What's new

Mi-35 - The Flying Tank


hmmm I got a serious and nonserious question

nonserious first:... do you have any clue about its armor protection? where does it stand vs Apache armor?


serious question: why do you have that raunchy avatar? will you remove it before I can copy it? because it makes me randy;)
 
.
Will Russians sell 2 u?:disagree:

The question should be do they have money to pay the Russians?

nonserious first:... do you have any clue about its armor protection? where does it stand vs Apache armor?

No idea however Mi-24 series have a better armour protection compared to Apache only when it is not removed to reduce th weight.
 
.
Early_Hind_series.png


Early 'HIND' series.

Later_Hind_series.png


Later 'HIND' series.

Mil Mi-24 variants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
These are also Stingray's pics. He says not to use them for reference because they are too misleading (I guess he made them a really long time ago before doing proper research.)

Please see this link:

http: // stingraysrotorforum.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=126840&p=3&topicID=26374194&page=4

^delete the spaces.
 
. .
@garibnawaz
Thnx for sharing good infographics; I will really appreciate if you can provide some info why the respective changes especially to the nose did occur
 
.
@garibnawaz
Thnx for sharing good infographics; I will really appreciate if you can provide some info why the respective changes especially to the nose did occur

Its not nose.

Its cockpit and its canopies.

Here is an early pic of a Mi-21A.

What do you see with regards to cockpit and canopy?

Mil_Mi-24A_Hind.jpg


Huge glass and hence more vulnurable and most importantly ugly.

The cockpit does not separates the pilot and the navigator/wso/second pilot. Not a good view from the tandem seat (navigator/wso/second pilot).

Now here is a Macedonian Mi-24V

Mi-24_Macedonian.jpg


Just look at the cockpit. Separates the WSO/Navigator (in tandem) from the pilot. Better and separate view for both pilot and navigator. Amount of glass is reduced and made it curvy which is less vulnarable to AA guns/bullets and hence better protection for the pilot and navigator.

On the top of that both have their separate HUD's.

Offcourse there are loads of versions of Mi-24 and many countries have customized these birds as per their requirements.

For e.g look at the below USAF Mi-24

Mi-24_Desert_Rescue.jpg


Unlike the Macedonian bird above which has a gattling gun right under its nose thise Mi-24 of US has double barrelled gun on the starboard side of it.

Where as many Mi24/25/35 of the Indian AF posted here have loads of upgrades which are clearly visible in the photos.

GB
 
.
Unlike the Macedonian bird above which has a gattling gun right under its nose thise Mi-24 of US has double barrelled gun on the starboard side of it.

The US one is called the Mi-24P 'Hind-F' (P for pushka, cannon). It appeared in 1982 fitted with the twin-barrel 30-mm GSh-30-2 cannon in a starboard cylinder which includes 750 rounds of ammunition.

Back in 1974 the prototype Mi-24P originally had the twin gun mounted in the nose turret as seen on the earlier models like that Macedonian Hind, but it was too heavy and actually broke off when it was fired. It was then moved to the starboard side and the nose turret was removed.

There was also a rumor going around that there was a version of the Mi-24P with the gun switched to the other side, but no aircraft exists.
 
Last edited:
.
but in afghan war stinger were killing those flying tanks isnt that true
 
.
Another one that might be of interest is the Mi-24VD with experimental rear gun turret. It was built in 1985 with a bulged gondola installed in place of the rear avionics bay, accessed via a narrow crawlway, and armed with a 12.7mm NSVT-12.7 Utyos machine gun. The project was abandoned in 1986 reportedly because the gunners found it hard to breathe in the turret and a Soviet official got stuck in the crawlway when the aircraft was first presented.

scan0016%20%282%29.jpg

scan0016%20-%20Copy.jpg

reargunmi-24vd.png


https: // sites.google.com/site/stingraysheligalleries/mi-24v-hind-e-plus-experimentals
 
.
but in afghan war stinger were killing those flying tanks isnt that true

Thats is the very reason why stingers were given to the militiants.

Being heavy and bulky means not much of an altitude which makes it easy to shoot it down through manpads.

However speaking of Afghan War

After a brutal learning curve in the face of Afghan rebels, Mi-24 pilots learned to be dangerous themselves, and the rebels called the Mi-24 "Shaitan-Arba" (Satan's Chariot)". In one case, a Mi-24 pilot who was out of ammunition managed to rescue a company of infantry by maneuvering aggressively towards Mujahideen guerrillas and scaring them off. The Mi-24 was popular with ground troops, since it could stay on the battlefield and provide fire as needed, while "fast mover" strike jets could only stay for a short time before heading back to base to refuel.


The Mi-24's favoured munition was the 80-millimetre (3.1 in) S-8 rocket, the 57 mm (2.2 in) S-5 having proven too light to be effective. The 23 mm (0.91 in) gun pod was also popular. Extra rounds of rocket ammunition were often carried internally so that the crew could land and self-reload in the field. The Mi-24 could carry ten 100-kilogram (220 lb) iron bombs for attacks on strongpoints, while harder targets could be dealt with a load of four 250-kilogram (550 lb) or two 500-kilogram (1,100 lb) iron bombs. Some Mi-24 crews became experts at dropping or tossing bombs precisely on targets. Fuel-air explosive bombs were also used in a few instances, though crews initially underestimated the sheer blast force of such weapons and were caught by shock waves that rattled their teeth.

Combat experience quickly demonstrated the disadvantages of having Mi-24s carrying troops. Gunship crews found the soldiers a concern and a distraction while being shot at, and preferred to fly lightly loaded anyway, especially given their operations from high ground altitudes in Afghanistan. Mi-24 troop compartment armour was often removed to reduce weight. Troops would be carried in Mi-8 helicopters while the Mi-24s provided fire support.

It did prove useful to carry a technician in the Mi-24's crew compartment, handling a light machine gun in a window port. This gave the Mi-24 some ability to "watch its back" while leaving a target area. In some cases a light machine gun was fitted on both sides to allow the technician to move from one side to the other without having to take the machine gun with him. Trying to shift a machine gun from one side of a helicopter to another while it maneuvered under fire was not merely awkward and inconvenient, it was an invitation to deadly accidents.

The Mi-24s not only protected helicopter troop assaults and supported ground actions; they also protected convoys, using rockets with flechette warheads to drive off ambushes, performed strikes on predesignated targets, and engaged in "hunter-killer" sweeps. The hunter-killer Mi-24s operated in pairs at minimum, more often groups of four or eight, to provide mutual fire support. The Mujahideen learned to move mostly at night to avoid the gunships, and in response the Soviets trained their Mi-24 crews in night-fighting, dropping parachute flares to illuminate potential targets for attack. The Mujahideen quickly caught on and scattered as quickly as possible when Soviet target designation flares were lit nearby.

Gunship attrition rates were high. The environment itself, dusty and often hot, was rough on the machines; dusty conditions led to the development of the PZU air intake filters. And of course, the rebels fought back whenever they could. Their primary air-defense weapons early in the war were heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft cannons, though anything smaller than a 23 millimeter gun generally did not do much to the Mi-24. The cockpit glass panels were resistant to 12.7 mm (0.5 in) rounds.

The CIA then began supplying the Afghan rebels with Stinger shoulder-launched, heat-seeking SAMs,and the situation got considerably worse for Mi-24 crews. The Stinger missile locked on to infra-red signals emitted by aircraft, and was able to down aircraft without interference from decoy flares. Countermeasure flares and a missile warning systems were later installed in all Soviet Mi-2, Mi-8, and Mi-24 helicopters, giving pilots a chance to evade the missile. Heat dissipaters were also fitted to exhausts to decrease the Mi-24's heat signature. These reduced the Stinger threat but did not eliminate it.

Mi-24s were also used to shield jet transports flying in and out of Kabul from Stingers. The gunships carried flares to blind the heat-seeking missiles, and if worse came to worst, were under orders to try to take the hit from the missile themselves. The crews called themselves "Mandatory Matrosovs", after a Soviet hero of the Second World War who threw himself across a German machine gun to let his comrades break through.

Early in the war, head of Mil Marat Tischenko visited Afghanistan to see what the troops thought of his helicopters, and gunship crews put on several displays for him. They even demonstrated maneuvers such as barrel rolls, which design engineers considered impossible. An astounded Dr. Tischenko commented, "I thought I knew what my helicopters could do, now I'm not so sure!"

Another one that might be of interest is the Mi-24VD with experimental rear gun turret. It was built in 1985 with a bulged gondola installed in place of the rear avionics bay, accessed via a narrow crawlway, and armed with a 12.7mm NSVT-12.7 Utyos machine gun. The project was abandoned in 1986 reportedly because the gunners found it hard to breathe in the turret and a Soviet official got stuck in the crawlway when the aircraft was first presented.

reargunmi-24vd.png


https: // sites.google.com/site/stingraysheligalleries/mi-24v-hind-e-plus-experimentals

Yes you are right.

This weapon configuration still left the gunship blind to the direct rear, and Mil experimented with fitting a machine gun in the back of the fuselage, accessible to the gunner through a narrow crawl-way. The experiment was highly unsuccessful, as the space was cramped, full of engine exhaust fumes, and otherwise unbearable. During a demonstration, an overweight Soviet Air Force general got stuck in the crawl-way. Operational Mi-24s were retrofitted with rear-view mirrors to help the pilot spot threats and take evasive action.

GB
 
.
And another failed experimental, this one from 1975, an uncoded Mi-24B was used to test a large 8-blade Fenestron tail rotor. The stub wings were removed, probably to save weight. The project was ceased because the Fenestron was not suited for the Mi-24 weight class.

69-2_resize.jpg


fenestron-.png


https: // sites.google.com/site/stingraysheligalleries/mi-24b-hind-b-plus-experimentals
 
.
Happened to be up-close and persona with this beast, its a flying tank, as if nothing can penetrate it, had small arms fire all around and still in perfect working condition... the armor of AH-1s seems pale infront of it.... very solid rough build..
 
.
Happened to be up-close and persona with this beast, its a flying tank, as if nothing can penetrate it, had small arms fire all around and still in perfect working condition... the armor of AH-1s seems pale infront of it.... very solid rough build..

However the same armour makes Mi-24/25/35 heavier than Apache.

Mi-24 basic version empty weight = 8500kg
Apache basic version empty weight = 5165kg

Which apparently affects the rate of climb and max altitude.

Not to mention with Mi-24 carrying troops/cargo unlike Apache makes it more heavier in operations.

GB
 
.
Hollywood mockery of this beautiful bird.

In a movie named Red Dawn.

RedDawnFakeHindDoorGunA.jpg


RedDawnFakeHind03a.jpg


RedDawnFakeHind01a.jpg


RedDawnFakeHind02a.jpg


RedDawnFakeHind05a.jpg


RedDawnFakeHind06a.jpg


RedDawnFakeHindUndera.jpg


Rambo - 2/3 modified SA-330

Rambo3-FakeMiniGun02A.jpg


GB
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom