Talk:Mil Mi-24/Archive 1

Combat experience
The combat experience section is written horribly:

The aircraft was operated extensively during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The US supplied Stinger missiles to the Mujaheddin and the Hind was a favourite target - around 300 were lost during combat operations in Afghanistan, an unknown number to missile hits.Also during the Russian invasion of Afghanistain Mi-24's were heavily armoured and could easily take .50 cal rounds to it but a lucky shot in the fuel tank would set the Mi-24 a blaze into a fire ball but it was still proven effective during the war in Afghanistain and war very reliable and earned the respect of it's pilots.

I'm removing it until someone can come up with something better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.152.39 (talk • contribs)


 * Unless you know the content to be factually incorrect, please improve it yourself rather than remove it. I've restored it. -- Hadal 04:18, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Black Ops?
Has anybody heard of the Black Ops Hind? I saw a site about it a while ago that mentioned 1 or 2 Black Ops helos that were modified off of I believe a Hind-F. Ryan Salisbury 01:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lucky shot
"but a single lucky shot to the fuel tank could set the Hind ablaze." Any source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.152.39 (talk • contribs)

Since there has been no source found, and the original "combat experience" section(see above) sounds like something from an action movie(where balls of fire due to bullets hitting fuel tanks seem to occur on a daily basis), I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.152.39 (talk • contribs)

If they where carrying External Stores fuel tanks then that is the case (the external stores is outside its heavy armor.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.61.164 (talk • contribs) 75.176.61.164 17:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant. Projectiles penetrating tanks of explosive or even pressurised liquids do not instantly explode, despite popular belief. This has been 'proven' by Mythbusters (go find the link yourself) for the general public, and is generally known by anyone working with such situations. Assuming this has ever happened, it must have been a fluke that every other device carrying a fuel load is subject to. Keep as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Iraqi Hind shoots down Iranian F-4 - disputed
Apparently this never happened. An article in AirEnthusiast, volume 104, March 2003 looked into this claim. The article is reproduced on the ACIG forum (you need to be a member) http://acig.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1920

extract of the extract:

The most controversial of all the Iraqi claims ever was published on 27 October by the Iraqi magazine “Baghdad Observer,” a publication controlled by the Iraqi regime and targeting Western reporters. In the report with the title “The Day of the Helicopter Gunship” an air battle was briefly described that supposedly developed several days earlier, and in which one Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter had shot down an Iranian F-4 Phantom. According to the “Baghdad Observer,” the engagement happened “north of the Eyn-e Khosh area” and the Phantom was destroyed by a “next generation, long-range, AT-6 Sprial ATGM,” fired by a Mi-24 helicopter specially prepared and brought to Iraq by the Soviets in order to test the AT-6 missile in the air-to-air mode.

...

...a very intensive research with the help of several former Iraqi and Iranian pilots brought no confirmation that an engagement of this kind happened in the given area at the given time – and especially not with the result as claimed by Baghdad Observer. Two former Iraqi helicopter pilots who flew with the 4th Squadron IrAAC in 1982, and three other former officers of the Iraqi military remember being told about how Iraqi helicopters had shot down Iranian helicopters time and again during the war. They remember also that pictures of the wreckage of Iranian helicopters were shown to them, and they also remember many of their comrades being killed when Iraqi helicopters were shot down by Iranian helicopters and fast jets. But, they never heard about any claim that any of their Mi-25s had shot down an Iranian F-4, nor about the Soviets ever deploying any Mi-24s and AT-6 missiles to Iraq and achieving anything similar. In fact, all of them consider this claim a propaganda plot of the Iraqi government – which, after the severe setbacks from the previous fighting during 1982, was in a bad need of some good news at the time this claim was published. Both of the former IrAAC pilots confirmed – just like US documents released to the authors under several FOIA inquiries – that the AT-6 was never accepted to Iraqi Army service, especially not by IrAAC Mi-25s, and that the Soviets also never tested that weapon in Iraq (as mentioned, all the “combat testing” of the AT-6 has been done in Afghanistan).

To the best knowledge of the authors, the IRIAF wartime records as well as other official documents mention no losses of any F-4s or F-5s over the front near Eyn-e Khosh in October 1982, and no losses of any Iranian fighters to Iraqi helicopters ever. Finally, none of several dozens of other former Iraqi and Iranian pilots and officers interviewed can remember about hearing any similar claim either: several of them actually ridiculed the idea alone.

For all the mentioned reasons, the only conclusion about the claims that some Mi-24 might have shot down an F-4 Phantom in the Eyn-e Khosh area during October 1982 is, that it never happened.

I propose this claim is removed from the article. Megapixie 13:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Since nobody replied - I have removed the following text from the article


 * One Hind even shot down an Iranian F-4 Phantom on 26 October, 1986.

Megapixie 02:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The Mi-24 can carry AA-8s it is a total fact proven by pictures but not only the Mi-24 but also the Mi-8 can carry them, most of cooper`s disbeliefs are based upon saying the AA-8 can not down the F-4 even after several hits well that is his opinion, but definitively it can carry AA-8s

Value in Currency
I was wondering what the value of a Hind D would be (in any type of currency) --69.128.156.130 04:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're serious.... new - pretty expensive (A guess - maybe $5 to 8 million USD) - second hand - sells 15 year old Ka32s for around 1 million dollars - they also sell second hand Mi-24s - but they don't post any prices. I would have thought maybe 1.5 to 2 million USD. I can probably track down a more exact figure on the prices (based on arms transfers) if you need one. Megapixie 13:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Material removed
Some material was removed from the article by an ip - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mil_Mi-24&curid=384591&diff=71646128&oldid=70698334 I didn't insert the material in question but I seem to remember it largely agreeing with a reliable source (A book specifically about the helicopter by Russian authors) - I'll take a look and re-insert what agrees with the source. I do remember that the airframe was only certified for a relatively low number of operating hours as a cost / weight tradeoff. Megapixie 01:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Added in South Africa as an operator - they displayed a variant called a 'Superhind Mk III' at an airshow today. Shanada 18:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Rambo III
Didn't this helicopter in both Rambo II and Rambo III get overtaken by Rambo? Tourskin 03:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the one in Rambo III was a Puma mocked up to like a Hind. Don't remember in in II, but probably a stand(fly?)-in also. - BillCJ


 * Rambo III, like Red Dawn, used mocked up aircraft because no real Hinds were available for filming. I'm pretty sure the same thing is true with Rambo II. --Born2flie 03:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

flies without turning its main rotor
is this possible? or can it be explained by the shutter rate of the camera taking the video.

http://www.c00lstuff.com/643/Russian_helicopter_flies_without_turning_its_main_rotor/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.133.205 (talk • contribs)


 * I vote for doctored video. If it could fly like that, it hardly needs the main rotor.  -Fnlayson 02:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not doctored, but it's not magical either. All that's happened is that the camera's frame rate is the same as the rotor RPM, so it looks like the rotor isn't moving. If you watch the video, you'll see the rotor move slightly when the helicopter rises, which is due to the rotor RPM becoming marginally faster than the camera's frame rate. It's a similar kind of effect to the way car wheels sometimes look like they're spinning backwards when filmed on camera. &mdash; Impi 13:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How does one pronounce this? Is it hynd (hind end) or hend (first syllable of hinder)? More importantly, why does it have this name?  Oc t  ane  [ improve me ] 26.07.07 0331 (UTC)
 * I've always thought it was the former. See the second paragraph about NATO name. -Fnlayson 03:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

-Yeah, it's Hind as in "Hind end" as opposed to Hind and in "Hindenburg". As for why Hind, it's part of the NATO naming system. Fighters have a name assigned beginning with F; Bombers with B; Helicopters with H, Transports (Cargo) with C and so on... (Bobbo9000 05:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Yes the article on NATO reporting names explain why it would start with an H (for helicopter), but not why certain words were chosen. I don't have source, but I always assumed they chose words that could not possible be confused with other world and would not normally come up in a military communication or conversation, i.e. bad choices for H- words would be "hello", "hard", "high" etc. --Deon Steyn (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture

 * A pop culture section? No thanks! Read WP:MILHIST.  Raoulduke47 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Leontyevich or Leont'yevich
I'm not a Russian linguist, so I don't know which is the proper transliteration. The biography article on Mikhail Mil has it spelled without the apostrophe and I can find it more frequently without than with, although I can find it both ways. The Russian website, quotes the author V.R. Milheyev using Leontyevich without the apostrophe. It states that he is the son of Leonty Samoilovich Mil, suggesting that the apostrophe is inappropriate for this name. --Born2flie 07:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I just got some better information: The door guns were standard fittings from the factory and are PKB (vehicular variant of the PKT) The R-60s were apparently mounted singly (without the twin rail adapter) and were only tested on prototypes. The S-24 has been used on the Mi-24, whereas there is currently no evidence that the S-25 has been carried.

S! --Avimimus 20:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan does not operate them
Someone please fix the map and list of operators. While a number of Mi-24's defected to Pakistan during Afghan-Soviet war, Pakistan never actually used them - at least one is in a museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.127.197 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that? -Fnlayson (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Museum Hinds
A Captured Iraqi Hind can be seen at the Military museum at Sadabad Palace, Tehran, Iran.
 * but with "nofoto" warning :)Berserkerus (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Star wars trivia removed
I've taken the following piece of Trivia out of the article, because I felt that it added nothing.


 * The Hind-D gunship was used as a rough template for the 'Republics clone armys LAAT/i gunship', a Low Altitude Assault Transport, in the Star Wars universe within the Attack of the Clones and until Revenge of the Sith, Episodes II and III respectivly. Also within the clone wars cartoon series. Providing a troops transport and support for ground attack manouvers.

If you feel differently please add it back in. Megapixie 17:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * if anyone can provide evidence that the creators/set makers of Star Wars actually did draw inspiration from the Mi24, then I think it's worth noting.--75.38.143.106 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Serria Leone
I made a slight change to make it clear that it was government owned helicopters flown by Mercenaries, as it sounds like they (The mercenaries) supplied the Mi-24s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgong (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Executive Outcomes did provide the helicopters. However in order to not violate arms export agreements, the government purchased the Hinds as part of an arms package that was included in the contract with EO in the first place. So nominally the government owned the Hinds because it supplied end-user-certificates, practically EO was the sole operator, covering everything from maintenance and repair to mission planning and operational action. 123.208.93.149 (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Including content from airvectorsite.net
http://www.vectorsite.net/avhind.html has a very extensive article on the Hind, much more so than the one in wikipedia. And it seems to be very well researched. The article is public domain (see front page http://www.vectorsite.net/), so copying content would be fine.

So how about copying parts or all of it into the wikipedia article?

Arneh (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've used the site in other articles. My method differs slightly from other users, in that I treat it just as I would a copyrighted source. I use references, and tag the first sentence of every paragraph from Vectorsite, as well as any significant sentences/claims. Also, even though we aren't technically "required" to rewrite public domain sources, the author of Vectorsite writes in an informal style which is not quite encyclopedic, and often contains personal commentary and observations. I've gotten burned a couple of times because I did a straight text dump without reading it carefully. We also need to make sure we work his text into the rest of the article text, and not just dump it into a section. If you follow these guidelines, there should be no problems with you using Vecotrsite. I've got alot of projects going right now, but if I get a chance, I'll try to help out, at leat with the proofreading. - BillCJ (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now included most Goebel's article on the Hind in Afghanistan. I've slightly rewritten some of the language, added headings, and inserted most of the content from the last wikipedia revision about Afghanistan were appropriate. Feedback welcome.  Is the standard acceptable, and should I continue working on integrating other parts of Goebel's article? Arneh (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Important parts that will help the article. I wouldn't use "Hind" in text so much though as that's NATO's codename for the Mi-24 (not official from Soviet/Russian perspective).  -Fnlayson (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Iran Iraq War Combat Experience
Hi, I wanted to point out this document by USMC Major R. M. Brady written in 1992 titled "AH-1W Air Combat Maneuver Training -- Why It Must Be Reinstated" as it gives a very different account of the performance of Hind vs. SeaCobra. The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War witnessed numerous helicopter air combat  engagements. During this war, Iranian AH-1J' s engaged Iraqi MI-8 Hip and MI-24 Hind helicopters. Unclassified sources report that the Iranian AH-1 pilots achieved a 10:1 kill ratio over the Iraqi  helicopter   pilots   during   these   engagements (1:5) Additionally, Iranian  AH-1  and  Iraqi  fixed  wing  aircraft engagements also occurred.

I think it is worth including in the main article, here is the link to the document: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/BRM.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.224.164 (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I find that 10:1 statistics very hard to believe. It does say it is over "Iraqi helicopters", so propably includes other helicopter types as well.  But seems to be very unspecific as it doesn't mention how many actual helicopters they did shoot down, what types, and how many Cobras they lost to enemy helicopters.


 * http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_210.shtml and http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_211.shtml lists Iranian air-to-air victories. And from those lists I can only find 5 victories of AH-1Js over Mi-25s (one of which was only damaged).  They have quite a few more claims for SA.342 (Gazelle)s though, but still only 18 in total. To get a 10:1 kill ratio with that number they would have to lose only two Cobras.
 * Arneh (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

333 Soviet helicopters lost
this is the link text to List of Soviet aircraft losses in Afghanistan, but if you go to the "summary by aircraft type" on that page and add up all (both fixed wing and helicopter) losses up, it's no where near 333. If there are no objections, I think someone should change it--75.38.143.106 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That article already states in the beginning that it is partial and incomplete. If you know what the missing aircraft are (and have sources), then by all means add them to the article.  But I don't see a reason to change the 333 number (neither in that article or in the Mi-24 one), unless anyone can come up with some credible sources.  While several sources already does claim 333 helicopters lost. Arneh (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Development/Variants
Are the variants notable enough to have separate articles about them? Azazyel (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not likely. The NATO Hind name should not be part of the article's name for sure. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The variants are too similar to require separate articles.  The differences are usually described in a few lines when the basic Mi-24 is already described.  While separate articles would either have to repeat a lot basic information, or have to point to the main article; which would leave them fairly meaningless as separate articles.  And from articles about other aircraft I can't think of any which has separate articles for all sub variants. Arneh (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - these should be merged back into the main article. --Rlandmann (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. Another editor seems to be trying to fix the situation by creating the List of Mi-24 Hind variants article to redirect some of the stubs to. I've added a merge tag to that page too. - BillCJ (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just merged them into Mil Mi-24 variants. Once it's tidied up, could make a very good article. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Btw, all the myriad variant article names that are out there now as redirects - can we CSD them, since they were only linked from the this page anyway? - BillCJ (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would still prefer to have the variants in the main article. It doesn't appear to be a problem for other aircraft that a big part of the article is taken up by variants.  Just look at the Bf-109 or FW-190 where the majority of the article is variants and their development. Though there is somewhat of a precedent for separate article as well, the Supermarine Spitfire has two.  Though note that the main article still has a quite substantial section on the main variants. - Arneh (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be working on adding a basic variant list back to the main article, per my edit summary. I just wanted to take out all the redirected links and unsourced material that's been added recently, since the user that added that info doesn't seem inclined to follow policy on sourcing. At some point, a more-detailed operators page might be worth considering too. - BillCJ (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan; but today I've discovered significant problems with the detailed material submitted on the variants, and now I'm not sure how we should proceed - take a look at the variants article talk page --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Updating "Variants" section
Hello, Im currently modifying the "Variants" section of the MI-24 page for better access to links and information. I also have plenty of information that you do not have featured. In my advancings, I notice some of my information seems to be featured on other sites. I am doing my best to type out the information properly and without similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk • contribs)


 * Um, I notice you've not been addign your sources, as per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Please cite your sources before adding any more new information, or what you have added will be have to removed. - BillCJ (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Im giving up. Sorry for making a stir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider helping on Mil Mi-24 variants. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, okay. There are still more variants I need to add, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray, the Helicopter Guy (talk • contribs)

Republic of Macedonia
Shouldn't the section 2001 Macedonia conflict (February 2001-August 2001) at least comply with WP:MACEDONIA by saying, The Republic of Macedonia armed forces rather than, The Macedonian armed forces? There were two edits in response to an IP editors change to F.Y.R.O.M. without actually meeting the stated guideline. One I believe was to correct the resulting redlinks, and the other to comment on the guideline for the naming conflict. --Born2flie (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nickname Krokodil (crocodile)
Within the article, it states: "...more common nicknames were Крокодил (Krokodil, “Crocodile”), due to the helicopter's camouflage new scheme [1]..."

The cited source says nothing as to the supposed reason for this nickname. The camouflage conventions also vary immensely and I find it difficult to believe the nickname was caused by it. While there is potential for the elongated and rugged body resembling a crocodile, I have found some information which is overlooked by western observers: - The craft resembles "Krokodil Gena" (a character within a widespread Russian children's show)

Namely, the air intakes resemble the character's eyes. A similarly dated aircraft, the An-72, is already confirmed to be named after the character's companion Cheburashka, with the jet turbines playing the role of Cheburashka's ears. The Mi-24 is most likely not nicknamed after the animal krokodil but the character Krokodil.

It is clear nicknaming conventions cannot well be cited - - but should this inherent similarity be mentioned as (potential) inspiration on par with the mention within the An-72's article?

Comrade Tiki (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Operational history now including South Ossetia
The helicopter is flying again. It has also been participating in combat operations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9xDCioymxY) and making notable media appearances in the theatre. It would be excellent if this were to be further researched who-deployed-where or what is going on with this helicopter's involvement. 72.216.1.103 (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the 'In Fiction' section
This stuff really needs to come to a close. The Mi-24 played absolutely no valid role in either Call of Duty 4 *or* Rambo. It was a placeholder helicopter, that could've been an Mi-28 and wouldn't have detrimented the product whatsoever.

If it plays a major, definable role (see: The F-14 in Top Gun) then include it. So far, it's just been in the posistion of 'Insert Generic Opfor Attack Helicopter Here' and nothing else. That's not mentionable. Keep that crap on IMDB. 75.149.203.222 (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One attacked Rambo in Rambo II and in Rambo III, and a assault squad was attacking the Wolverines in Red Dawn. I have these tapes. In Rambo II, he shot one with a bazooka or a Russian RPG, in Rambo III, he ran into one with a T-72 tank. Powerzilla (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Still not notable. And IIRC, the Mi-24s in at least one of the Rambo movies were mocked-up Pumas. The Cold War was still on when these films were made, so real Mi-24s were not available. - BillCJ (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The only western film to show a hind i belive is Lord of War as a early hind (by the cockpit canopy) is shown in a hanger then ready for transport being illegaly exported from the ukraine following the break up of the soviet union and billcj is right about rambo featuring pumas with stub wings to appear like hinds as if you watch rambo 3 the pilots are sitting in tandem next to each other to the hinds layout witch is one behind the other like the apache or cobra.--82.37.156.36 (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are other western films which have features real Mi-24s. Blood Diamond have the South African upgraded 'Super Hind'.  Charlie Wilson's War about the CIA operation in Afghanistan in the 80s features some short clips with Mi-24s (but those might be CG). But in general I agree that all these appearances are too unnotable for a mention in this article. The only use in media I can think of which could earn a mention is Digital Integration's helicopter simulator for PCs in the 90s called Hind.  There it was the only flyable helicopter, and its unique characteristics was a big part of the game play, including a historic campaign in Afghanistan. Arneh (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the game is here.
 * Also, not really western, but definately fiction and integral to the 'feel', if not the plot is the inclusion of a Mi-24 as well as a weird interlocking 2x main rotor version (obviously CG) in the japanese/polish film http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0267287/ called Avalon. 203.24.134.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Operators
Germany doesnt and didnt definetly not use the Mi24, never.--84.161.74.189 (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reliable sources that would support your claim? Svick (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * They were East German. West Germany has never had soviet military gear. The page needs to be more specific. You know... 'The Wall' and all that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.134.243 (talk) 03:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mexico has never received, purchased nor operated the Mi-24. The article that is referenced has obviously made a mistake and most probably confused the the Mi-24 with the Mi-26 of which Mexico did purchase 2 units, one was lost in an accident. I think the author of the article meant to state the Mi-26 instead of the Mi-24 or it's possible that he confused them. Ocelotl10293 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Flight International lists operators at "Directory: World Air Forces" as of November 2008. This is currently reference 35.  Mexico is listed as having 1 Mi-26 and 0 Mi-24.  No Mil helicopters are listed for Germany.  The German entry currently says all Mi-24s were sold. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The operator entry for Germany currently says: "51 inherited from East Germany were sold to Hungary, Poland and two to the U.S. Army." This is not entirely correct; while the majority appear to have been sold to Hungary and Poland and two indeed went to the US, there are still several in German museums. I'm not sure where to get reliable data on this, though.Elanguescence (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Poland is still an operator of Mi-24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.37.106.103 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

2011-2012 Syrian Civil War?!!
This is a misleading and biased opinion, using an imprecise terms: 1- According to the reference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-5-tlFfwk, the crisis in Syria called a "war" not a "civil war" because the clashes occur between two army. 2- There is nothing called "Asads forces", according to the reference it's called "Syrian Army". 3-The reference itself is a video clip from a single news channel who depends on another video clip taken by unknown activists with no way to confirm date or place of its events.

I suggest that this section should be deleted because it depends on a personal, single sided, and biased point of view in a controversial crisis, with no reliable source.31.9.113.202 (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding point 1, Youtube is not a reliable source, and the American Civil War is called that despite the fact the Union Army and Confederate Army were two distinct and professional armies. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Although you're right about the definition of civil war, but according to the used reference it's called a "war", and the writer should be committed to his reference, what I want to say that this section is placing a political point of view and try to prove it by a poorly reliable source rather than military facts referred to Mi-24, in this military view there's nothing called "assad forces" nor "Forces loyal to Bashar Assad", instead there is the Syrian Army depending on their signs,badges,and flags.31.9.19.115 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Who is messing up with the operators list ?
Today i saw the operator list and it said Albania operates 37 of these helicopters.But after good search on the net i found nothing of these kind Albanian force dose not have this aircraft in there inventory and also it says that Macedonia has 4 but in fact they have 8 of these helicopters with serial numbers 201-208 while serial numbers from 209-212 are retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.211.83 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

2014 Crimean Crisis
Is "disputed territory" really the most neutral way to refer to Crimea? I could understand maybe referring to just the Russian Naval bases in that way, but in general? No way. 96.250.56.111 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the 22 May ambush dead was a direct result of Friendly fire by Mi-24/Mi-8?? Is there a source for this, most sources agree it was result of an ambush. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.48.214.19 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Speed
I remember reading somewhere that Mi-24 used to be one of the fastest (if not the fastest) combat helicopters of its time. Can anyone confirm this? --72.137.194.104 18:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Technically speaking, given that the Mi-24 still represents the majority of attack helicopters found in Russian military service, it's time hasn't passed. If you keep that in mind, then the Hind is not the fastest. My bet is that the single-seat Ka-50 has that honor these days, but not by much. Don't forget that, like a sports car, acceleration and not top speed are often what matters in a combat helicopter. And that, mate, the Hind definitely ranks low on.(USMA2010 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC))


 * The Kamov is contra-rotating and therefore has an inherent speed limit - it is by design a slower helicopter than new single-rotor types. The EH101 Merlin is probably one of the fastest (167 knots, 192 mph, 309 km/h) military helicopters in service today, although I think the world record for helicopters, combat or civilian, is still held by the Westland Lynx. I'm also not certain if the speed listed for the Mi-24 here in our article is a Vne or maximum cruise. ericg ✈ 06:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Born2flie: USMA is correct. It appears that Ericg has a little bit of Anglo-bias. The limitation of a contra-rotating, co-axial rotor system is the upflap of the advancing blade of the lower rotor and the downflapping of the retreating blade of the upper rotor. The contra-rotating, co-axial rotor system however minimizes the aircraft's susceptibility to retreating blade stall, the foremost inhibitor to helicopter forward speed. And, the Ka-50 is a "new" helicopter.


 * The UH-60 Black Hawk has a Vne of 193 knots, but the CH-47 Chinook can realistically do its Vne of 170 knots at cruise; the limitation caused by other factors than the aircraft's ability to go faster. The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk, a traditional helicopter set a helicopter class speed record in the early 70's above 188 knots, but the X-2 technology demonstrator that Sikorsky is currently building will be a contra-rotating, co-axial rotor helicopter system designed to break the Mu limitations of the helicopter as well as the forward airspeed limitations of helicopters; Sikorsky is looking for 250 knots. --00:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, all that aside, the original commenter seems to be correct. According to my information, a modified Mi-24A (A10) broke 8 world records in 1975. Among them were speed (368km/hr []), rate of climb and altitude. It continued to hold the speed and (I think) altitude records for about 10 years. 203.24.134.243 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC).


 * Check with the FAI, but I think you will find that the Westland Lynx is STILL the fastest HELICOPTER in the world, i.e. ALL lift and thrust provided by the main rotor/rotors!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Petebutt (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparable how?
In the comparable aircraft section there are a lot of aircraft that have no capability to carry troops. Looks as though the only truly comparable one on the list is the UH-60. - (CHawc (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC))


 * The S-67 had passenger capability. Troop carrying  is a secondary capability anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The others are comparable for the attack role. Looking at overall capabilities they are not comparable.  At least one is new so that could be considered a different era. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I think this whole section needs rewriting. I don't understand the point of comparing, nor do I think it would serve any value. Obviously the US decided to pursue a dedicated attack helicopter at this time, after the UH-1 gunships showed they were vulnerable and did not perform optimally. The AH-1 proved the speed and survivability benefits of an attack helicopter over a gunship. Consequently the US did not follow the incremental approach as did the USSR, which is basically the difference between the two nations until recent times. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a point, there is NOTHING comparable to the Mil Mi-24/25 in the U.S. Inventory. You cannot compare U.S. Helicopters to U.S.S.R. Helicopters. Even the Technology, as far as Helicopter Rotors, as the U.S. for the longest time kept "Articulating Rotors" while the U.S.S.R. retained and improved "Rigid Rotors". If you have no Technical Knowledge of Aviation as far as Helicopters Learn, as this is a highly Technical Field. The U.S. later would finally start building Rigid Rotor Helicopters with the UH (Utility Helicopter) - 60, and the AH (Attack Helicopter) - 64. It was for Political Reasons during the "Cold War" that the U.S. refused to use "Rigid Rotors" as originally designed by the Father of Helicopters (A Russian) Igor Ivanovich Sikorsky aka "the Sikorsky Rotor". The biggest problem with a U.S. "Articulating Rotor", is retreating rotor blade stall, that does not occur with a Rigid Rotor system. The other big problem is the complexity of an Articulating Rotor, requiring more critical routine maintenance. The U.S. Articulating Rotors were also very fragile, many Aviators referred to the most vulnerable part of the Articulating Rotor Mast as the "Jesus Nut" (one big nut holding the Rotors to the Rotor Mast, as if that ever got damaged or lose, "Jesus" as the Rotors literally fly off from the Rotor Mast, no chance of survival, no Auto Rotation, no glide slope).

One of the most "Unpopular" but highly reliable U.S. Helicopters that used a "Rigid Rotor" was the OH-6, later AH-6, or Special Operations MH-6.

A Rigid Rotor System can withstand more Gravitational Forces (G-Forces) than an Articulating Rotor to the extent of the Helicopter being capable of doing a "Loop" and flying upside down.Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Operational History and Operators should split into sub-pages
Right now there's a whole freaking laundry list of all the wars the Mi-24's been used in as well as every country that's used it....it fills up the whole screen and just looks really messy in general. Someone should transfer these to a separate page and just have the main article link to them Masterblooregard (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Splitting off the operators to a "List of Mil Mi-24 operators" or similar article seems the best choice for splitting off content now. Variants were split off before.  The Operational history can be split off later or maybe combined with operators info.  -Fnlayson (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The operational history is too long and should be split. BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggested this on another article, and globally for all military articles like this (to adopt a standard format). I was insulted, the entire discussion was deleted, and nothing was done, so good luck. I put my 2c in for this as well though. Some of us aren't crazed maniacs wanting to know which countries sell these things (or "terrorists" if you prefer) and just want to know how it works. 12:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.228.227 (talk)

Don't change the format, only those with No Military Experience cannot understand the significance and importance of the information as in that format.

Also as far as the Mil Mi-24s used at Afghanistan during CIA Operation Cyclone, as a counter measure to the U.S. FIM-92 "Stinger" Anti Aircraft Missiles the U.S.S.R. also installed a ECM "Pod" that transmitted multiple frequencies that would quickly find the "Friend" radio frequency of the U.S. FIM-92 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) to stop the firing of the U.S. FIM-92 "Stinger".

Attacks of the U.S.S.R. Supply Convoys at the Khyber Pass and the U.S.S.R. Weapons and Munitions Depots allowed our 1980s Pro U.S. Afghan Muhajeen to obtain U.S.S.R. SA-7 Anti Aircraft Missiles that did not have a Identification Friend or Foe. Later on an immediate fix was implemented by buying Radio Shack water resistant switches to by pass the FIM -92 "Stinger" Identification Friend or Foe (IFF).

During the Iran Iraq Wars, U.S. Military Assistance Teams were sent, as up till 1982, U.S. Ally Iraq suffered significant losses (U.S. Ally Iraq was getting their butts kicked).Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Flying tank
"Flying tank" is common nickname for every attack aircraft and helicopter - from Il-2 to modern Su-25 and Mi-28.Ходок (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that the Mil Mi-24 is/was a "Flying Tank", with Titanium armor, and lots of weapons.

The only aircraft in the U.S. Inventory with that amount of armor is the U.S.A.F. A-10 "Warthog".Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Cockpit armor
Someone added a tag looking for a citation to support the assertion that the cockpit armor can withstand impacts from 37mm projectiles. Beyond the fact that it is unlikely that such a capability exists (37mm) is the question of what kind of 37 mm round. Nevertheless I find the claim dubious given the kinetic energy of such a projectile either HE or AP form. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly survive some 37 mm strikes instead of resisting them. The A-10's cockpit bathtub was tested to take some 57 mm strikes, though that's a totally different 'craft.  In any event, I'll see what I can find in my books later. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For helicopters survival against HEI, 37mm is pretty large. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE  18:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could not find these details in the 2 or 3 books I have on the Mi-24. So I just removed that text. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that the article mentions that the cockpit is a titanium bathtube just like the later U.S.A.F. A-10 "Warthog". Note: The U.S.S.R. (Russian Federation) is one of the only Sources for Titanium (as the reason that the U.S. had so much trouble getting enough Titanium to build the A-11 (Mach 3.5 Interceptor) as the predecessor to the U.S.A.F. SR-71 (see the Wikipedia Article SR-71).Nakamuradavid (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * None of that is a verifiable source, which was the reason the specifics were removed. It needs to be directly cited per Wikipedia policies. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

List layout or table layout
Almost a week ago, I converted the list layout in "Operators" section to a table layout, which is much more compact and readable but it was reverted three hours later. The problem with the revert is its edit summary: "Unnecessary change" sounds like the reverter is seeking to assume the ownership of the article. But I don't want to discuss that here. I want to know if there is a real problem with the table layout that is absent from old layout and cannot be fixed by simple editing, so much that warrants a full revert.

Notifying top contributors via ping:, , , and , I'd appreciate your views. Fleet Command (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Aircraft on display is a relatively simple list with like 3 sets of information for each entry. There's no need for a table for this when a bulleted list will do.  Also, most aircraft articles use lists since lists are easier to do and work with, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur with Fnlayson, operators should be displayed in a list, with bullet points. Seems to be an easier read, and to work with - FOX 52 (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The revision with bulleted list sprawl 15 pages of A4. The one with the table takes only 12 pages. The table downsizes the list of operators from 4 pages to only one page (two half pages in practice). Table of content takes one page. On a monitor or tablet the user has to scroll a lot more. Now, please tell me, how did you get to "easier to read"?


 * As for "easier to work with", it is unprecedented to put the comfort of the editor before the comfort of the reader. If you have problem working with Wiki-code, try Visual Editor while you are learning Wiki-language. (Actually, it is easy and fun to learn.) Fleet Command (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)