Military Review

Aviation against tanks (part of 6)

88
Aviation against tanks (part of 6)



The experience of local conflicts has demonstrated that a helicopter armed with anti-tank guided missiles is one of the most effective means of combating tanks. For one shot-down anti-tank helicopter, an average of 15-20 burned and wrecked tanks. But the conceptual approach to the creation of combat helicopters was diametrically opposite in our country and in the West.

In the armies of NATO countries, relatively light two-seat helicopters armed with an 4-6 ATGM, a pair of NAR units and 7,62-20-caliber artillery guns were developed to combat the Soviet many thousands of tank armadas. Often these helicopters were created on the basis of general-purpose helicopters, which did not have any significant booking. It was believed that due to the ease of operation and good maneuverability, light anti-tank helicopters would avoid large losses. Their main purpose was to repel tank attacks on the battlefield, taking into account the launch range of the 4-5 ATGM, there was the possibility of destroying armored vehicles without crossing the front line. When attacking attacking tank wedges, when a solid line of fire contact does not exist, helicopters must actively use the folds of the terrain, acting from the jump. In this case, the air defense troops have very little time for reaction.

In the USSR, a different approach prevailed: our top military leaders expressed a desire to get a well-protected combat helicopter with powerful weapons, which is also capable of delivering troops. It is clear that such a machine, a kind of "flying BMP", could not be easy and cheap. The main task of such a helicopter was not even fighting against tanks, but delivering massive blows to the centers of enemy defenses with unmanaged means of destruction. That is, the flying armored MLRS was supposed to fire its numerous advancing tanks with volleys of numerous NARs. The surviving firing points and the enemy's manpower were to be destroyed by the fire of onboard cannons and machine guns. At the same time, the helicopter could also land troops in the rear of the enemy, completing the encirclement and rout of the enemy’s defenses.

That is how the Soviet top military leaders saw the concept of using a promising combat helicopter. The order for its creation was issued in 1968 year. During the design of the helicopter, which later received the designation Mi-24, technical solutions, components and assemblies already used on the Mi-8 and Mi-14 helicopters were widely used. It was possible to achieve unification of the engines, hub and main rotor blades, tail rotor, skew machine, main gearbox and transmission. Due to this, the design and construction of the prototype were carried out at a high rate, and in September 1969, the first instance of the helicopter entered testing.

One of the demands of the military was the high speed of the Mi-24, since it was also planned to be used to counter enemy combat helicopters and to conduct defensive air combat at low altitudes with enemy fighters. To achieve a flight speed of more than 300 km / h, not only high power engines, but also perfect aerodynamics were required. The straight wing, on which the armament suspension was carried out, yielded in steady-state flight up to 25% of the total lifting force. Especially this effect affects when performing vertical maneuvers, such as a "slide" or "combat reversal." Thanks to the wings of the Mi-24 it gains height much faster, and the overload can reach 4 g.


Mi-24A


However, the helicopter cabin of the first production version of the Mi-24А was far from ideal. The flight technical structure for its characteristic form called it a "veranda". In the common cockpit in the front was the workplace of the navigator operator, behind him with a slight shift to the left sat the pilot. Such a layout hamper the actions of the crew and limited the review. In addition, when the armored glass was broken through, the navigator and the pilot could be injured from one projectile, which adversely affected the combat survivability as a whole. In the event of a pilot being injured, the navigator had simplified equipment necessary to control the flight parameters and controls of the helicopter. In addition, the cabin was quite cramped and cluttered with various equipment and sights, a lot of space occupied by the machine gun installation. In this regard, on serial machines the cabin was slightly extended.

The cockpit was protected by frontal transparent armor, side armor plates included in the power circuit of the fuselage. The navigator and pilot had armored seats. During the execution of combat missions, the crew had to use body armor and titanium helmets.

In the middle of the helicopter is a cargo cabin on the 8 paratroopers. Opening portholes have pivot installations that allow paratroopers to fire from a personal automatic rifle weapons. Both cabins are airtight; the filtration and air-conditioning system creates a slight overpressure in them to prevent the ingress of contaminated air when flying over contaminated terrain.

On the Mi-24, two TVZ-117 engines were installed. This new twin-shaft engine was already tested on the amphibious helicopter Mi-14. At the beginning of the 70-s, he was one of the best in the world and was not inferior in its performance to foreign models. TVZ-117 gave off take-off power 2200 hp, nominal - 1700 hp, specific fuel consumption - 0,23-0,26 kg / hp.hour. In the case of stopping one of the engines, the other automatically switched to take-off mode, which made it possible to return to its aerodrome. There were 2125 and kerosene in five soft, protected fuel tanks. To increase the flight distance inside the cargo compartment, it was planned to install two additional tanks with a total capacity of 1630 l.

The Mi-24A was handed over to state trials in June 1970. In the tests participated immediately 16 helicopters, which was unprecedented. During the test flights, the helicopter with a maximum take-off weight of 11000 kg with external weapon suspension was accelerated to 320 km / h. The payload of the transport and attack helicopter was 2400 kg, including 8 paratroopers.

Tests of the helicopter passed fairly quickly and in the second half of the 1971 of the year, even before their full completion, the first Mi-24А began to arrive in combat units. Since the designers of the Mil Design Bureau significantly outstripped the developers of advanced weapons, the Mi-24А used weapons that had already been tested on the Mi-4AB and Mi-8TV. Serial Mi-24Аs were equipped with the Phalanga-M ATGM with four ATGM 9М17М and a mobile rifle installation with a large-caliber machine gun A-12,7. On the six outer nodes could be placed: four blocks NAR UB-32-24, or eight 100-kg bombs OFAB-100, or four OFAB-250 or RBC-250, or two bombs FAB-500, or two one-time bomb cassettes RBC -500, or two volume-detonating ODAB-500, two or incendiary tank ST-500, container or two small submunitions KMGU-2, or two containers CPC-23-250 23-mm with quick-cannon GSH-23L. Like other Soviet helicopter gunships, the navigator-operator was guiding the ATGM to the target, he also fired from a large-caliber machine-gun with the help of a simple collimator sight. The launch of unguided rockets, as a rule, was carried out by a pilot.

The pilots who transferred to the Mi-24 with the Mi-1 and the Mi-4, noted the good flight data of the combat helicopter. In addition to high speed, they distinguished good maneuverability and controllability for a machine of this size and mass. It was possible to make turns with a roll exceeding 60 °, and climb from a pitch angle to 50 °. At the same time, the new helicopter had a number of flaws and was still raw. A lot of complaints caused a low engine life, not exceeding the first years of operation 50 hours. At first, the helicopter pilots who had previously flown in other cars, it was difficult to get used to the retractable landing gear. They often forgot to remove the landing gear after takeoff and, even worse, release when landing. This sometimes served as the cause of very serious flight accidents.

During the control and training launches of the ATGM, it suddenly became clear that the accuracy of using this weapon was worse than on the Mi-4AB and Mi-8TV. Only every third rocket hit the target. This was largely due to the unsuccessful location of the sight and guidance equipment of the Raduga-F in the cockpit and the shading of the antenna of the command radio control line. In addition, when launching guided missiles until it hit the target, it was necessary to strictly keep the helicopter on course and altitude. In this regard, the aircrew frankly did not complain about the ATGM and preferred to use unmanaged weapons - mainly 57-mm NAR C-5, which could have 24 projectiles on Mi-128А.

A total of around 5 Mi-250А was built at the aircraft plant in Arsenyev during the 24 years. In addition to the Soviet helicopter regiments, "twenty-fours" were delivered to the allies. The Mi-24A's baptism of fire took place in 1978 during the Ethiopian-Somali war. Mi-24A with Cuban crews caused serious damage to Somali troops. Combat helicopters were particularly effective against artillery positions and armored vehicles, with the NAR being mainly used. The situation was particularly piqued by the fact that both parties to the conflict were equipped with Soviet equipment and weapons, and Mi-24A burned Soviet-made T-54 tanks. As a result, the Somali troops who invaded Ethiopia suffered a crushing defeat, and this was a considerable merit of the combat helicopters. Due to the weakness of the Somali air defense and the low preparedness of the Mi-24A calculations, those involved in the conflict did not suffer any casualties. The operation of the Mi-24A abroad continued until the beginning of the 90-s.

During the establishment of mass production designers continued to improve the weapons of the helicopter. On an experimental modification of the Mi-24B, a USPU-24 mobile machine-gun unit with a high-speed (4000-4500 rds / min) four-barreled YaKB-12,7 machine gun with a rotating barrel assembly was installed. The cartridges and ballistics of the YakB-12,7 were similar to the A-12,7 machine gun. In addition, for the new four-barreled machine gun was adopted "two-cartridge" cartridge. The new cartridge about one and a half times increased the effectiveness of the machine gun when operating on manpower. Aim shooting range - to 1500 m.


Mobile machine-gun installation USPU-24 with machine gun YaKB-12,7


The operator-controlled installation allows you to fire at an angle 60 ° in the horizontal plane, 20 ° up and 40 ° down. The machine-gun installation was controlled by the KPS-53AB aiming station. An analog computer entered the system of mobile rifle armament, coupled with sensors of onboard parameters, thanks to which the accuracy of shooting increased significantly, as corrections were entered automatically. In addition, a modernized Phalanga-P ATGM with a semi-automatic guidance system was installed on the Mi-24B. This made it possible to increase the likelihood of missiles striking the target noticeably 3 times. Thanks to the gyro-stabilized device targeting the helicopter after launching the rocket could maneuver within 60 ° along the course, which significantly increased its combat effectiveness. Several experienced Mi-24Bs in 1972 were tested. According to their results, it became clear that for a comprehensive increase in combat effectiveness, the helicopter needs a complete redesign of the cockpit.

Developments on the Mi-24B were implemented on the serial Mi-24D. Production of the twenty-four version began in 1973 year. These helicopters were exported under the designation Mi-25.


Mi-24D prototype


The most noticeable difference between the Mi-24D and the Mi-24А is the new cab. All crew members of the Mi-24D had isolated jobs. Starting with this model, the helicopter acquired a familiar look, for which he was nicknamed the "crocodile". The cabin became “tandem”, the pilot and navigator-operator were placed in different compartments separated by an armored partition. Also, thanks to the double curvature of the frontal bulletproof, their bulletproofness increased, which significantly increased the chances of survival when performing an attack. Thanks to the improved aerodynamics, the helicopter flight data somewhat increased, maneuverability became higher.


ATGM “Phalanx” and blocks NAR UB-32 on the Mi-24D helicopter


In view of the unavailability of the promising Sturm ATGM on the Mi-24D, the Phalanga-P ATGM with a semi-automatic guidance system was installed. In this regard, despite slightly improved flight data and increased visibility from the cockpit, the anti-tank capabilities of the helicopter did not change compared to the experienced Mi-24B. Anti-tank radio command ATGM "Phalanx" were in service in our country from 1960 to 1993 year. In a number of countries they are still used.

The most massive modification was the Mi-24В. This machine was able to introduce a new ATGM 9K113 "Sturm-V" with the guidance system "Rainbow-III". The eyepiece of the ATGM guidance system was located on the right side of the weapon operator’s cabin. On the left side there is a radiotransparent fairing for the ATGM guidance antenna.



The 9М114 “Sturm” two-stage rocket has an aiming launch range of up to 5000 m, and develops a speed of up to 400 m / s in flight. Thanks to the supersonic flight speed, the time required for hitting the target after the launch of an anti-tank missile system has been significantly reduced. When firing at a maximum range, the rocket’s flight time is 14 with.


ATGM “Storm” and the NAR B-8B20A unit on the Mi-24В


With a missile launch weight of about 32 kg, it is equipped with a warhead weighing a little more than 5 kg. Penetration is 500 mm of homogeneous armor at a meeting angle of 90 °. At the test site during the tests, it was possible to achieve the probability of hitting the target 0,92. According to expert estimates, during real combat operations, when a helicopter is forced to actively maneuver due to anti-aircraft resistance, the probability of hitting a tank at a distance of 3500-4000 m will be 0,6-0,8. The Mi-24В combat helicopter with the Sturm-B complex was commissioned in the 1976 year.


Mi-24B


By the beginning of the mass production of the Mi-24В in the front-line helicopter shelves, there were already about 400 Mi-24А and Mi-24Д. Over the years, 10 serial production was transferred to the customer about 1000 Mi-24В.


Start NAR C-8 with Mi-24В


In addition to 57-mm unguided missiles, new powerful 80-mm NAR C-8 in 20-i B-8В20А charging units were included in the armament. Cumulative fragmentation unguided C-8KO missiles with armor penetration along the normal 400 mm of homogeneous armor, in the 70-s were able to ensure the effective defeat of any tanks.


Exit NAR C-8 from the starting block


Compared with the "twenty-four" of earlier modifications, the range of weapons of the Mi-24V has expanded significantly. In addition to four ATGM "Shturm-V", 80-mm NAR S-8, for the first time on a combat helicopter could be used 122-mm NAR S-13. Although the S-13 was created mainly for the destruction of capital defensive structures and reinforced concrete aviation shelters, large enough rockets weighing 57-75 kg, depending on the modification, can be successfully used against armored vehicles. NAR S-13 are loaded into five-charge blocks B-13.


NAR C-13, five-charge B-13 unit and the “Sturm-V” ATGM in TPK near the Mi-24В


During the tests, it was found out that the fragments of the high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 33 kg at a distance of up to 5-10 m are able to penetrate the armor of the BTR and BMP. At the same time, after breaking through the armor, the fragments have a good incendiary effect. During the control tests against armored vehicles, as a result of a direct hit by the C-13OF, a guide and two road wheels, as well as the 3 track, were pulled out into the heavy tank EC-1,5M. Bullet proof blinds 50 mm thick on the engine compartment caved in to the 25-30 mm. The tank gun was pierced in several places. If this were a real enemy tank, he would need to be evacuated to the rear for a long overhaul. When it hit the stern of the decommissioned BMP-1, the landing party was completely destroyed. An explosion tore out three skating rinks and blew off the tower. In the salvo, when launching from 1500-1600 m, the missile dispersion at the target did not exceed 8 m. Thus, the NAR C-13 could be effectively used to attack enemy armor columns, being outside the effective range of anti-aircraft heavy machine guns.

The launch of the NAR is carried out by the pilot using the ASP-17В collimator sight, which can also be used for firing a machine gun while fixing it on the axis of the helicopter and bombing. On the Mi-24V, a suspension of four aerial bombs in caliber up to 250 kg is possible. The helicopter can take two bombs FAB-500 or incendiary tanks ZB-500, or containers KMGU-2. It is possible to simultaneously hang bombs and NAR units. On internal pylons, when operating against enemy manpower, two UPK-23-250 containers with 23-mm guns, as well as universal helicopter gondolas with 30-mm grenade launcher, or with two 7,62-mm GSHG-7,62 machine guns and one 12,7- can be placed mm machine gun YakB-12,7. In the middle of the 80-x the number of anti-tank guided missiles in a helicopter was doubled.

The Mi-24B received fairly sophisticated on-board equipment by the standards of the 70-s. Including three VHF and one HF radio station. For the first time in a combat helicopter, designed to fight tanks and direct fire support for ground units, a secret communications equipment appeared, which was used to communicate with ground-based aircraft manufacturers.

To counteract ground-based air defense systems and to protect against missiles with thermal homing heads, there was an indicator of radar exposure of the Sirena C-3M or Bereza L-006 radar, the SOEP-B1A Lipa station and a device for ejection of heat traps. In the generator of thermal noise "Lipa" with the help of a heating element of a powerful xenon lamp and a system of rotating lenses around the helicopter a pulsed stream of continuously moving IR rays was formed.


Equipment of Mi-24V heat traps in Afghanistan, under the main rotor visible emitter SOEP-V1A "Lipa"

In the case of simultaneous use of “Lipy” with heat traps and GOS, in most cases it was disoriented, and the “yaw” of the rocket between the traps and the helicopter took place. The experience of combat operations demonstrated the high effectiveness of this method of protection against MANPADS. The disadvantage of the jamming station installed on the Mi-24В is the presence of a "dead zone" below and the failure to provide protection from the Stingers in this direction. The total efficiency of the Lipa optoelectronic jamming station with simultaneous use of heat traps and means of reducing IR-visibility under the conditions of Afghanistan was 70-85%.

In general, the Mi-24В helicopter managed to achieve an optimal balance of combat and flight characteristics with an acceptable level of technical reliability and performance. Designers and production workers put a lot of effort to eliminate the design flaws and numerous "children's sores." In the second half of the 70-ies, the flight and technical staff mastered the Twenty-Fours well, and they were a formidable force that could have a significant impact on the course of hostilities. In total, in the first half of the 80s, the Soviet Army had 15 separate combat helicopter regiments. As a rule, each regiment consisted of three squadrons: two 20 Mi-24 and one 20 Mi-8. In addition, the Mi-24 were part of the individual helicopter regiments of combat control.

Продолжение следует ...

Based on:
http://www.zid.ru/products/defence/44/detail/175
http://kkorablevv.narod.ru/index/0-12
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1284533.html
http://army-news.ru/2010/10/vertolet-mi-24/
http://www.denellandsystems.co.za/products/weapons
http://www.ordtech-industries.com/2products/Ammunition/Medium/20x139.html
http://mi-24.com/2015/08/09/mil-mi-24-hind-maintenance-during-soviet-afghanistan-war/
AB Shirokorad. History aviation weapons.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Aviation against tanks (part of 1)
Aviation against tanks (part of 2)
Aviation against tanks (part of 3)
Aviation against tanks (part of 4)
Aviation against tanks (part of 5)
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. andrewkor
    andrewkor 25 October 2017 07: 36
    11
    The legendary helicopter, the same iconic as the T-34 and AK!
    1. Bongo
      25 October 2017 07: 47
      10
      Quote: andrewkor
      The legendary helicopter, the same iconic as the T-34 and AK!

      This is of course true, but the Mi-24 is still more suitable for fire support of ground units - delivering a massive NAR strike against the enemy than for fighting tanks using ATGMs.
      1. novel66
        novel66 25 October 2017 13: 35
        +8
        s-8s, with arrow-shaped striking elements - throw nails at the enemy!
      2. 11 black
        11 black 28 October 2017 10: 01
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        This is of course true, but the Mi-24 is still more suitable for fire support of ground units - delivering a massive NAR strike against the enemy than for fighting tanks using ATGMs.

        A unique car - it is suitable for a lot of things. And to land troops in the rear of the enemy, and support their troops with machine gun fire and NAR, and destroy a tank platoon, even enemy helicopters successfully went astray in battle. Such multifunctionality is of course a virtue, but to some extent a disadvantage as well.
  2. Amurets
    Amurets 25 October 2017 08: 44
    +5
    Sergei! Thank you interesting and informative. As always on the level.
  3. parma
    parma 25 October 2017 08: 59
    +7
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: andrewkor
    The legendary helicopter, the same iconic as the T-34 and AK!

    This is of course true, but the Mi-24 is still more suitable for fire support of ground units - delivering a massive NAR strike against the enemy than for fighting tanks using ATGMs.

    It is part of the doctrine of the USSR, which implied a quick jerk to the La Manche, hence the light floating BMPs / BTRs (something to prevent the retreating capital forces from securing themselves after the bridge was blown up), and mobile, rather than heavily armored tanks, and the MI-24 firing tons of ammunition in side of the enemy and leaving for charging, he had no time to catch individual tanks. True, it seems to me that the cargo compartment was in vain attached to him. It turned out to be very large (in comparison with the same cobra-same age as for example), and the landing party, in my opinion, never really was carried in combat conditions ...
    1. WUA 518
      WUA 518 25 October 2017 09: 36
      14
      Quote: parma
      It turned out to be very large (in comparison with the same cobra-same age as for example), and the landing party, in my opinion, never really was carried in combat conditions ...

      When a government decree was being prepared on the creation of the Mi-24, a note appeared in the same document on the development of a helicopter based on it without the possibility of transporting paratroopers.
      Thus, the countdown of the “biography” of the future Mi-28 “product 280” can begin from May 1968, when the above-mentioned resolution was issued.
      Full-size mock-up “280 products
      1. Bongo
        25 October 2017 09: 47
        10
        [
        Quote: WUA 518
        When a government decree was being prepared on the creation of the Mi-24, a note appeared in the same document on the development of a helicopter based on it without the possibility of transporting paratroopers.

        Hi!
        But the military insisted on the option with the landing compartment. request It seems to me that at the end of the 60's the customer himself did not understand what he wants!
        Quote: WUA 518
        Thus, the countdown of the “biography” of the future Mi-28 “product 280” can begin from May 1968, when the above-mentioned resolution was issued.
        Full-size mock-up “280 products

        Thanks for the interesting comment and photo! drinks
        1. Gray brother
          Gray brother 25 October 2017 11: 18
          +5
          Quote: Bongo
          But the military insisted on the option with the landing compartment. It seems to me that at the end of the 60s the customer himself did not understand what he wants!

          The customer understood everything well.
          Pick up the crew of a downed helicopter or just evacuate the wounded - it can.
          Landing - maybe.
          Deliver a ton of ammunition - maybe.
          And he can do all this where a sieve will be made from an ordinary transporter.
          1. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 13: 15
            +8
            Quote: Gray Brother
            Pick up the crew of a downed helicopter or just evacuate the wounded - it can.
            Landing - maybe.
            Deliver a ton of ammunition - maybe.

            And often Mi-24 did this? No. Wishlist - remained Wishlist, and a combat helicopter was carrying a ton of excess cargo.
            1. Gray brother
              Gray brother 25 October 2017 13: 47
              +1
              Quote: zyablik.olga
              And often Mi-24 did this?

              Infrequently, but in fact he was not doing anything. Even an arrow with a machine gun was planted in the landing compartment.
              For transportation of goods was used - drove additional ammunition and technicians to work with jump sites. We carried out the evacuation, took travel companions on flights.
              1. zyablik.olga
                zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 14: 13
                +4
                Quote: Gray Brother
                They carried out evacuation, took fellow travelers on flights.

                Yes, especially the latter compensated for the ballast in the form of a cargo cabin weighing about 1 tons. This weight was much more rational to put on an increase in security, combat load, or simply to ease the helicopter and dramatically improve flight data. As they say practice - the criterion of truth. After the Mi-24, “flying BMP” is not built anywhere.
                1. Gray brother
                  Gray brother 25 October 2017 14: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: zyablik.olga
                  After the Mi-24, nowhere are flying BMPs built.

                  Armored transport workers too)))
                  1. zyablik.olga
                    zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 14: 18
                    +4
                    Quote: Gray Brother
                    Armored transport workers too)))

                    A "crocodile" armored transport?
                    1. Gray brother
                      Gray brother 25 October 2017 14: 22
                      +2
                      Quote: zyablik.olga
                      A "crocodile" armored transport?

                      Attack helicopter designed for use in a global nuclear conflict.
                  2. EvilLion
                    EvilLion 25 October 2017 16: 54
                    0
                    Is Mi-8AMTSH unarmored?
              2. Tarikxnumx
                Tarikxnumx 25 October 2017 14: 56
                +3
                I don’t know how now, but in the time of Afghanistan, the crew of the “crocodile” consisted of three people. Pilot, navigator, operator and flight technician. Humorists called technicians stewardes. Main tasks: landing landing unloading and covering the rear hemisphere when the helicopter leaves the attack. The acquaintance uncle pilot told me flying on the Mi-24 in Afghanistan. And a little later he worked with a former flight technician, also confirmed this.
                1. Gray brother
                  Gray brother 25 October 2017 15: 01
                  0
                  Quote: TarIK2017
                  and cover the rear hemisphere

                  This is unlikely, but on the side he could shoot.
                  1. Gray brother
                    Gray brother 25 October 2017 15: 06
                    +2
                    Add. the tank in the troop compartment is also an interesting piece:
                  2. Tarikxnumx
                    Tarikxnumx 26 October 2017 21: 28
                    0
                    According to the stories of these comrades, they tried not to get out of the attack in a straight line - the chance to get an answer is increased. Usually they went out with a horizontal turn in one direction or another, which the flight technician was warned about in advance. And in such a situation, he had the opportunity to shoot back.
          2. EvilLion
            EvilLion 25 October 2017 16: 59
            +2
            But they won’t make a battle? Do you really think that he has tank armor?
            By the way, Mi-28 can pick up a couple of people, he has a place for work in the electronics compartment. Anyway, empty fuselages in which people were occasionally transported are not uncommon.
        2. NIKNN
          NIKNN 26 October 2017 17: 08
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          But the military insisted on the option with the landing compartment. It seems to me that at the end of the 60s the customer himself did not understand what he wants!

          Hello Sergey! hi Thanks for the work, interesting! I think the military took it all and thought it right, but who could have imagined that an unarmored Mi-8 would be so effective at landing that the need for these capabilities was limited. So then Flying BMP. In practice, the Mi-24 was engaged in suppressing defense and guarding during the landing of the Mi-8, that is, fire support for the assault .... Well, as it is ... Boot the boots for the shoemaker .. smile
      2. venik
        venik 25 October 2017 17: 21
        +3
        Quote: WUA 518
        When a government decree was being prepared on the creation of the Mi-24, a note appeared in the same document on the development of a helicopter based on it without the possibility of transporting paratroopers.
        Thus, the countdown of the “biography” of the future Mi-28 “product 280” can begin from May 1968, when the above-mentioned resolution was issued.

        =========
        Well, actually, saying - it was still harder there ...
        The "easy option" with ONE engine was originally planned:
    2. venik
      venik 25 October 2017 10: 01
      +5
      Quote: parma
      True, it seems to me that the cargo compartment was in vain attached to him. It turned out to be very large (in comparison with the same cobra-same age as for example), and the landing party, in my opinion, never really was carried in combat conditions ...

      =======
      Yes, BIG, in comparison with the “Cobra”, it turned out, not just because the cargo compartment was “attached” to it, but because it was created on the basis of the not very small, but very successful Mi-8 !!! Even if there was no body compartment - it would still be hefty! And why on the basis of the Mi-8 - yes, because it was essentially the FIRST and VERY successful turboprop helicopter in the USSR !!!
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 25 October 2017 13: 29
      +2
      Quote: parma
      , and the landing party, in my opinion, never in a combat situation really really drove ...

      But I still recall the stories of those who fought in the "hot spots" about landing with the Mi-24 ... maybe not often, but still sometimes it happened?
  4. sivuch
    sivuch 25 October 2017 09: 12
    +9
    In the armies of the NATO countries to combat the Soviet armored thousands of thousands, relatively light two-seater helicopters were developed, armed with 4-6 ATGMs, a pair of NAR units and 7,62 - 20-mm caliber cannon weapons. Often, such rotorcraft were created on the basis of general-purpose helicopters, which did not have any significant reservations. It was believed that due to ease of control and good maneuverability, light anti-tank helicopters will avoid large losses. Their main purpose was to repel tank attacks on the battlefield, taking into account the ATGM launch range of 4-5 km, it was possible to destroy armored vehicles without crossing the front line. ... In this case, there is very little time left for military air defense systems to react.
    Sergey, this is not entirely accurate. Firstly, second-generation missiles are, in fact, NOT and TOW. There were no others, i.e. 3-4 km. Moreover, NOT had reliability problems, so even Europeans preferred TOW. There was no need to stutter about small working hours, even for well-trained Cobra crews, when starting from 3 km, working hours were no less than 37 seconds (and more than 75 happened). And it’s more correct to write - with the European countries of NATO. The staff had the experience of Vietnam and they already in the 70's created a fully-fledged anti-tank helicopter, i.e. Cobra. And these Cobras were built more than all the European crocodiles combined.
    1. Bongo
      25 October 2017 09: 44
      +8
      Quote: sivuch
      Sergey, this is not entirely accurate. Firstly, second-generation missiles are, in fact, NOT and TOW. There were no others, i.e. 3-4 km. Moreover, NOT had reliability problems, so even Europeans preferred TOW. There was no need to stutter about small working hours, even for well-trained Cobra crews, when starting from 3 km, working hours were no less than 37 seconds (and more than 75 happened). And it’s more correct to write - with the European countries of NATO. The staff had the experience of Vietnam and they already in the 70's created a fully-fledged anti-tank helicopter, i.e. Cobra. And these Cobras were built more than all the European crocodiles combined.

      Igor, welcome!
      The Syrians and Iraqis have experience in parallel operation of the Mi-25 with ATGM "Phalanx" and "Gazelles" with ATGM NOT-1. “Gazelles” due to ease of control and the possibility of freezing proved themselves much better when solving anti-tank missions. In practice, the range of HOT-1 missiles was due to higher accuracy higher. By the way, the Syrian "Gazelles" were quite effective in the 1982 year against Israeli tanks in Lebanon. But the SA.342 Gazelle had no armor and could easily be hit even with small arms. Therefore, where fire support of the ground forces was required, armored Mi-24 were used, which were carried by numerous NARs.
      1. venik
        venik 25 October 2017 10: 09
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        By the way, the Syrian "Gazelles" were quite effectively used in 1982 against Israeli tanks in Lebanon. But SA.342 Gazelle had no armor and could easily be hit even with small arms. Therefore, where fire support of the ground forces was required, armored Mi-24s were used, which were carried by numerous NARs.

        =========
        By the way - THERE was applied - EVERYTHING that "was at hand", to be precise! It is unlikely that the "bar @ ke" had the opportunity to "sort out the grub" (such as: against the tanks - "Gazelles", against the infantry - "Korkrdily" ....). There and the Mi-8 was thrown at the attack. Yes, and the "Gazelle" (at least CORRECT) - the Syrians it was - "the cat cried" .....
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2017 09: 45
      +4
      Quote: sivuch
      Firstly, second-generation missiles are, in fact, NOT and TOW. There were no others

      And Helfaer.
      They entered service in the year 85. A modification of the third generation 114L appeared only in 1998
      1. sivuch
        sivuch 25 October 2017 10: 37
        +5
        This is on paper. And so the first AN-64A squadron was declared combat ready in 86 and, as it were, in the fall. By the collapse of the Union, there were a maximum of 500 Apaches and about 2000 of all others.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2017 11: 09
          +1
          Quote: sivuch
          This is on paper. And so the first AN-64A squadron was declared combat ready in 86 and, as it were, in the fall. By the collapse of the Union, there were a maximum of 500 Apaches

          How many Supercobras?
          1. sivuch
            sivuch 25 October 2017 11: 28
            +5
            Exactly Supercobras or anti-tank Cobras in general?
            Let me quote myself, beloved.
            The most massive at that time were Cobras - back in early 1995, the US Armed Forces included 526 last-series AN-IS helicopters and another 434 “Cobras” of P / E / F models as part of the national guard.
            The Marine Corps had at least 150 Cobras and their production continued, as did licensed production in Japan.
            Meant - in army aviation. Japas received 80 cobras until the year 94. The Turks had about 30-40. And how many European ones was unrealistic to calculate. There were many station wagons who could carry ATGMs, but they might not carry. But 700-800 for sure
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 October 2017 12: 04
              0
              Quote: sivuch
              Exactly Supercobras or anti-tank Cobras in general?

              It is the "Supercobra" Having a laser station for illuminating targets
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 25 October 2017 12: 20
                +4
                I mean, to use hellfire? So this is not earlier than the mid-90s, i.e.AH-1Z.
                Before that, just not a single one. And when I put the laser length meters - I do not remember.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 October 2017 12: 39
                  +2
                  Quote: sivuch
                  I mean, to use hellfire? So this is not earlier than the mid-90s, i.e.AH-1Z

                  Americans claim that since 1983. AN-1W (http://www.deagel.com/Combat-Aircraft/AH-1W-Super
                  -Cobra_a000778001.aspx)
                  And “Z” is no longer “Super Cobra” but “Viper”
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 25 October 2017 13: 35
                    +4
                    Yes, I forgot about this one.
                    Marines have been flying the AH-1W Super Cobra since 1986. The last AH-1W was delivered in 1998
                    http://www.military.com/equipment/ah-1w-super-cob
                    ra
                    And this is for 91 years
                    The AH-1W is operated in eight composite HMLA squadrons composed of 18 AH-1 and 9 UH-1 aircraft. The Marine Corps deployed 4 of 6 active force squadrons (48 AH-1Ws) to Southwest Asia during Operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm
                    https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/ah-1.htm
                    Those. .for 91 years there were about 70-80.
  5. sivuch
    sivuch 25 October 2017 09: 17
    +6
    Yes, I forgot to write. An interesting document can be found on the network - TRADOC BULLETIN 4 Soviet ZSU-23-4 Capabilties and Countermeasures of January 1, 1976. There, the situation of Shilka vs Cobra is discussed in detail. Highly recommend
    1. DimerVladimer
      DimerVladimer 25 October 2017 10: 40
      +3
      Thanks - informative.
  6. maximghost
    maximghost 25 October 2017 09: 26
    +3
    About the fact that they forgot to release the chassis - funny. But was the experimental Mi-24a ATGM missiles on the wings? It seems that initially they wanted to put them in the same place where the Mi-24p had a gun and only after testing they were transferred to the wing points of the suspension.
    1. Bongo
      25 October 2017 09: 31
      +3
      Quote: maximghost
      About the fact that they forgot to release the chassis - funny.

      It was hardly amusing to the crews. sad
      Quote: maximghost
      But did the AT&M missiles have been on wings on an experienced mi-24? It seems that initially they wanted to put them in the same place where the Mi-24p has a gun and only after testing they were transferred to the wing points of the suspension.

      Sorry, but how then to launch missiles? what
      1. WUA 518
        WUA 518 25 October 2017 09: 54
        +7
        Quote: Bongo
        Sorry, but how then to launch missiles?

        I welcome Seryozha, at first they wanted to make special removable ATGM frames that were attached to the fuselage like on the Mi-4

        But this topic did not go beyond the layout
        1. Bongo
          25 October 2017 09: 57
          +6
          Quote: WUA 518
          I welcome Seryozha, at first they wanted to make special removable ATGM frames that were attached to the fuselage like on the Mi-4

          Thank! Did not know! request
      2. venik
        venik 25 October 2017 10: 14
        +5
        Quote: Bongo
        Sorry, but how then to launch missiles?

        =========
        Yes, like this:

        So that "maximghost" is right. In any case, it is in this matter !!!
  7. venik
    venik 25 October 2017 09: 29
    +5
    I liked the article very much! For which the author of course "respect" (+) !!! The only thing I would like to note - the author, please be more attentive - there are several annoying errors:
    1) Mi-24 was not unified with Mi-8 and Mi-14 ("flying boat") by the rotor (the rotor was designed "anew" on the basis of the Mi-4 screw with elements of the Mi-8 screw !!!). In addition, it turned out noticeably SHORT !!! It seems that they also differed in terms of the gearbox, although - by 100% - I'm not sure!
    2) The tandem cabin with isolated seats first appeared on the Mi-24D modification, and not on the “B” modification (by the way - the “D” modification appeared earlier than the “B” !!).
    3) In two pictures:


    It is not Mi-24V depicted, as indicated in the signatures, but Mi-35 !!! ON ALL modifications of the "24" were used EXCLUSIVELY "dual" PU ATGM systems, "four appeared ONLY on the latest modification of the Mi-35, which was caused by the shortening of the wing and the reduction in the number of pylons from 6 to 4 !!!
    Well, in general, everything is quite complete and well written!
    We look forward to continuing !!!
    1. Bongo
      25 October 2017 09: 55
      +6
      Quote: venik
      Mi-24 was not unified with Mi-8 and Mi-14 ("flying boat") by the SCREW (the screw was designed "anew" based on the Mi-4 screw with elements of the screw from Mi-8 !!!). In addition, it turned out noticeably SHORT !!! It seems that they also differed in terms of the gearbox, although - by 100% - I'm not sure!

      Thank you for your comments! hi But when collecting materials, I relied on sources for a list of which is listed at the end of the publication.
      Quote: venik
      The tandem cabin with isolated seats first appeared on the Mi-24D modification, and not on the “B” modification (by the way - the “D” modification appeared earlier than the “B” !!).

      Excuse me, but where is the opposite stated in the publication? what
      Quote: venik
      Depicted is not Mi-24В, as indicated in the signatures, but Mi-35 !!!

      Mi-35 is an export Mi-24B, not to be confused with Mi-35M.
      Quote: venik
      ON ALL modifications of the "24" they used EXCLUSIVELY "dual" PU ATGMs, "the four appeared ONLY on the latest Mi-35 modification, which was caused by the shortening of the wing and the reduction in the number of pylons from 6 to 4's !!!

      About the later modifications of the “twenty-four” will be in the next part. But in numerous sources there is information that in the second half of the 80's a significant part of the Mi-24V / P received twice the number of ATGMs on board.
      1. venik
        venik 25 October 2017 10: 34
        +4
        Quote: Bongo
        Mi-35 is an export Mi-24, not to be confused with Mi-35M.

        =======
        Sorry - MISTAKED! Meant precisely "M" !!!
        Quote: Bongo
        But when collecting materials, I relied on sources for a list of which is listed at the end of the publication.

        --------------
        It's funny, but it was published on this site !!! - https://topwar.ru/25713-40-let-legendarnomu-boevo
        mu-vertoletu-mi-24-chast-1-sozdanie.html !!!
        Quote: "... The profile of the rotor blades for the B-24 was selected at TsAGI, but this work was not completed by the time the first model was built. Then, at the suggestion of one of the leading design bureaus, the new blade was made at the Kazan Helicopter Plant: to the bow of the blade a tail was attached to the Mi-8 spar with a honeycomb filler from the Mi-4 - the blades had the same NACA-230 profile. Compared to the Mi-8, it turned out 2 m shorter and 20 mm wider. This solution was considered successful, and later under it summed up the scientific rationale.

        But over time, it turned out that the Kazan hybrid creates significantly less traction than the Mi-8 screw. The static ceiling of the V-24 in standard conditions was 0,8 - 1,3 km. This was clearly not enough in the mountains of Afghanistan, where a combat helicopter was inferior to the Mi-8MT with similar engines in takeoff and landing and traction characteristics. ... "
        Quote: Bongo
        But in numerous sources there is information that in the second half of the 80s a significant part of the Mi-24V / P received twice the number of ATGMs on board.

        ===========
        First, the EXPERIMENTS were carried out, but the data on serial conversion - I can not find remoteness! This time! Secondly - in BOTH photos - helicopters with TWO (!!!), and not THREE (like on the “24” kah) pylons and a shortened wing !! Take a closer look !!!
  8. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 25 October 2017 09: 51
    +2
    Unlike the Su-25, it seems to me that the Mi-24P (GSh-2-30) uranium shells would be very useful for working on armored vehicles ...
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 25 October 2017 10: 08
      +9
      What do you want from a cannon to shoot at tanks? Well, even with uranium cores the armor penetration is small, the caliber matters. And the sighting range ... of that. Again, the main method of working in armored vehicles is “jumping” - for ATGMs, the most important thing is not to aim from the cannon ... So, you don’t need to “multiply entities” and poison this rubbish ...
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 25 October 2017 10: 31
        +3
        The fact of the matter is that a helicopter, unlike an attack aircraft, an attack helicopter closer to the ground and has less speed and more often operates autonomously (unlike single-seat aircraft), so the probability of finding an armored target in the gun’s range is high ... and the caliber and cartridge quite decent for fighting tanks.
        1. WUA 518
          WUA 518 25 October 2017 10: 40
          +4
          Quote: Zaurbek
          fight with tanks.

          Do not worry, they fired at the tanks with ordinary armor-piercing ones.
          As a result, two rinks were blown off the tank, and one and a half meters of a caterpillar in the form of iron fragments of various sizes. For the rest, I agree with Taoism.
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 25 October 2017 11: 34
            +1
            And if there were BOPs (not even uranium), the target would be destroyed. Mi-20 and Ka-52 have a selective feed for the gun and such shells can be introduced. Tumble more Ka-52 exceptional accuracy when firing from 2A42
            1. NIKNN
              NIKNN 26 October 2017 17: 44
              +2
              Quote: Zaurbek
              And if there were BOPs (not even uranium), the target would be destroyed.

              How to tell you, in fact, it went through. A-10, specially created for these purposes, with a specially trained cannon for this purpose (30-mm GAU-8 / A Avenger seven-barreled cannon) showed that it will be weak to fight modern tanks. Although they shouted that during Operation Desert Storm they had fired tanks 50 years ahead ... maybe, but these are old T54-55 tanks, so it’s possible .. However, PGU-14 / B armor-piercing shells are made from depleted uranium, the initial velocity of 1250 m / s. Caliber projectile at a distance of 1200 m pierces normal 50 mm armor. Well, with lightly armored targets copes and Gsh-23 with standard armor-piercing ammunition. (by the way, the PT-76 is flashing it at the landfill) ... Well, as it is ... hi
        2. iouris
          iouris 30 October 2017 01: 38
          0
          There is a specific problem: the helicopter is very “chatting” in pitch and the speed is small, because the dispersion is great. I had a chance, standing behind the pilot, to observe the firing of a machine gun at the vehicle at the firing range: the distance between the first and last cartridge of the line was 150 meters, it seems. If the line of discontinuities crosses the target, then most likely there will be only a couple of hits in the truck. Perhaps the main purpose of the Mi-24 and attack aircraft is to work with guided missiles. References to their high cost are irrelevant.
    2. venik
      venik 25 October 2017 10: 46
      +4
      Quote: Zaurbek
      Unlike the Su-25, it seems to me that the Mi-24P (GSh-2-30) uranium shells would be very useful for working on armored vehicles ...

      ========
      Well, for most of the "old" tanks (50-60s) and the existing shells, it was COMPLETELY enough! And against the "new" - there are ATGMs! In addition, do not forget - shells from "depleted" uranium upon destruction create a rather serious infection of the area!
      In addition, they are quite expensive and it is too expensive to use them in tape power (three - OF, one armor-piercing). 1-2 will hit the target, and another 3-4 dozen stupidly infect the area!
      1. Gransasso
        Gransasso 25 October 2017 10: 54
        +2
        Quote: venik
        In addition, do not forget - shells from "depleted" uranium upon destruction create a rather serious infection of the area!



        Are you sure about the contamination of the area with depleted uranium shells? ... read something better on the topic ...
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2017 11: 20
          +8
          Quote: Gransasso
          Are you sure about the contamination of the area with depleted uranium shells?

          Are you sure not? Moreover, one must think that your confidence is based on the assurances of those who actively apply it? So remember the story of tetraethyl lead.
        2. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 25 October 2017 11: 31
          +6
          I don’t know the terrain, but all the training bronzetels in the USA are brought to the special storage area from the landfills (fonat)
          1. zyablik.olga
            zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 13: 26
            +6
            Quote: Zaurbek
            I don’t know the terrain, but all the training bronzetels in the USA are brought to the special storage area from the landfills (fonat)

            And there is. In addition, Uranium-238 is very toxic.
            1. venik
              venik 25 October 2017 16: 11
              +7
              Quote: zyablik.olga
              And there is. In addition, Uranium-238 is very toxic.

              =====
              Well, firstly, it (U-238) is not only toxic, it is also RADIOACTIVE. Although by "radioactivity" - it is 28 times weaker than the U-235 isotope (which is the "stuffing" of atomic bombs (and not only! - it is also the "raw material" for producing Plutonium), BUT !!! He ( U-238) - "Alpha-active !!!!!). Yes, alpha-radiation is delayed by" tissue paper ", but God forbid, if the slightest" speck of dust "of this material gets into your airways, or on the mucous membrane ( eyes for example) - in the near future you will have a GREAT chance - to be a patient in an oncology clinic !!! With very little chance of recovery .....
              At the same time, if we take, say, a rod from U-238 anodized with some metal (and even coated with a special paintwork material) - you can QUESTLY put it on your table, as a “souvenir” - in the next 100 years - neither you nor your relatives are NOT at risk!
              BUT! U-238 (or the so-called "depleted uranium") is very pyrophoric - decaying into small particles - it is capable of "spontaneous combustion" (roughly of course, but it’s easier to explain!)
              Now - "uranium cores" - have received such a distribution not only by the fact that they allow to "utilize" the so-called "waste" production (in enriched uranium ore - approx. 98% U-238, the remaining 2% - "weapons" U-235. In addition, "cores from the so-called" depleted "U-238 are pyrophoric - t. e. punching armor, they crumble into dust and ignite ....
              Well, then - this "dust" from U-238 - and becomes the very "infectious element" ... Although the GENERAL level of radiation is VERY LOW! (Geiger and scintillation detectors - record an EXTREMELY LOW background !!!)
              But at the same time, the “neutron capture cross section” of the U-238 is simply BIG !!! Therefore (specially anodized and colored) containers from U-238 are often used to transport materials that create a large neutron flux (also extremely harmful to the body), for example, the same U-235.
              Well, somewhere like that! I tried to "explain on the fingers", I do not know how it turned out .....
        3. venik
          venik 25 October 2017 14: 21
          +1
          Quote: Gransasso
          Are you sure about the contamination of the area with depleted uranium shells? ... read something better on the topic ...

          ========
          And you, in fact, understand at least a LITTLE-LITTLE ??? Do you even know WHAT is "depleted uranium" ??? No?? But somehow I had to hold in my hand a "protective" container of "depleted uranium" .... The size is like that with a 3-liter jar, the guy and I barely lifted it ..... That's why "Do not teach me how to live" - ​​for almost 20 years he worked with radioactive materials! Because that’s all the “abominations” of this rubbish - I know, a little better than you and all your friends!
  9. Taoist
    Taoist 25 October 2017 10: 13
    +6
    Crocodile is certainly a “song” - probably the only such armored station wagon in the world. Reflection of the doctrine of "vertical reach." By the way, it’s a shame that they forget the third crew member of the 24… flight technician ... And by the way, he fought quite well for himself ...
    1. Bongo
      25 October 2017 10: 18
      +6
      Quote: Taoist
      Crocodile is certainly a “song” - probably the only such armored station wagon in the world. Reflection of the doctrine of "vertical reach."

      He has no analogues, and most likely will not be!
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, it’s a shame that they forget the third crew member of the 24 ... flight engineer ... And by the way, he fought quite well for himself ...

      During real sorties, especially in areas with a hot climate, and in the mountains, as a rule, the crew consisted of a navigator-operator and pilot. Mi-24 was already heavily overloaded and its altitude characteristics left much to be desired.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 25 October 2017 10: 59
        +3
        Well, in Afghanistan, Bortachians flew with might and main despite the heat and highlands ... You know you need to watch the tail, Again, at the exit from the attack, the machine gun in the hands of the Bortach was often a weighty argument for those who want to shoot in the back ... And grenades in glasses?
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 13: 24
          +4
          Quote: Taoist
          Well, in Afghanistan, Bortachians flew with might and main despite the heat and highlands ... You know you need to watch the tail, Again, at the exit from the attack, the machine gun in the hands of the Bortach was often a weighty argument for those who want to shoot in the back ... And grenades in glasses?

          It just so happened that I was able to get acquainted with the next part (correcting spelling). According to documentary data and reports of losses on the Mi-24 in Afghanistan, technicians generally did not fly to combat missions, since the ceiling of the Mi-24 was low, and every kilogram on board was worth its weight in gold. Therefore, the Mi-24 were more vulnerable when fired from behind.
    2. WUA 518
      WUA 518 25 October 2017 10: 29
      +5
      Quote: Taoist
      By the way, it’s a shame that they forget the third crew member of the 24 ... flight engineer ... And by the way, he fought quite well for himself ...

    3. venik
      venik 25 October 2017 14: 54
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Crocodile is certainly a “song” - probably the only such armored station wagon in the world.

      =========
      No, far from the ONLY! But HE was FIRST !!!
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 25 October 2017 23: 44
        +1
        Well, even interesting - name at least one analogue?
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 26 October 2017 00: 29
          +1
          Ka-29 and, in part, the new Mi-8AMTS.
  10. shuravi
    shuravi 25 October 2017 11: 22
    0
    Yes, the article turned out to be spreading cranberries. laughing
    1. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 13: 19
      +6
      Quote: shuravi
      Yes, the article turned out to be spreading cranberries.

      Write your own, without cranberries, and we'll see what you can do except throw poop. negative
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 25 October 2017 13: 49
        +1
        Firstly, it was not the Mi-24 that was created for the VBMP concept, but the concept itself was adapted to the Mi-24. The fact is that when using the Mi-8 developments, in particular the layout ones, behind the cockpit there was a volume that was used very rationally.
        Secondly, there is no navigator-operator, there is a pilot-operator. despite the fact that on the Mi-24A, D, B, P, the duties of the navigator are assigned to the helicopter commander. Although in practice, the operator navigates by himself.
        Thirdly, after Mi-24A, they started developing Mi-24В, but due to the unprepared ATGM complex, a simplified version of Mi-24Д went into the series. On which, although all the same “Phalanxes” remained, but there was already PN “Rainbow” and the possibility of guidance in semi-automatic mode. because the accuracy was higher.
        Fourthly, the Mi-24B could take up to 8 ATGMs, using transition frames on the 1 and 4 suspension points.
        Fifthly, “Lindens” were not used in Afghanistan. They were not trusted, unlike ASO.
        Is that enough for now? laughing
        1. zyablik.olga
          zyablik.olga 25 October 2017 14: 16
          +4
          Quote: shuravi
          Is that enough for now?

          Well, yes, you are the ultimate truth. Most of what you have stated is contained either in this or in the next part. Using "Linden" in the DRA - a documented fact.
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 25 October 2017 15: 10
            0
            Yes, they did. As a heater in the winter in modules. laughing
        2. venik
          venik 25 October 2017 14: 58
          +2
          Quote: shuravi
          Firstly, it was not the Mi-24 that was created for the VBMP concept, but the concept itself was fitted to the Mi-24.

          =========
          First, learn the HISTORY, and only then - HERE you will "speak" !!!!!
          1. The comment was deleted.
        3. igor67
          igor67 25 October 2017 18: 47
          +5
          Quote: shuravi
          Fifthly, “Lindens” were not used in Afghanistan. They were not trusted, unlike ASO.

          Lipa’s revision was installed at our rembaza, as all 24 Afghan ones were being repaired by us, the name of the Ashka was called an aquarium, I can’t imagine how one could get into the tank from Ashka,
    2. venik
      venik 25 October 2017 14: 57
      +2
      Quote: shuravi
      Yes, the article turned out to be spreading cranberries. laughing

      =========
      Sorry, of course, but WHAT IS CRANBERRY ???? Well, except that the comments of individual "shuravi" ........
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 25 October 2017 15: 17
        0
        In essence, what do you have to object? For example, what, on the Mi-24 there is no and there was no navigator-operator? There is a pilot-operator, and this is a big difference. Or poke your nose into the crew instructions?
  11. parma
    parma 25 October 2017 14: 32
    +4
    Quote: shuravi
    Firstly, it was not the Mi-24 that was created for the VBMP concept, but the concept itself was adapted to the Mi-24. The fact is that when using the Mi-8 developments, in particular the layout ones, behind the cockpit there was a volume that was used very rationally.

    And how was it fitted to the Mi-24? Why, then, is more than one combat (combat, rather than other types of alterations for combat, essentially ganships) not having a cargo compartment? The first cobra was also sculpted from Khik, but the even did not blind the landing compartment, but on the contrary they tried to make it as thin as possible in the frontal plane so that they would catch less bullets.
    As for the removal of the crew of the downed slave / leader, so the same cobras (they are peers, and even though not sad, I like it outwardly) could take them out on skis (yes it’s risky for the passengers’ day, but it’s even more risky to hang and wait until they get into the airborne compartment , you can catch MANPADS / RPGs). Transportation of technicians and ammunition to the jump airfield is also a weak excuse, these are rather rare cases when you use a function that still exists, like a flashlight in a phone. It’s a pity that we don’t have an analogue of the MN-6 in the army, which can also shoot a little if necessary, or where special forces should be thrown .. The concept of the MN-6 and AN-1 / AN-64 pair for MTR (and who still needs a helicopter with such a landing compartment) looks more interesting than one Mi-24 ...
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 25 October 2017 15: 25
      0
      They explained to you that the reason for using the Mi-8T developments. Which, to put it mildly, is slightly larger than the Hyck with a different layout of the VMG.
      Better keep your nonsense about the PSO. Back in the days of Afghanistan, it was proved that the best result of salvation was when the PSO group consisting of 4 Mi-24 and 2 Mi-8 were on duty in the air for the 5-10 minute flight interval.
      Changing the composition of the group, the duty mode leads to tragedy. Example, the loss of one of the Su-24 pilots in Syria.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 25 October 2017 15: 51
        +2
        And only TV3-117 and a gearbox were available, around which the Mi-24 was built, the same songs with the Mi-28 and Kamov. Therefore, our cars are more than American.
        1. shuravi
          shuravi 25 October 2017 16: 11
          0
          And what does that change? Or a larger BC, better crew protection, do you think is bad?
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 25 October 2017 16: 43
            +4
            I mean, what the Americans did for their engines, we for our own ... hence the size. The armor is excellent, the dimensions are not very ...
            1. shuravi
              shuravi 25 October 2017 16: 51
              +1
              And without dimensions you can’t hang armor. And the non-critical dimensions of the Mi-24.
  12. parma
    parma 26 October 2017 09: 40
    +2
    Quote: Zaurbek
    I mean, what the Americans did for their engines, we for our own ... hence the size. The armor is excellent, the dimensions are not very ...

    Everything is clear about the engine, the engine is large and the helicopter is large, but even if you don’t take the dimensions, the cargo compartment is just overweight, you can put soldiers with RMB there and shoot, or you can just spend a ton on weapons and armor, which is even more effective NURSy or soldiers with RMB? I do not think that with active maneuvering (which, by the way, is in principle more difficult to do if there is a cargo compartment with a landing party inside), it is possible to fire from the cargo compartment with at least some accuracy ....
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 26 October 2017 09: 57
      0
      The maneuverability of a helicopter depends on the power ratio. What Mi-24 has no problems with. Even under the conditions of Afghanistan, he easily walked in the mode of enveloping the relief.
      The very presence of a cargo compartment, even without any landing, greatly increased the autonomy of the helicopter. Especially when working with jump sites.
  13. parma
    parma 26 October 2017 11: 23
    +2
    Quote: shuravi
    The maneuverability of a helicopter depends on the power ratio. What Mi-24 has no problems with. Even under the conditions of Afghanistan, he easily walked in the mode of enveloping the relief.
    The very presence of a cargo compartment, even without any landing, greatly increased the autonomy of the helicopter. Especially when working with jump sites.

    Yes, i.e. from hp / t (kg if you want) ... Agree that without landing and cargo compartment, this figure is higher, all other things being equal! And the jump grounds are a very weak excuse! All the same, you need to establish supplies there! and as far as I know, "crocodiles" flew either with full BC or with cargo, and this and that cannot be loaded, it will not take off!
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 26 October 2017 13: 02
      0
      The cargo compartment itself is empty and does not affect LTX. Landing, in my practice they never drove there. Even at the time of my service at 11, the DShBR Mi-24 were not intended to carry troops according to combat calculations. Although it would seem.
      This is to the thesis that the military ordered VBMP.
      But here to throw several boxes in the NAR into the cargo compartment, in addition to being in blocks, this is as many as you like. But takeoff and landing with mileage.
  14. Dzungar
    Dzungar 28 October 2017 07: 09
    +1
    Hi Andrew! To be honest, I didn’t fly on modern cars and it's hard to judge me about them. But, according to the stories, they also have weaknesses. Some pilots favor the production of simpler and cheaper helicopters. After all, the combat life of the helicopter is not very long ..... This is the opinion of my good friend Vladimir V. veteran of Afghanistan, the pilot of the MI-24 helicopter, when I threw him a link to the creation of a high-speed combat helicopter in Russia .....