I will add whatever detail I can, in a few minutes. Meanwhile, your point makes for thoughtful reading. Does this mean that most users see an attack helicopter as a tactical weapon of opportunity? It flies in supporting fast-moving armour, and shoots at anything, particularly soft-skinned targets, that moves? Do battlefield commanders ever think of it as a pioneer, clearing out fire-detecting radar from the other side, closing out the counter-battery options, and enabling the armoured component to charge faster, harder? It seems that a little doctrine-building is in order, and thinking of these helicopters as fast, quick immediate reaction weapons actually is just a Band-Aid on operations plans. If something goes wrong, let the attack helicopters fix it, rather than, before anything goes wrong, let's streamline our attack and kill the enemy infrastructure before we attack the enemy firepower before we attack the enemy soldiery.
Just wondering.
An answer might lie in the possibility that since attack helicopters may not have been used in combined arms attacks extensively, their use as a weapons type to be planned out in advance as well as in contingency planning may not have happened. However, I would be surprised to know, in these days of micro-management, that such a possibility actually existed.