Ginsu80

It's not so much a direct relationship between helicopters and strategic bombing as it is a much more subtle influence in tactics that have developed since. In fact, if you want to go back further still you can draw a line from modern helicopter tactics to cavalry tactics and infer a relationship from these as well. Where most other nations of the time utilized cavalry formations as a massed shock unit, civil war cavalry generals are known for employing their units in a manner that closely relembles the basic employment of helicopter formations on the modern battlefield. Of course I am in no way attempting to equate the two on an even plane, but rather pointing out an interesting relationship between the two. As for the development of the helicopter by the US into a tank killer, in the US you must really go back to the Vietnam war. Actually, let me take you back first to 1948 and the key west agreement. This agreement attempted to define the respective service roles of the branches. This agreement, among some others, basically relagated the helicopter to the mission of observation and evacuation. Any type of armed air role, including helicopters fell into the purview of the USAF. The Air Force, however, was rather uninterested in the use of the helicopter as an offensive weapon. Which is why the United States waited untill the Vietnam War to begin arming it's helicopters. There are several instances in fact of Army officers advocating the use of the helicopter as a gun platform in the Korean war but there was reluctance to be seen as violating the percieved service roles and perhaps losing the new Army aviation to the Air Force. Now the Vietnam war saw the first major use by the US of the helicopter in an offensive role, and ushered in the United States' first dedicated attack helicopter the AH1. This all dovetails nicely with the advent of precision munitions at the end of the conflict. Shortly thereafter you have helicopter carrying the first guided anti tank weapons such as the TOW for the US and the role of the helicopter as a dedicated tank buster began in earnest.

Again I to anyone interested in obtaining the actual pubs used by the Army I recommend FAS. Here is a quote from FM 1-112 to support my point. "Depth. The ATKHB can attack the enemy forces anywhere on the battlefield. Commanders must see and use the entire battlefield to strike the enemy and prevent it from concentrating forces at a point of its choice. The speed with which attack helicopters can mass combat power at chosen points in the battle area allows the force commander to influence the battle to a depth that would otherwise be beyond his reach." If anyone has access to the Russian Pubs I would love to be able to compare them.

Not sure if that is a good period, or a bad one. Anyone looking for information on tactics, techniques and procedure for attack helicopter employment I highly encourage you to visit the Federation of American Scientists website. You can download FM 1-112 Attack Helicopter Operations. I would post a link but am not sure if it's allowed.

Hello to all, I was recently reading a post on this forum bemoaning the KA-50's lack of a Radar Warning Receiver and just had to chime with some information on the differences in deployment of attack helicopter between east and west. The idea of using attack helicopters in a deep strike role is really an American invention pioneered in the 1980s and brought to culmination during the first gulf war. In a famous attack Apaches attacked two radar sites and opened up an air corridor for the subsequent air war in Iraq. This is a prime example of how US helicopters are employed, though of course they are not pigeon holed into such a specific method. The fact remains that the US Army views helicopter aviation primarily as giving the commander the ability to affect the battlespace behind the front lines. Russian helicopter aviation however more closely resembles the usage of attack helicopters by the United States Marine Corps in that they perform the role of close air support of troops near the forward edge of battle area and much less on striking units behind enemy lines. This is as much a doctrinal difference as it is natural progression of tactics since the second world war. Russian aviation has always been a product of tactics used in WWII where aircraft were utilized in a support role to troops on the ground, whereas American airpower has been heavily influenced by the strategic bombing campaign. Of course the changing face of combat in the past decade is heavily influencing tactics on both sides, the basic ideas reflect an institutional difference how each side aproaches the same battlefield. Of course, thats just my 2 cents.