NVA Helicopter Tactics

[MBot]

I already posted it in the Missing Designer Resource thread, but I think it would be worth to open a discussion about it here.

 

Here is a website about comat helicopter tactics of the NVA (East German Army). As such it primary applies for the Mi-24 during the cold war. Unfortunately it is only in German.

 

http://www.nva-flieger.de/html/taktik-arfk-angriffsmethoden.php

 

 

There 4 basic attack tactics describerd:

 

1. Attack from horizontal flight (approach at very low level, climbing only slightly to aquire and attack).

2. Attack from a dive

3. Attack from a hover

4. Attack from a climb (new tactic in evaluation)

 

 

Some interesting observations:

-This proves that hovering in battle positions was a standard tactic of the WP. Actually it is described as the most suited tactic to engage stationary or mobile single targets, most suited to launch multiple weapons and most survivable against air defenses. Next to the attack from horizontal flight it is the only technique to employ ATGMs. Interestingly, ATGM precision is twice as bad as from the horizontal flight because of the unstabilty of the hover.

-It is described that in large operations, cover groups had the specifc task of protecting the main body of helicopters (transports or attack helicopters) from enemy helicopter attack.

[Feuerfalke]

Some interesting observations:

-This proves that hovering in battle positions was a standard tactic of the WP. Actually it is described as the most suited tactic to engage stationary or mobile single targets, most suited to launch multiple weapons and most survivable against air defenses. Next to the attack from horizontal flight it is the only technique to employ ATGMs. Interestingly, ATGM precision is twice as bad as from the horizontal flight because of the unstabilty of the hover.

-It is described that in large operations, cover groups had the specifc task of protecting the main body of helicopters (transports or attack helicopters) from enemy helicopter attack.

 

 

Surprise, Surprise!

 

:P

 

Thanks for sharing! Seems the eastern doctrine and aerodynamic rules were not so different from the western after all. :D

[Groove]

Which suprise ? Attacking from hover was never questioned.

 

The interesting part is the negative effects of hover attacks:

 

- low effectivity of ATGM due to movement during rotation

 

- unguided rockets, bombs, dispensers can't be used

 

- usability is reduced to small formations ( two-ship max )

 

- relativly small distance for target aquisition while in NOE flight

 

- danger of being spotted by enemies and the resulting possibility of being attacked by the enemy artillery

 

- hover is reduced by possible winds

 

- danger of view reduction while shooting by snow, dust or foliage

[MBot]

Actually it was questioned.

Just for completenes for those that can't read the original website, here are the pros/cons of the hovering combined (and no I wont translate the whole thing :) ):

 

+Favourable conditions for shooting ATGMs (no closure to target)

+Maxium surprise effect, especially in ambush situations

+Favourable conditions for target distribution and assignement [me: between multiple helicopters]

+Maxium surviveability against air defense. No approaching into the enemy engagement zone, low flight level reduced effectiveness of IR SAMs.

+Works in bad visibility conditions

- low effectivity of ATGM due to movement during rotation

- unguided rockets, bombs, dispensers can't be used

- usability is reduced to small formations ( two-ship max )

- relativly small distance for target aquisition while in NOE flight

- danger of being spotted by enemies and the resulting possibility of being attacked by the enemy artillery

- hover is reduced by possible winds

- danger of view reduction while shooting by snow, dust or foliage

 

 

 

What is also interesting is the general emphasis on achieving a surprise and the use of different attack directions/profiles for follow up attack. Both factors that unfortunately do not yet apply in Black Shark.

[Feuerfalke]

Groove, acutally on this board it was not only questioned this was a valid tactic, but even denied, that the HIND was even capable of hovering with weapons loaded, not even daring to speak of something close to tactics stated there.

 

Just how many videos were posted here, stating that standard helo-tactic is to fly rather high and fast, engaging with FFARs? :huh:

 

I also highly doubt that these tactics are only used by a maximum of 2 helos teamed up. I got a nice picture in a German book about helo-tactics, using a team of 8 helos around an SA2.

 

 

Oh, sorry, I forgot: Air defenses are not attacked by helos either. :doh: