Cold War Helicopters--- Is The Apache Better Than The Soviet Hind??

[Rakhmetov]

This doc from the Military channel claims the Apache far outstrips the "bureaucratic crocodile" of the Red military. All this is just cant and propaganda!!! As if the Apache could outmanuevre and evade stinger missiles. Pleeeeaaazzzze ... :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxCVfpeuCOE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-97u398xKd0

[CitizenSmith]

The Hind isn't even comparable to the Apache, they fulfill diffrent roles on the battle field, a better comparision would be the Ka-52 'Alligator'.

[Dr Mindbender]

Youre confused, the stinger is a shoulder mounted weapon fired by infantry. The hind didnt carry stinger missiles. It carried 4 Air to surface missiles, 4 rocket pods and one gatling gun mounted in the gunners turret.

They were very different beasts. The hind has a better warload for air to surface jobs but I think the Apache was to be fair though the better all rounder. It's pretty much the only combat helicopter in existance that can carry or at least would routinely carry air to air missiles. Given that factor, i think in a vs situation my money would be on the apache. Especially since the apache is a good bit smaller and has the benefit of manoueverabilty.

Actually reminds me of a movie from the 90's called 'wings of the apache' where apaches were actually used to dogfight with defender choppers!

[Magón]

Why is this in Science & Environment? Someone put this in Chit-Chat or at least that not quite Chit-Chat subforum.

Also, who the fuck really cares?

[Dr Mindbender]

Why is this in Science & Environment? Someone put this in Chit-Chat or at least that not quite Chit-Chat subforum.

Also, who the fuck really cares?

Since when did aeronautics stop being a science?

[Magón]

Since when did aeronautics stop being a science?

It's not even about aeronautics. It's just Rakhmetov saying the Apache sucks over the Hind. Even the videos just talk about their armament and duties in combat areas.

[Dr Mindbender]

It's not even about aeronautics. It's just Rakhmetov saying the Apache sucks over the Hind. Even the videos just talk about their armament and duties in combat areas.

I hate to break this to you but i think combat aircraft will continue to exist after capitalism.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

That TOP-10 show is as lousy as it is dumb. I hate when they have those absurd over-dramatic voice overs that act like they're having some sort of neurotic episode and can't really bring out many facts from the cloud of exaggerations and stupid misinformed anecdotes. I sure hope this kind of dumb television won't continue after capitalism. One shouldn't place too much stress on what such a imbecilic show says.

[Magón]

I hate to break this to you but i think combat aircraft will continue to exist after capitalism.

And I still don't see how this is a Science & Environment topic. Non-Political, yes, but we're not talking about Aeronautics here, we're talking about how one is supposed to be better than the other.

Hence my, why the fuck does it even matter?

[thesadmafioso]

Can you really compare the two directly? The hind was designed more as a multi purpose helicopter whereas the Apache was intended to serve an assault type role exclusively. I suppose this comparison didn't care to factor in role versatility in any notable sense.

[Dr Mindbender]

That TOP-10 show is as lousy as it is dumb. I hate when they have those absurd over-dramatic voice overs that act like they're having some sort of neurotic episode and can't really bring out many facts from the cloud of exaggerations and stupid misinformed anecdotes. I sure hope this kind of dumb television won't continue after capitalism. One shouldn't place too much stress on what such a imbecilic show says.

Au contrare. I hope dumb tv continues post capitalism, how else will i get my fix of flame thrower and catapult weilding IRA members.

9e7xQZVE1MI

[Rakhmetov]

Youre confused, the stinger is a shoulder mounted weapon fired by infantry. The hind didnt carry stinger missiles. It carried 4 Air to surface missiles, 4 rocket pods and one gatling gun mounted in the gunners turret.

They were very different beasts. The hind has a better warload for air to surface jobs but I think the Apache was to be fair though the better all rounder. It's pretty much the only combat helicopter in existance that can carry or at least would routinely carry air to air missiles. Given that factor, i think in a vs situation my money would be on the apache. Especially since the apache is a good bit smaller and has the benefit of manoueverabilty.

Actually reminds me of a movie from the 90's called 'wings of the apache' where apaches were actually used to dogfight with defender choppers!


I'm not confused. I know what stinger missiles are. I'm just asking can an Apache outmanuevre a stinger missile fired from some sandal-wearing mujahadeen any better than a Hind?

[Bitter Ashes]

Bloody hell. This is very much a boy's topic now isn't it?

Apples and oranges, but okay. Here we go. The comparison would be between the Hind and the Blackhawk, or the Apache and the Croc.

A Hind is a bloody big helicopter designed for close air support and troop carrying in the same way as the Blackhawk, or the earlier Huey. It is very tough and armour plated and is well armed, yes. At the role it was designed for it is definatly superior in every field except range, speed and fuel consumption.

The Apache is a strike helicopter. It's for destroying tanks mainly, but also taking down enemy instalations. The hellfires are its primary weapon and since the upgrade to include radar targetting does not even require a visual lock. Even before that, they could fly in below radar, pop up and launch a hellfire outside of the audible range of the target. They are very slim profile and have been designed to be able to stand up to most MANPADS. In the field only one has ever been shot down by a MANPAD such as a stinger. It's not to say that a platoon of infantry wouldn't like one on their side for close support, but they could achieve it all almost as easily with modern artillery. Bear in mind too that the chaingun turret is controlled by the pilot's eye movements while they're flying and unguided rockets are piss poor for air to air unless you've got a designated gunner.

But if you really wanted to have a tussle between a Hind and a Apache, then distance would be everything. If the Hind could get in range it could do one hell of a lot of damage well before the Apache got a radar or laser lock. The numerous gunners, operating independently of the pilot would be able to track and launch everything they've got with no fuss. If they don't get up close fast enough though the Apache just launches a hellfire and there's no hiding from that.

Source: I was taught all this crap in a British Army classroom.

[CitizenSmith]

I'm not confused. I know what stinger missiles are. I'm just asking can an Apache outmanuevre a stinger missile fired from some sandal-wearing mujahadeen any better than a Hind?

Considering the Apache is smaller, faster, and lighter, I'd say yes. Why you'd debate this is pointless, and as I and several other posters have pointed out, they really are not comparable, fulfilling diffrent roles on the battlefield.

Also Stinger Missiles cannot target Apaches...