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

[Skywall23]

Mayhem if the T-80UD, T-72 and T-62 are sooooooooo resistent, what about the T-90?lmao, dont tell me , it can destroy an army! :roll:

[Mayh3M]

Skywall23

T-90 armoured not too much bette, than T-80U. Many specialists give their votes to T-80U, instead of T-90... T-90 is deap modernized T-72BM... :roll:

[GGTharos]

Mayhem, you're wrong.

 

There WAS a hit on an M1 that did cause panel blow out, and one of the crew was killed, but the rest survived. The safety measures DO work. THey don't GUARANTEE that everyone will live, but they DO work. You won't see an M1's turret going into orbit like a T-72's.

 

Asfor hitting the tanks, I've already told you - A-10's lately have been taking some steep dives to hit'em, so they WILL be hitting the air intakes, which ARE large.

 

You're right that the spread is big and only a few rounds will hit the target, but this isn't a problem - it's still an effective weapon, it's just not the -primary- one. No one's surprised that the A-10's gun can't do as much damage as the Maverick's 50+kg warhead ;)

 

I mean, T-80 and M1 can trade shots with SABOTs at 800m and fail to penetrate multiple times, so I don't see a 30mm getting through the front armor any time soon.

 

BUT THE GRILLS ARE STILL THERE AND THEY WILL BE HIT.

 

You forget that people adjust their tactics to compensate for these problems, so please, cut it out already.

[D-Scythe]

This thread hit the dumps two pages ago...

 

Mayhem, I'm not going to even reply to your PM, even if you do send it. There's no way I'm going to accept your opinion (and that's exactly what it is) on what happened in the Gulf War over all the text books, history notes, war stories, etc.

 

You come across as the type of guy that claims he is knowledgeable, and feels that its his right to impose his opinions on others and dismiss all other facts as either propaganda or fiction. Oh, and who believes that a darned lucky shot, such as a PGU-14B round going through a T-80 engine, is impossible because the T-80 is so well built that it just radiates an aura of anti-luck energy. :roll:

 

Frankly, I couldn't care more for your credentials...You could be building T-80s, but just because you say something is so doesn't mean it is so. Even Einstein can't change history.

 

Next up, this thread will be discussing how NO Russian tanks have been lost in the Chechen Wars (and how all reports that they have been are fiction or propaganda), and how that since M1s have been disabled by golden BB RPGs, that therefore Russian tanks are both better designed and can withstand more punishment :roll:

[Mayh3M]

There WAS a hit on an M1 that did cause panel blow out, and one of the crew was killed, but the rest survived.

The point is that explodes only one shell -- than yes. As I said, this measure works as proper, but do you really think, that 30mm steel plate safe the crew's lifes from such a huge detonation of !40! shells? I've talked some time ago to one US millitary, that working on testing the ground vehgicles in battlefild... they have some captured iraqi weapons and tanks. One day they decide to test M1 and shoot right to the rear part of the turret from AT-3 "Sagger" to the ammo placement -- the detonation was catastrophic and turns the tank to the mass of wreckage! Nothing can survive being close to such amazing explosion. You have to understand it -- blow up pannels and blast doors ARE TO PRETEND such huge explosion, but they ARE DO NOT SAFE FROM IT! And there of course lots of events in Iraq, when this measure works good enough -- it pretend the detonation of whole ammo storage by vectoring of explosion of only one shell to the up through the blow up panels...

 

No one's surprised that the A-10's gun can't do as much damage as the Maverick's 50+kg warhead

AFK

Hellfire have a less warhead charge equivalent, than 50 kg's, but it's more efficient ;) So don't compare the HEAT charges by the weight of the explosion set up -- there are lots of parameters you have to calculate :wink:

 

BUT THE GRILLS ARE STILL THERE AND THEY WILL BE HIT.

Unfortunately yes... but I don't think, that it should help to A-10. The maximum effcet it could reach is make tank unmovable, by hiting the engine's area... And it's still cannot destroy the tank... That's what is my suggestion -- A-10 and Su-25 could make MBT's (do not include here M-48 and M-60) only unmovable, while engaging them only with canon :!:

[Skywall23]

A marine M1 survided 13 RPG shots D-Scythe ;). Now thats a record. :)

[GGTharos]

... Mayhem, are you telling me they shot a perfectly good, 4-million dollar tank in the back of the turret with a sagger? ;)

 

Dude, yes, the 30mm armor will work. It's the shaped charge effect, ok? It's been -proven- to work, on the blinking battlefield!

 

As for a grill hit, actually, yes, it has a GOOD chance of destroying the tank. Ever seen a tank burn? No?

 

One of the M1's in GF burned to a crisp because an RPG-7 hit the APU fuel tank which spilled into the engine. A grill penetration with an API round will likely ingite one of the fuel lines. BURN! ;)

[D-Scythe]

SkyWall, hehe :D

 

I would expect an M1, Leapard 2A6 or a T-80 to be put through a rain of RPGs on its frontal armour without a scratch. Despite what some may say, it all depends on where the tank gets hit.

 

And yes, the M1 is a very tough tank. At the very least, it would protect its crew, and I think there was only one occasion where an M1 suffered a catastrophic kill, by roadside mines lain one on top of the other (Mayhem will correct me, I'm sure :roll: ). Anyway, a lucky RPG hit will disable any tank (a mobility kill, so to speak), and that's what I was referring too. Various M1s and T-80s in urban combat have been abandoned or destroyed in this fashion.

 

BTW, I highly doubt that U.S. soldiers will fire on one of their M1s, fully loaded with 40 rounds of 120 mm like Mayhem suggested, just to test abandoned Iraqi equipment. Especially with such an old weapon as an AT-3. And for the record, blast doors are designed to redirect explosions, not withstand it, and yes, they do a very good job of protecting the crew, even against an attack from the rear. As I said before, only one M1 so far has suffered a catastrophic kill, where, among other things, its blast doors failed to protect the crew, and that explosion was from below.

 

One of the M1's in GF burned to a crisp because an RPG-7 hit the APU fuel tank which spilled into the engine. A grill penetration with an API round will likely ingite one of the fuel lines. BURN!

 

Lots of M1s burned or were abandoned, such is the intense fire they've been resisting. It's safe to say, though, that close to 100% of the crews involved survived.

[Mayh3M]

Mayhem, are you telling me they shot a perfectly good, 4-million dollar tank in the back of the turret with a sagger?

4 million costs the M1A2

 

In this test take part quite old M1 IP, which is already not costs 4-million $

 

One of the M1's in GF burned to a crisp because an RPG-7 hit the APU fuel tank which spilled into the engine. A grill penetration with an API round will likely ingite one of the fuel lines. BURN!

Currently you are talking about the DShK heavy 12.7 mm machine gun hit the APU of M1A2 from rear of the turret. This APU is outside the main armor and it is absolutely undefended, that's why it was so vulnerable.

 

Lots of M1s burned or were abandoned, such is the intense fire they've been resisting. It's safe to say, though, that close to 100% of the crews involved survived.

Well, it is hardly to say anything, because US reports always get me in confuse. They are at lest lowering casualties about 1.5. But let this thread to be in another topic :wink:

 

Especially with such an old weapon as an AT-3.

Do you see some trouble for AT-3 in penetrating the side or rear of M1's armour? :wink:

[D-Scythe]

Do you see some trouble for AT-3 in penetrating the side or rear of M1's armour?

 

The trouble I see is why would a few U.S. soldiers decide to shoot up a fully loaded M1 with an ancient weapon that Western Intelligence at the time probably knew everything about.

 

Another thing that I see is since the early M1 (which is completely different from the M1A2 or even the M1A1), as you specified, was the test subject, and wasn't deployed to the Gulf, do you mean to say that the U.S. transported a mulit-million dollar target across the Atlantic to test it out with the well-known AT-3, or did they deploy this Iraqi weapon that they knew everything about to the U.S.?

 

Quite an expensive way to test out something you already know, no? :wink:

 

Well, it is hardly to say anything, because US reports always get me in confuse. They are at lest lowering casualties about 1.5.

 

And what about the Russians and their reports of casualties in the Chechen war? Should we even go there? As I said again and again, propaganda and bias is sorta common on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Your playing with fire here, bro.

[Mayh3M]

The trouble I see is why would a few U.S. soldiers decide to shoot up a fully loaded M1 with an ancient weapon that Western Intelligence at the time probably knew everything about.

I think the reason was to find out, how M1 tanks could resists such hits and how should the blow up panels work with such conditions... :roll:

 

which is completely different from the M1A2 or even the M1A1

Yes... different, but the blast doors and blow up panels haven't change

 

or did they deploy this Iraqi weapon that they knew everything about to the U.S.?

I really don't know the history of each :lol: But those tests were somewhere around Texas (there the man I've asked serving)

 

Let's do not go farther :wink: By the way, Russians are also lowering casualties, but it's changing nothing with our T-62 and A-10 :D :wink:

[Dice]

I’ve never seen this report and it may be correct for this isolated test but to say the GAU-8A is not effective against T-62 tanks based on this is wrong! I will not go into current capabilities but will tell you the A-10 and avenger cannon were proven effective before the aircraft was even allow to be built.

 

In 1973 the USAF pulled 30 million dollars of A-10 funding until the A-10 System Program Office could prove the aircraft/gun combination. Tanks were bought, pulled from scrap-heaps (and refurbished) and given to the US from countries like Israel (captured tanks) and placed in the desert test range outside Nellis AFB NV., at that time this collection of tanks was the third largest the world, not just two like in the above report.

 

The tanks were loaded with a standard load of fuel and ammo (yes standard load) and A-10s attacked them from low, medium, and high angles and altitudes. The GAU-8U’s API round proved highly effective in penetrating and destroying the tanks by both the pyretic effect and by adding an HEI round ever 4th round.

 

I’ll let you guys argue about it current abilities against modern tanks but I will tell you there haven been improvements in the aircraft and the API round itself like, the Teflon ring (on all rounds) which cuts down on muzzle to shell friction and gas pressure lost, better and faster burning power, and the addition of the SAS (Stability Augmentation System) with stabilizes the aircraft with the first detent of the trigger making the hit % higher.

 

My point? The report which started this thread is not reprehensive of the capabilities of the GAU-8A and its ability to destroy T-62 tanks. BTW the A-10 SPO was sure to film the gun tests and the report and film are called the Mcdermott report (I don’t have the report at home). I do have a copy of the test film and I’m including a short clip for your enjoyment……

 

http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/a102.wmv

[GGTharos]

Thank you Dice! :D

[Skywall23]

GAU-8 owned T-62! :twisted:

[Mayh3M]

Dice

Huh... you have proven again my case and 1979 test by this video! :D 8)

 

So let's discribe, what we are see on this video --- the first episode A-10 attacks T-62 with amazingly low persentage of hits(I've count only two hits of the rouf of the turret and one hit to the up of the hull around engine's area of 20-30 shoted 30mm shells), which looks from the first sight very spectacular, with lifting up of much of dust, but what damages it brings to the shooted target -- didn't shown. The second episode is also T-62 --- the same thing here, but you can spot the light pyro effect from the left side of the tank(I suppose it burn some of additional outside fuel tanks without any harm to the whole tank!) -- but the result is again the same -- tank had not burned up(after the dust is flown away it's cleanly to see), maybe only lightly damaged! The third episode -- surprise -- A-10 attacks the M-60 american medium tank with mostly the same result again a spectaculat, 4th one is very short of T-62 and the last one is burning T-62, but actually this one is hardly to discribe from what weapon it have been hit!

 

So, I shall wait this "Mcdermott report" as an another official document, that should contradict with my document --- interesting to see the result of shooting. Actually nobody have proven with facts and current photos the otherside to my opinion(by the way -- I haven't seen any photos of destroyed any tanks by GAU-8 )... :roll:

[D-Scythe]

Just because a tank doesn't look destroyed from the outside doesn't mean it isn't destroyed from the inside. Externally, from those videos, you may not be able to tell if the turret (for example) shifted two inches due to the force of the explosions, or all the internal damage caused by the HE rounds. I wouldn't doubt that in those tanks everything (and everyone) would be cooked inside.

 

In Desert Storm, Coalition Intelligence encountered a similar problem with BDA - Bomb Damage Assessment. While pilots and tape were showing hundreds upon hundreds of Iraqi vehicles destroyed, Intelligence would often report much lower figures than those claimed. Then, when they decided to take a closer look at tanks that have been claimed to be destroyed but appeared not to be, they noticed subtle things like a slight turret shift or misalignment of the gun barrel that proves that the tank has been destroyed.

 

A tank doesn't have to be blown to bits to be destroyed, and I wouldn't imagine the entire structure of a T-62/T-72 being obliterated by PGU-14/B DU rounds unless something vital was hit that triggered off a much larger secondary explosion.

[Mayh3M]

Just because a tank doesn't look destroyed from the outside doesn't mean it isn't destroyed from the inside.

Exactly! That's why I wanna see photos from the inside of the tank, after it been shoted and also some report of damaged inside elements, like engine, or crew compartment :roll: In my document you can see such of report...

[Raploc]

Just because a tank doesn't look destroyed from the outside doesn't mean it isn't destroyed from the inside.

Exactly! That's why I wanna see photos from the inside of the tank, after it been shoted and also some report of damaged inside elements, like engine, or crew compartment :roll: In my document you can see such of report...

 

Would you be so kind to share this information with us ? Not the photo's but a few quote's from the report so that I and the rest can get a better understanding of the report from '79

 

Greetz

 

Raploc

[Mayh3M]

Read the first post! :arrow:

There is overall number of hits, penetrations and what elements was broken or damaged!

[Raploc]

Let me rephrase my question. Please give us more information of that report than was in your first post . You said you had photo's and stuff. Now I understand that maybe you cannot share these photo's , but surely you could give some new quotes from that report?

 

 

Greetz

 

Raploc

[Mayh3M]

Raploc

No... I told, that there is no of such photos, like I had not found any such of these from DS operation and from last war. The all photos you can find of wreckages -- they are destroyed by guided weapons to the weaked zones (rouf, sides, engines, road mines), but there is no any of destroyed by GAU-8 :roll: The report didn't support with any photos too... the text were taken from here:

 

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm

 

It goes under number 8

[Whisper]

OMG some1 dare say r0xx0r US canon cannot blow up every tank on a battlefield! Kill the infidel!

 

Guys, chill out, try to see his PoV : A-10 canon won't make tank explode the way it does in LO when firing at the tank without particular care or rule of engagement. According to the report he produced, it should be able to disable tanks when used in the correct way, ie rear/sides/grid shots disabling targets, not making them explode in a frontal pass.

 

You're too sensitive each time your M1 enter the equation. Unlike some1, badly interpreting his post, stated, he didn't suggest that only A-10 should have difficulties exploding T-80 while M1 will be destroyed by Su-25, he just suggested that AG guns should be less effective against tanks, regardless of their origin, and keeping real differences between guns, ie A-10 > Su-25.

[Mayh3M]

Exactly! :!:

I just add, that even shooting with AG gun at the sides and rear the maximum effect you should reach is only making the tank unmovable! This is right for all tanks, instead of M-48 and M-60 and this is right for all planes you choose... :roll:

[Raploc]

So Mayh3M you are basing this all on these few lines of that report? Wow sorry man, but I'm going with Dice on this one, he has proven more than once that he knows what he's talking about

 

 

Greetz

 

Raploc

[GGTharos]

And see, you're still wrong, because you can easily reach the 'my tank's on fire!' stage doing this. The maximum IS a completely destroyed tank. Thre's no 'limit line' which says 'damage stops here'. This is why the rounds are made to have secondary effects. The point is, you don't /have/ to deal with the heavy front armor when in an aircraft, and you /do not/. You can st it on fire just by shooting at the top.

 

I've seen a number of passes done against tanks, and used correctly, the GAU-8 will hit with more than one or two rounds - you're not going to hit with a truly significant fraction of the whole burst, but the point it is that each and EVERY rounds that hits has a VERY REAL chance at immoilizing or even destroying the tank, when fired with the weak spots in mind.