Which attack helicopter is all around the best?

Mi-28 Havoc

Apache AH-64D

Kamov Ka-58

Kamov ka-50/52

Eurocopter Tiger

AH-1w Super Cobra

Mi-24 Hind
It really depends on what you want to do.
If you haven't got all the money in the world and you're not likely to face a very high tech foe, I'd say I'd want the Mi-24 or Mi-17. OH-6s would be a nice choice as well.

Mi-24 is pretty ground-fire resistant, can be used as a gunship or as a transport. That would be my choice.
Having said that, if I wanted a pure attack helicopter for tank busting and air support, I'd go with the Apache.
You are right redneck, the Mi-24 Hind is a attack helicopter that is ground fire resistant and can double as a transport so it does seem a well rounded copter. But don't the Mi-28 Havoc and Apache AH-64D look like they are about the same in size, weaponry, and capability?
The Apache is faster, slightly better-armed, has a higher service ceiling, has a longer range, is combat proven, and we can afford to build them. Russians have built ~10 Mi-28s for themselves. We and the British have hundreds of Apache.
Yeah I wouldn't go for the Russian helicopters. They're not proven, their electronics package and avionics aren't as great as the Apache.
The Apache, when employed right, is just outstanding.
But if I wanted a do-it-all sort of helicopter and tank busting wasn't one of the serious priorities, the Hind would get my nod.
I'd take the AH-1Z Viper over any helicopter save the Apache and, perhaps, the Tiger. If I were looking for a Seahawk-type platform with more teeth, I might take a glance at the Hind.
c/Commander you hit the nail head Russia it really cannot not be compared to an operational helicopter because its a prototype. I thought the number was six. It's one of those Russian projects where its announced fifty will be built, but they never seem to get made.
It's not easy finding information this unloved helicopter.
Russian army in North Caucasus receives new attack helicopters

Last edited:
The other thing i like about the Russian choppers are that they make a gunship that can take a lot of punishment. The Mi 24 hind is known as the devil's chariot till to day as the most feared helicopter in the world, when you in a fight and you hear that thing coming over to you you poop yourself, their is not a lot of weapons that can bring it down from the ground, The stingers was known as the hind "mi24" killer
The havoc looks like a nice chopper but can it do the job and how good is it really, it have to proof itself. I am a fan of Russian Choppers but would be skeptic about an unproven chopper
I do agree with you, low tech yes, but the problem is that if you have to much tech for a place that is harsh like Africa that can be a problem if you don't have a service platform that is good for it, you going to be stuck" like driving a Ferrari or a lambo thru a dessert."
Personally I think Russian helicopters aren't a bad deal at all. Many like the Mi-24 and Mi-8/Mi-17 are proven platforms, have pretty good haul space and capacity and also can pack a punch as well. On top of that, they're not as expensive as American helicopters and have been proven reliable as well.
Totally i do agree with you. Mercenaries like weapons that is not 2 expensive but that can do the job, won't mind USA choppers or most Europe choppers, For any war zone out their and the country involved they use what they have. For me practicality is what work for me at the end of the day.
Hi major liability

I don't remember any prototypes being made on this Ka-50-2 Erdogan tandem twin-sitter in November 1999? Were any made I looked around but couldn't find it?
Major, Rock, actually Ka-50-2 lost the Turkish ATAK helicopter tender at a rather early stage. It didn't meat TSK's performance requirements and overall wasn't a cost-effective platform. Turkey was looking for an attack gunship that can be both used as a tank hunter and for assymetric / anti-terrorism warfare near the Iraqi, Iranian and Armenian borders.

All in all, the winner was AgustaWestland's A-129INT, which is being upgraded even further with Commanche program's T800 engine (increasing speed and hovering altitute by 20%), new generation Aselsan sensors and avionics, MMW radar, HMCS, laser and MMW guided missiles/rockets and the ability to engage AERIAL targets, which is rare with helicopters.


I like the Hind when it comes to an all purpose attack helicopter with a proven combat record. But I like the the Mi-28 Havoc and the Ka-58 also. Don't underestimate Russian weaponry, they have proven themselves in the most desolate combat zones where even many Western weapons systems failed. Russian weaponry have a trademark for durability and ruggedness and I believe they have shown that durability throughout many wars.
UnitedSomalia, I'm calling BS on that one.
Russian weapons have proven to be very capable but only if they are rather simple and are intended for rather simple purposes. None of their high tech stuff is proven and in most cases, exist only as a handful of prototypes.
A few Western equipment have failed in the beginning but usually the problems got ironed out and they turned out to be excellent equipment with some minor problems that gave it a bad rep. When fixed, they worked just fine.
Like I said, I'd like the Hind and the Hip for a low tech war or for low tech purposes. If I needed a dedicated tank killer, the Russian helicopters wouldn't rate on my list. For hauling soldiers and cargo though, I think the Russians actually got it right.
redneck, im just saying that in the wars I have seen that were fought in extreme terrain or temp such as the Afghan war, Vietnam, Korea, Somali-Ethiopian war of 1977, Angola, Sudan, Arab-Israeli wars and latin America the Russian weaponry needed the least maintenance, they usually operated with relative simplicity where as their Western counterparts needed huge maintanece and logistics to keep them running and available for combat.
So you've seen war have you?
Korea? That was a long time ago. American equipment held up fine there. Nothing wrong with the M-1 Garand, nor the M-1 Carbine and its multiple variants. Or the .30 cal MG. The only issue they had was the enemy that came in waves and semi-automatic fire that worked fine in Europe didn't have the ROF needed. But as for reliability etc., there were no issues. A lot of M-1 Carbines got modifications for automatic fire and that was alright. The M-3 Grease Gun did alright as well.
In terms of helicopters, that was a non issue in Korea really. America had helicopters. North Korea did not. But they worked alright too.

Afghan War. Which one? The one in the 80's with the Soviets? That was Russian hardware vs Russian hardware + the American Stinger (which did rather well).

Vietnam - The M-16 had some issues in the very beginning but considering what they did to it, hardly a surprise. After they fixed the problems, it was a fine weapon.
AK-47. Outstanding weapon. But you're not proving me wrong or anything. Like I said, in terms of some low tech stuff, Russian stuff is outstanding. 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.

Arab Israeli Wars - Are you kidding? American hardware pwned the living daylights out of Russian hardware.

There are only certain Western weapons that require massive maintenance. The most famous being the M1 series MBT. But they deliver so much more than anything the Russians have fielded.

Again back to helicopters. Russia's hardware, when not required to be high tech, is sometimes outstanding. I think the Hind and the Hip helicopters are a great design and I'd pick them over the Black Hawk for general transport etc. because it's cheap and can haul more. But for high tech stuff, I'll stick with the American and European helicopters.

I've used American equipment and they worked fine without the logistical nightmare that you talk about.