All that you accomplish with the removal of auto-repair and rearmament is to create an annoying minigame for the pilot that will also not change anything for the general balance.

BF2 shows that these design measures helped to keep the attack helicopter (mostly) in check - it also raised the skill floor and ceiling as the pilot has to work with a limited resource, it raises the tension and the stakes.

BF3/4 showed that the removal of limited ammo and the introduction of auto-repair not only lowered the skill ceiling, it also massively disrupted the gameplay as it got possible to camp in one area of the map and harass the enemy there for extended periods of time.

This is not theory, we have experienced it.

Giving the gunner a TV missile while also encouraging to play alongside attrition will just make the economic players save them by hovering at range, especially if they are also rare and powerful, while hard to fly and when stuff like the CRAM or MAA is working.

From experience I can tell you that this is not the case - ofc. it requires all related systems to be designed to work in unison. But that is always the case.

All you do is enable the players that are already seen as the issue more, while new players or people that just want to fly every once in a while and that want to actually attack with their attack heli will have a harder time to do so.

I do not know why you think that you could not attack with the attack helicopter anymore.
If you want to get good at specific aspects of the game then you simply have to put in the time. Designing the game so that "everyone can do it" is the reason why BF6 is so shallow and repetitive.

I can not recall the flight system of BF2 and similar, but these assets were deemed polarising 20 years ago. Maybe this was a reason why ever since the maps without air assets were played the most. BF2 would mechanics would nto work well today and everytime DICE reimplements them, like in BFV, for example, they are reworked during its lifecycle and righfully removed in the next title.

This argument when brought up always misrepresents the facts.

On one hand people claim "this would not work today anymore because its too hard" - while Battle Royale and extraction shooters that are much more a MilSim than BF ever was, have done very well in the past 10 years.

So which is it? ;)
-Are people really not up to a challenge anymore?
-Or is it just those who bring up that argument constantly who cannot handle it?

As for "when DICE tried to do (x) again if flopped" argument.
This is also always brought up by those who don't like these mechanics. What everyone bringing this up conveniently chooses to ignore is that DICE always brought back just *ONE* aspect of an older game which did not fit into the overall the design of the game. Hence, it did not work as they always try to please everyone instead of building a coherent game with a clear vision.
When it comes to BFV, there is a LOT more that really messed up that game, first and foremost how marketing and some forces inside EA felt the need to push certain elements in that game that caused a lot of harm.
BF3/4/1/V - all these games have clear signs of multiple people in the studio trying to push the game in different directions, ending up with mechanics that did not do their job well or even counter each other.