Hind Helicopter?

[Jefffar]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mi-24.htm

I did MDC stats up a while ago, but not SDC stats.

I would say the best and fastest way is to copy relevant weapon systems stats from existing stuff.

ie Depending on the model you choose, it either has a 127 m gatling gun (a .50 cal Machinegun) or a twin barrelled 30 mm automatic cannon.

The anti-tank missiles are vaugely equivalent to the existing anti-tank missiles you have in the books.

Rockets are vaguely equivalent to the rockets in the books.

SDC and Armour should be vaguely equivalent to the AH-1 Cobra in the books - or just use the vehicle construction rules to stat that out. The AH-1 Cobra would be a good source for bonuses and such - though you might want to reduce the dodge bonuses signifigntly while at low speed. The Hind's design is optimized for high speed attack runs rather than hiding behind cover. As a result, it behaves rather sluggishly until it gets up to speed.

Most of the other numbers can be found in the link I posted.

[Grey Death]

It would seem to me that it should have more SDC than a cobra. Being larger and more robust. More armor too. If I remember correctly it can withstand 20mm cannon fire. (I could be wrong on that so dont quote me)But AR is one of those iffy things you would have to use your own personal judgement on. By the way you can find the stats for the huey cobra in the Contemporary Weapons book.

[Jefffar]

Depends on where you hit it. Frontal I'd say the 20 mm is definitely likely, from the sides and rear I'd say it wouldrop to maybe .50 or much less.

The Hind is designed to fly in low and fast, hit hard and leave before there's a chance to retaliate. They will often operate in pairs with a second approahcing from an alternate direction to suppress any fire as the first one leaves. In short, the HInd acts more like an attack jet than a helicopter.

I recall stinger missiles (which don't have a very high explosive payload) more or less blowing Hinds in half when striking from the rear or sides in footage from Afghanistan.

Yeah, extra SDC and a higher AR may be appropriate, but the Cobra does give you a good basic stats set to work from.

[Jefffar]

The stinger has a 1 lb unshaped HE warhead. It is a kinetic kill weapon.

Hate to be a nit pick, but a kinetic kill weapon has no explosives, not a small ammount.

But again, that 1lb or so of HE was enough to almost blow the early Hinds inhalf.


I suspect late model Hinds might be a little more resiliant.

One must remember that the Hind is a modificatin of the Mi-17 Hip transport helicopter. It's primary duty is ar assault. It gos in, hits fast, supprsses a landing zone so it's troops (which ar8e rarely carried now) and the troops on the Hips and Halos can disembark quickly.

It then patrolls the area like a ground attack jet or provides close air support as needed.

It's the Mi-28 Havoc and the Ka-50 Hokkum that are to become the real prowling gunships in the sense of the AH-1 and the AH-64. Even then, I understand the Ka-50 is designed to hae high seed perfomance like the Hind ot allow it to actually "dogfight" with NATO helicopters.

[Jefffar]

No, but given that the US Military classes a light machingun as an Automatc Rifles and will pay 12000 bucks fr a hammer there is precedent for improper use of terminology.

A kinetic kill weapon is one that contains no explosive, but rlies on the force of it's impact to destory the target. Kinetic kill weapons in use by the military range from a side arm to a 120 mm cannon firing APFSDS.

A weapon that uses explosives as part of it's effet is not a pure kinetic kill weapon. That being said, it may use kinetic force and a delay fuse to deliver that explosive charge inside the target before detonating for greater effect. There has been a long tradition of that in cannons, missiles and even bombs (ie the bunker buster).

IIf the Stinger's only kill mehcnism was the force of impact (ie you could replace that 1 lb of HE with 1 lb of concrete with no real difference in effect) then it would be a kinetic kill weapon. But since it uses explosive force on the taget, it is not a kinetic kill weapon.

[Rockwolf66]

In Red Dawn, a Hind gets hit with an RPG and keeps on coming. At least, that's how I remember it.

I saw that many a year ago, and even with a small shaped charge it should have blown out either the engins or the tail rotor driveshaft.

now the only time I have seen an anti-tank rocket versus an aircraft was the aftermath of Padilla Field in Panama. A SEAL took an AT-4 to Pinappleface's Learjet. The shaped charge rocket blew a two foot wide whole in the side. I have not seen the internal damage but I know enough about explosives to know that it could not fly.

Closest I have been able to come to gamestats on a Hind is a Twighlight 2000 website. Other than that just Google MI-24 and you will get all the data you will ever need.

[Jefffar]

An RPG warhead is heavier duty than a lot of ligh SAM warheads - and if it scors a it it will gain the advantage of it's shaped charge effect, often capable of penetrating inexcess of 500 mm of steel armour.

The Hind has probably no more than 20 to 30 mm in the most heavily armoured spots. An A-10 probably not much more than that.

[Peacebringer]

The problem with shape charged weapons is that when they are used against a lightly armored vehicle, such as an aircraft, the main advantage of a shape charged weapon, its ability to produce a concusion blast within a heavy armored tank, it null and voided. The blast, instead of bouncing around the internal area of the aircraft, will simply blow out the other side. Whereas a high explosive damages more of the aircraft's area. Unless you hit the cockpit or the engine, a shape charged weapon will not be as effective as a high explosive device.

Red Dawn? Alright, since were using movies for this thread, I would like to point out, every time I play Steel Pathers II and hit a helicopter with an RPG or an ATGM (or a 120mm HEAT round), I rarely bring it down. I can only damage it so it is no longer effective in combat. However, when I hit a helicopter with a Stinger or SA-7, I have a better chance of bringing it down.

[Jefffar]

However, in reality, very few planes do well with a hole clear through them, especially if there happens to be an engine, fuel tank, cntrol system or pilot in that path.

That said, most modern anti-aircraft weapons are not hit to kill. They instead detonate at a preset distance form the aircraft and spray it with numerous high velocity high density fragments. This isbecause

1) Few aircraft ar well enough armoured to stop the fragments

2) Scoring a direct hit is very unlikely when the target is moving at several hundreds of miles per hour - but creating a wall of supersonic metal shards that the plane will have to fly through is relatively easy.

3) The multiple fragments traveling through the aircraft have a higher chance of damaging the aircraft's vital systems.

Not to say there aren't hit to kill systems. One of my favourites is Starstreak. A british man-portable SAM system that uses laser guidance. On the way to the taget the misile breaks apart into 3 hypersonic tungsten darts that hit the target plane and go in nice and deep and then explode, gutting the plane.

[shadrak]

Well, if you all recall the Somalia incident, while 2 Blackhawks were downed by RPG's, there were multiple hits.

Additionally, using an RPG against aircraft should not be your first choice...

You have to modify it so that the back blast will not prevent you from firing from a 20 degree plane (normally, you would blow your own a$$ up if you fired an RPG, LAW or AT 4 into the air)

Second, they move slowly (a couple hundred miles per hour)...you can dodge it if there is enough distance.

Third, these rockets don't fly well and are hard to use in the first place...they say 4, 5 and even 800 meters, but you are talking about something that will take 2-3 seconds to cover that distance and is 2-3 lbs. That means you really have to know how to lead your target...difficult on a tank of AFV, very hard on a helicopter (unless it is hovering or moving slowly--like the ones in Somalia).



Regarding the ability to down a helicopter with a rocket/shaped charge:

Most of these helicopters and aircraft have redundant systems and large lift areas, meaning you can put some holes in them (or through them) and they won't fall out of the sky. They may no longer be capable of completing their mission, but you probably haven't killed them.

[gordyzx9r]

On the HIND D, the nose turret contains a four-barrel 12.7mm machinegun.

4 (6 on some models) hardpoints can have rocket pods with thirty two 57mm rockets each, four 220lb (or 575lb) bombs, or two 1,100lb bombs.

Another option was to have four larger rockets, like 122mm or so.

On some models, there were launchers on the wingtips could hold 2 anti-tank missiles each (IIRC).

The cockpit and main rotor head were made from titanium and supposedly offered protection from 20mm rounds.

The cockpit could also protect the crew in an NBC environment.

The aircraft is extremely fast, but it is not maneuverable, it's speed combined with it's weight, load configuration, and center of gravity lend to an excessive tendency to roll (which is bad).

With a normal load, the HIND will weigh a little over 25K pounds, compared to an AH-1 of 14K pounds, AH-64 16K pounds, and UH-60 at around 17K pounds.

I've read reports that say the thing can reach 200MPH, but I think most articles put it around 160MPH. It has a range of about 279 miles on the internal 480 gallon tanks (and about 575 miles with auxilliary fuel tanks that hold about 130 gallons each). From front to back, with the rotor blades turning, they're a little under 70' long; the UH-60 is 64' 10" long.

The big difference in the construction of US and USSR aircraft is the materials used...they used steel, which is heavy, and required bigger engines, which then required alot more fuel. US helicopters are mostly made of magnesium and aluminum (which is lighter). Interestingly enough, we carry little blocks of magnesium in our survival vests to start fires in a survival situation.