Matrix Games Forums

Below is an exert from a document I found on the internet site https://web.archive.org/web/20100323174 ... _214.shtml, (an article analysing a claim an Iranian F4 was shot down by an Iraqi MI 24 equipped AT 6 ATGM ) which I think provides a comment on the quality of soviet ATGM’s.
“the 9M114 (AT-6A) – was so poorly manufactured that it constantly failed even when tested under ideal conditions.
This fact was confirmed by a series of tests conducted by the US Army on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds during the 1980s and 1990s under the code-name Passive Nova 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and using a total of 120 AT-6s clandestinely purchased from different East European sources. Conducted by top US Army personnel, expertly trained in the use of Soviet-produced weapons systems, these tests showed that only four out of 100 AT-6s fired against targets moving at speeds of up to 15km/h would score a hit and destroy the target. The testing against stationary targets ended with only slightly better results, as only eleven out of 100 AT-6s would hit and destroy the target – and that while being fired from a fixed tower, not from a helicopter diving at high speed and flown by a crew under stress and in hurry! US Army personnel concluded from the tests that the most reliable part of the AT-6 was the warhead (despite its small diameter) and that the weapon was highly efficient – if it managed to score a hit, which, however, would did not happen very often. In short, not only that these facts completely contradict Russian sources which claim a hit probability of 70-80% for the AT-6, but - statistically - there is also no possibility that the AT-6A could hit a target moving at 350-500 knots while fired from a helicopter which is also moving. As a matter of fact, the claimed hit probability of 70-80% for the AT-6 is probably valid only for the AT-6B and AT-6C versions, and only for rounds fired during the trials in the later 1990s. In 1994, the Russians have completely rebuilt and upgraded their whole remaining stock of AT-6-missiles. Obviously, they have had good reasons to do so!”
May be MI 24’s are not to be feared so much ?

The spiral/kokon/ataka ATGM are good against other helos because they are supersonic. Some of these missiles and also the Vikhr ATGM have proximity fuse and/or fragmentation/double duty HEAT/FRAG warhead that will take out low flying/slow <800 kmh planes and helicopters. AT-6 also had variants with frag warhead but Vikhr has frag effect by default.

helicopters were taken out with spiral/Kokon but that aircraft that was shot down by a mi24 im pretty sure was shot by unguided rockets s5.

I think most of the MI-24s are armed with AT-9 Spandrel-2 in the game.

Loadout will depend on which version in the data was used in the scenario.

Re reading the whole article essentially there was zero evidence that a Mi24 shotdown a Iranian F4. The tests carried out on the AT 6 Spiral would suggest that they are not good at hitting moving helicopters if they can't hit something moving at no more than 15kph more than 4% of the time.

The fact that the missiles are supersonic does not necessarily indicate an efficiency in shooting down air targets - the woeful British Blowpipe missile could manage MACH 1.5 but it's performance was abysmal even against Helicopters in Afghanistan.

The only information I can find relating to the accurracy of the AT 9 SPIRAL 2 ATAKA is wikipeadia which gives a .65 to .9 accuracy hitting an mbt at 4km , the citation for that is an article in Russian on a website called airwar.ru - I've no idea as to the reliability of that website. if true that would represent an astonishing leap in the technology to go from an accuracy of .04 to .65 ?

it's quite confusing but I've found that
NATO NAME SPIRAL AT 6 is the 9M114 Kokon
NATO name SPANDREL AT 5 is the 9M113 Konkurs, not Helicopter launched.
NATO name SPIRAL 2 AT 9 is the 9M120 Ataka.
NATO name AT-16 Scallion is the 9K121 Vikhr