Originally Posted by
etudiant
The Army accepted that the Apache would not match the Cheyenne performance. It has not closed the gap since, partly because the design is less capable, partly because weight growth has negated the gains from the improved power train and rotor.
It should be noted that the one attempt in Iraq to engage a large tank formation solely with Apache helicopters was not a success. It is doubtful that the Cheyenne would have done much better.
My friend, the Army Aviation folks spent the better part of two decades trying to convince our two dimensionally, ground bound, and limited colleagues that Army Aviation is a maneuver element not a combat support element nor a DS element like Artillery.
A friend of mine wrote a paper on the problems
of the Army "getting" CAS and Rotary Wing aviation. It may be a bit dated, but the Army changes as slowly as any top heavy organization.
So, once they finally got that acceptance, they had to go an prove it. 11th paid a price for that. (How about let's give the Iraqi's a bit of credit for
being a smart, thinking enemy in how they handled that ambush).