Revisiting the topic of the bow-mounted PKT machine gun in 2024

[ACS_Dev]

The topic of the bow-mounted PKT has been brought up extensively before, and I know it will take some work to implement. I do still think it's something we should get, at least as part of an upgrade for the Mi-8. I will detail why below, hopefully in a manner interesting enough to warrant a renewed look at the idea.

First, the question of "why don't we have it already?"
I researched this on the Russian half of the forums with the handy assistance of auto-translate. I am trusting it pretty heavily here, so if the translate is misinterpreting things please correct me.

Initially, it seemed certain that we would get it, at least once Multi-Crew was added.

 

"It seems to me that the PKT is not a completely useless thing, at least if the shooters are implemented in the same way as in the UH-1. Sometimes it is not always clear where the enemy is hidden, and by the direction of the PKT’s fire it will be possible to determine in which direction to work, at least against the infantry. "

"As soon as we make a crew over the network, we will definitely implement it!.. Only when will we do it.. "

However, even before that, there did seem to be some doubts.

"with PCT: maybe we won’t even do it at all. Game value tends to 0 (7.62 has a relatively low rate of fire, therefore - only for infantry. It is still in development now). Another disadvantage when installing the PKT is the obstruction of the view of the ground for the player-pilot.

In general, the installation of a bow PKT will be relevant if the LAN crew of one helicopter is capable of achieving it. Then let's return to this issue."

These comments were made nearly a decade ago, and since then there looks to have been a change regarding the implementation.

"Are any of these things planned for the MI-8 in the future?

 

Pomegranate blocks UB-16 and UB-32?

Bow and side gunner with PCT?

Is it possible to hang additional PKT on pylons as in the photo below?

 

M134 machine gun on board _"

"possibly UB-32 blocks. The rest is NO"

 

The reasons were elaborated further in this 2018 post:

"Well, I agree that historicity and correspondence are all great!... but I’ll write again the arguments that guide us without implementing a PKT machine gun in the nose. Let's evaluate the necessary measures:

- 3D modeler to make a new version (version) of the cockpit: a MOBILE machine gun, add new cockpit objects, make an animation of a folding seat, make an animation of an on-board technician who is preparing to fire and controls the machine gun (this is already a “character” modeler);

- for the programmer: attach an AI that would find targets and open fire, attach sounds and effects, make it possible to switch versions of cockpits from ME (with and without a machine gun);

- testers: test all this and correct it many times (both 3D models, animation, and the logic of controlling the AI shooter, its work in searching and firing at targets).

- make changes to the Pilot's Manual.

At the same time, BST does not have “its own” 3D modelers, either one or the other. “Character” modeling has not yet been put on stream, so it will (if done) still be done using “hand made” technology. But the labor of modelers is quite expensive, and now tasks for the “character” department are “standing” in a queue (as well as for 3D cabin modelers). In a long line!

Now we evaluate gaming interest. Yes, Huey has a tail gunner with an M-60. This was the FIRST such experience. Who uses it how often? Yes, almost no one when the M-134 appeared. Those. Even then it became clear that the single-barrel 7.62mm in DCS reality is (yet) not so effective. Why? because, unlike in real life, infantry in DCS does not behave this way at all and does not pose such a threat to a helicopter, and for moving mechanical targets the effectiveness of a single-barreled machine gun is very low (for lightly armored ones it generally approaches zero).

In addition, the cabin option with a bow gunner will not be in demand by those players who use the MI-8 for landing on difficult sites and transporting cargo on a cable suspension (and I think more than half of them are).

As a result, we predict that a rather expensive development will not lead to cost recovery (such as an increase in the popularity of the game with the Mi-8 module and an increase in sales). Moreover, by a large margin, the costs will outstrip the benefits of introducing a machine gun (this is our expert assessment, with which many employees are unanimous).

Therefore, we do not install a machine gun out of harm, but out of an assessment of the realities of life. Don't misunderstand."

 

Why bring this up again? What do I have to add to the discussion and what has changed since then?

Firstly, to address historical accuracy, the PKT was certainly present in Afghanistan aboard Mi-8s and later in its history.
This documentary and this video both provide ample examples of Mi-8s, even M-8MTs, with nose mounted PKTs retained. It was certainly used.

I was unable to confirm that the Mi-8MTV-2 had a presence in Afghanistan, however I believe that the Mi-8MTV itself, an earlier variant with only minor differences, was flown in the war.

Regarding 3D modeling, it has been more than a decade since the Mi-8 was initially released, and it both deserves and (in my opinion) demands an overhaul. The external model no longer holds a candle to contemporary ED models and the internal pilot models leave much to be desired. Any such upgrade will require the remodeling of not only the entire helicopter and armament but the pilots themselves. It is no longer a question of if substantial 3D modeling is due on the Mi-8, but when.

Module development itself has not been static since the initial release. ED now has multiple new attack helicopters and the institutional knowledge on how to fully implement and model not only door gunners but removable ones, ones that can be used on either side and that can be used seamlessly in Multi-Crew. This was done for the Huey, the Hip and it will likely be done again with the Chinook. With the advent of Mi-8 Multi-Crew this was only cemented further. There is no question of whether or not ED is capable of modeling the PKT. I cannot comment on how easy or difficult it would be to model, but I am quite positive that, barring departure from the company, there are developers within ED who could make it happen. This applies to all elements of the development process; AI, 3D modeling, animations and sounds.

Furthermore, we now have confirmation of an Afghanistan map coming to the consumer side of DCS.  When this map releases it will see plenty of action from Mi-24 and Mi-8 users. Not only will this renew interest in an overhaul of the Mi-8 but it will also elevate demand for a more uniquely Afghan-oriented Hip (I don't see this as a concern). With the map, pilots will face the harsh reality of hot-and-high conditions and their affects on helicopter performance. I recently developed and released an 'Afghan' multiplayer sandbox that makes heavy use of the Hip and even then, in the comparatively low altitudes of Syria, heavy cargo loads discourage the use of the heavy weapon rack and the even heavier rocket pods. The Hip instead needs to lean more on its internal guns and of course the Hind, whose speed also discourages the carriage of draggy stores. The anachronistic Kord fires to one side and occupies the valuable door space, which is needed for cargo transfer and mission triggers. The forward-facing PKT is forward facing and would indeed see use as it did in Afghanistan.

Finally, given that a paid module update is the most likely future for the Mi-8, the addition of the gun would add another incentive to upgrade, thus increasing sales.

 

But the PKT isn't even that good!

I initially thought this too, however the existing Mi-8 rear PKT gunner already exists to test this claim and, in my opinion, refutes it handily. I took the  time to test the PKT's effectiveness against several targets it might see in Afghanistan; A Ural-375, a rocket technical and an insurgent. As you can see in the tracks below, the PKT makes quick work of these.
PKTEffectiveness.trk

PKTEffectivenessInf.trk

If given a straight view to the target (as a PKT would be), it takes less than 2 seconds for the PKT to kill the insurgent. It takes 4 seconds to kill the truck and 6 seconds to kill the technical. Especially for insurgents, this gun isn't that much of a downgrade from a Kord. An AI PKT operator could easily kill several light vehicles in a pass with this gun alone. In an environment where rocket pods can't be brought along, this weapon would quite handy and would indeed see use. It would also be enjoyable for human operators and possibly even more easy and useful than side-facing guns given the more conventional aiming requirements.

The last sentence of the preceding paragraph brings up another point unto itself.  A forward facing crew-operated gun is likely the easiest type to operate, and I would be willing to bet the Mi-8's nose gun would easiest door gun position in DCS. If you have attempted to bring along a door gunner you know that the helicopter's perpendicular motion to the target confounds aiming and it is hard to hit many targets, particularly infantry. There is no such problem for the Hip's nose PKT. The helicopter could easily run down the length of a convoy of trucks, blasting the entire length with high lethality.

Finally, the nose-mounted PKT position would be an exceptionally easy way for prospective Mi-8 owners and DCS players to access the hobby in the most simple way possible. Requiring nothing more than the standard gaming PC and basic non-sim peripherals, a friend could simply download the sim, trial the module, bind a couple of things and hop into the gunner's seat with no further study or technical requirements. Sharing a cockpit with 2 other people and flying around using the PKT to blast various targets would be a mildly claustrophobic but unique and extremely enjoyable  experience for even the most casual players.

Conclusion:

Though it might not be very easy, the addition of the PKT nose gun would not likely provide any novel challenges to ED, it absolutely would be useful, it would be used, and it would be worth it. I could see myself carrying it every time when in Afghanistan.

In the meantime, here is a (Russian) article that covers, among other things, the nose PKT extensively.

Thanks for reading,

ACS_Dev.

Edited February 9 by ACS_Dev
Inserted PKT video

[paco2002]

On 1/28/2024 at 9:43 PM, ACS_Dev said:

The topic of the bow-mounted PKT has been brought up extensively before, and I know it will take some work to implement. I do still think it's something we should get, at least as part of an upgrade for the Mi-8. I will detail why below, hopefully in a manner interesting enough to warrant a renewed look at the idea.

First, the question of "why don't we have it already?"
I researched this on the Russian half of the forums with the handy assistance of auto-translate. I am trusting it pretty heavily here, so if the translate is misinterpreting things please correct me.

Initially, it seemed certain that we would get it, at least once Multi-Crew was added.

 

"It seems to me that the PKT is not a completely useless thing, at least if the shooters are implemented in the same way as in the UH-1. Sometimes it is not always clear where the enemy is hidden, and by the direction of the PKT’s fire it will be possible to determine in which direction to work, at least against the infantry. "

"As soon as we make a crew over the network, we will definitely implement it!.. Only when will we do it.. "

However, even before that, there did seem to be some doubts.

"with PCT: maybe we won’t even do it at all. Game value tends to 0 (7.62 has a relatively low rate of fire, therefore - only for infantry. It is still in development now). Another disadvantage when installing the PKT is the obstruction of the view of the ground for the player-pilot.

In general, the installation of a bow PKT will be relevant if the LAN crew of one helicopter is capable of achieving it. Then let's return to this issue."

These comments were made nearly a decade ago, and since then there looks to have been a change regarding the implementation.

"Are any of these things planned for the MI-8 in the future?

 

Pomegranate blocks UB-16 and UB-32?

Bow and side gunner with PCT?

Is it possible to hang additional PKT on pylons as in the photo below?

 

M134 machine gun on board _"

"possibly UB-32 blocks. The rest is NO"

 

The reasons were elaborated further in this 2018 post:

"Well, I agree that historicity and correspondence are all great!... but I’ll write again the arguments that guide us without implementing a PKT machine gun in the nose. Let's evaluate the necessary measures:

- 3D modeler to make a new version (version) of the cockpit: a MOBILE machine gun, add new cockpit objects, make an animation of a folding seat, make an animation of an on-board technician who is preparing to fire and controls the machine gun (this is already a “character” modeler);

- for the programmer: attach an AI that would find targets and open fire, attach sounds and effects, make it possible to switch versions of cockpits from ME (with and without a machine gun);

- testers: test all this and correct it many times (both 3D models, animation, and the logic of controlling the AI shooter, its work in searching and firing at targets).

- make changes to the Pilot's Manual.

At the same time, BST does not have “its own” 3D modelers, either one or the other. “Character” modeling has not yet been put on stream, so it will (if done) still be done using “hand made” technology. But the labor of modelers is quite expensive, and now tasks for the “character” department are “standing” in a queue (as well as for 3D cabin modelers). In a long line!

Now we evaluate gaming interest. Yes, Huey has a tail gunner with an M-60. This was the FIRST such experience. Who uses it how often? Yes, almost no one when the M-134 appeared. Those. Even then it became clear that the single-barrel 7.62mm in DCS reality is (yet) not so effective. Why? because, unlike in real life, infantry in DCS does not behave this way at all and does not pose such a threat to a helicopter, and for moving mechanical targets the effectiveness of a single-barreled machine gun is very low (for lightly armored ones it generally approaches zero).

In addition, the cabin option with a bow gunner will not be in demand by those players who use the MI-8 for landing on difficult sites and transporting cargo on a cable suspension (and I think more than half of them are).

As a result, we predict that a rather expensive development will not lead to cost recovery (such as an increase in the popularity of the game with the Mi-8 module and an increase in sales). Moreover, by a large margin, the costs will outstrip the benefits of introducing a machine gun (this is our expert assessment, with which many employees are unanimous).

Therefore, we do not install a machine gun out of harm, but out of an assessment of the realities of life. Don't misunderstand."

 

Why bring this up again? What do I have to add to the discussion and what has changed since then?

Firstly, to address historical accuracy, the PKT was certainly present in Afghanistan aboard Mi-8s and later in its history.
This documentary and this video both provide ample examples of Mi-8s, even M-8MTs, with nose mounted PKTs retained. It was certainly used.

I was unable to confirm that the Mi-8MTV-2 had a presence in Afghanistan, however I believe that the Mi-8MTV itself, an earlier variant with only minor differences, was flown in the war.

Regarding 3D modeling, it has been more than a decade since the Mi-8 was initially released, and it both deserves and (in my opinion) demands an overhaul. The external model no longer holds a candle to contemporary ED models and the internal pilot models leave much to be desired. Any such upgrade will require the remodeling of not only the entire helicopter and armament but the pilots themselves. It is no longer a question of if substantial 3D modeling is due on the Mi-8, but when.

Module development itself has not been static since the initial release. ED now has multiple new attack helicopters and the institutional knowledge on how to fully implement and model not only door gunners but removable ones, ones that can be used on either side and that can be used seamlessly in Multi-Crew. This was done for the Huey, the Hip and it will likely be done again with the Chinook. With the advent of Mi-8 Multi-Crew this was only cemented further. There is no question of whether or not ED is capable of modeling the PKT. I cannot comment on how easy or difficult it would be to model, but I am quite positive that, barring departure from the company, there are developers within ED who could make it happen. This applies to all elements of the development process; AI, 3D modeling, animations and sounds.

Furthermore, we now have confirmation of an Afghanistan map coming to the consumer side of DCS.  When this map releases it will see plenty of action from Mi-24 and Mi-8 users. Not only will this renew interest in an overhaul of the Mi-8 but it will also elevate demand for a more uniquely Afghan-oriented Hip (I don't see this as a concern). With the map, pilots will face the harsh reality of hot-and-high conditions and their affects on helicopter performance. I recently developed and released an 'Afghan' multiplayer sandbox that makes heavy use of the Hip and even then, in the comparatively low altitudes of Syria, heavy cargo loads discourage the use of the heavy weapon rack and the even heavier rocket pods. The Hip instead needs to lean more on its internal guns and of course the Hind, whose speed also discourages the carriage of draggy stores. The anachronistic Kord fires to one side and occupies the valuable door space, which is needed for cargo transfer and mission triggers. The forward-facing PKT is forward facing and would indeed see use as it did in Afghanistan.

Finally, given that a paid module update is the most likely future for the Mi-8, the addition of the gun would add another incentive to upgrade, thus increasing sales.

 

But the PKT isn't even that good!

I initially thought this too, however the existing Mi-8 rear PKT gunner already exists to test this claim and, in my opinion, refutes it handily. I took the  time to test the PKT's effectiveness against several targets it might see in Afghanistan; A Ural-375, a rocket technical and an insurgent. As you can see in the tracks below, the PKT makes quick work of these.
PKTEffectiveness.trk

PKTEffectivenessInf.trk 114.98 kB · 0 downloads

If given a straight view to the target (as a PKT would be), it takes less than 2 seconds for the PKT to kill the insurgent. It takes 4 seconds to kill the truck and 6 seconds to kill the technical. Especially for insurgents, this gun isn't that much of a downgrade from a Kord. An AI PKT operator could easily kill several light vehicles in a pass with this gun alone. In an environment where rocket pods can't be brought along, this weapon would quite handy and would indeed see use. It would also be enjoyable for human operators and possibly even more easy and useful than side-facing guns given the more conventional aiming requirements.

The last sentence of the preceding paragraph brings up another point unto itself.  A forward facing crew-operated gun is likely the easiest type to operate, and I would be willing to bet the Mi-8's nose gun would easiest door gun position in DCS. If you have attempted to bring along a door gunner you know that the helicopter's perpendicular motion to the target confounds aiming and it is hard to hit many targets, particularly infantry. There is no such problem for the Hip's nose PKT. The helicopter could easily run down the length of a convoy of trucks, blasting the entire length with high lethality.

Finally, the nose-mounted PKT position would be an exceptionally easy way for prospective Mi-8 owners and DCS players to access the hobby in the most simple way possible. Requiring nothing more than the standard gaming PC and basic non-sim peripherals, a friend could simply download the sim, trial the module, bind a couple of things and hop into the gunner's seat with no further study or technical requirements. Sharing a cockpit with 2 other people and flying around using the PKT to blast various targets would be a mildly claustrophobic but unique and extremely enjoyable  experience for even the most casual players.

Conclusion:

Though it might not be very easy, the addition of the PKT nose gun would not likely provide any novel challenges to ED, it absolutely would be useful, it would be used, and it would be worth it. I could see myself carrying it every time when in Afghanistan.

In the meantime, here is a (Russian) article that covers, among other things, the nose PKT extensively.

Thanks for reading,

ACS_Dev.

 

Still waiting on a comment on this... Why is not in already? We have 3D model in game but not functional

[ACS_Dev]

4 hours ago, paco2002 said:

Still waiting on a comment on this... Why is not in already? We have 3D model in game but not functional

I don't get many comments from ED and I have active DMs with both of the western CMs. I understand that there is a balance between realism and practicality they need to maintain with their developer resources. The developer that could accomplish this task could easily be busy with the guns on the Chinook, assuming that it's that simple and they don't wear many other hats. The other question is of value; how many people do you think actually fly it? Hopefully they keep this in mind for the long-awaited remodel. Bumping the price $10-30 would require some new gameplay additions in my book and a nose gunner would certainly be one of them.

[Boosterdog]

I can only say that since buying the Mi-8 many moons ago its been my go to module. Since then I've bought many fixed and rotary modules that Ive nowhere near as much interest in to do that "support the devs" thing.  

I dont  think im alone amongst Hip drivers in saying Id happily pay for an upgrade given how much use Ive had from the original but equally............I'd also like some that "support the product" back given ED are still selling this ageing beauty at a realtively premuim price. 

@ACS_Dev kudos to you for a providing a well thought out argument in the first instance. 

 

[ANDR0ID]

Would be a welcome addition to the Mi-8 in DCS