think that depends on a lot of things. The main being terrain and cover which can be used, knowing where the targets are, enemy AI accuracy, and time-on-target with the gun itself and it's damage against units in DCS World. 

Hopefully it will not lead to a lot of virtual deaths on strafing attacks, and maybe we even get some videos by Wags before release demonstrating how the helicopter is employed in these situations

 

Absolutely.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Northstar98

[Razorback]

So so long discussion to prove or to demonstrate that the V or the P version is more effective than the other one...

From my part, I just seen that the P version was build in accordance of the Afghnistan lessons Learned...

Is the 30mm gun more effective than the 12,7mm? Of course is it. Yes ok but you can only engage the target when you are in front of it ? Yes and...so what ???

You must also take into account the Russian tactics and doctrines that were in use at the time regarding for combat helicopters in the event of conflict with NATO.
It was not a question of using the Hind as a predator hidden behind a tree, but rather of using it as a rocket truck that would pound opposing positions with all its armament.

All this in support of an armoured assault already supported by tactical aviation and massive artillery support. So yes, the use of a 30mm gun is totally justified.
And if it is a question of dislodging insurgents in mountainous areas in Syria, as was already the case in Afghanistan, then once again the use of the 30mm is completely justified.

 

So personnaly I have not problem with the P version in DCS. As I know, it's the only "old" version of the Hind that is still operated (also in combat Ops) by the Russian forces.

If you want to use the Hind in DCS like an Apache...by the Apache module !

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

I'm not sure what points you are trying to make here Fri13. That the V's gun is more useful than the P's because it can fire off-boresight? That the P is better suited to Afghanistan because "rocks" and less high value targets and armored vehicle columns etc? 

 

You're not making much sense, because in a way these are the same helicopter.

 

The 12.7 mm caliber is very much put down here as ineffective etc. It is very effective caliber even against armored targets like APC and IFV, especially when going for the older ones than the latest ones these days.

 

The YakB as a gun is as well put down partially because of the caliber, and there are these wild claims that it is inaccurate or difficult to aim.

 

What I talk about, is that there are reasons why YakB was not so great, but as well why GSh-30-2K is not so great. The main difference is that other is usable by the pilot (aimed) and other is by a WSO. That otherwise helicopter is same, doesn't change anything else. And it makes lot of sense for those who are required to operate against those helicopters from ground forces perspective, as well with those helicopters against ground threats. It is not so black and white that people make out that 30 mm is always better, or it is somehow superior because it is larger caliber and then make all the comparisons to Su-25 or A-10 because they have either same gun or same caliber.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

They would have to face the same threats and would need to react to the same threats.

 

No they don't. That is the difference that I talked about. When you put a Mi-24P in the Afghanistan, it will be required to be operated totally different manner than when flying in a Europe or West Russia etc.

There is reason why Mi-35M is purchased by the customers with 23 mm rotary cannon as 30 mm fixed is not filling their requirements. The 12.7 mm YakB model is still in service and it has plenty of happy pilots and operators as it fills its role better than 30 mm or 23 mm would have.

 

This is the challenge that what the war industry try to do, they need to sell a new weapons for the continually changing situations and it is challenge if the warfare conditions and enemy capabilities changes. It would really require a total war to find out how to really use different designs as only the real use would reveal the weaknesses and requirements, as both sides would be continually improving and changing their tactics.

If someone learns to fight in a desert, they are not capable to fight as effectively in forest against those who have learned to fight in forest.

The Mi-24P was not developed because 30 mm is better, but because enemy and the warfare were different from what the Mi-24V was designed for. And even the Mi-24V was designed to be operated in whole Soviet Union area, it includes mountainous areas as well jungles and grasslands as well deep thick forested areas, no wonder why V was the most produced one.

Mi-24 -> Mi-24B -> Mi-24A-> Mi-24D -> Mi-24V are all based to machine gun design by purpose (even when some early ones lacked one). After the 30 mm P came the 23 mm VP and that has lead to Mi-24VM modernization as fixed cannon is not enough. If it would have been possible to make 30 mm cannon turret for Mi-24, it would have been done so. But already in fixed position its recoil is so crazy that it is very inaccurate in short bursts at maximum fire rate, and need to go for low firerate to get some kind control to it. But you are going to use it mainly as single fire cannon, trying to put 1-2 shells on the general area.

 

https://youtu.be/3poFqNfFqVo?t=139

 

So basically being a "sniper" similar way as almost all APC/IFV gunners are. Not going for a long bursts with fastest RPM, but using the autocannon as a single fire cannon or short bursts. Not just because 20-40 mm caliber is effective as is, but because it is more accurate that way and better visibility on target and save that ammunition for the days.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aeMZttTftk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGj_ioyZaIk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj_F73xirLI

 

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

The P came after the V, and was the most mass produced version of the Mi24. I think that there is probably a reason for why that is, and since the main difference between these two airframes was the chin turret, I'd say that was the reason. 

 

The statics I have seen has the V beingthe most produced variant. That is one of those things that why it was odd to give a P when V was more produced and used more widely. But if the developers wanted to make the P because it has more "humpfff".... It is as well because in DCS there is no reasons to really use a YakB as there is no targets because because DCS lacks capability to generate such scenarios where it would be more useful.

 

In the DCS if we would have more of the realistic combat missions, they would be far more filled with trucks and infantry, than APC, IFV and MBT, with few AA units here and there. It would be more about stopping enemy advancements, getting them to retreat and control the movement and capabilities than see a vehicle go "boom". It would be mainly about fighting the infantry than anything else. In one location you would have 200-300 men, instead just few.

 

With Mi-24 it would be more about S-8 rockets and maybe couple AT missiles. Basically go there and fire the rockets on area and go back to rearm.

 

 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

True, and same for me, plus it looks cooler, and there's some potential there for situations where having a gun that can train independently from the aircraft might be useful.

 

I hope that ED will produce a Mi-24V as addon later on, as it should be just the front cockpit redesign as modeling. The (normal) challenge is to adjust new flight modeling when gun is firing, instead fixed 30 mm you have yaw/pitch effect from a smaller caliber. I don't think that the aerodynamics change that much, if at all that which weapon is mounted, but the weight on one side vs center at front is something to consider too. But if it is to trust for the walkaround video about Mi-24V in USA, the CoG didn't change how you armed or fueled or manned the helicopter but it was very well balanced.

 

I can well understand the P for 30 mm fixed gun for single player purposes, but I would totally accepted the good AI as WSO, especially when it would have already been better to already great WSO in the 1996 Hind game (it really just was automatic targeting and instantly moved from target to target without any slewing delays etc).

In a ARMA the Mi-24V is great as the AI actually can shoot by itself, and it is OK feeling to be able do the flying and let the AI just engage targets as seen best. But, I so would have required to be able "assist" the AI as WSO, that when I as pilot spot something or want something to be engaged, that I can just look at it and command AI to do something for it.

 

Even if it would have been a fake floating circle in the field of view to be used for commanding where AI should look or concentrate their search or what specific unit to engage. Like if there is a 3 vehicles and I look the center one that is a AAA and other two are MBT's, then the system would automatically recognize that I am looking the center one and the automatic command would be "Engage that AAA at 2'clock". Or I could command WSO to search a AAA and when I pop-up behind the trees at full speed next re-attack, the AI would concentrate to engage target it has memorized from last attack that where the targets are.

 

But we have the P, it will be fun soloing and engage targets. Hopefully we get the proper recoil and especially all the different calibers there are for it, as well effects. But regardless what weapon or loadout Mi-24 has, we would so much more benefit from a proper reaction of the ground units when they get engaged. So you can suppress them and you can cause panic etc by hitting near with those 30 mm shells.

 

 

[Northstar98]

Quote

Is the 30mm gun more effective than the 12,7mm? Of course is it. Yes ok but you can only engage the target when you are in front of it ? Yes and...so what ???

 

You not only are limited to aiming at targets directly ahead, but you have to fly towards the target to aim the gun. This isn't so bad in fixed wing aircraft - they typically attack from higher altitudes, they're faster and they have faster climb rates - a helicopter is more vulnerable and a helicopter flying straight towards a target is in the easiest position to be hit, even by ATGMs (well apart from just hovering). Fixed wing aircraft are largely immune to ATGMs and having them fired at you is basically unheard of in DCS.

 

Of course V doesn't solve this issue against vehicles, in both cases they're probably not going to be going for guns when they've got rockets and ATGMs.

 

Quote

You must also take into account the Russian tactics and doctrines that were in use at the time regarding for combat helicopters in the event of conflict with NATO.
It was not a question of using the Hind as a predator hidden behind a tree, but rather of using it as a rocket truck that would pound opposing positions with all its armament.

 

Exactly, noticed you said "rockets" - unless you're going against not defendable targets both gun systems are mostly unsuitable and a last resort at best. And in terms of the V and the P, the rockets and ATGMs are identical for both.

 

Quote

So personnaly I have not problem with the P version in DCS. As I know, it's the only "old" version of the Hind that is still operated (also in combat Ops) by the Russian forces.

If you want to use the Hind in DCS like an Apache...by the Apache module !

 

I'm not using a Hind like an Apache though, unless you think using any helicopter with a trainable gun is using a helicopter like an Apache (which I imagine will be: sit behind a tree, pop-up, ripple off 16 AGM-114Ls and RTB, rinse and repeat). The Hind interests me far more, even if it less capable. 

 

And yes, the P is the only legacy Hind operated significantly by them, the other Hinds are modernised Mi-35s, such as the Mi-35M and Mi-35P, and... both with trainable guns (NPPU-23 w. GSh-23L).

Edited February 21, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

39 minutes ago, Razorback said:

All this in support of an armoured assault already supported by tactical aviation and massive artillery support. So yes, the use of a 30mm gun is totally justified.

And if it is a question of dislodging insurgents in mountainous areas in Syria, as was already the case in Afghanistan, then once again the use of the 30mm is completely justified.

 

So personnaly I have not problem with the P version in DCS. As I know, it's the only "old" version of the Hind that is still operated (also in combat Ops) by the Russian forces.

If you want to use the Hind in DCS like an Apache...by the Apache module !

 

I have made past two years few missions where there is a 2-6 Mi-24P's performing such attacks. Partially it is fun to watch, and to participate in that I have been flying Mi-8MTv2 to land the troops on the area and have them to engage the troops on ground etc.

 

But it is just annoying how you can't really make any proper scenarios. To get the helicopters actually perform a proper attack formations and tactics is just not possible. To get the timing for artillery is useless as it likely destroy already anything there is. You can't put infantry on ground as artillery kills it, you can't have enemy APC's or such as they are like snipers that will take down helicopters on the move.

 

The DCS just doesn't support such a dynamic combat that....

 

Like we can not have infantry combat where a pair will stop and delay a enemy squad attack to flank enough, after that withdraw to next position and get assistance from rest of the squad etc. Have a APC drive behind a cover to give fire support and reverse back to cover, drive to secondary position and repeat.

Nothing. that is impossible.

 

Everything that the war is, is about individual soldiers on the ground that needs to do everything. All the vehicles etc are there just to support those boots on the ground.

We can not generate dynamic firefight even in the smallest form as everything is required to be scripted, and there is no cover, concealment, no moral, no fear or heroisim etc.

All that is lacking and reflects everything to all modules in DCS.

 

DCS is great to simulate a training engagement how to release a AGM-88 against a SAM site at wide open. But when it comes to actual combat like what attack helicopters would face, it is nothing. We can not even get a proper column ambush done, that wouldn't turn to shooting fishes in a barrel.

 

This is something that makes helicopters like Gazelle with HOT3 missiles almost useless as there is no scenario where it would be properly useful. You find a enemy tank platoon and you shoot one. Nothing happens really. You shoot second, third and fourth... Back to base for rearming. Is that fun?

We can make the enemy tank platoon to rush at full speed somewhere but still it is same thing, one by one they get popped out and they do not care as they were scripted to not care or they would stop and scatter and stay still.

And if you take Gazelle with its 20 mm autocannon (that doesn't have any recoil btw) you have no means to actually aim with it and it is again like shooting tin cans at the backyard.

 

And that is same thing with Mi-24P (or V). Either you have targets that annihilate you on the moment you appear, or you have ones that just don't even realize you are there shooting them.  Mi-24P will be like a Gazelle SA342L with cannon or HOT3 missiles. Not so much really different. Or take a KA-50 but leave the KABRIS off, fix the cannon and try to have more fun than what Mi-24P already offers.

 

That is why I wait maybe more than anything the future Combined Arms to become a proper RTS game. But it needs to be indirect by command, instead directly commanded. So you never control indiviual unit or units and tell it where to go or where to shoot, but you command units by issuing orders like "take defensive position in that area, deny enemy coming over this line, if engaged and starting to lose troops, retreat through this route and delay enemy advancement... Now go and do as commands tell you using your AI".

 

 

[Fri13]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

I'm not using a Hind like an Apache though, unless you think using any helicopter with a trainable gun is using a helicopter like an Apache (which I imagine will be: sit behind a tree, pop-up, ripple off 16 AGM-114Ls and RTB, rinse and repeat). The Hind interests me far more, even if it less capable.

 

What what what? Not to do that?

 

 

Totally would try that with 16 ATAKA, 40x S-8 and 23 mm cannon.... (not...)

 

The rockets are the interesting part in those helicopters, but the problem is again that their effectiveness and potential target are lacking. Different thing to engage a 10-50 infantry with their support/transport vehicles, than engaging 4-6 support/transport vehicles.

 

 

[Northstar98]

Touche, though at least I won't have to buy 4-5 Virpil Alphas on top of my current set-up to bind stuff. 

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, S.E.Bulba said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Why not write that the NSV machine gun has an "effective range" of up to 6000m? 

 

Because just like last time I needed to educate you, the "effective range" is a statistical value based to average shooter expected to hit a target at that range.

It doesn't stop to your claimed 1.5-2 km because caliber is so weak that it can't fly further. (We could try that you are standing at 2500 meters and then tell over radio when you think that you feel bullet hitting you....)

Improve the aiming capabilities for the gun, and it receives longer effective firing range. The values for NSV are just with the iron sight that stops to 2000 meters, equipping the gun with a holographic or 3.5x sight with lead calculators and it becomes even more effective.

 

Quote

 

The NSV-12.7 Utyos Manual

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Can you prove it, or is it just your words?

 

Yes, come here and I take you to shooting range to look some armor plates holes, equivalent to common APC. (You can go even stand behind them to experience that you don't feel anything if you think so.... )

To cause spalling, a caliber doesn't need to penetrate the armor, in fact it can cause spalling on armor that is 3x thicker than what it can penetrate.

 This is why a APC without spall liners is very vulnerable from very long ranges as with normal 6-8 mm armor it can avoid penetration but not spalling. And 12.7 mm AP round can penetrate 10 mm at far further than you think, that is the practice results..

 

http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/kord.html

 

Kord is not so much different from a well used NSV that is still accurate.

But you can always just think that you can safely sit in a helicopter cockpit when you are being shot at with 12.7 mm caliber weapon....

But again, you talk about the gun when I talk about caliber.

The YakB is excellent area effect weapon because high firing rate and good spread for its common ranges it would face the expected targets in low altitude high speed flying. It is not meant to be a sniper rifle to 6000 meters, but a effective weapon in the fast situations when performing overflies and visually spotting targets that try to hide from you (and you can't spot them at long ranges). This was as well problem in Afghanistan, when the Mujahideen learn that running only revealed their position, while standing still made them invisible to pilots to spot them.

 

Enemy that you can't see, you can't aim, you can't hit them than just firing blindly in the area and hope you hit something.

The pilot is not more effective with his 30 mm cannon than a WSO is with his YakB, as neither one has optics to magnify the scene to help them aiming, but suddenly the WSO can help pilot in P variant by searching target with the sight system and mark the target position, and then pilot see the target position, improving the cannon effective firing capability. It is more effective to engage a large building at wide open as target, than a soldier that conceals themselves to the terrain in a forest.

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Fri13

[Fri13]

 

48 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Touche, though at least I won't have to buy 4-5 Virpil Alphas on top of my current set-up to bind stuff. 

 

 

There was CasmoTV channel in YouTube where he shared his (ex-Apache pilot) bindings for the Warthog:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcZauUXQ-dHSFqqqTXMLBSg/videos

 

I only get glance about it as I was on the move and could't check the link further. But it was about warthog layout etc. Don't even know was it just for the pilot or gunner as well.

 

At least it is far more easier to do in Mi-24 than in Apache controllers.

 

Edit: Here it is if someone is interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAcB8G8r1_Q

 

 

 

[S.E.Bulba]

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

Because just like last time I needed to educate you…

Don't flatter yourself… the fact that last time I was simply tired of answering your endless 'demagoguery' does not mean that you "educated" me in some way. 

 

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

… The values for NSV are just with the iron sight that stops to 2000 meters, equipping the gun with a holographic or 3.5x sight with lead calculators and it becomes even more effective.

I will probably surprise you, but nevertheless I have to 'educate' you that the SPP telescopic sight of the NSV machine gun also has a maximum accuracy range of up to 2000m.

Скрытый текст

 

 

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

Yes, come here and I take you to shooting range to look some armor plates holes, equivalent to common APC…

Again, too many words, but I never saw a single fact. Excuse me, but I am forced to repeat the question: can you use facts, but not empty words, to prove the effective defeat of APC and IFV from the NSV machine gun at a distance of 2000–2500m?
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Не льстите себе… то, что в прошлый раз мне просто-напросто надоело отвечать на Вашу бесконечную «демагогию», вовсе не означает того, что Вы в чём-то там меня «просветили».

Я наверное вас удивлю, но тем не менее вынужден «просветить» Вас, что оптический прицел СПП пулемёта НСВ также имеет максимальную прицельную дальность до 2000 м.

Опять слишком много слов, однако я так и не увидел ни одного факта. Извините, но я вынужден повторить вопрос: Вы можете с помощью фактов, а не пустых слов, доказать эффективное поражение БТР и БМП из пулемёта НСВ на дальности 2000–2500 м?

 

[Rover]

How to start an argument in the hind forum: "mi-24P vs V"....

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Don't flatter yourself… the fact that last time I was simply tired of answering your endless 'demagoguery' does not mean that you "educated" me in some way. 

 

Yeah... Read below...

 

1 hour ago, S.E.Bulba said:

I will probably surprise you, but nevertheless I have to 'educate' you that the SPP telescopic sight of the NSV machine gun also has a maximum accuracy range of up to 2000m.

 

And you really think that no other country that uses NSV would use a other kind sights than only your argumentary SPP telescopic sight?

Yeah... Let me educate you... Sorry, I already did, even before you replied.

 

Fact is, the 12.7 mm caliber bullet does not stop being effective in the range the effective range is defined for the weapon firing that bullet.

 

1 hour ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Again, too many words, but I never saw a single fact.

 

Yeah.... Again....

 

1 hour ago, S.E.Bulba said:

Excuse me, but I am forced to repeat the question: can you use facts, but not empty words, to prove the effective defeat of APC and IFV from the NSV machine gun at a distance of 2000–2500m?

 

Can you provide evidence that no harm will come to any APC or IFV with 12.7 mm caliber bullet hitting at them?

Can you provide your definition of "effective defeat"?

Can you provide evidence that I have talked only about armor penetration to be effective?

Can you provide evidence that you have even read anything I have written?

 

Yeah.... Again...

So don't even bother as you will repeat the question that has been answered in the begin.

 

 

[S.E.Bulba]

1 час назад, Fri13 сказал:

Yeah... Read below…

As expected, we never saw any evidence from you… instead, it's just endless blah blah blah and dodgy 'moving the goalposts'. There is no point in continuing this senseless dispute with you, which is already turning into a 'chess game with a pigeon'. Goodbye… in parting, I can only advise you not to wishful thinking from now on. 
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

Как и следовало ожидать, никаких доказательств от Вас мы так и не увидели… вместо этого всего лишь бесконечное бла-бла-бла и изворотливое «перемещение стоек ворот». Нет смысла продолжать этот бессмысленный спор с Вами, который уже превращается в «шахматную партию с голубем». До свидания… на прощанье могу лишь посоветовать впредь не выдавать желаемое за действительное. 

 

Edited February 17, 2021 by S.E.Bulba
UPD.

[Mars Exulte]

7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The statics I have seen has the V beingthe most produced variant. That is one of those things that why it was odd to give a P when V was more produced and used more widely.

  I accidentally clipped the wrong part of your comment... anyway, ED somewhere around here said the reason they went with the P was the SMEs they have said it was the more common and better liked version in the modern RuAF.

[Fri13]

22 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

  I accidentally clipped the wrong part of your comment... anyway, ED somewhere around here said the reason they went with the P was the SMEs they have said it was the more common and better liked version in the modern RuAF.

 

Sure it is. It was the victorious model from the Afghanistan war. It was major upgrade for that warfare and made Hind far more capable than it was with YakB.

And it does fit better to DCS as we lack the support elements that YakB would require. The multiplayer is not their primary audience but single player market is.

Even how many would love to see a V for co-op flying, it just doesn't fit for what DCS World is this far only been able to offer. In the future if we get new terrain engine, maps updated, new AI for ground units (with actual logic and intelligence) etc, then we would benefit more from the V variant. As just right now, we have the challenge to even get door gunners for the UH-1H or Mi-8MTv2. The door gunner players has nothing to do on common flight than just sit there. The similar thing is with the Co-Pilot in many of those. Sure in Mi-24P the players can fly as well with the backup controls, but not really meant for that. And it becomes really to same thing as example in L-39ZA that other pilot needs to wait when other is using weapons. While the Mi-24V would have been more about cooperation like in UH-1H where commander use slewable miniguns and co-pilot flies on right side.

 

 

 

[Quadg]

 

Does anyone know what ammo we will get in 30x165?

Just HE-T?

Or some of the more exotic ammo like APBC-T, APDS and APFSDS-T

In a combat mix?

Can the gunsight handle a combat mix?

I say combat mix, because the gun does not have a dual feed system. like the 2a42.

[WinterH]

38 minutes ago, Quadg said:

 

Does anyone know what ammo we will get in 30x165?

Just HE-T?

Or some of the more exotic ammo like APBC-T, APDS and APFSDS-T

In a combat mix?

Can the gunsight handle a combat mix?

I say combat mix, because the gun does not have a dual feed system. like the 2a42.

I would expect that we'd get at least a mix of HE + APBC probably.

 

As for the discarding sabot rounds, I'm not entirely sure if they are compatible with GSh-30 series. While 2A42 and GSh-30 both use 30x165, I've read in a few places that their shells are not really interchangible. And I have only seen sabot rounds mentioned for 2A42. I might be wrong, and would be happy to get access to high penetration rounds too in that case.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

21 hours ago, Quadg said:

 

Does anyone know what ammo we will get in 30x165?

Just HE-T?

Or some of the more exotic ammo like APBC-T, APDS and APFSDS-T

In a combat mix?

Can the gunsight handle a combat mix?

I say combat mix, because the gun does not have a dual feed system. like the 2a42.

The options will likely be the OFZ-30 (high explosive) and BR-30 (armour piercing), same as the 2A42. As far as I know you can use a mixed belt.

[Lurker]

23 hours ago, Quadg said:

 

Does anyone know what ammo we will get in 30x165?

Just HE-T?

Or some of the more exotic ammo like APBC-T, APDS and APFSDS-T

In a combat mix?

Can the gunsight handle a combat mix?

I say combat mix, because the gun does not have a dual feed system. like the 2a42.

 

Does the simulation of DCS World ammunition even run that deep? I mean if we get a mix of HE and AP ammo, will this really have any noticable effect in-game?

[WinterH]

27 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Does the simulation of DCS World ammunition even run that deep? I mean if we get a mix of HE and AP ammo, will this really have any noticable effect in-game?

Yes, it does. I have been testing it a lot these days, here's the playlist if anyone's interested to check it out 

But as an example, Hornet has only HE loaded and no other option, and can't even scratch BMP-1s even, .50 cals don't deal a lot of damage, but can penetrate light APCs more reliably than some 20 and 23mm shells etc. Also, Heatblur and Leatherneck's rounds for same guns perform considerably better than ED's ones from what I can see.

[Wychmaster]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb WinterH:

Yes, it does. I have been testing it a lot these days, here's the playlist if anyone's interested to check it out 

But as an example, Hornet has only HE loaded and no other option, and can't even scratch BMP-1s even, .50 cals don't deal a lot of damage, but can penetrate light APCs more reliably than some 20 and 23mm shells etc. Also, Heatblur and Leatherneck's rounds for same guns perform considerably better than ED's ones from what I can see.

In the Ka-50, you can select between AP and HE rounds in flight by flipping a switch. With HE rounds selected, you see small explosions on impact but you can't penetrate armored vehicles. With AP you can.

Can't remember if it is the case in the Ka-50, but the ballistics should also be different.

[WinterH]

6 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

Can't remember if it is the case in the Ka-50, but the ballistics should also be different.

Haven't tested this yet, and frankly since I tend to shoot Kentucky Windage Aiming Compensator system, I'd hardly notice it in most guns :). Some guns try to keep trajectory as similar as possibly with having AP and HE rounds at similar or even identical velocities, but don't know if it is so in either KA-50 or Mi-24P. I seem to recall trajectories of HE and AP rounds do differ in DCS: A-10C though, so probably it is done with most modules.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Good question. You can test it with the Su-25 and Su-25T, they use a similar gun.