In almost every picture or video you see of an apache, viper, hinde, or any other helicopter gunship, they have anti-tank/anti-armor missiles (i.e. hellfires/TOWs) as well as few dozen antipersonnel rockets like hydras. Why do they not use carry half as many hellfires as they can carry in lieu of rockets? Isn’t the chaingun designed to perform the same function of taking out troops and light armored vehicles? Why not double the payload of AT weapons instead?
In: 2
Versatility:
You go out to support your friends and not all the targets deserve a 150k dollars missile. Let’s be honest that’s how to lose a war if you shoot 150k onto a tent. At that point you can land and give the enemy guy 150k dollars to fuck off and get a life. Many would fuck off for far less.
The gun is good if you really don’t like a person or a vehicle.
The rockets are for when your friends say: we don’t really like that building/cornfield/strip of forest, and you can’t realistically shoot a gun into it and believe to have some result. So there you go, a spray of rockets.
Rockets are really cheap and light enough to carry a bunch; and allow for a quite good saturation on an area; And they are more precise than a bomb. That’s why also planes have them.
Rockets are there to fill the gap between gun and the stuff that costs a lot.
Latest Answers