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

[Mayh3M]

Raploc

I'm basing on this official document :!: This is the fact, that nobody could argue! Like as nobody have brought the contradiction to this report, instead of questionable opinions. Actually Dice had only complete my arguementation with his video.

 

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.

You still have not understood, what is "secondary effect" :roll: :wink: As you have not understood what is "destroyed" tank. Secondary effect is a physical appearance, based on special physical characteristics of Depleted Uranium. As for "destroyed tanks"... well -- how many "destroyed tanks" have you seen? :wink:

 

Thre's no 'limit line' which says 'damage stops here'.

Yes -- there is! :) To completely destroy the tank you have to bomb it with heavy weapons, or make the tank's ammunition to detonate (for example by impact of guided missle with HEAT warhead). Currently GAU-8's damages stops at wheels and some of suspension elements of the T-62 ;)

[GGTharos]

You can hunt for pictures of destroyed tanks yourself.

 

You're still wrong, but it's nice to live in De Nile. ;)

[Raploc]

I'm basing on this official document

No you just quoted an internet page :lol:

 

I hoped you had a real report but you don't.

 

 

Stop rubbing the stain, it just makes it bigger (dutch proverb)

 

 

Greetz

 

Raploc

[Mayh3M]

OK!

Bring me the contradict non_quoted_from_page the REAL document, if you are so smart, so don't believe my document :roll:

[Raploc]

OK!

Bring me the contradict non_quoted_from_page the REAL document, if you are so smart, so don't believe my document :roll:

 

Ok this is my last post on this thread because it's getting boring now. You started this thread with the few lines from a report, I asked you to give me more info because i'm interested and you can't because you have only these few lines from the internet. I don't have the real document or any official document regarding the A-10, but then again I don't pretend to have one.

 

 

Raploc

 

Out! :twisted:

[ARM505]

If the generally highly regarded tank sim 'Steel Beasts' is to be believed (even though the A10, or indeed any aircraft is not modelled there), the GAU 8 AP round will not kill an M1 or equivalent class MBT from the front aspect, and will likely only immobilise it from any other aspect by damaging running gear. I make no claim as to its authenticity, but as I said, it is highly regarded in the (limited) tank sim world - its armour penetration calculations are discussed in a great deal of detail in the docs, and seem well researched. Obviously, severe damage could be done to external APU's, external MG's, optics etc, although just as obviously, tanks do have backups (ie GAS when GPS is out). The 'mission/mobility kill' is what I'd imagine an A10 driver would hope for when facing any modern MBT, which seem to be exceptionally difficult to actually 'kill', requiring heavy weapons. A GAU 8 isn't really a heavy weapon, impressive though it undoubtedly is. My experience is limited to Steel Beasts though. http://www.steelbeasts.com

 

Think I'm going to register there and ask them quick.

[ARM505]

Here's the thread I started at the steelbeasts forum - so far consensus is that an A10 can take out a tank, given good hits and correct aspect attack:

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4290

[Mayh3M]

Let's see, what Paul Lakowski and Vasiliy Fofanov should say there :wink:

 

By the way, look at this topic too :)

 

http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002604.html

[SwingKid]

By the way, look at this topic too :)

 

http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002604.html

 

This same thread links to the "A-10 Coloring book" which I thought would answer the debate:

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_053c.html

 

GAU-8 vs. T-62:

Front armor (hull and turret) - not penetrated ("You will never perforate the tank from this angle")

Turret side armor - not penetrated

Lower side armor below wheel axle (10 inches tall) - penetrated from 7000 feet

Side armor behind wheel - penetrated from 2600 feet

Upper side armor - penetrated from 1500 feet

Gun barrel - penetrated from 2500 feet, tank is combat-incapable

Hull back corner - penetrated from 2500 feet

Turret back corner - penetrated from 3400 feet

Turret back - penetrated from 4500 feet

Hull back - penetrated from 6500 feet ("You can't believe what a number the GAU-8/A round will do to the rear of a T-62")

 

It appears to be in complete agreement with the original post, which says it's better to hit the tank from the side or rear, not from the front. But at the same time, it indicates the GAU-8 is a very efficient and useful weapon for killing such tanks. So, I don't understand the title of the discussion?

 

-SK

[Mayh3M]

Actually the quastion is: how GAU-8 is efficient against any tanks, when the hit ratio is 10% of 1350 shoted shells and only 18% of impacts(2% of shoted) make the almost useless penetrations? :roll: Penetration absolutely doesn't mean the kill of the tank, as I said before -- there must be the also some huge inside damages, which are extremaly low to any inside components...

[SwingKid]

Actually the quastion is: how GAU-8 is efficient against any tanks, when the hit ratio is 10% of 1350 shoted shells and only 18% of impacts(2% of shoted) make the almost useless penetrations? :roll:

 

What is an "almost useless penetration"? If penetrations are not effective to kill the tank, then why carry armor against them?

 

A hit ratio of 10% equals 3 hits per second. If I remember correctly (sorry, no source for this), the Americans concluded that an average of 7 hits are necessary to effectively "mission-kill" the tank, 14 to "completely" kill it - i.e. 2-5 seconds of continuous shooting at the same tank.

 

Excuse, in Russian there is the word "эффективность" which is translated to English as both "effectiveness" and "efficiency" - which do you mean? If we really mean "efficiency," how do we calculate it? By the number of shells needed to destroy the tank? By the cost of those shells, compared to other weapons? By the time require to shoot the necessary number of shells? By destruction of the tank, or it's efficient enough to simply prevent the tank from being able to shoot at friendly equipment? - that is, by the effect on the tank, or the effect on the war?

 

Penetration absolutely doesn't mean the kill of the tank, as I said before -- there must be the also some huge inside damages, which are extremaly low to any inside components...

 

Also, lack of penetration also does not absolutely mean survival of the tank as a fighting unit. If the aiming system, driving mechanism or gun are sufficiently damaged, how will it threaten friendly forces? Multiple tanks were successfully "killed" by 25 mm Bushmaster cannon of M-2 Bradley - with penetration of armor but without catastrophic results. Perhaps, they could have been repaired. So I don't know what does it mean, a "killed" tank - complete vaporisation?

 

Sorry, I really try to understand the title. The theme continues for six pages with heartfelt disagreement, and yet I don't see any big disagreements about the numerical data. It seems like you are all pointing at the same data and just naming it "effective" or "ineffective," without explaining what is the criteria for effectiveness.

 

-SK

[Mayh3M]

If penetrations are not effective to kill the tank, then why carry armor against them?

You are forgeting other excellent targets for this devaice --- there are lots of them(BMPs, BTRs, MTLBs, BMDs, BRDMs any other APC and light armour vehicles you know!)! Why do you so concentrate exactly on tanks? 30mm canons never be an effective weapon against tanks -- such guns intended mostly for the light armour and any other vehicles!

 

the Americans concluded that an average of 7 hits are necessary to effectively "mission-kill" the tank, 14 to "completely" kill it - i.e. 2-5 seconds of continuous shooting at the same tank.

... while the test shows, that even 18 penetrations to a weaked zones is not enought even for hard-breaking such an old tank, like T-62! :lol: :D

 

Excuse, in Russian there is the word "эффективность" which is translated to English as both "effectiveness" and "efficiency" - which do you mean?

Sorry my awful English :oops: I meant "efficiency" тобишь "эффективность" :roll:

 

Multiple tanks were successfully "killed" by 25 mm Bushmaster cannon of M-2 Bradley - with penetration of armor but without catastrophic results.

By the way, Bushmaster's shells have a better penetration characteristics, than GAU-8's. :wink: And of course it is more accurate. Specialists talk about maximum 90mm RHA penetrating at 500 meters, while GAU-8 have only 69mm at 500m and 38mm at 1000 meters :roll:

 

So I don't know what does it mean, a "killed" tank - complete vaporisation?

Complete kill of a tank mean full break out its primary components, which are make this tank impossible to take part in battle action. These components are: engine, main gun with aiming sights, ammunition storage. You can simply eleminate the crew(what's very possible, when engaging with any HEAT weapon), fire up the whole tank, or the catastrophic explosion of ammunition due to the high damages. Noone were reached, during the tests! :!: While you make such damages to a tank, crew simply leave it out(if they still alive), taking the machineguns, because there is no more reason to be still inside the tank. That's it.

 

Sorry, I really try to understand the title. The theme continues for six pages with heartfelt disagreement, and yet I don't see any big disagreements about the numerical data. It seems like you are all pointing at the same data and just naming it "effective" or "ineffective," without explaining what is the criteria for effectiveness.

The point is that I'm breaking the stereotype of the A-10's GAU-8, as some kind of "ripper of the tanks". People very hardly believing me, because of reputation, that was made to that gun. This is ecxellent weapon and it's no doubt about it (as you remember, Russians have the same on MiG-27K -- GSh-30-6 :wink: ), but it is absolutely ineffective against any main battle tank in the world! There are heavy weapons and ATGMs especially for tank-killing missions :!: I hope in a future patches you implement this feature, that mostly should be unliked by people :) But let the things should be, as they are, like you removed R-27AE and like you will remove Kh-25MP from simple Su-25. :roll:

[amateur]

Look, Mayh3m, you can't make that people to believe you're right, cause they DON'T WANT TO! :shock:

You can get really authentic information, and maybe let the real A-10 Pilot explain it to them, but they will never believe it, cause it would be like giving up in their eyes! So let them think they are all sorta Rambos or Terminators...in games and sims. :wink: In real life, like in Iraq now, they can't even defend effectively simple iraqi people with only Kalashnikovs and some RPG's in their hands. What they can do well, is wiping whole town out with the bombs and missiles from 15.000 feet. :evil: :evil: :evil:

[Dmut]

:!:

amateur - you've got warning for offtopic post and useless flame.

[GGTharos]

Mayhem, you've already been proven wrong by the resources that you've gone and found. The 'test' you have iwas conducted before various accuracy and penetrator enhancement measures were taken to shore up the GAU-8 as well. All in all we've ehard it from the A-10 guys, we've heard it from the tank guys, if you're in a T-72 you don't want to see an A-10 coming your way. Unless it's from the front, then you're okay. ;)

 

But any tank attacked from the top rear is in danger of being not only immobilized but also destroyed.

[SwingKid]

If penetrations are not effective to kill the tank, then why carry armor against them?

You are forgeting other excellent targets for this devaice --- there are lots of them(BMPs, BTRs, MTLBs, BMDs, BRDMs any other APC and light armour vehicles you know!)! Why do you so concentrate exactly on tanks? 30mm canons never be an effective weapon against tanks -- such guns intended mostly for the light armour and any other vehicles!

 

Hmm, I don't think this answers my exact question - if a shell penetrating tank armor cannot kill a tank, then why a shell penetrating BMP armor should kill a BMP?

 

But regarding what 30 mm cannons were "intended" for - at the time of development GAU-8 and A-10A there were no M-1 tanks. There was a surplus of Soviet tanks, and in case of war, western planners were very concerned. They considered that to engage so many Soviet tanks on the battlefield was hopeless. As I understood, the intended role of A-10 was to engage the tanks before they reached the battefield, while the tanks are still "on the march". If they are on a train or on a road, the A-10 would attack the first and last vehicles in the column with Mavericks to destroy them, and create obstructions to movement. The 30 mm cannon was intended to cause enough damage to the remaining tanks, that they could not be used against NATO. The concern was not about BMPs or BTRs, but specifically tanks, against which to attack from the top, sides or rear with an aircraft, i.e to go around the strongest armor rather than through it, was considered a more efficient way to destroy it, than to hit the front armor with a NATO tank, while the Soviet tank is returning fire.

 

The report that you quoted makes a specific recommendation - to attack tanks from the side and rear, instead of the front. It doesn't say, "forget about the tanks - gun is ineffective. Aim instead for BMPs and BTRs," which it seems is your conclusion. From where is the additional material that supports such a contradiction to the original report's conclusion?

 

Sorry my awful English :oops: I meant "efficiency" тобишь "эффективность" :roll:

 

Ok so how do we calculate efficiency - enemy tanks killed per dollar? enemy tanks killed per minute? enemy tanks killed per friendly tanks killed?

 

Complete kill of a tank mean full break out its primary components, which are make this tank impossible to take part in battle action. These components are: engine, main gun with aiming sights, ammunition storage.

 

Maybe it's the difference. By my definition, destruction of any one of the above is sufficient to consider the tank "killed". One shell to the main gun, sights, ammunition storage or engine is enough that as the tank commander, I would not send this tank anymore into the battle.

 

You can simply eleminate the crew(what's very possible, when engaging with any HEAT weapon), fire up the whole tank, or the catastrophic explosion of ammunition due to the high damages. Noone were reached, during the tests! :!: While you make such damages to a tank, crew simply leave it out(if they still alive), taking the machineguns, because there is no more reason to be still inside the tank. That's it.

 

Something I didn't understand - what do you mean, "that's it?" If the GAU-8 causes enough damage for the crew to abandon the tank and take the machine guns, you think it's not efficient? Or it is? How this tank will take part in battle action?

 

Your suggestion about T-80 model in Lock On is that it should not explode graphically after hit by GAU-8, or that it should actually continue to fight as a tank?

 

The point is that I'm breaking the stereotype of the A-10's GAU-8, as some kind of "ripper of the tanks". People very hardly believing me, because of reputation, that was made to that gun. This is ecxellent weapon and it's no doubt about it (as you remember, Russians have the same on MiG-27K -- GSh-30-6 :wink: ), but it is absolutely ineffective against any main battle tank in the world!

 

Now we go from "inefficient" to talking about absolutely ineffective.

 

The GSh-30-6 is a superb gun, but it carries only 230 rounds, and the MiG-27 flies faster than the A-10, which makes an effective strafing attack more difficult. The 60-ton western tanks are also have more armor than 40-ton Soviet tanks, and the GSh-30-6 doesn't use depleted uranium shells.

 

As for "breaking the stereotype," it's better to attack such things at the root. First determine - when and where was the reputation born? "ripper of the tanks" = "penetration of armor", or some other kind of "ripping"?

 

If the goal is to make changes to Lock On, then it's something separate. I would propose to make the tank have two hemispheres. Attack from the front - armor protects against GAU-8 shells. Attack from the rear - engine catches fire and the tank is destroyed. For a flight simulator, it's enough to provide the point of view of the pilot, and the related tactics the pilot must learn, to attack tanks from the rear. More accuracy than this, I think would unnecessarily slow the product development.

 

-SK

[Chizh]

In the LOCKON the thicker armor in front is simulated. Therefore the tank behind and above easier to destroy, than in front.

[D-Scythe]

Anyway, Chizh, can you increase the accuracy the gunfire from the MBT in the game? Right now, they're getting like a 25% hit rate from 1000m, and that's just not realistic. Modern tanks like the M1A1 (as in Desert Storm) and the T-80 should be putting some good rounds on target from ranges greater than 3000 m. They currently just miss too much.

[Mayh3M]

if a shell penetrating tank armor cannot kill a tank, then why a shell penetrating BMP armor should kill a BMP?

Because it would inflict much more inside damages to the BMPs, than to a tanks. BMPs also have a bigger inside armoured capacity, which also cause more distructions inside, and of course armour is much more thinner, than tanks have :)

 

The concern was not about BMPs or BTRs, but specifically tanks, against which to attack from the top, sides or rear with an aircraft, i.e to go around the strongest armor rather than through it, was considered a more efficient way to destroy it, than to hit the front armor with a NATO tank, while the Soviet tank is returning fire.

I think this gun have much multirole characteristics, than only "tank busting" characteristics. Aim pointing again at high dispersion.

 

It doesn't say, "forget about the tanks - gun is ineffective. Aim instead for BMPs and BTRs," which it seems is your conclusion.

Who ever wants the closing of this program? If they consider the GAU-8's ineffecienty, what do you think goverment's decision should be? :D Anyway this conclusion doesn't change the things, as they are -- GAU-8's is ineffective against T-62!

 

Ok so how do we calculate efficiency - enemy tanks killed per dollar? enemy tanks killed per minute? enemy tanks killed per friendly tanks killed?

Very simple -- by scale of inflicted damages!

 

One shell to the main gun, sights, ammunition storage or engine is enough that as the tank commander, I would not send this tank anymore into the battle.

The damages must be enough to make the tank impossible to continue the in a battlefield.

 

If the GAU-8 causes enough damage for the crew to abandon the tank and take the machine guns, you think it's not efficient?

No -- if it cause that crew abandon the tank, than it's effecient, if not -- than not! But GAU-8 had not caused enough of damages to make crew abandon it...

 

Your suggestion about T-80 model in Lock On is that it should not explode graphically after hit by GAU-8, or that it should actually continue to fight as a tank?

My suggestion is -- tank should not explode, being under attack by A-10 with GAU-8 -- it just have to become inmovable, after the A-10's shoots enough of shells (I suppose about half of the whole ammunition) to the side or rear of a tank. Tank inmovable, but still continue the fighting -- it can shoot! Shooting from the front is ineffective at all and tank have not cause any damages from this attack.

 

The 60-ton western tanks are also have more armor than 40-ton Soviet tanks, and the GSh-30-6 doesn't use depleted uranium shells.

SwingKid, I'm awaring you from such far from real things conclusions ;) :lol: :D

[Mayh3M]

Modern tanks like the M1A1 (as in Desert Storm

By the way :D

After the land part of DS operation, ecological specialists count about 10 000 of shoted 120mm SABOT shells, which are made from DU and they were almost crying about the possible ecological catastrophy. If we count, that the whole number of destroyed iraqi tanks is not biger than 2000 the hit perscentage becomes not so accurate, as were told before :wink:

[GGTharos]

You again has no clue of what you're talking about...

 

Those include A-10 ammunition, which probably where the big part of that figure came from ;)

 

And you're still wrong about the GAU-8 being ineffective against tanks. Your own sources disprove your rhethoric.

[Mayh3M]

A-10 include 120mm SABOT ammunition???!!! :shock:

WOW! THat's just GREAT! Than the question about "tank busting" is closed, lol! :lol:

[GGTharos]

I don't think you get it. There weren't '20000 120mm SABOT shells fired' in IRAQ.

 

You're just continuing to dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

[SwingKid]

I don't think you get it. There weren't '20000 120mm SABOT shells fired' in IRAQ.

 

You're just continuing to dig yourself in deeper and deeper.

 

Now now. We may disagree with his analysis but there's no reason for that.

 

"The Pentagon estimates that 14,000 shells containing DU were fired by tanks, and another 940,000 30mm rounds containing DU were fired by A-10 "Warthog" jets in support operations, during the 1991 Gulf War alone -- 320 tons total."

 

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0%2C14632%2CSoldiertech_DU%2C%2C00.html

 

-SK

[D-Scythe]

Mayhem, that's the most ridiculous assertion I've ever heard. Firstly, as GGtharos and SK has pointed out, not 20 000 rounds were fired. Secondly, if a DU round hit a tank, do you think all of the uranium would disappear? I'm not privy to exactly what happens to DU after it penetrates a tank (I do know what would happen to the tank), but I highly doubt that the round, after hitting the target, will cease to be an "environmental hazard."

 

The 14 000 figure probably includes ALL shells fired, those that missed and those that hit.

 

Secondly, you just SABOTAGED your previous argument. If Coalition M1s and Iraqi T-72s never met in the battlefield, than why would the U.S. tanks fire so many SABOT rounds? HEAT rounds will be more than sufficient to take out any other type of target (IFVs, buildings, etc.), but SABOT rounds are tank killers. So why would they fire their DU SABOT rounds if they never encountered any T-72s?

 

Your arguments/proofs for each issue contradicts themselves. To stick with one you have to discard the other. In any case, you are *wrong*.