Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Hind is my baby but since everyone else is talking about it I thought Id shine the light on another Russian beauty - the Ka-50 and Ka-52.



Russia definitely has an edge on the US in the realm of helicopters. Actually, the US is generally probably a generation or so behind Europe in military helo tech in general, a side effect of "if it aint broke dont fix it" as well as the USAF political stonewalling of certain key helo development projects towards the end of the Cold War.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
I'm rather fond of the Chinook, two rotors = twice the fun, right?
Mostly it's because we used to have a lot of them flying around over our house when I was a kid.

But I like the Hind and the Huey too, probably the most famous helicopters.

I would like to add the big Helicopter the UK coastguard use/used, which I believe is/was the Sea King - that's a pretty cool aircraft, though I seem to recall that they retired them recently.

More or less what I was going to say. The Bell is very cute but I like that the Sea King pulled people out of the water/scrapped them off the bottom of the cliff.

Could have sworn that the Sea King was just a modified Crashhawk.


I liked what the Apaches did wile I was deployed, gave a new respect for them.


It's funny that every likes HINDs so much, part of the TOW simulator system's target table is taking down HINDs. Shame I never got to put that into practical use.

The armor (M1A1 and M1A2 and Bradley) conduct of fire trainer simulators used to also have anti-Hind engagements too.

I'm a big fan of any helicopter that allows me to "Get to da choppa!" when Predator is on my ass!

I've always been curious about combat helicopters as a practical tool in an armed conflict between two modern nations though. All of the WW3 studies more or less confirmed that both armour and helicopters were in an awful rock-paper-scissors situation with very poor survivability beyond 24-48 hours on the field.

Apaches do a lot of work for us, but against a dedicated air defense network I can't see much of a place for combat helicopters. I'd imagine there's a large expectation of extremely heavy losses in the early days of a conflict (or indeed maybe skip using them until the conflict is reduced a week in?).

I know a lot of it would have to do with the terrain and location, but low and slow is a good way to get shot down in any combat theatre.

You don't use Apaches without a very synchronized multi-domain approach against modern IADS. But proper use of electronic warfare and conventional artillery coupled with a good deception plan can/will allow the Apaches to get to their targets and then exfiltrate back.

Also remember, those IADS radars are easy to identify and get a fix on too.

And I'm sure that's how the plan is "supposed" to work, I just don't think that would become a reality in a full bore conflict with another nation of equal or similar tech. As you said, the option is always to not use them, but with the proliferation of manpads, air defense vehicles, even the simple DSHK, etc...seems a very bad place to be in a proper shooting war. My grandfather was a helo pilot in Vietnam and took his fair share of fire (shot down a few times), so I don't mean any disrespect to the rotary fellas, just seems like a really dangerous spot.

Like I keep finding myself saying in these discussions: by this logic infantry have been obsolete for millennia. But it just keeps coming back to the man, on the ground, with his weapon.

 Elbows wrote:
I've always been curious about combat helicopters as a practical tool in an armed conflict between two modern nations though. All of the WW3 studies more or less confirmed that both armour and helicopters were in an awful rock-paper-scissors situation with very poor survivability beyond 24-48 hours on the field.

Apaches do a lot of work for us, but against a dedicated air defense network I can't see much of a place for combat helicopters. I'd imagine there's a large expectation of extremely heavy losses in the early days of a conflict (or indeed maybe skip using them until the conflict is reduced a week in?).

I know a lot of it would have to do with the terrain and location, but low and slow is a good way to get shot down in any combat theatre.

I can't speak for Apaches or US helicopter doctrines, but in Russian military doctrine, helicopter gunships are supposed to support advancing armoured and mechanised divisions with suppressive fire. Hind gunships will often operate in tandem with Havoc attack helicopters that are armed with advanced electronics and precision-guided weapons. The Hind carries enough firepower to suppress any short-range air defenses while the Havoc engages high-priority targets. For dealing with long-range air defenses, there will be cover from jets with anti-radiation missiles, and a helicopter carries countermeasures as well. Furthermore, a helicopter is a relatively low-priority target for long-range air defense when compared to jets. By staying close to ground troops and operating under fighter jet cover, a helicopter has a pretty high survivability since enemies will either be already busy engaging other targets or they will be suppressed. Of course, it is relative. Even with all the armour, countermeasures and systems redundancy it just takes one lucky hit from a hidden MANPADS to take down a helicopter. With how deadly modern warfare is, the assumption is that many will still be lost in the first days of a major conflict. But that same expectation holds true for all weapon systems, and especially for other aircraft such as fighter jets and bombers, who are often more exposed and are higher-priority targets. Basically, helicopters that go in on their own against an integrated air defense system will be going down. But because they operate in concert with lots of other forces, that allows them a good chance to do their job and get out safely.
Btw, that is another helicopter for on this list. The Mil-Mi 28, known in the West as the Havoc. It is pretty much a Russian version of the Apache.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Like I keep finding myself saying in these discussions: by this logic infantry have been obsolete for millennia. But it just keeps coming back to the man, on the ground, with his weapon.

Infantry will never be obsolete. I'm not arguing helicopters are obsolete...just dangerous. I'd imagine the survival expectations behind closed doors are probably pretty minimal. Of course all the studies I've seen have more or less said major nations first things to go (due to losses and mechanical wear) are their air forces as a whole, as in a couple weeks or a month or two at best before they expect everything shot down, lol.

I wonder the same thing about the A-10 though (and the Su-25). Again, proven, reliable, trusty planes...but I still shudder to imagine them in a more hostile environment than we've had lately.

The thing with low-flying helicopters in an active war zone against an equal opponent that worries me is enemy tanks. In theory, helicopters might be able to duck behind cover to some extent like ground forces do, but then they will be comparably slow, even compared to their theoretical maximum combat speed. And none of those speeds is fast compared to a modern tank round, and anything from a 105mm+ gun will murder something important in a modern helo - with no fancy countermeasures to deflect or mislead the round like you would do with an incoming MANPADS missile.

Just a quick google search to confirm; an M829 sabot round from the M1 Abrams line of tanks has a muzzle velocity of 1670m/s. On the other hand, a FIM-92 Stinger will reach a max. speed of Mach 2,2, which is just 754m/s, and it will reach that speed only after an acceleration period. What I'm saying is, if a good enemy tank gunner sees your helo and takes his shot, there's no warning time and no way to save your helo once that round is on a good trajectory towards you... That prospect would scare the hell outta me as a pilot.

(I'm aware that APFSDS is overkill against helicopter armor, but with all the fancy tech involved in modern aviation I'm pretty sure it'll be a mission kill in one way or another without anybody bothering to load HE ammunition...)

 Witzkatz wrote:
The thing with low-flying helicopters in an active war zone against an equal opponent that worries me is enemy tanks. In theory, helicopters might be able to duck behind cover to some extent like ground forces do, but then they will be comparably slow, even compared to their theoretical maximum combat speed. And none of those speeds is fast compared to a modern tank round, and anything from a 105mm+ gun will murder something important in a modern helo - with no fancy countermeasures to deflect or mislead the round like you would do with an incoming MANPADS missile.

Just a quick google search to confirm; an M829 sabot round from the M1 Abrams line of tanks has a muzzle velocity of 1670m/s. On the other hand, a FIM-92 Stinger will reach a max. speed of Mach 2,2, which is just 754m/s, and it will reach that speed only after an acceleration period. What I'm saying is, if a good enemy tank gunner sees your helo and takes his shot, there's no warning time and no way to save your helo once that round is on a good trajectory towards you... That prospect would scare the hell outta me as a pilot.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/54.page
(I'm aware that APFSDS is overkill against helicopter armor, but with all the fancy tech involved in modern aviation I'm pretty sure it'll be a mission kill in one way or another without anybody bothering to load HE ammunition...)

The main guns on a tank have a limited elevation though. Plus, they aren't guided (although some tanks, such as later Russian models, can fire guided anti-tank missiles which also work against aerial targets), so if the helicopter is moving it will be extremely difficult to hit despite the speed of the projectile (helicopters move a lot faster than the ground targets against which these guns are primarily meant to be used). With an airborne target, it is also difficult to judge speed, distance and trajectory, so all that combined makes aiming quite difficult. What is more, combat helicopters have a lot redundant systems, so unless a APFSDS round coincidentally hits the rotor or cockpit, it won't bring down a helicopter. You'd need a powerful HEAT round for that. A helicopter should be more worried about the large machine gun mounted on most tank than about the main gun. Or the autocannons on the IFVs that are often found near tanks. Or even worse, the dedicated air defense platforms that inevitably will accompany the tank. That said, a tank could theoretically shoot down a helicopter with its main gun, if the helicopter is flying very low and hovering still or moving very slowly, and provided the helicopter hasn't destroyed the tank first, since the helicopter has a massive advantage over a tank in systems, vantage point and range. But it is mostly a theoretical possibility. Not something that is likely to happen (though still possible).

 nels1031 wrote:
It was love at first sight when the Russian Hind (MI-24) crested the canyon wall and my girl, Baby from Dirty Dancing got immediately lit up, and her compatriot, Ponyboy Curtis of the Outsiders was tragically gunned down on the wrong end of his faceoff with the giant attack helicopters in the 1984 documentary Red Dawn.

I love the original Red Dawn. One of my favorite movies of all time when I was a kid. The more recent one is garbage, and that was before they changed the bad guys to being North Korean from Chinese. Idiots. But the russian tanks and Hinds in the original are as close to the real thing I have seen in a western movie from that time period. And the amazing thing about that scene, none of the Hinds were actually shot down. One took some damage and recovered. Who knows maybe it was due to budgetary reasons. But a action flick today would have had a couple of them getting shot down and the fact none did just makes the story better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
That said, a tank could theoretically shoot down a helicopter with its main gun, if the helicopter is flying very low and hovering still or moving very slowly, and provided the helicopter hasn't destroyed the tank first, since the helicopter has a massive advantage over a tank in systems, vantage point and range. But it is mostly a theoretical possibility. Not something that is likely to happen (though still possible).

The main defense against a helicopter is the tank's main gun. Rarely are helicopters going to close in and hover over a tank to battle it.

There was a documentary I saw about a UK helicopter up against an Iraqi tank I think in Desert Storm but maybe it was 2003 not sure. But it was a cat and mouse game with the tank in a village and the helicopter in the distance. The Iraqis were trying to line up their main gun while the Brits were trying to use a missile. Brits won, but even the gunner said it was really close. And I wasn't that impressed with this helicopter either, not sure what it was. I am sure if it was an Apache things would have ended a lot sooner. Peeps think the Apache flies around like WWII fighters strafing the ground but using missiles they fire from stand off range, using trees or buildings as cover.

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

certainly pissed all over Blue Thunder.

The hell you say.

BT rulez. And the film has themes that seem especially relevant today.

Be honest....how many of you loved this movie?

I have a soft spot for the UH-1 Huey. It's historical contribution to the use of helicopters in warfare, it's all around utility, and of course the distincitive thwup-thwup sound of its twin-blade rotor practically being the de-facto soundtrack for a helicopter. Remembering riding around doors open in the "gunners" seat still warms my heart.

@Iron_Captain: Gun elevation on tanks won't be an issue with regular combat distances of 1000m+ and low-flying helicopters trying to use terrain to their advantage (so they don't get knocked the feth out by SAMs). Furthermore, with modern gun stabilizers, obviously electrically transversed turrets and real-time rangefinders, that speed and maneuverability of a helicopter is a quickly shrinking defense against tank guns.

And by the way, more destructive multipurpose ammunition like the M830 HEAT-MP-T fired by Abrams tanks (or the 3BK range of HEAT-FS ammunition for the T-80 main gun) are still both faster than any missile, by quite a bit, so they'll still reach a helicopter 2000m away in 1,3 to 2,0 seconds or so. Not a lot of time to change course on a large flying vehicle.

Regarding the AA machine guns: If memory serves, the Apache series of helicopters is supposed to be quite well armoured against common HMGs like the M2 or the 14,5mm Russian guns, specifically because they are so widespread and able to hit a moving target quite well. I would assume the Russian counterparts and Chinese variants have the same level of protection, not sure about the EU Tiger. So using the tank gun for a one-shot kill does make a lot of sense.

(Random fun fact: Four German Tiger helicopters flew over 260 missions with 1860 flight hours in NATO support in Afghanistan, never firing a single shot. Officials think this might be due to the "psychological impact" of attack helicopters...however, I have a feeling that other nation's helicopters probably saw more action nevertheless.)

 gorgon wrote:

 reds8n wrote:

Spoiler:

certainly pissed all over Blue Thunder.

The hell you say.

BT rulez. And the film has themes that seem especially relevant today.

By BT I am sure you are referring to Blue Thunder.

The Hind is cool for a couple reasons. It's old and vulnerable to all sorts of weapons, but I suspect they are probably not quite as vulnerable as often thought simply due to such weapons usually simply not being set up and on hand where Hinds usually show up, and losses in Afghanistan were nowhere near as severe as is often portrayed, particularly total losses.

Visually they have a striking and unique silhouette, they pack a ton of firepower, and can carry infantry and operate like an IFV if the need arises. They're an iconic, if old, workhorse attack helicopter.

The Apache is another favorite of mine based on looks alone

I wish the Comanche had been a thing, that looked rad.

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Iron_Captain: Gun elevation on tanks won't be an issue with regular combat distances of 1000m+ and low-flying helicopters trying to use terrain to their advantage (so they don't get knocked the feth out by SAMs). Furthermore, with modern gun stabilizers, obviously electrically transversed turrets and real-time rangefinders, that speed and maneuverability of a helicopter is a quickly shrinking defense against tank guns.

And by the way, more destructive multipurpose ammunition like the M830 HEAT-MP-T fired by Abrams tanks (or the 3BK range of HEAT-FS ammunition for the T-80 main gun) are still both faster than any missile, by quite a bit, so they'll still reach a helicopter 2000m away in 1,3 to 2,0 seconds or so. Not a lot of time to change course on a large flying vehicle.

Regarding the AA machine guns: If memory serves, the Apache series of helicopters is supposed to be quite well armoured against common HMGs like the M2 or the 14,5mm Russian guns, specifically because they are so widespread and able to hit a moving target quite well. I would assume the Russian counterparts and Chinese variants have the same level of protection, not sure about the EU Tiger. So using the tank gun for a one-shot kill does make a lot of sense.

(Random fun fact: Four German Tiger helicopters flew over 260 missions with 1860 flight hours in NATO support in Afghanistan, never firing a single shot. Officials think this might be due to the "psychological impact" of attack helicopters...however, I have a feeling that other nation's helicopters probably saw more action nevertheless.)

Most combat helicopters are indeed protected from most light and medium (even a few heavy) machine guns, but that's normally a few key components, and the passenger compartment. Heavy machine gun fire will still rock your world. There was a large flight of Apaches who were more or less shot to bits by rifles and machine guns in one of the Gulf Wars, ended up with a few injuries and casualties and damage to all the birds --- just flew over the wrong spot at the wrong time, and then flew back through it again on the way back. They were combat ineffective and had to turn around before engaging in their task. All the birds made it back, but barely.

I agree that suppressin of air defenses is a key in any engagement, I just don't think you'd ever catch all the threats there to make combat helo's a safer prospect. It's admirable to even fly them into combat zones. I know ideally we'd like to sit 3-4km away and pop old rusty Soviet era tanks in the desert, but in a more difficult environment against a better prepared/equipped adversary it's decided a rock vs. scissors issue to me.

Luckily the Russians (who have an f-ing vast air defense network) have mounted some of their Tunguska turret styled Pantsyr on larger, easier to hit chassis. Sexy big ass trucks though





Did the US ever make any headway on the "next" replacement for the Blackhawk? I know there was general concern we were lagging behind with no proper replacement for any of our major helicopter lines at the moment.

Airbus H130 (was Eurocopter EC130) just lovely to fly