Decades earlier it was British type of expressions (boffins, bash on, jingo etc), now it is the turn of the American types (badass, rain hell,..)
Yes and these are an indicator of where we get our information from, The use of certain expressions to indicate "postives" like strength, victory, heroism and goodness are borrowed and used in the same way for the same things as the people we borrow them from use them This equally applies to negatives. This is the reason why words of similar meaning like "veer" sound weak to us while "badass" sounds strong. Tejas sounds weak and Raptor sounds strong (as expressed right here on this forum). Professor is impressive. Pandit does not make the grade. Language is the way we think and when we learn language we learn how to think and we use the expressions that impress us and find useful Sorry to go OT. Some day I hope to wrote a sociological treatise on the effects of colonization and "fractal recursivity" - a term that ramana taught me, This is not just about the forum but the entire nation including young armed forces officers who may become senior over time and continue to fall for brochures with the "right language"
More to the point - there is one more "unfortunate term" that has come into use with respect of Apache and similar "heavy" helicopters and that is "flying tank". The expression makes us think of a battle tank that flies and is the "bringer of destruction on the enemy" ("Arihant"). Tanks have armour in excess of 60 or 80 centimeter thickness. Forget 7.62 mm or 12.5 mm - even 30 mm will bounce off a tank. However an Apache or other "flying tank" could be brought down or crippled by a stray 7.62 mm bullet that shears off the tip of a rotor.
So the analogy that we need a badass flying tank to counter massed attacking tank columns comes with the following questions that need to be asked (IMO)
The idea of heavily armed/armoured helos came from the cold war where Europe was expected to face a massive Soviet tank attack with thousands of tanks in a situation where the Soviets had a massive superiority in tank numbers.. The only flat ground that we have where massed tank attacks can occur are in Punjab/Rajasthan and parts of the Tibetan plateau. The Apache is not going to be useful up in Tibet, the LCH is. If the LCH can do the same job as the Apache why have two different types?
This is not to say that I think the Apache is useless - because that is the argument that is usually thrown at me. It is about utility and relevance. There were two stories from Afghanistan that are relevant here. One was the Taliban sitting on a mountain throwing a rock at a Soviet Mi 25 flying in the valley below and bringing it down with a rock. That won't happen to a real tank. The other story actually makes me laugh. Apaches were designated to rescue a downed pilot and because the Apache cannot carry any men other than pilots two rescuers had to do "jugaad" where the men tied themselves on to the side of the Apache because they had to go and pick up the downed man. Reminded me of this song
Two other Apaches were fire suppression escorts. In this instance even LCH would be no good but both armed Dhruv and Mi 35 would make the cut.
The intense admiration of Apache (or Mi 28 for that matter) bordering on worship is partly based on the aura that has been built up around it which tends to hide its lack of utility and shortcomings in situations that may be important to us.We need to think of our needs and not the laudatory language of the countries that designed them for their use.