Coming back to the A-10, a couple of questions...?

[Lace]

Has the HUD always been so difficult to read?  I fly in VR so have to live with a bit of blurriness here and there, but it is readable in every other module, the A-10 just seems really bad.  Is this normal or just me?

Also the gun.  I played through the easy IA mission last night to refamiliarise myself with the a/c and systems, and on the final waypoint with the convoy I made a couple of gun runs against the T-64s.  According to Tacview I got over 80 hits on one of then (from a couple of different directions), without scoring a kill.  Is this normal?  I remember the gun being a bit more effective than that.  It kills soft stuff fine, but has tank armour received any work lately, as 80+ seems a huge number of AP 30mm to just shrug off and return fire.

Other than that, I'm really enjoying getting back in the 'Hog.  There is just something calming to performing low speed, low level CAS/interdiction, having been spending so much time zooming around in the Viper lately.

[MAXsenna]

Was a problem with damaging helis on the ground a while back.
Could this be it?

Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Lace]

Not tried strafing any helicopters, I'll give it a go later.  It kills everything else just fine.

[MAXsenna]

Not tried strafing any helicopters, I'll give it a go later.  It kills everything else just fine.

Apologies. I somehow misread T as AH.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Lace]

Just now, MAXsenna said:

Apologies. I somehow misread T as AH.


Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

Ha, yes.  Understood.  Defo tanks, not Apaches. 

[MAXsenna]

Ha, yes.  Understood.  Defo tanks, not Apaches. 

Yeah, I couldn't figure out why you wanted to hit that. Oh, well, I was still in bed in my head.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Yurgon]

On 1/28/2023 at 8:58 AM, Lace said:

Also the gun.  I played through the easy IA mission last night to refamiliarise myself with the a/c and systems, and on the final waypoint with the convoy I made a couple of gun runs against the T-64s.  According to Tacview I got over 80 hits on one of then (from a couple of different directions), without scoring a kill.  Is this normal?

Could you check again what type of tank that was? I don't know of a T-64 in DCS (or otherwise). In that mission, I think there are T-72s.

Killing a T-72 with the GAU-8 is possible, but the conditions need to be right: hit the target from the top or from the rear; definitely don't go for a frontal gun run, because that's where the armor is thickest. DCS does simulate this. Don't fire from too far out. I'd say 2 NM is at the edge of being useful; the rounds just lose too much energy on their way through the air. From even farther out, you could probably shoot the entire load of CM and not kill an MBT. A burst from 1 mile should work a lot better than a longer burst from 2 miles (plus you get a more dense impact pattern).

Also be aware that we don't have a pure API option for the gun; with CM, only every fifth (or every fourth?) round is an API, the rest is HEI, so with 80 hits you'd only have scored roughly 15 to 20 API hits (Edit: it's the other way around! CM has 4 API and then 1 HEI, and so on, giving roughly 65 API hits for 80 rounds of CM on target; thx Hive for pointing out the mistake!).

And finally, tanks in DCS have health bars that can be observed in the map view. Destructive kills are of course still possible, but when a unit takes damage, its performance degrades, so it'll be slower to move or might be less accurate when firing, or might stop firing entirely because damage to the weapon system is simulated. So there's a chance you actually achieved a mission kill against the tank without blowing it up. And the repair crew is probably still hard at work patching it back up.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Yurgon
Corrected CM mix ratio for API vs HEI

[Lace]

7 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

Could you check again what type of tank that was? I don't know of a T-64 in DCS (or otherwise). In that mission, I think there are T-72s.

Killing a T-72 with the GAU-8 is possible, but the conditions need to be right: hit the target from the top or from the rear; definitely don't go for a frontal gun run, because that's where the armor is thickest. DCS does simulate this. Don't fire from too far out. I'd say 2 NM is at the edge of being useful; the rounds just lose too much energy on their way through the air. From even farther out, you could probably shoot the entire load of CM and not kill an MBT. A burst from 1 mile should work a lot better than a longer burst from 2 miles (plus you get a more dense impact pattern).

Also be aware that we don't have a pure API option for the gun; with CM, only every fifth (or every fourth?) round is an API, the rest is HEI, so with 80 hits you'd only have scored roughly 15 to 20 API hits.

And finally, tanks in DCS have health bars that can be observed in the map view. Destructive kills are of course still possible, but when a unit takes damage, its performance degrades, so it'll be slower to move or might be less accurate when firing, or might stop firing entirely because damage to the weapon system is simulated. So there's a chance you actually achieved a mission kill against the tank without blowing it up. And the repair crew is probably still hard at work patching it back up.

You are right, T-72s, not 64s (no 64s in DCS).  I scored 180 hits on two target tanks at <1nm range, before taking 9 rounds of 12.7 in return, losing an engine and limping home.  So at least one T-72 was still combat effective.  I don't have a track but I've included my Tacview file FWIW.

Tacview-20230127-183743-DCS-IA-A10CII-Caucasus-Easy East Georgia.zip.acmi

[A10Yoda]

If you are looking for proper training and help, 484th in JTF HVY are always looking for more.  

https://www.jointtaskforceheavy.org/

[Hive]

15 hours ago, Yurgon said:

Also be aware that we don't have a pure API option for the gun; with CM, only every fifth (or every fourth?) round is an API, the rest is HEI, so with 80 hits you'd only have scored roughly 15 to 20 API hits 

Are you sure this is how CM works in DCS? Usually it is the other way round: 1 HEI round followed by 4 API rounds.

https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

[Yurgon]

11 hours ago, Hive said:

Are you sure this is how CM works in DCS? Usually it is the other way round: 1 HEI round followed by 4 API rounds.

Good catch, I had it the wrong way around! Corrected in above post so as to not get others confused.

[Yurgon]

On 1/28/2023 at 5:21 PM, Lace said:

I scored 180 hits on two target tanks at <1nm range, before taking 9 rounds of 12.7 in return, losing an engine and limping home.

You're right, these T-72s sure ate a lot of ammo. I'm more impressed that 2 of them survived a CBU-97; in Tacview it looks like the bomb was right on top of them. In the past in DCS, CBU-97 would have MBTs for breakfast.

The gun runs looked good, but most of them were from different directions, weren't they? There's still a chance the ERA took the brunt of the impacts.

I simply don't know how much hits it would, or should, take to kill a T-72B with the GAU-8. I'm also not sure if anything changed in DCS. My understanding is that the GAU-8 can potentially kill MBTs, but it isn't guaranteed to do so against modern tanks, especially when they're protected by ERA, which I believe "our" T-72Bs are. For a high probability of kill, Mavs and direct hits by Mk-82 series bombs (or above) will do the job, the gun is kind of a last resort. And yeah, tankers doing very accurate protective fires with 7.62 when there's a barrage of 30mm incoming, that may not be what one would expect to see in real life, either.

All that said, the GAU-8 would be well suited to take care of IFVs and APCs while leaving the main battle tanks for heavier weapons - if it wasn't for the gunners in those vehicles who, at least at some point in the past, were a lot more accurate and deadly than even the ZSU-23...

[ASAP]

28 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

You're right, these T-72s sure ate a lot of ammo. I'm more impressed that 2 of them survived a CBU-97; in Tacview it looks like the bomb was right on top of them. In the past in DCS, CBU-97 would have MBTs for breakfast.

The gun runs looked good, but most of them were from different directions, weren't they? There's still a chance the ERA took the brunt of the impacts.

I simply don't know how much hits it would, or should, take to kill a T-72B with the GAU-8. I'm also not sure if anything changed in DCS. My understanding is that the GAU-8 can potentially kill MBTs, but it isn't guaranteed to do so against modern tanks, especially when they're protected by ERA, which I believe "our" T-72Bs are. For a high probability of kill, Mavs and direct hits by Mk-82 series bombs (or above) will do the job, the gun is kind of a last resort. And yeah, tankers doing very accurate protective fires with 7.62 when there's a barrage of 30mm incoming, that may not be what one would expect to see in real life, either.

All that said, the GAU-8 would be well suited to take care of IFVs and APCs while leaving the main battle tanks for heavier weapons - if it wasn't for the gunners in those vehicles who, at least at some point in the past, were a lot more accurate and deadly than even the ZSU-23...

my understanding is the API is still A very effective kill mechanism against modern tanks. from everything I’ve read/heard it only takes one round penetrating even modern armor to achieve a kill. They fire longer bursts to get bullet density to basically ensure they get good penetration since some of the rounds will probably ricochet. ERA as I understand it is more geared toward defeating explosively formed projectiles from shaped charges. API rounds don’t work like that.  Here’s an interesting article I found about it. 
the API rounds are pretty grotesquely lethal to tanks apparently.  

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/a-10-warthog-armor-piercing-incendiary-rounds/

[Yurgon]

43 minutes ago, ASAP said:

Here’s an interesting article I found about it. 
the API rounds are pretty grotesquely lethal to tanks apparently.  

Interesting article and video indeed, thanks!

If you put on your critical glasses, in the video Cpt. Baumann never says that the GAU-8 is great at killing MBTs. He describes the effects on "armor" and "tanks". Whether that means MBTs or more lightly armored APCs/IFVs - it could be either. At some point he talks about the effects on a "tank" but then says "even with a non-fueled tank, it will cause a lot of effects inside of there". I'm not 100% sure that he means "tank" as in "MBT" or as in "fuel tank"; both would make some sense in this context.

All things considered, I don't know for sure how lethal the GAU-8 is against modern MBTs and don't know of any definitive sources. But this video is definitely an interesting data point.

[BuzzU]

What must it be like to be in a tank with 30mm rounds hitting it? It doesn't sound like anything I want to experience.

[ASAP]

6 minutes ago, BuzzU said:

What must it be like to be in a tank with 30mm rounds hitting it? It doesn't sound like anything I want to experience.

On the bright side it’s over very very fast.

 

11 minutes ago, Yurgon said:

Interesting article and video indeed, thanks!

If you put on your critical glasses, in the video Cpt. Baumann never says that the GAU-8 is great at killing MBTs. He describes the effects on "armor" and "tanks". Whether that means MBTs or more lightly armored APCs/IFVs - it could be either. At some point he talks about the effects on a "tank" but then says "even with a non-fueled tank, it will cause a lot of effects inside of there". I'm not 100% sure that he means "tank" as in "MBT" or as in "fuel tank"; both would make some sense in this context.

All things considered, I don't know for sure how lethal the GAU-8 is against modern MBTs and don't know of any definitive sources. But this video is definitely an interesting data point.

 Possibly, but considering the A-10 and the DU API round was designed to kill main battle tanks, and we are talking about penetrating thick armor I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the word tank here is referring to MBTs.  Armor also means IFVs and APCs but In every conversation I’ve ever had in the Air Force “tank” is a general term for MBTs. Fuel tanks would normally be called POL, fuel trucks, etc…

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, Yurgon said:

Interesting article and video indeed, thanks!

If you put on your critical glasses, in the video Cpt. Baumann never says that the GAU-8 is great at killing MBTs. He describes the effects on "armor" and "tanks". Whether that means MBTs or more lightly armored APCs/IFVs - it could be either. At some point he talks about the effects on a "tank" but then says "even with a non-fueled tank, it will cause a lot of effects inside of there". I'm not 100% sure that he means "tank" as in "MBT" or as in "fuel tank"; both would make some sense in this context.

All things considered, I don't know for sure how lethal the GAU-8 is against modern MBTs and don't know of any definitive sources. But this video is definitely an interesting data point.

There was that study the USAF did in the 80's on a test range out there on the internet.  I won't post it here (and can't remember where it was anyway), but it suggested the odds were pretty good at getting mobility kills on MBT's, but that outright armor penetration took quite a few rounds.  There are a whole slew of caveats, since IIRC they used T-62's and an attack profile with a 3 degree dive, but it's at least some data

[ASAP]

Yeah I bet dive angle and open-fire ranges and burst length really matter and make a huge difference in your chances of killing a tank

Also, A-10s killed a lot of Iraqi tanks with the gun back in the gulf war, so there’s that. 

[Yurgon]

8 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

There was that study the USAF did in the 80's on a test range out there on the internet.

I recently saw a video where the narrator basically ranted for 30 minutes how terrible the A-10 is at everything it was supposed to be good at. While the video is pretty horrible to watch (even more so when realizing that the same content creator had done a video a couple of months prior, praising the A-10 for how awesome it is at everything is was designed to be good at), it did claim that the only somewhat public data seems to be that exact study and that it doesn't tell us much about GAU-8 performance against current generation MBTs. Again, I strongly dislike the video because it puts a severe focus on negative aspects surrounding the A-10, but that doesn't mean it's an invalid claim.

2 hours ago, ASAP said:

Fuel tanks would normally be called POL, fuel trucks, etc…

Yeah, I agree with the connotation of the word "tank". In this particular case, I don't think it referred to an armored vehicle designed to carry fuel, but rather to the fuel tank of a battle tank - so even if the tank's tank is not fueled and there's no fuel to ignite, rounds penetrating the armor would have devastating effects on the inside of the vehicle.

I'm also not trying to say the GAU-8 is bad against MBTs - I'm just saying I don't know, and what we have in DCS may be realistic or may be completely off.

[jaylw314]

2 minutes ago, ASAP said:

Yeah I bet dive angle and open-fire ranges and burst length really matter and make a huge difference in your chances of killing a tank

Also, A-10s killed a lot of Iraqi tanks with the gun back in the gulf war, so there’s that. 

It's at least some data.  I'm guessing there's not a whole lot of public data out there anyway, so beggars can't be choosers  

Speaking of data, do we have any on A-10's and tanks from the first Gulf War?  I remember at the time that was when the term "tank-plinking" arose, so I'd speculate the majority destroyed by A-10's were by LGB's, but I have no numbers to back that up...

[ASAP]

1 minute ago, jaylw314 said:

It's at least some data.  I'm guessing there's not a whole lot of public data out there anyway, so beggars can't be choosers  

Speaking of data, do we have any on A-10's and tanks from the first Gulf War?  I remember at the time that was when the term "tank-plinking" arose, so I'd speculate the majority destroyed by A-10's were by LGB's, but I have no numbers to back that up...

https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm#:~:text=Iraq Assets Destroyed by A-10's During,the Gulf War 987 tanks destroyed

987 tanks  

pretty sure it was mostly maverick and gun kills

I think A-10s were mostly dumb bombs still  

[jaylw314]

1 minute ago, Yurgon said:

I recently saw a video where the narrator basically ranted for 30 minutes how terrible the A-10 is at everything it was supposed to be good at. While the video is pretty horrible to watch (even more so when realizing that the same content creator had done a video a couple of months prior, praising the A-10 for how awesome it is at everything is was designed to be good at), it did claim that the only somewhat public data seems to be that exact study and that it doesn't tell us much about GAU-8 performance against current generation MBTs. Again, I strongly dislike the video because it puts a severe focus on negative aspects surrounding the A-10, but that doesn't mean it's an invalid claim.

LOL, there were actually a few videos on the topic that came out at the same time, so I'm suspecting someone copied someone else a few times, but I'm not sure who started the idea.  In fairness, if it's the video I'm thinking about who does a crap-ton of videos on technology and history, he specifically stated at the beginning and end that his video was to question commonly held perceptions, not to go on a rant, but the other videos a saw got pretty salty and frantic

1 minute ago, ASAP said:

https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/statistics.htm#:~:text=Iraq Assets Destroyed by A-10's During,the Gulf War 987 tanks destroyed

987 tanks  

pretty sure it was mostly maverick and gun kills

I think A-10s were mostly dumb bombs still  

Aw, dangit, I was hoping you'd have a breakdown of ordnance types used, you seem to come up with all sorts of statistics out of left field! 

[ASAP]

54 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

LOL, there were actually a few videos on the topic that came out at the same time, so I'm suspecting someone copied someone else a few times, but I'm not sure who started the idea.  In fairness, if it's the video I'm thinking about who does a crap-ton of videos on technology and history, he specifically stated at the beginning and end that his video was to question commonly held perceptions, not to go on a rant, but the other videos a saw got pretty salty and frantic

Aw, dangit, I was hoping you'd have a breakdown of ordnance types used, you seem to come up with all sorts of statistics out of left field! 

Yeah I tried to find a breakdown but that was the best I could find. I wonder if the Air Force hasn’t bothered to do any more testing because the gun proved itself against the Iraqi tanks so well that no further testing was necessary. 

[Steel Jaw]

On 1/28/2023 at 6:07 AM, Lace said:

It kills everything else just fine.

LOL...not my Hornet...

[Lace]

9 hours ago, Steel Jaw said:

LOL...not my Hornet...

Park it up on the ground and we'll see how she does.