Semi serious AH64 (Apache) Suggestion..

[Brummy]

Some pubs would get on the position as a pilot solely for the lolz.

[Titan]

in a unique rescue mission attempt.

This was an extremely hostile situation where our men were exposed to fire from 360 degrees. A range of options was considered by the commanders on the ground, including the use of an available Chinook transport helicopter, but it was the Apaches that were judged the best platform for performing the rescue.

this sounds like it was performed once! in 2007... so i asked if its common or not.
if not, it would be like adding requesting kits from tank, because maybe somebody has done it or will do it in the near future, see ?

[Redamare]

Suggestion = Battlefield heroes Nonsense .... i agree that doig this will 100% degrade PR

[DannyIMK]

i doubt they use this. maybe only in serious emergencies , but this looks dangerous they are very close to the rockets and in danger of backblast and what if they fall?

[Rudd]

i doubt they use this. maybe only in serious emergencies , but this looks dangerous they are very close to the rockets and in danger of backblast and what if they fall?

Acording to 'Apache' by Ed Macy British (probs US as well, but I dunno) practice this manouvre, though afaik the only time its had to be used was the rescue of Lcpl Ford's body.

[Bringerof_D]

i like it, it will seldom be used but when the time comes when a pilot is stranded in a relatively safe area, it might be used well.

and yes can people read all of the ops post before posting, it says to limit it to pilot kits only. so NOONE gets to use it as transport. it would also be for good lols on the airstrip when the thing is waiting or warming up the co pilot could sit out there having a cigar lol.

[BogusBoo]

Some pubs would get on the position as a pilot solely for the lolz.

Thats what i said lol.


If apaches were for SAR missions mostly, who'd be fire support?!?

[HangMan_]

some one has read Ed Macys book i see...

[Rudd]

If apaches were for SAR missions mostly, who'd be fire support?!?

'mostly for'

and

'capable of' are 2 different things.

[BogusBoo]

And "Attack" and Transport" are two different things too that should'nt be confused.

[Sgt.North]

Yes, and Oh my God people.............

I hope that English is not your main language, because a lot of you fail to correctly interpret my post.....

Learn to read...

KEY POINT:

USEABLE BY UNARMED PILOT KIT ONLY (NO PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS!)

THE POSITIONS ARE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE AIRCRAFT SO NO PROTECTION FROM BULLETS

It gives a team using co-ordinated and directed Intimate Air Support a small chance to extract a crew from the apache, IF THE PILOT OF THE AIRBORNE APACHE THINKS ITS SAFE TO LAND...



People seem to READ what they WANT to read, and NOT what is ACTUALLY there!

[Rudd]

And "Attack" and Transport" are two different things too that should'nt be confused.

Tell that to the Russians.

[Grim1316]

I agree with OP and Rudd, while it is used very rarely it can be done. I remember hearing about some special forces in afaganistan that got a lift up a mountain by riding on the ammo doors of a cobra.

[Eddiereyes909]

I heavily agree with the OP and with rudd as well. This would add a whole new element to the game, and help out a bit. Right now, pilots go down, and when they do they die.

I would say increase ticket cost of pilot, and this would make it very much so worth it.


"But this will only be used by noobs"

This is compltley outweighed by the fact that rudd supports it.

[Tim270]

I generally disagree with people who disagree with suggestions on the sole basis that somebody may abuse it. However, I still think on Kashan for example trying to land and pickup a pilot is just suicide and in gameplay terms is stupid, 12 (?) tickets to save 1? + Would open a whole can of worms for your 1 man sniper squad who wants to be dropped on top of bunkers.

But like I said, if it does go in, make sure they cannot use their weapon when sitting there (aa + at) would be crazy.

[hiberNative]

i'd rather have extra seats on tanks tbh.

[Silly_Savage]

Seems pretty stupid to risk 14 tickets (10 for the apache and 4 for the pilots) vs 2 for the downed pilots. Let the transport vehicles/helo's do their job and the gunships do theirs. Enough people complain that the apache can't survive as it is without adding this into the mix.

This pretty much sums up this thread in my opinion. What's the point in potentially losing an Apache over a pilot or two? Just call in transport and let them do their jobs.

Not to mention the stupidity in seeing an Apache do flips and shit while the exterior pilots remain safely on board the aircraft.

It's just not worth the effort.

[Arnoldio]

And "Attack" and Transport" are two different things too that should'nt be confused.

Mi-24 Hind maybe?


Anyway, ppl wold just go "weeeeee im on a chopper rideh, weeee"

PR players are not serious enoug for such things...

[dtacs]

i'd rather have extra seats on tanks tbh.

yes, totally.

or some sort of way so infantry could jump on top of a vehicle but not slide off or be killed when the turret moves, maybe an invisible board which is static on top of a vehicle?

[BogusBoo]

i'd rather have extra seats on tank too.

NOW THAT SOUNDS NICE!