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

[Hummingbird]

Tirak,

 

Keep in mind that the grill on the Abrams doesn't lead straight to the engine, it's curved up and over an armoured plate, so it's not like it was a lucky shot "through" the grills :D No, it was several shots to the rear which penetrated without much trouble.

 

Also even the rear sides of the Abrams are quite vulnerable:

 

Note: The PGU-14 will penetrate 59 mm of BHN-300 RHA armor at an impact angle of 30 deg at 1,000 m. (Likely 70+ mm when fired from a diving A-10)

 

Oh' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

The PGU-14 is akin to the old APCR type rounds, it's not a solid shot round :) It's an aluminium body with a smaller diameter DU penetrator inside. Infact the penetrator seems to feature the same L:D ratio as of the 25mm APDS-T round.

 

As for armor penetration, the PGU-14 is capable of the following performance:

 

BHN-300 RHA, attack angle 30 degree

 

76mm at 300 meters

69mm at 600 meters

64mm at 800 meters

59mm at 1,000 meters

55mm at 1,220 meters

 

It also needs to be kept in mind that this performance actually improves with the added speed of the diving aircraft adding on average some 120+ m/s to the impact velocity. Thus armor penetration performance when used by the A-10 is increased by some 15-20 mm.

[RoflSeal]

I think you can find all over the internet as well of talk that SB armor schemes pictures being outdated.

 

http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a-46100-steel-plate.html

http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a12560-steel-plate.html

http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a46177-steel-plate.html

 

Furthermore, hardness of the M1 Abrams' steel is even harder then T-62. Harder the armor, keeping the same brittleness, increases armour protection. Considering advances in metallurgy, and further advances like triple hardness steel with over 600 BHN, I would think that 50mm on 1960s steel would perform worse then 1980s-90s and 2000s steel.

[Hummingbird]

Don't know why it's so hard to accept that the GAU-8 is infact still a lethal weapon to a tank. Tanks afterall are mostly designed to withstand groundfire, with less attention given to protection against attacks from above.

 

There are very few modern tanks I'd feel absolutely safe in if subjected to an A-10 gun run, and there are none where I wouldn't be very worried about a possible immobilization of my tank.

[RoflSeal]

Don't know why it's so hard to accept that the GAU-8 is infact still a lethal weapon to a tank. Tanks afterall are mostly designed to withstand groundfire, with less attention given to protection against attacks from above.

 

There are very few modern tanks I'd feel absolutely safe in if subjected to an A-10 gun run, and there are none where I wouldn't be very worried about a possible immobilization of my tank.

Pretty much only you accepts that a GAU-8 is a lethal weapon to a tank.

 

 

An attack run at a 3.8 degree dive, you might as well treat it as ground fire. No way are you going to penetrate the roof armour.

 

 

It's not about lethality, it's about effectiveness

A Panzerschrek can probably disable/destroy an Abrams (after all 200mm is more then enough for the engine side and rear hull armor), but it has a range of 150m if you are lucky.

Howover an AT14 Kornet is a way better way to destroy an Abrams, it is a threat to it from the front, and up to and over 5km away with high accuracy.

 

Same comparison with GAU-8 vs any PGM.

Edited May 14, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Hummingbird]

I think you can find all over the internet as well of talk that SB armor schemes pictures being outdated.

 

http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a-46100-steel-plate.html

http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a12560-steel-plate.html

http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a46177-steel-plate.html

 

Furthermore, hardness of the M1 Abrams' steel is even harder then T-62. Harder the armor, keeping the same brittleness, increases armour protection. Considering advances in metallurgy, and further advances like triple hardness steel with over 600 BHN, I would think that 50mm on 1960s steel would perform worse then 1980s-90s and 2000s steel.

 

Todays MBT armors are of the composite type to better resist modern super high velocity APFSDS-T rounds. The extreme heat developed upon impact by these rounds makes metals behave like fluids. To combat this ultra hard & heat resistant ceramic layers are mixed in between layers of RHA.

 

The effectiveness against rounds going slower than ~1200 m/s remains largely unchanged though IIRC.

[RoflSeal]

Todays MBT armors are of the composite type to better resist modern super high velocity APFSDS-T rounds. The extreme heat developed upon impact by these rounds makes metals behave like fluids. To combat this ultra hard & heat resistant ceramic layers are mixed in between layers of RHA.

 

The effectiveness against rounds going slower than ~1200 m/s remains largely unchanged though IIRC.

 

 

Side armour of modern tanks is still steel.

 

Composite armour is placed on the front hull and front turret and sides. Some tanks have composite skirts placed on the first 1/3 of the sides to protect crew compartment from 30 degree side shots.

 

Most Modern tanks have their protection optimized for the -+30 degree off their front

Edited May 14, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Hummingbird]

An attack run at a 3.8 degree dive, you might as well treat it as ground fire. No way are you going to penetrate the roof armour.

 

 

You seem to be selectively blind to this point.

 

Attack runs can be & have been made at much steeper angles no problem.

 

On todays battlefields with the type of enemies we're facing tanks aren't always driving around in columns protected by a myriad of AA assets, infact that seems to be a rarity these days.

 

Even in prepared dug in positions Iraqi tanks suffered terribly at the hands of the A-10.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[RoflSeal]

Attack runs can be & have been made at much steeper angles no problem.

 

On todays battlefields tanks aren't always driving around in columns protected by a myriad of AA assets, infact that seems to be a rarity these days.

 

Even in prepared dug in positions Iraqi tanks suffered terribly at the hands of the A-10.

 

You are seriously deluded aren't you?

Do you know why they are flying 150ft of the deck in those simulated attack runs? Because above that, there was a high chance of them getting chewed up.

That's the problem of doing an attack from a higher dive angle

 

 

Just because we have been fighting snackbars in low AA threat enviroments so that the A-10s can do their nice 30 degree dives for the past 10 years, does not mean that combined arms is obsolete.

 

You do realize that A-10s were withdrawn from attacking Republican units and their T-72s because they suffered heavy losses?

Edited May 14, 2016 by RoflSeal

[Hummingbird]

You are seriously deluded aren't you?

 

I guess you didn't get SiTh's memo?

 

Do you know why they are flying 150ft of the deck in those simulated attack runs? Because above that, there was a high chance of them getting chewed up.

That's the problem of doing an attack from a higher dive angle

 

Just because we have been fighting snackbars in low AA threat enviroments so that the A-10s can do their nice 30 degree dives for the past 10 years, does not mean that combined arms is obsolete.

 

You do realize that A-10s were withdrawn from attacking Republican units and their T-72s because they suffered heavy losses?

 

:rolleyes:

 

We're talking about how viable the A-10 is on todays battlefield, that means fighting "snackbars" whilst enjoying complete air superiority quite often, and the A-10 does that effectively in a very cost effective way, esp. in comparison to an F-35.

 

That you keep wanting to talk about attacking heavily supported tank columns is not my problem, that was never what the discussion was about from my end.

 

So please do yourself and everyone else a favour and save your insults for someone else.

Edited May 14, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Tirak]

I guess you didn't get SiTh's memo?

 

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

We're talking about how viable the A-10 is on todays battlefield, that means fighting "snackbars" whilst enjoying complete air superiority quite often, and the A-10 does that effectively in a very cost effective way, esp. in comparison to an F-35.

 

That you keep wanting to talk about attacking heavily supported tank columns is not my problem, that was never what the discussion was about from my end.

 

So please do yourself and everyone else a favour and save your insults for someone else.

 

Hardly an insult with you making grandiose claims about high angle diving attacks on armor at 300 meters being a viable option.

 

As to a "modern" battlefield, you don't base your armed forces to fight poorly equipped rebels, and you don't design weapons to fight today's war, you design them to fight tomorrows war and you design them to fight actually dangerous opponents. To do otherwise would be criminally short sighted, and if you want to claim that the future of war is only ever going to be insurgencies and the A-10 is a cost effective approach, then the proper way to demolish your argument is to point out the myriad of cheaper COIN aircraft. Your argument loses based on future potentialities, and based on the environment you champion as the forward face of war...

[Hummingbird]

Hardly an insult with you making grandiose claims about high angle diving attacks on armor at 300 meters being a viable option.

 

High angle? 300 meters?

 

A feather certainly turned into birds.

 

Why do you feel the need to fabricate your way through arguments?

 

As to a "modern" battlefield, you don't base your armed forces to fight poorly equipped rebels, and you don't design weapons to fight today's war, you design them to fight tomorrows war and you design them to fight actually dangerous opponents. To do otherwise would be criminally short sighted, and if you want to claim that the future of war is only ever going to be insurgencies and the A-10 is a cost effective approach, then the proper way to demolish your argument is to point out the myriad of cheaper COIN aircraft. Your argument loses based on future potentialities, and based on the environment you champion as the forward face of war...

 

That was never the debate!

 

The A-10's service life is being prolonged due to the fact that it still has a role to play in the conflicts expected within the next 10 years, conflicts where there will be missions it will be able to complete far cheaper than the F-35 could, and that whilst getting REAL close to the enemy.

 

COIN aircraft are nice in many situations, but dangerous to use as soon as the enemy has even the most rudimentary AA defense - say a hidden pick up truck with a Dushka on the back. That is hardly a threat for an A-10, but for something like a CF-156 it's a very serious threat if it ever had to do a gun run.

[OutOnTheOP]

Todays MBT armors are of the composite type to better resist modern super high velocity APFSDS-T rounds. The extreme heat developed upon impact by these rounds makes metals behave like fluids. To combat this ultra hard & heat resistant ceramic layers are mixed in between layers of RHA.

 

The effectiveness against rounds going slower than ~1200 m/s remains largely unchanged though IIRC.

 

You are either the world's biggest troll, or have no idea what you are talking about. Possibly both.

 

Look, whether the penetrator of an APCR has the same L : D as an APFSDS (and no, PGU14 does NOT have anywhere near the L : D of M919) is not the issue. APFSDS has a tiny aerodynamic frontal area, and therefore, low drag. APCR has a huge aerodynamic frontal areal, and lots of drag. Also, less parasite mass on APFSDS (sabot is lighter than metal APCR cup), so the APFSDS has higher initial velocity.

 

Even assuming the aluminum APCR "cup" is the same mass as the sabot petals, that only means they have the same energy at the muzzle. The APCR STILL has a huge, full-bore shape. It is NOT aerodynamic. Same mass and initial speed, but larger frontal area (and a crap-ton of form drag from the low-pressure area at the base of a conventional "bullet" shape)= more drag= less speed=less energy on target= less penetration. Versus APFSDS with same mass, same initial speed, way less frontal area= way less drag= much more speed= way more energy on target= way more penetration. 25mm Bushmaster firing M919 APFSDS perforates roughly 80-100mm RHAe at 1000m range. PGU14 perforates around 50-55mm at the same distance, even when counting the forward momentum of the aircraft (the numbers are straight from PGU14b tests). GAU-8 just isn't as awesome against tanks as it's made out to be.

 

This is really, really basic physics here.

 

I'm sorry that you feel the need to wildly back-track and retroactively correct yourself (by which I mean, "correct" everyone else) just because you were called out for saying something as patently ridiculous as "GAU-8 fires new APFSDS rounds", but you're not going to convince anyone that obsolete APCR are somehow superior to modern APFSDS. It's frankly pathetic how you're trying to justify your stance with such BS. "GAU-8 totally has new APFSDS, so it rocks! What's that? GAU-8 DOESN'T have APFSDS? Oh, uh... what I meant to say is that APFSDS is inferior, because *reasons*, so GAU-8 is totally bestest gun."

 

It makes you sound like an idiot.

 

The idea that slower projectiles designed with 1940s technology and construction techniques are somehow magically superior against modern armor than high-velocity APFSDS is... well, laughable. By the way, long-rod APFSDS does NOT "melt" armor. The armor does not "turn liquid". It is eroded (you know, like, ground into dust?), as is the penetrator rod. Even the penetrator jet of a HEAT round is NOT, in fact, liquid or molten. There's a reason all modern high-performance tank rounds are APFSDS: it works better than shooting a big, slow solid shot or APCR.

 

Also, ceramics perform JUST FINE against relatively low-velocity projectiles. Guess what's used in small-arms protective insert (SAPI) plates? Yep, that's right. CERAMICS. For the express purpose of stopping military rifle-caliber bullets with average impact velocities ranging from extreme highs of 975 m/s (5.56mm at the muzzle) to lows of 590m/s (AK47 at 300 meters). If ceramics were only effective against "super high speed" projectiles, they would not be the material of choice for defeating small arms projectiles at velocities well under your alleged "1200 m/s" threshold.

 

Arguing that GAU-8 is effective because it MIGHT penetrate a tank in certain perfect circumstances is like saying we should get rid of the TOW on Bradleys because it's already been demonstrated that 25mm can (sometimes, in extreme cases) penetrate tanks. I mean, all you have to do is get behind and within 300 meters, then hit in precisely the right spot. Simple, right? With absolute seriousness, I can say that it is significantly easier to sneak an IFV around and behind a tank without being detected and destroyed, than it is to get an A-10 into parameter for that "perfect" GAU-8 run without being detected and shot down by MANPADS (or even the AA HMGs on the tanks themselves!). But you won't hear me suggesting we stop buying TOW-IIB and Javelin, just because "cheap, simple, reliable Bushmaster can kill tanks!"

 

You're kind of being an argumentative luddite.

Edited May 15, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

That was never the debate!

 

The A-10's service life is being prolonged due to the fact that it still has a role to play in the conflicts expected within the next 10 years, conflicts where there will be missions it will be able to complete far cheaper than the F-35 could, and that whilst getting REAL close to the enemy.

 

COIN aircraft are nice in many situations, but dangerous to use as soon as the enemy has even the most rudimentary AA defense - say a hidden pick up truck with a Dushka on the back. That is hardly a threat for an A-10, but for something like a CF-156 it's a very serious threat if it ever had to do a gun run.

 

Horse hockey. It absolutely WAS the debate. Shift goalposts much? My argument was explicitly stated as a) the A-10 serves well in COIN, but is not needed for it, that b) the A-10 cannot survive in a near-peer threat environment, and c) In situations where the A-10 would have to kill tanks, either it's low-intensity and there are few tanks, meaning a tactical aircraft can easily carry enough ATGM to kill all of them without resorting to gun, OR the threat environment is so high that the gun cannot be employed at all; ergo the gun is useless against tanks

 

By the way, that DShK you red-herring'd up would just as easily kill the A-10 at it would kill a COIN A/C, because the COIN A/C would be using ATGM or LGB or similar from well outside the range of the DShK, as we have pointed out numerous times. 12.7 MG fire will easily kill the engines of an A-10, so once again, it's a fool's errand to employ the gun when there are other tools that can do it from outside the heart of the AD envelope.

 

The near-peer threats of the world don't disappear just because you don't want to consider any conflict in which an AD weapon more sophisticated than a ZU23 is present.

Edited May 15, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[BIGNEWY]

Guys debate as much as you like but do not use personal insults.

[Hummingbird]

Look, whether the penetrator of an APCR has the same L : D as an APFSDS (and no, PGU14 does NOT have anywhere near the L : D of M919) is not the issue. APFSDS has a tiny aerodynamic frontal area, and therefore, low drag. APCR has a huge aerodynamic frontal areal, and lots of drag. Also, less parasite mass on APFSDS (sabot is lighter than metal APCR cup), so the APFSDS has higher initial velocity.

 

Even assuming the aluminum APCR "cup" is the same mass as the sabot petals, that only means they have the same energy at the muzzle. The APCR STILL has a huge, full-bore shape. It is NOT aerodynamic. Same mass and initial speed, but larger frontal area (and a crap-ton of form drag from the low-pressure area at the base of a conventional "bullet" shape)= more drag= less speed=less energy on target= less penetration. Versus APFSDS with same mass, same initial speed, way less frontal area= way less drag= much more speed= way more energy on target= way more penetration.

 

You really need to learn to read what people write. Where exactly did you see me argue against any of this? I explained to you that the PGU-14 isn't a solid shot round, it's more akin to an APCR round. (Apparently you don't know the difference)

 

Now you want to shift the focus to drag which I NEVER even mentioned. Obviously a APFSDS features less drag, but we're talking effects on impact here, not how much velocity is lost on the way to the target.

 

Also remember that coming in at 450 km/h the A-10 adds an additional 125 m/s to the velocity of the PGU-14, this increases penetration power quite noticably.

 

Also I'm not the one who said that if the 25mm gun on a Bradley can do it, then a 30mm round from the GAU-8 can too, that was an actual A-10 pilot - so you can argue that one with him:

 

"Documented accounts of modern main battle tanks being "taken out" by a lowly 25mm round. If they can do it, the GAU-8 can do it."

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

 

25mm Bushmaster firing M919 APFSDS perforates roughly 80-100mm RHAe at 1000m range. PGU14 perforates around 50-55mm at the same distance, even when counting the forward momentum of the aircraft (the numbers are straight from PGU14b tests). GAU-8 just isn't as awesome against tanks as it's made out to be.

 

Can you point me to the source that states that the numbers are not from static GAU-8 tests against an armoured plate laid back 30 deg?

 

This is really, really basic physics here.

 

I'm sorry that you feel the need to wildly back-track and retroactively correct yourself (by which I mean, "correct" everyone else) just because you were called out for saying something as patently ridiculous as "GAU-8 fires new APFSDS rounds", but you're not going to convince anyone that obsolete APCR are somehow superior to modern APFSDS.

 

It's frankly pathetic how you're trying to justify your stance with such BS. "GAU-8 totally has new APFSDS, so it rocks! What's that? GAU-8 DOESN'T have APFSDS? Oh, uh... what I meant to say is that APFSDS is inferior, because *reasons*, so GAU-8 is totally bestest gun."

 

lol what? I never claimed anything of the sort! :megalol::megalol: I ASKED! Some people (you in particular) just don't seem to know the difference between a question and a statement.

 

I honestly didn't know what type of ammunition the GAU-8 uses until the discussion in this thread, therefore I ASKED wether or not it hadn't recieved improved ammunition since 1977. HENCE THE FREAKING QUESTION MARK!

 

You know what's pathetic? Insulting someone for asking a question, now that's pathetic. Also I am the one who's sorry, sorry you feel the need to behave like a schoolyard bully flinging around insults & fabricate stuff for no reason what so ever.

 

It makes you sound like an idiot.

 

So what does not reading what people write and then proceding to insult and make up stuff about them make you look like?

 

The idea that slower projectiles designed with 1940s technology and construction techniques are somehow magically superior against modern armor than high-velocity APFSDS is... well, laughable.

 

Again I never claimed anything of the sort, all I did was correct your false statement about the PGU-14 being a solid shot round which it is not. Move on.

 

By the way, long-rod APFSDS does NOT "melt" armor. The armor does not "turn liquid". It is eroded (you know, like, ground into dust?), as is the penetrator rod. Even the penetrator jet of a HEAT round is NOT, in fact, liquid or molten. There's a reason all modern high-performance tank rounds are APFSDS: it works/ better than shooting a big, slow solid shot or APCR.

 

Precious :megalol:

 

"This pressure produces stresses far above the yield strength of steel, and the target material flows like a liquid out of the path of the jet (hydrodynamic penetration)."

 

https://www.orbitalatk.com/defense-systems/armament-systems/120mm

 

 

 

 

Also, ceramics perform JUST FINE against relatively low-velocity projectiles. Guess what's used in small-arms protective insert (SAPI) plates? Yep, that's right. CERAMICS. For the express purpose of stopping military rifle-caliber bullets with average impact velocities ranging from extreme highs of 975 m/s (5.56mm at the muzzle) to lows of 590m/s (AK47 at 300 meters). If ceramics were only effective against "super high speed" projectiles, they would not be the material of choice for defeating small arms projectiles at velocities well under your alleged "1200 m/s" threshold.

 

Again you display an inability read what is actually written. Sure ceramics do well against projectile going slow too, ONCE, then it cracks and loses much of its effectiveness. That's why TANKS aren't made entirely out of ceramics. In tanks layers of ceramics are used in between plates of regular RHA and that because being highly heat resistant they don't behave like a liquid when struck by high velocity projectiles and their retained hardness helps break up the penetrator be it a long rod or copper jet.

 

Arguing that GAU-8 is effective because it MIGHT penetrate a tank in certain perfect circumstances is like saying we should get rid of the TOW on Bradleys because it's already been demonstrated that 25mm can (sometimes, in extreme cases) penetrate tanks. I mean, all you have to do is get behind and within 300 meters, then hit in precisely the right spot. Simple, right? With absolute seriousness, I can say that it is significantly easier to sneak an IFV around and behind a tank without being detected and destroyed, than it is to get an A-10 into parameter for that "perfect" GAU-8 run without being detected and shot down by MANPADS (or even the AA HMGs on the tanks themselves!). But you won't hear me suggesting we stop buying TOW-IIB and Javelin, just because "cheap, simple, reliable Bushmaster can kill tanks!"

 

You're kind of being an argumentative luddite.

 

Allow me to correct you once again: A claim was made that the GAU-8 cannot knock out any modern tank, this was proven to be false, nothing more nothing less. No claims were made as to how effective that or this weapon system was/is, that's all noise from your end.

 

End of story.

Edited May 15, 2016 by Hummingbird

[OutOnTheOP]

...unintelligible noise, attempting to use techno-babble to obfuscate the fact that nothing posted actually refutes anything I said, and in fact agrees that even HEAT jets are, to quote directly from Hummingbird's own horribly mis-applied source "still very solid"...

 

End of story.

 

Look dude. Don't get all pseudo-intellectual about technicalities of what constitutes a "solid AP shot", like you've got some kind of "gotcha" on me. APCR is a solid shot. There are no sabots or other pieces that are designed to detach from the projectile when fired; it is a FULL-CALIBER, SOLID MASS. Just because the projectile is not a monolithic block of homogeneous material does not mean it is not a solid shot, and in context, I pointed out that it was "solid shot" to emphasize that it is a full-bore projectile, IE that the ballistic qualities are what is important about that. You know what else isn't a monolithic block of metal? A conventional jacketed bullet. Lead-antimony core, copper-zinc jacket. Two distinct metals comprising distinct portions of the overall structure. Still considered "solid shot". As opposed to discarding sabot, canister, cargo/ submunition, or chemical energy (HE or HEAT) designs.

 

Do you not realize that calling me out on calling APCR "solid shot" is incredibly hypocritical of you? You apparently did not know that GAU-8 does not have APFSDS, and claimed that PGU14 was tungsten, when any cursory study would tell you it's DU. Yet, you portray yourself as the "world expert" on PGU14 ("ahem, it's *APCR*. Ugh, noob!", says the guy who has to be corrected on both the basic design of the projectile *AND* the metallic composition of the penetrator.). You don't seem to understand that larger caliber does not equal greater penetration, and appear to still believe that if 25mm M919 can perforate a target, that GAU-8 PGU14 can as well. This is simply not true. M919 is a superior penetrating round. By a LOT. Like... DOUBLE. Full stop.

 

Oh, and the test data for the GAU-8 is already posted, several times, in this thread, including graphs that quite clearly indicate 50-55mm RHAe penetration at 1000m.

 

You appear to not even understand that coefficient of drag is one of the biggest determining factors of kinetic energy delivered to the target, since you are still arguing that PGU14 must have more energy on target, despite having a massive amount of drag compared to subcaliber APFSDS.

 

Don't call my reading comprehension into question, when your entire thread here has been predicated on proving that it is physically possible for GAU-8 to penetrate some portion of a tank's armor, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT POSTED ABOUT IT WAS THAT GAU-8 IS INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE OF BOTH MARGINAL BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE AND TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT ADA THREATS. Either your reading comprehension is pretty weak yourself, or you're just willfully ignoring anything that doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

 

While we're on the topic of reading comprehension, you might want to actually go back and read my original assertion. Here, let me help you out with that:

 

the A-10 just wouldn't even be able to play. It couldn't fight low because of the huge prevalence of effective MANPADS, and it couldn't fight high because of effective mobile radar SAMs and the fighter threat. Moreover, its cannon isn't effective against tanks.

 

Let's see here... yep, "cannon isn't effective against tanks". Not "cannon cannot physically penetrate a tank anywhere whatsoever". Now, to those of us who put some critical thought into things, "effective" means "capable of attaining the desired result consistently and without undue risk or effort". This means that some weapons might be technically capable of killing a target, but be ineffective nonetheless. For example, unguided shoulder-fired antitank rockets are ineffective air-defense weapons. Yes, they CAN kill a helicopter in certain circumstances, as proven at the Battle of Bakara Market, but that does not mean they are effective as an ADA weapon. GAU-8 can, under very strict criteria, disable a modern tank, but it is unlikely that any given attack will produce a kill, and the attack method required is difficult, prone to failure, and extremely dangerous for the aircraft. THAT MEANS IT IS INEFFECTIVE. Your failure to understand and address the entire argument presented, does not equal our failure to "comprehend" the capabilities of GAU-8.

 

Perhaps you still need some help here:

Effective:

[ih-fek-tiv]

adjective

1. adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intended or expected result: effective teaching methods; effective steps toward peace.

2. actually in operation or in force; functioning: The law becomes effective at midnight.

 

Is GAU-8 "adequate to accomplish the purpose" of killing tanks? Will a GAU-8 run generally "produce the intended or expected result" of killing a tank? The answer, of course, is a resounding NO. Please, tell me again how the scant possibility of maybe getting a perfect shot into the engine grill from extremely close ranges comprises "effective"? Particularly considering that 70+% of the rounds fired statistically miss the target tank entirely, the engine grill comprises perhaps 5-8% the visible surface area of the tank from the rear aspect, and the only shots that have been demonstrated to actually kill modern tanks that way were fired by rounds with 80+ mm RHAe penetration of energy, meaning that the GAU-8 would have to be... how close to be equivalent in delivered kinetic energy, now?

 

Oh, right, the GAU-8 only delivers sufficient kinetic energy to perforate:

76mm at 300 meters

 

Now, I suppose maybe I did not understand your definition of "effective". Perhaps you consider "effective" to mean that a weapon can kill a given target only when using <300m-range, rear-quarter shot into a tiny spot on a potentially moving, potentially hull-down target situated in among ground clutter, where gun dispersion statistically requires >600 rounds fired onto the target from under 300 meters, all the while right in the heart of engagement of every ADA system known to man. Rounds required calculated by live-fire flight testing hit rate percentages from earlier in the thread, multiplied by the relative size of the engine grill compared to overall size of tank. Pretty sure the number of rounds that can be fired between 300 meters and ramming the tank is less than 600 rounds; this would mean multiple passes would be statistically required. But, sure, if that counts as "effective" in your book, then I concede: by your definition, the GAU-8 is effective against modern armor.

 

On the technical side, you may wish to read up on the difference between "fluid" and "ductile". For that matter, super-high-speed x-ray video of HEAT warheads detonating are out there on the web, and you can in fact SEE that it's not a fluid; it in fact breaks up into multiple particles. You can also SEE that the armor spall is comprised of particles, not a fluid. "Behaves like" a fluid. Not "is" a fluid. "Behaves like", as in "turns into small particles which move out of the way of the penetrator, like you would expect a fluid to do".

 

If you want to get all semantic about it, metals "behave like a fluid" when you punch an awl through them at 0.000001 kilometers an hour using a hydraulic press. Some of the material "flows" out of the way of the awl point, because METAL IS DUCTILE. There's nothing "magic" about KE penetrators or HEAT jets; they do not "turn metal liquid", they just push it out of the way, EXACTLY THE SAME WAY A KNIFE BLADE OR CROSSBOW BOLT DOES, they just do it in a much more rapid timeframe.

 

Oh, and ceramics are not used in tanks due to their thermal durability. They are used for the same reason they are used in SAPI plates: because they are very hard, and because they very effectively absorb kinetic energy by dispersing it through their structure. Ceramic armors are *designed* to shatter. That's what makes them so good; they shatter fairly uniformly and absorb a TON of energy in the process of shattering. That kinetic energy has to go somewhere; ceramics divert it into breaking apart the internal bonds in the ceramic. Also, the shattered remnants are highly abrasive and serve to erode and break up the projectile. This even applies to HEAT warheads, because HEAT "jets" are, in fact, just a type of projectile. A super, super fast projectile indeed, but they are nothing more than extremely high-velocity long-rod penetrators made out of rather soft metal. They are not plasma, they are not liquid, they are not molten, and their penetrative abilities have nothing to do with "melting" or "burning" anything.

Edited May 16, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

Again you display an inability read what is actually written. Sure ceramics do well against projectile going slow too, ONCE, then it cracks and loses much of its effectiveness. That's why TANKS aren't made entirely out of ceramics. In tanks layers of ceramics are used in between plates of regular RHA and that because being highly heat resistant they don't behave like a liquid when struck by high velocity projectiles and their retained hardness helps break up the penetrator be it a long rod or copper jet.

 

You're right, I must have been just too stupid to possibly comprehend when you wrote:

 

Todays MBT armors are of the composite type to better resist modern super high velocity APFSDS-T rounds. The extreme heat developed upon impact by these rounds makes metals behave like fluids. To combat this ultra hard & heat resistant ceramic layers are mixed in between layers of RHA.

 

The effectiveness against rounds going slower than ~1200 m/s remains largely unchanged though IIRC.

 

Because you clearly did not just falsely claim that ceramics have minimal or no effect against projectiles under 1200 m/s impact velocity

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Hummingbird]

Hahaha, I don't even need to respond to so much nonesense, you crack me up ^^

[Tirak]

Hahaha, I don't even need to respond to so much nonesense, you crack me up ^^

 

[Hummingbird]

Moving on this was the 25mm APDS-T ammunition I was looking at:

 

 

and the penetrator:

 

As one can see this looks very similar to the PGU-14 except for the fact that the PGU is a full caliber round, i.e. it doesn't feature the discarding "shoe" (Sabot) to fill out the bore as on the 25mm APDS round:

 

This is possibly what the A-10 pilot Lynn Taylor bases his comment on.

 

Either that or the ability of the later APFSDS round (not the APDS one above) to defeat sloped armor might not be as good as the 30mm PGU-14 (?)

 

The only penetration data for the 25mm APFSDS I could find lists a performance of 56mm at 1 km at a 30 deg impact angle (76mm @ 0 deg by Zaloga). This is very similar to the static performance of the PGU-14 within 1 km.

Edited May 16, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

 

Yes, really. The guy is arguing with a ghost.

 

1. I never claimed that 30mm PGU-14 was/is more effective than 25mm APFSDS

2. I never claimed that the GAU-8 fired APFSDS rounds, I asked because I honestly didn't know (don't ever do that!!)

3. I never even mentioned the difference in drag between full caliber & sub caliber long rod projectiles

4. I never said ceramics didn't work against slow moving bullets, I said "the effectiveness against rounds moving slower than 1200 m/s remains largely unchanged though IIRC"

 

These are all things he's made up, i.e. not a person I am going to waste time arguing with.

 

Here's what I've said:

 

1. The 30mm GAU-8 CAN destroy a modern tank, at both 3 & 30 deg attack angles at up to 1,000 m (sometimes perhaps even further depending on the tank).

2. Ceramics are used in tank armour to combat the enormous amount of heat & pressure generated on impact by todays super high velocity AP munitions that makes armor behave like a liquid upon impact.

 

OutOnTheOP's ridiculous assertion that little heat is generated by modern AP munition (esp. HEAT rounds which litterally project a molten jet of metal inside the tank) upon impact is quite laughable, but I guess he just missed that large flash & shower of sparks you will see when witnessing an APFSDS projectile impact armour.

 

Incase you're wondering what it looks like:

 

Another view:

 

 

 

Yeah... that's not hot at all right? :doh:

Edited May 16, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Sweep]

(some text and a lot of really cool pictures)

 

Those pics are cool, man, thanks for putting them up! :thumbup:

[OutOnTheOP]

Moving on this was the 25mm APDS-T ammunition I was looking at:

 

 

and the penetrator:

 

As one can see this looks very similar to the PGU-14 except for the fact that the PGU is a full caliber round, i.e. it doesn't feature the discarding "shoe" (Sabot) to fill out the bore as on the 25mm APDS round:

 

This is possibly what the A-10 pilot Lynn Taylor bases his comment on.

 

Either that or the ability of the later APFSDS round (not the APDS one above) to defeat sloped armor might not be as good as the 30mm PGU-14 (?)

 

The only penetration data for the 25mm APFSDS I could find lists a performance of 56mm at 1 km at a 30 deg impact angle (76mm @ 0 deg by Zaloga). This is very similar to the static performance of the PGU-14 within 1 km.

 

Clearly M791 APDS-T, which has not been the standard war load since the mid 90s. Not to mention, I don't care what ammunition you were thinking of, because I explicitly and repeatedly stated M919 by type designation. If you were too lazy to so much as google "M919 apfsds", then I am afraid I cannot solve your ignorance problem for you.

[Hummingbird]

Those pics are cool, man, thanks for putting them up! :thumbup:

 

You're welcome Sweep :)

Edited May 16, 2016 by Hummingbird
typo: You're not your :P

[OutOnTheOP]

Moving on this was the 25mm APDS-T ammunition I was looking at:

 

As one can see this looks very similar to the PGU-14 except for the fact that the PGU is a full caliber round, i.e. it doesn't feature the discarding "shoe" (Sabot) to fill out the bore as on the 25mm APDS round:

 

The only penetration data for the 25mm APFSDS I could find lists a performance of 56mm at 1 km at a 30 deg impact angle (76mm @ 0 deg by Zaloga). This is very similar to the static performance of the PGU-14 within 1 km.

 

Clearly M791 APDS-T, which has not been the standard war load since the mid 90s. Not to mention, I don't care what ammunition you were thinking of, because I explicitly and repeatedly stated M919 by type designation. If you were too lazy to so much as google "M919 apfsds", then I am afraid I cannot solve your ignorance problem for you. So, what, you felt the need to delberately misrepresent what I said in order to sidestep the fact that you were pulling "facts" out of your fifth point of contact again?

 

Let me re-iterate.

 

1) I stated GAU-8 was ineffective against tanks

2) You state that GAU-8 is effective, and as proof that it can penetrate the engine grill and disable a modern tank, you use as an example the fact that a Bushmaster cannon managed to penetrate the engine grill from extremely short range. Implicit to this argument is that the terminal effects of GAU-8 PGU-14 fired from combat distances are comparable to the terminal effects of M919 fired from extremely short range (it was under 50 meters, if I recall correctly).

3) If, in fact, GAU-8 PGU-14 does NOT have comparable terminal effects to the M919, then the comparison is void, and the fact that M919 can do it serves as no proof that PGU14 can. (otherwise, I could just say "M829A3 120mm APFSDS can kill a T90 through the mantlet, therefore 9mm ball ammunition can kill a T90 through the mantlet. See how that's bad logic? If A does not equal B, then results for A are not representative of results for B). Better aerodynamic drag is the *reason* M919 is so superior to PGU14, and through it's superiority, renders moot any attempt to say "if 25mm can, so can GAU-8!". THAT is why the comparison with 25mm is important, and THAT is how you HAVE indirectly claimed PGU14 is comparable to M919. It is not. Stop trying to draw conclusions on PGU14's capabilities from the real-world performance of M919

4) You have attempted to "win" the debate through presenting yourself as an expert on the terminal effects of KE shot. However, you have undercut your "expertise" multiple times by failing to understand or comprehend basic features of the projectiles in question.

5) You have incorrectly stated the mechanism through which ceramic armor works. As best I can tell, you deliberately did this in order to retroactively explain why a slower, larger-diameter PGU14 projectile would be more effective than a faster, smaller-diameter M919 (in complete defiance of all known physics)

6) You persist in claiming that ceramic armor is significant because of thermal properties (which is incorrect), and post non sequitur images to "prove" that HEAT rounds use thermal energy as their defeat mechanism. Patently false. I could post photos of big fiery muzzle flashes from a tank cannon firing APFSDS, too, but that doesn't prove that thermal energy is the defeat mechanism there, either: the tank cannon uses a combustion reaction to launch APFSDS, and a HEAT warhead uses a combustion reaction to launch a copper penetrator. Both of those use the kinetic energy of the penetrator as the defeat mechanism; the "flames" are purely incidental.

7) like a complete ass, you have again attempted to put words in my mouth. I never said HEAT rounds generate no thermal energy, I said that thermal energy was not the defeat mechanism. HEAT warheads do not defeat armor by heating it up. They defeat it by hitting it with a high-velocity projectile of ductile metallic liner which defeats the armor through intense kinetic energy and pressure. You know... EXACTLY what your mis-applied quotes you haphazardly threw out said.

Edited May 16, 2016 by OutOnTheOP