Military Review

Hunting for the "Crocodile"

29
South African Impala attack aircraft against Angolan helicopters Mi-25



In the autumn of 1985, the Angolan army (FAPLA) and Cuban units that fought on its side carried out an operation known in the West as the “Second Congress”. The aim of the operation was to restore government control over the province of Kuzombo and defeat UNITA insurgent groups in the area of ​​the “capital” of the rebels - the city of Jamba.

Aviation support was provided by the Angola Air Force squadrons based at the Menong and Quito Kwanavale airfields. In Menong, aircraft were located, in Quito - helicopters: four Mi-25 (export version of Mi-24), two Mi-8 and four Mi-17. The combat “crocodiles” were entrusted with the tasks of escorting transport helicopters, “clearing” the sites before landing and providing direct air support.
When accompanied by "eights" Mi-25 helicopters flew at a height of about 900 - 1800 m, keeping a little higher and away from transport vehicles. Sometimes, the "turntables" were accompanied by Cuban-controlled MiG-23 fighters, circling at altitudes 4000 - 5000 m.

The offensive of the government troops was developing successfully: by October, the rebel leader Savimbi was in a very difficult situation - the government troops reached the near approaches to Jamba. UNITA help has once again come from South Africa. Impala airplanes of the South African Air Force were deployed at the Randu airbase. By joint actions of South Africans and Savimbi detachments, FAPLA’s attack in late October was stopped. However, intelligence reported that Angolan troops were preparing a new operation, with helicopters providing quick maneuver to government troops.

Hunting for the "Crocodile"

South African light attack aircraft "Impala"


Savimbi personally appealed to his South African allies with a proposal to use the Impala attack aircraft to fight helicopters. The first reaction to this idea was bewilderment. First, no one has ever applied or even developed the tactics of air combat against helicopters in Africa. Secondly, there were fears that the growing use of South African air forces would lead to an escalation of the conflict, in particular, to the retaliatory strikes of Angolan MiGs on air bases in South Africa itself.

After much hesitation, the decision to use the aircraft against the Angolan helicopters, in the first place - the Mi-25, was still made.
South African intelligence has established extremely low professional skills of crocodile crews. The Angolan pilots had a bad navigator training, because of which the flight routes were laid only along the visible natural landmarks - rivers or roads. In bad weather, the helicopters did not fly, there was no discipline in the radio communications of the crews.

All this, of course, facilitated the task of the Impalam, but after all, the South African pilots did not have the slightest experience in conducting air battles, and even more so with helicopters, they were taught only to strike at ground targets.

After deciding to fight helicopters, Pretoria immediately organized a series of flight tests to develop the best tactics for Mi-25 attacks by jet aircraft. The Puma helicopters imitated the typical flight profiles of the Angolan “choppers” (chopper - “woodcutter” - the western nickname Mi-25).

The problem was complicated by the presence of a serious threat to the Impalam from the MiG-23. MiGs, as already mentioned, were piloted by Cubans, whose training, at least, was not inferior to the training of South African pilots, and with the equal skill of pilots, the Impal had no chances in air combat with MiGs; in the end, the Impala is just a modification of the Italian training plane MB.326K.

South Africans could only hope for a sudden short-term attack, for which they needed to go out to the battlefield at the height of the tops of the trees in order not to get on the screens of the Angolan radar.

Attacking helicopters should be carried out from the rear hemisphere with a slight excess in height, however, it was not all simple. First of all, this is the traditional tactic of air combat that the Angolan helicopter pilots somehow knew. Therefore, Mi-25 did not rule out attacks from the tail and periodically turned, checking for the presence of an enemy in the rear hemisphere. Secondly, the speed of the Impala, even hung with outboard arms, is much higher than the speed of a helicopter, that is, when an unsuccessful attack occurred, the plane jumped forward, putting its tail under the fire of a powerful weapons "Crocodile".

In the end, the best attack was recognized by a pair at a minimum speed close to the stall mode. At the same time, the aircraft also carried out “scissors”, trying to at least somehow equalize their speed with the speed of helicopters. The first to lead the helicopter was to open fire leading pair, and the share of the slave remained the leading Mi-25. Fortunately for South Africans, they did not have to go in for “free hunting” - the routes and even the time of flight of the helicopters were well known and did not change over the course of weeks. The zone of the upcoming battles was located in 35 minutes of the Impal flight from the Randu airfield, and only a few minutes were allotted for the fight.


Fighters of the Angolan insurgent army UNITA pose on the wreckage of the Mi-8, shot down by South Africans 29 September 1985.


Four pairs of airplanes were allocated for interception, three of them were percussions, and one was “insured.” In the event of an unfavorable development of events, she was supposed to cover the downed pilot before the arrival of two search and rescue helicopters Puma. The entire flight was to be performed in radio silence mode. The pilots were forbidden to be distracted by any other purpose, except for helicopters, even if the meeting with the Mi-25 for some reason did not take place. The situation on the helicopter flight route was monitored by light single-engine reconnaissance aircraft, which were based at the airfield of jumping. The command to take off "Impal" was given only after the detection of the enemy.

On the evening of September 27, the code word “Bravo” was sounded in the flight room of the Randa airfield from the loudspeaker 1985. Helicopters were found. A pair of Mi-25 took off from the air base Kvito-Kvanavale. Four pairs of airplanes took off at an interval of four minutes and headed north.

The first to establish visual contact with the helicopters was the lead of the second pair, the Impal. Mi-25 went at a height of about 600 m. The pilot freely took the starting position to attack from behind from above. The attack went off like an exercise - a line of Impala-driven 20 mm guns pierced the Mi-25 fuselage from the tail rotor to the nose turret. The helicopter broke out, but the pilot continued to operate the machine, hoping to land safely. Then Impala turned around and attacked a second time, firing unguided rockets from the underwing blocks.


Frames of the photo machine gun, on which 20-mm Impala shells are captured in the Angolan Mi-25


The host pursued another Mi-25. The pilot of the second helicopter turned on the 180 ° and began to dive off to the ground. "Impala" went on the attack with an overload of 5G and from a rather unsuccessful angle from the bottom side. The pilot opened fire from a cannon at a distance of approximately 500 m. As the aiming point, he chose the exhaust nozzle of the helicopter APU. According to the pilot report, nineteen shells hit the helicopter's fuselage, approximately opposite the main gearbox. South African could not resist the opportunity to admire the results of their work. At extremely low speed, he passed over the Mi-25, watching the agony of the downed car. From the helicopter flew off the panel of the engine cowls, then - the rotor blades, then the "crocodile" fell on the tail and, randomly tumbling, fell to the ground.

Led meanwhile also celebrated the victory. In the next approach, he finished off the Mi-25 from a cannon; the helicopter also flew in different directions of the main rotor blades, the car crashed into the ground and exploded.

South African aircraft at extremely low altitude, fearing a meeting with MiGs, rushed to their base. The first "hunt" was successfully completed.
Two days later, on September 29, at 9, the Bravo signal sounded again at the Randu airfield at 8. This time, a pair of Mi-25s flew up with Quito-Kvanavale, guarded by two Mi-900s. The Impalas took off. It was not necessary to search for the enemy for a long time - helicopters followed at an altitude of XNUMX meters, repeating the bends of the Lomba River. "Eight" flew front of the system, about a kilometer behind them, one after another, "crocodiles".

South Africans did not reinvent the wheel: the lead pair attacked the locking Mi-25 from the rear hemisphere with an elevation of 300 meters. A long line of guns went through the fuselage of the helicopter, the Mi-25 caught fire, but the flight continued.

At the same time, problems arose at the Impala itself - the exit to extremely low speed and powder gases from firing disrupted the engine. Nevertheless, the pilot decided to attack the second Mi-25, but, taking up the position for a strike, he passed under the noses of a burning "crocodile", receiving a portion of the lead from the YakB four-barreled machine gun. The Angolan not only tried to keep the helicopter burning on the course, but also did not miss the chance to attack. True, the damage of the South African attack aircraft was not fatal. From a distance of 500, Impala shot the second Mi-25. The helicopter did not catch fire, but spiraled downward. When it hit the ground, it exploded.


Another downed Angolan Mi-8


After the destruction of the escort, the Impala attacked transport workers. Slave Mi-8 they managed to bring down, but the leader in time dived to the ground and began to wind through the trees. All attempts to get it with shells of air cannons ended in vain. The battle so far led only one pair of aircraft. Having failed to cope with the "twisted" "eight", the Yuarovsky pilots called for help from their comrades, but soon the Mi-8 disappeared from view.

In the post-flight report, the pilots "Impal" noted that the helicopter aggressively maneuvered, even trying to attack the aircraft on a collision course. The maneuvers that the pilot Mi-8 was doing indicated that he was well aware of the tactics of air combat, and the South Africans decided that it was not an African who was sitting in the cockpit, but a Russian.

The second pair, the Impal, came to the rescue and managed to re-discover the surviving helicopter, but attempts to hit it were not successful. The G8 continued to maneuver intensively, turning from time to time to imitate a frontal attack. In the end, the aircraft still forced the pilot of the Mi-8 to land and shot the helicopter after landing.
At this time, the third pair of “hunters” approached the battlefield, and the leader of the first pair spotted two MiG-23. Angolan fighters quickly swept over the battlefield at the height of the entire 10-15 meters, after which the candle at the fast and the fuse soared into the sky, taking up a position to attack. Now the Impala played the game game.

South African fighters still managed to “take away their legs” without loss.

The "Crocodile Hunt" was crowned with complete success: having lost six helicopters in two days, the Angolans refused to use the "turntables" for transporting troops and cargo. The success was accompanied by South Africans, primarily because of the suddenness of the attack. So, if in the last battle on the spot Mi-8 was Mi-24, then it is not yet known how this battle would end (the G-8 could only imitate attacks due to the lack of on-board armament).

The convincing victory of the aircraft over the helicopters did not at all put an end to the use of rotary-wing attack aircraft in the longstanding Angolan war. Already in winter 1985-86. The Mi-25 supported the advance of the FAPLA armored units in the Mawingi and Casingi area, causing heavy losses in the UNITA units.
Author:
Originator:
http://otvaga2004.ru/
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tm70-71
    tm70-71 4 May 2013 08: 49 New
    14
    I once read that flying school desks is not a stormtrooper and not a fighter, that using it in modern combat is very doubtful, but this story completely refutes all attempts to cast doubt on the use of training machines. An instructive story, we know very little about that war, Many thanks to the author for the story and the analysis!
    1. StolzSS
      StolzSS 4 May 2013 14: 18 New
      +3
      Well, it’s not so profitable for the Leberasts because the Soviets and the Cubans won that war, and that war is hushed up ...
      1. patline
        patline 4 May 2013 14: 59 New
        +4
        The article is good. It's nice to read, lively narrative, and you imagine yourself at the scene. To the author plus.
    2. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe 4 May 2013 18: 17 New
      +4
      Quote: tm70-71
      flying desks is not a stormtrooper and not a fighter, that its use in modern combat is very doubtful, but this story completely refutes all attempts to cast doubt on the use of training machines

      Training machines - 100% flying coffins in any military conflict

      Where did the conclusion come from, Impala is a training aircraft ??
      This is a purely combat vehicle built on the basis of the Aermacchi MB-326 TCB.

      two embedded 30 mm aircraft guns, six external suspension units, 1800 kg external suspension elements. The cabin is completely changed - instead of the instructor's seat, a fuel tank is installed. Aiming equipment added - the aircraft was able to use even air-to-air missiles
  2. ImPerts
    ImPerts 4 May 2013 09: 37 New
    +1
    What to say: "Learn materiel!"
    1. bask
      bask 4 May 2013 10: 40 New
      +5
      Quote: ImPerts
      What to say: "Learn materiel!"

      Why did the USSR not give the coordinates (((satellite intelligence))) of the South African airfields ????
      Cubans would have bombed from with MIGs, all airfields, to ... to pieces, why ????
      Could and use - to test in combat conditions of the fuel dispenser ,, Point U ,,
      In Afghanistan, all this at the same time was successfully applied.
      And most importantly, why didn’t we take into account the experience in construction, MRAPs already got a lot of cars of this class from Soviet advisers. And they didn’t capture the famous G-6 howitzer, which already shot at 85 class in the 38 year.
      In Afghanistan, at that time, our KamAZ trucks and Urals, which were not armored at all and without mine protection, were blown up by high-explosive bombs. If the intelligence had responded adequately and the industry released armored missile defense systems. armored vehicles with anti-mine protection. NOT adjusted, why ????
      WE WOULD BE IN THIS QUESTION FORWARD ALL ....
      The South African men used Soviet armored vehicles with might and main and copied Grad
      1. niksanpk71
        niksanpk71 27 November 2013 11: 54 New
        0
        Why do you hate whites, you are black
  3. tttttt
    tttttt 4 May 2013 09: 57 New
    +8
    As I understand it, they were beaten from the back hemisphere, the crews were inexperienced and did not know that they were being attacked, that is, a surprise attack. Yes, and that guy would have sat that in MI-8 at the controls of the Crocodile and had the opportunity not to imitate an attack in the oncoming courses and to really fry, it is not yet known who would burn on the ground.
  4. Marconi41
    Marconi41 4 May 2013 10: 19 New
    +1
    No matter how cool a helicopter is, one devil will give way to an airplane. Even such a nonsense as the Impala. But what the 23s missed the attack aircraft is not respect for our weapons at all.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  5. omsbon
    omsbon 4 May 2013 10: 54 New
    +7
    A great role is played by the professionalism of the pilots, and among Angolans such was not observed.
  6. Homo
    Homo 4 May 2013 12: 07 New
    0
    And what is this article about? How did planes shoot down helicopters? It’s so clear that the plane is superior to a helicopter! Dummy - no news, no information, no heroism, or anything !!!
    1. tm70-71
      tm70-71 4 May 2013 12: 51 New
      +4
      A very good article, but do you have any examples of a helicopter flight?
      1. Tihas
        Tihas 4 May 2013 14: 19 New
        11
        ... there is a real combat episode in history when on October 25 of 1994, eight Dudaev L-39s unexpectedly attacked a group of Mi-24 federal forces helicopters with a volley of unguided missiles. In a short-lived aerial battle, two Crocodiles were shot down, but the others, finding the enemy, immediately took revenge by shooting a couple of training and combat “Albatrosses”.
      2. knn54
        knn54 5 May 2013 15: 36 New
        +3
        tm70-71: This is a very good article, but do you have any examples of how to handle a helicopter?
        Mi-25 is an export version of the Mi-24D machine, which was distinguished by a slightly different composition of on-board equipment. The helicopter was intended for deliveries to states that were not part of the Warsaw Pact countries.
        Mi-24 had victories over supersonic fighter jets.
        The first such victory took place on 8 on June 1982 in the Bekaa Valley over Lebanon. The Syrian Colonel-AS, piloting the latest Mi-24В, with R-60MK missiles attacked a column of Israeli armored vehicles and personally destroyed ATGM and NAR 5 tanks, an armored personnel carrier and a mobile air defense system. The Israelis called in a couple of fighters for help, and one of them, “Phantom,” (although witnesses - Soviet military experts who examined the wreckage, came to the conclusion that this is one of three downed American F-14 “Tomcat” with “freshly painted stars of David”) going at the speed of M1,4 in an attack on the Mi-24B, he betrayed himself by radar. The helicopter turned around the bearing and launched the 2x R-60MK from a distance of more than 8 km into the front hemisphere, the first of which inflicted fatal damage to the fighter, and the second turned the Israeli fighter with medium-range Sparrow (or Phoenix) missiles into a blazing cloud debris. The second victory was won during the Iran-Iraq conflict, October 27 1984 year north of the village of Ein Khosh. Just as in the case of the Syrian helicopter, the Iraqi Air Force helicopter was attacked by a third-generation Phantom supersonic fighter. However, the Israeli aircraft carried interceptor weapons, and all the air-to-air weapons of the Iranian Phantom consisted of only four Sparrows - the Iranian aircraft carried Shrike missiles to destroy air defense radars and containers with reconnaissance equipment to determine the parameters of Iraqi radars . Noticing the Iraqi Mi-24D, the fighter pilot decided to shoot down the helicopter, but the latter went at low altitude and the Sparrow lost its target. But the gambling Iranian pilot decided to use the Vulkan cannon and directed his car towards the Iraqi helicopter. The Iraqi pilot was not at a loss and fired from a distance in 3,5km 32 NAR S-5 - eight out of four blocks. 32 missiles rushed towards the Phantom with a “spot” with a diameter of 150 meters at M2 speed. An Iranian fighter tried to turn away, and at that moment a missile hit him in the back of the fuselage. The fuel instantly detonated and the Phantom turned into a shapeless fireball. The victory over the Pakistani F-16 remains an unexplained fact in the glorious biography of the legendary helicopter.
        No less interesting are the victories of 24ok over the attack aircraft. In the sky above Nicaragua an 12,7mm machine gun was shot down by a light attack aircraft manufactured by the USA A-37 Dragonfly. As a matter of fact, all the armor of this attack aircraft consisted of 4mm steel plates covering the engine and the cabin. Such armor could protect only from the fire of machine guns of 7,62 caliber. Pilots were also protected by nylon multilayer armor. And the small arms of the attack aircraft were weak - the 6ti 7,62mm Minigun machine gun. Naturally, when in October 1984 the Mi-24D and A-37, 12,7mm YakB bullets came together in artillery combat, the engines of the Honduran Air Force attack aircraft were pierced like paper. During the peacekeeping operation in Abkhazia in the autumn of 1992, the Russian Mi-24ВП shot down the 9М114М2 Georgian attack aircraft Su-25 with the Sturm rocket. Despite the legendary survivability of the Soviet machine, the 20mm titanium armor did not save the attack aircraft, - the cumulative ATGM detonation caused the detonation of 500kg fugaski ...
        PS Mi-24 has an unprecedented number of air victories over military and multi-armed armed helicopters of the enemy - the loss ratio is approximately 1 to 6; also - Mi-24 - the ONLY WORLD helicopter that shot down heavily armored attack aircraft and even supersonic enemy fighters!
    2. StolzSS
      StolzSS 4 May 2013 14: 24 New
      +3
      Well, you probably haven’t heard that under Saddam Iraqis shot down an Iranian plane from a crocodile ??
      And you probably also have not heard that now air-to-air missiles are hung on helicopters for self-defense. The article is simply a coverage of an episode from that period, so finding fault with the lack of heroism is a little silly. If you want an article with a Heroisky, so go ahead and get the order of the hero and write an article, we will honor and write)
  7. skif1804
    skif1804 4 May 2013 15: 01 New
    0
    Generally an article from the category of hunting tales. In fact, a helicopter and an airplane are two extremely uncomfortable opponents for each other, see "http://www.airwar.ru/other/article/copters.html" section "Helicopter fighter", due to the large difference in speed of getting into a helicopter from a cannon or NURSom all the more a very non-trivial task.
    On the Internet, you can find information about the large number of Mi-24 victories over enemy helicopters and aircraft (for example, here http://omskteam.ru/airsoft-military/24-t5620.html), but again this data is not confirmed by anything.
    So the article is interesting only as a work of art wink
  8. APASUS
    APASUS 4 May 2013 20: 19 New
    +5
    South African intelligence has established extremely low professional skills of crocodile crews. The Angolan pilots had a bad navigator training, because of which the flight routes were laid only along the visible natural landmarks - rivers or roads. In bad weather, the helicopters did not fly, there was no discipline in the radio communications of the crews.

    This is how rumors are born that our military equipment is worse than Western! You look at entire fields of tanks in Iraq and you understand that the crew left the car before the appearance of helicopters!
    Weak moral and professional qualities allowed to defeat the army of Saddam, and the indestructible power of the US army.
  9. gladysheff2010
    gladysheff2010 4 May 2013 21: 11 New
    +1
    The article is any plus, since so many different opinions and disputes arise.
  10. bublic82009
    bublic82009 4 May 2013 21: 33 New
    +1
    Monkeys eat monkeys as they are not taught.
    1. smile
      smile 4 May 2013 22: 36 New
      +4
      bublic8200
      Well, it’s not good to say that ... but I’ve got a stepfather (I’ve gone to Africa for 20 years) in a letter from Angola I wrote this phrase- ... I have two people and three blacks in a shift ... :)))) he he treated them well, with humor ... good, people say, only they don’t want to work and don’t know how to ....
      unfortunately, we have to admit that in the emergence of such a mentality, white people had a hand in their hearts ...
      but the Cuban blacks are completely different - quite normal guys. Communicated with two Cubans who fought in Angola, who, consider and extended that war. One - black as the soul of Bandera - so cursed at the Angolans, even the jacket turned up - these, he says, are black .... further unprintable. By the way, both guys graduated from the fish fact of KTI. So they had a competition for admission to us there in Cuba - 98 people in place ... the smartest guys ...
  11. Ilyukha
    Ilyukha 5 May 2013 08: 47 New
    0
    Anyone who has watched live pilotage on a flight vehicle such as the L-39 (in fact, an analogue of the Impala) and the pilotage of the hefty flying MI-8 bus will understand that knocking down the latter is not so difficult.
    Even with excellent crew training.
    Therefore, our fourth-generation MIG-29 and SU-27 aircraft were originally designed with a very low stall speed and can co-rotate helicopters flying at the same speed, which was repeatedly demonstrated during the exercises and worked out during exercises.
    By the way, Amer’s counterparts-F-15 F-16 cannot do this — the minimum safe speed is higher than the speed of a helicopter.
    1. Old_kapitan
      Old_kapitan 5 May 2013 11: 13 New
      +2
      By the way, Amer’s counterparts-F-15 F-16 cannot do this — the minimum safe speed is higher than the speed of a helicopter.
      Why are there F-15 and F-16! The patrol "Orion" is higher!
      1. Old_kapitan
        Old_kapitan 5 May 2013 17: 53 New
        +2
        Here, by the way, is a description of that case:
        To the cases of ramming described in the film, I would add another episode of the "taming" of annoying uninvited guests at the Northern Fleet exercises, which occurred on September 13 of 1987. The troublemaker was the P-3 Orion patrol anti-submarine aircraft from the 333 squadron of the Royal Norwegian Air Force.

        The Orion flew from Andøya Air Station in Norway and moved to the area where our submarines worked out the combat mission. Barring along the border over the waters of the Barents Sea, a Norwegian patrol plane began to set up sonar buoys and conduct reconnaissance of submarines. To control the actions of Orion, as usual, the operational duty officer of the North Sea Air Defense Corps was given a command to raise a fighter into the air. The Su-27, b / n 36 flew out of the duty unit of the 941 IAP of the 10th Air Defense AR (Kilp-Yavr airdrome, Murmansk region). The plane was piloted by Senior Lieutenant Vasily Tsimbal.

        The Norwegian patrol plane could hang in the air at the border for a very long time, and in order to get rid of it more quickly, Cymbal began to exhaust it. Several times he made approaches to the Orion, twisted aerobatics around him, stood in front of him in order to knock the jet off course. “Orion” tried to “shake off” the neighbor, reducing speed, but even at its minimum speed, the Su-27 stayed close. As a result, during the next maneuver, the Su-27 hit the rotor of the engine of the right console of the Orion wing with its keel. The screw broke, and the Norwegian had to go to base. (It is often mentioned that, in addition to everything, Tsimbal went in front of the Orion and poured him fuel directly on the cockpit glazing and the fuselage). Since there was no longer a patrol plane in the sky, after Tsimbal’s report that the Orion had left, he was given permission from the CP to return to the airfield.

        On the same day, the Soviet ambassador to Norway was notified. The analysis of the incident ended with a mutual admission of guilt on both sides. Vasily Tsimbal, unfortunately, did not survive to this day, he died in the 2003 year during the flood.

        The board number of the fighter after the collision was repainted on 38, then it was changed again, but an asterisk was put on board the Su-27 in memory of the "ram."

        I will add - soon the asterisk was replaced with the silhouette of the Orion.
        I'll try and insert a photo.
        1. smile
          smile 6 May 2013 02: 41 New
          0
          Old_kapitan
          Thank. very interesting .... excuse me a non-flyer, but - I poured fuel on a lantern - it looks like a gesture of contempt, sort of like I peed on an enemy colleague .... :)))) for the first time I hear about this :)))) )))
  12. Yazov
    Yazov 5 May 2013 14: 20 New
    +2
    Quote: Homo
    And what is this article about? How did planes shoot down helicopters? It’s so clear that the plane is superior to a helicopter! Dummy - no news, no information, no heroism, or anything !!!

    The article reveals several topics for thought.
    First one. Why, having poor training and flying only on landmarks, it was impossible to shut your mouth and not trend on the air?
    The second one. Why didn’t the helicopters cover the planes after the first incident? The lesson did not take right away? Where were the advisers who were sent to teach and advise. Probably thumped ....
    Output. It’s easier to teach a bear to ride a bicycle in a circus than to fly a monkey in a helicopter!
    1. smile
      smile 6 May 2013 02: 47 New
      0
      Yazov
      Well, thumped something ... like all advisers ... everywhere ... from all countries ... but it was difficult to get an even intelligible report from the Negroes ....
      but to make them comply with at least some requirements, rules .. any ... impossible in principle ...
  13. Ilyukha
    Ilyukha 5 May 2013 14: 43 New
    +1
    [quote = Yazov] [quote = Homo] And what is this article about? How did planes shoot down helicopters? It’s so clear that the plane is superior to a helicopter! Dummy - no news, no information, no heroism, or anything !!! [/ quote]
    The article reveals several topics for thought.
    First one. Why, having poor training and flying only on landmarks, it was impossible to shut your mouth and not trend on the air?
    The second one. Why didn’t the helicopters cover the planes after the first incident? The lesson did not take right away?
    You are not quite right. Shooting down a small and very fast helicopter helicopter (not the Mi-8 hulk) is a difficult task for the aircraft. During the NATO exercises, such tasks were worked out, it turned out that the Alpha Jet ATC was best suited for counter-helicopter fighting, not fighters.
    We used the same Mi-24 for anti-helicopter combat, put the P-60 and P-73 missiles and developed a set of equipment, since we came to the conclusion during the tests that the helicopter hunts even better.
    The article is still valid, colleague, albeit technically shallow, but well written.
  14. Ilyukha
    Ilyukha 5 May 2013 14: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: Homo
    And what is this article about? How did planes shoot down helicopters? It’s so clear that the plane is superior to a helicopter! Dummy - no news, no information, no heroism, or anything !!!

    I do not agree with you. This is an interesting description of UNTYPICAL air battles, competently trained by the Yuarovites and competently executed.
  15. Prometey
    Prometey 6 May 2013 09: 09 New
    0
    There is nothing surprising. Yuarovtsy at that time are descendants of warlike Boers. They always knew how to fight. But the Africans, I'm sorry, for the lack of tolerance - savages recently descended from trees. Soviet specialists taught them with great difficulty. But it was very difficult for the natives to master the technology (after all, controlling a helicopter or a tank is not a matter of driving baboons through corn fields). But there were reasons for this - a very big gap was in civilizational development.
  16. carbofo
    carbofo 6 May 2013 10: 28 New
    0
    Judging by the story about the maneuvering of the surviving Mi-8, I also got the feeling that it was the Russian pilot who was piloting him, imitating an attack with an unarmed helicopter, that’s in our spirit.
    Moreover, such skills can only be acquired at the center for combat training of helicopters, if he can press the Russian one and fire a fighter from a pistol at a bend.
    This is probably why they prefer not to fight with us on equal terms, there is too much fatalism in the soul and multiplied by experience and skills, many enemies died thinking that victory was in their pocket.