Besides I don't think we've seen the end of 3gw. State to state war will always be the primary cause.
And be a far deadlier conflict for the West.

The Russians are heading towards domestic and economic trouble to they could mature into a theat. How many times have they been beaten down only to emerge stronger? They may have the armor but they also are still developing good SAMs which the older helos won't be able to defend against.
In a conventional conflict the Russian won't see light. A far smaller population base than NATO - 140 vs 800 - a heavily declining one too and their economy relies entirely on oil and gas.

Tactically the Soviets combined massed tank formation with armored infantry, supported by massive numbers of artillery. They always had the good sense to not just rely on their good fighters with their excellent missiles but to invest heavily in integral AAA and SAM, supported by two additional layers of SAM batteries for air defense. To counter the anti-tank missiles of NATO both APS with hard and soft kill ability were devised and reactive armor was used on a wide array of vehicles.

It is hard to estimate now how well the attack helicopter would have performed. BTW did you know that a MBT with a modern FCS is able to shoot a helicopter down? It depends who knows and sees first - a well camo. modern tank is for sure a danger for any heli. as there is little to do against a Mach 5 120mm round. But it is of course only a backup ability.

Perfect segue to the Artillery thread
Indeed

OA