Mi-24 Facing the reality.

[Northstar98]

If anything it might make it more fun.

 

I'm certainly more hyped for the Hind than the Apache.

[Apok]

But, but, where is "the win button"? 

MiG-21 module is clear indicator what will happen to Hind. It will be loved by simers (atleast ones with facial hair).

Edited April 27, 2021 by Apok

[Fri13]

On 4/7/2021 at 8:33 PM, Mars Exulte said:

  It's no different in the Arma community... or any other, really. The majority of servers compete for the lowest common denominator @@ If you came here expecting the DCS community to be appreciably different, sorry to disappoint you )

 

 

"When you're the first to die in your PUBG squad - Ghost": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm4OiGwrnhk

 

There are different ARMA communities, even such where you have only one life and then you are out. 

It is not fun to be killed early and can't participate anymore for 30-60 minutes. 

 

That is what DCS servers should be able to offer from the start.

KIA = No playing for X hours. 

MIA = No playing before pilot is returned by SAR

Too many destroyed planes (crashed, shot down etc) = No playing for X hours. 

 

In the future dynamic campaing such functions should be there for servers to enable (notice, not enforced for everyone) so that players need to be careful not to be shot down or do anything foolish. 

 

Common thing is that players who enjoy from start -> die -> respawn -> die -> respawn -> die process are those who have low patience and high tolerance to rage when they don't get to play as wanted. So they would not like to play on servers that cause more tension and risks to be unable fly smart manner. Especially if it is a group of friends who continue campaign by themselves when the KIA/MIA one is like in cooling period. 

 

But it will put friendships very hard place if someone causes troubles for another... 

[Miro]

30 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

That is what DCS servers should be able to offer from the start.

KIA = No playing for X hours. 

MIA = No playing before pilot is returned by SAR

Too many destroyed planes (crashed, shot down etc) = No playing for X hours. 

 

 

 

Like the idea of such server.

[BeastyBaiter]

15 hours ago, 3WA said:

Maybe realistic, but 1960 tech is something I'm not really interested in.

 

Oh well, Apache will Rule the Night.

 

 

I think you might want to think about this a little differently, the direct competition in DCS for the upcoming AH-64 is the Ka-50, not the Mi-24. The Mi-24 will have its place though, just up to mission designers to create reasonable scenarios for it. Of course, it can surprise some people too, I'm sure there will be more than a few videos out there once the Mi-24 is released of people gunning down F-16's dumb enough to try to flat turn with a chopper or go head on. Bonus point for smacking a fighter with an AT missile or unguided rocket.

[Harlikwin]

17 hours ago, 3WA said:

Maybe realistic, but 1960 tech is something I'm not really interested in.

 

Oh well, Apache will Rule the Night.

 

 

I mean, the Mi24 was its own thing, literally no other helo was both a gunship and a troop transport, unless you kinda count the "armed" hueys, and those aren't really the same ballpark. In its own timeframe the Mi24 at best could be compared to an AH-1, but it could do more, and was faster. I mean the first test apaches (A's) were operational a decade after the hind was. And the "D" model we have is early/mid 90's (depending on if we call it a C or not). Hell flying helos at night really wasn't a thing till the 80's anyway, and it was dicey then and alot of aviators died doing it developing the doctrine of how to do it safely. 

[Mr.Scar]

8 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

The Mi-24 will have its place though, just up to mission designers to create reasonable scenarios for it

Exactly this.

 

6 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

In its own timeframe the Mi24 at best could be compared to an AH-1

and this.

 

Going further in this way of thinking, in order to compare the AH-64D we would need an updated Ka-50, the Mi-28N or Mi-35M in DCS. Which we all know, wont happen, since even the BS update got postponed.

The Mi-24P is a completely different league because it comes from a different era. I personally think it was a much better helo for its time, than the AH-1 or Huey was.

 

So yes, the Apache will be top notch for modern combat scenarios that it was designed to oparate in, but also because of this, comparing the AH-64D to the Mi-24P does not make any sense.

 

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

11 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

 

I think you might want to think about this a little differently, the direct competition in DCS for the upcoming AH-64 is the Ka-50, not the Mi-24. The Mi-24 will have its place though, just up to mission designers to create reasonable scenarios for it. Of course, it can surprise some people too, I'm sure there will be more than a few videos out there once the Mi-24 is released of people gunning down F-16's dumb enough to try to flat turn with a chopper or go head on. Bonus point for smacking a fighter with an AT missile or unguided rocket.

 

I'll literally use the same tactics I used in Battlefield 4...

Instead of flying around the chopper and engaging it at co-altitude, come down on it from above and take it where it can't point it's weapons. 

 

  

2 hours ago, Mr.Scar said:

Going further in this way of thinking, in order to compare the AH-64D we would need an updated Ka-50, the Mi-28N or Mi-35M in DCS. Which we all know, wont happen, since even the BS update got postponed.

 

I would LOVE to get an Mi-28 in DCS, doubt we'll see that for another 20 years though...

Edited April 28, 2021 by Dr.SquirrelBoy12

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

I'll literally use the same tactics I used in Battlefield 4...

 

And BF4 flight physics are.... How accurate?

 

1 hour ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

Instead of flying around the chopper and engaging it at co-altitude, come down on it from above and take it where it can't point it's weapons. 

 

That is the thing, unless the helicopter is hovering or stationary and doesn't know you, you do not get the change to get the lining done well.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat

 

"The helicopter if properly flown will always maneuver to cut off the angle from the airplane, forcing impossibly steep closure maneuvers for the fighter. Typical helicopter turn rates are 30 to 40 degrees per second, three times that of the fighter, even at high g, so the fighter will find the helicopters weapons always engaging it during any serious contest. If the helicopter gun and missiles were selected for anti-aircraft (like the 30mm guns on the Mi-24 and KA-50/51), the results are that the attack helicopter becomes like a rapidly mobile SAM site, a very dangerous target.’"

 

"‘It must be said that the fighter is only vulnerable if it drops down from its normal altitude to engage the helicopter. If the fighter stays high and prosecutes its normal mission, it is nearly invulnerable to the helicopter’s weapons."

 

"‘I have personally flown many such engagements in trials, and the facts are obvious to fighter and helicopter pilots who know. The folks at MAWTS-1 pioneered the concepts I discuss above."

‘I have no idea why a fighter would engage an attack helicopter, and I can assure you if your erstwhile target is an Apache, KA-50 or Super Cobra with ATA missiles, expect to be surprised.’

 

One of the major benefits in the Mi-24 over others is that pilot and gunner has excellent visibility to above them. 

 

You will have hard time to get to jump on them from their front sector and need to get to behind them where they can't spot you.

And considering that the Mi-24P would be operation 5-10 km from their SAM systems like Tunguska or OSA-8, you really do not want to get high to dive on a helicopter that has radio contact to nearby air defense to warn your presence and them flying in sections where one of them has good nice clear shot to you.

 

These all requires doctrinal military behavior that current AI can't really perform (no dynamic radio communications, no dynamic independent units movement and shield-sword tactics) or players who are just with the battlefield attitude going on to do air quake and fly solo across empty spaces.

This is why we need a Combined Arms to be prioritized so we can get a proper RTS mechanics to the game so on servers we could start to see dozen or so  RTS players playing the ground war. 

 

 

[BioZ]

5 hours ago, Mr.Scar said:

 

 

Going further in this way of thinking, in order to compare the AH-64D we would need an updated Ka-50, the Mi-28N or Mi-35M in DCS. Which we all know, wont happen, since even the BS update got postponed.

 

 

Just a quick off topic: Wasn't it cancelled and only just simple textured updates will take place?

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, BioZ said:

Just a quick off topic: Wasn't it cancelled and only just simple textured updates will take place?

Yeah someone insightful could lighten that thing. As so many discussions about back and worth that it got cancelled - not - just something - cancelled - postponed - it is coming - maybe...

 

The KA-50 already received the 3D cockpit overhaul with new textures and 3D models. The BS3 would have been more than that but personally I have been waiting just the minor things 1) fix/implement the missing features and systems since the 2008 release. 2) Proper contrast lock system (for all modules) so Shkval could actually start locking easily on the air targets.... 

 

But if nothing of that is coming, then it is just 13 year old module with nerfed capabilities. 

 

[Mr.Scar]

6 minutes ago, BioZ said:

Just a quick off topic: Wasn't it cancelled and only just simple textured updates will take place?

 

1 minute ago, Fri13 said:

Yeah someone insightful could lighten that thing. As so many discussions about back and worth that it got cancelled - not - just something - cancelled - postponed - it is coming - maybe...

 

The KA-50 already received the 3D cockpit overhaul with new textures and 3D models. The BS3 would have been more than that but personally I have been waiting just the minor things 1) fix/implement the missing features and systems since the 2008 release. 2) Proper contrast lock system (for all modules) so Shkval could actually start locking easily on the air targets.... 

 

But if nothing of that is coming, then it is just 13 year old module with nerfed capabilities. 

 

 

This is the thing i managed to dig up quickly concerning the Ka-50

 

https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/the-twin-fates-of-dcs-ka-50-blackshark-3-and-mig-29/

 

This law does not affect the development companies, but the collection of references. If the information was received not on the territory of the Russian Federation and not by Russian citizens, then the law is not applicable.
We do not plan to completely abandon the development of military equipment of the Russian Federation, but the laws impose obligations on us. That’s all. The law will still be supplemented and clarified, judging by the text. Let’s see what will happen next. But don’t expect any serious systems, there won’t be any.

 

So, sorry for the offtopic, but it seems visual upgrades are the only thing we get for now. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

I'll literally use the same tactics I used in Battlefield 4...

As for the debate helicopter vs aircraft... please do not make BF4 vs DCS comparisons. Just, please...

 

Fri13 I think explained it pretty well, why we should not compare BF4 tactics to be used in DCS.

 

Yes, the DCS environment is not perfect and I honestly wait for CA to be better and a DC to be released, but even in its current state the "gameplay" is much different from what we have in BF4. 

 

So to sum up and come back to the Mi-24, i think it is not such an easy prey to aircraft in the real world. Helos in general are not easy prey in realistic battlefield conditions.

[Dr.SquirrelBoy12]

25 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

And BF4 flight physics are.... How accurate?

 

 

That is the thing, unless the helicopter is hovering or stationary and doesn't know you, you do not get the change to get the lining done well.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat

 

"The helicopter if properly flown will always maneuver to cut off the angle from the airplane, forcing impossibly steep closure maneuvers for the fighter. Typical helicopter turn rates are 30 to 40 degrees per second, three times that of the fighter, even at high g, so the fighter will find the helicopters weapons always engaging it during any serious contest. If the helicopter gun and missiles were selected for anti-aircraft (like the 30mm guns on the Mi-24 and KA-50/51), the results are that the attack helicopter becomes like a rapidly mobile SAM site, a very dangerous target.’"

 

"‘It must be said that the fighter is only vulnerable if it drops down from its normal altitude to engage the helicopter. If the fighter stays high and prosecutes its normal mission, it is nearly invulnerable to the helicopter’s weapons."

 

"‘I have personally flown many such engagements in trials, and the facts are obvious to fighter and helicopter pilots who know. The folks at MAWTS-1 pioneered the concepts I discuss above."

‘I have no idea why a fighter would engage an attack helicopter, and I can assure you if your erstwhile target is an Apache, KA-50 or Super Cobra with ATA missiles, expect to be surprised.’

 

One of the major benefits in the Mi-24 over others is that pilot and gunner has excellent visibility to above them. 

 

You will have hard time to get to jump on them from their front sector and need to get to behind them where they can't spot you.

And considering that the Mi-24P would be operation 5-10 km from their SAM systems like Tunguska or OSA-8, you really do not want to get high to dive on a helicopter that has radio contact to nearby air defense to warn your presence and them flying in sections where one of them has good nice clear shot to you.

 

These all requires doctrinal military behavior that current AI can't really perform (no dynamic radio communications, no dynamic independent units movement and shield-sword tactics) or players who are just with the battlefield attitude going on to do air quake and fly solo across empty spaces.

This is why we need a Combined Arms to be prioritized so we can get a proper RTS mechanics to the game so on servers we could start to see dozen or so  RTS players playing the ground war. 

 

 

 

BF4 is an arcade game with arcade missiles and arcade damage models. Doesn't change the fact that the same tactic will work in DCS. If I fly above you and come down from above, it is extremely difficult for you to attack me because I am outside your WEZ. 

 

7 minutes ago, Mr.Scar said:

 

 

This is the thing i managed to dig up quickly concerning the Ka-50

 

https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/the-twin-fates-of-dcs-ka-50-blackshark-3-and-mig-29/

 

This law does not affect the development companies, but the collection of references. If the information was received not on the territory of the Russian Federation and not by Russian citizens, then the law is not applicable.
We do not plan to completely abandon the development of military equipment of the Russian Federation, but the laws impose obligations on us. That’s all. The law will still be supplemented and clarified, judging by the text. Let’s see what will happen next. But don’t expect any serious systems, there won’t be any.

 

So, sorry for the offtopic, but it seems visual upgrades are the only thing we get for now. 

 

 

As for the debate helicopter vs aircraft... please do not make BF4 vs DCS comparisons. Just, please...

 

Fri13 I think explained it pretty well, why we should not compare BF4 tactics to be used in DCS.

 

Yes, the DCS environment is not perfect and I honestly wait for CA to be better and a DC to be released, but even in its current state the "gameplay" is much different from what we have in BF4. 

 

So to sum up and come back to the Mi-24, i think it is not such an easy prey to aircraft in the real world. Helos in general are not easy prey in realistic battlefield conditions.

 

Please point to where I said BF4 is comparable to DCS with regards to things like systems modeling or flight model? All I said is that I'd use the same tactics I used in that game. 

You are acting like just because one is a game and another is a sim, the same tactics can't apply. IRL if I am firing a rifle I have to compensate for bullet drop, in a game like BF4 I have to do the same thing. Does this make BF4 a rifle / bullet simulator. Absolutely not, but the same tactic applies. Also DCS Airquake servers are not realistic environments, choppers are frequently outside of their friendly SAM net. 

 

Didn't think that'd rustle as many jimmies as it did smh. 

[Fri13]

14 minutes ago, Mr.Scar said:

 

This is the thing i managed to dig up quickly concerning the Ka-50

 

https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/the-twin-fates-of-dcs-ka-50-blackshark-3-and-mig-29/

 

This law does not affect the development companies, but the collection of references. If the information was received not on the territory of the Russian Federation and not by Russian citizens, then the law is not applicable.
We do not plan to completely abandon the development of military equipment of the Russian Federation, but the laws impose obligations on us. That’s all. The law will still be supplemented and clarified, judging by the text. Let’s see what will happen next. But don’t expect any serious systems, there won’t be any.

 

So, sorry for the offtopic, but it seems visual upgrades are the only thing we get for now. 

 

Yes that is that what I have read but I don't understand what they can do more when already cockpit was updated in BS2 as free update. So maybe just a external model. 

The problem with the Eagle Dynamics is that it is not a Russian company. ED is registered to Swiss so it is a Swiss company, that has a office in Russia (in Moscow), and so on they are under "Foreign Agent" clause because they get funding from the foreign company (from Swiss where the money is handled and they pay everything to Russian employees). 

ED is a foreign company operating inside a Russian Federation. 

And that cause severe legal challenges when they need to acquire and handle a Russian military documentation. 

 

As the company that receives partial funding from non-domestic country/company needs to register themselves as "Foreign Agent" to Russian Federation.

(Just like you do in the USA and many many other countries through a various other methods).  

[Mr.Scar]

18 minutes ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

Please point to where I said BF4 is comparable to DCS with regards to things like systems modeling or flight model?

I think I was not clear enough. What I meant is to avoid potential DCS vs BF comparisons from game mechanic perspective, since for me those two are completely separate ones.

Personally I think using the same tactic in DCS as in BF will get me killed fast. And it is also the reason why I avoid Air Quake servers as a Helo pilot. 

 

All in all, A flight sim is a flight sim, a arcade BF is also something else for me. I disagree about using such tactics, But if you think they will work in DCS, im not there to stop you and even more not to start an argument.  Feel free to do as you wish, and this is everything I have to say about this.

 

38 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Yes that is that what I have read but I don't understand what they can do more when already cockpit was updated in BS2 as free update. So maybe just a external model. 

The problem with the Eagle Dynamics is that it is not a Russian company. ED is registered to Swiss so it is a Swiss company, that has a office in Russia (in Moscow), and so on they are under "Foreign Agent" clause because they get funding from the foreign company (from Swiss where the money is handled and they pay everything to Russian employees). 

ED is a foreign company operating inside a Russian Federation. 

And that cause severe legal challenges when they need to acquire and handle a Russian military documentation. 

 

As the company that receives partial funding from non-domestic country/company needs to register themselves as "Foreign Agent" to Russian Federation.

(Just like you do in the USA and many many other countries through a various other methods).  

 

Thanks for the explanation and sorry for the offtopic also.

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

BF4 is an arcade game with arcade missiles and arcade damage models.

 

And Arcade flight modeling.

BF4 acquire lock in arcade manner.

BF4 missiles pull maneuvers in arcade manner.

and BF4 you can pull 50G turn indicated as only 5G turn in a deep dive with controls reaction capability that is.... Arcade.

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

Doesn't change the fact that the same tactic will work in DCS. If I fly above you and come down from above, it is extremely difficult for you to attack me because I am outside your WEZ. 

 

It does change everything.

Have you tried to dive at 60 degree dive in F-15 from 800 meters at 450 knots while trying to aim and shoot a fast turning helicopter on the ground?

It does not end well.... 

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

Please point to where I said BF4 is comparable to DCS with regards to things like systems modeling or flight model?

 

In your whole argument "I am going to do same as I do in BF4 and I will win" by not understanding that BF4 can not be compared because its arcade features.

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

All I said is that I'd use the same tactics I used in that game. 

 

Exactly.... You can not use arcade tactics in a simulator that goes for realistic physics and all.... 

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

You are acting like just because one is a game and another is a sim, the same tactics can't apply.

 

Both are games, do not mistake that. Other just tries to follow real world physics up to its best possible means. Other is just making a fun lookin game that gives shivers and happiness from quick action and make player feel that they are true stars. 

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

IRL if I am firing a rifle I have to compensate for bullet drop, in a game like BF4 I have to do the same thing.

Does this make BF4 a rifle / bullet simulator. Absolutely not, but the same tactic applies.

 

https://youtu.be/3NAXifmgDRs?t=107

 

Yeah, same tactic..... When you can turn in a dime in BF4.... You can do it so in DCS.... 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

Also DCS Airquake servers are not realistic environments, choppers are frequently outside of their friendly SAM net. 

 

In real world the helicopters as well operate far outside their SAM net. Welcome to the AirLand Battle concept... 

You use helicopters to strike behind the enemy first wave units where the second wave forces are located. That is why the helicopters developed completely new means to fight because you got troops, vehicles and fire behind enemy front line. You are fast and mobile. 

Americans had UH-1 to go without escorts behind enemy lines, the AH-1 and AH-64 were to operate between to engage targets behind enemy lines to the second wave units.

Russians developed Mi-24 that will not just shoot missiles and rockets but it will as well land special forces. It can mine the paths that first wave has cleared making the second wave not able to push through. 

 

Russia has massive air assault forces if required. They can come with 50 Mi-8's and 20 Mi-24's suddenly dropping troops just to enemy back door and enemy is forced to fight on two fronts, surrounded. 

The UH-1, AH-1 and AH-64 feared the Mi-24 because it had the speed to chase them. If they were operating 5-10 km behind the front line, they could not away from Mi-24 that was coming at them full speed. The Mi-24D/V has a rotating gun to just utilize speed and flank and spray the helicopter down. The Mi-24P could put just shots from couple kilometer range while coming at you. For the UH-1 it was not possible to even move few kilometers as Mi-24 was like a Usain Bolt behind them. Even if he would give you 60 meters lead in 100m sprint he would be waiting you to come to goal.

 

When the Mi-24 knows where you are, it can just keep flying below you and you can't do anything about it really. And while you are chasing a one Mi-24 there, the others around you are just placing nicely a R-60M coming at you. 

 

 

1 minute ago, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

Didn't think that'd rustle as many jimmies as it did smh. 

 

Let me quote the US Air Force based their training and experience:

 

"Apaches can hide in the radar clutter at tree top level, and use the INCREDIBLY sophisticated Longbow system to track literally hundreds of targets simultaneously. If I remember the numbers, the helicopters shot down ~5 fixed wing for ever chopper that got hit. Granted, this tested helos that were loaded with air to air weapons (NOT typical), but still… the Air Force left with the overall idea of “leave enemy helicopters the f**k alone.’"

 

Mi-24P doesn't have radar, but it has excellent visibility to above them. And when you have enemy fast movers in your area, the GCI informs all the units in the area. They will operate and work together spot and report their sightings and information further. It is not so that there is one lonely MANPAADS waiting to spot something, they get the direction and distance to their targets from the network (radio, messenger and their own units). 

 

 

The ground forces has pretty good communication capabilities since the WW2. The portable radio changed a lot. Troops in contact can quickly inform about it. They can call the support and help. They can coordinate with the other troops in the area. 

And Mi-24P is there with the ground forces. It is in contact with the nearby units as with their own flight and further. They can relay the information across longer distances as they can get altitudes to do so.

That is completely lacking at this moment in the DCS. If you do not place all the units inside a same group, they will not communicate with each others. You can place a EWR with perfect capability to one side of the map and it will not issue any warnings or any information to any unit outside of its own group it belongs. 

 

You can have a EWR tracking a F/A-18 flight through whole 200 nmi from the sea to the coast and 50 nmi to inland and it will not make a move what so ever to issue the warning to lonely MBT platoon sitting in a dark green paint middle of the bright yellow field - totally lost. And as long those F/A-18C do not fly inside those engagement ranges, they have no idea that there is a GBU-12 falling on them from 15'000 ft and they can circle and fly as wanted and there is nothing that happens.

The whole valley is totally unsafe as there is no communication between different troops. 

 

The communication is the priority #1 in the war. So that you know:

1) Where your own troops are.

2) Where the enemy troops are.

3) What troops enemy has.

 

It can be traced from the Napoleon wars to even further in the Chinese and Indians own wars (thousands of years ago their tactics were excellent for the time), and all that has today improved is the speed, accuracy and capability to react to information. 

 

And DCS models this how? 

AWACS and EWR radio calls. A simple few phrases for ATC and JTAC.

A couple flight formation or "attack my target" kind calls to wingman. 

 

When you are trying to come high and above the MI-24P, all it needs to do is to fly below you. You are in deep dive straight to ground. You have no maneuverability to point your nose and try to get a gunshot or missile lock on them as they have all the keys for the engagement at that moment. 

Your best bet is really just leave them alone and not to get engaged with their weapons ranges. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[S. Low]

Was flying some ka-50 single player missions in Syria map last night but needed to log off, so decided to do haphazard rocket runs over AAA real quick. Took some hits that damaged my gun camera but I successfully took out several armored vehicles with using unrealistic tactics of firing close range and flying over target, breaking hard with flares popping and then recommitting in close.

 

The ka-50 survived and if I had more rockets would have been still combat effective. 
 

The hind will be awesome.

 

Now if you’re flying in flat terrain near f-18s with no top cover on a multiplayer server? Well that’s on you. 

[BioZ]

Interesting fact, one thing the Soviets did back in the Cold War is designed a lot of vehicles to work with NATO standard munition and equipment, but not backwards. This as well affects the Mi-24 line. The YakB-12.7 mm on Mi-24V was able to use NATO .50 Cal ammo in it. As well the standard 28V, 2 pin Ground Power Unit used in the US during the cold war fit perfectly well into the Mi-24 GPU port, but GPUs built by Soviets did not fit the US fast movers and helis. 

[Charly_Owl]

On 4/27/2021 at 1:08 AM, 3WA said:

Maybe realistic, but 1960 tech is something I'm not really interested in.

 

 

Realistic 1960's tech is EXACTLY why I'm interested in the Hind and why the Apache leaves me relatively indifferent.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Charly_Owl

[AlphaOneSix]

49 minutes ago, BioZ said:

The YakB-12.7 mm on Mi-24V was able to use NATO .50 Cal ammo in it.

I'm still trying to find a credible source that says that this is true. There are so many differences between the cartridges (and belt) that I just don't see how this is possible. Every time I search for it online I just see examples of people saying that it's a false claim.

[Morrov]

9 minutes ago, AlphaOneSix said:

I'm still trying to find a credible source that says that this is true. There are so many differences between the cartridges (and belt) that I just don't see how this is possible. Every time I search for it online I just see examples of people saying that it's a false claim.

 

Same, some people say it's true, others say it would just jam the whole thing.
Would be nice to have some proper sources.

[Jazz]

1 hour ago, AlphaOneSix said:

I'm still trying to find a credible source that says that this is true. There are so many differences between the cartridges (and belt) that I just don't see how this is possible. Every time I search for it online I just see examples of people saying that it's a false claim.

In the hind walk-around vid the owner of the hind said the Russians designed the gun so that it could take american rounds if needed. Not sure how credible that is for a source but personally I think he knows his stuff since he owns one lol 

[AlphaOneSix]

17 minutes ago, Jazz said:

In the hind walk-around vid the owner of the hind said the Russians designed the gun so that it could take american rounds if needed. Not sure how credible that is for a source but personally I think he knows his stuff since he owns one lol 

I don't doubt for a second that he believes it, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test as far as I'm concerned. Lots of stories like that get passed around in the military as fact when they are just not. Sort of like the whole "it's illegal to shoot people with the .50 cal" that everyone always says but is totally untrue.

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, AlphaOneSix said:

I don't doubt for a second that he believes it, but it just doesn't pass the sniff test as far as I'm concerned. Lots of stories like that get passed around in the military as fact when they are just not. Sort of like the whole "it's illegal to shoot people with the .50 cal" that everyone always says but is totally untrue.

 

Let "the Gun Jesus" say something about that stuff....

I don't remember what video it was, but he talked about this that how you could use US .50 cal ammunition on the Russian guns, but there is the technical fact that you really do not want to do that. 

 

By the numbers you can fit it inside but it had some severe issues to do so.

[AlphaOneSix]

18 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

By the numbers you can fit it inside but it had some severe issues to do so.

It fits because everything about the NATO 12.7mm x 99mm cartridge is smaller than the 12.7mm x 108mm cartridge, except for the diameter of the bullet, which is the ONLY thing that's the same about these two rounds. The neck is shorter, the shoulder is a smaller angle, the cartridge is a smaller diameter and shorter. I don't believe that a NATO .50 cal round will even go into battery in a weapon designed for 12.7mm x 108. So no, I don't believe it would even fire but if it did the results would be very bad. 

 

Then there is the belt, which causes a whole separate issue with feeding.