That Soviet stuff is maybe old, but it still works. I mean, look what Russia did to Georgia with old shitty Soviet tech. Imagine if Russia used the latest technology like T-90s, Su-35s Mi-28s, Russia didnt even want to waste guided missiles on georgians.... pft, there would be no georgia now.
@mohawksniper79 - failed bad enough on the battlefield, that USSR advisors in viet nam sent in enough reports that the USSR designed it's own small caliber round 5.45x39mm to have the same capability as the 5.56mm. the M16A1 was blowing arms and legs off people, yet the 7.62x39 typically went in and out with little damage unless it hit bone or the head. it was a good enough impression that the Russians stated the 7.62x39 was obsolete, and the AKM replaced with the AK74 during viet nam.
@weaponeer when they changed the m-16 barrel twist and changes to ss109 round the rounds stabilized too much and bullet lost some of its tumbling effect. in 93 several somalis took 3-4 rounds to the chest and kept fighting till they bleed out benifit of being high on that crap they chewed on all the time
This is cool..I think all Afghanistan's Air Force should just be attack helicopters and transport helicopters, Fighter jets arent that effective in mountain areas
The apache was desisigned to engage russian tanks in europe the hind is easyer to maintain. while the apace is a great attack helicopter if you dont have the trained technicians to keep them flying it doesnt do you much good the russian weapons traditionaly have been made less high tech so that a farmer that can keep his tractor running can work on a russian tank I would venture that maintaining there helicopters works same way
Also to those wondering about the type Czech republic has Mi-24V, Mi-35 and Mi24DU (training). The Mi-35s were delivered to the Czech republic as part of Russian debt repayment in 2005/2006.
Afghan Air Force was supplied by USSR before 1980's because Afghanistan and Soviets had a peace treaty going back to the early 1920's. Then US/UK covert ops destabilized the region, first by overthrowing the Iranian PM in 1953 and installing a anti-Soviet dictator the Shah Of Iran. When Iranians revolted to this American-backed tyrant in 1979, US then tried to buy the Afghan communist govt to throw out the Soviets. This is why USSR invaded. So Afghan mess is caused by the West and Russia
Iran HAVE 14 Tom cat Got it As the first nation after israeal .. In late 1977 ... They had paid for 200 of them but Got only a few than the islamic revolution came : wacht Irans shah speach in youtube regarding that ..
Im from Afghanistan Many in my family were airforce pilots from 69s to the late 90s . We use to hav and stil Hav : in military transport planes : an 24 an 26 an32 an 12 . Fighter: mig17 mig 21 su 17 and su 22 . Chooper: mi 8 mi 17 and mi 24 ..... No mi 35 never had it we had it only during sovjet and until 1992 that those were sold to the black market . To Pakistan and other us allide ... So those of you that means no mi35 in afg has right .. Salut to alle airforce pilots Worldwide ..
You'll see the ANA utilize Russian equipment because that's what the military tradition is there. Russia has had influence in the area for decades. Hell, remember the Afghan War Russia fought there in the 80s? It's alot of the same reason you see the new Iraqi military use some Russian gear still, i.e. AK's. It's probably easier to get support for such gear in these regions.
@Warmaker01 It's not that its easier to get support for Russian military technology, its simply cheaper. An Apache Longbow needs constant maintenance, uses state of the art technology and fires very expensive munitions. A Hind is cheap, easy to fix and durable. The Russians have more advanced helicopters than the Hind for domestic use.
@BitnikGr Well the F-14 came out in 1974 and the Islamic revolution was in 1979, I would be very surprised, I haven't heard them referenced in the Iran and Iraq war, also the F-14 is principally a carrier borne jet, I don't think Iran has any world class Aircraft carriers in their fleet. Do you have any evidence?
@TheLindsman68 Cooper, Tom and Chris Davey. Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat (Osprey Combat Aircraft No. 49). Oxford, UK: Osprey, 2004. ISBN 1-84176-787-5.
@0915917 MI-35 were donated by Czech republic, its a gift. Also Mi-35 is easier to maintain and repair. And we cant forget also that Afghan soldiers used Russian military for long time so they trust it more and also the ammunition for Hind is easier to optain than for Apache. Sometimes the "better" helicopter is not "better" at all. Hope it helps, greetings from Czech republic
@HowkeyLL Add to that, they also inherited the 2 Mi-24s donated by India(a small amount compared to Czech's generous donation) to the Northern Alliance.
@0915917 Pentagon buys Mi-35 for Iraq and Afghanistan. They bought 3 or 4 batches if I am not mistaken. And Russia, seeing this tendency, increased price for Mi-35 almost by 3 times and still Pentagon bought them. US Congress call Pentagon for explanations. Why so much money had to be spend for Russian equipment? Why not selling them our own stuff and making profit from this?
The answer of Pentagon was quite simple. "We don't have helicopters suitable for so dusty and mountainous environment."
@BitnikGr common sense would dictate that we should sell a third world country, another countries crappy old equipment rather then our own advanced technology, that would wind up in iran or pakistan in 6mnths. also we dont buy from the russians and third if we dont have "helicopters suitable for so dusty environment" then what the fuck have we been flying during the entire war? American made fucking helicopters, u know nothing dipshit,,,
@luckyjackrabbit "u know nothing dipshit,,," - Tell this to your Pentagon Generals, not to me. Because these are their words, not mine.
You don't see and actually you don't know the full picture... dipshit :) US doesn't sell helicopters to Afghanistan or Iraq... US gives them "military aid". So, if US would give them American choppers for money of "military aid", then Iraq and Afghanistan would get less choppers, since US made ones are too expensive.
Pentagon and Congress were fine as long Russian Mi-17 were cheap. But Russia saw increasing demands and tripled a price over a very short period of time. Then Congress called Pentagon and asked them reasons, why to spend so much money on Russian choppers, instead of giving them American ones... And then that answer came from Pentagon.
It is not my fantasies, it was all over the news. Go read them.
Also, you have to know that we are not talking about pure attack helicopters here for Afghani Air Force (like Apache or Mi-28), but about cargo and cargo-combat helicopters. So, basically Pentagon said that Russian Mi-17 (medium) and Mi-26 (heavy) are better suited for that environment than your Chinook. Haven't you seen a picture of crashed Chinook towed by Mi-26?
Why does it upset you so much? Some kinda complex that you have to be the best everywhere? :)
@luckyjackrabbit you're a third world country dreaming something else, lad. You don't even have your own money. And what you emit is owed by jews. BTW, they murdered JFK shortly after he printed some *american* dollars as per the law.
So please leave your fscking helicopters out of comparison with combat helicopters, mkay?
@MetalSights Apache is an attack helicopter. What US buys from Russia is not an attack helicopter, but cargo and cargo-combat helicopters.
And Apaches used in Afghanistan belong to US Army. They don't belong to Afghani Air Force. So, Pentagon doesn't sell Apaches to Afghani AF (which is logical thing to do), but they buy Russian cargo helicopters (Mi-26) and cargo-combat helis (Mi-8, Mi-24/35) for Afghani Air Force.
@17MrLeon it cant. American equipment is more stable, while Russian equipment is made for muli- environmental roles. the F-22 fighters are thought to be the bestwhen it comes to dog fights, yet they cant even operate properly under light rain and snow, just to use as an example.
@Roofius2 - Afgan Special Forces use US weapons (specifically the M4) rather than the crappy AK. just a simple FACT you should have known before posting crap.
@weaponeer m4 is crap. I dont know, but millions of people around the world wouldn't entrust the lifes to some "crap". Even in vietnam americans used that "crapp ak", cause it worked. And now, in afgan, where dust and dirt, our "crappy AK" work, but your m4 doesn't shoot for the whole day (EXACTLY THE WHOLE DAY) without cleaning.
@SpySolidLiquid - maybe in your fantasy world, but not the real world, and it also shows your lack of weapon knowledge as well as history. otherwise you would have known the AK was never built for the middle eastern desert, otherwise it would have had an effective dust cover (which it does not). In Viet Nam, the 5.56mm was supreme, so much so that the USSR was forced to adopt the 5.45x39 and AK74 to compete with the effectiveness of the M16A1. That's Verified History and fact.
@weaponeer "the 5.56mm was supreme, so much so that the USSR was forced to adopt the 5.45x39" - why if 5.56 is supreme, we adopted 5.49? Idiot, it is very different ammo. Dust cover? For AK??? Are you complete idiot? Only your m16 needs that shit, AK shoots whereever you use it. It was tested VERY HARD, and shooting after being immersed into sand was not very difficult for AK. Can m16 do that? Fuck not, it is REAL SHIT. Look at the bottom of the comments. American weapon is shit. Especially m16
@SpySolidLiquid - This is the post where you show your ignorance. had you any form of inteligence you would have known the 7.62x39mm was a failure in viet nam, and based on the USSR advisors reporting the effectiveness of the 5.56mm, the USSR did a study, and developed another small caliber round much like the 5.56mm, but in 5.45x39mm but the terminal ballistics the 5.45x39 is not much of an improvement over the 7.62x39,, yet the 5.56mm ballistics and terminal ballistics are still superior
@SpySolidLiquid - also the mythical reliability of the AKM or AK74 in sand is largely BS, due in part to defects in the AK design. the poorly fitting parts of the AK allow dust and sand to enter the receiver, and lodge under the sear, and prevents the AK from firing in extreme conditions, but even more of an issue are the AK magazines, which tend to lock up which fine dust get into them. in testing last year the AK failed twice as often as the AR (tight fitting parts limit dust from entering)
@weaponeer Arguing with a gunsmith about firearms whos also a vet is like arguing with a physicist about quantum mechanics. I just dont see why some ppl fight fight with you guys over it. I think debate is all good, but you do know your business pretty damn well, just from watching your vids. I think you gave him a hernia at least man :D
@weaponeer And after all that, I still say I love the 7.62x39 for a paper puncher round :D BUT I need your opinion, how is it as a hunting round using soft-tips? I wanna go hunt some deer eventually with my CZ 858 (Vz58 to the US ppl). The ammo is so damn cheap and the CZ so nicely accurate it seems on the surface a good bet. What do you think?
@shkotay - I have hunted with the AK and shot a deer with it (wisconsin large white tail) and the deer was unimpressed and bounded away. It died someplace a couble miles away, but there was no blood trail to follow, so the deer was never found. next day I dropped 5 deer in under 30 seconds with a savage 110e 30.06 with 165gr HPBT game king. I never hunted with the 7.62x39 again. it can kill a deer! but it rarely drops, and you end up tracking it to see where it dropped. reloaded ammo is better
@weaponeer Damn :P Was hoping you wouldnt say that. But yah I noticed too in shooting thick dense wooden targets the 7.62x39 simply put a clean hole right through (wasnt sure I even hit the target till I went and checked and hole the hole) while the 5.56 either didnt fully penetrate or when did left a big tear through the wood. I thought of trying to use lead tips with th 7.62x39to take advantage of the mushrooming ability. Did you use those too, or FMJs?
@shkotay sadly I used quality softpoint hunting ammunition (not russian softpoint). typically it should do very well because it's in the same power range as a 30-30 which is one of the most used deer hunting rifles, but unless you reload it's hard to get a really good performing bullet. (most 30-30 are far heavier (170 gr+ in some loads) big blunt round nose softpoint bullets.)
@weaponeer Agh :( K well that settled it. I have a Polytech version of a M1A I take out in .308. Its worked great before but gets kinda heavy after 5km in the bush lol. I'll keep taking that out cause .308 works in one shot. I'd hate to wound a deer and have it both suffer needlessly and lose it too.
@shkotay - nothing worse than having to track a deer a couple miles waiting for the deer to bleed out, than having to drag it 3+ miles back to the truck. our doe can even be over 200 lbs, with a BIG buck feeling like you are dragging a a dead cow... lol I also prefered a good clean shot, and they never take a step.
@weaponeer Yep, you know you did it right when they drop like a stone. I appreciate the tips. I havent been able to find anybody to comment one way or the other who actually hunted with 7.62x39. I grew up using .308 and .303 british. They have always been totally reliable and I have never needed more then one shot with them. I was going to introduce a little variety and cool factor with the CZ but I see that might be a big mistake now. Hell even dragging em 500 yards in heavy bush..ugh.
@weaponeer OH, one more thing since I have an actual expert on the hook :D I am planning to take my AR out sometime on private property (in canada they are restricted firearms but on your private propert its a non issue as long as you arent being a nut) to hunt. Its the current carbine length (actually exact Norinco copy) of the M4. Should I get a full length upper, or is the current barrel length going to be sufficient? I saw what you said about the damage it can cause, sounds amazing.
@shkotay - length will depend on the purpose. I have AR's in 5.56mm, 5.7mm, and 6.5mm (as well as a 50 BMG bolt action upper). so it depends on what you plan to hunt, or target practice. for target I long a varmint weight 5.56mm with 75gr ammo. the 5.7 make a great PDW, and the 6.5 can be considered my anti-sniper setup which is still supersonic at 1,000 yards, and it's an 18 inch barrel. overall fun, or general purpose use, then the M4 is perfect.
@weaponeer Thanks :D I really appreciate the info. I know with iron sights I can hit the 300m gong at my range fairly well with the 14.5' barrel, I am glad to hear it will work in a hunting situation as well. I would be hunting deer or smaller varmints like coyotes and wolves with it (plenty of those damn coyotes around). I imagine on bigger stuff like a bull moose we would be back to the tracking/wounding game thing. Currently I have a big stack of 55gr. I may move the size up some.
@shkotay - for deer etc, you really should be going for head shots, and it works just fine like that. they still hunt moose with 22 LR (they take a boat and shoot them point blank in the head while swiming). so shot placement is everything
@weaponeer Yah I am very confident at being able to hit any small (hitting apple size targets while kneeling are easy shots for me at the range with the M4, its so bloody easy to handle and this Norinco CQ-A shoots bloody well for a chrome lined barrel) targets at 100-150m easily so head shots providing i catch em standing around are a non issue. If not there, the lower neck, I'd hate to shoot em through a quarter where theres lot of good meat that would be ruined.
@shkotay The 7.62x39 is roughly equal to the 30/30win which has killed more dear in north america than any other rifle I can think off due to its longevety was first US smokless power firearm cartridge so at ranges less than 300 yards you should do fine with propper shot placement in tennessee were i grew up you cant see 300 yards in the bush anyway most shots were from about 50-75yards
@sass225 Thanks :D I think the problem is energy transfer though. 7.62x39 seems to just zip through everything with a clean hole. Even shooting at cinder blocks or big chunks of wood the bullet just zooms right through. The wood in particular I didnt even think I was hitting till I went back up to it and saw all the clean small holes lol. I MIGHT try the soft tips someday, but I am leery. I think nothing less then a perfect neck or head shot.
@SpySolidLiquid - and that's your best comeback to facts? As a poorly educated boy, you troll because you have low self-esteem, and when your proven wrong you lash out, with less grace than "is not". your problem this time is you trolled an actual expert on the subject, and got owned. as for age, I have boots older than you (and likely more intelligent)
@SpySolidLiquid - you got to love it when little boy's cannot handle the truth, and they run home crying in shame because he finds out he is the dumbest kid on the block. the sad part is it's self inflicted.
@SpySolidLiquid Just so you know, Weaponeer is both a gunsmith and an older vet. He's built firearms from the bottom up and demonstrated them to us on YT a lot. That plus actually having seved in some shitty places (which most of us including me havent) means he knows his business. If you wanna show better, you gotta demonstrate the numbers to back it. Just saying...
@isaevshtirlitc because the afghans know how to operate russian equipment and it would take alot more time and money to train afghans on american equipment from scratch than to just buy them new or surplus russian equipment
@agricola - it has more to do with the cost of the aircraft than anything else. The Czech Republic donated six Mi-24 Hind E's for a total of 9 in service. Surplus Hind's are MUCH more affordable than buying new Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk's. The Polish Helicopter Detachment has 5 operational Mi-24s. (5 hind's have already been lost. One of which just caught fire on takeoff. the others are unknown).
No they just give them the hinds cause their cheaper. No way that the Apachee is weaker than the hind if that was true USA would've bought it for themselves and not give them to other countries. And I doubt that they actually buy it for them. I think you made that up cause your another hater that dispise America just cause you think its cool or for your just jealous.
@KatanaK1D93 Were you even listening to what he just said? The Russian MI-35 is more reliable and more cost-efficient. And even though it is cheaper than the Apache (which is one of my favorites) it can still do the same damn thing. And I dont think it would be logical to give Apaches to the ANA who have no experience at all whatsoever with English controls and the heli itself and crash it all at once. ANA has more experience with the MI-35 mainly cause they flew with them before unlike theAH-64
@timothychong48 I don't understand why people continue comparing Apache in Afghanistan with any Russian helis Pentagon bought for ANA. They bought CARGO and CARGO-COMBAT helicopters and people continue speaking about how great the Apache is... like anyone doubt that Apache is great, but it is in different category... it is a pure attack helicopter... it can't carry troops and cargo... and for that Pentagon bought Russian choppers. Not to replace Apache! People can't read anymore!
Umm I wasnt listening to what he said I read what he had written.
Im not sure if its that much more reliable than the Apache or Pavelow or Blackhawk its just cheaper I think. And I agree its good that their giving them Hinds cause if their know it better than they should use it. But seriously if Afghanistan s NATO's Ally they should provide them with better equipment and train them how to use it.
@KatanaK1D93 First of all, I was talking about purchase of Mi-17.
Second, look couple of comments before and find links to articles in US media speaking about Pentagon buying Russian choppers even when Russians tripled the price.
Third, US buys Russian CARGO and CARGO-combat helis... not the attack ones. Of course Apache is better than Hind. Did I said otherwise anywhere? But Apache is not: a) CARGO helicopter, b) for sale for Afghanistan.
Second You wrote that US doesnt have helis good for a dusty and mountainous enviroment which is wrong cause Pavelow and Blackhawk is beter suitable. And from that sentence It looked like you said that Hind is better than any US helicopter.
Third Mi 35 is a transport attack helicopter not Cargo.
Transport-attac, cargo-combat... how these two differ?!
Your complaints to Pentagon. It was them who justified purchase of "overpriced" Mi-17 for Afghanistan with words that US doesn't have suitable cargo (aka transport) helicopters for mountainous and dusty environment... even when Russians tripled the price.
You say that Pentagon is wrong and full of shit and these reasons are wrong, and there must be another, real reasons.
Cargo combat is a military helicopter which is used to carry cargo such as weapons, and this helicopter is armed. Attack transport is a helicopter that is way more armed and is basically used to transport special forces groups, or normal soldiers and it is used in various military operations which require fighting heavy artillery.
@KatanaK1D93 So, if a civilian cargo helicopter is armed, then it is becomes cargo-combat? As let's say Mi-8/17 and their armed versions?
While a military armed helicopter with ability to transfer troops and attack ground targets is an attack-transport one?
And who said that Cargo-combat is armed only for self-defence? There are armed versions of Mi-8, which are heavily armed just like Mi-24. The only difference is in lack of armor on Mi-8/17.
Cargo-Combat: Transports Cargo and defends itself if attacked or if he for example sees enemy vehicles or other targets than he might attack.
Transport-Attack: Transports soldiers onto the battle zone and is used in operations which require heavy firepower. Their armor is way thicker than Cargo-Combat and their armament is way better.
@KatanaK1D93 So, basically these are just two synonymous definitions of the same things. Cargo-combat or attack-transport are used to attack enemy on the ground and to transfer cargo and troops to and from hot zone.
If we literally translate Russian designations, then Mi-8/17 is a "multirole" helicopter and Mi-24 is a "transport-combat" one. Exactly in this sequence. Not "combat-transport", but "transport-combat". Essence is the same, basically.
все эти жыдомасонокапиталисты обыкновенные проститутки и из всех русских сделали рабов и шлюх зога! Smash thre non-aryan z.o.g. and protect your land! 88!
жыды - это те же самые чюрки, только у них ещё и педерасты разрешены.
@DerSturmerSS watch?v=Pe16RK6YzMA -- и бромчику примите, а после того вместо либеральных истерик почитайте лучше труд по существу (букв много, но того стоит): rus-sky.com/history/library/power.htm
чюрки и пиндосы захватили русские вертолёты! Вот к чему приводит жыдокапитализм чюркам нахуй вертолёты продают! Предатели Арийского Райха и интересов Европы! долбаные чюрки алькаидоосманской жыдомасоноимперии!
@TheTabellarius The reason why the American military only buys from its homeland is because of the structure of the armerican economy; it has been a war economy since WW1 and they haven't gotten out of it, there has always been someone to blow up. It is so in deep in the war economy now it needs to keep it up, otherwise there might be a depression if it swaps. That's why the American government doesn't mind if they go over budget or it doesn't work - they can put more money into it.
In 1989 I was bombarded by four these kind and four of the other kind (fat ones) helicopters and they were flying low like this. I had a Ak-47 in my hand and they were firing rockets and machine gun on us. I could see the pilots when they were coming towards us and firing. I kept diving and running into the dust created by the rockets. I survived but it was a nightmare I could not forget for the rest of the my life.
Может это не потому, что они иностранцы, такая лажа среди журналистов уже стала всемирным бедствием. Российские журналисты о российском же оружии пишут не менее "интересно".
И, если верить "педивикии", самый обычный Ми-24 звали Ми-35, если он шел для продажи за границу, т.е. самый обычный. без 23мм пушки итп.и который не производится уже с 1986-го
iits realy nice VERTOLEOT.....im expilot (helicopter mi8 mi25 and mi35)
wrdgAFG 7 hours ago
That Soviet stuff is maybe old, but it still works. I mean, look what Russia did to Georgia with old shitty Soviet tech. Imagine if Russia used the latest technology like T-90s, Su-35s Mi-28s, Russia didnt even want to waste guided missiles on georgians.... pft, there would be no georgia now.
luckyStrike89ru 1 week ago 3
@luckyStrike89ru - georgia didn't really have much of a military in the first place
The5admeets3vil 1 week ago
Those things are ugly
ShortCardinalsFan262 3 weeks ago
What a really nice helicopter
Lucius1811 1 month ago
its mi-35 system only in muissile and rocket party
cockpit no changed its no real mi-35
TATARSTAN59500 1 month ago
The 762-39 was a failure in nam lol that's wy ther was five times as many us soldiers then the last five wars don't sound like a fail to me
mohawksniper79 1 month ago
@mohawksniper79 - failed bad enough on the battlefield, that USSR advisors in viet nam sent in enough reports that the USSR designed it's own small caliber round 5.45x39mm to have the same capability as the 5.56mm. the M16A1 was blowing arms and legs off people, yet the 7.62x39 typically went in and out with little damage unless it hit bone or the head. it was a good enough impression that the Russians stated the 7.62x39 was obsolete, and the AKM replaced with the AK74 during viet nam.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer when they changed the m-16 barrel twist and changes to ss109 round the rounds stabilized too much and bullet lost some of its tumbling effect. in 93 several somalis took 3-4 rounds to the chest and kept fighting till they bleed out benifit of being high on that crap they chewed on all the time
sass225 1 week ago
я бы их лично задушил, если бы представилась такая возможность
realRUS2011 1 month ago
this helicopter is russian dude
SchokoKuchen131 1 month ago
whats different between this and mi 24
xBABYxKICKERx 1 month ago
@xBABYxKICKERx
Mi-35 for export.
1980friend 1 month ago
Someone is waking up after being in a coma for 27 years and thinking they haven't missed a day.
agadhahab1 1 month ago
This is cool..I think all Afghanistan's Air Force should just be attack helicopters and transport helicopters, Fighter jets arent that effective in mountain areas
AccessDenied55 1 month ago
Comment removed
Telonor 2 months ago
glad to see there army looking good
09GTAplayer 2 months ago
I wish they fund my to go and study in USA to become afghan Pilot
TheBtman2010 2 months ago
The apache was desisigned to engage russian tanks in europe the hind is easyer to maintain. while the apace is a great attack helicopter if you dont have the trained technicians to keep them flying it doesnt do you much good the russian weapons traditionaly have been made less high tech so that a farmer that can keep his tractor running can work on a russian tank I would venture that maintaining there helicopters works same way
sass225 2 months ago
MAKE LOVE - NOT WAR ♥♥♥ PEACE TO ALL :-)
Class3ProtokollDroid 2 months ago
Cool!
WarTubeChannel 2 months ago
I love the hind beautiful chopper has a mean bite too
XxIceCavexX 2 months ago
Also to those wondering about the type Czech republic has Mi-24V, Mi-35 and Mi24DU (training). The Mi-35s were delivered to the Czech republic as part of Russian debt repayment in 2005/2006.
So, these can really be Mi-35s.
marvincz3 2 months ago
Czech republic donated 6 Mi-17s and 6 Mi-24s. You can watch here: v=JL35NyCKHxU
marvincz3 2 months ago
Afghan Air Force was supplied by USSR before 1980's because Afghanistan and Soviets had a peace treaty going back to the early 1920's. Then US/UK covert ops destabilized the region, first by overthrowing the Iranian PM in 1953 and installing a anti-Soviet dictator the Shah Of Iran. When Iranians revolted to this American-backed tyrant in 1979, US then tried to buy the Afghan communist govt to throw out the Soviets. This is why USSR invaded. So Afghan mess is caused by the West and Russia
AccordGTR 2 months ago
Mi-24s are waaaay better.
EWillard44 2 months ago
mi 34 the best
Anarhist74rus 2 months ago
MI-24 Hind 6 in captivity, Tiger tanks, Cobra Huey and what a beautiful girl,
youtube.com/watch?v=E0LJX1Er6lE
kjoske84 3 months ago
I only saw one tree in the whole video it sucks not having trees for cover.
wvargas41 3 months ago
They need the right tool for the job. Give them AIRWOLF.
MikeOxsmells 3 months ago
looks like a regular mi -24 to me..
85LARGE 3 months ago
Iran HAVE 14 Tom cat Got it As the first nation after israeal .. In late 1977 ... They had paid for 200 of them but Got only a few than the islamic revolution came : wacht Irans shah speach in youtube regarding that ..
JarooKash 3 months ago
Im from Afghanistan Many in my family were airforce pilots from 69s to the late 90s . We use to hav and stil Hav : in military transport planes : an 24 an 26 an32 an 12 . Fighter: mig17 mig 21 su 17 and su 22 . Chooper: mi 8 mi 17 and mi 24 ..... No mi 35 never had it we had it only during sovjet and until 1992 that those were sold to the black market . To Pakistan and other us allide ... So those of you that means no mi35 in afg has right .. Salut to alle airforce pilots Worldwide ..
JarooKash 3 months ago
MI 35 IS NOT FOR SALE NOW? GET SOME INFORMATION BEFORE SAY THAT. Venezuela has some of that MI 35.
Peace.
ruiutomy1 4 months ago
klzzlvnzv
ngviethungbigc1080 4 months ago
REAL FUCKIN HERO"S---ARE YOU KIDDING ME---FISH IN A BARREL! ZIGG51
cre8anew 4 months ago
yeah this is mi-24.
OnluFun 4 months ago
mi-35 is made in russia, and not for sale now. i think. this is mi-24. because mi-35 have lot of new things on it
Russia1117 4 months ago
You'll see the ANA utilize Russian equipment because that's what the military tradition is there. Russia has had influence in the area for decades. Hell, remember the Afghan War Russia fought there in the 80s? It's alot of the same reason you see the new Iraqi military use some Russian gear still, i.e. AK's. It's probably easier to get support for such gear in these regions.
Warmaker01 4 months ago
@Warmaker01 It's not that its easier to get support for Russian military technology, its simply cheaper. An Apache Longbow needs constant maintenance, uses state of the art technology and fires very expensive munitions. A Hind is cheap, easy to fix and durable. The Russians have more advanced helicopters than the Hind for domestic use.
earthwormjah 2 months ago
afghnaistan no have mi-35 lol
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
afghanistan no have mi-24v or mi-35m
this is first models of mi-24
TATARSTAN59500 4 months ago
very nice
we hope more democracy and freedom in afghanistan
afgfarsi 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@afgfarsi democracy means slavery to jews, and not freedom my any margin, unfortunately -- hint: compare what's being said and what's being _done_
mshigorin 2 months ago
Look at the Hind 6 Russian Helicopter here,
youtube.com/watch?v=E0LJX1Er6lE
RDIGlobal 5 months ago
why russia is in afganistan?
snioCRI 5 months ago
@snioCRI Brilliant! Where do you see "Russia in Afghanistan", genius? :)
BitnikGr 5 months ago
@BitnikGr i see russian weapons
snioCRI 5 months ago
@snioCRI And? AKs are all over the world... Russians are all over the world? :)
Greece has Apache helicopters, Australia has Abram tanks... Americans are in Greece and in Australia? :)
Iran has American F-14s :)))) Are Americans in Iran? :)))
BitnikGr 5 months ago
@BitnikGr Iran doesn't have American F-14's, they have some F-4's from the 70's.
TheLindsman68 5 months ago
@TheLindsman68 Are you sure about that? :)))
Iran has F-14s and keeps them operational even after Tomcats retired from service in USN and USMC.
F-14s were delivered by US to Iran before Islamic Revolution.
BitnikGr 5 months ago
@BitnikGr Well the F-14 came out in 1974 and the Islamic revolution was in 1979, I would be very surprised, I haven't heard them referenced in the Iran and Iraq war, also the F-14 is principally a carrier borne jet, I don't think Iran has any world class Aircraft carriers in their fleet. Do you have any evidence?
TheLindsman68 5 months ago
@TheLindsman68 I take it back, I guess you're right. My apologies.
TheLindsman68 5 months ago
@TheLindsman68 Cooper, Tom and Chris Davey. Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat (Osprey Combat Aircraft No. 49). Oxford, UK: Osprey, 2004. ISBN 1-84176-787-5.
Sorry that I wasn't able to answer to you sooner.
BitnikGr 4 months ago
@TheLindsman68
Anwsering only for those that might be interested due to your conversation.
Iran recived "probably" 14-15 fully operational F14 during the revolution.
A few years later around 80 (probably 78-79) machines of the type were exported by the USA.
As of today Iran has the 4th largest airforce in the world, even if its outdated.
On a side note remember that a gun can kill a person. Regardles if its a musket from the XVc or a modern assault rifle.
kazmiz01 4 months ago
@TheLindsman68 They have F14s, F4s, and F5s all made to be in Iran
mirlin235 4 months ago
Look at what's happening now. Google and read "are america and china preparing for war"
Bobzeedo 5 months ago
Didn't know Afghans have that... good helicopter
megadupek 5 months ago
@megadupek Actually US Pentagon buys them from Russia for Iraqi and Afghan Air Forces.
BitnikGr 5 months ago
Is not MI-35 dumbass ! Mi-35 its modern version of mi-24..
Alexei55555 6 months ago
@Alexei55555 NOOOOO Mi-35= EXPORT VERSION (yes they are modernized)
TEHGROUND 5 months ago
@TEHGROUND We dont have mil mi 35 in Czech rep. for export it is mil mi 24 modernized
epidemiedi 5 months ago
@epidemiedi well technically it's Mi-35 modernized, but mi-35 is a variant of the mi-24 so you could call it that if you wanted too.
TEHGROUND 5 months ago
why not apaches?
0915917 6 months ago
@0915917 MI-35 were donated by Czech republic, its a gift. Also Mi-35 is easier to maintain and repair. And we cant forget also that Afghan soldiers used Russian military for long time so they trust it more and also the ammunition for Hind is easier to optain than for Apache. Sometimes the "better" helicopter is not "better" at all. Hope it helps, greetings from Czech republic
HowkeyLL 6 months ago 38
@HowkeyLL thanks men..helps a lot..
0915917 6 months ago
@HowkeyLL Add to that, they also inherited the 2 Mi-24s donated by India(a small amount compared to Czech's generous donation) to the Northern Alliance.
binoyrakesh 2 months ago
@0915917 Price. And the MI-24/35 looks slightly more badass.
Good for ANA, shoot the taleban to pieces!
SuperFinnish 5 months ago
@0915917 Pentagon buys Mi-35 for Iraq and Afghanistan. They bought 3 or 4 batches if I am not mistaken. And Russia, seeing this tendency, increased price for Mi-35 almost by 3 times and still Pentagon bought them. US Congress call Pentagon for explanations. Why so much money had to be spend for Russian equipment? Why not selling them our own stuff and making profit from this?
The answer of Pentagon was quite simple. "We don't have helicopters suitable for so dusty and mountainous environment."
BitnikGr 5 months ago 32
@BitnikGr
proof of this? Pretty sure the Apache is owning shit in Afghanistan
hawchcf1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hawchcf1 Proof for what? That US buys Russian choppers for Afghanistan? Just google "Pentagon buys Russian choppers" and read the news.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr common sense would dictate that we should sell a third world country, another countries crappy old equipment rather then our own advanced technology, that would wind up in iran or pakistan in 6mnths. also we dont buy from the russians and third if we dont have "helicopters suitable for so dusty environment" then what the fuck have we been flying during the entire war? American made fucking helicopters, u know nothing dipshit,,,
luckyjackrabbit 2 months ago
@luckyjackrabbit "u know nothing dipshit,,," - Tell this to your Pentagon Generals, not to me. Because these are their words, not mine.
You don't see and actually you don't know the full picture... dipshit :) US doesn't sell helicopters to Afghanistan or Iraq... US gives them "military aid". So, if US would give them American choppers for money of "military aid", then Iraq and Afghanistan would get less choppers, since US made ones are too expensive.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@luckyjackrabbit ...
Pentagon and Congress were fine as long Russian Mi-17 were cheap. But Russia saw increasing demands and tripled a price over a very short period of time. Then Congress called Pentagon and asked them reasons, why to spend so much money on Russian choppers, instead of giving them American ones... And then that answer came from Pentagon.
It is not my fantasies, it was all over the news. Go read them.
...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@luckyjackrabbit ...
Also, you have to know that we are not talking about pure attack helicopters here for Afghani Air Force (like Apache or Mi-28), but about cargo and cargo-combat helicopters. So, basically Pentagon said that Russian Mi-17 (medium) and Mi-26 (heavy) are better suited for that environment than your Chinook. Haven't you seen a picture of crashed Chinook towed by Mi-26?
Why does it upset you so much? Some kinda complex that you have to be the best everywhere? :)
BitnikGr 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luckyjackrabbit you're a third world country dreaming something else, lad. You don't even have your own money. And what you emit is owed by jews. BTW, they murdered JFK shortly after he printed some *american* dollars as per the law.
So please leave your fscking helicopters out of comparison with combat helicopters, mkay?
-- from Ukraine with love
mshigorin 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Then why are we still EXTENSIVELY using Apaches....?
MetalSights 2 months ago
@MetalSights Apache is an attack helicopter. What US buys from Russia is not an attack helicopter, but cargo and cargo-combat helicopters.
And Apaches used in Afghanistan belong to US Army. They don't belong to Afghani Air Force. So, Pentagon doesn't sell Apaches to Afghani AF (which is logical thing to do), but they buy Russian cargo helicopters (Mi-26) and cargo-combat helis (Mi-8, Mi-24/35) for Afghani Air Force.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Its funny how some people think that russian equipment can be compared with american when it comes to reliability in dust and sand
17MrLeon 2 months ago
@17MrLeon it cant. American equipment is more stable, while Russian equipment is made for muli- environmental roles. the F-22 fighters are thought to be the bestwhen it comes to dog fights, yet they cant even operate properly under light rain and snow, just to use as an example.
BleedingDiamondz 2 months ago
@BleedingDiamondz Why do Americans buy Russian weapons?
isaevshtirlitc 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@isaevshtirlitc american weapon = shit
Roofius2 2 months ago 16
@Roofius2 - Afgan Special Forces use US weapons (specifically the M4) rather than the crappy AK. just a simple FACT you should have known before posting crap.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer m4 is crap. I dont know, but millions of people around the world wouldn't entrust the lifes to some "crap". Even in vietnam americans used that "crapp ak", cause it worked. And now, in afgan, where dust and dirt, our "crappy AK" work, but your m4 doesn't shoot for the whole day (EXACTLY THE WHOLE DAY) without cleaning.
SpySolidLiquid 1 month ago
@SpySolidLiquid - maybe in your fantasy world, but not the real world, and it also shows your lack of weapon knowledge as well as history. otherwise you would have known the AK was never built for the middle eastern desert, otherwise it would have had an effective dust cover (which it does not). In Viet Nam, the 5.56mm was supreme, so much so that the USSR was forced to adopt the 5.45x39 and AK74 to compete with the effectiveness of the M16A1. That's Verified History and fact.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer "the 5.56mm was supreme, so much so that the USSR was forced to adopt the 5.45x39" - why if 5.56 is supreme, we adopted 5.49? Idiot, it is very different ammo. Dust cover? For AK??? Are you complete idiot? Only your m16 needs that shit, AK shoots whereever you use it. It was tested VERY HARD, and shooting after being immersed into sand was not very difficult for AK. Can m16 do that? Fuck not, it is REAL SHIT. Look at the bottom of the comments. American weapon is shit. Especially m16
SpySolidLiquid 1 month ago
@SpySolidLiquid - This is the post where you show your ignorance. had you any form of inteligence you would have known the 7.62x39mm was a failure in viet nam, and based on the USSR advisors reporting the effectiveness of the 5.56mm, the USSR did a study, and developed another small caliber round much like the 5.56mm, but in 5.45x39mm but the terminal ballistics the 5.45x39 is not much of an improvement over the 7.62x39,, yet the 5.56mm ballistics and terminal ballistics are still superior
weaponeer 1 month ago
@SpySolidLiquid - also the mythical reliability of the AKM or AK74 in sand is largely BS, due in part to defects in the AK design. the poorly fitting parts of the AK allow dust and sand to enter the receiver, and lodge under the sear, and prevents the AK from firing in extreme conditions, but even more of an issue are the AK magazines, which tend to lock up which fine dust get into them. in testing last year the AK failed twice as often as the AR (tight fitting parts limit dust from entering)
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Arguing with a gunsmith about firearms whos also a vet is like arguing with a physicist about quantum mechanics. I just dont see why some ppl fight fight with you guys over it. I think debate is all good, but you do know your business pretty damn well, just from watching your vids. I think you gave him a hernia at least man :D
shkotay 1 month ago 3
@weaponeer And after all that, I still say I love the 7.62x39 for a paper puncher round :D BUT I need your opinion, how is it as a hunting round using soft-tips? I wanna go hunt some deer eventually with my CZ 858 (Vz58 to the US ppl). The ammo is so damn cheap and the CZ so nicely accurate it seems on the surface a good bet. What do you think?
shkotay 1 month ago
@shkotay - I have hunted with the AK and shot a deer with it (wisconsin large white tail) and the deer was unimpressed and bounded away. It died someplace a couble miles away, but there was no blood trail to follow, so the deer was never found. next day I dropped 5 deer in under 30 seconds with a savage 110e 30.06 with 165gr HPBT game king. I never hunted with the 7.62x39 again. it can kill a deer! but it rarely drops, and you end up tracking it to see where it dropped. reloaded ammo is better
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Damn :P Was hoping you wouldnt say that. But yah I noticed too in shooting thick dense wooden targets the 7.62x39 simply put a clean hole right through (wasnt sure I even hit the target till I went and checked and hole the hole) while the 5.56 either didnt fully penetrate or when did left a big tear through the wood. I thought of trying to use lead tips with th 7.62x39to take advantage of the mushrooming ability. Did you use those too, or FMJs?
shkotay 1 month ago
@shkotay sadly I used quality softpoint hunting ammunition (not russian softpoint). typically it should do very well because it's in the same power range as a 30-30 which is one of the most used deer hunting rifles, but unless you reload it's hard to get a really good performing bullet. (most 30-30 are far heavier (170 gr+ in some loads) big blunt round nose softpoint bullets.)
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Agh :( K well that settled it. I have a Polytech version of a M1A I take out in .308. Its worked great before but gets kinda heavy after 5km in the bush lol. I'll keep taking that out cause .308 works in one shot. I'd hate to wound a deer and have it both suffer needlessly and lose it too.
shkotay 1 month ago
@shkotay - nothing worse than having to track a deer a couple miles waiting for the deer to bleed out, than having to drag it 3+ miles back to the truck. our doe can even be over 200 lbs, with a BIG buck feeling like you are dragging a a dead cow... lol I also prefered a good clean shot, and they never take a step.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Yep, you know you did it right when they drop like a stone. I appreciate the tips. I havent been able to find anybody to comment one way or the other who actually hunted with 7.62x39. I grew up using .308 and .303 british. They have always been totally reliable and I have never needed more then one shot with them. I was going to introduce a little variety and cool factor with the CZ but I see that might be a big mistake now. Hell even dragging em 500 yards in heavy bush..ugh.
shkotay 1 month ago
@weaponeer OH, one more thing since I have an actual expert on the hook :D I am planning to take my AR out sometime on private property (in canada they are restricted firearms but on your private propert its a non issue as long as you arent being a nut) to hunt. Its the current carbine length (actually exact Norinco copy) of the M4. Should I get a full length upper, or is the current barrel length going to be sufficient? I saw what you said about the damage it can cause, sounds amazing.
shkotay 1 month ago
@shkotay - length will depend on the purpose. I have AR's in 5.56mm, 5.7mm, and 6.5mm (as well as a 50 BMG bolt action upper). so it depends on what you plan to hunt, or target practice. for target I long a varmint weight 5.56mm with 75gr ammo. the 5.7 make a great PDW, and the 6.5 can be considered my anti-sniper setup which is still supersonic at 1,000 yards, and it's an 18 inch barrel. overall fun, or general purpose use, then the M4 is perfect.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Thanks :D I really appreciate the info. I know with iron sights I can hit the 300m gong at my range fairly well with the 14.5' barrel, I am glad to hear it will work in a hunting situation as well. I would be hunting deer or smaller varmints like coyotes and wolves with it (plenty of those damn coyotes around). I imagine on bigger stuff like a bull moose we would be back to the tracking/wounding game thing. Currently I have a big stack of 55gr. I may move the size up some.
shkotay 1 month ago
@shkotay - for deer etc, you really should be going for head shots, and it works just fine like that. they still hunt moose with 22 LR (they take a boat and shoot them point blank in the head while swiming). so shot placement is everything
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer Yah I am very confident at being able to hit any small (hitting apple size targets while kneeling are easy shots for me at the range with the M4, its so bloody easy to handle and this Norinco CQ-A shoots bloody well for a chrome lined barrel) targets at 100-150m easily so head shots providing i catch em standing around are a non issue. If not there, the lower neck, I'd hate to shoot em through a quarter where theres lot of good meat that would be ruined.
shkotay 1 month ago
@shkotay The 7.62x39 is roughly equal to the 30/30win which has killed more dear in north america than any other rifle I can think off due to its longevety was first US smokless power firearm cartridge so at ranges less than 300 yards you should do fine with propper shot placement in tennessee were i grew up you cant see 300 yards in the bush anyway most shots were from about 50-75yards
sass225 1 week ago
@sass225 Thanks :D I think the problem is energy transfer though. 7.62x39 seems to just zip through everything with a clean hole. Even shooting at cinder blocks or big chunks of wood the bullet just zooms right through. The wood in particular I didnt even think I was hitting till I went back up to it and saw all the clean small holes lol. I MIGHT try the soft tips someday, but I am leery. I think nothing less then a perfect neck or head shot.
shkotay 1 week ago
@SpySolidLiquid This comment is funny, because the M16 is actually one of best weapons in history, HAHA.. Oh..wait you were serious..
You're an idiot. "I'm Sad that Amercian weapons are better BOOHOO"
shadowtygo 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpySolidLiquid This comment is funny, because the M16 is actually one of best weapons in history, HAHA.. Oh..wait you were serious..
You're an idiot "I'm Sad that Amercian weapons are better BOOHOO"
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@weaponeer so shut up and go to school, american schoolboy. Learn physics better, than trying to convince somebody.
SpySolidLiquid 1 month ago
@SpySolidLiquid - and that's your best comeback to facts? As a poorly educated boy, you troll because you have low self-esteem, and when your proven wrong you lash out, with less grace than "is not". your problem this time is you trolled an actual expert on the subject, and got owned. as for age, I have boots older than you (and likely more intelligent)
weaponeer 1 month ago
@weaponeer you are banned. you can write whatever you want, i wont see this.
SpySolidLiquid 1 month ago
@SpySolidLiquid - you got to love it when little boy's cannot handle the truth, and they run home crying in shame because he finds out he is the dumbest kid on the block. the sad part is it's self inflicted.
weaponeer 1 month ago
@SpySolidLiquid Just so you know, Weaponeer is both a gunsmith and an older vet. He's built firearms from the bottom up and demonstrated them to us on YT a lot. That plus actually having seved in some shitty places (which most of us including me havent) means he knows his business. If you wanna show better, you gotta demonstrate the numbers to back it. Just saying...
shkotay 1 month ago
@Roofius2
You have no clue what you are talking about.
EvilxMerlin 1 month ago
@Roofius2 You=shit
ckc1241 1 month ago
@Roofius2 AH-64 Apache.. American weapon = Superior (most of the time anyway)
shadowtygo 1 month ago
@isaevshtirlitc Because it´s some good stuff my friend
911Investigate911 1 month ago
@isaevshtirlitc because the afghans know how to operate russian equipment and it would take alot more time and money to train afghans on american equipment from scratch than to just buy them new or surplus russian equipment
agricola 1 month ago 14
@agricola - it has more to do with the cost of the aircraft than anything else. The Czech Republic donated six Mi-24 Hind E's for a total of 9 in service. Surplus Hind's are MUCH more affordable than buying new Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk's. The Polish Helicopter Detachment has 5 operational Mi-24s. (5 hind's have already been lost. One of which just caught fire on takeoff. the others are unknown).
weaponeer 1 month ago
@agricola i would if i had to command an Army like the afghan army
navySEALteam5 1 month ago
@BitnikGr actually most of the MIL24s here were left behind by the Soviets in the 80s
himmler251 1 month ago
@himmler251 Here where? Iraq? Afghanistan? Russia doesn't sell Mi-24 today. Mi-35 is an export version of Mi-24. That's why I wrote Mi-24/35.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
No they just give them the hinds cause their cheaper. No way that the Apachee is weaker than the hind if that was true USA would've bought it for themselves and not give them to other countries. And I doubt that they actually buy it for them. I think you made that up cause your another hater that dispise America just cause you think its cool or for your just jealous.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 Were you even listening to what he just said? The Russian MI-35 is more reliable and more cost-efficient. And even though it is cheaper than the Apache (which is one of my favorites) it can still do the same damn thing. And I dont think it would be logical to give Apaches to the ANA who have no experience at all whatsoever with English controls and the heli itself and crash it all at once. ANA has more experience with the MI-35 mainly cause they flew with them before unlike theAH-64
timothychong48 1 month ago
@timothychong48 I don't understand why people continue comparing Apache in Afghanistan with any Russian helis Pentagon bought for ANA. They bought CARGO and CARGO-COMBAT helicopters and people continue speaking about how great the Apache is... like anyone doubt that Apache is great, but it is in different category... it is a pure attack helicopter... it can't carry troops and cargo... and for that Pentagon bought Russian choppers. Not to replace Apache! People can't read anymore!
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@timothychong48
Umm I wasnt listening to what he said I read what he had written.
Im not sure if its that much more reliable than the Apache or Pavelow or Blackhawk its just cheaper I think. And I agree its good that their giving them Hinds cause if their know it better than they should use it. But seriously if Afghanistan s NATO's Ally they should provide them with better equipment and train them how to use it.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 First of all, I was talking about purchase of Mi-17.
Second, look couple of comments before and find links to articles in US media speaking about Pentagon buying Russian choppers even when Russians tripled the price.
Third, US buys Russian CARGO and CARGO-combat helis... not the attack ones. Of course Apache is better than Hind. Did I said otherwise anywhere? But Apache is not: a) CARGO helicopter, b) for sale for Afghanistan.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
First of all no you clearly wrote Mi 35
Second You wrote that US doesnt have helis good for a dusty and mountainous enviroment which is wrong cause Pavelow and Blackhawk is beter suitable. And from that sentence It looked like you said that Hind is better than any US helicopter.
Third Mi 35 is a transport attack helicopter not Cargo.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 "Mi 35 is a transport attack"
Transport-attac, cargo-combat... how these two differ?!
Your complaints to Pentagon. It was them who justified purchase of "overpriced" Mi-17 for Afghanistan with words that US doesn't have suitable cargo (aka transport) helicopters for mountainous and dusty environment... even when Russians tripled the price.
You say that Pentagon is wrong and full of shit and these reasons are wrong, and there must be another, real reasons.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
Cargo combat is a military helicopter which is used to carry cargo such as weapons, and this helicopter is armed. Attack transport is a helicopter that is way more armed and is basically used to transport special forces groups, or normal soldiers and it is used in various military operations which require fighting heavy artillery.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
To make it simpler.Cargo combat is just used to defend itself from the enemy when it has to. Attack transport helicopters defend and attack first.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 So, if a civilian cargo helicopter is armed, then it is becomes cargo-combat? As let's say Mi-8/17 and their armed versions?
While a military armed helicopter with ability to transfer troops and attack ground targets is an attack-transport one?
And who said that Cargo-combat is armed only for self-defence? There are armed versions of Mi-8, which are heavily armed just like Mi-24. The only difference is in lack of armor on Mi-8/17.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
Not a civilian a military.
Let me explain it to you once more
Cargo-Combat: Transports Cargo and defends itself if attacked or if he for example sees enemy vehicles or other targets than he might attack.
Transport-Attack: Transports soldiers onto the battle zone and is used in operations which require heavy firepower. Their armor is way thicker than Cargo-Combat and their armament is way better.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 Can you provide a list of some of the helicopters that are Transport Attack and Combat Cargo?
MrCastodian 1 month ago
@MrCastodian :))) Exactly
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 So, you say that an armed version of Mi-8 is a cargo-combat and it does transport only cargo, but not troops.
However in Afghanistan Mi-8s were transferring troops to hot zones and picking them up back to base.
What armament Mi-24 has, which armed Mi-8 doesn't?
Machine gun pods, unguided rockets, guided anti-tank missiles exist for both choppers. :)
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@KatanaK1D93 So, basically these are just two synonymous definitions of the same things. Cargo-combat or attack-transport are used to attack enemy on the ground and to transfer cargo and troops to and from hot zone.
If we literally translate Russian designations, then Mi-8/17 is a "multirole" helicopter and Mi-24 is a "transport-combat" one. Exactly in this sequence. Not "combat-transport", but "transport-combat". Essence is the same, basically.
BitnikGr 1 month ago
@BitnikGr
USA used to buy russian Cargo helicopters for themselves but not for the army.
And they buy russian Mil mi 17 for Afghanistan military.
KatanaK1D93 1 month ago
@BitnikGr do you know how much more advanced american helicopters are then Russian ones?
ryanroosterr 1 month ago
@ryanroosterr Let me guess... by fivehundredsfefteenthousandsmegazillion times!!!
Do you know how safer Russian choppers are than American ones? Especially in harsh environments?
BitnikGr 1 month ago
Irony much? Considering the old PDPA forces also used these... :p
darthbandon10 6 months ago
все эти жыдомасонокапиталисты обыкновенные проститутки и из всех русских сделали рабов и шлюх зога! Smash thre non-aryan z.o.g. and protect your land! 88!
жыды - это те же самые чюрки, только у них ещё и педерасты разрешены.
DerSturmerSS 6 months ago
алькаиду зога вооружают сволочи - вот чего жыдомасон путиндт делает! Правда-88!
DerSturmerSS 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DerSturmerSS watch?v=Pe16RK6YzMA -- и бромчику примите, а после того вместо либеральных истерик почитайте лучше труд по существу (букв много, но того стоит): rus-sky.com/history/library/power.htm
mshigorin 2 months ago
чюрки и пиндосы захватили русские вертолёты! Вот к чему приводит жыдокапитализм чюркам нахуй вертолёты продают! Предатели Арийского Райха и интересов Европы! долбаные чюрки алькаидоосманской жыдомасоноимперии!
DerSturmerSS 6 months ago
@DerSturmerSS Не захватили, а купили, при чем за приличную сумму.
А тебе пора бы за своим кумиром последовать...
BitnikGr 5 months ago
the sound of machine gun. 1:04
esdraspqd35 6 months ago
old helicopters from russia :(
xzaxx 6 months ago
@xzaxx Old, cheap, effective and easy to mantain, ideal to blast away low tech guerrilas like the talibans
haghaghaghaag 6 months ago
whats the sound at 1:04? :O
sfsdfsdgfdgdsgdf 6 months ago
@sfsdfsdgfdgdsgdf It is a short burst fire from galling gun :)
sano0311 6 months ago
MI-35 is just an improved version of MI-24, but they are basically the same helicopter just improved avionics and computers.
bombarderoazul 6 months ago
if you never had a hind pass over your head you don't know what true terror is.
ararat123457 6 months ago
US gear to get into service faster is acceptable by design at %60 functionality.
only has to work %60 of the time nice if unlimited budget.
Pity the sucker using it
US will not buy from Foriegn countries
US manufacturers have a closed shop thats commie talk right there
Promise the world at a good price then have endless budget overruns
F22 $ 45 mil now $100+ mil not one delivered end price $175 mil ?
They will turn out an overpriced dud to.
Suhkoi can wip its arse anti stealth radar
TheTabellarius 7 months ago
@TheTabellarius What the hell is up with your spelling and grammar?
Also U.S has purchased from UK in the past but I agree with you on the cost over runs.
Saxe333 7 months ago
@TheTabellarius The reason why the American military only buys from its homeland is because of the structure of the armerican economy; it has been a war economy since WW1 and they haven't gotten out of it, there has always been someone to blow up. It is so in deep in the war economy now it needs to keep it up, otherwise there might be a depression if it swaps. That's why the American government doesn't mind if they go over budget or it doesn't work - they can put more money into it.
Hecate1990 6 months ago
i hope those talibans are out of stingers
Ultranationalist941 7 months ago
there three vertions of the hind the mil-24/ a 25 and 35
12thSpaceRanger 7 months ago
In 1989 I was bombarded by four these kind and four of the other kind (fat ones) helicopters and they were flying low like this. I had a Ak-47 in my hand and they were firing rockets and machine gun on us. I could see the pilots when they were coming towards us and firing. I kept diving and running into the dust created by the rockets. I survived but it was a nightmare I could not forget for the rest of the my life.
ArthurDavis89 8 months ago
дибилы бля ми -35 тут и не пахнет )как вы иностранцы достали \обсуждаете то что не знаете
MsAllegator 9 months ago
@MsAllegator
Может это не потому, что они иностранцы, такая лажа среди журналистов уже стала всемирным бедствием. Российские журналисты о российском же оружии пишут не менее "интересно".
И, если верить "педивикии", самый обычный Ми-24 звали Ми-35, если он шел для продажи за границу, т.е. самый обычный. без 23мм пушки итп.и который не производится уже с 1986-го
SwineNahNah 7 months ago
all export version Mi-24 is Mi-35
Tod2cz 9 months ago
That's a Mi-24, look at the wings. Mi-35 has stub wings.
GangsterHutterite 9 months ago
for blabla Im airforce sergeant blabla, whats up with that??? why would you tell your job in this newsflash? only In america I guess,
Im a supervisor at pathe, mike
dakabje 9 months ago
@dakabje Because, he's a media specialist for the American Air Force? Or, are you too stupid to come to that conclusion?
UprisingOfTheMolemen 9 months ago
Love that Hind rotor sound ^^
Zartan1357 10 months ago
Czech Republic no wonder :P
Ahamster1 10 months ago
ah good to see tax money being spent on arming the enemies of tomorrow....
PocusUK 11 months ago
Its not a Mi-35, its Mi-24
KaZaKoFF15 11 months ago 57