Why isnt the chinook armed?

[[uBp]Irish]

I usually fly Transport Helicopters and have partaken many times as a CAS platform when the availability of heavier CAS roles are unavailable.

Also, this is not something far off the truth:

Feature - Rescue Under Fire: Air Force Reserve rescue crew recognized for battlefield heroics

"We were able to engage the bad guys on the first pass, all fire was on target. That's all we heard from the CCT, 'All fire was on target. Continue to engage.'"

The crew flew a weapons employment pattern six times, maneuvering their aircraft into a position to protect the special forces team while neutralizing multiple enemy fires and forcing the retreat of some 30 insurgents.

"So we effectively suppressed the bad guys," Captain McDonald humbly concluded.

The captain's modest summary does not adequately reflect the crew's contribution to the operation. In the course of providing fire support for the Army team on the ground, the rescue crew had effectively gunned-down eight Taliban fighters, including three high-value targets, and crippled the enemy resistance by removing the Taliban Uruzgan Province command structure.

-------

In all honesty I see no problem with this issue. If people are doing their job transporting people, but find that they could also help the team by providing an attack platform than by all means go ahead.

Remember - they're still fat, they're still weak, and the gun ain't that powerful in a short period of time.

[Drunkenup]

Originally Posted by John-117

maybe for the Chinook you could have:
1xPilot
6 man squad
maybe 1x gunner
The gunner could be located at the back on the ramp. So when the squad has been dropped and the chinook is going away it can give them cover. This way it cant be used as an attack platform bacause you can only see at the back Maybe give it an M249 so it would be anti infantry?

As much as this would take infantry off the ground (no more than 2-3 people) it does follow Rudd's logic making it plausible. Me support. But the Ramp gun should be a FN MAG as they are mounted in real life, M249's and 5.56 are too ineffective. This goes for other choppers as well (only if real life dictates), M240s, M2s and M134's on Transport and Attack Hueys respectively, FN MAGs on Chinooks, 240s on Blackhawks, etc.

[SGT_Griggs]

Gimpy on the back of a chinook ftw! I definately agree that giving the chinook a rear door gunner would be beneficial as a) it can support the troops its just deposited, b) it can still carry a whole squad. But personally i don't think that giving the chinook door guns would be great as obviously it would sort of become a platform of death covered on all sides... and therefore very abusable...

[[R-CON]Tim270]

Originally Posted by SGT_Griggs

i don't think that giving the chinook door guns would be great as obviously it would sort of become a platform of death covered on all sides... and therefore very abusable...

You could use that argument for all the choppers in PR, but its simply not the case. The BH has by far the most powerful mini-guns and yet it is very rare that it will actually be used for fire support as all pilots know just how vulnerable they are when hovering and circling around a target.

Door guns are very useful for simply putting down suppressive fire when touching down to drop troops.

[Hunt3r]

It's a bit like operating AC-130s in broad daylight. You know it'll get shot down, but until it does get shot down, it's nice to have.

[Rissien]

Had a cow trying to gun down our Chinooks yesterday, we had two Chinooks just circling around him untill he decided to just ram one of us instead. <.<

[MadMax678]

The only decent Infil/Exfil Transport Heli would have to be the Black Hawk.

it has both speed and defence, and can be used as a weapons platform with the two Gatling rape cannons on each side...


But yeah, a M249 or .50 would be lovely on the Chinook, i hate getting owned by a Taliban with a RPG behind us when i land...

[onikenshin]

dusnt the chinook have a port were you can attach a 30 or a grenade launcher on the side? i think its on the right.

[Trooper909]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]Rudd

Seriously guys, if choppers should not have weapons in order to encourage them to transport etc etc then APCs shouldn't have a weapon on top either, whole armoured collumns of the equivalent of the BRDM support.

hell, medics shouldn't have guns they are meant to be healing

HATs shouldn't have rifles cuz they are meant to be tank hunting

Officers shouldn't have guns, cuz they are meant to be leading - Increases teamwork if he has to surround himself with guys with guns to survive

I think you get the point.

Let the players do well or make mistakes, just give them the realistic options in any given situation.

I've used a MEC chopper as a gunship before, we hunted a lonewolf logitruck and destroyed it, are you saying that I should have gotten a BRDM from 1k away to come back to our main just to kill this thing when it was safe and effective for my crew to do it?

QFT here.

Forced teamwork is as silly as this actuly sounds and what is going on to much as of late.
would elaberate but has been said by alot of old PR vets when .8 came out vets who are no longer with us because of such sillyness.

[lucky.BOY]

Firstly - the door guns are IRL used as defensive guns, because thea are so inacurate that you can just suppres the threat until you extract the squad and get out. Actually they are facing sides or back, not front like in attack choppers, obviusly. Once again, thier primary objective is to suppres, not to kill.
On that chinook idea, sounds good to me, but it definately must be a HMG. But do you expect the gunner to be something like gunner in apache, i mean member of sq, with a pilot kit, or it will be same as in BH?
On the topic of attacking trans choppers, if you have an opurtunity to kill something, why dont you kill it? But using a trans chopper mainly as an attack platform makes it shot down. Its still too weak and fat, as said above.