Anti-tank rockets useless

[Kalli]

GAU 8

 

Not to change the topic but I wondered if anybody else experienced the following.

 

 

The GAU 8

 

I notice that certain attributes of the A10C have changed. Almost every time I get to close and collect a few rounds in my fuselage my GAU stops working. This only needs to be what seems, one or two rounds.

It is much too sensitive and happens far too often. I know the pilot seat is protected by a titanium bath but the GAU is also a very robust piece of equipment.

Whatever the case it ruins my mission run and waist a lot of time, game or simulation either way it is very annoying, would someone please address this issue. Lets simulate that the GAU does not damage so easily please.

[Eddie]

Not to change the topic but I wondered if anybody else experienced the following.

 

 

The GAU 8

 

I notice that certain attributes of the A10C have changed. Almost every time I get to close and collect a few rounds in my fuselage my GAU stops working. This only needs to be what seems, one or two rounds.

It is much too sensitive and happens far too often. I know the pilot seat is protected by a titanium bath but the GAU is also a very robust piece of equipment.

Whatever the case it ruins my mission run and waist a lot of time, game or simulation either way it is very annoying, would someone please address this issue. Lets simulate that the GAU does not damage so easily please.

 

It only takes 1 round to sever a hydraulic line, electrical loom or ammo feed belt and the gun is bent.

 

Yes the gun barrel and some other components are strong, but equally many parts are highly vunerable to damage, just like other parts of the aircraft.

 

The A-10 is designed to withstand fire, but only in the respect that it will get the pilot home, it cannot and should not be able to carry on fighting after sustaining damage any more than other combat aircraft can.

[tflash]

A little bit off-topic but I think a good addition to DCS would be the ability for MBT's to deploy smokescreens. Besides armour that is one of the very effective MBT protections. They also have IR jammers etc.

[Eddie]

A little bit off-topic but I think a good addition to DCS would be the ability for MBT's to deploy smokescreens.

 

They already do, it's just not working all that well as the effect used does not produce a persistent screen. Hopefully it'll be improved in time, and work in the IR spectrum as well as visual.

[marcos]

It only takes 1 round to sever a hydraulic line, electrical loom or ammo feed belt and the gun is bent.

 

Yes the gun barrel and some other components are strong, but equally many parts are highly vunerable to damage, just like other parts of the aircraft.

 

The A-10 is designed to withstand fire, but only in the respect that it will get the pilot home, it cannot and should not be able to carry on fighting after sustaining damage any more than other combat aircraft can.

I took out 6 tanks with 1 engine down, it just takes longer to climb to a decent dive altitude. In real life I'd have probably flew home though.

 

A little bit off-topic but I think a good addition to DCS would be the ability for MBT's to deploy smokescreens. Besides armour that is one of the very effective MBT protections. They also have IR jammers etc.

They kind of do when they drive around on the grass.:)

[Eddie]

I took out 6 tanks with 1 engine down, it just takes longer to climb to a decent dive altitude. In real life I'd have probably flew home though.

 

No probably about it.

[OutOnTheOP]

I was looking at your argument that newer Russian tanks have virtually no ability against KE. Frankly I have no hard evidence but I suspect that others don't either. Weight and RHA are only linked when discussing the same type of armour.

 

Where the heck did I say that? I said that ERA has little or no ability against KE. I further said that Russian tanks almost universally carry ERA; which makes accurate assessment of their "RHA equivalency" difficult, because KE and HEAT warheads perform very differently against ERA. Nowhere did I say anything about Russian tanks having "virtually no ability against KE". Please re-read my comment.

 

Now, I would argue that the T90 isn't the indestructable beast some make it out to be: it's a product-improved T72, and any attempt to portray it as anything different is silly.

[OutOnTheOP]

Armor estimates are easy to find, but rear and top armor is a pretty big mystery. The most detailed estimates are for the professional tank sim Steel Beasts.

 

Ain't no auto cannon getting through that side armor, except to pick at that tiny spot in the hull.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Image:M1A1_HA_frontLOS.jpg

On the other hand the commander's hatch looks quite vulnerable, once you close within 1000m.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/3/30/M1A1_HA_sideLOS.jpg

 

The T-72's top armor actually looks like a pretty tough nut.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/3/34/T72Barmour.jpg

 

Now let's refer to the coloring book, which claims that the top armor of the hull is too thick to penetrate. And it also mentions that trying to track a tank with what is technically just a big firearm is a dumb idea.

http://s207.photobucket.com/albums/bb48/hamm172/WORLD%20OF%20TANKS%20STUFF/?action=view&current=T-62_CB_page7.gif

 

Ok, so first off: that's not a definitive assessment, it's a best-guess by a software company with no access to classified information.

 

Second, what "tiny spot"? Looks to me like the entire engine bay (55mm KE) and the side plates by the suspension (30mm KE) are perforable by modest autocannon AP rounds; the M919 25mm AP rates around 100mm at 2km; the 30mm GAU8 probably runs similar (*edit* the coloring book indicates 80mm at 500 meters with 70s ammo).

 

Also, the 25mm has PROVEN capable of knocking out M1s from the rear aspect. There's absolutely no speculation about it: it happened.

 

...where does the coloring book state the roof is impenetrable?

Edited August 27, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[SUBS17]

The A-10 in the Gulf war got 1000 tank kills and some of those are no doubt from using the gun as well. The AH64 got 500 tank kills, the A-10 is the best tank killer. BTW armour values are less in the rear of tanks in DCS from my observations.

[tflash]

They kind of do when they drive around on the grass.:)

 

I mistook that with dust.

[tflash]

The A-10 in the Gulf war got 1000 tank kills and some of those are no doubt from using the gun as well. The AH64 got 500 tank kills, the A-10 is the best tank killer. BTW armour values are less in the rear of tanks in DCS from my observations.

 

Lets' make sure we do not end up with more killed tanks than the Iraqi had in the inventory.

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19930816&id=AAYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z3YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4042,2024274

 

In the same war, the F-111 is claimed by Wikipedia to have killed 1500 tanks and armoured vehicles on its own: "The F-111s were credited with destroying more than 1,500 Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles. Their use in the anti-armor role was dubbed "tank-plinking".

 

Let's take all these numbers with a pinch of salt.

[maturin]

Or a Dead Sea full of it.

[SUBS17]

Lets' make sure we do not end up with more killed tanks than the Iraqi had in the inventory.

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19930816&id=AAYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z3YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4042,2024274

 

In the same war, the F-111 is claimed by Wikipedia to have killed 1500 tanks and armoured vehicles on its own: "The F-111s were credited with destroying more than 1,500 Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles. Their use in the anti-armor role was dubbed "tank-plinking".

 

Let's take all these numbers with a pinch of salt.

 

Well they did have 5500 tanks . I know that in the Highway of death there were alot of vehicles. Their stats are 900 tanks, 2000 military vehicles, and 1200 artillery pieces. F111 1500 tanks and armoured vehicles, I suppose if you add them up though the A-10 is still the higher kills 4100 total vs 1500. Iraq had quite a big Army back then.

[maturin]

The A-10 in the Gulf war got 1000 tank kills and some of those are no doubt from using the gun as well. The AH64 got 500 tank kills, the A-10 is the best tank killer.

So the IED is a better weapon than the AK47, and the Blackhawk is a better weapon than the Raptor? There's higher kill ratios!

 

Of course it has nothing to do with the usage of each weapon, according to situation. Sending helicopters after tanks in enemy territory is risky business.

 

Also, how many of those tanks were T-55s with only 150mm of frontal armor anyways?

[Prophet]

A little bit off-topic but I think a good addition to DCS would be the ability for MBT's to deploy smokescreens. Besides armour that is one of the very effective MBT protections. They also have IR jammers etc.

 

At least its better than just sitting there taking fire.

[SUBS17]

So the IED is a better weapon than the AK47, and the Blackhawk is a better weapon than the Raptor? There's higher kill ratios!

 

Of course it has nothing to do with the usage of each weapon, according to situation. Sending helicopters after tanks in enemy territory is risky business.

 

Also, how many of those tanks were T-55s with only 150mm of frontal armor anyways?

 

As far as kills go a tank is a tank, BTW being on the recieveing end of a T55 ain't pretty if you do not have an anti-armour weapon.:music_whistling:

[marcos]

I mistook that with dust.

I think it is but it has the same affect on visibility.:)

[maturin]

BTW being on the recieveing end of a T55 ain't pretty if you do not have an anti-armour weapon.:music_whistling:

No argument there, but ANY anti-armor weapon will do against something as old as a T-55.

 

If you bill yourself as an MBT-killing monster, you don't go up against obsolete MBTs, any more than you test your SAMs on Cessnas.

[Wolfie]

Lets' make sure we do not end up with more killed tanks than the Iraqi had in the inventory.

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19930816&id=AAYhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z3YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4042,2024274

 

In the same war, the F-111 is claimed by Wikipedia to have killed 1500 tanks and armoured vehicles on its own: "The F-111s were credited with destroying more than 1,500 Iraqi tanks and armored vehicles. Their use in the anti-armor role was dubbed "tank-plinking".

 

Let's take all these numbers with a pinch of salt.

 

 

 

 

Combat math:

 

4 enemy + 2 pigs + 1 goat + 1 motorcycle = 26 enemy killed in action.

 

No argument there, but ANY anti-armor weapon will do against something as old as a T-55.

 

If you bill yourself as an MBT-killing monster, you don't go up against obsolete MBTs, any more than you test your SAMs on Cessnas.

 

Lol, well said.

[marcos]

At least its better than just sitting there taking fire.

True. Killing them on gun would be damn hard if they were doing 30-40mph. Hitting them would be easy, but concentrating enough fire in one burst would prove far trickier.

[maturin]

I think it is but it has the same affect on visibility.:)

The dust from moving tanks makes them dramatically easier to see, and has no effect on your ability to lock them with the Shkval or other missile requiring laser contact and computer recognition. It's an anti-smokescreen.

[volk]

Which is still a good sight better than the T72/T80/T90 family, with closer to 150-200 RHA.

150-200?Lol, even ИС-3 (early 1945) had 220 mm max.

[OutOnTheOP]

150-200?Lol, even ИС-3 (early 1945) had 220 mm max.

 

Yes, and the IS3 had around 120mm average on turret sides. You're only quoting TURRET dimensions; hull thickness tends to be less (though in the WW2 and immediate post-war, tanks generally had more evenly distributed armor than the more modern models, where it is weighted forward and up). (*edit*: I forgot to mention also that 120mm LOS thickness on the IS3 likely equates to closer to 80-90mm RHAe by modern standards: cast turrets were not known for particularly consistent tempering, nor was the alloy mix of the day as good as modern "armor steel")

 

Also, the Josef Stalin series are the same weight class as the T90, and the T90, like most modern tanks, has advanced armor to the front, and occasionally the turret sides, but almost never to the hull sides or rear. Even the most advanced modern tanks tend to have fairly thin, relatively unsophisticated armor to the sides: compare with the much heavier Abrams, which STILL (by all sane assessments) has only ~250mm RHAe for the turret sides, and 50-150mm RHAe for hull sides.

 

If you actually think that the much heavier, much more expensive Abrams has significantly worse armor protection than the T90, which is based on a 1970s chassis, weighs 20 tons less, and was essentially discontinued by the Russians (I mean, if T90 was so great, why'd they stop buying them?), then something is wrong in your logic.

Edited September 2, 2012 by OutOnTheOP

[marcos]

The dust from moving tanks makes them dramatically easier to see, and has no effect on your ability to lock them with the Shkval or other missile requiring laser contact and computer recognition. It's an anti-smokescreen.

If you're on a gun run it makes them more difficult to target.

[marcos]

Low and behold it only takes ~80 API rounds from a Ka-50 to kill an M1A2 too. From about 1.5km range too.