A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets

[Tirak]

what a minute, the tank killer's gun doesn't work against tanks? that's news to me.

 

The A-10's gun hasn't been effective against tanks since the plane started flying. The only tank it'll actually punch through reliably is a T-55 and a few specific spots on early T-62s. The A-10 kills tanks with its Mavericks, and uses the gun on light armored APC. Haven't you seen the A-10 colouring book? It pops upon here every few months.

 

http://imgur.com/a/SD8Ew

[Hummingbird]

The A-10's gun hasn't been effective against tanks since the plane started flying. The only tank it'll actually punch through reliably is a T-55 and a few specific spots on early T-62s. The A-10 kills tanks with its Mavericks, and uses the gun on light armored APC. Haven't you seen the A-10 colouring book? It pops upon here every few months.

 

http://imgur.com/a/SD8Ew

 

Hasn't the A-10 recieved improved AP (APFSDS) rounds since 1977?

[probad]

improved AP (APFSDS) rounds

.....

that's for the 30mm ifv cannons

 

lets not even get into fact checking before posting here, did you ever even think about the sheer stupidity of an extremely high rate of fire coupled with discarding sabots, what that does to following projectiles and the plane?

 

you don't think of course, you just read some dumb crap on the internet and then vomit it up here just so you can satisfy some irrepressible urge to be that obtuse and contrarian "haha checkmate!" guy

Edited May 13, 2016 by probad

[NineLine]

.....

that's for the 30mm ifv cannons

 

lets not even get into fact checking before posting here, did you ever even think about the sheer stupidity of an extremely high rate of fire coupled with discarding sabots, what that does to following projectiles and the plane?

 

you don't think of course, you just read some dumb crap on the internet and then vomit it up here just so you can satisfy some irrepressible urge to be that obtuse and contrarian "haha checkmate!" guy

 

You guys need to dial back the insults. Next posts similar to this will receive warning points and bans relevant to those points.

[Hummingbird]

You guys need to dial back the insults. Next posts similar to this will receive warning points and bans relevant to those points.

 

I don't believe I insulted anyone? AFAIK it's a one way street atm.

[Hummingbird]

Report (below) from 1980 on the effectiveness tungsten (I presume) API ammunition fired from the A-10 against tanks.

 

No mention of the DU penetrators now available which I suspect would increase effectiveness quite noticably.

 

Not too convinced this type of ammunition can't kill a modern T-90, albeit perhaps not by direct penetration to the crew compartment but there are other ways to stop a tank.

a522397.pdf

Edited May 13, 2016 by Hummingbird

[RoflSeal]

Found this little snippet on the A-10's gun vs M47 and T-62 tanks

 

US research on uses of aircraft A-10 A-10 with gun GAU-8/A against a Soviet tank company

simulated by combat loaded M-47 or T-62 tanks are conducted from February 1978 to

December 1979. The pilots making the firing passes attacked at low altitude and used correspondingly

low dive angles in order to simulate movement through a hostile air defense system

[31-37, 42]. In Air Force tests, the A-10 Thunderbolt flew at an altitude about 60 m, an angle

of 1.8 to 4.4 degrees, and a slant range of 800 m to 1300 m. The weapon effects on the hard

target were 72-90 % miss and 10-28 % percent hit with a 1,7-3,8 % kill. During these tests

tanks were attacked with 40-160 ammunition PGU-14 in every aircraft swoop.

 

More here

[Tirak]

Report from 1980 on the effectiveness tungsten (I presume) API ammunition fired from the A-10 against tanks:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf

 

No mention of the DU penetrators now available which I suspect would increase effectiveness quite noticably.

 

Not too convinced this type of ammunition can't kill a modern T-90, albeit perhaps not by direct penetration to the crew compartment but there are other ways to stop a tank.

 

Maneuver kill won't happen, penetrators don't blow off the track, they put a neat little hole in it. It's not getting through the armor, and spalling isn't something tanks are vulnerable to anymore. A 30mm cannon is worthless against modern armor, it was worthless against modern armor back in 1977. There's a reason why the Mavericks were included, because the gun doesn't kill tanks, it attacks IFVs, of which the USSR had a lot of. GAU-8 =/= Tankbuster, and no advocate for the A-10 who knows the system he defends will ever attempt to claim otherwise.

[Hummingbird]

Maneuver kill won't happen, penetrators don't blow off the track, they put a neat little hole in it. It's not getting through the armor, and spalling isn't something tanks are vulnerable to anymore. A 30mm cannon is worthless against modern armor, it was worthless against modern armor back in 1977. There's a reason why the Mavericks were included, because the gun doesn't kill tanks, it attacks IFVs, of which the USSR had a lot of. GAU-8 =/= Tankbuster, and no advocate for the A-10 who knows the system he defends will ever attempt to claim otherwise.

 

You didn't read the report I gather.

 

Using std. tungsten API the A-10 is infact capable of knocking out tanks, and very often immobilize them (and no, not by shooting up the tracks).

[RoflSeal]

You didn't read the report I gather.

 

Using std. tungsten API the A-10 is infact capable of knocking out tanks, and very often immobilize them (and no, not by shooting up the tracks).

 

Why are you inferring it as Tungsten?

 

PGU-14 was DU.

[Hummingbird]

Why are you inferring it as Tungsten?

 

PGU-14 was DU.

 

I'm talking about the report I linked which seems to refer to an earlier ammunition type?

 

At least I see no mention of depleted uranium rounds being used. Were the PGU-14 available in 1980?

 

EDIT: Seems PGU-14 was available from exactly around the dates of the tests: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/pgu-14-30mm-api-round

 

Thus "heavy metal" does probably refer to DU penetrators. Either way these did prove very lethal in tests, achieving a ~30% kill ratio and ~70% immobilization ratio versus M47 tanks. Thus the claim that the GAU-8 can't kill tanks isn't true.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[RoflSeal]

I'm talking about the report I linked which seems to refer to an earlier ammunition type?

 

At least I see no mention of depleted uranium rounds being used. Were the PGU-14 available in 1980?

 

EDIT: Seems PGU-14 was available from exactly around the dates of the tests: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/pgu-14-30mm-api-round

 

Thus "heavy metal" does probably refer to DU penetrators. Either way these did prove very lethal in tests, achieving a ~30% kill ratio and ~70% immobilization ratio versus M47 tanks. Thus the claim that the GAU-8 can't kill tanks isn't true.

 

 

M47 has worse side armor then the T-62 in raw thickness, worse profiling for the side turret and steel that offers worse protection due it having a lower hardness.

 

Firstly T-62 has a side armor thickness of 80mm throughout. M47 side armor is 76mm over the crew compartment and 51mm over the engine compartment

 

Side turret of the M47 is flat and 64mm thick. Side turret of the T-62 is rounded starting at 122mm at the base and thining off to ~50mm to the turret roof as the angle increases keeping a constant LOS of ~120mm. This gives double the turret armour.

 

Steel of the M47 was garbage, 210BHN throughout vs 270-290BHN for T-62 cast turret and 270-350BHN for rolled plates (harder for thinner plates)

 

This means the T-62 steel offers 20-37% more protection for the same thickness.

[Tirak]

I'm talking about the report I linked which seems to refer to an earlier ammunition type?

 

At least I see no mention of depleted uranium rounds being used. Were the PGU-14 available in 1980?

 

EDIT: Seems PGU-14 was available from exactly around the dates of the tests: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/pgu-14-30mm-api-round

 

Thus "heavy metal" does probably refer to DU penetrators. Either way these did prove very lethal in tests, achieving a ~30% kill ratio and ~70% immobilization ratio versus M47 tanks. Thus the claim that the GAU-8 can't kill tanks isn't true.

 

To add to Rofl's points, I said modern armor as well as "Modern" armor from 1977. The Pattons were a WWII design, placing them more of a contemporary to the T-55, which is the tank that the GAU-8 can operate against, however to call it modern armor in terms of tank design even by 1977 would be an extremely tenuous statement as the US retired the design just prior to 1960 and used them as targets from then on.

[Hummingbird]

Well the engine bay protection seems to be better on the M47 than on the T-72, which is a crucial factor. The T-72's rear hull armor is only 16 mm on the top, and the side hull varies from 56-80mm in thickess.

 

I really don't think a T-72 or even T-90 is immune to an A-10 gun run.

[OutOnTheOP]

I really don't think a T-72 or even T-90 is immune to an A-10 gun run.

 

Even *if* we assumed that were true (and it is highly doubtful), it is moot.

 

Good luck getting a gun run onto a tank column where there is an SA18 with every. Single. Infantry. Squad. In. Every. SINGLE. BMP.

 

That's not even taking into account goodies like the 2S6, SA15, and other mobile, brigade-and-below ADA systems.

[RoflSeal]

Well the engine bay protection seems to be better on the M47 than on the T-72, which is a crucial factor. The T-72's rear hull armor is only 16 mm on the top, and the side hull varies from 56-80mm in thickess.

 

I really don't think a T-72 or even T-90 is immune to an A-10 gun run.

 

Firstly, I don't get how you should be able to shoot down onto the hull roof armor from a 3.8 degree dive.

 

Secondly, doing the sort of attack run described will make you mincemeat from 30mm Tunguska, Pantsirs and MANPADs.

[Hummingbird]

Firstly, I don't get how you should be able to shoot down onto the hull roof armor from a 3.8 degree dive.

 

Secondly, doing the sort of attack run described will make you mincemeat from 30mm Tunguska, Pantsirs and MANPADs.

 

The claim was that the GAU-8 couldn't kill a tank (modern), but this is clearly false.

 

Wether or not doing a gun run on an entire supported "tank collumn" was ever a good idea was never even mentioned. Such a thing should obviously never be attempted unless you've cleared the area of the supporting AA threats first, and even then you'd probably prefer not to from the sheer amount of gunfire that can be directed your way.

 

However in war you may find tanks alone and scattered at times, and an A-10 CAN take out such a target with its gun should it run out of bombs or missiles to do the same. Infact it was done in Iraq.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

Lynn Taylor, A-10 Pilot, Joint Firepower Course Instructor, Air Liaison Officer:

https://www.quora.com/Can-an-A-10-Warthog-airplane-take-down-an-advanced-Russian-tank-like-a-T-90-with-its-Gatling-gun-alone

[Tirak]

The claim was that the GAU-8 couldn't kill a tank (modern), but this is clearly false.

 

Wether or not doing a gun run on an entire supported "tank collumn" was ever a good idea was never even mentioned. Such a thing should obviously never be attempted unless you've cleared the area of the supporting AA threats first, and even then you'd probably prefer not to from the sheer amount of gunfire that can be directed your way.

 

However in war you may find tanks alone and scattered at times, and an A-10 CAN take out such a target with its gun should it run out of bombs or missiles to do the same. Infact it was done in Iraq.

 

Except you haven't demonstrated this. Your example was the M47 Patton, a tank used in the 50s and a contemporary to the T-55, which is the tank the GAU-8 was meant to go up against. You have made assumptions on more modern tanks extrapolating based on information about those earlier tanks with their inferior metallurgy, but you've got no actual supporting evidence that an A-10 can destroy a tank with modern armor using its gun. Please provide examples including slant ranges and type of armor engaged.

 

EDIT: Even your article with Taylor makes assumptions based on armor thickness with no actual numbers to back it up, and also points out that even by his estimate of 10 percent, the only time that the A-10 could actually have any effect at all on that would be in a 90 degree dive, something not ever done.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Tirak
Edited 'cause I'm not good at telling gender via names

[Hummingbird]

Except you haven't demonstrated this. Your example was the M47 Patton, a tank used in the 50s and a contemporary to the T-55, which is the tank the GAU-8 was meant to go up against. You have made assumptions on more modern tanks extrapolating based on information about those earlier tanks with their inferior metallurgy, but you've got no actual supporting evidence that an A-10 can destroy a tank with modern armor using its gun. Please provide examples including slant ranges and type of armor engaged.

 

EDIT: Even your article with Taylor makes assumptions based on armor thickness with no actual numbers to back it up, and also points out that even by her estimate of 10 percent, the only time that the A-10 could actually have any effect at all on that would be in a 90 degree dive, something not ever done.

 

 

Not quite, as mentioned even an M1 Abrams can be taken out from the rear by a 25mm round.

 

Also you don't need to dive at 90 deg to penetrate 16 mm of armor with the GAU-8, I'm sure that much can reliably be punched through at quite shallow angles.

 

PS: Lynn is a man I think? Or perhaps the small picture decieves me.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

Not quite, as mentioned even an M1 Abrams can be taken out from the rear by a 25mm round.

 

Also you don't need to dive at 90 deg to penetrate 16 mm of armor with the GAU-8, I'm sure that much can reliably be punched through at quite shallow angles.

 

PS: Lynn is a man I think? Or perhaps the small picture decieves me.

 

Lol, my bad, I know a couple of Lynn's and they're both women :P

 

 

The shot wasn't just from the rear, it went in through the dust grills, that sort of shot is what we refer to as the "Golden BB". Theoretically, nearly any weapon system is potentially destroyable should a single BB be in the right spot, at the right time, however realistically, the odds of such a thing happening are statistically impossible. The altitude the A-10 would have to fly at to achieve the proper angle and the range required to ensure a proper hit would be so outrageous, that basic safety procedure would preclude the firing pass anyway, thus, it would never happen.

[Sweep]

Taken out meaning mission kill or taken out in DCS terms? :)

[OutOnTheOP]

The claim was that the GAU-8 couldn't kill a tank (modern), but this is clearly false.

 

Wether or not doing a gun run on an entire supported "tank collumn" was ever a good idea was never even mentioned. Such a thing should obviously never be attempted unless you've cleared the area of the supporting AA threats first, and even then you'd probably prefer not to from the sheer amount of gunfire that can be directed your way.

 

However in war you may find tanks alone and scattered at times, and an A-10 CAN take out such a target with its gun should it run out of bombs or missiles to do the same. Infact it was done in Iraq.

 

The GAU-8 is a poor choice for killing tanks. I have no doubt it can, the problem is that it cannot reliably kill tanks. By the testing against even measly M47 and T62, it was found that it only had a so-so chance (4-10% per pass) of killing a tank, even against the weakest of tanks. That number is only going to get lower when facing more modern tanks.

 

And anyway, it's completely academic! Whether it is physically possible for the round to damage a tank or render it combat ineffective means absolutely nothing, if the gun system cannot be put into parameters to put the shot on the target. Do you really think that you're going to regularly find platoon or smaller groups of tanks with no MANPADS (IE, no infantry support) anywhere nearby? To put the GAU-8 into parameters to MAYBE make a gun kill on a tank, is to put the A-10 WAY inside parameters to ALMOST CERTAINLY be killed by ground fire from any modern military.

 

I'm sure a Macedonian phalanx could M-kill an Abrams if they got close enough to jam the engine intake with their pikes, or like... stuff a sword down the gun barrel for a K-Kill... but you don't see me arguing that it's a feasible way to take them on. :doh:

 

Sure, against insurgents and third world militaries with few tanks and no meaningful AD an A-10 can kill tanks with the gun, but against that kind of small assortment of undefended tanks, any tactical aircraft capable of carrying ATGM could kill them at leisure anyway. F-16 with Maverick would do just fine. AH64 with Hellfire could kill a dozen of them without even needing to go back to re-arm (not even A-10 can say that).

 

Oh, and the penetration for M919 APFSDS 25mm from the Bushmaster on the M2 Bradley is significantly better than that of 30mm PGU14. M919 is, after all, a subcaliber APFSDS with a fairly high L : D ratio, much better optimized for penetrating armor. It also loses velocity much less swiftly, so it's effective range is a lot further. GAU-8 is stuck with full-caliber, unaerodynamic, heavy (therefore relatively slow) solid AP shot. No discarding sabots for aerial guns.

Edited May 14, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Isegrim]

Everything that is able to shoot on a Battletank can make it much less effective in Battle.

 

Even .556 or .545 can bring up trouble.

 

Its not that everytime the whole Battletank has to be blown up.

 

If you are part of the crew of the damaged Battletank you see yourself encountered with much more Workload in the first place, which can turn your Battletank into a big Burning Coffin pretty fast.

 

In my personal opinion in RL the GAU-8 is a very effective tool against Battletanks as well as the GAU-22.

 

 

 

ISE

Ex Leopard 2A5 TC

Edited May 14, 2016 by Isegrim

[RoflSeal]

Not quite, as mentioned even an M1 (((Abrams))) can be taken out from the rear by a 25mm round.

 

Also you don't need to dive at 90 deg to penetrate 16 mm of armor with the GAU-8, I'm sure that much can reliably be punched through at quite shallow angles.

 

PS: Lynn is a man I think? Or perhaps the small picture decieves me.

 

16mm of armor on a 3.8 degree dive gives a line of sight thickness of 240mm

 

Are you being this dense on purpose?

 

It's not only that the A-10 is ineffective at reliably killing at tank, more importantly in the modern environment, it will be impossible to get that gun close enough to do anything anyway.