A-10's GAU-8 is inefficient against any main battle tank

[Wilde]

Old thread is old.

 

But one quick remark from me on the topic. I served my military duty in a tank battalion for the German Bundeswehr. We were equipped with Leopard2 MBTs. And there were only 4 weapons systems, that were seriously considered dangerous to us:

- air to ground missiles

- ground to ground missiles (such as the MILAN)

- anti tank mines

- hostile MBTs

 

A gun even as huge as the GAU-8 was not considered a serious threat. But the scenario is hypothetical anyways. On a real battlefield there are not just MBTs. There are also motorized/mechanized infantry units, artillery units, various kinds of APCs and so on. Non of those have platings similar to MBTs. So to them a GAU-8 or anything similar would be devastating.

Besides that, a MBT is not built to take on any airborne weapon system. It's purpose is to take on infantry units and other MBTs. If a tank commander finds himself in a position where he is being attacked by ground attack planes repeatedly he or his boss must have done something wrong earlier in the process..

 

;)

[Xelos]

Here's the interesting report I've found:

 

Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

 

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

 

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential.

 

I also want to point, that T-62 tank is toooo far away not so well-armoured, as T-80UD (for better compare imagine abilities of MiG-17 and MiG-29S -- the same here;) )

 

The situation doesn't change if you try the high angle attack -- from that position armour have better abilities to resist the penetrating rounds because of 30-45 degrees angle, while low-angle fire all shells going up 90 degrees to the side-hull and side-turret of the tank and have much better penetration ability. So this concludes, that GAU-8 have no any chance to bring even serious damages, but only could make alone tank immovable, if all fire power goes to the engine hull area from rear with the high angle attack.

 

So the only left opportunity to fight tanks is Mavericks and bombs -- GAU-8 is only for light-armoured and other light ground targets.

 

So I'm interested in LOMAC west-community position about this thread -- what do you think if LOMAC's GAU-8 could not be able to destroy tanks? Well, I know this is very hard to imagine, that such a power, which have GAU-8, could be not enough to destroy tanks, but if we are talking about simulating this feature must implemented in LOMAC in future projects, like should be implemented the remove of Kh-25MP from simple Su-25 in Flaming Cliffs project :)

 

Hey, was doing some research on topic of Gau-8 (relating to ground vehicles) and found this and wanted to chime in. Thought the conversation was interesting but it doesn't seem like the individuals discussing report actually read the report in detail. Don't mean to resurrect an old topic but you can find the actual study done back in 1979 here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf)

 

First these aren't T-62s these are M-47s used to simulate T-62s but that isn't the main issue at hand. Out of the potentially ~1300 rounds on board, per the test the pilot fired only 174 rounds at 10 M-47 targets (10 passes) or 13%. It only takes one perforation to to do significant damage. Take a look at Table A-I on page 40 of the report, of the 174 rounds fired at the 10 targets about 52% impacted a target, of those there was 30 perforations. I'd find it more likely that a modern A-10 pilot would fire many more rounds per tank vs modern tanks to increase probability of killing one. How confident would you feel to have an A-10 strafe you in a modern tank from side or rear and fire 175-200 rounds at you? Me not very... Keep in mind the fire related estimates were considered conservative since the target engines and systems were not running to circulate fuel and oil. (page7)

 

Seems like quite an effective back-up weapon to kill and disable tanks after the primary weapons have been expended (AGMs, cluster bombs).

Edited September 11, 2015 by Xelos

[Flogger23m]

Old thread is old.

 

But one quick remark from me on the topic. I served my military duty in a tank battalion for the German Bundeswehr. We were equipped with Leopard2 MBTs. And there were only 4 weapons systems, that were seriously considered dangerous to us:

- air to ground missiles

- ground to ground missiles (such as the MILAN)

- anti tank mines

- hostile MBTs

 

A gun even as huge as the GAU-8 was not considered a serious threat. But the scenario is hypothetical anyways. On a real battlefield there are not just MBTs. There are also motorized/mechanized infantry units, artillery units, various kinds of APCs and so on. Non of those have platings similar to MBTs. So to them a GAU-8 or anything similar would be devastating.

Besides that, a MBT is not built to take on any airborne weapon system. It's purpose is to take on infantry units and other MBTs. If a tank commander finds himself in a position where he is being attacked by ground attack planes repeatedly he or his boss must have done something wrong earlier in the process..

 

;)

 

Surely artillery to?

 

As for the GAU-8, its ineffective against modern MBTs. Use the AGM-65.

[Deezle]

I find it's plenty effective, the problem comes when you get close enough to actually destroy one, the other tanks are likely to fill you full of holes in short order. I've practiced a lot and still take hits from the tanks all the time on gun runs, I can dodge Shilkas no problem.

[FanBoy2006.01]

It is my understanding that the GAU-8 (As with canon on any missile or bomb laden fighter/bomber.), have always been a secondary weapon.

This is only to be used when other weapons have been exhausted.

Yes the A-10 is designed around the Avenger. No it is not likely to be the first weapon used during close air support.

 

Also it have a max effective range of 1200m (I think.). It is not going to be easy to fire a machine gun from your unbuttoned tank at that range at a A-10 traveling at a couple of hundred knots. Also the A-10 is also armoured. So your Dishka or Browning might not deal enough damage to save your hide.

 

The report also said that important tank stuff got fubared even if the tanks didn't get knocked out.

So Imagine sitting in your latest MBT while your reactive armour, laser detection sensors, standoff missile defense system, CITV, etc. take 30mm DU and HE rounds.

It is going to make things less fun when you are facing enemy ground forces.

 

I think USAF doctrine should be studied before one say that the GAU-8 is ineffective against any MBT.

It can take the tank out of the battle, even if it does not get knocked out.

Also, I read that six penetrations from GAU-8 will knock out a tank.

 

Lastly, the GAU-8 have already knocked out many tanks in battle.

Edited September 14, 2015 by FanBoy2006.01

[Snoopy]

It is my understanding that the GAU-8 (As with canon on any missile or bomb laden fighter/bomber.), have always been a secondary weapon.

 

Wrong

[LFCChameleon_Silk]

I find it's plenty effective, the problem comes when you get close enough to actually destroy one, the other tanks are likely to fill you full of holes in short order. I've practiced a lot and still take hits from the tanks all the time on gun runs, I can dodge Shilkas no problem.

 

thats why as a mission designer I never use "random" or "excellent" on a tank, its no fun to punish players trying to gun run a terminator tank.

 

is it realistic (maybe not?!?) but it makes for a much more thrilling mission enviroment.

 

if you wanna talk about ineffective take a look at the AP rounds on a KA50.

 

here:

[Darkwolf]

Nope. A10 primary weapon is NOT the gau8 and it will just not fire that much round either.

 

during gulf war, A10 had an hard deck of 10000+ for a good part of the conflict and rounds fired over all the conflict were 100/plane/sortie. They mostly used missiles and bomb. Data comes from the usaf report.

nowaday usage in small counterinsurgency "wars" isn't demosntrative of anything except it would be a perfect COIN plane if it wasn't that expensive. Take real report from large wars if you want an opinon.

[WelshZeCorgi]

I find that for MBTs, diving down at a steeper angle on them really makes a difference. I don't know if DCS simulates angled armor and its ballistic properties, but it at the very least gives you a slightly bigger target profile and prevents the MG on the MBT from firing back while you're gunning. That being said, it's like a 60+ degree dive and the high g pullout is kinda rough. And it's too easy to accidently overcommit a second or two in your gun run and turn your gun run into a kamakazi strike.

 

Maybe 20 years from now, they'll extend the A-10 program again and shoehorn a more powerful Gat and call it an A-10D. That'd be quite a kick, in my opinion.

 

Edited September 16, 2015 by WelshZeCorgi

[DirtyFret]

Nope. A10 primary weapon is NOT the gau8 and it will just not fire that much round either.

 

during gulf war, A10 had an hard deck of 10000+ for a good part of the conflict and rounds fired over all the conflict were 100/plane/sortie. They mostly used missiles and bomb.[..]

 

You are correct about that average. Although as I understood the hard deck limit was only in effect in the early stages of the operation.

 

Additionally I would argue that a plain rounds/sortie is not really a solid way to asses whether a weapon is a "secondary" or "primary". It depends on the allocated task , targets, expected threats and so on.

 

Some would argue that the AGM-65 was the main weapon but about 4800 AGM-65 were shot in the whole operation by A-10's. Making the average 0.6 Mavericks per mission. Someone might say that that isn't a lot. Estimates are that around ~90% of the total (~5300) Mavericks launched during Gulf War were by A10's.

 

[...]

nowaday usage in small counterinsurgency "wars" isn't demosntrative of anything except it would be a perfect COIN plane if it wasn't that expensive. Take real report from large wars if you want an opinon.

 

I am slightly going off-topic here but I am confused about the expense part you are referring to. According to a plethora of sources the A10-C is one of the cheapest planes as a unit and including its "ownership" cost (operation cost/hour).

[fltsimbuff]

Nope. A10 primary weapon is NOT the gau8 and it will just not fire that much round either.

 

during gulf war, A10 had an hard deck of 10000+ for a good part of the conflict and rounds fired over all the conflict were 100/plane/sortie. They mostly used missiles and bomb. Data comes from the usaf report.

nowaday usage in small counterinsurgency "wars" isn't demosntrative of anything except it would be a perfect COIN plane if it wasn't that expensive. Take real report from large wars if you want an opinon.

 

It depends on how "Primary Armament" is defined. The A-10 doesn't always carry Mavericks, or Rockets, or Dumb Bombs or any of its other armaments, but Always carries the GAU-8 into battle. So if you define primary armament as the weapon it always carries, which is capable in the CAS mission, that would be the GAU-8.

 

Try googling "A-10 Primary Armament" and you will see the GAU-8 being called that many many times. So if you are talking common-usage "Primary Armament" that is also the GAU-8.

 

If you were to look up the M-2 Bradley, its "Primary Armament" is considered to be its 25mm bushmaster, although it carries TOWs that are more effective in the anti-tank role. Why? The turret was designed into the the vehicle. Same for the GAU-8.

 

So if you are going to say that the GAU-8 is not the A-10's "Primary Armament" then answer me this... What IS?

[LFCChameleon_Silk]

I would say whatever it uses the most although I can see exactly what your saying. I would go out on a limb and maybe say smart munitions as a whole.

 

for instance the F-14 has a cannon but its primary armament would be the phoenix in my eyes.... but I think its a bit of misnomer to say "primary armament" since that would be different based on its task at that time.

 

so therefore... there would have to be many primary armaments depending on whats going on..... :/ this thread just blew my mind :pilotfly:

[Cool Breeze]

I am slightly going off-topic here but I am confused about the expense part you are referring to. According to a plethora of sources the A10-C is one of the cheapest planes as a unit and including its "ownership" cost (operation cost/hour).

 

You could consider it much cheaper and effective against say high subsonic or supersonic fighters or ground attack aircraft. Take into consideration many much smaller South American or African countries. The A-10C would be like taking on a front line fighter! There are many cost effective COIN aircraft that operate in the thousands of dollars to operate vs. the hundreds of thousands, just an example not a statistic, for the A-10C. The Super Tucanos or the AT-6 Texan 2. It's still in the flying prototype stage, but the Textron Scorpion could certainly be a contender to much smaller air forces. In lower threat environments for smaller force countries these would look like much better options for cost and maintainability. Again off topic, sorry.

[Dudikoff]

Some would argue that the AGM-65 was the main weapon but about 4800 AGM-65 were shot in the whole operation by A-10's. Making the average 0.6 Mavericks per mission. Someone might say that that isn't a lot. Estimates are that around ~90% of the total (~5300) Mavericks launched during Gulf War were by A10's.

 

IIRC, the Mavericks on the A-10's were pretty much exclusively used for night missions (as one of the A-10 squadrons deployed flew night missions only). If that was in fact so, it should be taken into consideration in those calculations. I might be wrong though as it was quite a while since I read those books, but the fact that would still remain is that in those night missions they were the only weapon used by the A-10's.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Dudikoff

[Ripcord03]

11 YEARS this thread has been going on... i love these opinion debates lol *grabs Popcorn and waits*

 

first 13 pages of this thread is 45 mins of my life i could have spent reading important things, or even better flying in game lol either way, was interesting to find some new "facts" and lots of opinions.

[Sierra99]

Here's the interesting report I've found:

 

Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

 

I'm not sure citing a report from 1979 is an accurate measure of the capabilities of the GAU-8 or the A-10. I am not arguing the that the findings were absolutely correct at the time of the report. I believe the improvements to the gun, ammunition and aircraft over the years have mitigated the issues listed. That combined with imperial evidence, use in combat has proven it is more than capable of destroying tanks.

[Sierra99]

You could consider it much cheaper and effective against say high subsonic or supersonic fighters or ground attack aircraft. Take into consideration many much smaller South American or African countries. The A-10C would be like taking on a front line fighter! There are many cost effective COIN aircraft that operate in the thousands of dollars to operate vs. the hundreds of thousands, just an example not a statistic, for the A-10C. The Super Tucanos or the AT-6 Texan 2. It's still in the flying prototype stage, but the Textron Scorpion could certainly be a contender to much smaller air forces. In lower threat environments for smaller force countries these would look like much better options for cost and maintainability. Again off topic, sorry.

 

Unlike smaller South American and African countries the mission of the US Air Force and the A-10C involves much more than quelling civilian uprisings and the occasional border conflicts with an angry warlord. Comparing the needs of the US military with the needs of smaller countries is faulted logic. The A-10 is not a COIN Aircraft. It's CAS. Two completely different missions.

 

Back on topic...with regard to MAVs during the Gulf War, I think the number would have been much higher if they hadn't been using them as their "Targeting Pods"

[Quent]

I think we're drifting off topic here. But let me share my input :

 

Dear Mayh3M,

 

You are referring to statements and reports emitted in the 70s. To my mind, it is irrelevant as of now and here is why :

 

The GAU-8 fires 30 mm rounds (shells). In real life it can shoot four types of rounds (Some suit more for AA targets and others for AG) : Expanding rounds (soft point, semi-armored) for infantry and lightly protected targets; Full Metal Jacket (FMJ, can be Tungsten ore) rounds with a higher piercing capability; Incendiary rounds; And for larger and well protected targets, Uranium Depleted Rounds. Do you have any idea on what an Uranium Depleted Round does to a main battle tank? It is twice as dense as lead yet really sharp and it goes supersonic (five times the speed of sound), ensuring top notch penetration, whatever the angle (almost, and we will see why). Once it makes contact with metal or armored plates, it shaters them like glass because the denser a projectile is, the harder the impact will be. It goes through easily (especially on flanks and from behind) and the difference of pression (psi) it creates between the outside of a tank and the inside whilst going off kills instantly every living being operating the vehicle. Should they survive that, they will eventually die in terrible ways, such as burning alive in the slightly radioactive oven that the tank has become.

 

Most of the time, anti-tank rounds are Tungsten rounds : Those rounds are really dense and hard however they shatter and mushroom once upon impacting with heavy armored surfaces, so how does a DU Round work and succeed exactly? : Well, you have an armored round containing a Depleted Uranium Core. Depleted Uranium is known to be pyrophoric - which means it starts igniting once it becomes exposed to air, melting and burning away the surface it impacts with. Once it penetrates inside, the pressure and the temperature are reaching such a high level that everything located inside the targeted vehicle dies.

 

Know that Depleted Uranium Rounds were specifically created to deal with the ever evolving armoring technology seen on tanks nowadays.

Hence the fact that the A-10 is a favored tank buster, precisely thanks to its GAU-8 and then its ability to carry a humongous load of weapon systems, all this versatility for a mere price of 11.8 million USD, which is ridiculously low for such a long lasting and effective air asset. (If you want a comparison, the price of an F-16 varies between some 14 million USD and 19 million USD depending on its version and block. Add to that less longevity and all the maintenance that goes with it compared to an A-10, cf. engine overhaul more regularly).

 

In the end, it has never really been question of the GAU-8 itself being ineffective against heavily armored targets (or medium like the soviet T-62 tank) but rather the ineffectiveness of a certain type of ammunition.

 

I hope this helped.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Quent

[WelshZeCorgi]

After a bit more experimentation, high angle diving attacks increase the effectiveness of the GAU immensely. So if you're diving at a T-80U at a shallow, 10-20 degree angle, you're not going to do much other than wrecking all the sensors, explosive armor and other systems that the tank relies on during combat, but since DCS doesn't model that, the tank is unaffected. I usually spend my entire CM load and usually the tank lives, sometimes the tank dies.

 

However, if I am diving at the same T-80U at say, 45 degrees or more I find that I only need 300-600 rounds to light it afire and I can do it consistently.

 

That being said, this is with the A-10C that has the PAC-1 simulated. The A-10A doesn't have the PAC-1 simulated, which would hurt your accuracy in a sustained burst.

[Quent]

Anyway, the performance in game is altered by the type of ammunition you are using and many other factors. In real life diving at a T-80U tank at a "shallow 10-20 degree angle" with DU rounds would totally incapacitate the tank.

 

The initial debate took place around the 'poor' real life performance of the GAU-8 against main battle tanks according to reports from the 70s.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Quent

[cichlidfan]

Anyway, the performance in game is altered by the type of ammunition you are using. In real life diving at a T-80U tank at a "shallow 10-20 degree angle" with DU rounds would totally incapacitate the tank.

 

In real life, diving at a 10-20 degree angle, will probably get you killed.

[Quent]

In real life, diving at a 10-20 degree angle, will probably get you killed.

 

 

Not if you have altitude and your aircraft can withstand the Gs. Anyway we're drifting off topic again, we're not talking about whether it is reasonable or not for one's safety to dive at 10-20 degree angle but rather the damage a round fired from such an angle could do to a main battle tank. And it has been proven it can perform quite well even from a shallow angle, it just depends on the type of round you use.

Edited September 28, 2015 by Quent

[WelshZeCorgi]

Not if you have altitude and your aircraft can withstand the Gs. Anyway we're drifting off topic again, we're not talking about whether it is reasonable or not for one's safety to dive at 10-20 degree angle but rather the damage a round fired from such an angle could do to a main battle tank. And it has been proven it can perform quite well even from a shallow angle, it just depends on the type of round you use.

 

If the source is reliable, then it would seem that the GAU-8 is not as deadly ingame as its real life counterpart. Using the CM load, I would assume DPU rounds would be in the mix, yet it's pretty difficult to kill the T80U in anything other than a very steep, top down dive.

[Quent]

If the source is reliable, then it would seem that the GAU-8 is not as deadly ingame as its real life counterpart. Using the CM load, I would assume DPU rounds would be in the mix, yet it's pretty difficult to kill the T80U in anything other than a very steep, top down dive.

 

 

I think it's not the modeling of the GAU-8 but rather, again, the modeling of the ammunitions. I do not think the A-G mix includes DU rounds but instead just tungsten rounds.

[Darkwolf]

Where on hell would you use he gau-8 to begin with? As a reminder, hard deck are in effect in wr, mening your little gau-8 is resrained at firing from ABOVE 12000 meters. Unless all shorad stuff is destroyed and you are fihting in the desert, your gau-8 is just useless untill the war h come dow to COIN. :music_whistling: (check irak report for more info)

 

sorry for typo, i'm in my bath, with that damn tiny tablt keyboard :P)