It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A-10 tank hunter

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
What is so special about the A-10 thunderbold?

If you'd take a F-15/F-16/F-18 and put a minimum of 8 air-to-ground missiles on it, you'd have the seem effect, right?
there might even by space for an additional amount of air-to-air missiles!

I am aware of the 60mm canon the A-10 has but the armor is to thick for it to penatrade so...its useless on tanks if Im not mistaken!

kozzy/Intergirl, what are your inputs? and everybody else of course




posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Intelgurl will be out of pocket for a while. She's out at Indian Springs playing with UAVs.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Well, for one, the "warthog" is a lot cheaper per catake out tanks is one hell of a risk. Small arms fire alone could, possibly , take out one of these fighter aircraft. But the A-10 has redundant systems, additional armour and a titanium "bathtub" to provide enhanced protection for the pilot. With the warthogs' ability to maintain "time on target" due to low stallspeeds and it's high maneuverability, the A-10 is an amazing tankkiller. The A-10's cannon becomes increasingly effective with it's close range and the ability to keep hammering at targets while being practically impervious to ground fire. I've seen pictures of A-10s from the first Iraq war that was covered with holes, missing half a tail and yet the pilot was able to "return home"...mission accomplished!



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
so you say it has alot of armor.

yea but the Iraqi tanks are old, T-72's/T-80s..to old to even fight with
, a .50BMP will go through it!!!

how close would it have to be for it to penatrade a tank?
I doubt that it will go through a T-90/T-98/Abram/Challenger/the frence tank and the german (forget the name real quick).

and do you mean, "take it out" as in blowing it up, or do you mean "damaging it to the point where the tank cant go on" while the crew still lives?

[edit on 28-5-2005 by 187onu]



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I've little to add of technical commentary.

Had to post this thread as the A-10 is my current favorite aircraft. Those of other military eras would be the Stuka, the Sopwith Camel, and the Phantom of their respective conflicts.

I've appreciated those posts which provided some details of the awesome arsenal possessed by this craft, which is I'm told lovingly flown
by pilots who swear by this plane's combat array and ability to take an incredible amount of punishment.

Someone please post some pics for the viewing pleasure of members, this is a truly classic piece of American 'sky-hardware'. Enjoy your tax dollars at work !



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
how close would it have to be for it to penatrade a tank?
I doubt that it will go through a T-90/T-98/Abram/Challenger/the frence tank and the german (forget the name real quick).
[edit on 28-5-2005 by 187onu]

I just found an interesting report.

Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential.

I also want to point, that T-62 tank is toooo far away not so well-armoured, as T-80UD (for better compare imagine abilities of MiG-17 and MiG-29S -- the same here
)

The situation doesn't change if you try the high angle attack -- from that position armour have better abilities to resist the penetrating rounds because of 30-45 degrees angle, while low-angle fire all shells going up 90 degrees to the side-hull and side-turret of the tank and have much better penetration ability. So this concludes, that GAU-8 have no any chance to bring even serious damages, but only could make alone tank immovable, if all fire power goes to the engine hull area from rear with the high angle attack.

So the only left opportunity to fight tanks is Mavericks and bombs -- GAU-8 is only for light-armoured and other light ground targets.

But then again, most of the weapons are designed to *disable* a tank, that is to make it unable to move and/or to fire. If some DU shells can penetrate the tank armour, with fuel and ammo they're probably gonna blow it up. If a shell hits the track, the tank will stop and it could take some time to make it drive again on its own tracks. If a shell destroys the optics, the tank isn't gonna fire anymore.

Some Iraqi T-72 (which were assembled in Iraq) in the Gulf War of 1991 were disabled because the gas which was to be sprayed for 0.1 seconds after the tank was hit (to extinguish fire), it was actually sprayed for some seconds. This is thought to have injured or killed some crews. So there are several ways to disable a tank.

Then, as far as armor, T-62 is different from T-72 and T-80, but not that much when you talk about penetrator weapons. The T-72 and T-80 carry a more advanced armor and also reactive armor, which are effective against other types of weapon (such as HEAT and shaped charge). DU penetrators were built for the specific role of penetrating and blasting new types of armor. The NATO APFSDS tank ammo is based on the same concept.

Just a story. During Iraqi Freedom there was an M1A2 Abrams tank disabled by fire and some well placed RPG shots (!). The US forces wanted to destroy it to prevent hi tech fall into enemy hands. They needed more than two direct hits from Maverick rockets and many other shots to have the tank really *destroyed* and useless.

And, another story... there were reports of Gulf War of 1991 that said that APFSDS rounds of the Abrams 120mm gun were far more powerful on T-72 than expected. They were said to enter from one side of the tank and exit from the opposite, blowing it up. And, back to the GAU-8, there are many reports of GAU-8 kills on the Iraqi Republican Guard T-72s. So I think the Avengers would have worked against WarPac armored forces.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
I am aware of the 60mm canon the A-10 has but the armor is to thick for it to penatrade so...its useless on tanks if Im not mistaken!


Its actually a 30mm cannon. Its havily armoured (the pilot sits in a titanium bathtub), it had multiple redundant systems and can stay flying even with considerable damage, it carries alot of weaponry, can fly low and slow, and had a decent loiter time over the battlefield. They also are cheap when you compare them to say an F-15E



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
theres several pictures of an A-10 , piloted by a female officer , which recieved something like 50 hits from a 23mm and smaller calibre of triple A , aircraft was a mess , with alot of systems out - but it rolled back to manual controls and she brought it home


can`t really do that in an eagle



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
The main advantages of A-10 are high turn rate and great maneuvrability at low speeds, which is crucial for CAS and tank destroing. And as already said it has great armour and is cheap to procure and operate. Not to mention the take off and landing range is much shorter than by regular jets.

However it has some serious disadvantages such as high RCS and especially relatively low speed which make it obsolete against really good equipped adversary.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
theres several pictures of an A-10 , piloted by a female officer , which recieved something like 50 hits from a 23mm and smaller calibre of triple A , aircraft was a mess , with alot of systems out - but it rolled back to manual controls and she brought it home

Women drivers....

Reminds me of a former girlfriend who borrowed my Acura and returned it with the rear bumper dragging the ground.


[edit on 5/29/2005 by bios]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Correct, the GAU-8 has 30mm rounds, the aircraft was designed around the CANNON, the cannon fires at 4800RPM if I remember correctly, it used to be lower, but they upgraded it back to 4800rpm because it wasn't functioning optimally at a lower RPM.

The aircraft can carry a large load of ordernance, and as mentioned, it's an EXTREMELY survivable aircraft, it's cannon can take out tanks in many circumstances, and to make something clear, Iraq did not and never had T-80's.

The T-80 is a decent tank but Russia designed their tanks to be mass-produces rather than to be survivable.

Well, I personally love the good old A-10, the Warthhog will be around for many more years.

external image

[edit]

Uhmmm mods, this pic is larger than I thought it was, give me a sec to resize it


[edit on 29/5/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

[edit on 29/5/2005 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
What is so special about the A-10 thunderbold?

If you'd take a F-15/F-16/F-18 and put a minimum of 8 air-to-ground missiles on it, you'd have the seem effect, right?
there might even by space for an additional amount of air-to-air missiles!



Answer is simply - NOPE! Prior to the development of the Warthog the air-to-ground and escort aircraft had one major flaw - they were too fast. In Vietnam one of the problems that repeatedly occurred is that the escort vehicles intended to lay air-to-ground protection would simply leave what they were protecting behind. One of the major benefits of the A-10 is that it has a relatively slow cruise speed - that allows it to give good protection.

For instance - A10 cruise speed is about 300 knots; F16 cruise speed is around 500 knots. You'd have to do loopity-doos in the F16 if you were attempting to provide escorting air-to-ground protection for say a C-130 that had just taken off.

The A-10 also has a pretty good internal cargo hold capacity. All in all, you're just kind of spitting in the wind to try to find a flaw with the Warthog, IMHO....other than it's just not very pretty.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Well, the main advantage that the A-1o has is, that it can fly at low speeds and altitudes, witch gives it the time to take a good target. And besides, it has goos armour around it self wich makes it perfect for tanks. Cos it can survive hard battle damage. And BTW, the cannon is it's main gun. It fires uranuim bullets that are deadly. Bit like the Bradlys cannon...



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Talking about replacing the A-10 brings back really weird feelings for me. And I personally have experience in the folly it represents. My senior design project was part of a national aerospace design competition for replacing the A-10. Basically it amounted to a whole lot of designs that were the A-10 in a prettier package. lol

I actually wrote Fortran-77 code for the thrust and drag curves for various configurations of the A-10 and our design team's replacement design. Come to find out for several years after I graduated my code was still being used by other A.E. design teams.


To say I feel like I have a love-affair with the A-10 is an understatement. All of the benefits listed in this thread are not necessarily why the A-10 was designed - they are icing on the cake due to awesome, awesome designers.
... it's one hell of an airplane



[edit on 5-29-2005 by Valhall]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
So if I understand correctly, the A-1o main gun is used for disabling tanks at close range (destroying its optics), is that correct?

nevermind the old tanks though, how will it effect the newer once, like the Abram, T-90, T-98, LEOPARD 2A6, Leclerc Mk 2, merkava 4 and of course the Challenger 2???

of course it will go through light armor vehicles like butter!


Kozzy has told me that the roof of a tank is only 1inch thick, so it should penatrade that without a problem!



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu
So if I understand correctly, the A-1o main gun is used for disabling tanks at close range (destroying its optics), is that correct?

nevermind the old tanks though, how will it effect the newer once, like the Abram, T-90, T-98, LEOPARD 2A6, Leclerc Mk 2, merkava 4 and of course the Challenger 2???

of course it will go through light armor vehicles like butter!

Kozzy has told me that the roof of a tank is only 1inch thick, so it should penatrade that without a problem!


30mm canon has no problems penetrating the upper amor of any tank in service. It really doesn't matter what tank it is.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Okay, I'm trying to do this from memory...so some of it may be wrong

The GAU-8 Cannon can fire over 4000 rounds per minute of 2.5lb depleted uranium shells at a target 4000 meters away with 80% accuracy, the pilot sits surrounded by a titanium "bathtub" that can withstand 50mm shells and the plane can fly with one engine missing and half a wing gone....I met a Hog Driver at an airshow once....the guy almost had to hit me over the head with one of the GAU shells to get me to leave him alone, all I have to say is that if I had my choice of fighter/attack aircraft, I'd be behind the stick of an A-10 any day of the week



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Todeskopf
Okay, I'm trying to do this from memory...so some of it may be wrong

The GAU-8 Cannon can fire over 4000 rounds per minute of 2.5lb depleted uranium shells at a target 4000 meters away with 80% accuracy, the pilot sits surrounded by a titanium "bathtub" that can withstand 50mm shells and the plane can fly with one engine missing and half a wing gone....I met a Hog Driver at an airshow once....the guy almost had to hit me over the head with one of the GAU shells to get me to leave him alone, all I have to say is that if I had my choice of fighter/attack aircraft, I'd be behind the stick of an A-10 any day of the week


It's just under 4000 rounds per minute. The trigger goes dead at 15 seconds of firing due to barrel over-heat. The firing cylinder is directly on the plane's centerline, which means the cg of the gun itself is actually cocked to one side because the recoil of the gun would actually make the entire plane crab over due to moment created if the firing cylinder was not on the centerline.

[edit on 5-29-2005 by Valhall]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by 187onu

and do you mean, "take it out" as in blowing it up, or do you mean "damaging it to the point where the tank cant go on" while the crew still lives?
"take out 'a tank' means just that....taking out a tank.....the crew is the secondary target. A tank has more value as an offensive/defensive weapon than four or five lightly armed men trained primarily in armor tactics. In essense, depriving the crew of their tank -- whether the tank is destroyed or disabled-- is, for all intents and puposes, disarming those four or five crewmembers.
[edit on 28-5-2005 by 187onu]


[edit on 5/29/2005 by benevolent tyrant]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by 187onu
I am aware of the 60mm canon the A-10 has but the armor is to thick for it to penatrade so...its useless on tanks if Im not mistaken!


Its actually a 30mm cannon. Its havily armoured (the pilot sits in a titanium bathtub), it had multiple redundant systems and can stay flying even with considerable damage, it carries alot of weaponry, can fly low and slow, and had a decent loiter time over the battlefield. They also are cheap when you compare them to say an F-15E


As Fred said, the A-10 has a 30mm connon. That cannon is known as the GAU-8 Avenger. It was specially design for use against tanks and armored vechicles. Unlike most Cannons, which had lead shells, the GAU-8 fires Depleted Uranium (DU) shells. The GAU-8 also has a stronger powder charge than your average 30mm cannon. Put simple: The gun on the A-10 packs one Hell of a nasty punch if your on the recieving end!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join