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

[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.

 

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

 

Nice :shock:

 

I wonder what they classify as 'containing DU'. It sounds rather fishy - I know they fired a lot of shells at buildings, for example.

Anyway, those Hogs were having loads of fun ... it's not hard to imagine that number of rounds being fired given the number of sorties flown now that I think about it, although I wonder if they did something like take sorties flown* weapon load to calculate this :P

[D-Scythe]

GGtharos, an M1 would definitely NOT fire a SABOT round into a building - it would do nothing more than punch a small hole through its walls. A HEAT round would be much more effective.

 

I suspect that the cause of the rather large number of rounds fired were not only at tanks...the FLIR and targeting equipment in an M1 were quite poor and I don't think you can distinguish a tank from a BMP at range, at night and in adverse conditions. Furthermore, many of the vehicles were probably double and tripled targeted for good measure.

[GGTharos]

That is what I was implying (re: buildings)

 

I suppose throwing a SABOT at a distant BMP would have been the most accurate way of nailing it ... being that the SABOT round produces a nice flat trajectory compared to other rounds. Were MPAT's in service in GF1?

[Mayh3M]

Firstly, as GGtharos and SK has pointed out, not 20 000 rounds were fired.

oops... just missed up with my keyboard! :shock: I meant at first post 10 000 :oops: Sorry about that... :)

 

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

agree!

 

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?

You think, that only T-72s were only from Iraq side? Here's another tanks, that were in the combat action:

T-54, T-55, T-55(iraqi mod.), Chiness Type 59, Type 69, T-62, French AMX-13 and some others, some of England-build "Chiftein" tanks. :D I think these DU rounds could be shoted to them! :D So what the contradiction here? :wink:

 

Ok folks, let's close the tank off-topic! :!:

[SwingKid]

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

 

I always appreciate to be corrected... If there is information about a DU shell for GSh-30-6 I'd be very interested.

 

Otherwise, I do have some specific concerns.

 

To use some data from a report, that you think supports your own analysis, and then to ignore the rest of the report as some kind of propaganda because "nobody wants the closing of the program" - I'm sure you can agree that this weakens the support for your analysis. If this is propaganda, then you should find another source to use that is not propaganda. If it is not propaganda, then we should not rewrite the conclusions.

 

Also, from what I know of Russian tank combat, the crew of an immobilized tank should not remain sitting there, waiting to be destroyed by something else. An immobile T-80 should never have a chance to kill anything, even if its gun is working. The pilot of the A-10 should report the location of the tank by radio to the ground forces. Once immobile, it can be easily destroyed by laser-guided bomb, artillery, or even fire.

 

On the other hand, to see in Lock On the crew surviving and escaping from a tank hit by GAU-8, instead of it simply exploding... That could be something else. 8)

 

-SK

[Mayh3M]

I always appreciate to be corrected... If there is information about a DU shell for GSh-30-6 I'd be very interested.

Currently I was pointing at "60 tons tank have more armor, than 40 tons" -- this is very popular mistake by people, that thought, that protection of the tank depending on its mass. The originality of soviet MBTs(Main Battle Tanks) was protection level not less and even better, than their oponents from the west, while west were weighting on 10-15 heavier.

 

As for DU shells -- as I said before, depleted uranium adds to the penetrating level of 30mm shells about 15%, than have steel or lead penetrators, what do not change things generally.

 

Also, from what I know of Russian tank combat, the crew of an immobilized tank should not remain sitting there, waiting to be destroyed by something else.

Exactly! How do you think, what they should do? :wink:

 

An immobile T-80 should never have a chance to kill anything, even if its gun is working.

WHy do you think so? The gun and shells are still remain and ready to shot some bad asses :twisted: :D

 

The pilot of the A-10 should report the location of the tank by radio to the ground forces. Once immobile, it can be easily destroyed by laser-guided bomb, artillery, or even fire.

Absolutely agree! :D

 

On the other hand, to see in Lock On the crew surviving and escaping from a tank hit by GAU-8, instead of it simply exploding... That could be something else.

My suggestion is more simple to implement, but first answer my question about the crew :wink: :)

[Kula66]

>>Currently I was pointing at "60 tons tank have more armor, than 40 tons" -- this is very popular mistake by people<< So what do you think the extra 20tons gets used for? Microwave oven, cumfy seats, Coke machine and pop-corn maker?

 

Armour can't be thick everywhere, and in real combat, T-xx have proved very easy pickings to M1A1 and Challengers ... sometimes at many 1000's of meters! T-xx series tanks may have very thick front armour ... but elasewhere they are weaker ... especially, as I mentioned before over the engine grills and turret top ... EXTACT the areas likely to be hit by A-10s in diving gun attacks.

 

James

[tomcat1974]

The problem is wrongly placed. Who gives a F**K if the GAU-8 can or can't kill a tank? It has the penetration needed to go inside a tank in certain weaker spots and cause all kind of mayhem inside it ..cooking the crew mostly ..DU is actually a API round --- tanker's death is almost all the time in fire)

The problem is that the Gatling ar not very accurate usually (not a sniper weapon) , but they spread the projectile all over the Tank which means that the chances to get a lucky shoot increase dramatically.

But for christ , it can for SURE nail every ammo and fuel truck NEEDED by Armor which will let the Tank USELESS.

 

Please don't forget the psichological effect of the GAU8 or what ever Aircraft Gun.. Tank crew are not manned by Robots. At the first BRUUPP sound they usually shit their pances and run like hell..(see the casses where the A10 mistakenlly fired on friendlies.)..

[Mayh3M]

Kula66

As I said before -- the "which tank better" topic's CLOSED! :!: If you want to discuss it -- create another one! Hre we are discussing the abilities of GAU-8 and T-62 armour...

 

tomcat1974

see the casses where the A10 mistakenlly fired on friendlie

I would like -- bring on some photos! :)

 

Who gives a F**K if the GAU-8 can or can't kill a tank?

Currently me and some people from Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks... Those are: Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin.

 

It has the penetration needed to go inside a tank in certain weaker spots and cause all kind of mayhem inside it ..cooking the crew mostly

Have you ever read the report? Ok, I post especially for you again

 

The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components

[Kula66]

As I said before -- the "which tank better" topic's CLOSED! :!: If you want to discuss it -- create another one! Hre we are discussing the abilities of GAU-8 and T-62 armour...

You missed the point of my text ... again.

 

James

[Skywall23]

He's russian Kula66. That's why he misses points very easily. Its not his mother language the one we are speaking here. :?

[Kula66]

If he is Russian, my compliments, his English is a million times better than my Russian ...

 

James

[Skywall23]

English is easier than russian. ;) (quite more)

[SwingKid]

[

Also, from what I know of Russian tank combat, the crew of an immobilized tank should not remain sitting there, waiting to be destroyed by something else.

Exactly! How do you think, what they should do? :wink:

...

The gun and shells are still remain and ready to shot some bad asses :twisted: :D

 

It's like the story from the film, where the hero fills the monster with bullets, and still he does not die... :lol:

 

In reality, the idea that a penetrating, burning DU shell will pass only through empty air when it enters a tank so crowded as a Soviet-designed one sounds unrealistically optimistic.

 

If the shell puts a hole in the engine combustion chamber, flames will escape, burn holes in the fuel lines and then the entire tank.

If it holes the turbine compressor blades, the engine cannot provide power - how will the turret be aimed? By hand-crank?

If it holes a fuel tank or line the tank will burn.

If it hits ammunition, the tank explodes.

If it hits hydraulics, the turret can't be aimed.

Batteries - the fluid will leak and react, and the tank loses electrical power.

A hole in the auto-loader - shooting the gun will fill the turret with exploding gas.

Crew - they need medical attention.

If the shell penetrates and miraculously hits nothing - there is burning toxic DU fumes in the crew compartment.

 

I have seen schematic diagrams of T-xx tank interiors. There is hardly enough room for crew of normal human dimensions. I cannot imagine a trajectory for an armor-penetrating shell entering the tank that would allow it to remain as a fighting unit, and never heard anything like it from real life. US soldiers are ordered to evacuate and abandon their vehicles from any DU penetration, to prevent radiation poisoning.

 

-SK

[SwingKid]

The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components

 

Hmm... Maybe it's a translation problem?

 

Предложение такое - " между эти, которые не прорезали " - но не что ни один не прорезал.

 

The emphasis is that destruction could be accomplished from side or rear, even without penetration of armor, so it's always effective to shoot tanks from side or rear.

 

:?:

 

-SK

[Dice]

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...

 

Your hit numbers are from 1979 before the LASTE (Low Altitude Safty and Target Enhanment) mod which incressed the hit % to 80mils, 80% of the rounds will impact a 20 foot area from 5,000 feet. With the new IFFCC (Intergrated Flight Fire Control Computer) upgrade the % has incressed to 90mils.

 

I know I will never convence you and I don't have the time to try because most of your info is dated (like using the old 1350 rounds when todays drum will only hold 1,174 +/- 5 rounds) so I will leave you with a few more videos and your opinions.....

 

http://www.warthogpen.com/bs/a104.wmv

[Mayh3M]

You missed the point of my text ... again.

No I understood you... just I do not want flame here. I'm surely can discribe you, why the 40 tons armoured not less and better armoured, than 55-60 tons tanks, but not now. As you see, I'm already too busy with this thread...

 

It's like the story from the film, where the hero fills the monster with bullets, and still he does not die...

That reminds me the Predator, where the humans were not able to hit the target :lol:

 

If the shell puts a hole in the engine combustion chamber, flames will escape, burn holes in the fuel lines and then the entire tank.

Not necessarily. Due to low probability of hit, the persentage of penetration comes less, than the probability of successfull penetration (which's mean the hard break down of any interrior components)is even less :roll:

 

If it holes the turbine compressor blades, the engine cannot provide power - how will the turret be aimed? By hand-crank?

Yes -- there is hand aiming too, but before, there is Auxillary Power Unit (APU), which have all T-80Us modifications. This exactly for keeping the all fire systems work, when the main engine is out of action.

 

If it holes a fuel tank or line the tank will burn.

The persentage of hiting the fuel line is even less, than probability of successful hiting the engine :wink: By the way, even if this component hited it is of course do not mean the explosion. Mostly tank should servive. Diesel fuel is very hard to make explode. This just may burn. But all MBTs have protected fuel-tanks. This mean, that fire should bring minimum if damages. I point you again the probability of hiting fuel liner is extremaly low! :!: And this liner is situated in a quite well armoured zone. By the way, I have the photo of tested T-80BV, which is less generation, than T-80U -- this tank were several times hited by RPG shells(which are much more dangerous, than 30mm AP shells). Tank is burning from the side with a quite huge fire, but after fire comes down, crew entered the tank and it's perfectly goes by itself to the base. Another one thing -- this should look crazy for you, but the fuel tanks as they are actually adds the protection equivalent to the whole armour, that's why those were situated in the front of the tank (for example M1 tanks have also them by sides from the driver)

 

If it hits ammunition, the tank explodes.

Hmmm... not sure. The explosion of ammunition is as often the fire in interior of crew compartment(there are propellant charges). As I was told before, 30mm shells have not enough of power to even penetrate T-80U's turret and glasic around autoloader, which are well armoured, even no talks about making there fire...

 

If it hits hydraulics, the turret can't be aimed.

The same chances, as hiting the fuel line :wink: Almost no chances!

 

Batteries - the fluid will leak and react, and the tank loses electrical power.

lol :lol:

Of course no.

1. There is no chance to hit battaries, which are situated in quite armoured zone too (right behind the crew compartment in the center of a tank).

2. Even penetration does not bring enough of inside damage to break out anything there.

 

A hole in the auto-loader - shooting the gun will fill the turret with exploding gas.

No chances to penetrate the armour around autoloader!

 

Crew - they need medical attention.

No chances to penetrate the crew compartment area! The armor is too thick for 30mm shells even from the sides and rear!

 

If the shell penetrates and miraculously hits nothing - there is burning toxic DU fumes in the crew compartment.

... as I said before, there is no chances to penetrate armour around crew compartment. As for the other components -- the inside damages (as "burning toxic DU fumes") is quite low. Such enough damages could bring only huge 120mm SABOT DU shells...

 

is hardly enough room for crew of normal human dimensions.

Another one common mistake :wink: The ex-tankers told me, that there is enough of space to normal human dimensions and well enough to normal operating. :!:

 

I cannot imagine a trajectory for an armor-penetrating shell entering the tank that would allow it to remain as a fighting unit, and never heard anything like it from real life.

No penetrations, because of huge armour around crew compartment! Adding also low probability of even hiting.

 

US soldiers are ordered to evacuate and abandon their vehicles from any DU penetration, to prevent radiation poisoning.

Radiation from DU shells is extremaly low -- this is about 25% of maximum allowed radiation rating. There is also report about it here, where I found the posted here report:

 

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

 

Volume 9 about 105mm DU shells

 

Bartlett, W.T., R.L. Gilchrist, G.W.R. Endres, and J.L. Baer, Radiation Characterization and Exposure Rate Measurements from Cartridge, 105mm, APFSDS-T, XM774, PNL-2947, Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, November 1979.

 

The Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness Working Group on Depleted Uranium Munitions recommended this as one of three studies in its initial 1974 DU environmental assessment. This study focused on the health physics problems associated with assembling, storing, and using 105mm APFSDS-T XM774 ammunition. The report concluded, "Radiation levels associated with the XM774 ammunition are extremely low. The photon emissions measured did not exceed a maximum whole-body or critical organ exposure of 0.26 mR/hr. Even if personnel were exposed for long periods to the highest levels of radiation measured, it is doubtful that their exposure would reach 25 percent of the maximum permissible occupational dose listed in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20."

 

Предложение такое - " между эти, которые не прорезали " - но не что ни один не прорезал.

Вообщем да. Т.е. из тех снарядов что попали по танку было множество не пробивших броню. Остальные нанесли минимальное заброневое воздействие. Также повреждены элементы подвески и катки танка :roll:

 

The emphasis is that destruction could be accomplished from side or rear, even without penetration of armor

Hmmm... what kind off distructions?

 

so it's always effective to shoot tanks from side or rear.

Effective, but not enough to destroy it :wink: Only some light damages...

[Mayh3M]

Dice

Nice video Dice, but again -- hardly something to conclude from it -- there are lots of pyro effects from HE shells, but camera man have not give a chance to look at the tank after the dust flew away... :?: :roll:

 

I've spoted mostly outside burning and only one time the camera showed inside burning, but the tank was with opened hatches.

 

Again I see, those shot-test is quite spectacular! :)

[GGTharos]

Mayhem, do you even know what happens when a high energy round hits something? ...

 

You know ...spalling? Extreme heat? Shrapnel?

 

All of this will cause the tank to be destroyed when shot at the vulnerable areas.

 

BTW, M1's too have survived multiple RPG hits, yet a simple APU fire destroyed a whole tank. It really doesn't take much and they really -are- this vulnerable, and the T-80 really isn't any better. The APU is there not in case the engine is destroyed, but because it uses the same amount of fuel wether it's idling or running, so it is inefficient to run the engine if the tank has to stop for some time.

[Mayh3M]

You know ...spalling? Extreme heat? Shrapnel?

Yes. Look at the video -- there is lots of outside armour burning. That's because of extrmaly high temperature. By the way, in a video also appearing some of american tanks (probably M-48 ), those are quite weaker armoured...

 

All of this will cause the tank to be destroyed when shot at the vulnerable areas.

Nope. Just lightly damaged. Outside burning does not meant "destroying".

 

BTW, M1's too have survived multiple RPG hits

But not multiple side hits. This T-80 birning from the side around hull area. Just if I even have a chance to post it here. Unfortunatly have no link on this photo :roll:

 

The APU is there not in case the engine is destroyed, but because it uses the same amount of fuel wether it's idling or running, so it is inefficient to run the engine if the tank has to stop for some time.

You are missing with APU's! M1 tanks have two APU's -- first for the starting engine, and the second, which is outside the armour from the rear, is for the power for operating the sight systems, rotating the turret and some else -- this one is always worked, because of not enough of generator power energy. Russian T-80U have only one APU, which does all kind of auxilary work, and it's working only when generator is not operating, though the main engine shoted down to any reason :wink:

[Dice]

Dice

Nice video Dice, but again -- hardly something to conclude from it -- there are lots of pyro effects from HE shells, but camera man have not give a chance to look at the tank after the dust flew away... :?: :roll:

 

But we are asked (by you) to conclude from a 1979 report which consisted of ...

 

"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes."

 

...that the GAU-8A is ineffictive? :roll: The camera man did not need to be allowed "inside" because the fuel or ammo expolded upon inpact of the API/HEI rounds, or did you miss that part of the video(s)? I have also supplyed video of over 7 passes in which the tanks were destroyed (explosions from the tanks or was that dust also?) by the 30mm API rounds....so who wins this part of the debate?

 

I've spoted mostly outside burning and only one time the camera showed inside burning, but the tank was with opened hatches.

 

Outside of the tank burning, how does that happen? The flames were coming from the inside of the tank(s) and the hatches were open because they were BLOWN open by the fuel/ammo explosions INSIDE the tanks! :wink:

 

Again I see, those shot-test is quite spectacular! :)

 

Thank you and yes they are.... and they over 25 years old. You have not countered (commented on) my comments on the advances in the A-10 hit % with the avionics upgrades or the improvments in the ammo (teflon bands/SAS engagement on first trigger detent) which have a big impact on your "report" .

[GGTharos]

Look closer at the video. See the black smoke? That's not 'outside burning'. That's the fuel and whatever else is flammable going up INSIDE the tank. There a place in the video where you can even SEE the hatches blowing out from the explosion, if I recall correctly. No outside strike is going to produce this much black smoke. Sparks and a good chunk of vapor maybe, but that spectacular black cloud is ammo or fuel (more likely fuel) going up. Burn some fuel and you'll see: Thick black smoke.

 

You're wrong on the RPG hits against M1's, too. This was not 'test', this was survivability on side hits in a hostile environment with RPGs coming in from the sides. Some tanks survived them, some did not - in particular due to the APU.

 

You're wrong about the M1 APU. It exists there specifically because they shut down the gas turbine to conserve motive fuel, not because there isn't enough power. It's there to power things liek the radios, the new electronic combat hardware, and so on and so on when the engine isn't running.

[SwingKid]

Dice

Nice video Dice, but again -- hardly something to conclude from it -- there are lots of pyro effects from HE shells, but camera man have not give a chance to look at the tank after the dust flew away... :?: :roll:

 

Oh please. If the dust, smoke and fire flew away to show a blackened tank full of holes, what will it prove? We already decided that is operational fighting condition. 8)

 

Remind me to find this guy when it's time to sell my car...

 

-SK

[GGTharos]

... and that bridge in Brookly :mrgreen:

[Mayh3M]

because the fuel or ammo expolded upon inpact of the API/HEI rounds, or did you miss that part of the video(s)?

How you imagine yourself "explosion of the 115mm shells" ?? :roll:

 

I have also supplyed video of over 7 passes in which the tanks were destroyed

They were not destroyed. Only in two passes where are the tanks were burn abit. In one of them tank was with opened hatches. Another one were trully burn up from inside, but this was already heavily damaged -- pay attention on the low part of the glasic near the tracks. I suppose this tank was already under attack by several times. :roll:

 

Outside of the tank burning, how does that happen?

Due to DU rounds using and high speed/pressure/temperature. By the way, this burning from the inside could be because of high temperature reached outside -- such incidents were quite often in WWII. That fact also concludes, that this tank been already under attack by several times.

 

and the hatches were open because they were BLOWN open by the fuel/ammo explosions INSIDE the tanks!

The hatches were already opened -- I mean the second episode of "burning". By the way, this burning ends quite quick, after the dust flown away. :roll: This also cause some questions. Maybe were hited the outside fuel tanks, which are laying from the left side...

 

comments on the advances in the A-10 hit % with the avionics upgrades or the improvments in the ammo (teflon bands/SAS engagement on first trigger detent) which have a big impact on your "report" .

Hmmm... I was already told about it -- I suppose, it should rise the hit % about 10%, but to reach more you have to change the whole artillery system (meant GAU-8). Most misses were because of high dispersion of the gun, but not over the aiming systems of A-10.

 

See the black smoke? That's not 'outside burning'. That's the fuel and whatever else is flammable going up INSIDE the tank.

Have you ever seen the real burning of engine inside the tank? Yes, I agree, that it suppose to be fuel, but this might to be an exterrior fuel tanks, or even just an explosion of HE round :roll: The reason of my opinion is -- if tank fuel systems burn up, than it continue to burn, before the whole fuel burn out(it could be also an explosion of the engine, or ammo). This looks terrible -- tank is fully covered by huge fire and nothing can survive in this hell! And what we see here? Just a few seconds of fire burning :!:

 

You're wrong on the RPG hits against M1's, too. This was not 'test', this was survivability on side hits in a hostile environment with RPGs coming in from the sides. Some tanks survived them, some did not - in particular due to the APU.

Don't talk about the things, that you don't know :wink:

 

There is no measure yet, that could safe M1 from RPG side hit. Noone M1 survived during the last war RPG side-hull hits. I tell more -- there is an incident, where the M1 were hited from the front by one RPG shell. It burns up the front fuel tanks, what causes the burning of the whole tank. I have a few photos of it :wink:

 

You're wrong about the M1 APU.

Yeah?! How interesting! :lol: I'm exploring the main battle tank questions for about 2 years and here's the virtual pilot, that told me "you are wrong"! :D That's magnificant! :lol:

 

It exists there specifically because they shut down the gas turbine to conserve motive fuel, not because there isn't enough power.

I'm not argue about that. As I said -- M1A2 (currently) has the second APU. This one was hited from the side by 12.7 DShK heavy machine gun. It causes the fire and fuel leaking down to the rear hull, where the engine. This cause the engine burning and further complete losing of this tank.

 

Oh please. If the dust, smoke and fire flew away to show a blackened tank full of holes, what will it prove?

It proves, that tank is still in service! :D :lol:

 

Well... the point is exactly to see these holes and explore the damages. So you may mistake, while talking, that it's full of holes. :wink: I can say the same way, that it is full of scratches :wink:

 

Remind me to find this guy when it's time to sell my car...

You car were shoted by GAU-8 ??? :shock: Ouch... pure one... :cry:

That's what I call "friendly fire" :lol: