Anti-tank rockets useless

[maturin]

Has any A-10 pilot ever fired his GAU-8 at a modern MBT on a battlefield without air superiority and neutered anti-air? Closest you can get is the Gulf War against T-72s.

 

The fact is the GAU-8 can only penetrate the weak points of an even old (T-62) tanks, which is mostly what I was referring to. The tactical consequences for that are open to debate, but it seems logical that a top attack (unless the tank lets you approach it from the rear) means taking your plane off the dock and exposing it to all sorts of fire.

 

The GAU-8 is second only to Maverick in its stand-off capability

In what world does 500-1000m qualify as stand-off? It's within the engagement envelope of every heavy weapon ever. Even in this sim, people talk about requiring that sort of range to take out MBTs because of accuracy and because the API loses penetration power over distance.

[marcos]

my guess is that you should revise your rocket loadout. MK5 comes in high explosive too. just read the weapon tool tip mouse-over before saving loadout. (LAU-688/131- MK5 Armor Piercing).

I realise the MK5 is armour-piercing but it seems to work less well than MK151s. That was my point.

[Eddie]

Has any A-10 pilot ever fired his GAU-8 at a modern MBT on a battlefield without air superiority and neutered anti-air? Closest you can get is the Gulf War against T-72s.

 

No, but they train for it every day. And there is a big difference between air superiority and suppressed air defences and no threat, a very big difference. And that's ignoring the fact that in a cold war type scenario, the A-10 (and every other aircraft) would be expected to operate even without air superiority or ground based air defences being destroyed/suppressed.

 

Would the GAU-8 (or any weapon) be as effective against a "modern" MBT as it would have been back in the 80's? Of course not, but that doesn't suddenly make it useless. Even the Russians and Chinese still operate large numbers of T-72s/T-80s (and variants), which the A-10 is quite capable of taking on. And many other Nations that are more realistic candidates for a major conventional conflict don't have anything even approaching "modern" MBTs, they do however have a lot of T-72/T-80 types.

 

The fact is the GAU-8 can only penetrate the weak points of an even old (T-62) tanks, which is mostly what I was referring to. The tactical consequences for that are open to debate, but it seems logical that a top attack (unless the tank lets you approach it from the rear) means taking your plane off the dock and exposing it to all sorts of fire.

 

You don't need to penetrate the crew compartment armour to score a mission kill, and a mission kill is all that matters. But even ignoring that fact MBTs are far from the only targets for the A-10, in fact the bulk of the "targets" is would be tasked against are much less protected that an MBT.

 

Yes a high angle strafe will expose you to ground fire, but guess what, so will a maverick attack, or a dive bomb delivery. Being exposed to ground fire is why the A-10 is built the way it is.

 

In what world does 500-1000m qualify as stand-off? It's within the engagement envelope of every heavy weapon ever. Even in this sim, people talk about requiring that sort of range to take out MBTs because of accuracy and because the API loses penetration power over distance.

 

I don't know where you get 500-1000 metres from, even a HAS is performed from between 0.9Nm (1700 metres) and 0.7Nm (1300 metres). The GAU-8 is effective out to 2Nm (nearly 4 Km) depending on the target. Even MBTs can be effectively suppressed out that far should the need arise, although you'll only ever achieve a weapons or mobility "kill" from that range.

 

The GAU-8 allows the A-10 to remain at a much greater distance from the target than when delivering free fall munitions. However even free fall munitions can be effectively delivered in a high threat environment. the big difference between a high threat environment such as that expected in Europe had the cold war gone hot and current operations is that in a high threat environment you typically carry out one or two passes on the target, and only enter hostile airspace when you have a target to attack. You certainly don't sit up at medium altitude fat, dumb and happy staring at your MFDs.

[Eddie]

I realise the MK5 is armour-piercing but it seems to work less well than MK151s. That was my point.

 

Simply a side effect of the current damage and weapon modelling. Something that will improve in time. That said, if anyone has a specific example of a of weapon not behaving as it "should" then post "bug" report in the correct forum with the necessary tracks etc and someone from the test team will investigate as always.

[Paganus]

Meet the new Hydra -

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Precision_Kill_Weapon_System

 

Here's hoping Ed can make a pass through the sims weapons at some point.

 

I'm sure as CA matures and new aircraft come online some of this will be addressed.

[Eddie]

New weapons may be added in time, but only if those weapons are used on the specific version of any aircraft in the sim. So in the case of the A-10C, new weapons would most likely only be added if ED were to update the aircraft itself to a newer suite.

[Speed]

You certainly don't sit up at medium altitude fat, dumb and happy staring at your MFDs.

 

I'm pretty sure this is refuted by the real-life example of the A-10s being restricted to above like 5000 or 6000 meters in Kosovo due to threats down low. Which basically made them near useless I would imagine, since they were A-10As.

 

Depends on what your definition of a high threat environment is, of course.

 

Edit:

If you mean ONLY the "Cold War gone hot" scenario by a "high threat environment" where there would be long range SAMs and fighters... sure in that case, sure, medium and high altitude would be out of the picture.

 

However, the A-10 almost certainly will never face such an environment.

 

In realistic high threat environments, the USAF will suppress all the fighters and most/all of the long range SAMs, leaving AAA and IR SHORAD. If you want minimal losses, you'll end up restricting the A-10s to medium and high altitudes.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Speed

[Speed]

Here ya go:

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA431013

 

Key sentence:

"The large number of AAA and man-portable SAMs dictated rules of engagement (ROE) that restricted operations at low altitude and forced A-10 FACs to develop tactics for medium-altitude visual reconnaissance."

[maturin]

And that's ignoring the fact that in a cold war type scenario, the A-10 (and every other aircraft) would be expected to operate even without air superiority or ground based air defences being destroyed/suppressed.

Precisely why they were slated to be replaced by F-16s. The GAU-8 is a poor MBT-killer in conventional warfare. The A-10 was kept on because it's so good at CAS in assymetrical warfare, and has many other tools.

 

But even ignoring that fact MBTs are far from the only targets for the A-10, in fact the bulk of the "targets" is would be tasked against are much less protected that an MBT.

Obviously. My original post explicitly specified MBTs, in response to a post that did the same.

 

Yes a high angle strafe will expose you to ground fire, but guess what, so will a maverick attack

Yeah, except for the latter takes place from miles and miles away.

 

 

 

I don't know where you get 500-1000 metres

It's the kind of ranges people talk about on this forum, plus the published RHA penetration estimates for the gun are from those ranges. There's also that study out there that found tiny percentages of actual impacts and penetrations against T-62s, so things get chancy at long ranges.

 

 

• 69 mm at 500 meters
  
• 38 mm at 1,000 meters
  

I don't know what happens to these numbers at 2000m, but by that point I imagine it barely qualifies as an anti-tank weapon. You might as well be dousing the enemy armor in Shilka fire and destroying optics that way. It'd be faster.

The GAU-8 is effective out to 2Nm (nearly 4 Km) depending on the target.

Depending on the target. Exactly my point. If the target it an MBT, it ain't optimal.

 

Even MBTs can be effectively suppressed out that far should the need arise, although you'll only ever achieve a weapons or mobility "kill" from that range.

And just about every AT weapon on any other vehicle (including the Maverick) can reliably burn the crap out of them from even greater ranges. Which is my point. And in DCS, you can't track or suppress tanks, which was also my point in the original post.

 

You certainly don't sit up at medium altitude fat, dumb and happy staring at your MFDs.

That would be far preferable when trying to blunt a Soviet advance across Europe, hanging out under the edge of anti-air umbrella.

[Eddie]

Speed, in Kosovo etc there was no air threat, or major SAM threat, which allowed the Hogs to operate at medium level. In the cold war scenario the plan was that the A-10s would fly around at 300ft/300Knots, spending no more than 30 seconds above that altitude to employ weapons during the entire mission.

 

It's the air threat that is the primary reason for being down low, not the SAM threat. Although a serious SAM threat will also force you into the weeds.

 

Maturin,

 

Those armour values are accurate, the GAU-8 can never realistically penetrate the crew compartment of any MBT, but nor does it need to. A few rounds in the tracks, and IRL you have "killed" that target.

 

A Maverick attack normally takes place inside 5Nm when using low level tactics. The bump up/pop up action point is around 5Nm for a maverick attack, once you factor in target aquisition and tracking time your can easily be down to 3NM before you turn away. Not as much "stand off" as you may think.

 

As for sitting up at medium level, outside of the SAM umbrella, not a good idea at all. At medium level the Hog is a sitting duck for any fighter prowling the skies, and there will be lots of them.

 

Don't forget real world tactics have been developed the way they have for very good reasons. If you think your idea(s) are better, you're missing something. ;)

 

It may not be optimal, but it very often is in the real world.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Eddie

[WildBillKelsoe]

Precisely why they were slated to be replaced by F-16s. The GAU-8 is a poor MBT-killer in conventional warfare.

 

 

 

The A-10 was kept on because it's so good at CAS in assymetrical warfare, and has many other tools.

 

 

Oh, the GAU-8 is a poor MBT killer?? you must speak to some USMC personnel.. those out on tours in Afghanistan, ya?

 

not only did they keep the A-10, they are doing an unmanned version now.. And FYI, the F-16 M61 vulcan pops 20 mm shells, the weak (?) GAU-8 pops 30 mm shells. Someone will pop in with FL and discuss which is better in terms of ROF, WoF, and overall FL. I'll bet on the GAU-8.

 

 

 

A Maverick attack normally takes place inside 5Nm when using low level tactics. The bump up/pop up action point is around 5Nm for a maverick attack, once you factor in target aquisition and tracking time your can easily be down to 3NM before you turn away. Not as much "stand off" as you may think.

 

And that, Eddie, is a very good look at it. Why fiddle around and slew, then lock then wait for tone, then fire, when you just have him on pod, turn the bird nose in to the tank, squeeze the tit, 'one, potato, one' ... crew rushes out in terror and disbelief!! END OF STORY :)

[maturin]

Oh, the GAU-8 is a poor MBT killer?? you must speak to some USMC personnel.. those out on tours in Afghanistan, ya?

Lol, I'm sure they will tell me about the hundreds of destroyed MBTs they have seen... rusting in the desert from thirty years ago. I doubt that an A10 has destroyed a single MBT in Afghanistan with any weapon.

 

Those armour values are accurate, the GAU-8 can never realistically penetrate the crew compartment of any MBT, but nor does it need to. A few rounds in the tracks, and IRL you have "killed" that target.

I would be interested in reading a study on tracking tanks. Putting a few 1.5 inch holes in a tread or roadwheel isn't exactly debilitating, and the tracks are a difficult target from a variety of angles.

 

And you are overly optimistic to assume that a mobility kill suffices in all situations. A tracked tank is easily repaired. Israel has won wars based on their ability to quickly redeploy their knocked out tanks, and in many missions a complete kill may be needed in order to secure the security of friendly troops.

 

I'm not disputing that the A10 can mission kill tanks, or that that is valuable. But being restricted to mobility kills makes the GAU-8 a, as I have said, poor anti-tank weapon in some respects. You know what else is restricted to mobility kills against modern MBTs? The RPG-7. So the GAU-8 is in that category, despite the entirety of the internet masturbating to the fearsome roar of the GAU-8 'tank-killer.'

 

So in the end we agree that it is not terribly realistic to burn up hundreds of tanks in DCS, because in real life most of them would not be burning, and that the GAU-8 doesn't chew threw tanks nearly so well its counterpart AT weapons.

Edited August 25, 2012 by maturin

[Wolfie]

Agreed. And I for one would not want to be trying to take an area where a tank has just lost a track or maybe its periscope got knocked out. If its weapons are still active, any light vehicles and infantry are in deep sh*t. Nor are well trained tank crews going to abandon their tank just because some GAU-8 knocked on their door. They might lose a track or so, but what most likely is going to happen is your going to get a butfull of .50 when you fly past that "dead" tank.

[Ironhand]

...

You don't need to penetrate the crew compartment armour to score a mission kill, and a mission kill is all that matters. But even ignoring that fact MBTs are far from the only targets for the A-10, in fact the bulk of the "targets" is would be tasked against are much less protected that an MBT...

This has been an interesting conversation to follow. So, I guess, as a practical matter, it would be up to mission designers not to routinely task A-10s to take out MBTs, since the expectation of a "kill" would be extremely low with anything but a Maverick. And, given the current state of the sim's (DCS World) damage modeling, a "mission kill" with anything but a Maverick is quite impossible. Am I interpreting this correctly?

 

 

Rich

[159th_Viper]

So, I guess, as a practical matter, it would be up to mission designers not to routinely task A-10s to take out MBTs, since the expectation of a "kill" would be extremely low with anything but a Maverick. And, given the current state of the sim's (DCS World) damage modeling, a "mission kill" with anything but a Maverick is quite impossible. Am I interpreting this correctly?

 

Not quite.

 

Real Life discussions aside, In-Sim it's routine to get a MBT kill with 70-100 rounds of the GAU-8.

 

wTa2vp0sf5I

[marcos]

Not quite.

 

Real Life discussions aside, In-Sim it's routine to get a MBT kill with 70-100 rounds of the GAU-8.

 

wTa2vp0sf5I

How many should it take for a T-80U out of interest?

[159th_Viper]

I average 100-120 or so. Then again, could be due to accuracy etc etc. I would assume they are pretty much the same insofar as the damage values are concerned.

[Ironhand]

I average 100-120 or so. Then again, could be due to accuracy etc etc. I would assume they are pretty much the same insofar as the damage values are concerned.

Cool. Good video as well. Thanks.

 

 

Rich

[marcos]

I average 100-120 or so. Then again, could be due to accuracy etc etc. I would assume they are pretty much the same insofar as the damage values are concerned.

I get about that too on a good run. Must be doing something right.:D

 

I'll try with M1A1s and see if it's any easier some time.

 

EDIT: It seems an M1A1 can be done in 80 rounds if every single round hits. Difficult to say exactly how many rounds each tank takes because I probably continue firing slightly after it's on fire sometimes and at 70rps, judging how many rounds you're firing is tricky. Maybe the M1A1 is slightly softer skinned in the sim but difficult to judge.

Edited August 25, 2012 by marcos

[tflash]

Back to the rockets are useless topic: what are you guys loading, S-8KOM or S-8OFP2 ?

[TurboHog]

Back to the rockets are useless topic: what are you guys loading, S-8KOM or S-8OFP2 ?

 

Have been succesfull with both. the KOM should be better in theory, but killing a T-72 with a direct hit from an OFP is no problem.

 

I usually go with the KOM. If there is infantry and a lot of light vehicles I take the OFP.

[Wolfie]

I get about that too on a good run. Must be doing something right.:D

 

I'll try with M1A1s and see if it's any easier some time.

 

EDIT: It seems an M1A1 can be done in 80 rounds if every single round hits. Difficult to say exactly how many rounds each tank takes because I probably continue firing slightly after it's on fire sometimes and at 70rps, judging how many rounds you're firing is tricky. Maybe the M1A1 is slightly softer skinned in the sim but difficult to judge.

 

And again, we come to the subject of the post. Unrealistic damage systems. Killing an M1 with a long range burst from a 30mm is pure BS. I hope you guys at ED will put in realistic damage and armor systems in the future, because thats the whole point of having a FIGHTER flight sim. Otherwise, we might as well just stick with MSFS. And please do this before putting out any more aircraft, because without a realistic world, they're just useless. Concentrate on the main points of your world. The finer things can be filled in later. Right now, it looks like it is nothing but hit points, which is why the explosive warheads do so much more damage.

[marcos]

And again, we come to the subject of the post. Unrealistic damage systems. Killing an M1 with a long range burst from a 30mm is pure BS. I hope you guys at ED will put in realistic damage and armor systems in the future, because thats the whole point of having a FIGHTER flight sim. Otherwise, we might as well just stick with MSFS. And please do this before putting out any more aircraft, because without a realistic world, they're just useless. Concentrate on the main points of your world. The finer things can be filled in later. Right now, it looks like it is nothing but hit points, which is why the explosive warheads do so much more damage.

Give the guys a break. Sure some things are a little unrealistic, but it's a good start.

[159th_Viper]

And again, we come to the subject of the post. Unrealistic damage systems. Killing an M1 with a long range burst from a 30mm is pure BS.....

 

And how is an engagement from 0.6nm to 0.3nm long-range, keeping in mind that the gun's very job is to kill M1's, not fluff pillows.

[marcos]

I think they'd be upset if it started killing M1s.