Attack helicopter is the best? Here’s a few better options


AOL has won the rights to AttackHelecopter.com, which will now be a blog comparing various military vehicles to help people decide which is best for their needs.

AOL’s Weblogs, Inc. network operates a number of blogs focused on different topics. In this case, AttackHelicopter.com falls under the “DefenseTech” category, and is the first new site in that category since 2008, when AOL acquired IdiotProgrammer.com and turned it into a site about programming for idiots.

The DefenseTech blog will be run by Eric Peterson, who previously operated the site as a hobby while flying an actual attack helicopter in Afghanistan. The site will have a new look when it launches next week, but you can check out the old design here (warning: spoilers).

As we’ve reported before, AOL is currently in the process of buying content sites like TechCrunch and Engadget in order to boost its ad revenues from search engines and other sources. In recent years AOL has been focusing more on advertising than on subscription revenues from dial-up Internet access.”

There are many types of military vehicles in the world. From armored tanks to infantry fighting vehicles, you might be wondering which one is the best. The answer is a bit complicated. It mostly depends on what you want to use it for. Here are a few of the most popular choices:

Attack Helicopter: This is a type of helicopter that can be used by any army or navy. It has two main purposes:

Fighting other helicopters. This is useful if your enemy also has helicopters, or if you want to shoot down their planes before they get close enough to attack you.

Bombing ground targets. A helicopter has a lot of advantages over fixed-wing aircraft because it can hover in one place and fire missiles at things below it without having to turn around first (fixed-wing aircraft have to turn around before firing).

The main disadvantage of an attack helicopter is that it’s vulnerable if there’s any kind of surface-to-air missile system present, so if your enemy has something like that then you might want to use something else instead.

Air Force Jets: Jets are usually used for bombing ground targets or engaging in dogfights with enemy aircraft. They’re very fast and maneuverable, but they don’t have much armor so they’re vulnerable to

How many times have you stood on the edge of a battlefield, watching your enemy mass their forces and thought, “I wish I had wings and could rain death upon them?” If you have not found yourself in this position, then congratulations: You do not need an attack helicopter.

If you find yourself in this situation a lot, it may be time to reassess your life choices. But if you are certain that air superiority is the key to your continued survival in the face of overwhelming odds, then perhaps you should consider these options before shelling out for your own attack helicopter.

1. A tank

2. Another tank

3. A really big gun

4. An aircraft carrier

5. A nuclear submarine

6. A battleship

7. A fighter jet

8. A drone

9. A battleship made of tanks with guns on it and drones flying over it and fighter jets circling it and all of this is on top of an aircraft carrier inside a nuclear submarine**

If you’re planning to attack a small to mid-sized country, there are several possible vehicles you could use. The question is, which should you choose?

Option 1: A giant tank. Tanks have a lot going for them. They’re big, so they can carry a lot of soldiers and supplies; powerful, so they can shoot other armored vehicles far away; and tough, so they can take a lot of damage. These are all important features if you want to invade a small country.

But tanks also have some drawbacks. For one thing, they’re expensive; even if your country is poor, it’s probably more cost-effective to buy a fleet of smaller armored cars than one giant tank. For another thing, they’re conspicuous; a tank is hard to miss on the battlefield, which makes it vulnerable to air attacks. If you want your attack vehicle to stay alive through the end of the invasion, this would be an important consideration.

There’s a lot of nonsense written about attack helicopters. This post will try to sort things out.

Although for some reason helicopters have the reputation for being less stable than airplanes, they are actually more stable: because of their lower speeds and larger moment arms, helicopters are less vulnerable to gusts than airplanes. Helicopters can also hover, of course, which is a huge advantage in urban combat and where terrain makes landing difficult.

Helicopters are not as maneuverable as airplanes: they can’t fly inverted or loop-the-loop, and they have slower roll rates. But this may not be a disadvantage: if you’re flying straight at an enemy with missiles, you don’t want to get into a dogfight. And if the enemy tries to run away, you can chase them down: even the slowest helicopter has a top speed greater than that of any ground vehicle except another helicopter.

Helicopters are more vulnerable to small arms fire than airplanes, but this is probably not a big deal as long as you aren’t using them in situations where infantry with anti-aircraft weapons might be encountered.

I am a soldier, and I love attack helicopters. As soldiers, we all do. But when it comes to the future of warfare and a desire to win, we need to confront the simple fact that attack helicopters are no longer useful.

War is changing. It’s not about armies anymore. We’re in the age of terrorists and insurgents, who don’t wear uniforms or fight for a country. They hide among the people they’re fighting for, making it nearly impossible to distinguish them from civilians without killing a lot of innocent people in the process. Attack helicopters are designed to kill soldiers; they’re not designed to win hearts and minds.

There’s also the economics angle: A single attack helicopter costs $18 million dollars. An entire platoon of infantry costs less than one helicopter, and infantry have been proven far more effective in modern urban warfare than helicopters have ever been.

No. You don’t need an attack helicopter. You need a tank, a battleship, an aircraft carrier or a submarine, or maybe a few of each. You definitely need some cruise missiles and smart bombs and a bunch of other things.

If you have an attack helicopter and nothing else, you are only slightly more formidable than someone with just a rifle. For example, Somalia’s army owned about 20 attack helicopters at the height of its power in the late 1980s (before it was disbanded).

These were promptly looted when Siad Barre was toppled from power in 1991. The warring factions of Somalia had no use for them, because without the rest of the supporting infrastructure they were not much more terrifying than regular helicopters.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.