Mi-24 vs M2 50cal [INVALID]

[Apocalypse 31]

Finding that the Mi-24 can be destroyed by a single burst of .50 caliber fire.

Is this accurate? The Mi-24 is armored to resist 12.7mm.

[Ssnake]

1) From what range?

2) Where did you hit?

3) With what cal .50 ammo?

The "12.7mm proof" applies only to the cockpit area itself. It probably only applies to cal .50 ball ammo with an RHAe perforation limit of about 23mm, and probably not at ranges under 200m. So, let's say that the RHA equivalent protection level of the cockpit area is somewhere between 15 and 20mm. If you used SLAP with a max perforation limit of 35mm RHAe you can imagine that the "cal .50 proof" does not necessarily apply here. Or a burst hitting the engine area. Might hurt a lot, actually. Might still allow some auto-rotation emergency landing which would still be some "performing as designed" event as it retains a chance for the crew to walk away from the wreckage. But it doesn't mean that the HIND can roam the skies with immunity against anything less than 20mm autocannon caliber.

[Volcano]

Finding that the Mi-24 can be destroyed by a single burst of .50 caliber fire.

Is this accurate? The Mi-24 is armored to resist 12.7mm.

Yes, as Ssnake said, it certainly depends on where you hit it. If you shot the pilot in the face with one round then yes, it will die every time with a single bullet. But if you hit it anywhere else with a single burst then you could be lucky. You would have to repeat that several times to know.

[cobrabase]

SLAP rules.

[Ssnake]

Well, it certainly has penetration depth, but by necessity it lacks a bit in destructive power behind armor.

[Apocalypse 31]

1) From what range?

2) Where did you hit?

3) With what cal .50 ammo?

The "12.7mm proof" applies only to the cockpit area itself. It probably only applies to cal .50 ball ammo with an RHAe perforation limit of about 23mm, and probably not at ranges under 200m. So, let's say that the RHA equivalent protection level of the cockpit area is somewhere between 15 and 20mm. If you used SLAP with a max perforation limit of 35mm RHAe you can imagine that the "cal .50 proof" does not necessarily apply here. Or a burst hitting the engine area. Might hurt a lot, actually. Might still allow some auto-rotation emergency landing which would still be some "performing as designed" event as it retains a chance for the crew to walk away from the wreckage. But it doesn't mean that the HIND can roam the skies with immunity against anything less than 20mm autocannon caliber.

Frontal shot - 1 burst.

This is with Ball ammo.

[Marko]

I watched a good documentary about the Hind in Afghanistan.

It was extremely resistant to fifty Cal rounds and could take a hell of a beating

That's why the mujahedeen were issued stingers

[AlphaOneSix]

Well just like anything else, it really just matters where you hit it. Some places on an Mi-24 are armored to withstand 12.7, but not many places. In fact, very few places. Also, you could punch holes in it all day with a .50 cal and never hit anything important. You could also hit it with one shot in just the right spot and you could bring it down. I would say (though I obviously am not the expert on this subject within SB) it is well beyond the scope of SB to model the Mi-24 to such a degree, and instead we are provided with approximations and some vague percentage chance to bring the aircraft down.

[Apocalypse 31]

Well just like anything else, it really just matters where you hit it. Some places on an Mi-24 are armored to withstand 12.7, but not many places. In fact, very few places. Also, you could punch holes in it all day with a .50 cal and never hit anything important. You could also hit it with one shot in just the right spot and you could bring it down. I would say (though I obviously am not the expert on this subject within SB) it is well beyond the scope of SB to model the Mi-24 to such a degree, and instead we are provided with approximations and some vague percentage chance to bring the aircraft down.

Within my test mission, the Mi24 was shot down consistently; Lets let's avoid assuming "lucky shots" were involved. Unless it has to do with the AIs ability to ninja target the weakest spot on the aircraft.

[AlphaOneSix]

Fair enough. I will say that I have no problem believing that a burst from a .50 cal can take down an Mi-24 from the front, the engines are not armored at all from that angle.

[Volcano]

Frontal shot - 1 burst.

This is with Ball ammo.

That is not sufficient information, we would need to see where the hit ray is located to see the exact point of impact.

And YES, the AI can have a Borg like ability to hit a weak spot, it always aims center mass on a target which can be the helicopter's weak spot from the front (the pilot or engines) we just don't know by the information provided here. The brief posts don't help us out much.

And speaking of the Hind, there is a ton of myth surrounding that helicopter. There are those who know more about it than me, but thanks to the Rambo movies and etc, everyone thinks it is a flying tank and it wasn't. As AlphaOneSix says, it was actually 12.7mm proof in only a few places (which is why impact locations are vital to avoid a wild goose chase). If being shot from the front and center mass, then indications are that the pilot is being hit through the front ballistic glass. This would be correct because the information we have is that the front glass is 7.62 proof only, but the rest of the cockpit the pilots sits in is 12.7-30mm proof. If anyone has any accurate source information to the contrary then we welcome it.

[Volcano]

I watched a good documentary about the Hind in Afghanistan.

It was extremely resistant to fifty Cal rounds and could take a hell of a beating

That's why the mujahedeen were issued stingers

Well, let's stay on topic but this again is myth. They were issued Stingers because the Hinds were flying at altitude safe from small arms fire and were acting as flying artillery platforms, firing S-8 rockets at troop concentrations out to 4000m away. Imagine someone doing that in SB without anything to swat them down with (ie. you only have small arms). Of course a Hind is also difficult to bring down with an AK-47 too, so that didn't help.

In any case if there is a problem here then we will review it, but we need more information first. We just don't have time to explore every rabbit hole without first getting a good lead and, in the case of contrary information than what we have, some accurate source data to the Mi-24s protection might also be needed (for those that might claim it is a flying tank, or that the front glass is 12.7mm proof; we use Jane's and Mladenov).

Edited December 30, 2014 by Volcano
typo

[Tacbat]

Within my test mission...

Post it so we can see what's going on. It would be far more helpful than a screenshot.

[Marko]

Well, let's stay on topic but this again is myth. They were issued Stingers because the Hinds were flying at altitude safe from small arms fire and were acting as flying artillery platforms, firing S-8 rockets at troop concentrations out to 4000m away. Imagine someone doing that in SB without anything to swat them down with (ie. you only have small arms). Of course a Hind is also difficult to bring down with an AK-47 too, so that didn't help.

Not looking for a in-depth discussion on the topic.

But the hinds reputation is not a myth I have viewed interviews with mujahedeen fighters

Who had to fight the Mi 24 (They truly feared it. )

Of course it has its vulnerability's and I could well believe a lucky shot could take it down

And you are right its not fully protected against fifty cal ammo.

But I would also say its not the threat it should be in SB.

Again its a work in progress and I fully appreciate that.

I have also seen interviews with American pilots that fly it regularly at the NTC

And have a good working respect for the machine.

It is by no means on par with the apache but it is a fearsome fighting machine.

Now the MI-35/MI 28 are different beasts altogether.

hope to see them in SB one day.

[dejawolf]

you need about 14cm of glass to protect from 12.7mm, and at best, the hind front cockpit glass is about 5-6cm thick. and unless it's made from sapphire there's no way it's 12.7mm proof.

[Volcano]

You miss the point Marko. I am not saying that historically the Mujahadeen didn't have a difficult time bringing the Hind down, but you are perpetuating the myth that it was a flying tank. What we need are actual descriptions of the helicopter's construction and how thick certain areas of its "armor" are. MJ interviews about how they feared it, when equipped with AK-47 and probably not firing on it with any accuracy, is not helpful. We need real and substantial information, and certainly not something from Discovery Channel or History Channel. I was simply pointing out that it is dangerous to say that the MJ required a Stinger to bring it down, which somehow implies that it was because the helicopter was invulnerable to 12.7mm.

But let's be specific here, because so far this is just a bunch of smoke:

As I said, Jane's and Mladenov state that the area around the helicopter cockpit is 12.7mm proof. In SB it is, and we go a step further and the bottom of the "bathtub" is 23mm proof (this comes from vague descriptions that the base of the bath tub is titanium and autocannon proof). The front part of the glass is currently 7.62mm proof only and this was gathered from various (but vague) text information and mainly from evaluating photos of the glass thickness. If anyone has something more significant than that then we would like to see it, honestly we would. And no, I am not talking about interviews and assumptions, I am talking about actual descriptive and specific text from a respectable source. For example: "the front armored windscreens provide protection against 12.7mm".

So far all I have seen in this thread are:

First a mention that the Hind is too vulnerable, apparently someone thinks that it is all around protected against 12.7mm. We know this is not true though, based on descriptions provided by reputable sources.

Second a picture of the AAR map screen, which doesn't quite show where the impact was made, does it? If the impact is in the pilot then that is one thing, if it is in the landing gear then obviously that is another thing. We haven't even established yet if this is a bug or just hitting an area that is vulnerable to fire.

Third we have the usual posts that "I think it should be protected against this, because I read the something on the Internet or saw a Wings video". Not helpful, need better data.

Fourth, we aren't even taking into account the possibility that the original poster is using the Hind in a way that it shouldn't be used in the first place. It probably shouldn't be flying at NOE head on with a 12.7mm machine gun at less than 500m(!). Attack helicopters do try to keep some distance, actually.

So this is where we are at. Please provide better data and we will look into it if the source is credible and the data is specific. It could be that the front armored glass is made of sapphire and is 12.7mm BALL resistant but not thick enough to be proof at close range, which would help it out, but naturally we desire the information to back it up. All we know right now is that it is armored glass, and that it is very thin (physically).

Edited December 31, 2014 by Volcano
clarification

[Volcano]

Actually, some good news (perhaps):

We have posed the question to our very helpful Russian community and we will see what they say about the composition of the front glass. Doing a rough calculation, if the front armored glass is sapphire then it would protect against all 12.7mm fire, AP or otherwise, but if it is not then it is only 7.62mm proof.

That is really the only question here, and they will check primary Russian sources for the answer. In other words, call off the hounds and lets see what information they can dig up.

It still would be helpful to see a hit ray of where the helicopter is being hit though. Wouldn't it be funny if all this effort was put into it and come to find out, it isn't even being shot in the front glass? :Crash:

[Marko]

Actually, some good news (perhaps):

We have posed the question to our very helpful Russian community and we will see what they say about the composition of the front glass. Doing a rough calculation, if the front armored glass is sapphire then it would protect against all 12.7mm fire, AP or otherwise, but if it is not then it is only 7.62mm proof.

That is really the only question here, and they will check primary Russian sources for the answer. In other words, call off the hounds and lets see what information they can dig up.

It still would be helpful to see a hit ray of where the helicopter is being hit though. Wouldn't it be funny if all this effort was put into it and come to find out, it isn't even being shot in the front glass? :Crash:

Most of us SB fanatics do appreciate the effort you guys put in to research.

And something I really do respect is you willingness to adjust ratings if new information is Made available by a credible source

[Ssnake]

It'd be foolish to ignore facts when trying to build a simulation.

[Volcano]

OK, we have received a reply. According to the Mi-24 operator manual, the front armored glass is made of silica glass, and is officially rated to withstand 7.62mm. However it has been said that in Afghanistan there were occasional cases where it resisted 12.7mm DSHK/NSV non-AP fire at distance, so we investigated this. Currently it stands correct, the Hind's front glass can withstand 12.7mm ball ammo at long range (~1000m) but not at 500m. This is probably where those claims of it being all around 12.7mm proof comes from, which is something to keep in mind (range is seldom mentioned).

So, in other words, everything looks fine here - provided the assumption that the helicopter is in fact being shot in the front cockpit. However, as I said, we just don't know from the original post, maybe some light can be shed there one day.

[Hedgehog]

To add to the argument against "Flying Tanks"

A helicopter relies mainly on its engines to generate lift, not its forward speed (Although that helps), a typical small/medium police sized helicopter, such as the EC135P2+ has a Maximum All Up Mass of 2910Kg, if its above that weight it simply won't get off the ground, and because of the nature of the atmosphere, engine performance, etc, won't hold altitude above 2000ft-ish

So a Hind according to Wikipedia has a MAUM of 12,000kg and an Armoured vehicle with an all round defense against 12.7mm such as for example, Warrior, weighs in at about 30-40,000kg.

Building a Helicopter with all round 12.7mm proof armour would need engines and rotors rated to the capacity of the Mi-26 Halo, so the 32m diameter rotor is a really practical size for an attack helicopter.

As you can see building an attack helicopter is like building a tank,

the 3 main parts:

Speed, Firepower and Protection.

Only if much, much trickier.

[Invader ZIM]

That's why I love this sim, the amount of attention to detail is great.

So, myth busted? Mi-24 cannot into space?

[Jartsev]

Well... Actually in A-stan DShK was a prime killer of Hinds. Mi-24 integral steel armour not exceeds 5 millimeters(sufficient to reliably stop only 7,62mm bullets, if not to consider oblique shots) and partially covers only certain vital areas and systems like cockpit(sides, not belly or front!!!), engines and rotor gearbox. In real life even a well-placed or abnormally lucky burst from old good AKM can make Hind to go down as happened during first Chechen campaign.

Survivability issues were only resolved in Mi-28.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Jartsev

[Volcano]

Thanks for the info Jartsev.