Number of Weapons on Pylons

[unknown]

1 hour ago, molevitch said:

It just was not done, it is a myth, or conjecture.

Never claimed that this was in operational use/doctrine. But the thing is, the Mi-24 was designed for a war in europe not for a war in the climate/high terrain of afghanistan. So why should something that - might be - suitable for an european war but never be used in afghanistan because of performance limitations be the ultimate nogo argument(not used in afghanistan = never ever done/tested/tried ever) against this ability, only becuase there was no european war where they might have tried/used this?

The german Bo-105 anti tank helicopter trained(with ground units) refueling/rearming at random fields/places. Maybe thats where the "myth" comes from. NATO trained these things with small ground units and they saw the Hind had cargo capacity, so 1 +1 = they thought maybe they use that to rearm themself in the field like we do with our helicopter + ground units?

Like you said, i'm speculating here, never claimed to have a prove for that, just looking at how easy these things can be mounted.

 

But in the end i don't care, i will just put an invisible FARP near the "battlezone" if i want a quick refuel/rearm.   

[Lucas_From_Hell]

As far as the developer's standard goes, one phrase that's thrown around often by the Mi-24 team when asked for certain features is "no exotics" - in other words, they're trying to avoid including things which were rarely used or only theoretically possible, both to avoid unnecessary work and to keep the module a faithful recreation of a real, average Mi-24 in operational service instead of some unicorn variant.

[LF_Luftmanu]

I would rather have a realistic Hind than "exotic" experiments. 
IIRC both the Viper and A10 can carry fictional or not approved loadouts. Even if the player has the ability to choose, I believe that they should stick with standard loadouts.

 

8x ATGM is enough taking into account you shold be flying at least in pairs. That's a lot of missiles. Sadly, we are used to unrealistic scenarios where unrealistic loadouts are more than justified.

[Lurker]

Ok, let's put it like this then. Lets forget about re-arming the helicopter in the field for a second. What about carrying extra ammunition or supplies. Do you think that was ever done? Do you think it should be possible in the DCS Hind?

Edited April 2, 2021 by Lurker

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Lurker said:

Ok, let's put it like this then. Lets forget about re-arming the helicopter in the field for a second. What about carrying extra ammunition or supplies. Do you think that was ever done? Do you think it should be possible in the DCS Hind?

 

The aircraft is certainly capable of carrying stuff and I don't know what Lucas was getting at with the unicorn variant thing - if it can fit and be secured in the compartment and the aircraft is within operational limits, what's the problem?

 

Thing is DCS lacks development of the logistics aspect so there's that.

[Vampyre]

12 hours ago, Lurker said:

Ok, let's put it like this then. Lets forget about re-arming the helicopter in the field for a second. What about carrying extra ammunition or supplies. Do you think that was ever done? Do you think it should be possible in the DCS Hind?

 

In the book "Gunship Ace" there are instances where the Hind was indeed used to deliver supplies. It's a good read if you are interested in helicopters. Gunship Ace: The Wars of Neall Ellis, Helicopter Pilot and Mercenary: Venter, Al J: 0884489134650: Amazon.com: Books

[Lucas_From_Hell]

14 hours ago, Lurker said:

Ok, let's put it like this then. Lets forget about re-arming the helicopter in the field for a second. What about carrying extra ammunition or supplies. Do you think that was ever done? Do you think it should be possible in the DCS Hind?

Definitely possible, and done if combat wasn't expected or if there were other helicopters doing the shooty bit.

 

The main thing that 'doomed' the Mi-24 as a troop carrier and cargo helicopter is the fact that the Mi-8 and equivalent helicopters exist, and operators have both. You won't be wearing out your most capable gunship hauling potatoes to an outpost.

[Avimimus]

On 4/2/2021 at 4:51 PM, Lucas_From_Hell said:

Definitely possible, and done if combat wasn't expected or if there were other helicopters doing the shooty bit.

 

The main thing that 'doomed' the Mi-24 as a troop carrier and cargo helicopter is the fact that the Mi-8 and equivalent helicopters exist, and operators have both. You won't be wearing out your most capable gunship hauling potatoes to an outpost.

 

Exactly. It couldn't deploy and then support infantry at a useful range (as originally planned - although those plans may have been dubious anyway)... and the Mi-8 has so much more capacity for the same expenditures... that the Mi-24's cargo capacity saw very little use.

 

But I'm sure that having extra helicopters which could ferry troops in an emergency to redeploy behind the lines would be useful occasionally at a strategic scale. Also, the Mi-24 is probably a bit better at evacuating downed aircrews than an AH-64 or Mi-28 is... (although the AH-64 has managed to do that, and the Mi-28 has its tail compartment).

[Lucas_From_Hell]

Usually when able they send Mi-8s under Mi-24 and, if available, fighter cover, but you're right - there was a recent incident in Libya where a MiG-29 was shot down and the rescue had to be carried out solo. They sent a Mi-24.

[Apok]

On 4/7/2021 at 4:57 PM, Lucas_From_Hell said:

Usually when able they send Mi-8s under Mi-24 and, if available, fighter cover, but you're right - there was a recent incident in Libya where a MiG-29 was shot down and the rescue had to be carried out solo. They sent a Mi-24.

Fighterbomber channel that posted said video stated that it was excersise and not real thing in Libya. But he enjoyed reading headlines that erupted based on his video. Not to mention those 2 MiG29s that operate there have been seen since.

[Dragon1-1]

On 4/7/2021 at 4:23 PM, Avimimus said:

Exactly. It couldn't deploy and then support infantry at a useful range (as originally planned - although those plans may have been dubious anyway)... and the Mi-8 has so much more capacity for the same expenditures... that the Mi-24's cargo capacity saw very little use.

Do note that it was true in the Middle East, the Mi-24 was originally designed into much cooler and flatter Europe. Mi-24 is armored, and also faster than the Mi-8, which could have made it a better choice in some situations. It's just that such situations never arose, since there was no World War III in Europe. 

 

It also makes it a good SAR helo - it can fly in solo or in pairs, fire off its payload to suppress the enemy, pick up the downed aircrew and fly away even under small arms fire. This is especially good when you have a pair of Hinds operating together, since if one of the pair is shot down, the other can make the rescue. With SAR, faster is better, so the Mi-24 offers an advantage there.

[Avimimus]

On 4/22/2021 at 7:06 AM, Dragon1-1 said:

Do note that it was true in the Middle East, the Mi-24 was originally designed into much cooler and flatter Europe. Mi-24 is armored, and also faster than the Mi-8, which could have made it a better choice in some situations. It's just that such situations never arose, since there was no World War III in Europe. 

 

It also makes it a good SAR helo - it can fly in solo or in pairs, fire off its payload to suppress the enemy, pick up the downed aircrew and fly away even under small arms fire. This is especially good when you have a pair of Hinds operating together, since if one of the pair is shot down, the other can make the rescue. With SAR, faster is better, so the Mi-24 offers an advantage there.

 

That makes a lot of sense actually - with much of the fuel used on the outward leg, and weapons expended, the ability to pick-up downed aircrews (or even stranded troops) would be greater on the return journey!

[jojojung]

Am 31.3.2021 um 03:17 schrieb Avimimus:

Some of the newest versions are different - but the Cold War era ones (like we are getting) have a maximum of of eight Shturm/Ataka using all four outer pylons. Earlier variants (Mi-24D) could only carry pairs of 9M17 missiles on the outermost hard-points.

 

If you want 12 to 16 anti-tank missiles you'll need to go with the AH-64 or Ka-50. Interestingly though, these attack helicopters often flew in practice with less than the maximum number of anti-tank missiles. I think the feature I most anticipated for Black Shark III was the possibility of only carrying four anti-tank missiles... I've often found twelve to excessive, so the options for four or eight missiles seemed like a nice way to reduce weight and improve performance. Unfortunately, work on that module is suspended for the moment.

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon.

Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

Am 31.3.2021 um 03:17 schrieb Avimimus:

Some of the newest versions are different - but the Cold War era ones (like we are getting) have a maximum of of eight Shturm/Ataka using all four outer pylons. Earlier variants (Mi-24D) could only carry pairs of 9M17 missiles on the outermost hard-points.

 

If you want 12 to 16 anti-tank missiles you'll need to go with the AH-64 or Ka-50. Interestingly though, these attack helicopters often flew in practice with less than the maximum number of anti-tank missiles. I think the feature I most anticipated for Black Shark III was the possibility of only carrying four anti-tank missiles... I've often found twelve to excessive, so the options for four or eight missiles seemed like a nice way to reduce weight and improve performance. Unfortunately, work on that module is suspended for the moment.

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon.

Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

Am 31.3.2021 um 03:17 schrieb Avimimus:

Some of the newest versions are different - but the Cold War era ones (like we are getting) have a maximum of of eight Shturm/Ataka using all four outer pylons. Earlier variants (Mi-24D) could only carry pairs of 9M17 missiles on the outermost hard-points.

 

If you want 12 to 16 anti-tank missiles you'll need to go with the AH-64 or Ka-50. Interestingly though, these attack helicopters often flew in practice with less than the maximum number of anti-tank missiles. I think the feature I most anticipated for Black Shark III was the possibility of only carrying four anti-tank missiles... I've often found twelve to excessive, so the options for four or eight missiles seemed like a nice way to reduce weight and improve performance. Unfortunately, work on that module is suspended for the moment.

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon.

Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

[AeriaGloria]

On 1/11/2022 at 10:23 AM, jojojung said:

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon.

Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon.

Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

I know we dont get it because it was not common use in the USSR but at least there were Hind D and P versions in the GDR with 4 AT missles per pylon.

Link with Foto: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

I don’t see any photos there showing 4 ATGMs per pylon? Perhaps you mistake the empty AT-3 Malyutka racks that have 2 steel protrusions for each missile? 

[jojojung]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb AeriaGloria:

I don’t see any photos there showing 4 ATGMs per pylon? Perhaps you mistake the empty AT-3 Malyutka racks that have 2 steel protrusions for each missile? 

Go to the Link, its stated there ans its clearly dicribed there. Thats why I posted the Link. It was testet in around 1985 with a Mi24 V.

[admiki]

It wasn't deployed operationaly, just tested.

Now I would like to know the reason why it was so.

[AeriaGloria]

7 hours ago, jojojung said:

Go to the Link, its stated there ans its clearly dicribed there. Thats why I posted the Link. It was testet in around 1985 with a Mi24 V.

Okay I see the description and photo now. But if it was just a test, that changes everything. If we want to have everything that was tested why not S-25s and 4x FAB-100 racks. I would personally lose a bit of faith in ED to make such a testing configuration available, one that would mean everyone and their moms would take huge numbers of missiles.

But interestingly enough while the description says 16 missiles the picture only has double racks on the pylons. On Hinds that did get the double racks they also only carried them on pylons on the shorter wings. Perhaps the dedicated ATGM pylons can not carry the weight of the double rack and the description is wrong. It’s hard to tell with descriptions of tests

[jojojung]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb AeriaGloria:

Okay I see the description and photo now. But if it was just a test, that changes everything. If we want to have everything that was tested why not S-25s and 4x FAB-100 racks. I would personally lose a bit of faith in ED to make such a testing configuration available, one that would mean everyone and their moms would take huge numbers of missiles.

But interestingly enough while the description says 16 missiles the picture only has double racks on the pylons. On Hinds that did get the double racks they also only carried them on pylons on the shorter wings. Perhaps the dedicated ATGM pylons can not carry the weight of the double rack and the description is wrong. It’s hard to tell with descriptions of tests

As I said i know we dont get it. Just for information.