A-10 in the gulf war compared to DCS and user scenarios

[Evil.Bonsai]

The one, and only, mission I've submitted here is based on the night missions from the Gulf War, where the pilots had to use their mavericks to find targets. Can't really simulate an A-10A but with Mavs and no TGP at night, it comes close :)

[Strut]

Hi,

 

They flew high-altitude tactics which means they tried to keep over 8000ft. So when they used the Gatling they dove 40 to 60 degrees and took out tanks, APCs from 8000ft!!! Is anybody able to take out tanks from 8000ft in DCs???

 

.

 

The one underlying fact is that the A10 is a CAS (Close Air Support) platform, this sim offers unlimited opportunities to build missions with most possibilities being able to be built in and would in most cases be unrealistic to put a real Hog in the situations we simmers like so much, having said that, you can only do so much CAS work so making missions more exciting thru use of SAM etc is good fun. GW1 and GW2 and evolution into Afghanistan has seen this brilliant airframe evolve into a feared and thouroughly efficient weapon. As for the GAU-8/A accuracy when installed in the A-10 is rated at "5mil, 80 percent", meaning that 80 percent of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) will hit the target within a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle. Most military / ex military people will tell you that from experience that ballistics look good on paper , but are greatly effected by everything environmental, one important theory to remember is that with small arms ammo, and 30mm is technically that, as the range increases the size of the group increases and everything that can effect the ballistics compounds the accuracy. I haven't read the book your talking about but i would say that killing stuff like a tank from 8000ft with a 30mm is pretty damn good shooting......:joystick:

Edited May 22, 2012 by Strut

[213]

the only way you can do realistic scenarios is wait for afghanistan map and make missions involving a-10 vs foot patrols, trucks, jeeps, etc

[BlueRidgeDx]

You sound like one of those people who believe that the current low intensity conflicts of OEF/OIF define modern warfare, as if it's "unrealistic" that we might become embroiled in an honest-to-goodness shooting war with someone who has the ability put up a real fight. As if we should bet the farm that all future conflicts will be fought against cave dwelling goat herders.

 

The A-10 was designed, and for decades A-10 pilots trained specifically to fight at 100' AGL below the Soviet SuperMEZ. There's nothing unrealistic about operating in a denied environment since that is specifically what the airplane was designed and built for.

[213]

a-10c has never been in anything other than low intensity conflicts. that's just a fact. anything else is hypothetical/fantasy.

[Lucky]

You're absolutely right

I never understood :bash:why the creators of the missions put many batteries of SAM missiles that the A10 should face them in.

May be because they are not real pilots:smilewink:

 

Then I look forward to your first mission.

[159th_Viper]

The A-10 was designed, and for decades A-10 pilots trained specifically to fight at 100' AGL below the Soviet SuperMEZ....

 

Hypothetically of course, what would the doctrine be today against systems with a 15 ft AGL minimum target engagement zone?

[Strut]

@ 213

 

I wouldn't call GF 1 low intensity, all the latest soviet hardware was trialed under the auspices of the Iraqi regime,

 

From Wikipedia "The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 military vehicles, and 1,200 artillery pieces. A-10s shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon." and " Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another three battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crashed landings.The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F16."

 

So i think your sort of fantasizing in your responses. If you think that only a "Fulda gap" type scenario is the only step into high intensity conflict your wrong. And as a last comment to think about, remember your only as good as your last war, because when the next one starts its learning all over again, thats a fact.....

[Snoopy]

Our pilots still traing constantly for low level missions. A lot more than flying at 20,000 using the TGP.

[213]

@ 213

 

I wouldn't call GF 1 low intensity, all the latest soviet hardware was trialed under the auspices of the Iraqi regime,

 

From Wikipedia "The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 military vehicles, and 1,200 artillery pieces. A-10s shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon." and " Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another three battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crashed landings.The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force gave up on the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F16."

 

So i think your sort of fantasizing in your responses. If you think that only a "Fulda gap" type scenario is the only step into high intensity conflict your wrong. And as a last comment to think about, remember your only as good as your last war, because when the next one starts its learning all over again, thats a fact.....

 

the a-10c was not in the gulf war.

 

there are different degrees of realism in regards to mission design. i consider historically accurate scenarios more "realistic" than scenarios that have never happened.

 

i also consider hunting terrorists in afghanistan and reenacting that important time in history to be much more interesting than killing oddly ill equipped russians on behalf of georgians in a politically implausible situation. at the same time i think there are different levels of realism within fantasy scenarios as well. us/russia blowing up insurgents riding on horse drawn carts and suvs would be a more plausible scenario.

[Strut]

Stop being pedantic over tripe, the war in Afghanistan is predominantly COIN Ops, a lot of CAS and just about anything you can think of has been employed.

 

The C model didnt fly in GFW 1, but A10 Thunderbolt II did, same dog different leg action, im not disagreeing with you on fantasy/ realistic type scenarios, but from what i can see within the sim we have just about covered it all in third party missions and in the earlier campaigns and the real A10c was developed for the high intensity end as well as for any other conflict it can add its potency too. Our A10c is a sim - you can simmulate anything you damn well want to.

[Cali]

No very many people fly realistic anyways. A-10's didn't go up loaded like people do them in game, 6 Mavs, 8 bombs, missiles and jammer pod.

[Snoopy]

No very many people fly realistic anyways. A-10's didn't go up loaded like people do them in game, 6 Mavs, 8 bombs, missiles and jammer pod.

 

Agreed...that's one thing we don't do in the 476th, all our payloads are based on realistic loadouts I've seen first hand and/or have direct knowledge of.

 

People keep taking about Afghanistan.....the normal combat mission overthere recently is over 8 hours in the air, sometimes not dropping one bomb or firing the gun.

[sorcer3r]

Some A10C were also in Libya. And they did some ground attacks. (tanks, buildings, supply convoys?)

 

So thats also a realistic type of missions as talib-CAS missions are.

But in the A10 I have most fun with CAS.

And in the F16 I have more fun with strike stuff.

[Cali]

Agreed...that's one thing we don't do in the 476th, all our payloads are based on realistic loadouts I've seen first hand and/or have direct knowledge of.

 

People keep taking about Afghanistan.....the normal combat mission overthere recently is over 8 hours in the air, sometimes not dropping one bomb or firing the gun.

 

That's one thing I notice when you post your screenshots, that your jets aren't loaded to the gills. Also, I've seen screenshots of you guys with tanks and travel pods. This is one thing I tell the guys I fly with in BMS, cause some of them do the same thing.....put too much weapons on the jet. I don't mind carrying 2 bombs and taking out 1 or 2 things, if that's what my target is. Afterall I do understand that this is a game and we play it to have fun.

[sgibson]

No very many people fly realistic anyways. A-10's didn't go up loaded like people do them in game, 6 Mavs, 8 bombs, missiles and jammer pod.

 

Reagarding the weapons - In that particular book they mentioned several times following loadout:

 

6 x Mk82

6 x CBU (didn't say which type)

2 x Mavs (I think it was H)

2 x AIM9

 

It was interesting to read that they wanted to load 4xMavs but those racks were unreliable and they had to go with only 2xMavs.

 

They also mentioned first they drop all bombs on priority targets. Usually all six Mk82s with one drop and then the rest. They switched to AGM only at the end which was mainly due to the lack of a TGP at that point in time. They used the Mavs to spot targets.

Edited May 22, 2012 by sgibson

[Snoopy]

Reagarding the weapons - In that particular book they mentioned several times following loadout:

 

6 x Mk82

6 x CBU (didn't say which type)

2 x Mavs (I think it was H)

2 x AIM9

 

 

I must have missed this when I was reading it, although it was a while ago so I could have forgotten, that's a huge payload for an A-10, where in the book is it so I can read it again?

 

Thanks!

[sgibson]

I must have missed this when I was reading it, although it was a while ago so I could have forgotten, that's a huge payload for an A-10, where in the book is it so I can read it again?

 

It was mentioned several times ... I could find only this reference quickly:

 

check p. 85 in W. Smallwood. Warthog - Flying the A-10 in the gulf war.

 

"At about 46,000 pounds, loaded with six Mark-82s or six CBUs, two Mavericks, two Aim-9s, ECM pod, flare pods, 1,150 rounds of 30mm and full fuel, they labored up to 20,000 feet where they cruised just above the stall speed of the plane"

Edited May 22, 2012 by sgibson

[Ghanja]

It says "or" so that would mean that they had loaded 6 MK-82s or 6 CBUs and not both of them (that would mean a total of 12 bombs).

Target-spotting via Maverick was only done during night operations since they did not have a TGP and the tanks had a good IR-signature. That was not too easy and was described as "looking through a straw".

[Snoopy]

It was mentioned several times ... I could find only this reference quickly:

 

check p. 85 in W. Smallwood. Warthog - Flying the A-10 in the gulf war.

 

"At about 46,000 pounds, loaded with six Mark-82s or six CBUs, two Mavericks, two Aim-9s, ECM pod, flare pods, 1,150 rounds of 30mm and full fuel, they labored up to 20,000 feet where they cruised just above the stall speed of the plane"

 

Thanks!

 

It says "or" so that would mean that they had loaded 6 MK-82s or 6 CBUs and not both of them (that would mean a total of 12 bombs).

Target-spotting via Maverick was only done during night operations since they did not have a TGP and the tanks had a good IR-signature. That was not too easy and was described as "looking through a straw".

 

That cleared it up, I took the earlier post to mean they had all 12 loaded :D

 

Although not the norm I've seen similar loadouts.

[sgibson]

Yes - mistake - I remembered it wrong when reading it :D

[G-Lock91]

Agreed...that's one thing we don't do in the 476th, all our payloads are based on realistic loadouts I've seen first hand and/or have direct knowledge of.

 

People keep taking about Afghanistan.....the normal combat mission overthere recently is over 8 hours in the air, sometimes not dropping one bomb or firing the gun.

 

You had these loadouts as a download in the user files, did you not?

[Jona33]

You had these loadouts as a download in the user files, did you not?

 

Can't see them in Users files anymore but they're in the mods section.

[Snoopy]

You had these loadouts as a download in the user files, did you not?

 

Not sure about the user files section but we've got them posted at the links below....

 

Version for DCS World: http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=63

 

Version for 1.1.1.1.: http://www.476vfightergroup.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=21

[Eddie]

Can't see them in Users files anymore but they're in the mods section.

 

I removed them from the user files as it's far easier to maintain a single source (the 476th public downloads) as opposed to uploading to multiple website each time an update was made.