We are a light infantry based unit, not a MEU. The fact that we have this many supporting assets and how we balance them is what we should be discussing, not how we should add more. There's a fine balancing act between what works and is challenging, and what is fun for everyone.
I'm not sure if you were around long enough in the 15th to see the dozens of missions where 40 guys sat on a hill, while a Cobra hovered 2000 yards away and took out every single enemy contact. I'm sure it was fun for the pilots, but not for they guys on the ground. The inverse is also true, I've seen missions where pilots would float around and just do re-inserts for 2 hours because we had M1A1's that took care of all the armor (and more often than not, the infantry as well).
What we have now, albeit not perfect, is balanced. We have Anti-Light armor capabilities from the ground via Javelins and Bradleys, but most of our heavy AT comes from the A-10's or Little Birds. If these assets aren't being used, it's per the task force commander's direction. The Little Birds are weak, but they are balanced in that they can't hover over the AO for the entire operation. They give us what we need, but provide enough of a challenge to make their use realistic.
Simply put, a task force commander should be thinking "Is it safe for me to use this asset, or will it get shot down?", not how it's use is unfair for everyone else. The standup operation with Task Force Alpha was a perfect example of coordination and thoughtfulness between the task force commander and supporting assets. Not only were they used heavily, but the ground guys had a lot of fun too.
This is all absolutely spot on.
The decision to not use Apaches was absolutely not an accident or oversight.
After many years of dealing with the above highlighted scenario, the decision to do away with the aircraft and vehicles that could absolutely demolish all enemy opposition on the map was made when standing up the 506th. No M1 Abrams, no Apaches. The Bradleys were supposed to be stood-up slowly in order to ascertain their strength, but with the unprecedented rapid growth of the unit they were all stood up at once. Even then, it was determined that one Bradley per task force was more than enough. The original intent was to possibly extend to two, but under the lead of 1LT Cook it quickly became apparent that one was enough for our purpose and intent.
A lot of people posting in here don't have the long-term experience of dealing with what works and what doesn't. It was made very clear when standing up the 506th that we are creating a light-infantry-centric experience. From the lowest rifleman to the Task Force Commander, the unit is supposed to be based around that experience. As TF Commander, I continuously see the statement, especially in this thread "We can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.". 5+ years of experience has shown me that this is absolutely not true. This mantra can be preached over and over again until those preaching are blue in the face, but the reality is that requests from air assets come down to engage targets, and if they are denied, pilots get pissed. If they are authorized, ground guys get pissed because the gunships tear up the enemy assets. Then the MCC Controllers get pissed because their carefully laid-out infantry-based mission was mopped up in <1 min by an asset that is ridiculously powerful due to the nature of how terrain in ArmA is. And that is how it happens. It's not about "We can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.", what it really is, and this is coming from experience, is "Air sends requests down to engage targets that they are observing and the TF Commander has no legitimate reason to deny the engagement; and has to keep in the back of his mind what the fallout will be if it is denied, so he authorizes the engagement and ground forces are unhappy."
Air and armor in ArmA reign supreme. Using a gunship that is low armor and vulnerable instead of one that is armored and extremely powerful is an intentional decision to curtail these issues. It's supposed to be a Blackhawk DAP instead of an AH-6 Littlebird, which would probably provide some extra small-arms protection, but we're working with what is available to us(and doesn't bog down the server with extra mods) and is extremely carefully balanced to ensure a positive experience for all individuals.
Simply put, a task force commander should be thinking "Is it safe for me to use this asset, or will it get shot down?", not how it's use is unfair for everyone else.
Next is the issue of having to tell personnel to intentionally not engage certain types of targets. Namely air and armor assets need to "leave enemy infantry alone in order to let the ground guys have some fun". This very issue is rotten at it's core and detracts from gameplay and immersion. An air or armor asset should not have to disregard viable targets. When the request is sent down from air saying "hey we see these guys and would like to engage them", it creates problems. The solution to this issue was to build a unit based around infantry and remove these obstacles. This way we don't have to tell anyone that there are targets that they simply aren't "allowed" to engage. It saves Task Force Leaders, ground forces, and pilots alike frustration and conflict and resentment that broods like a virus within the unit.
The constant, unrelentless badgering over things like this is not healthy for the long-term sanity of command staff. We are acutely aware of the issues and we do read the forums, so whenever a little snippy remark over something is made, it is noticed. Morale works both up and down.
