Why not A-10C Thunderbolt II?

[Boris]

The "II" is literally in the official name. A bit of a missed opportunity perhaps?

 

The "Tank Killer" name is nice and nostalgic, but maybe it would have been much better applied to a high fidelity fully clickable A-10A (which I sincerely hope we get as well one day).

Would be more fitting too, since the A-10A was originally specifically designed as a tank killer and it would fit the 70s, 80s cold war and 1990 Desert Storm scenarios.

 

By contrast, the modern day A-10C is primarily used as a CAS aircraft and less a tank killer.

[QuiGon]

By contrast, the modern day A-10C is primarily used as a CAS aircraft and less a tank killer.

Yeah, I thought exactly the same when I first heard of the new module title. It's pretty odd that the most modern A-10 variant we get in DCS will get a name based on it's oldest task, which the A-10A was originally build for. Tank killing isn't really what the modern A-10C does a lot, as the focus today in on CAS and COIN (Counter Insurgency). So yeah, quite an odd name choice.

[Johnny Dioxin]

Marketing.

[Boris]

Marketing.

 

Sure, and as someone who also works in marketing I still can't help but lament the fact, that "Thunderbolt II" would have been perfect for this module, and that "Tank Killer" would have been perfect for a hypothetical hi-fi A-10A module :D

[Baldrick33]

The "II" is literally in the official name. A bit of a missed opportunity perhaps?

The "II" differentiates it from a P-47 Thunderbolt, so I think that would just serve to confuse, we have always had a Thunderbolt II both as A-10A and A-10C.

 

"Tank Killer" is synonymous with the A-10, even in modern day https://sputniknews.com/military/201702071050446024-a-10-stay-service/ and you can literally buy the t-shirt right now! https://www.amazon.com/10-Warthog-Tank-Killer-Shirt/dp/B07KWGX8N8

 

Plus of course for veteran flight combat simmers it brings back memories. So for young and old I think "Tank Killer" kind of just works.

[Mr_sukebe]

Maybe it’s less a reflection on how the real aircraft is used and more about how it’s typically used in game...

[QuiGon]

The "II" differentiates it from a P-47 Thunderbolt, so I think that would just serve to confuse, we have always had a Thunderbolt II both as A-10A and A-10C.

True

 

"Tank Killer" is synonymous with the A-10, even in modern day https://sputniknews.com/military/201702071050446024-a-10-stay-service/ and you can literally buy the t-shirt right now! https://www.amazon.com/10-Warthog-Tank-Killer-Shirt/dp/B07KWGX8N8

Yes, but this applies to the A-10 itself, regardless of different variants. It originates from its original purpose: Stopping the Red Army in the Fulda Gap.

 

Plus of course for veteran flight combat simmers it brings back memories. So for young and old I think "Tank Killer" kind of just works.

That's the problem. It brings back memories for an aircraft that was designed to kill tanks, but what we get here is a very modern incarnation of that aircraft, that, unlike its older incarnations, is much better known for CAS and Counter Insurgency than killing tanks.

[Gierasimov]

Same as Viper vs. FF...

 

The "II" is literally in the official name. A bit of a missed opportunity perhaps?

 

The "Tank Killer" name is nice and nostalgic, but maybe it would have been much better applied to a high fidelity fully clickable A-10A (which I sincerely hope we get as well one day).

Would be more fitting too, since the A-10A was originally specifically designed as a tank killer and it would fit the 70s, 80s cold war and 1990 Desert Storm scenarios.

 

By contrast, the modern day A-10C is primarily used as a CAS aircraft and less a tank killer.

 

What does it matter what is it called as a module? Makes absolutely no difference.

There was a similar question with regards to the Viper.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39821

 

Let it be called whatever name ED wants, frankly can't be called Thunderbolt II as it would suggest to the new people that A-10C Warthog is newer. The II in our module is there to say it is the second version of the module.

 

Since we are keeping both we can't have A-10C Warthog and A-10C II Warthog. Call it Warthog 2... but Tank Killer is just cool name.

[QuiGon]

Call it Warthog 2

That would be a better and more fitting choice IMHO. It would be similar to Black Shark 2.

[MrDieing]

It does not matter what you say. ED will just say, we like the name so we will stick with it, even if it makes no sense at all. But there are worse things to worry about then a name.

[BIGNEWY]

A-10C Thunderbolt II is a brand name, so we decided to go with Tank Killer.

 

A-10C II Tank Killer was the best choice in my opinion.

 

thanks

[fjacobsen]

It´s not the name on the package, but the content that matters :)

[Boris]

What would you call a speculative hi-fi A-10A module then?

 

Please don't say you'll never so one or rule it out :D

 

I like to think that if the A-10C can get an avionics upgrade, it can also can an avionics downgrade. This might seem silly to some, but I'd love to fly around in an authentic 80s era camouflaged A-10A, with all the challenges that come with it.

[Gierasimov]

What would you call a speculative hi-fi A-10A module then?

 

.

 

A-10A Rusty

[kontiuka]

It should be called the A-10C Thunderbolt II II. Everyone agree?

[Baldrick33]

It should be called the A-10C Thunderbolt II II. Everyone agree?

Desmond for short :)

[icemaker]

in france we say :

 

"Peu importe le flacon pourvu que l'on ait l'ivresse" ==> it doesn't matter the bottle as long as you are drunk

[BuzzU]

No matter what else it does. It still kills tanks pretty good. :)

[ChillNG]

It should be called the A-10C Thunderbolt II II. Everyone agree?

 

So the A-10C Thunderbolt 4 for simplicity?

[Johnny Dioxin]

Sure, and as someone who also works in marketing I still can't help but lament the fact, that "Thunderbolt II" would have been perfect for this module, and that "Tank Killer" would have been perfect for a hypothetical hi-fi A-10A module :D

 

 

Do you work in Flight Simulation marketing? If not then your opinion is worth no more than any other person on the planet because we don't know what their particular market research has shown.

[Baldrick33]

No matter what else it does. It still kills tanks pretty good. :)

Yeh, I think it is just a matter of opportunity. I don't think it even saw any combat until the Gulf war where it certainly managed to destroy plenty of tanks (900+) and hasn't seen that type of combat since. I wouldn't say it wasn't designed to destroy tanks any more, simply there hasn't been that kind of requirement.

 

Of course in the sim world we have a bit more scope, AFAIK an A-10C has never been lost in combat, I don't think we could say the same in the sim world!

[Fri13]

P-47 = Thunderbolt

A-10 = Thunderbolt II

 

P-38 = Lighting

F-35 = Lighting II

 

So I do not see such a missed opportunity as it would been "A-10C II Thunderbolt II" or something.

 

Personally I would have liked that it stays as so far, just be clarified that what Suite version it does have.

 

So you have "A-10C Thunderbolt II (suite 8)" and "A-10C Thunderbolt II (suite 3)" modules to download.

[MonnieRock]

Funny,

 

Back in 1996 there was a game that is named very closely that I had.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Thunder:_A-10_Tank_Killer_II

[NoJoe]

I'm just looking forward to blowing things up in an A-10, no matter what the module is called.

 

...though I do like "A-10C Thunderbolt II II". :D

[norbot]

Funny,

 

Back in 1996 there was a game that is named very closely that I had.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Thunder:_A-10_Tank_Killer_II

 

Oh yes, good old Silent Thunder: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178575&highlight=A-10A :thumbup: