Su-25 as antitank?

[pepin1234]

So you're going to get really close to the tank and hope that one of your rockets hits? Because what I see in those videos is rockets spreading out like they should ... meaning you cannot guarantee a successful hit on a tank.

 

If you like do a Video to Show us the direct Impact in live, then you can become a cameraman, but I have doubts if you really will Keep the camera stabilized

[GGTharos]

I don't see you doing a video show of attacking any tanks with those rockets ... and I have my doubts you'd hit anything with them :)

[NineLine]

un·guid·ed

 

adjective

adjective: unguided

1.

not guided in a particular path or direction; left to take its own course.

(of a missile) not directed by remote control or internal equipment.

[pepin1234]

and I have my doubts

 

Is your Job, I think

[GGTharos]

What, you've run out of arguments? You already know the stuff you're saying is only half right. I don't know if you fail to realize that the rest of it is just your imagination, or if you're just pushing an agenda, or maybe both :)

[pepin1234]

What, you've run out of arguments? You already know the stuff you're saying is only half right. I don't know if you fail to realize that the rest of it is just your imagination, or if you're just pushing an agenda, or maybe both :)

 

Some days ago the russian Photos and Videos threat was tainted with an A-A Missiles discussion ( see here ) and you WERE there to continue with the Party. Now you like do the same here, but not with Air-air russians Missiles, now your Job is the Su-25A and the S-8KOM.

 

read here again: the modern tanks can be hit and damage with Su-25A diving with S-8KOM.

You could countinue with your task against russian fans and push the Su-25A into a clown level, but the Reality is this and the thread is about antitank capability of the Su-25A

[maturin]

: the modern tanks can be hit and damage with Su-25A diving with S-8KOM.

 

No one's disputing that. It's just that FFARs are crappy anti-tank weapons. Bombs and missiles are better.

 

If you ask GGTharos about A-10s and their Hydra rockets (same caliber), you'll get exactly the same answer. Don't be so dramatic. The Su-25A was never intended to take on tank formations with dumb rockets, so you're not even defending anyone's honor here.

 

A Su-25 will not dive 90 deg down at tank, and HEAT warheads are very sensitive to impact angle - the more 'off' you are, the less effective penetration they have.

They do just fine up to 45 degrees, actually. Javelins always hit at that angle in top attach mode. Same with Hellfires.

 

And if you are going for side or rear armor (Abrams is vulnerable to RPG from the side arc and entire rear, btw), you can just use a shallow dive.

[GGTharos]

@pepin:

 

Heh, I don't bring down Su-25A to clown level. You bring it to cartoon level.

 

I don't think you ever understand half of what you're being told, you just keep whining about how everyone hates Russian stuff or something.

 

Get over yourself. The Su-25A is an old aircraft, and it has better ways of killing tanks IF it has to than using those rockets, which because of how rockets work, are not very likely to hit any tanks. This is a properly of rocketry, not any magic or hatred or Su-25's.

 

Rockets are simply not your friends if you have to attack tanks.

 

Why don't anti-tank helis fly around with only rockets?

 

Or perhaps you still believe that various armies are making guided weapons just to throw money away because you could do everything with a bunch of cheap rockets?

Edited January 7, 2014 by GGTharos

[GGTharos]

I'm just guessing, but I think they're also hitting the expected slope of the armor. They also have quite a bit more penetration power.

 

Maybe that doesn't matter, I don't know.

 

As for vulnerability to RPGs - yes, I've seen the hits and armor penetration, but AFAIK they were most often not fatal.

 

Edit: This tells the story: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

 

TY for the info.

 

They do just fine up to 45 degrees, actually. Javelins always hit at that angle in top attach mode. Same with Hellfires.

 

And if you are going for side or rear armor (Abrams is vulnerable to RPG from the side arc and entire rear, btw), you can just use a shallow dive.

Edited January 7, 2014 by GGTharos

[pepin1234]

 

Heh, I don't bring down Su-25A to clown level. You bring it to cartoon level.

 

Is your natural point, but yourself dont notice that :D

 

 

I don't think you ever understand

 

You are wrong in many Thing about the russian armament. If the rocket are not very precise, then we shoot more quantity. In the real life they are cheap. Only see how powerful and fast Shooting is possible with russian rockets. The result is a personal Thing for the Pilot. Your opinion is always negative when we talk about every russian weapon.

 

The people should read you and is easy understand your job. If you have doubts, me and others guys here have not. keep with your doubts.

 

In the real life is possible and actually they do with Su-25 attack aircraft.

[Dr. Yes]

S-8KOM is 80mm HEAT. ~ 400mm RHA penetration? Plus angle? Back of an M1 and maybe the lower side. Should be used for APC / IFV. Why them make Mavericks / вихрь's

[GGTharos]

You are wrong in many Thing about the russian armament.

 

More like you don't have a clue about any armament, Russian or otherwise.

 

If the rocket are not very precise, then we shoot more quantity. In the real life they are cheap. Only see how powerful and fast Shooting is possible with russian rockets. The result is a personal Thing for the Pilot. Your opinion is always negative when we talk about every russian weapon.

In real life you have neither infinite rockets, nor infinite pilots and airplanes to send into a zone where they have to expose themselves to a very active MANPAD environment just so that they can maybe score a hit that could maybe disable a tank that they can maybe see and and aim at.

 

Your have some really strange fantasies of how air power operates under normal circumstances. Attacking tanks with rockets means that you are too poor to have proper anti-tank weapons, or desperate. Neither is a good situation.

 

So, again, maybe you think that Russia should stop developing all those anti-armor weapons, since you can do everything with some rocket pods and RPGs? :) Looks like they're just throwing away money from what you're saying!

[esb77]

This seems to have turned into an, "argue about rockets," thread somehow.

 

If you want to talk 80mm rockets as a practical anti-armor weapon consider the following:

 

For the last 50+ years military superpowers have made a point of not fighting opponents with any of these: large armies, well trained armies, well equipped armies, and armies supported by substantial industrial and scientific bases. WWI, WWII and Korea were enough to create a distaste for all out war with industrial powers.

 

This means that assuming you're taking a Russian pilot's role you can figure that you'll have total air superiority, and will be flying against unskilled conscripts driving old armor that they don't know how to use effectively.

 

In that sort of environment, especially if the armor is mixed in with a lot of softer targets (armor is somewhat expensive and prone to breakage after all) a loadout that's heavy on medium caliber rockets is perfectly reasonable.

 

The catch is that your primary threats are going to come from small to medium caliber gunfire and slightly outdated MANPADS. So in general you'll want to make a single pass on a target and unload a lot of firepower on it. Then you get out of there before they have time to get organized and try to shoot you down.

 

So for a heavy concentration of vehicles cluster bombs or munition dispensers are clearly and vastly superior to rockets. You set an appropriate ripple interval and just unload the whole payload. Nice short time over target, and it doesn't require pinpoint accuracy.

 

The place where rockets might be better is if you have small groups of mostly soft targets scattered around a large area with the occasional or very rare heavy armor unit. You shoot a few rockets at each target and hope to attack more target locations than you could using cluster munitions. The thing is, in that situation any armor kills are going to be a lucky bonus on top of the primary mission. It's not that it couldn't be done, but it's not something that you would plan on doing before taking off.

 

In a strategic sense, you shouldn't be worrying about the tanks overly in any case. If you kill the troop transports, fuel vehicles, supply vehicles, and command vehicles all of which are soft targets well suited to being engaged with rockets, you will have largely neutralized the combat value of the tanks. Most of the vehicles in a tank war aren't tanks, and without support the tanks don't do all that well. Indeed, if all the support vehicles are destroyed history shows that tank crews will often abandon their tanks to make a run for it before a follow up sortie appears with dedicated anti-tank weapons.

 

"But the mission requires . . . "

 

Many of the missions are not very realistic. There is however a button on the main screen that is labeled, MISSION EDITOR.

 

Can you use 80mm rockets on tanks? Sure and they'll work if enough hit, but they're definitely not the best choice.

 

You might try S-13s though. The Vikhr is really just a slightly modified 130mm rocket, that's why it's so fast compared to most ATGMs.

Edited January 7, 2014 by esb77

[MBot]

There is one aspect to consider which unfortunately plays a little role in most sims. If you unload a salvo of rockets on a tank column, you might not destroy a single tank but they are surely temporary rendered combat ineffective. And for a ground commander this can have a lot of value. HE artillery is equally ineffective against tanks, yet any Steel Beast player can testify you do not want to be on the receiving end of it in a tank. The Soviets loved rockets for their attack aviation and they took a very scientific approach on battlefield effectiveness.

[Djent33]

Battlefield effectiveness, I think rockets are there because you can’t fire that size of a canon from an aircraft.

Armour plating on tanks is there to sustain so much bigger rounds. (in theory as such, that the top of the tank doesn‘t go ballistic).

Now the ‘’stiner’’ SAM puts the rockets in it’s well deserved history.

Not to say it’s useless, but it’s there to practice against SAMs.

 

[pepin1234]

More like you don't have a clue about any armament, Russian or otherwise.

 

In real life you have neither infinite rockets, nor infinite pilots and airplanes to send into a zone where they have to expose themselves to a very active MANPAD environment just so that they can maybe score a hit that could maybe disable a tank that they can maybe see and and aim at.

 

Your have some really strange fantasies of how air power operates under normal circumstances. Attacking tanks with rockets means that you are too poor to have proper anti-tank weapons, or desperate. Neither is a good situation.

 

So, again, maybe you think that Russia should stop developing all those anti-armor weapons, since you can do everything with some rocket pods and RPGs? :) Looks like they're just throwing away money from what you're saying!

 

I told u before. You have not idea what an enemy of Russia can do in the real life. Yes the manpads and bla bla... but the storm of rocket from BM-21 a while before the Su-25A attack will make for your manpads running a Marathon with a rain of BM-21 rockets. Just Keep thinking you will scare everybody so easy...

 

The S-8KOM can be a good choise, but of course not in all circumstances

Edited January 8, 2014 by pepin1234

[Kaktus29]

i find it very strange when A-10 using 30mm cannon is somehow okei and it hits targets and can disable and destroy a tank even though cannon rounds are UNGUIDED as rockets but when it comes to Russian rockets claims pop up that you cannot hit anything, and if you hit anything you will not penetrate anything .. lol..

 

Rocket is stronger than 30mm cannon plus it gives you more range than gun..

 

we can all argue rockets are not good if major war happens since IAD will make it really hard to come so close to your tank targets.. but if we just ask a simple question will Russian or any other anti-tank rocket be able to demolish a tank? well of course the answer must be irrevocably YES..

 

let's have some consistency now.. or else we might hear Russian Kh-29 is not capable of destroying a truck..

[Hellfire257]

Wow, say anything bad about Russian stuff and you summon the horde. Not bad.

 

There's no anti-pact conspiracy here, the simple fact is a rocket is a pretty poor choice of anti-tank weapon.

[maturin]

i find it very strange when A-10 using 30mm cannon is somehow okei and it hits targets and can disable and destroy a tank even though cannon rounds are UNGUIDED as rockets but when it comes to Russian rockets claims pop up that you cannot hit anything, and if you hit anything you will not penetrate anything .. lol..

 

Rocket is stronger than 30mm cannon plus it gives you more range than gun..=

Are you putting any thought at all into your answers?

 

A cannon is vastly more accurate than dumb rockets, which are the most inaccurate form of dumb munition available anywhere.

 

And with an S-8 or S-13, you have very few chances to hit a tank. And that one single hit needs to count.

 

With the GAU-8, you have almost 1000 chances to hit, and an enormous amount of redundancy because you are guaranteed to score multiple hits.

 

I mean, hell, we have a whole goddamn game dedicated to simulating this. Go play it and find out why FFARs are the worst anti-tank weapon imaginable.

 

Also, stop it with the butthurt. Neither of you is even Russian, and although your spirited defense of the motherland is cute, it is unnecessary. There is nothing Russian about the S-8 or S-13. They're both simple, cheap, dumb rockets. The Americans have them and so do the rest of humanity. None of these rockets have any important differences between them, and if any of them is slightly worse, it's because the designers didn't give a crap about improving it. You could outfit some eskimos with duck tape and PVC pipe and they could throw together a passable FFAR.

Edited January 8, 2014 by maturin

[outlawal2]

<Munch> <Munch> <Munch>

Pass the Popcorn please..

 

LOL

 

[NineLine]

A round from the A-10s cannon is going to be way more accurate than a rocket (I shouldnt have to explain that right?), that is why it is more lethal, if you were able to land all your rockets on target sure they would do some major damage, but rockets tend to be less accurate so the risk of them straying off target is greater, you have to hope more for splash damage, which isnt conducive to killing a heavily armoured object.

 

i find it very strange when A-10 using 30mm cannon is somehow okei and it hits targets and can disable and destroy a tank even though cannon rounds are UNGUIDED as rockets but when it comes to Russian rockets claims pop up that you cannot hit anything, and if you hit anything you will not penetrate anything .. lol..

 

Rocket is stronger than 30mm cannon plus it gives you more range than gun..

 

we can all argue rockets are not good if major war happens since IAD will make it really hard to come so close to your tank targets.. but if we just ask a simple question will Russian or any other anti-tank rocket be able to demolish a tank? well of course the answer must be irrevocably YES..

 

let's have some consistency now.. or else we might hear Russian Kh-29 is not capable of destroying a truck..

[outlawal2]

A round from the A-10s cannon is going to be way more accurate than a rocket (I shouldnt have to explain that right?), that is why it is more lethal, if you were able to land all your rockets on target sure they would do some major damage, but rockets tend to be less accurate so the risk of them straying off target is greater, you have to hope more for splash damage, which isnt conducive to killing a heavily armoured object.

 

Not to mention the fact that several THOUSAND rounds per minute have a BIT (Sarcasm there) more chance of hitting the target...

 

Come on guys, give a little bit of thought before typing please...

:doh:

[AlphaOneSix]

[Kaktus29]

@sithspawn.. you see, you said if you landed ALL your rockets on target sure you could do some major damage.. " ..so now we agree that point 1: you will not hit anything cuz inaccuracy.. point 2: EVEN if you hit a tank on TOP of it with 1,2 rockets it will do no damage since you need to land ALL of your rockets to do serious damage" ..

 

the biggest problem with the discussion is not accuracy but the ability of 1 single rocket IF landed on top armor just as any armor attack is usually done would create a kill situation ..while you experts are claiming it would do minor damage while 30mm cannon of A-10 will 10000 % for sure kill the tank.. this is the child like logic we are witnessing here.. its amazing really..

 

i'm waiting for you expert to tell me Kh-29 will not penetrate a truck..

[GGTharos]

i find it very strange when A-10 using 30mm cannon is somehow okei and it hits targets and can disable and destroy a tank even though cannon rounds are UNGUIDED as rockets but when it comes to Russian rockets claims pop up that you cannot hit anything, and if you hit anything you will not penetrate anything .. lol..

 

Kaktus, the GAU-8 is used at 0.7-0.5nm (from about slightly more than 1km to less than 1km) from the rear or sides and it will get kills against the old T-62 if you are lucky and some of the rounds hit the right things. It means you have to get REALLY close, and it's very dangerous. Nevertheless, it was designed to do exactly that and is effective against THAT target. I doubt modern tank armor is so thin as to permit the effects caused by the GAU-8 on T-62/M-48. They might kill the engine, rupture fuel tanks etc, but I don't think you'd see as many penetrations that are lethal to the crew.

 

And you don't see anyone using Hydras on tanks. And the main tank-killing tool for the A-10A was the AGM-65 which allowed a significant 3nm/5km stand-off range and potentially multiple target engagements per pass.

 

The GAU-8 today is used against infantry and light vehicles, though if you were desperate and you lacked AGM-65's, CBU-97/87, or any sort of guided or unguided bomb, I suppose you'd use it.

 

Rocket is stronger than 30mm cannon plus it gives you more range than gun..

 

Sure, the rocket it stronger. And your chances of scoring a direct hit with it are worse than for the GAU-8. And that's why the Su-25A is equipped with such neat things as the Kh-25L, and cluster bombs with anti-tank munitions as well as good old iron bombs.

 

well of course the answer must be irrevocably YES..

 

The answer has been irrevocably shown to be 'no' in the real world. Tanks hit with rockets of higher penetrating power were rarely 'demolished' or even put out of action. It's not that it didn't happen, it's that a tank is, well ... a tank.

 

let's have some consistency now.. or else we might hear Russian Kh-29 is not capable of destroying a truck..

 

Oh please. No one argued anything about warheads of that size.