Well tanks can use cover but they can really use cover from Apaches do to the fact they have thermal site and can find the tanks heat scource from miles away, oh and this cant really be masked. The biggest risk to coppers is AA fire, SAM's and fixed wing jets.
Also, the tanks cannot move over cover, making the cover an obstacle as well. A blessing and a curse, for the tank, mostly just a blessing for the gunship.
Well this is not totaly true, first off the Apache can fire on tanks well outside of basic visual range to the tank with Hellfire missiles, not only that the tank lanks and real AA abilitys
Woops, I meant to say armored ground vehicle/platform, not tank. Basically one of those armored ground vehicles could have a dedicated anti-aircraft weapon system in place of a 120mm cannon and some heavy machine guns. Since it rests on the ground and can be heavier, it can also carry more cool stuff like anti missile interceptors / directed energy defenses and the like.
OK not to be picky but the only reason this is because FIRST they have to make sure the target is enemy target, IF they knew everyone down below was enemy they would not be in most of the sh*t, also here the height plays a big part of taking ground fire, and this is what makes the over all bigger problem, see if they gunship is up around 3000-4000 feet they could still target the enemy, BUT it would be a lot harder to see who was friendly while doing so, and killing friendlys in battle is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the people, then again if that dont matter infantry would be toast.
This is not entirely true, case and point being vietnam. Now instead of friendly buildings as cover, you have trees and brush. At 3000-4000 feet you will not see infantry crawling through cover, be it flora, caves/tunnels, debri or (if they are careful) an urban environment that the gunship is allowed to go all out on. Note that I am talking about a gunship here, not a heavy bomber. Knowing friend from foe is not absolutely necessary, but with the limited firepower a gunship can carry, knowing where something is, is basically necessary.
If you look around on military.com you can find a lot of urban Apache videos the thing thats most common is that most of them are at night this is where and when they hunt the best. I had a buddy of mine from Fort Hood a number of years back sent me a few videos and one of they were of a couple screwing in a car, the pilot and gunner flimed about 20 mins of this and they were less then a mile away, and the couple had no clue they were making someones day.
That doesn't sound like the kind of thing they do in the middle east, so I am guessing those were citizens they were spying on; soon no one's privacy will be safe, big brother will be peering into everyone's bedroom through the nightscope of a gunship (yes of course they can afford that many gunships, they're the government, lol)
Note however that if instead of two hot sweaty lovers in a car you had two focused infantrymen behind good cover with their own thermal imaging, light amplification, satellite observation, radar, etc. and a ground to air weapon system, the gunship then might be the fiery hot center of attention.
The gunship is only weaker IF its caught on the ground
No I meant literally, physically weaker. Like if you hit each with an RPG, which one would be the least operational, on average. The gunship has alot more mobility, yes, but durability, no.
To me something like a gunship would have to cost more then say a tank, and maybe take longer to make, do to the fact one gunship could very well take out 16 tanks and maybe close to that many support vehicles before it would have to go back and reload and fuel up,
Assuming none of those vehicles possess state of the art or near future defense systems, effective anti-aircraft systems or terrain and cover that is to their advantage, then sure. But a tank might be able to take out 100 before it needed to re-arm and refuel, though it would also take longer to get into action and back, being significantly slower than a chopper.
Deus Siddis good job but bad weapons systems to compare against.
No, I think it was more a bad choice in describing what the gunship is up against. One or more armored ground vehicles with surface to air weapon systems, perhaps anti-missile active defenses and sporadic infantry with one-to-two man operated surface to air missiles. I apologize for my lazy or rushed shorthand.
Coming back to the situational thing though, I am not saying the gunship is a terrible weapon, it is awesomely effective when used under the right circumstances. But if you throw it against a situation it is not meant for, then its effectiveness might not match up to its cost. A good player should use a different unit for that situation or try to use tactics that make the situation more akin to the one where that unit stands the best chance or kicks the most ass. And that is the kind of direction I think WZ should go for.
