A-10 gatling gun: underpowered

[USSoldier11B 0]

Iraq had plenty of AA and ADA. Our Air Superiority was just to much for it though. Plus SF and SAS teams were inserted early on in helos flying under radar to knock out AA and communications systems.

[grayghost 0]

You'd use the Mavericks, ebcause byt he time you did anything EFFECTIVE with the GAU they'd have lobbed a HEAT shell in your face. Or SABOT...(flatter trajectory, easier to hit plane). Using a Maverick shortens your attack run, and increases your attack distance.

[InqWiper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You'd use the Mavericks, ebcause byt he time you did anything EFFECTIVE with the GAU they'd have lobbed a HEAT shell in your face. Or SABOT...(flatter trajectory, easier to hit plane). Using a Maverick shortens your attack run, and increases your attack distance. <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly.

[Kermit 0]

Not true, there is no time to react.

[Rhubarbman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S.F.F.R @ June 25 2002,06:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Read official documents

"90% of the tank kills credited to the A-10 were achieved with IR Mavericks and NOT 30mm GAU-8 gun".This old tanks without composite armor, and other defence systems.And Iraq not have AA (some shilka and AA-guns it's nothing)<span id='postcolor'>

Next u will be saying Iraq never had any Scuds, BTW the A10 was built around the gun, the mavericks aint the main armament on the plane.

[Benze 0]

No one shoots at planes with tank rounds. That is purely OperationFantasyPoint.

GAU8 can take on any MBT today. The point has already been established.

[Satchel 0]

Guess the gun is mainly used on targets of opportunity caught in surprise, like an armored column on the move for example.

The unit cost for a single AGM-65D Maverick is about 111.000 US$ up to 269,000 US$ for the G model, so it´s also a cost effective question if and how to deploy these missiles, a burst of the cannon, or a dumb/cluster bomb might deliver the same result but only at a fraction of costs.

Furthermore missiles are point attack weapons, destroying normally 1 target at a time, while the GAU-8/A can combat more than one target in single burst.

I think the most important part in weapon selection however is the situation at hand, threat classification in the area, i.e. if standoff capacity is required or not, or if the target requires a specific weapon.

During Desert Storm A-10´s, as most other Aircraft operated at medium to high altitude in most phases of the conflict, this is why primarily guided weapons and bombs of all sorts had been used in this conflict. The A-10 is normally an Aircraft designed to operate effectively at low altitudes, the high altitude doctrines in desert storm and terrain left much of the A-10´s potential unused.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S.F.F.R @ June 22 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Facts ?

Screens ?

GAU-8/A armor penetration , DU ammo -

69mm at 500 meters

38mm at 1000 meters<span id='postcolor'>

And what is the roof and rear deck armour of a T80? It will be nothing like the thickness of the frontal armour. I would be very surprised if it's more than 38mm.

[S.F.F.R 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ June 26 2002,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (S.F.F.R @ June 22 2002,15:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Facts ?

Screens ?

GAU-8/A armor penetration , DU ammo -

69mm at 500 meters

38mm at 1000 meters<span id='postcolor'>

And what is the roof  and rear deck armour of a T80? It will be nothing like the thickness of the frontal armour. I would be very surprised if it's more than 38mm.<span id='postcolor'>

900 - 1100 mm

[Benze 0]

First, no the T80 does not have 1100 mm armour on top. Thanks for the good laugh though.

Second, even if it was thick, which it isn't, it doesn't matter -- 50 rounds lodged in the top of it will cause the roof to spall totally on top of the crew, killing them.

[Rhubarbman 0]

S.F.F.R, u making this up as u go along?

[dayglow 2]

so the top of a T-80 is over 3ft thick. Let's see, the t-80 is 2.2 meters tall, so the top armour makes up 1.1meters? so basically half the height of the tank is the armour, damn and I thought the turret was hollow to allow people in there!

COLINMAN

[Kermit 0]

While I too think he's got his facts completely mixed up, he is being quite friendly and polite about it. Thus, I can disagree with him and tell him he's being a bit silly without disliking him.

[billytran 0]

The armor on the top of a tank is thinner. Plus there are hatches on the tops of tanks, and their armor isn't even 1/3 of what is around it. When hundreds of 30mm rounds are hitting all over the tank within a span of a few seconds, they will hit all over the place, quickly shredding the armor up. A few rounds will probably go through the hatch too. That's more than enough to destroy an MBT.

[Prof.Wizard 0]

Guys... SFFR is definitely not very accurate about the 900+mm of top armor he gives. But he IS accurate in saying the A-10 was fighting against old and previous-generation under-equiped Iraqi tanks. Modern T-80s and 90s will surely give their crew a much better protection. And you keep bugging SFFR talking about the top armor. But A-10s bullets don't fall vertically on the MBT's turret. It's not a dive bomber. Actually, the angle of attack is fairly shallow, less than 45 degrees. The pilot should be really lucky or expend large amounts of ammo to completely disable such a tank.

Moreover, if you see around the 'Net pages (official and not) of the A-10's weapon systems you'll notice they carefully use the word "disable" for the cannon's capabilities, not "destroy".

As I said in a previous post of mine here, this luckily IS the case in OPFP and it IS simulated. When the enemy tank in your tactical map from red becomes grey you can say you have successfully disabled it (trucks, turret, engine, crew, etc.) even if the tank isn't completely and irreversibly destroyed yet (as with an AGM-65 Maverick). However, since the game setting is in 1985 where the best tank was one of the first versions of T-80 (with ERA), all other armor pieces should be piece of cake for Thunderbolt II's cannon. And this ISN'T the case in OPFP, for the reasons we said again and again...

The A-10 IS built around its gun. And it has been used successfully for more than two decades now. Bear in mind that the Warthog is currently being upgraded because of its limited survivability in modern combat enviroments. The gun is great, but I doubt we'll ever see again the world-vs-Iraq air dominance there was in Desert Storm. And this means it won't be easy for the A-10 to fly slowly and precisely to aim its gun to kill an MBT...

[sn1per 0]

Just want to make one point, due to the style of the strafe A-10 does, the rounds do not hit the tank's top in a straight angle but in a quite gradual angle. The angle changes the thickness of the armor as you all probably know. I'd love to see some videos where the A-10 does a stuka style dive attack with the GAU8 to penetrate the roof of a modern MBT.

What is unclear in the report posted here earlier that stated : "Most of the kills were done with Mavericks."

Maybe the GAU8 is good for killing APC and old tanks but not modern MBTs. Never seen any evidence on GAU8 tearing M1A2s, Leopards or T-80s into pieces.

Take those stars n stripes-glasses off and face the facts.

[Prof.Wizard 0]

To test my theory, do the following thing:

Start the Mission Editor, select the desert island and compare these two scenarios... In both YOU will be flying the A-10 trying to kill tanks.

Place the following enemies:

1st Scenario: 1 T-55 and 1 AA soldier

2nd Scenario: 1 T-80 and 3 AA soldiers

Now if you play the second, kill the tank (only with the gun) and survive... tell me how you did it!

And with how many rounds wasted...

[Snoopy 0]

quakergamer, the link for the movie doesnt seem to work. i have DAP and the download just pauses there..

[Kermit 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ June 26 2002,02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Most of the kills were done with Mavericks."

Face the facts.<span id='postcolor'>

Go back and read that again.  It said that most confirmed kills were made with Mavericks.  It is probably a lot easier to confirm a kill made with a Maverick because of the explosion.  The Avenger cannon may not always make such an explosion.

As for that second statement, you haven't given any facts yet.  Feel free to show me any U.S. Army documentation stating that the Avenger cannon cannot destroy modern tanks such as the T-80.  Of course, they wouldn't tell us even if it couldn't, but the fact that they say that it regularly did and does is a good indication that it can.

Even if it is as you say outdated, it would be able to destroy anything if it persisted.  Why, if ammunition and time were not an issue, you could probably destroy a tank by firing even an M-16 into that frontal armor.  No matter how hard the armor, a bullet will always leave some sort of mark.  I don't want to know how many days and rounds that would take, though.

However, you are still underestimating what you know nothing about, namely the Avenger cannon and its unique ammunition.  It is not useless against modern tanks, or they would have scrapped it.  And if it were made to destroy light vehicles, then why bother with something special life the Avenger? Tell me, would you really feel safe in a T-80 if there were an A-10 armed only with the Avenger cannon flying about you?

In regard to Operation Flashpoint, the main problem is making the plane flyable, not making the gun realistic.  Adding rudder and more lift would just about do the trick for now, I think.

[Edit: Professor Wizard, in real life the enemy does not spot you until it is too late.  Even if they were to see you in time and fire a missile at you, there are always countermeasures and evasive action.  Missiles are surprisingly unreliable in real life, you know.  Last time I checked, the U.S. Air Farce said that about one in four missiles fired at aircraft hit the target.  Even if the A-10 were hit, the A-10 can take a real beating.  Do you know what they say about its ability to take enormous amounts of damage and still remain airborne?  Just about half the plane can be gone.  One engine, the better part of a wing, and half the tail assembly can be gone and you will remain flying. And we all know about the cockpit armor. Just how many A-10s have been shot down in real life?]

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ June 26 2002,11:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (sn1per @ June 26 2002,02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Most of the kills were done with Mavericks."

Face the facts.<span id='postcolor'>

Go back and read that again.  It said that most confirmed kills were made with Mavericks.  It is probably a lot easier to confirm a kill made with a Maverick because of the explosion.  The Avenger cannon may not always make such an explosion.

As for that second statement, you haven't given any facts yet.  Feel free to show me any U.S. Army documentation stating that the Avenger cannon cannot destroy modern tanks such as the T-80.  Of course, they wouldn't tell us even if it couldn't, but the fact that they say that it regularly did and does is a good indication that it can.

Even if it is as you say outdated, it would be able to destroy anything if it persisted.  Why, if ammunition and time were not an issue, you could probably destroy a tank by firing even an M-16 into that frontal armor.  No matter how hard the armor, a bullet will always leave some sort of mark.  I don't want to know how many days and rounds that would take, though.

However, you are still underestimating what you know nothing about, namely the Avenger cannon and its unique ammunition.  It is not useless against modern tanks, or they would have scrapped it.  And if it were made to destroy light vehicles, then why bother with something special life the Avenger?  Tell me, would you really feel safe in a T-80 if there were an A-10 armed only with the Avenger cannon flying about you?

In regard to Operation Flashpoint, the main problem is making the plane flyable, not making the gun realistic.  Adding rudder and more lift would just about do the trick for now, I think.<span id='postcolor'>

Hmm.

Neither have you given sceptics any facts on the effectiveness of GAU8 against Modern tanks.

How come you did not comment the issue about the angle of the ammuntion hitting the tank. Any modern MBT can take that pounding quite well, have you noticed T-80s have reactive armor on the top of turret also?

I did not say GAU8 was ineffective against armor, of course old T-55 etc can't withstand the GAU8 due to the profile of the tank and armor thickness.

And what comes to this "amazing" DU ammo, it's good but it has downsides as you may well know. When penetrating the armor it pulverizes and when the armor burns the pulverized DU can be easily inhailed by troops and crews. Have a nice blood cancer. Thanks for spreading 25 tons of those rounds into europe during the bosnia-hertzegovina crisis.

I wouldn't want to be in A MBT in any case during combat, too much AT weapons not enough armor

[Benze 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Take those stars n stripes-glasses off and face the facts. <span id='postcolor'>

Tell me what reason is there to debate with you if you are completely biased from the start?

[Benze 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The angle changes the thickness of the armor as you all probably know. <span id='postcolor'>

If I have to say that it does not have to fully pierce the armour again, I am going to pull my hair out and scream.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any modern MBT can take that pounding quite well, have you noticed T-80s have reactive armor on the top of turret also? <span id='postcolor'>

NO TANK EVER MADE can take 100 rounds lodged into it! ERA means nothing to a cannon such as the Avenger, the whole roof would go off like a firecracker after a .5 second burst.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When penetrating the armor it pulverizes and when the armor burns the pulverized DU can be easily inhailed by troops and crews. <span id='postcolor'>

The crew is dead. The inside of the tank is now 3000F.

[S.F.F.R 0]

I something find....

In test of GAU-8 - 15 targets (light(apc's) and heavyarmored(T-64,T-55 targets).A-10 use DU ammunition.

7 of 15 targets - destroyed

8 of 15 targets - disabled

Pilots know poligon and targets position, targets not move , good weather.

It's be tanks of second generation, T-80 - fourth generation.

[SmokeyPhalanx 0]

LOL, I can't even get the rounds to hit the enemy tank...

[Prof.Wizard 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Kermit @ June 26 2002,09:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[Edit: Professor Wizard, in real life the enemy does not spot you until it is too late.  Even if they were to see you in time and fire a missile at you, there are always countermeasures and evasive action.  Missiles are surprisingly unreliable in real life, you know.  Last time I checked, the U.S. Air Farce said that about one in four missiles fired at aircraft hit the target.  Even if the A-10 were hit, the A-10 can take a real beating.  Do you know what they say about its ability to take enormous amounts of damage and still remain airborne?  Just about half the plane can be gone.  One engine, the better part of a wing, and half the tail assembly can be gone and you will remain flying.  And we all know about the cockpit armor.  Just how many A-10s have been shot down in real life?]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the A-10 can take real beating. Actually it can still return home with only one engine working...

But USAF once stated it wanted to find a modern substitute of the Warthog exactly because of its low manueverability, speed, and survivability in contemporary AAA/SAM enviroments.

You can even see it in OPFP. In my above (the 2nd) scenario. Those three AA-soldiers won't hit you all. But even if one hits you well, you'll most probably have to bail out... If you want to make it more challenging, add a Shilka as well...

WE'RE OFF TOPIC. THE TOPIC IS THE GUN. THE GUN IN REAL LIFE IS A KILLER. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S ITS RATE OF FIRE OR ITS 30MM CALIBER... THE FACT IS THAT IN OP.FP. YOU DON'T FEEL THAT POWER...