NationStates

The Green Union wrote:

Spirit of Hope wrote:Training isn't the issue, a well trained marksman is going to have trouble hitting a man sized moving target in the time that target is going to be exposed. Especially since the target isn't going to be at a known range, wind conditions will be hard to determine, and the shooter is unlikely to be in an ideal position, and probably under fire themselves.

Firing out to these distances requires specialized training and gear, an important note is snipers work as part of a team, with a spotter. When regular infantry with sights out to thousands of yards/meters was a thing the infantry were not engaging individual targets, but instead engaging in volley fire at area targets, and even then they generally weren't very good at it and the oppertunity to engage this way was relatively rare.

6.5 and 6.8 are better at range, but they weigh more. What is more important, more ammo or more range? More ammo is always more useful but more range is situational for a modern infantry unit which should have a plethora of ways to engage the enemy at extended ranges. If you don't have those capabilities and you don't have modern rifles, see late 19th and early 20th century, then the extended range is more reasonable because you aren't losing as much and you don't have as much to cover the gap.

Basically this. No matter how well trained your average infantry, and how precise their individual weapons, you will not be getting reliable hits beyond 300m. In fact, you'd probably be getting more accurate fire around the 600m range with 5.56mm due to the heavier recoil of 7.62 or 6.5mm options.

The main reason for people on NS going with 6.5mm Grendel or something sexy is because rule of cool tends to prevail on this site and the stats on paper of these weapons cause them to be overhyped. Personally, I would say to step back and actually design your nation's military around a cohesive doctrine. Small arms is a great place to start, since infantry tactics and the weapons involved in them are fairly simple and a lot of NS military roleplaying revolves around the infantry.

That's not to say that you can't have some rule of cool elements in there, but be sure to also touch on the downsides of these elements so you don't sound full of yourself. For example, the Green Union service rifle is currently a full sized 7.62x51mm battle rifle. This is, of course, a terrible idea in real life. But I get a lot more mileage out of writing up and roleplaying the quirks and flaws of GU infantry than I would if I simply said "my weapons and tactics are the best."

the uaie has a wide range of weaponry, we have many branchs and gladly can cover weaponry to various branchs. is it pratical? not always, HOWEVER theres a plan behind the whole thing.

Greater Catarapania wrote:Why were the Russians the only ones who wanted/needed a flying IFV? Are helicopters usually better off with a "division of labor" between attack and utility helicopters, or were the Russians the smart ones here?

Different ideas about what to do with helicopter troops I guess.

Greater Catarapania wrote:Why were the Russians the only ones who wanted/needed a flying IFV? Are helicopters usually better off with a "division of labor" between attack and utility helicopters, or were the Russians the smart ones here?

It is a popular idea and a rather bad one.

• With passengers a helicopters ability to manoeuvre aggressively is restricted
• Two pilots can't realistically find and engage targets while also landing troops
• Attack helicopters benefit from high performance and high price sensors that are mostly unneeded on a transport helicopter
• The probability of spotting an aircraft visually at a given range is basically an output of its size - troops carrying helicopters are bigger
• There has not been any serious problem with teaming transport and attack helicopters

Compared to the Cobra the Hind is and was underpowered, fat and expensive. There isn't anything a bunch of Hinds can do a bunch of Cobras and Hueys cant do better, for less money.

Austrasien wrote:Compared to the Cobra the Hind is and was underpowered, fat and expensive. There isn't anything a bunch of Hinds can do a bunch of Cobras and Hueys cant do better, for less money.

I'd disagree. They are a jack of all trades that can be used as either an attack helicopter or a transport depending on what's needed at the time. This is as opposed to having to buy, crew and maintain two separate machines for the two jobs. And that's a big deal and it represents a saving in cost you are not factoring in because not only does it give you a lot more flexibility per machine that you have to pay for and maintain but it gives you all sorts of others ancillary savings in terms of operating and training costs compared to having dedicated machines. Today of course the roles have diverged far more with stuff like being able to shoot guided missiles whilst hiding behind obstacles. So I don't think a modern hybrid helicopter would be a very great idea any more. But in the day it was certainly a trade off worth considering.

The original Mil-24 "flying IFV" was pretty bad. It was highly vulnerable and its weapons were almost useless.

The improved armor and weaponry of the later variants reduced the capability to carry troops, and in practice the Mil-24 almost always escorts transports like the Mil-8 during airborne assaults. The modern Mil-24 is really only able to carry small Spetnaz teams.

Triplebaconation wrote:The improved armor and weaponry of the later variants reduced the capability to carry troops, and in practice the Mil-24 almost always escorts transports like the Mil-8 during airborne assaults. The modern Mil-24 is really only able to carry small Spetnaz teams.

That's more or less it's point though, isn't it? I was under the impression that was newer supposed to be a general purpose transport anyway. That's what the Mi-8 and others were for. And the 24 would be a flying IFV for VDV strike teams.
I could be wrong here of course.

Purpelia wrote:

Triplebaconation wrote:The improved armor and weaponry of the later variants reduced the capability to carry troops, and in practice the Mil-24 almost always escorts transports like the Mil-8 during airborne assaults. The modern Mil-24 is really only able to carry small Spetnaz teams.

That's more or less it's point though, isn't it? I was under the impression that was newer supposed to be a general purpose transport anyway. That's what the Mi-8 and others were for. And the 24 would be a flying IFV for VDV strike teams.
I could be wrong here of course.

MH-6's or MH-60's would work far better than Mi-24's as SOF inserters. And evidently this is what the PLA has discovered also since they are ripping off the Black Hawk instead of Mi-24's.

Mil conceived the Mil-24 as literally a flying IFV in the mid-60s, before anyone had much experience with armed helicopter tactics. A lot of Soviet officers thought the concept was quite bad, and it took a lot of political maneuvering and downright trickery to get it into service.

The VDV almost always used Mi-8s for carrying troops, and in fact the newest VDV assault helicopters are heavily armed Mi-8 variants.

The only regular users of the Mil-24's troop capacity (much less than the 8 usually listed) I know of have been small MVD teams. A fully-loaded Mi-24 has unique flying characteristics that make it a pretty bad transport in addition to the drawbacks Austrasien listed above.

Triplebaconation wrote:Mil conceived the Mil-24 as literally a flying IFV in the mid-60s, before anyone had much experience with armed helicopter tactics. A lot of Soviet officers thought the concept was quite bad, and it took a lot of political maneuvering and downright trickery to get it into service.

The VDV almost always used Mi-8s for carrying troops, and in fact the newest VDV assault helicopters are heavily armed Mi-8 variants.

The only regular users of the Mil-24's troop capacity (much less than the 8 usually listed) I know of have been small MVD teams. A fully-loaded Mi-24 has unique flying characteristics that make it a pretty bad transport in addition to the drawbacks Austrasien listed above.

Personally the mi-24 is interesting. Its idea is sound. However.. it had issues upto the v model. Afghanistan was rather rude awakening for the Russians useing them.

Purpelia wrote:

Austrasien wrote:Compared to the Cobra the Hind is and was underpowered, fat and expensive. There isn't anything a bunch of Hinds can do a bunch of Cobras and Hueys cant do better, for less money.

I'd disagree. They are a jack of all trades that can be used as either an attack helicopter or a transport depending on what's needed at the time.

An entirely useless capability.

Mi-24 should have lost the wings and every bit of armament except the door guns. Improved armor would help but you'd be looking at UH-1 levels of troop movement. Not that that's bad by the standards of the time, I suppose. UH-60 was still a decade away, but by the time it shows up it's obviously the best assault transport in the world and remains a high level competitor.

It started out as an armored Huey clone. By the time it entered service though the troop bay was really more of a vestigial artifact of the weird Soviet procurement system than any intended doctrinal role or anything - they didn't figure out how it was supposed to be used until it was in operational units.

Yes, if they had more powerful engines then it could possibly work with the same amount of troops, really.

Depends on how good their armor was I suppose. Stopping .223 or .30 ball from maybe 100 meters would be pretty alright.

Giant crossbows might still kill them but I don't think NATO troops ever unlocked this hyper anti-helicopter technology. Maybe a giant slingshot or something firing Volkswagens would be more their style.

Purpelia wrote:

Austrasien wrote:Compared to the Cobra the Hind is and was underpowered, fat and expensive. There isn't anything a bunch of Hinds can do a bunch of Cobras and Hueys cant do better, for less money.

I'd disagree. They are a jack of all trades that can be used as either an attack helicopter or a transport depending on what's needed at the time. This is as opposed to having to buy, crew and maintain two separate machines for the two jobs.

You don't actually have to do all that though.

Because you could replace the limited carrying capability of Mi-24 with a smaller number of purpose-designed assault transports, while still having manpower and money left over to buy some dedicated attack helicopters. A Black Hawk can carry twice as many men as a Hind can practically carry, so you could replace, say, a squadron of 24 Hinds with a dozen Black Hawks and a dozen Apaches and still come out ahead because the Black Hawk is a much better assault transport and the Apache is a much better gunship, while still delivering the same number of men. Maintenance is not a real problem because Black Hawk and Apache share the same engines. The same was true of the earlier UH-1/AH-1 combo, they were just older and didn't have quite as good performance.

The US learned some solid lessons in Vietnam about helicopter operations that the Soviets never got until Mi-24 was already in service. And it proved that the ideal characteristics of an assault transport and a gunship are different and in many cases, outright opposed.

Purpelia wrote:That's more or less it's point though, isn't it? I was under the impression that was newer supposed to be a general purpose transport anyway. That's what the Mi-8 and others were for. And the 24 would be a flying IFV for VDV strike teams.
I could be wrong here of course.

It was supposed to be an assault transport, dropping off actual infantry units in Vietnam-style air assaults. It wasn't supposed to be a "general purpose transport" in the sense that it was going to also be doing rear-line hauling like utility-model UH-60s or Mi-8s. But in its original concept it was supposed to replace Mi-8 in an assault. But it couldn't because the weight of the weapons and armor made it too heavy to actually carry a useful number of troops. Which left it as the worst of both worlds: big, fat, and unmaneuverable for an attack helicopter, and too limited to be a transport helicopter. Which is why the Russians are dumping it for a combination of Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters and Mi-8s to deliver troops.

The united American-Isreali empire wrote:Personally the mi-24 is interesting. Its idea is sound. However.. it had issues upto the v model. Afghanistan was rather rude awakening for the Russians useing them.

It isn't sound, though. You're combining two things that are better kept separate into a single platform that is worse in both roles. It's like those weird tank-APC hybrid vehicles that come up every now and then when Ukraine tries to sell off its surplus tanks but no one buys them. You can try to solve individual shortcomings that Mi-24 faced (lack of power, etc.) but not the fundamental problem that the ideal design features of an attack helicopter and a transport helicopter are quite different.

Given that what you all say makes sense and I have no decent counterargument due to an overall lack of depth in terms of my knowledge on the subject which is admittedly somewhat superficial I am going to say you are probably right. And combined with the fact that neither the Russians nor anyone else ever did a flying IFV ever again, something that your explanation does explain and mine can't you have me convinced.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Purpelia wrote:I'd disagree. They are a jack of all trades that can be used as either an attack helicopter or a transport depending on what's needed at the time. This is as opposed to having to buy, crew and maintain two separate machines for the two jobs.

You don't actually have to do all that though.

Because you could replace the limited carrying capability of Mi-24 with a smaller number of purpose-designed assault transports, while still having manpower and money left over to buy some dedicated attack helicopters. A Black Hawk can carry twice as many men as a Hind can practically carry, so you could replace, say, a squadron of 24 Hinds with a dozen Black Hawks and a dozen Apaches and still come out ahead because the Black Hawk is a much better assault transport and the Apache is a much better gunship, while still delivering the same number of men. Maintenance is not a real problem because Black Hawk and Apache share the same engines. The same was true of the earlier UH-1/AH-1 combo, they were just older and didn't have quite as good performance.

The US learned some solid lessons in Vietnam about helicopter operations that the Soviets never got until Mi-24 was already in service. And it proved that the ideal characteristics of an assault transport and a gunship are different and in many cases, outright opposed.

Purpelia wrote:That's more or less it's point though, isn't it? I was under the impression that was newer supposed to be a general purpose transport anyway. That's what the Mi-8 and others were for. And the 24 would be a flying IFV for VDV strike teams.
I could be wrong here of course.

It was supposed to be an assault transport, dropping off actual infantry units in Vietnam-style air assaults. It wasn't supposed to be a "general purpose transport" in the sense that it was going to also be doing rear-line hauling like utility-model UH-60s or Mi-8s. But in its original concept it was supposed to replace Mi-8 in an assault. But it couldn't because the weight of the weapons and armor made it too heavy to actually carry a useful number of troops. Which left it as the worst of both worlds: big, fat, and unmaneuverable for an attack helicopter, and too limited to be a transport helicopter. Which is why the Russians are dumping it for a combination of Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters and Mi-8s to deliver troops.

The united American-Isreali empire wrote:Personally the mi-24 is interesting. Its idea is sound. However.. it had issues upto the v model. Afghanistan was rather rude awakening for the Russians useing them.

It isn't sound, though. You're combining two things that are better kept separate into a single platform that is worse in both roles. It's like those weird tank-APC hybrid vehicles that come up every now and then when Ukraine tries to sell off its surplus tanks but no one buys them. You can try to solve individual shortcomings that Mi-24 faced (lack of power, etc.) but not the fundamental problem that the ideal design features of an attack helicopter and a transport helicopter are quite different.

how so? the jack of all trades idea has its place, look at f-16s.

Fighter planes aren't helicopters.

Triplebaconation wrote:(Image)

"Terra's right arm" for centuries, the Winfield R75 was adopted by the Terran Union as its standard infantry rifle after it absorbed the North Atlantic Federation in the late 1st century AG. Firing a 7/5x50mm squeeze-bore round from a 20-round magazine at 1800 rpm in bursts and 600 rpm in fully automatic, the R75 was capable of piercing a 20mm Duralon plate at 500 meters. Standard sights were adjustable from 100-1000 meters and 0-1.25 standard gees and could be easily replaced with infrared or starlight snooper scopes. The straight-line Zerlon stock featured an integral bipod, allowing the R75 to be used as a light machine gun with optional 50-round drum magazines. A variety of bayonets were issued over the years, from knives for terrestrial use to spikes designed for penetrating pressure suits.

Fuckin' dope

Some interesting numbers:

UH-60M - $6M
Mil-8 $9M
Mil-28 $17
Mil-26 $8
AH-1Z - $31M
CH-47F - $32M
Mil-24D - $36M
AH-64D - $61M

The united American-Isreali empire wrote:

The Akasha Colony wrote:
You don't actually have to do all that though.

Because you could replace the limited carrying capability of Mi-24 with a smaller number of purpose-designed assault transports, while still having manpower and money left over to buy some dedicated attack helicopters. A Black Hawk can carry twice as many men as a Hind can practically carry, so you could replace, say, a squadron of 24 Hinds with a dozen Black Hawks and a dozen Apaches and still come out ahead because the Black Hawk is a much better assault transport and the Apache is a much better gunship, while still delivering the same number of men. Maintenance is not a real problem because Black Hawk and Apache share the same engines. The same was true of the earlier UH-1/AH-1 combo, they were just older and didn't have quite as good performance.

The US learned some solid lessons in Vietnam about helicopter operations that the Soviets never got until Mi-24 was already in service. And it proved that the ideal characteristics of an assault transport and a gunship are different and in many cases, outright opposed.



It was supposed to be an assault transport, dropping off actual infantry units in Vietnam-style air assaults. It wasn't supposed to be a "general purpose transport" in the sense that it was going to also be doing rear-line hauling like utility-model UH-60s or Mi-8s. But in its original concept it was supposed to replace Mi-8 in an assault. But it couldn't because the weight of the weapons and armor made it too heavy to actually carry a useful number of troops. Which left it as the worst of both worlds: big, fat, and unmaneuverable for an attack helicopter, and too limited to be a transport helicopter. Which is why the Russians are dumping it for a combination of Mi-28 and Ka-50 attack helicopters and Mi-8s to deliver troops.



It isn't sound, though. You're combining two things that are better kept separate into a single platform that is worse in both roles. It's like those weird tank-APC hybrid vehicles that come up every now and then when Ukraine tries to sell off its surplus tanks but no one buys them. You can try to solve individual shortcomings that Mi-24 faced (lack of power, etc.) but not the fundamental problem that the ideal design features of an attack helicopter and a transport helicopter are quite different.

how so? the jack of all trades idea has its place, look at f-16s.

The F-16 has no transport capacity. The Mi-24 sacrifices combat capability to transport a few infantry. If someone tried to make the F-16 capable of carrying 6 paratroopers it would be a rather bad fighter.

Im still alive

https://imgur.com/a/7xQJ0Ve

heres some boxes of ammo, low effort art

Kassaran wrote:Some interesting numbers:

UH-60M - $6M
Mil-8 $9M
Mil-28 $17
Mil-26 $8
AH-1Z - $31M
CH-47F - $32M
Mil-24D - $36M
AH-64D - $61M

Interesting to see the Mi-26 so cheap. Usually void space costs a ridiculous amount, CH-53K costs about as much as a F-35 for example

The united American-Isreali empire wrote:how so? the jack of all trades idea has its place, look at f-16s.

Not every capability is identical in terms of design requirement.

Modern fighters can easily be made multi-role because it no longer requires serious design tradeoffs. You can take an air superiority fighter and give it ground attack capability by adding a targeting pod and then mounting some bombs or ground-attack missiles to the hardpoints. It's a simple matter. You can even get some decent ground attack capability without a targeting pod by just using the radar in GMTI mode, since modern radar systems can easily handle a whole plethora of search modes. This is why even F-22 can attack ground targets. It may be worth noting that this was not always the case; the size and complexity of electronic systems used to require separate day and night fighter designs.

In this case there is no real tradeoff in performance except the cost to add additional sensors. And if you're doing an air superiority mission, you just remove the targeting pod and bombs. Ground attack is a very easy capability to add because it is simple. Can it fly? Can it drop bombs? Done. But the reverse is not true; a ground attack aircraft like A-10 cannot simply be turned into a good air superiority fighter by slapping some AIM-120s and a radar on it. The design requirements that made it optimized for the ground attack role make it a poor air superiority fighter. It's slow. It's not maneuverable. It doesn't have room for a decent radar.

In the case of helicopters, the design requirements for an assault transport and an attack helicopter are largely opposed. Assault transports must have enough space to carry a reasonable number of men, which makes them big. Attack helicopters should not be big, because this makes them easier targets. Transports need lots of thrust in order to maximize climb performance and limit their time in the most dangerous phase of the operation, which is landing. Attack helicopters don't really have the same need since they won't be landing during an operation. Related to this, loading down the transport with a ton of weapons either reduces its climb performance or requires even more powerful engines to compensate. Transports have no need for expensive sensors like the Longbow radar, which can double the cost of the helicopter. Attack helicopters absolutely need these systems to spot and engage targets.

The problem with Mi-24 is that while it is multi-role, it's not multi-purpose. The design is physically capable of both firing weapons and carrying men, but it is designed for one purpose and one purpose only: airmobile assaults, when both of these capabilities are needed. In any other situation where both capabilities are not needed, it is much worse than a purpose-built design for that role. It is a far inferior transport to Mi-8, and it is an inferior gunship to Mi-28/Ka-50. But as it turns out, the compromises inherent in trying to combine both troop transport and fire support made it bad at both, so it's not great even in the one purpose it was designed for.

In a reverse look at the above discussion, was the MH-60 a mistake? One of my puppets has a very limited number of dedicated attack birds, and a decent number of utility models and I was thinking of upgunning some Eurocopter Cougars.

Post War America wrote:In a reverse look at the above discussion, was the MH-60 a mistake? One of my puppets has a very limited number of dedicated attack birds, and a decent number of utility models and I was thinking of upgunning some Eurocopter Cougars.

You mean something like DAP?

Transports shouldn't be totally unarmed; they strongly benefit from some side or tail guns to cover the disembarking troops and to provide basic self-defense. But the heavily-armed variants exist for specific reasons. DAP exists so that Army special forces don't need to either buy Apaches of their own or call up some Apaches from another unit whenever they need some basic fire support on a mission. They aren't substitutes for actual attack helicopters, and aren't expected to be used in the sorts of heavy combat situations a unit of Apaches would be deployed to. You wouldn't deploy a squadron of DAPs to hunt a Soviet tank column in the same way you'd dispatch a squadron of Apaches for the job. You might deploy a DAP or two to support a small SF raid, though.

The Akasha Colony wrote:

Post War America wrote:In a reverse look at the above discussion, was the MH-60 a mistake? One of my puppets has a very limited number of dedicated attack birds, and a decent number of utility models and I was thinking of upgunning some Eurocopter Cougars.

You mean something like DAP?

Transports shouldn't be totally unarmed; they strongly benefit from some side or tail guns to cover the disembarking troops and to provide basic self-defense. But the heavily-armed variants exist for specific reasons. DAP exists so that Army special forces don't need to either buy Apaches of their own or call up some Apaches from another unit whenever they need some basic fire support on a mission. They aren't substitutes for actual attack helicopters, and aren't expected to be used in the sorts of heavy combat situations a unit of Apaches would be deployed to. You wouldn't deploy a squadron of DAPs to hunt a Soviet tank column in the same way you'd dispatch a squadron of Apaches for the job. You might deploy a DAP or two to support a small SF raid, though.

Which is exactly what is needed in this case, an armed variant of a transport bird to support air assault operations so that valuable attack helicopters are free to engage in what attack helicopters do best.