The "Hind-E" carried two hard points for these missiles at the wing endplates. Experiments were conducted around 1986 to increase the firepower of the Mi-24V by doubling the number of missiles attached to the wing tips and also by hanging under the outboard wing pylons double racks that could carry four additional missiles each (they were probably the same type of rack as that fitted to the Ka-29). Therefore, a Mi-24V in that configuration could carry up to 16 anti-tank missiles!
The photos can be found here -
http://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html
The Hind is by far the most common gunship used by Redfor and the only one available to armoured decks. All versions of the Mi-24 in Wargame have mediocre stabs, although the missiles it uses are command-guided and the sight itself is stabilised, tracking the missile with an IR sensor - this system was called Raduga, tested first on the Mi-24D. There are three variants of Shturm - the 9M114 Shturm-V came out in 1976, followed in 1981 by 9M114M1/Shturm-2 and in 1988, 9M114M2, which was called.. Shturm-3 (not very imaginative IMO). It's been said before, but all these missiles achieved high level of accuracy. The 9M114M2 however, has a second warhead which is designed to deal with ERA. As far as Wargame is concerned, they compare poorly to TOW-2 and are lacking in AP.
My suggestions are -
1) Arm Mi-24VP with 9M114M2, increase AP to 23/4 and (preferably) 8 missiles.
2) Arm NSWP Hinds with 9M114M1/Kokon-M to match their intro date (1985).
3) Give one of the NSWP Hinds 16 missiles..
4) Replace NK Mi-24D Fleyta with the 9M114 or 9N114M1, in any combo.
Also consider giving 60% accuracy/50% stabs to the M1 and M2 - they would still be less effective than the Ataka or Vikhr, but on a par with everything else. My preference for the heavy ATGM load would be either Poland or East Germany, but I think the Poles could use it most.
