FA: Book: A-10s Over Kosovo...

[Arizona]

Up for auction:

 

A-10s Over Kosovo: The Victory of Airpower Over a Fielded Army as Told by the Airmen Who Fought in Operation Allied Force

 

By Col C. Haave and Lt Col P. Haun, USAF

 

ISBN 1-58566-122-8 Published 2003. 332 pages.

 

See link here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/A-10s-Over-Kosovo-The-Victory-of-Airpower-book_W0QQitemZ4606829460QQcategoryZ378QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Very interesting read for A-10 enthusiasts.

 

Arizona

[GGTharos]

Also available as free PDF.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I got the PDF version somewhere. I read it about two years ago. I was not impressed with those pilots. They had such an overwhelming air superiority, yet they hit only two or three targets during the 70 days (or more) long air campaign. Although they desperately tried to save the face, from reading the book, it is rather obvious that A-10 is no longer a weapons platform to be used against a serious opponent.

 

Yes it somewhat worked against Yugoslavia, where NATO had 10 aircraft for every Yugoslavian one. However, that is the only scenario I can see A-10 being used nowadays (10 against 1).

[GGTharos]

No, that isn't an entirely correct assessment. First of all, the A-10 isn't used where there are enemy fighters if it can be helped. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

No, as for their 'score', yeah, it wasn't so good, but there were pretty good reasons. The are the following:

 

1) A-10's were not allowed to fly below certain altitudes, for their own safety. This was fairly prudent, as there was no ground force to support ... they just looked for things from high up to attack.

 

This caused a problem of course, in that identifying military vehicles form that altitude was difficult. Furthermore, the Serb army hid well in forests and only moved at night most of the time.

 

2) A-10's had pretty strict ROE's for what to hit and where to hit. Since these happened to be broadcast in the clear, the Serb army did the logical thing and took advantage of them.

 

3) There was no ground force to find targets for them. I think it's been shown well enough that it's very difficult to attack hidden assets, be they personnel, or vehicles, or what have you.

 

 

So I think your assessment is not very correct, given the fact that teh A-10 wasn't even being used the way it's supposed to (As a CAS machine).

 

Its performance in Iraq is far more representative ... and they hit quite a bit more than 'two or three targets' ;)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Lemme guess, you're Yugoslavian.

Good guess. Have you read the book? ;)

[Stormin]

I got the PDF version somewhere. I read it about two years ago. I was not impressed with those pilots. They had such an overwhelming air superiority, yet they hit only two or three targets during the 70 days (or more) long air campaign. Although they desperately tried to save the face, from reading the book, it is rather obvious that A-10 is no longer a weapons platform to be used against a serious opponent.

 

Yes it somewhat worked against Yugoslavia, where NATO had 10 aircraft for every Yugoslavian one. However, that is the only scenario I can see A-10 being used nowadays (10 against 1).

 

Boo freakin' hoo. Sounds like sour grapes. The A-10 is still a very capable platform and is being upgraded to the A-10C.

 

Was Yugolavia a serious opponent? Hmmm.....

[Stormin]

No, that isn't an entirely correct assessment. First of all, the A-10 isn't used where there are enemy fighters if it can be helped. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

No, as for their 'score', yeah, it wasn't so good, but there were pretty good reasons. The are the following:

 

1) A-10's were not allowed to fly below certain altitudes, for their own safety. This was fairly prudent, as there was no ground force to support ... they just looked for things from high up to attack.

 

This caused a problem of course, in that identifying military vehicles form that altitude was difficult. Furthermore, the Serb army hid well in forests and only moved at night most of the time.

 

2) A-10's had pretty strict ROE's for what to hit and where to hit. Since these happened to be broadcast in the clear, the Serb army did the logical thing and took advantage of them.

 

3) There was no ground force to find targets for them. I think it's been shown well enough that it's very difficult to attack hidden assets, be they personnel, or vehicles, or what have you.

 

 

So I think your assessment is not very correct, given the fact that teh A-10 wasn't even being used the way it's supposed to (As a CAS machine).

 

Its performance in Iraq is far more representative ... and they hit quite a bit more than 'two or three targets' ;)

 

 

Indeed.

[superserb]

Boo freakin' hoo. Sounds like sour grapes. The A-10 is still a very capable platform and is being upgraded to the A-10C.

 

Was Yugolavia a serious opponent? Hmmm.....

Yes...I think it is. :icon_toil

 

BTW Spell it right, not Yugolavia but Yugoslavia, and soon it will be only Serbia (not even Serbia and Montenegro)...I asked myself whay ???

[504 Wolverine]

Oh here we go again. IBTL :rolleyes:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Boo freakin' hoo. Sounds like sour grapes. The A-10 is still a very capable platform and is being upgraded to the A-10C.

Yes, it will work really good against Afghanistan and Iraq where there is no air Defenses at all!

 

Was Yugolavia a serious opponent? Hmmm.....

I never said it was. Have you read the book?

[RvEFoxteR]

"Izvinite, nismo znali da je nevidljiv!"

 

I think that was a very funny title in the serbian newspapers when they shot down F117 (or was it B2..forgot). lol

 

means (We are sorry, we didn't know it was invisible"

 

lol :D

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

"Izvinite, nismo znali da je nevidljiv!"

 

means (We are sorry, we didn't know it was invisible"

 

lol :D

 

 

LMAO

[Kula66]

Also available as free PDF.

 

Wouldn't that be illegal?

[GGTharos]

Wouldn't that be illegal?

 

No. The Air Force Press makes it available for free.

[Guest EVIL-SCOTSMAN]

animal farm the movie, you gotta love it :p

[Pilotasso]

No, that isn't an entirely correct assessment. First of all, the A-10 isn't used where there are enemy fighters if it can be helped. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

No, as for their 'score', yeah, it wasn't so good, but there were pretty good reasons. The are the following:

 

1) A-10's were not allowed to fly below certain altitudes, for their own safety. This was fairly prudent, as there was no ground force to support ... they just looked for things from high up to attack.

 

This caused a problem of course, in that identifying military vehicles form that altitude was difficult. Furthermore, the Serb army hid well in forests and only moved at night most of the time.

 

2) A-10's had pretty strict ROE's for what to hit and where to hit. Since these happened to be broadcast in the clear, the Serb army did the logical thing and took advantage of them.

 

3) There was no ground force to find targets for them. I think it's been shown well enough that it's very difficult to attack hidden assets, be they personnel, or vehicles, or what have you.

 

 

So I think your assessment is not very correct, given the fact that teh A-10 wasn't even being used the way it's supposed to (As a CAS machine).

 

Its performance in Iraq is far more representative ... and they hit quite a bit more than 'two or three targets' ;)

 

4) Terrain was rough

5) Appalling weather wich hampered IR and laser weapons.

6) the A-10 is not a Tornado.

 

On a side note concerning Iraq, was that it was the ideal place for the A-10 since it was completely flat, not to mention rarely it would rain over the desert. ;)

 

Stormin, bear in mind that some of the people here actualy felt the bombs, and while this doesnt make anyone right, theres no point for your provocations either. Stay out of trouble people.

[GGTharos]

Good points Pilotasso, I forgot about both of those :D

[superserb]

4) Terrain was rough

5) Appalling weather wich hampered IR and laser weapons.

6) the A-10 is not a Tornado.

 

On a side note concerning Iraq, was that it was the ideal place for the A-10 since it was completely flat, not to mention rarely it would rain over the desert. ;)

 

Stormin, bear in mind that some of the people here actualy felt the bombs, and while this doesnt make anyone right, theres no point for your provocations either. Stay out of trouble people.

 

 

Absolutely agreed!! That's the right approach to this (for me painfull) theme. My cudos to you Pilotasso!!!

[Kula66]

No. The Air Force Press makes it available for free.

 

Wow, I stand corrected ... whereis the link?

[Starlight]

6) the A-10 is not a Tornado.

 

That is why A-10s flew much more missions than Tornados. The problem was identifying military units which were *often* well camouflaged near (if not within) civilian structures, knowing that strict ROE and mass-media would prevent attacks.

Well to identify camouflaged targets in bad weather you need to fly slow. A low pass @ Mach 1 doesn't help to identify a mobile target at all. Tornado is the choice if you want to pound a military complex like an airbase, which is large, open and, most important, doesn't change its location!

 

The A-10 was THE CHOICE because they wanted something which was able to fly slow, loiter for a long time and sustain eventual damage from AAA. The A-10 was definitely the best aircraft to do that.

They could do that because NATO had already gained air superiority (that wasn't the hardest part of the war). Yet NATO failed to destroy Serbian air defense system (by admission of many officers) and that forced aircraft to fly higher for better protection. As a consequence air attacks were quite unsuccessful (at least compared to the sortie numbers) and often took "collateral damage", which is a stupid word to describe a really horrible thing.

 

The problem in todays "low intensity" conflicts (don't know who came up with this expression) is that often the countries attacked are clearly overwhelmed from the military point of view, so they resort to "last-ditch" tactics like mergin' military targets in the urban areas. It happened in Kosovo and in Iraq, and it's a great limitation for the use of air power.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Yes I have, I downloaded the PDF when the link to it was first posted on SimHQ.

So how many targets have the A-10’s destroyed in that book? One, two?

 

And no, the Serbs were never a serious opponent.

I never said they were.

 

I have no problem with national pride. Ignoring facts and reality is where I make a comment.

So, what are the facts my friend? What facts have I ignored?

 

Those of us in the U.S. will agree that Vietnam was fought with too much input from the politicians and that it was fought wrong. Those are the facts and my patriotism doesn't negate those.

I don't know much about Vietnam war, I don't comment about it and I do not understand why did you enter Vietnam in this discussion?

 

Things that had to do w/certain acts that the other guys' mother would do and actions performed with barn animals.........lol. My GF was Serbian.

Ruggbut, just what are you trying to say here? Is this supposed to have somenting to do with A-10 over Kosovo?

[GGTharos]

Read the book again. I didn't hand count, but at least 10 military vehicles were described as destroyed by that book alone, and that was only a few sorties.

 

This was also NOT a 'target rich environment' or an environment meant for serious application of air power like that ... air forces are too expensive to use for 'plinking', it just so happens that some powers have the money to throw around to make it happen.

 

What's your point again? That there's a plane out there that would have done better?

[GGTharos]

Wow, I stand corrected ... whereis the link?

 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Haun_B90.htm

 

Click on the download link

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

First of all, the A-10 isn't used where there are enemy fighters if it can be helped. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.

It might be my English, but I really do not understand what are you trying to say here?

 

No, as for their 'score', yeah, it wasn't so good,...

That is exactly what I said as well.

 

... but there were pretty good reasons.

There are always reason ... Let us see them:

 

1) A-10's were not allowed to fly below certain altitudes, for their own safety.

So they could not fly the way thy are designed to fly. Isn’t that what I said in my original post?

 

This was fairly prudent, as there was no ground force to support ...

Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was very active in Kosovo. Their commanders were trained in Germany and USA. They had logistic support from USA and other NATO countries. Weapons, food, ammunition all of that was coming from the west. KLA was ground force to be supported. However, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair chose not to? I wonder why?

 

they just looked for things from high up to attack.

I agree with that. Soft, undefended targets. Easy kills. However, you don’t need A-10 for that. P-51 can do as good under such a circumstances.

 

This caused a problem of course, in that identifying military vehicles form that altitude was difficult.

Because, down low, A-10’s could not fly. They could not do the job they were designed for.

 

Furthermore, the Serb army hid well in forests and only moved at night most of the time.

So, for the A-10 to be effective, my, Serbian army should come out to the meadows and wave to the A-10 pilots. “Here we are. Drop bombs on us!”

 

2) A-10's had pretty strict ROE's for what to hit and where to hit. Since these happened to be broadcast in the clear, the Serb army did the logical thing and took advantage of them.

This statement clearly works against the A-10. Further reinforcing my and your statement that the A-10 was ineffective in war over Kosovo.

 

3) There was no ground force to find targets for them. I think it's been shown well enough that it's very difficult to attack hidden assets, be they personnel, or vehicles, or what have you.

There was ground forces all over Kosovo. KLA, special ops, british special ops, you name it. Ground forces were entering Yugoslavian territory all the times. In one such incident, three American soldiers were captured with their Hummer. Last summer I was in Belgrade and that Hummer is now parked in front of the military museum in Belgrade (Kalemegdan).

 

So I think your assessment is not very correct, given the fact that teh A-10 wasn't even being used the way it's supposed to (As a CAS machine).

Well, that puts the end to this discussion. Of course that the A-10’s were not used the way they were supposed to. It was much easier to hit soft, undefended targets from high altitudes and “collaterally damage” soldiers wife’s, mothers, and children. Also, take the power stations to hospitals and schools, destroy Christian churches, civilian bridges (of no military significance). I am with you on that one!

 

Cheers!

[Kula66]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/catalog/books/Haun_B90.htm

 

Click on the download link

 

Many thanks GGT. Any other titles there worth a read for tactical accounts/info?

 

James