Why the Mil Mi-24 has no Western Counterpart

>title is why the west has no mi-24 equivalent
>never actually says why

Fuck off.

A Hind D?

>MI-24 series
>Madiocre
Tell that to the goatfuckers in Afghanistan and Chechnya
it proved itself as a good idea
Not that the AH-1 and AH-64 are bad, they are great as well, just the mi-24 (especially the upgraded ones) is pretty neat

>durr it proved itself against literal goatfuckers

>he doesn't know about the MH-60 DAP

>Tell that to the goatfuckers in Afghanistan and Chechnya
But the goatfuckers won both those wars? Besides, the hind doesn't carry infantry unless it flies with empty pylons, it lacks the power to lift both.

>it lacks the power to lift both.
It used to back in 80th. They upgraded it a lot. It used to have no ability to hover for a long time back in the days, for example, and it's still something that you can hear here and there as an argument against Hind. Totally not true for a modern models.

Same can be said about the AH-64 or AH-1 that want aginst "rice farmer's" you know
Also the goatfuckers in Chechnya got soviet training and experience from Afghanistan because vatnik retardtion of having Muslims in the army
Anyway do not show disrespect for the Hind god komrad, it will come back at you
Also i forgot to add, i really wish someone would go full in for the idea and made a Hind style with better engines same pilot sitting style and up to date tech

Attached: 1568375151355.png (493x328, 270K)

>The answer is because the HIND was mediocre -- at best -- at both roles that it tried to fill.

It was great assault helicopter and it was great troop carrier. For the same reason - Hind is heavy armored. So, when US lost thousands of helicopters back in Vietnam, Soviets lost about 100 Hinds. Most of them due to DShK fire.

>i really wish someone would go full in for the idea and made a Hind style with better engines same pilot sitting style and up to date tech
Super Hind is available for buying. Same as Mi-35. Which are literally up to date Hinds.

Forget about the hind, how the fuck do you make helis stealth

Attached: a19c2c7fcbc536f851253982dc5c1547.jpg (901x641, 130K)

Don't make helicopters

Attached: tr3b.jpg (1000x541, 31K)

This nigger cant write for shit and has zero credentials, so why the fuck would we read his dumbass blog?

Attached: Screenshot_20190917-111531_Chrome.jpg (1080x2220, 706K)

I liked the original cockpit on the "A" variant

Attached: FwpfLaL.jpg (2000x1329, 946K)

I like the idea of carrying troops close to combat grounds and then supporting said troops with said heli.
Just imagine Vietnam but instead of Hueys you had Mi24 Hinds fucking shit up.

Because the west has helicopters for attacking and helicopters for transport.

The hind tries to combine both and hurts itself in both roles.

It cant transport a lot of troops and it's way bigger than an attack helicopter needs to be.

This
That was a shit headline for a shit article.

Its a fucking greenhouse. Only good for tomatoes and cucumbers.

The flat panels feel sturdier

Attached: 81070_1403275452.jpg (1600x1086, 2.17M)

Because there is no good way of fusing a Bradley, an A-10, and a Super Stallion. Yet.

I think they are too big for such a enviroment

The AH-1 and AH-64 have both proven for decades to be significantly better gunships.

It was a mediocre gunship and a worse troop carrier. No amount of brain damaged mental gymnastics on your part changes that.

The Hind being used as a gunship can't be used as a troop carrier, especially somewhere like Afghanistan

That must be why Russia is trying to replace them with Mi-28s.

You get rid of the props, give them wings, add jet engines

Probably cause the profit margins on such a thing wouldn't be big enough for any of the top defense businesses.

>no money in it
>fuck that

idk I like the idea of attack helicopters but desu it would be kind of cringe to pilot one

>Soviets lost about 100 Hinds

The US lost 25 helicopters in Afghanistan.

Because russia is poor, and it's cheaper to build one type that can do a lot of stuff OK than different types that can do their intended roles well.

A idea that in practice ends up with a chopper doing two jobs poorly instead of one well. Which is why both the US and Soviets preferred dedicated troop carrying helis supported by dedicated gunships in their respective wars. Hinds are shit troop carriers and having gunships drop down to deploy troops where they cannot use much other than door guns to suppress the enemy doesn't work.