[IronDuke99]

I think you could make a fairly strong case that attack helicopters in the game are not vulnerable enough to AAA and manpads certainly. That would also serve to make them less effective against more advanced enemies.In my view even small arms fire, at close range, should have a very small chance of damaging a gunship and either bringing it down or making it bugger off.

I still think, in general, they are a bit too effective against Armour and not effective enough against soft vehicles and infantry, especially when the targets are moving. With regard to special conditions making the Apache look especially deadly: Yes and no. Jungle/heavy woodland and, even more urban environments, would certainly make them less effective, but I can tell you that even fairly primitive gunships, with medium or heavy MG's, can in daylight on fairly open terrain, wreck a force of low training and moral, that lacks much anti aircraft defence, dug in or not.

It is also a case of suppression. If you are an insurgent and in cover and not spotted a gunship being around is probably going to stop you moving, and firing if you are using your brain. If you are not using your brain it might make you run away and that will likely get you killed too...

And no I'm not really talking about WWIII scenarios here between major nations(I got bored with most large scale MBT games some time ago because they are always, accurately enough, so bloody that it is difficult to get a win that means much if the forces are balanced).

In reality of course forces are not often well balanced, one side or the other will have better training and/or kit, more men and/or intelligence, etc. To me those are the more interesting MBT type games, as I have written about elsewhere on here, ie, using assets and skill to win a tactical victory, without losing half your own force.