Guidance on Use of Apache Gunship

[IICptMillerII]

I'm wondering how exactly to best utilize the Apache in missions when it is a supporting asset. I'll start with what I know to add some hopefully helpful context. 

First off I know all of the basic controls, like how to call it in, the difference between point and area fire missions, and the differences between heavy, medium, and light weapon usage. I also understand the special LOS rules that apply to helicopters. Using that, I am able to call in pinpoint strikes against armored vehicles and strong points, such as buildings occupied by enemy infantry. I have a good feel for all of this. 

What I am having trouble with is getting the darned thing to use its M230 30mm gun. Against anything. Optimally it should be employed against infantry in the open, or other soft targets such as light vehicles. But try as I may, I can't seem to get the Apache to switch to guns. When I set an area fire mission (there are spotted bad guys within the perimeter of the area attack) and set the Apache to either heavy or medium, he engages with rockets and Hellfires. All good. However when I do the same but set him to a light fire mission, he doesn't fire. Doesn't fire despite the fact that there are known and spotted bad guys in the area attack perimeter. Instead he makes one pass without firing and then cancels the fire mission. 

I don't think this is any kind of bug, I think this is user error on my part. Does anyone know of an answer to my specific issue of the Apache not using its guns?

Also, please feel free to let me know how you guys have the most success employing helicopter support. Its the one fire support option I'm the least capable with, though I've seen it put to great use in Krause's videos (from CMSF) and other places too. 

Thanks in advance for any help you guys can give me!

Edited January 9, 2016 by IICptMillerII

[db_zero]

I don't think you can tell Apaches to use its guns. Its all up to the AI. Just like you can't tell Bradleys or BMPS to use their ATGM - which they very rarely do.

I never pick Apaches in a h2h game. Too expensive and a Russian player will almost always buy Tunguskas so in my mind the risk/reward just isn't worthwhile.

[Kieme(ITA)]

It's Worth some testing.

 

Spotter: US JTAC team (regular, normal motivation)

Targets: 3 BMP-3 and dismounted infantry (far from the vehicles) in the open

Perfect weather conditions

AH-64D (Attack Helos) Regular, normal motivation

 

Looks like that the AH-64D (attack helo) doesn't indeed use any weapon when ordered an AREA TARGET mission of LIGHT type.

It uses a 30mm gun when issued a POINT TARGET mission of LIGHT type.

 

I stand correct.

After some tests I have seen several results:

an AREA TARGET mission of LIGHT type has the AH-64D attack with 30mm gun when infantry units are spotted. If a vehicle is spotted chances are it will be attacked either with 30mm gun and/or with missiles.

In some cases infantry units are engaged by means of a missile and/or rockets.

 

But I've seen some cases during which the Apache didn't engage anything at all, despite the JTAC team had at least 1 enemy vehicle spotted when calling the LIGHT mission of AREA TARGET. It is possible that the Helo didn't make visual contact with the enemy units within the area.

 

 

It's Worth to note that the type of mission (HEAVY/LIGHT/MEDIUM) is an indication of the time lenght of the fire mission, therefore a HEAVY mission will most likely cause the Helo to use all its entire asset array during several turns, while a LIGHT mission will consist of a single turn where one or two types of weapons are used in a single occasion.

Conclusion after few more tests (even with a crack AH-64D):

The AREA TARGET mission of LIGHT type will have the Helo attack for no more than a single game turn.

During such turn there is a chance that the Helo will not fire any weapon, possibly due to a failure in making direct contact with the enemy.

During such turn it is possible that the Helo will attack one or two (max) enemy units, either infantry or vehicles, if present.

The Attacks will consist most probably in the use of Missiles or 30mm gun both against vehicles and troops.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[IICptMillerII]

In the manual it says that if you choose light when it comes to air assets, they will use more light weaponry. For instance if a plane has bombs and guns and you give it a light fire mission, it will tend to use its guns more than the bombs. In the case of the Apache this should mean that the Apache, when given a light fire mission, should use its guns more than its rockets or AGMs. 

As I said before I don't think this is a bug with the game, but user error on my part. Are there only specific targets that the Apache will choose to engage with guns? Or is it a simple matter of it uses the tool it thinks is most up to the job?

Part of why I'm asking is because I was recently fighting a battle in which I was calling in Apaches to provide close air support (very close) for my infantry that were slugging it out in urban terrain. Instead of using its gun, the Apache chose to use its AGMs and rockets (when given a medium fire mission) Some of those rockets hit a building some of my infantry was in and while it didn't cause any casualties, it did suppress and jar them. When I would give the Apache a light fire mission it simply wouldn't fire. I was trying to get it to use its guns to avoid friendly fire due to the danger close nature of the fire mission. I understand with danger close there is always the chance of blue on blue. 

So, does anyone have any advice on how to use helicopter support in a CAS role while in danger close proximity to friendly forces? Advice on how to use gunship support in general?

 

[MarkEzra]

It's Worth some testing.

agee

[Kieme(ITA)]

 

So, does anyone have any advice on how to use helicopter support in a CAS role while in danger close proximity to friendly forces? Advice on how to use gunship support in general?

 

The kind of firing mission might be decisive here, try using a point target order rather than an area fire.

An example:

 

I had a BMP-3 spotted, ordered the JTAC team to issue a POINT TARGET mission LIGHT type 100m in front of the BMP-3. When it arrived the Helo hit the precise spot with a missile, practically ignoring the BMP-3.

In another occasion with the same parameters a 30mm burst was shot on the ground, the only problem might be concerning the direction the bursts will follow, there's no way to predict this.

Tested a case where I ordered the JTAC team to issue a POINT TARGET mission LIGHT type 25 meters from its own position. The Helo attacked with a 30mm burst on the ground with a perfect precision. In a similar mission a missile was dropped, but some 20 meters from the ordered position. Seems to me you can't be extremely precise, but if you give your troops a safe area of at least 50m from the "target ground" order you issue (POINT TARGET) you should be fine. But if rockets are used then such safe area should extend as much as 200m Worth, because these weapons tend to cover a longer area.

If you want a precision shot try to use this kind of mission.

 

When it comes to weapons of choice, the AH-64D seems to hold the rockets for medium and heavy mission types, while missiles and 30mm gun are used during light mission types and all other mission types. Light mission type tends to bring the use of a single weapon for a single time (probably due to the time constraint, see above).

Edited January 9, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[IICptMillerII]

In the situation I was in there were multiple buildings occupied by the enemy (all in close proximity to each other) as well as enemy infantry outside the buildings. I wanted the Apache to saturate the area with 30mm fire to suppress them and hopefully take a few down as well. I wasn't using a point fire mission because I wanted the Apache to engage targets within a 150m (roughly) area that encompassed the buildings and exposed infantry. 

The ~150m target area did not cover friendly troops, however friendly troops were located within 100m of the target area, so I did not want the Apache to use unguided rockets for fear of hitting my own men. 

Could part of the issue here be the buildings? The spotted enemy infantry was both in the buildings and outside the buildings, but maybe its possible that the Apache decided that the gun wasn't going to be very effective? Just spitballing. 

[Kieme(ITA)]

Was your order LIGHT type?

If that's the case it is possible that the helo didn't see any viable targets and passed by.

If you ordered a POINT TARGET mission (LIGHT) you can be assured a 30mm burst or a missile would have been dropped on one of the buildings, the one of your choice. If you want to cover a wider area you can use a HEAVY mission with POINT TARGET, also rockets will be used and they will cover a wider area, as well as missiles will do because there's chance they will land some meters from the objective.

All in all the AREA TARGET mission gives more freedom to the support asset, letting him decide what target within such area to shoot at, this might be dependant on the chance that the asset himself is capable of making visual contact with the targets. 

Edited January 9, 2016 by Kieme(ITA)

[MikeyD]

Hellfire missile range is considerably greater than gun range. And Apache Longbow has the capability of firing outside of LOS, which makes switching to guns problematic. I don't know how close the game has Apache approach before firing its missiles. Its been quite awhile since I've used these but the champion helo for strafing attacks is the Ukrainian M-24P Hind F. A VERY much more power cannon than the low-velocity Apache gun.

[IICptMillerII]

Thanks for the input!

@Kieme(ITA) Yes the order was LIGHT type, AREA TARGET. I was trying to get the Apache to spray the area in 30mm. I think what might have been happening was that the Apache wasn't identifying viable targets to engage with just guns, so when I gave it a LIGHT, AREA TARGET mission, it waved off.

I set up a quick test on the test range map used in the training campaign that ships with CMBS. I simply placed some forward observers in an obervation tower with a bunch of OpFor out in the open and had the FOs call in LIGHT, AREA TARGET missions on the clearly spotted enemies, and lo and behold the Apache used mostly guns, with some AGMs as well. So my conclusion is that in the battle I was fighting my Apache couldn't see a viable target for a LIGHT type mission and waved off. 

@MikeyD Thanks for the info! I'm going to give those Mi-24P Hind F's a try then. The battle I was doing was a joint US/UKR operation so it would actually make perfect sense to use the Hinds instead of the Apaches. 

I was wondering if anyone has some input into the general use of gunships in the support role. Krause has a lot of good CM vids on youtube, but this one in particular has him using some German gunships to great effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09DbLqVsrnc

The video is rather long, but in essence it is a German air assault mission (at night) on a defended air field. Krause uses his gunship support to cover and support his men extremely well. I was wondering if anyone has any pointers on how to achieve a similar effect like this? I've tried replicating the commands he used but as you can tell by this thread my results were not optimal. Could it be a difference in equipment/doctrine?

[Abdolmartin]

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before, but I have a question.

 

How exactly do you deploy Apaches in the face of enemy air defences? From my experience, it's pretty much a gamble, especially if the enemy has Tunguskas. Fixed wing aircraft have a good chance of evasion and they rarely get shot down, especially compared to helos. However, most scenarios in the game give you helos, rather than fixed wing a/c. For example, take the scenario "First Clash". In this scenario, airpower and arty is basically the only thing that levels the field for you; the enemy has three times as many tanks as you; there aren't many good spots for infantry to fire Javelins from, especially because enemy forces are in very good positions; most of your troops, including tanks, are regular (vs the mostly veteran and even some crack Russian T-90AMs, which the enemy uses in counterattacks). The only way I've found to beat the Russians in this scenario is to use my airpower aggressively, but this needed the previous knowledge that the enemy had no Tunguskas; and even with that, I've found that when the enemy has Iglas/Strela-10s and I call in a flight of Apaches, I usually lose one out of two.

 

Besides, the act of finding enemy anti-air using drones and precision arty-ing them is a proper counter to Tunguskas and Strela-10s, but it takes a lot of time to do properly (since the map can be quite large) and still can't neutralise Iglas because the drone will rarely spot them unless they fire, and Iglas are perfectly capable of killing Apaches.

 

So, I want to know how other people approach this problem.

[IICptMillerII]

The simple answer is you don't. If it is known that the enemy has air defense assets such as Tunguska's Apaches would never be called in close enough to be engaged by the air defense asset. This is done for the same reason why you would not charge a platoon of Bradley's at a treeline that you know is occupied by enemy tanks. Its just not smart and is asking for trouble. 

Now if the enemy air defenses are unknown or not expected, then its a different beast. If this is the case, upon discovering the enemy air defense assets, you should immediately wave off (cease fire the fire mission) the Apaches until the air defense asset has been neutralized. 

I know its not the answer you want, but the truth is that there is no magical way to use air assets against enemy air defense assets without getting your aircraft engaged. In my battle I didn't have to worry about any enemy air defense. 

Also a quick note, you mentioned that its hard to get your Javelins into position to cause damage. Remember, your own tanks should always be your primary tool against enemy tanks. 

[MikeyD]

I'll admit I haven't played with airpower much at all. But give Apache Longbow a try if there's air defenses on the map. Theoretically it can fire outside of LOS. I've never tested it and I can't recall details of others testing it out. Maybe it'll be a disaster, maybe it'll be a success. I don't know.

[Abdolmartin]

The simple answer is you don't. If it is known that the enemy has air defense assets such as Tunguska's Apaches would never be called in close enough to be engaged by the air defense asset. This is done for the same reason why you would not charge a platoon of Bradley's at a treeline that you know is occupied by enemy tanks. Its just not smart and is asking for trouble. 

Now if the enemy air defenses are unknown or not expected, then its a different beast. If this is the case, upon discovering the enemy air defense assets, you should immediately wave off (cease fire the fire mission) the Apaches until the air defense asset has been neutralized. 

I know its not the answer you want, but the truth is that there is no magical way to use air assets against enemy air defense assets without getting your aircraft engaged. In my battle I didn't have to worry about any enemy air defense. 

Also a quick note, you mentioned that its hard to get your Javelins into position to cause damage. Remember, your own tanks should always be your primary tool against enemy tanks. 

I think the usage of aerial assets such as the Apache differs from your example of Bradleys, at least in real life. The real Apache is actually designed to fire from behind cover using its radar for acquisition, so as long as it doesn't try to fly like a fast mover and instead uses the terrain, it's more like a hull-down Bradley firing TOWs, than Bradleys charging the enemy. But the issue of Apaches flying like fighters in the game has been discussed elsewhere.

 

As to the Javelins, I do agree that at least in the US case, the best tool for dealing with enemy tanks is your own tanks. But combined arms is really necessary and infantry are valuable scouts who, in addition to spotting possible threats (not only tanks, but also BMPs and Khrizamtemas and even ATGM positions), can neutralise them with their Javelins. Since Abrams tanks are such valuable assets, some sort of overwatch with infantry is highly desirable, especially when they can create many on one situations by stealthily getting into a good position. What I said was that the lack of good positions for the infantry makes your tanks' job harder.

[Ivanov]

I think the usage of aerial assets such as the Apache differs from your example of Bradleys, at least in real life. The real Apache is actually designed to fire from behind cover using its radar for acquisition, so as long as it doesn't try to fly like a fast mover and instead uses the terrain, it's more like a hull-down Bradley firing TOWs, than Bradleys charging the enemy. But the issue of Apaches flying like fighters in the game has been discussed elsewhere.

Note, that the Hellfires don't outrange Tungskas missiles. Also, 2K22  has been specifically designed to engage low flying aircraft and helicopters using pop-up tactics. In the real life, none would risk playing hide and seek using the expensive Apache Longbow against SA-19. 

[Abdolmartin]

Note, that the Hellfires don't outrange Tungskas missiles. Also, 2K22  has been specifically designed to engage low flying aircraft and helicopters using pop-up tactics. In the real life, none would risk playing hide and seek using the expensive Apache Longbow against SA-19. 

Tunguska's radar and EO system both need LOS to see an Apache, and LOAL mode on the Hellfire missile is designed exactly to deny the enemy his LOS (so there's no need to pop up from behind cover). So in uneven terrain, the Apache can actually get close to a target area with a Tunguska present and fire their radar Hellfires. Especially given the fact that they do not go into the battle area relying only on their own sensors, but probably even have PFZs assigned to them before they get there.

The Tunguska, nor any other single type of asset, is not enough to seriously challenge CAS. What actually makes CAS challenging for a chopper pilot is that they could run into other defences - e.g. MANPADS or other air defences waiting in ambush - when trying to hide from known enemy AA positions.

[Ivanov]

The Tunguska, nor any other single type of asset, is not enough to seriously challenge CAS. What actually makes CAS challenging for a chopper pilot is that they could run into other defences - e.g. MANPADS or other air defences waiting in ambush - when trying to hide from known enemy AA positions.

IMO CAS is too abstract in the game to get it right. If the Apache is firing the Hellfires, in most of the cases it would probably mean that it's firing from beyond the map. Due to that it's impossible to assume that the helo is using terrain to it's advantage, because we cannot know what type terrain is out there. By the way, Ukraine is a pretty flat country. As to the AD and helicopters, here's an interesting story. In the year 2000, the American 11th Aviation Regiment equipped with Longbow Apaches and Kiowas came to Poland for the Victory Strike exercise. Apaches were practicing the "deep strike" missions and were supported by the MLRS and Polish BM-21 Grad systems. Their task was to destroy a mechanized battalion protected by the non upgraded SA-8 Gecko systems ( currently the Polish SA-8's are domestically upgraded to the Osa-P variant ) . During the simulation, the Apaches were unable to complete their task - 30 helicopters were "shot down" for the loss of 2 SA-8s, destroyed by... the MLRS. The key to the success of Polish AD crews, was a skillful use of the terrain and rapid change of the firing positions. Keep in mind that the first versions of the SA-8 were much less advanced system than the Tunguskas. I mention this case to highlight the fact, of an inherent vulnerability of the helicopters to the AD assets and their inability of hitting back, even in case of the modern hunter-killer teams comprised of AH-64s and OH-58s. Interestingly, the same 11th Regiment was trying to perform a "deep strike" mission against the Medina Division in a real war in 2003. The result was pretty disastrous and you may say that the Americans were lucky to have only 1 AH-64 destroyed. It took a month until the 11th Regiment was combat ready again. In general the use of attack helicopters in modern, conventional conflicts is pretty problematic. Note that post Gulf War the Apaches have never been used against a competent enemy equipped with the advanced AD systems.

All in all, I think that the air defence is very dangerous to the helicopters and with the level of abstraction present in the game, the balance AD vs helicopters is just about right. My take on the helicopter use in CMBS when the AD is present, is trying to suppress the AD by firing the area barrage with the artillery and forcing the AD to move. At the same time I order short, preferably point target missions for the helicopters. It's still dangerous and less effective, but this is war and there's no silver bullet as someone above has already mentioned.

[c3k]

^^^

Good points, but...

The Medina strike had the 11th Aviation Regiment OVERFLYING an Iraqi unit by accident. The choppers thought they could transit/suppress the vehicles. Oops. Lesson learned: It's better to be in an armored vehicle than in a helo.

The Longbow/Apache "D" is supposed to fight from defilade. The launcher helo(s) stay below the horizon. Only a mast is exposed for the targeting helo (be it a Kiowa or fellow Apache). Getting the helos into position to execute that tactic on a target is the hard part. Recce assets are needed. (Missing an Iraqi battalion (?) is indicative of such recce failing.) Can it work? Yes. Will it work? If a lot things go the right way, yes.

I agree with the starting/final statements: CAS is too abstract, but overall BFC has it about right. There's a lot of room for improvement, but it's acceptable for now. 

My .02

[IICptMillerII]

As others have stated, while it is true that the Apache has the ability to fire from defilade and engage enemy air defenses, it does not seem to be simulated in CMBS. As Abdolmartin pointed out in his first post, when there are enemy air defense assets on the battlefield and he uses his helo's, he tends to lose at least one to enemy fire. I think it would be worth looking into the Apache Guardian however. It is supposed to be able to interface and data link with UAV's, meaning that you could use UAV's to ID enemy AA vehicles and then have the Guardian safely engage them. This functionality is talked about in the CMBS manual, but I'm not sure if it is simulated in game. If it is simulated, then I would think this would be your solution. If not, then my previous post stands, that you should not call in Apaches until you have cleared the battlefield of enemy AA threats. 

As to the point about Javelin equipped infantry, I am in agreement. Combined arms is crucial, even more so now that the battlefield is so hyper lethal. It is important to remember that infantry do not have nearly as good spotting ability as the M1A2 SEP. I took your comment about infantry to imply that you were attempting to use your infantry as your primary anti tank asset, but it seems my understanding of what you originally meant was flawed. 

[Abdolmartin]

@Ivanov : I understand your point. Actually, what I've read completely agrees with what you stated about the deep strike exercise. American doctrine put too much faith in attack helos in roles they weren't meant for. Now my point is, the issue in deep strikes is that you're pretty much out in the wild. The terrain a chopper tries to hug and slowly move over can actually be harbouring the same threats the chopper is trying to hide from, and that's why the speed of fast movers gives them a tremendous advantage over choppers in any role that isn't CAS.

However, when choppers are used as a part of a combined arms assault or defence, they are usually flying over friendly airspace and they don't really have to venture into enemy airspace in order to engage enemy armour. I've always felt that with top attack fire and forget ATGMs, attack helos have been progressing some sort of "missile truck" role: go to point A as stealthily as you can, fire all missiles in LOAL at targets already detected by other assets, then RTB. That is basically the only role that can be suitable given their fragility and helplessness once targeted.

 

@c3k : As I said above, I believe that most issues with attack helos in US doctrine have been when they were mistaken for something they were not, and the Medina division event is a great example of that. The most important issue I find with the in-game modeling of the Apache, is that it fires its missiles one by one with large intervals in between, while in real life, in such a situation, the helo would probably want to fire as many missiles as fast as possible, then go home.

 

@||CptMiller|| : It doesn't seem to be simulated in the game.

Yeah my initial statement about infantry was probably ambiguous, apologies for that.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

As kind of a split reply:

1. It's dangerous to use rotary wind in close proximity to air defense.  As others have pointed out, CMBS seems to assume a close in attack run for all CAS, which ensures it will be exposed to MANPADs and ADA systems alike.  This is something I think is a little haywire.  Here's two solution type ideas:

a. Aircraft with precision munitions gain a "precision strike" opition alongside the usual "heavy" and "light" choices.
   The strike would only involve a single smart weapon fired on a point target.  If it's targeted on a vehicle in motion, only "seeking" weapons (like the Hellfire) will pursue.  The aircraft would not select its own targets, and laser designated weapons would require illumination by a ground team.  It would either be something that could not be shot down on approach, or would only have a remote chance of being engaged.   This would simulate a platform flying at maximum standoff and using cover to engage.  It would be much less useful in the narrow sense than an attack helicopter blasting things with cannon and rocket fire too, but it would be much lower risk.  It would however place the various aviation coordination units (B-FIST, air control parties, HQs) in a lot more danger as they'd have to be the ones to spot and call for the strike.

b. Decreased air defense lethality, addition of an "air defense state" option for scenerioes. 

I've suggested this before, so I'll keep it brief.  Basically it'd be like the electronic warfare settings already in game, and be a semi-abstracted way to represent the danger presented by air defense and hostile CAP off map.  If the 2S6 on map is simply part of a larger functional IADs with MIG-29s backing it up, it's going to be super scary.  If it's the last 2S6 on the battlefield, fleeing the HATO juggernaut, then  it is in a bad place.  This also allows for more reasonable Blue air defense given the danger posed by fixed wing fighters.  As the air defense level got more severe, there'd be a higher chance of losing/delaying/aborting the aviation asset on approach.  The ADA on the battlefield would properly serve its real life role of being that last layer of protection after all the other ones fail vs the I would argue over-efficiency it represents now.    

2. In "real world" terms, while it was strongly discouraged to get rotary aviation near air defense elements, it is not so much the "do not do anything until every MANPADS is dead" that CMBS seems to do now.  While there was a reluctance to do gun/rocket runs, ideally the target area would be suppressed via artillery before the helicopters would unmask, release their missiles on the targets and then go back to ground.  Even without the artillery stand-off missile strikes were generally expected to have some success, especially considering the helicopters would be occupying attack points more often than not over friendly terrain.  It looked a lot less like it does now in CMBS though, and a lot more like the precision artillery (only with fairly murderous anti-tank effects I imagine).

[LUCASWILLEN05]

As kind of a split reply:

1. It's dangerous to use rotary wind in close proximity to air defense.  As others have pointed out, CMBS seems to assume a close in attack run for all CAS, which ensures it will be exposed to MANPADs and ADA systems alike.  This is something I think is a little haywire.  Here's two solution type ideas:

a. Aircraft with precision munitions gain a "precision strike" opition alongside the usual "heavy" and "light" choices.
   The strike would only involve a single smart weapon fired on a point target.  If it's targeted on a vehicle in motion, only "seeking" weapons (like the Hellfire) will pursue.  The aircraft would not select its own targets, and laser designated weapons would require illumination by a ground team.  It would either be something that could not be shot down on approach, or would only have a remote chance of being engaged.   This would simulate a platform flying at maximum standoff and using cover to engage.  It would be much less useful in the narrow sense than an attack helicopter blasting things with cannon and rocket fire too, but it would be much lower risk.  It would however place the various aviation coordination units (B-FIST, air control parties, HQs) in a lot more danger as they'd have to be the ones to spot and call for the strike.

b. Decreased air defense lethality, addition of an "air defense state" option for scenerioes. 

I've suggested this before, so I'll keep it brief.  Basically it'd be like the electronic warfare settings already in game, and be a semi-abstracted way to represent the danger presented by air defense and hostile CAP off map.  If the 2S6 on map is simply part of a larger functional IADs with MIG-29s backing it up, it's going to be super scary.  If it's the last 2S6 on the battlefield, fleeing the HATO juggernaut, then  it is in a bad place.  This also allows for more reasonable Blue air defense given the danger posed by fixed wing fighters.  As the air defense level got more severe, there'd be a higher chance of losing/delaying/aborting the aviation asset on approach.  The ADA on the battlefield would properly serve its real life role of being that last layer of protection after all the other ones fail vs the I would argue over-efficiency it represents now.    

2. In "real world" terms, while it was strongly discouraged to get rotary aviation near air defense elements, it is not so much the "do not do anything until every MANPADS is dead" that CMBS seems to do now.  While there was a reluctance to do gun/rocket runs, ideally the target area would be suppressed via artillery before the helicopters would unmask, release their missiles on the targets and then go back to ground.  Even without the artillery stand-off missile strikes were generally expected to have some success, especially considering the helicopters would be occupying attack points more often than not over friendly terrain.  It looked a lot less like it does now in CMBS though, and a lot more like the precision artillery (only with fairly murderous anti-tank effects I imagine).

Yes, watch out for tunguskas. 

i hate those things!

[Vergeltungswaffe]

As kind of a split reply:

1. It's dangerous to use rotary wind in close proximity to air defense.  As others have pointed out, CMBS seems to assume a close in attack run for all CAS, which ensures it will be exposed to MANPADs and ADA systems alike.  This is something I think is a little haywire.  Here's two solution type ideas:

a. Aircraft with precision munitions gain a "precision strike" opition alongside the usual "heavy" and "light" choices.
   The strike would only involve a single smart weapon fired on a point target.  If it's targeted on a vehicle in motion, only "seeking" weapons (like the Hellfire) will pursue.  The aircraft would not select its own targets, and laser designated weapons would require illumination by a ground team.  It would either be something that could not be shot down on approach, or would only have a remote chance of being engaged.   This would simulate a platform flying at maximum standoff and using cover to engage.  It would be much less useful in the narrow sense than an attack helicopter blasting things with cannon and rocket fire too, but it would be much lower risk.  It would however place the various aviation coordination units (B-FIST, air control parties, HQs) in a lot more danger as they'd have to be the ones to spot and call for the strike.

b. Decreased air defense lethality, addition of an "air defense state" option for scenerioes. 

I've suggested this before, so I'll keep it brief.  Basically it'd be like the electronic warfare settings already in game, and be a semi-abstracted way to represent the danger presented by air defense and hostile CAP off map.  If the 2S6 on map is simply part of a larger functional IADs with MIG-29s backing it up, it's going to be super scary.  If it's the last 2S6 on the battlefield, fleeing the HATO juggernaut, then  it is in a bad place.  This also allows for more reasonable Blue air defense given the danger posed by fixed wing fighters.  As the air defense level got more severe, there'd be a higher chance of losing/delaying/aborting the aviation asset on approach.  The ADA on the battlefield would properly serve its real life role of being that last layer of protection after all the other ones fail vs the I would argue over-efficiency it represents now.    

2. In "real world" terms, while it was strongly discouraged to get rotary aviation near air defense elements, it is not so much the "do not do anything until every MANPADS is dead" that CMBS seems to do now.  While there was a reluctance to do gun/rocket runs, ideally the target area would be suppressed via artillery before the helicopters would unmask, release their missiles on the targets and then go back to ground.  Even without the artillery stand-off missile strikes were generally expected to have some success, especially considering the helicopters would be occupying attack points more often than not over friendly terrain.  It looked a lot less like it does now in CMBS though, and a lot more like the precision artillery (only with fairly murderous anti-tank effects I imagine).

+100

My regular opponents and I use very limited air assets and more precision arty to simulate CAS.

[Abdolmartin]

+100

My regular opponents and I use very limited air assets and more precision arty to simulate CAS.

The problem with US precision arty is that it's GPS-guided and has no terminal guidance, so if the target moves, you'll just be throwing thousands of dollars into the ground.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Yep, not perfect, but just as CAS does far too much damage in the WWII CM's, AA is far too effective in BS, so you do what you have to do.