A-10 gatling gun: underpowered

[Sadico 1]

Reactive Armor has effect only against HEAT warheads (like the one in most AT missiles), not against a simple piece of metal flying at thousands of meters per second.

It's true that the GAU-8 has never been tested against the most modern MBT's, only against t-72's (export version), but it should be able to destroy them too.

[InqWiper 0]

Someone said that the A10 was built around the gun. It says here that its a joke(big surprice).

If you look here you will se that the armour penetration at 500 meters is 69mm and at 1000 meters its 38mm.

It says here that the gun could take out heavy tanks. But that was in early 1970s so they probably arent very "heavy" compared to modern tanks.

Here you can find pictures of tanks getting shot by the Avenger. They dont really look like modern MBTs..but looks like one tank gets the whole turret penetrated in one side and out the other.

[Stag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InqWiper @ June 26 2002,00:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Someone said that the A10 was built around the gun. It says here that its a joke(big surprice).

If you look here you will se that the armour penetration at 500 meters is 69mm and at 1000 meters its 38mm.

It says here that the gun could take out heavy tanks. But that was in early 1970s so they probably arent very "heavy" compared to modern tanks.

Here you can find pictures of tanks getting shot by the Avenger. They dont really look like modern MBTs..but looks like one tank gets the whole turret penetrated in one side and out the other.<span id='postcolor'>

Well spotted.

The side armour is even stronger than the roof, but that is a good illustration of a what DU round launched from a GAU-8 will do to a tank.

Not waving a U.S. Flag, just accepting the laws of physics.

My dad rode tanks in WW2 (showing my age ) and from his description, if something like an Avenger hit that Vehicle ANYWHERE, the crew would be getting out, if they were concious or alive.

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (InqWiper @ June 26 2002,21:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It says here that the gun could take out heavy tanks. But that was in early 1970s so they probably arent very "heavy" compared to modern tanks.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think that they had depleted uranium rounds back then. DU is the best as far as armor penetration goes.

[InqWiper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not waving a U.S. Flag, just accepting the laws of physics.<span id='postcolor'>

Its probably best pointing that out to decrease the risk of getting attacked  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't think that they had depleted uranium rounds back then.  DU is the best as far as armor penetration goes. <span id='postcolor'>

If they didnt have DU-rounds then that would make the Avenger even cooler since it would be able to take out heavy tanks without DU-ammo.

[Kermit 0]

Sniper, if you won't look reason in the face, at least would you please actually read what I posted, in its entirety? Thank you.

[Edit: Spelling]

[Snoopy 0]

can someone post a mirror for the a10 movie.

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Benze @ June 26 2002,16:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The crew is dead. The inside of the tank is now 3000F.<span id='postcolor'>

Yep, and you did not get my point. I ment that thge pulverized DU is dangerous to everybody, might be just friendly troops inhailing the harmful DU. You should try to find info on the DU round's health effects during Desert Storm.

Kermit: I did read your post, then I got some info about the current situation of A-10s and they're scrapping it at the moment.

It has been a really good plane but they (U.S. military) say it's too slow for modern combat environment. Not a word about the GAU, Guess they have a modernized equivalent to it by now.

Edit2: About ERA and such RA. Actually they do offer extra protection against AP ammo not only against warheads. They have explosive material in but also the bottom plate is designed so that even after detonation the plate will give the tank extra armor protection.

One more point to killing tanks with 6000 rounds of DU (as someone here said). The speed of the plane + altitude + angle of attack causes a lot of rounds to miss the target. So the target will not be hit by every round fired.

[HellToupee 0]

to the person that said at 1000m it penetrates 38mm:

well if thats one round i can imagine 6000 hittin a tank and going 38mm oo not much tank left.

[InqWiper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">to the person that said at 1000m it penetrates 38mm:

well if thats one round i can imagine 6000 hittin a tank and going 38mm oo not much tank left.

<span id='postcolor'>

Theres no way anyone is gonna hit a tank with 6000 rounds without passing it several times, head back to base, rearm, head back to the tank and pass over it some more times.

No-one here seems to know how many rounds it takes to take out a MBT so lets stop speculating and keep to the facts...

[Stag 0]

Rate of fire is 4000 rounds per minute. The longest burst that can be fired is 1.5 seconds; The recoil of the GAU-8 is actually higher than the engine thrust. any more than 120 rounds in the air, and the aircraft isn't.

Even so, that is a HELL of a lot of heavy metal. Even an advanced ERA pack would add no more than millimetres to the top armour. Make a nice light show when it cooked off, though.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The recoil of the GAU-8 is actually higher than the engine thrust. any more than 120 rounds in the air, and the aircraft isn't.

<span id='postcolor'>

Bullshit. A long burst can decrease the speed a few knots, but it won't make the plane stall. That's crazy.

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ June 27 2002,16:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The recoil of the GAU-8 is actually higher than the engine thrust. any more than 120 rounds in the air, and the aircraft isn't.

<span id='postcolor'>

Bullshit. A long burst can decrease the speed a few knots, but it won't make the plane stall. That's crazy.<span id='postcolor'>

It's 2 seconds/burst then 1 minute cooling period.

And yes, the plane would fall if the burst would be longer.

[Benze 0]

I believe the burst is so the gun doesn't melt.

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ June 27 2002,15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Even so, that is a HELL of a lot of heavy metal. Even an advanced ERA pack would add no more than millimetres to the top armour. Make a nice light show when it cooked off, though.<span id='postcolor'>

"The development of Kontakt EDZ logically led to the development of a later version, called Kontakt-5, which was optimized to be effective not only against HEAT jets, but also APFSDS long rods. It was first deployed around 1985 on the first T-80Us. It is claimed that Kontakt-5 provides about 300 mm RHA equivalent of additional protection against APFSDS rounds, which corresponds to an increase of about 160% over the base armour of the T-80U (~720 mm total)."

Here

[Stag 0]

"Assuming the use of Semtex for the interlayer, I found that the configuration was most likely a 15 mm plate up front, backed by 35 mm of explosive, and then a 20 mm plate. This assymetrical configuration had improved effectiveness because the APFSDS rod could still 'catch' the retreating rear plate while the front plate would retain a charateristic high velocity. This is completely opposite to the model that the US Army used in the late 1980s to discribe 'heavy' ERA. In their model, the front plate was on the order of 60 mm thick and the rear a standard 5 mm plate. They thought that the thick plate simply moved up into the path of the incoming long rod and forced it to make a 'slot' (thickness x height) rather than a hole (thickness). This is bogus; the front plate would tamp the explosive and would be barely set in motion.

Anyway, back to the point. Without getting into the actual math, after a couple of analyses, we arrived at our conclusion as to what defeat mechanisms were being imployed. These conclusions have not yet been conclusively proved and we hope to do that soon. We assumed that the massive areal density of the long rod perforated the thin plates with relative ease. Actual ablatic penetrator mass loss was set at about 2%. What we found was that we had these two plates, each individually with about 60% the momentum of the long rod penetrator, were moving oppositely up/down to each other, and that the path of the penetrator was such that it was moving between them. The forces exerted on the penetrator are apparently very large, so large in fact that they were in the region of plastic failure for most (read: all) metals. Essentially, when the penetrator touches the rear plate, the front plate guillotines off the first 5 - 6 cm of the rod. For a round such as the 120 mm M829A1 this represents a loss of about 8% of the total mass. More importantly, the nose is blunted. You would not believe how important that sharp point on the penetrator is. The difference in penetration between an equivalent hyper-sonic spike tipped penetrator and a blunt nose one is at least 20% (to a maximum of around 30%). This is mainly because a blunt nose is very inefficient in the initial phase of penetration before the ablatic shear phase can begin. The penetrator has to actually sharpen itself to the optimum Von Karam plastic wave theory shape for penetration of the target material before it can begin radially displacing the target material. This resolves itself in the form of a lot of wasted work and thus penetrator mass. The blunted penetrator also suffers structural damage and more mass loss as a shock wave travels down its length and blows spall off the tail. The main secondary effect of Kontakt-5 EDZ against APFSDS rounds is yaw induced by the front plate before contact with the rear plate is established. The total is about two to three degrees of yaw, which suddenly becomes a lot more in a denser material such as steel. Reduction in penetration due to a 2° yaw is about 6% and it grows exponentially worse from there, and on the 67° slope of the front glacis of the T-64/72/80/90, this is increased to about 15%.

Total loss in penetration amounts to about 2% + 8% + 22% + 6% = 38%, or in other words the penetrator is now only capable of penetrating 62% its original potential. Conversely we could say that the base armour is increased by the factor of the reciprocal of 62%, which is - surprise! - 161%.

"

That's an intact cell Vs. a sabot round. Fair enough. but with the GAU-8,  the tank is showered with penetrators. the first rounds to  hit would detonate the explosive component, a second would destroy the remaining armoured cell, the third an subsequent would be hitting the tank's own armour. But that wouldn't be necessary; is the rear deck covered with ERA? ripping up the engine would be more than enough to get the crew walking.

Edit: just adding more details

[sn1per 0]

You're right about hitting the tanks from the rear. I guess no MBT, including the M1A2, could withstand a long accurate burst from GAU-8.

The other thing is how many rounds will hit one spot. Takes a really good pilot and optimal weather&position to spray the whole 1,5 sec burst to the target.

Edit: some tuning

[Stag 0]

True, getting the rounds to follow 1 on 1 would be all but impossible. but even if only 25 percent of thise rounds hit the target, thats still 30 very lethal projectiles. Say 5 of the leading rounds in the burst hit ERA; what do you think of the chances of those rounds clearing sufficient area of the surface for the other 25 to do their thing?

[sn1per 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ June 27 2002,17:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">True,  getting the rounds to follow 1 on 1 would be all but impossible. but even if only 25 percent of thise rounds hit the target, thats still 30 very lethal projectiles. Say 5 of the leading rounds in the burst hit ERA; what do you think of the chances of those rounds clearing sufficient area of the surface for the other 25 to do their thing?<span id='postcolor'>

Still amazing if some pilot puts 30 rounds in the same place. But ok, the first rounds will clear the reactive part away but there's still the bottom plate + tanks own armor to penetrate. Placing those shots from a moving aircraft into the same area, say 50cmx50cm is still a challenge for any pilot. Although I haven't flown an A-10 so I don't know how easy it is

[Stag 0]

Okay. But the engine deck should do it every time.

Sorted.

Now, world peace...

[sn1per 0]

Yep, sorted. It was fun while it lasted Now off to real life I go.

[Stag 0]

:raisesbeerinsalute:

FYI, Prof. Wizard; try the A10 in Ash's Realism Pack; not only does the avenger have a more realistic sound, the damage model appears to be meaner, too.

[Kermit 0]

Sorry for bumping this up after the debate is over, but this is the second time someone has mentioned Aaron Ash's modified A-10. I cannot find it anywhere, however. All of Aaron Ash's modifications are of tanks and such. Can someone link me to it, if it does indeed exist?

[Kermit 0]

Excuse me while I bump this up to page one again.

[Eviscerator 0]

over at ofpec theres a thread in the post 1985 forums with the download link i think