Which attack helicopter is all around the best?

[UnitedSomalia]

I believe redneck that the reason the Russian hardware did poorly in the Arab-Israeli wars was that they were operated by inefficient, poorly educated, and horribly trained crew members. Put a German, American, or a Russian crew behind those same Russian equipment and you will see how well they fare against American equipment.

When Russian pilots were flying Russian jets in Korea we have seen how well their kill rate was against Western fighters. I believe the reason why Russian equipment got a bit of tarnished history is because the Soviets supplied them to untrained, peasant, 3rd world armies. Have you seen how well Russian equipment that was captured by the West did in tests flown by Western pilots in many of the cases the West was impressed at the Russian hardware. In Germany when the wall came down, East German MiG-29 fulcrums piloted by German pilots beat their American counterparts in dog fight practices, and no you can't say they had western avionics in them because at that time the East German MiGs had no single Western avionics.

Put an American Marine or Army tank crew behind a T-72 tank and put an Iraq crew behind a M1 and you will see how badly the M1 loses in combat. My whole point is When Russian equipment was operated by well trained crews they did superb but when you hand those equipment to a peasant and 3rd world army against a well trained Westernized army they will do poor and it all comes down to who is operating the equipment.

 

[KJ]

I believe redneck that the reason the Russian hardware did poorly in the Arab-Israeli wars was that they were operated by inefficient, poorly educated, and horribly trained crew members. Put a German, American, or a Russian crew behind those same Russian equipment and you will see how well they fare against American equipment.

When Russian pilots were flying Russian jets in Korea we have seen how well their kill rate was against Western fighters. I believe the reason why Russian equipment got a bit of tarnished history is because the Soviets supplied them to untrained, peasant, 3rd world armies. Have you seen how well Russian equipment that was captured by the West did in tests flown by Western pilots in many of the cases the West was impressed at the Russian hardware. In Germany when the wall came down, East German MiG-29 fulcrums piloted by German pilots beat their American counterparts in dog fight practices, and no you can't say they had western avionics in them because at that time the East German MiGs had no single Western avionics.

Put an American Marine or Army tank crew behind a T-72 tank and put an Iraq crew behind a M1 and you will see how badly the M1 loses in combat. My whole point is When Russian equipment was operated by well trained crews they did superb but when you hand those equipment to a peasant and 3rd world army against a well trained Westernized army they will do poor and it all comes down to who is operating the equipment.

Is that why the russian equipment have worked so well first in the 80,s in Afghanistan and then at a later date in Tchetchenia?
I would love to hear about where you have seen russian kit in action..
The russkies have done some good low tech kit.
Like the AK47, AKM and their combat shovel.
The Mi24 Hind is an exception that have done fairly well in action, still the fact is they had ineffective countermeasures against SAM,s.
Wich the Mujahedin proved over and over again.

The rest of their kit is just for show.

 

[tommy_gunn]

Russia have got the 2'nd harsh landscape in the world second to Africa, Most to all African country's uses Russian equipment in their Defense and it works nice, Angola South African war Russian Land Mine's was, tamed by The south African, when the world spend Billions On making good to best We The south Africa build the only weapons that can handle all land mine, "not sure on all IED, CNN did a test try to blow up a south African APC on Military.com is the clip" Hind yes no counter measures but very good, Russians make Practical weapons that work that is LOW TECH and it work as you say use better trained crew and the Russian junk will be victorious Russian weapons aircraft, tank, APC, or hand held gun must be easily fix with little to no TECH center close by. Yes hail the TECH but in war what is practical is what will win the war WW2 proved it between the Germans and the Russians.

 

[ObjSRgtLw]

I must go with Eurocopter because I don't know the others except from movies

 

[SHERMAN]

When Russian pilots were flying Russian jets in Korea we have seen how well their kill rate was against Western fighters

The kill ratios in Korea were fudgedby the russians, and i dont think anyone can trust soviet kill reports. In the 1970s russian pilots faced israeli ones in egypt and had a terrible kill ratio.

The problem is not only the gear, sometimes russian gear was betterthan western gear. The problem was the russian operational methods that are good for a country with 40000 and endless ground to manouver on. That was not the case for most of their clients.

 

[Lunatik]

Tactically, and in realistic terms, how important is a mast-mounted millimeter wave radar? Do you think it's a must-have or can an attack helicopter do its job without it?

On this Ka-52 we're also seeing some electro-optics above the cockpit.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

The kill ratios in Korea were fudgedby the russians, and i dont think anyone can trust soviet kill reports. In the 1970s russian pilots faced israeli ones in egypt and had a terrible kill ratio.

The problem is not only the gear, sometimes russian gear was betterthan western gear. The problem was the russian operational methods that are good for a country with 40000 and endless ground to manouver on. That was not the case for most of their clients.

Where were these Russian pilots that Israel faced in Egypt? What prove is their that Russia ever sent it pilots? Trust me if the Soviet Union sent their pilots to fly for the Arabs the air wars would have turned out very different, Soviets had very skilled pilots. Were any of these pilots ever captured? Have any ever been identified? The answer I believe is no.

I think the reason Russian equipment did poorly in many instances was because they were being operated by uneducated, peasant, 3rd world armies. In instances were these Russian equipment was operated by well trained crews they bested their Western counterparts.

 

[A Can of Man]

Again, that's simply not the case.
Russian equipment has for the most part been sub par, especially when it comes to modern times. It's not hard to explain why: Western weapons platforms have been improving like crazy even after the Cold War ended with the advances in technology, especially computer technology. Russian equipment, not so.
Then I have a question for you: why is it that poor, 3rd rate countries go for Russian gear while the countries that can actually afford it, tend to buy either American or European hardware to make the backbone of their military? It can't be because they have an obsession with paying more money for something that has the same performance. It's because the experts know. The Russian stuff is rarely good enough.

 

[03USMC]

The Soviets like everyone else never exported their top of the line gear, tanks, aircraft, SAM's none of it with a few very notable exceptions was exported with all the bells and whistles that the Red Army had, they were export models. Not high tech and dumbed down.

 

[major liability]

The South African Rooivalk is relatively low maintenance as well.

But then again we can talk about the SKS which may have been more common, especially early in the war and those things were horrible.

Don't knock the SKS, man. It may have already been obsolete (semi-auto, internal mag) when it was designed but that doesn't make it a bad weapon. It's quite reliable and durable, ridiculously easy to maintain, and slightly more accurate than the Kalashnikov.

 

[rock45]

Trust me if the Soviet Union sent their pilots to fly for the Arabs the air wars would have turned out very different, Soviets had very skilled pilots.

If they get less training then western pilots and have fought in no wars themselves how do they get skilled?

Look how they fought against Georgia just last year you give them and their equipment to much credited. Using T-72 that M-60s would have knocked and using 30 year old cold war bombers as a recon aircraft with 48 year old pilot.

98% of all their Mig-29 never upgraded and grounded.

90% of their Su-27 Flankers, their best can't fire there best radar guided missiles AA-12

India has more operational T-90 tanks then they do.

India and China have more modern Flankers then Russia has.

Most of Russia's army is 70s and 80s level period only.

A Russian mod in a different forum I'm in quoted only two new mechanized Battalions worth of new equipment bought in like eight years.

It wouldn't be hard to take apart there navy.

Russia makes very little really modern equipment if you breakdown there arms sales over the last twenty years you'll see it. Most of there bulk sales are of older types.

Look at Venezuela's 2003/2004 sale for example nothing modern even the Flankers are 10+ year old designs based off the Su-27K sold to China.

Russia could only train there clients or customer as they were trained. The Russian trainers get more hands on work in the client countries sometimes then in Russia.

Russians have no magical powers you fight like you train, you don't train you do poorly. Train third world armed forces poorly and armed them with average equipment and they fight like **** and get beat by western made equipment & forces 95% of the time.

 

[UnitedSomalia]

If they get less training then western pilots and have fought in no wars themselves how do they get skilled?

Look how they fought against Georgia just last year you give them and their equipment to much credited. Using T-72 that M-60s would have knocked and using 30 year old cold war bombers as a recon aircraft with 48 year old pilot.

98% of all their Mig-29 never upgraded and grounded.

90% of their Su-27 Flankers, their best can't fire there best radar guided missiles AA-12

India has more operational T-90 tanks then they do.

India and China have more modern Flankers then Russia has.

Most of Russia's army is 70s and 80s level period only.

A Russian mod in a different forum I'm in quoted only two new mechanized Battalions worth of new equipment bought in like eight years.

It wouldn't be hard to take apart there navy.

Russia makes very little really modern equipment if you breakdown there arms sales over the last twenty years you'll see it. Most of there bulk sales are of older types.

Look at Venezuela's 2003/2004 sale for example nothing modern even the Flankers are 10+ year old designs based off the Su-27K sold to China.

Russia could only train there clients or customer as they were trained. The Russian trainers get more hands on work in the client countries sometimes then in Russia.

Russians have no magical powers you fight like you train, you don't train you do poorly. Train third world armed forces poorly and armed them with average equipment and they fight like **** and get beat by western made equipment & forces 95% of the time.

The time that Sherman and I are talking about was at the height of the Soviet Union the 1970s when the Red Army was the most awesome military force ever seen upon the face of the earth. The Soviets had ample training, they had war games all the time, they were involved with many training missions across the globe, their pilots were top notch, if the Soviets did send pilots in the 1970s to fly for the Arab believe me those air wars would have turned out very different and we would be having a whole different conversation today.

I agree with 03USMC on this one, the stuff the Soviets sent to these third world countries were second rate export versions of the things they provided to their Warsaw pact armies. The Soviets weren't sending their state of the art equipment to these countries because they knew if these weapons were captured by the West it would endanger their forces in Europe. And these 3rd world crews were horrible training and no education.So much for crappy Soviets, in the 1950s-late 1980s NATO themselves admitted they would lose a conventional war against the Soviets and that nothing could stop the Soviets from racing to the English channel. The Americans and their European allies new that conventionally they could not match the Soviets and have publicly admitted that, the Red Army was an awesome force to be reckoned with.

The Russians have made such equipment as the MiG-25, MiG-29, SU-27s, SU-30, Mi-24, Mi-28, Ka-50/52, super silent attack & nuke subs, S-300, S-400, T-90, Super deadly and highly accurate anti-tank missiles, etc...

 

[A Can of Man]

Depends on the quality of the maker.
I've heard a lot of bad stuff from guys who used the Chinese SKS and these were distributed a lot.

Don't knock the SKS, man. It may have already been obsolete (semi-auto, internal mag) when it was designed but that doesn't make it a bad weapon. It's quite reliable and durable, ridiculously easy to maintain, and slightly more accurate than the Kalashnikov.

When the first MiG-25 defected to the West, the reaction was: what a disappointment. They knew about an incredible Mach 3 fighter but didn't realize it was such a poor machine in every other aspect.

 

[SHERMAN]

Where were these Russian pilots that Israel faced in Egypt? What prove is their that Russia ever sent it pilots? Trust me if the Soviet Union sent their pilots to fly for the Arabs the air wars would have turned out very different, Soviets had very skilled pilots. Were any of these pilots ever captured? Have any ever been identified? The answer I believe is no.

A russian air defence division( ithink thats the name for it, im not sure) with SA-3 batteries and MiG-21 squadrons deployed to Egypt in 1970. The aircraft and pilots were seen clearly on the deck of russian ships leaving the black sea in 1970. Shortly after that Israeli intelligence listening in on radio signals in Egypt heard russian on the waves.

The russians played around with the IAF untill one day they fired a missile at a A-4 Skyhawk that bearly made it home with massive engine damage. After that the IAF set up an air ambush and shot down 5 russian pilots flying mig-21s


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,878216,00.html

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-6389.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...9UGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oDEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3190,9123825

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...-cNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r3UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7341,6537093

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2848/operate5.htm

http://countrystudies.us/egypt/38.htm


So, do you have any sources to the opposite?

 

[A Can of Man]

Great finds Sherman... wow old newspapers. I still have my newspapers from 9/11 saved and preserved incase someone fifty years from now tries to tell me that it never happened.

 

[BritinBritain]

Russians have no magical powers you fight like you train, you don't train you do poorly. Train third world armed forces poorly and armed them with average equipment and they fight like **** and get beat by western made equipment & forces 95% of the time.

Here in South Africa we are now getting a lot of immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Last year we (my gun shop) were asked to train two couples as per the new gun laws to enable them to apply for a firearms licence for self defence.

Both of the men were ex East German infantry soldiers, to cut a very long story short I wasn't impressed with their weapon handling, safety or marksmanship all of which showed poor quality training.

If this is an example of Soviet/Warsaw Pact training, all I can say is they were trained for nothing more then cannon fodder.

 

[A Can of Man]

Typical learn-on-the-job mentality.

 

[tommy_gunn]

Yes i agree. 1 of my Mates ex 32 batt. told me how they use to cream the Russians in Angola and the Cubans lost allot of men from Russian training in Angola

 

[Draconian]

Put an American Marine or Army tank crew behind a T-72 tank and put an Iraq crew behind a M1 and you will see how badly the M1 loses in combat. My whole point is When Russian equipment was operated by well trained crews they did superb but when you hand those equipment to a peasant and 3rd world army against a well trained Westernized army they will do poor and it all comes down to who is operating the equipment.

The Iraqi crew would win......because the T-72 has pretty much no chance at penetrating an M1.

 

[bren122]

The Iraqi crew would win......because the T-72 has pretty much no chance at penetrating an M1.

a quality crew will outmaneuvre a poor crew and end up in the best position to take a shot- in this case a smoothe bore 125mm round up the back end of the M1 should more than do the trick.