A-10's GAU-8 is inefficient against any main battle tank

The DU round's energyis two to three times greater than that of a typical 30mm projectile, since it's coming in at twice the mass and same speed. So penetration is much greater than 5%-10%

I have the distinct feeling this guy is just either trying to impose the impression that the T-80UD should be a lot harder to destroy than it is in the game, while also saying that the M1 (which is exactly the same in terms of armour in Lock On) should be left as it is.

His notion that U.S. M1s and Iraqi T-70s never shot at each other in Desert Storm, thus denying the M1s stellar combat record, sorta gives it away.

I say the tanks are fine as they are in Lock On. They are a bit vulnerable to TOW/AT-6 type anti-tank missiles, but if anything, the T-80 in the game performs slightly better than the M1 because it reloads faster...then we can get into the whole manual vs auto reload debate ;)

If you are looking for an expert discussion of tank armor, I recommend the forums at http://www.tank-net.org I think they have studied to answer every debate we aviation enthusiasts can imagine, and more. :)

-SK

Guys, look at his avatar, the answer is there. :roll:

By The Way the best tank out there for me is the LeopardA6. :twisted:

Germany Mulls Tank Sale to Turkey

 

 

(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; issued Oct. 12, 2004)

 

 

Barely a week after the European Commission recommended initiating membership talks with Turkey, the German government is reportedly considering to deliver tanks to that country.

 

Government officials are mulling the shipment of several hundred Leopard 2 tanks to Turkey, according to the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper.

 

The German defense ministry has denied any such plans, adding that Turkish officials haven't made an official request so far. But German Defence Minister Peter Struck said last week that the progress Turkey has made on opening negotiations to join the European Union mean arms sales should no longer be a taboo subject.

 

The Bundeswehr, the German military, no longer needs the tanks, which were built for combat in central Europe's open and flat regions. The vehicles no longer suit the military's new concept of being able to quickly respond to crisis situations abroad.

 

Five years ago, the proposal to sell the tanks to Turkey already provoked one of the worst conflicts within Germany's ruling coalition of Social Democrats and Greens. At the time, the then parliamentary leader of the Greens, Kerstin Müller, voiced her party's concerns.

 

"We think this is the wrong decision," she said. The Greens' resistance eventually blocked the sale of 1,000 Leopard 2 tanks for about EUR 7 billion ($8.6 billion). Now, the junior coalition partner is once again raising questions about a possible deal with Turkey.

 

"The European Commission recommends negotiations (with Turkey) and Germany starts talking about tanks," said Claudia Roth, the party's new co-chair, adding that the discussion left a bad taste in her mouth.

 

Roth added that she wasn't necessarily opposed to a sale. But "there's no blank check for a single country in the world -- no EU country, no NATO country," she said, adding that the Commission's recommendation on Turkey did not automatically justify an arms sale. "Every single application has to be examined and then people will have to make a decision," Roth said.

 

Germany had previously rejected arms sales to Turkey because of concerns about the oppression of the country's Kurdish minority. German arms export laws prevent sales to countries in which the arms could increase tensions or conflicts.

Look what I found...Germany is getting its tanks to sale!

For one, Tom Clancy, in his book, "Armoured Cav," reported this, and since he spent a few months with companies and companies of tank crews, I'm going to trust him on this one rather than him alone than some 'forum,' which often produces useless information, btw.

Maybe I dissapoint you, but Tom Clancy is known fairy-tale writer! :D :lol: His books are some kind of propoganda, but not analisys and facts... I've read some about T-80 there -- lol, almost nothing common with true! :lol: Believing Tom Clancy is like believing into UFO and aliens... :roll:

I'm going to trust him on this one rather than him alone than some 'forum,' which often produces useless information, btw

I think I'm going to dissapoint you again -- the all information mostly goes from a several of specialists and well-known all over the world enthusiasts(where's no Tom Clancy of course :lol ), like Paul Lakowski, Vasiliy Fofanov, Steven Zaloga, Vasiliy Chobitok. Mostly all data about armour comes from these people -- they are mostly competent in this question. You can discuss all threads about tanks for example in tank-net forums(there may be sometimes Paul Lakowski) :)

http://www.tank-net.org/

... or the Russian source of Vasiliy's Chobitok page...

http://www.webboard.ru/wb.php?board=24935&fs=0&ord=0

... there are specialists, which are working about tanks and armour not for a few months, but for the whole their life ;) You can also meet there the real scientists of armour, so do not underestimate this -- all info you can found their is quite true :)

I was talking about ammunition for the A-10. Do you know of any other round for the GAU-8 that features depleted uranium

You are talking about depleted uranium, like it is some kind of miracle material -- you have to understand, that there is no miracle here. In the tests was used exactly depleted uranium ammo -- you see the result. Do you know any other DU rounds to GAU-8?? :?:

Relative to what? Where is this 5-10% coming from?

Relative to steel and alloy of tungsten and steel. Before using DU steel was the common material, which was used for penetrators. As the most heavy material in the beginning and middle 80-th tungsten-steel alloys were quite often...

Are you some DU expert?

Well... of course I'm not the specialist -- I'm exploring the questions about armour and penetrators only for 2 years... and I still have lots of questions and many threads to discuss, what I do at forums with other enthusiasts and some ex-tank-crew people and scientists... :roll:

The DU round's energyis two to three times greater than that of a typical 30mm projectile, since it's coming in at twice the mass and same speed. So penetration is much greater than 5%-10%

Well increasing the speed is not the reason of DU using in projectile -- it mostly depends on what fire-system fires out this shell. Currently, I was comparing with old-made tungsten-steel alloy, which using for example in 2A42 canon(Ka-50/BMP-2/BMP-3).

This isn't a T-80 vs. M1 thread, which is what it currently is turning out to be. Don't make it so.

I hope on you guys too :)

I have the distinct feeling this guy is just either trying to impose the impression that the T-80UD should be a lot harder to destroy than it is in the game, while also saying that the M1 (which is exactly the same in terms of armour in Lock On) should be left as it is.

Well... in LOMAC used the M1A1 modification(which is quite old) tank and T-80UD -- the armour of those is a quite different to the T-80s advance. The balance comes only with M1A2 and M1A2SEP. !!! But this fact have absolutely nothing in common with the thread I'm talking about !!! All tanks in lomac, instead of patton M48 and M60 should have great resistance to any air-born canon, including the Leo-2 and M1A1 and T-80UD! This is my position!

The thread of tanks I think better to discuus in another topic, when we should talk about balance of forces used... :roll:

Well... of course I'm not the specialist -- I'm exploring the questions about armour and penetrators only for 2 years... and I still have lots of questions and many threads to discuss, what I do at forums with other enthusiasts and some ex-tank-crew people and scientists...

I asked you a question. I never accused you of not being a DU expert.

Maybe I dissapoint you, but Tom Clancy is known fairy-tale writer!

Try again. His book "Armoured Cav" is non-fiction, and one has to at least know the facts before writing a believable story about a subject. So even if he does write great stories, there is no denying that he is knowledgeable.

I think I'm going to dissapoint you again -- the all information mostly goes from a several of specialists and well-known all over the world enthusiasts(where's no Tom Clancy of course :lol ), like Paul Lakowski, Vasiliy Fofanov, Steven Zaloga, Vasiliy Chobitok. Mostly all data about armour comes from these people -- they are mostly competent in this question. You can discuss all threads about tanks for example in tank-net forums(there may be sometimes Paul Lakowski)

You're a funny guy. You so far dismiss other people's data as propaganda and make-belief, yet your's is infallible? Propaganda goes both ways buddy, and so does bias. Way to have a discussion.

The thread of tanks I think better to discuus in another topic, when we should talk about balance of forces used...

Look at my first post. I *supported* one of your points. Then you decided that, since I used the M1 as an example, to dismiss it, and carrying on with the ridiculous notion that an Iraqi T-72 and U.S. M1 never met in combat (can't understand how the M1 trounced the -72s, perhaps?). So you started this whole balance of power, Red vs. Blue thing. Just so we're clear.

You're a funny guy. You so far dismiss other people's data as propaganda and make-belief, yet your's is infallible? Propaganda goes both ways buddy, and so does bias. Way to have a discussion.

Well... I'm not going to dismiss anyone... this my own point and I'd come to it, while searching for more information about armour. The prob is not that somebody's making propoganda of it --- the problem is mostly on deficit of data, because of keeping secrecy of armour-building technologies and materials used in armour. :roll:

Just so we're clear.

Ok... let's close it! :) As for T-72 and abramses -- I'll send you the PM to describe my opinion...

2 SwingKid

I'm interested in your position about this topic, so what your opinion about "GAU-8 vs Tanks" ??

T-80 frontal armor has a hole around the gun barrel. This was left open because the armor was designed to protect against few and large (tank) shells, not many and small (GAU-8 ) shells. So, a rapidly-firing gun like GAU-8 or the 25 mm cannon on M-2 Bradley can make a few shells penetrate this weak spot by random dispersion, simply shooting enough times at the tank. What happens next - the explosives filling the T-80 interior ignite. :?

-SK

Gents, it is very interesting thread, but let's keep it civil.

Everyone may agree or disagree with opponent, but don't make it too personal.

Basically, if we want to see a changes in LO, we should provide a documents from respected sources, or quote such sources, etc, to ED. That's how helpfull betatesters team dedicate their knowledge, skills and time to make LO better.

Surely one thing to remember is that armour on the top of tanks is way thinner than front ... less than 1/10. Armour can't be thick everywhere and the top is at the bottom of the priority list. Engine grills are also very weak (this has been show in Iraq ... on the very tough M1) ... now I don't know, but I would assume that most hits from a/c canon strike top surfaces. In WWII Stukas with 37s/Hurricanes with 40mm where all very effective at disabling MBTs ...

Having climbed over T-72s (not sure what model, but the were East German) the design struck me as though protection/survivability were low on the list of priorities in he design. Things like the fuel tanks mounted over the the tracks ... with no armour! Never seen an M1, but I climbed over a Challenger (which is equivalent in terms of protection) and whilst having Chobham armour, still has a vulnerable grill over the engine.

In LO I find MBTs difficult to KO with A-10 cannon and nearly impossible with Su-25s cannon! I think they should be more deadly ... :)

James

2 SK

T-80 frontal armor has a hole around the gun barrel.

Well, there is no any hole there of course, but it is classified as weaked zone around main gun, but not against GAU-8 -- this is weaked against 120mm APFSDS shells, but not against 30mm ;) The whole armour estimation you can look here :arrow:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

I want to point people again, that in this test there were some number of penetrations, but as I said before there is also the inside damage level, which was so low to break any staff inside the T-62, including the huge number of shells, fuel tanks, engine and any other staff. Most high damage were taken by suspension elements and wheels. And also don't forget again the fact, that T-80U is greater-greater-greater and much greater armoured, than T-62 --- these are my fundamental arguements of this thread :!:

By the way, here is the link, where I've found this material :arrow:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm

not sure what model, but the were East German

That could be only two modificxations of T-72 -- export variants of T-72A -- T-72M and T-72M1 -- those are quite old already -- the armour is close to the M1IP, Challenger-1 and Leopard-2A2 tanks...

In LO I find MBTs difficult to KO with A-10 cannon and nearly impossible with Su-25s cannon! I think they should be more deadly ...

As you look in this test, the canons of A-10 and Su-25 vice versa should have to give less damage to MBT's :roll: :)

Mayh3m, I read the T-80 article ... and it doesn't mention deck/grill armour. It says the rear has about 40mm ... one can assume that the top is thinner again ... What I was trying to say in my post is that the thickness of the front is not the issue ... I would assume that during a a/c attack, the highest probablity of hits would be on the deck/engine grills ... and that these areas with 20-40mm of armour are easily penetrated by high velocity 30mm rounds.

James

Kula66

The top of hull in engine area is a most weaked zone -- if we supposing the high angle attack we also have to notice, that the maximum angle of 45 degrees makes from 20-40 mm to about 35-60 mm, 30 degrees makes about 40-70mm equivalent. I've contact with Vasiliy Fofanov exactly with question about penetration ability of GAU-8 shells and he gives me the number of 65-70 mm, so we have 70 against 60, that again proves my opinion, that armour should be penetrated(if it hited), but the inside damage will be very low to break out anything in interrior or injure the crew. Also don't forget, that high angle attack is quite dangerous, because of SAM operating in the attack area.

And back to the test again -- A-10 attacks T-62 from low-angle about 10 degrees -- the all hits we taken by side of the hull of T-62 around engines and ammo storage areas -- we have there only about 30-40 mm and the angle is close to 90 degrees, which does mean the straight hit and angle doesn't advance the armour resistance. So if we complare the equivalents again we have there 70 mm of GAU-8 against 30-40 of T-62 and as the result we have only light damages, what's mean 2 hours of field-repair operations :!:

2 A-10's fired the whole armament to each T-62 of about 1000 shells, using special mix load of 2 AP round to 1 HE, when the ussual combat mix is 4 HE to 1 AP. only 10% of all fired shells hited the target and only 10% of hited had penetrated the armour -- therefore the most big problem is to hit the tank, even far away not to penetrate it :!:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/MBT/t-80u_armor.html

The "red zone" around the gun is estimated to have 50-56 cm for kinetic energy projectiles. Top of tank has 42-54 cm.

According to:

http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/002604.html

...GAU-8 can penetrate 38-69 cm, depending on range.

So, I think there is some "random" vulnerability even from the front, but the "A10 pilot's coloring book" linked in the same theme illustrates anyway that A-10 pilots are trained to make rear-hemisphere attacks, and consider the frontal hemisphere impenetrable.

-SK

so we have 70 against 60, that again proves my opinion, that armour should be penetrated(if it hited), but the inside damage will be very low to break out anything in interrior or injure the crew.

:shock:

-SK

...GAU-8 can penetrate 38-69 cm, depending on range.

Ouch :shock:

I think they are mistaken abit, because such penetration could hardly reach the tank 120mm sabot shell... I think they are mistaken in posting -- cm instead of mm. 1 cm = 10 mm, 10cm = 100mm :wink: the penetration level of 38-69 mm is most to b true ;)

Here's the quote

according to the above site the GAU-8/A can penetrate 69mm@500m and 38mm@1000m. Though angle of impact and aircraft speed are not mentioned.

You just misted up with cm and mm ;) :D

So we have 450-540 mm against 39-68 mm of GAU-8. But don't estimate this -- shooting to the front of any tanks is a wasting of time ;) We are currently talking about weaked zones, where LOS is not higher than 70-80 mm ;)

PS

Huh... lol

:lol:

http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_053c.html

Mayh3m,

as the result we have only light damages, what's mean 2 hours of field-repair operations

Remember that the grills over the engine are not solid, and have gaps in ... I would guess the size of the gaps is less than 30mm ... but that this has to have an effect and that under these there are lots of things that burn easily ... rubber hoses, hydraulic fluid, fuel ... and in the turret shells, soft people etc ... and DU, I believe causes incendiary effects. And as I mentioned, SOV tanks that I have seen had fuel tanks OVER the armour.

Also, the T-72 has a nasty reputation for catastrophic detontion when penetrated ... has this been fixed in later RUS tanks? Crew survival just wasn't a priority for designers as it was in the West .... low silhouette, ease of manufacture, speed, ease of access to ammo for the autoloader, decent gun (although from what I've read, poor quality control, especially of ammo) ...

James

PS> Careful with the cm/mm thing gents!

it's quite an interesting thread. It would be nice to hear something from somebody who was really involved in this thing (maybe an A-10 pilot). However I don't think there can be much up-to-date info for A-10 performance against T-80. Simply because the A-10 is still the mainstay of USAF CAS force and T-80 in the mainstay of Russian and former Soviet-aligned countries. I don't think the US is gonna say "Hey my tank killers aren't really able to kill any more tank at all" even if it was true.

Second. The GAU-8 gun is the same of 1979 (year of the tests you reported). But the ammo may have changed and made more efficient. I don't think the US would have kept in service something that simply didn't fit for its job. And if you remember when they were searching a substitute for the A-10, it was just because the USAF felt it was slow and underpowered, not not because it was unable to kill enemy tanks. In fact the proposed substitute was the F-16 CAS, which was to be armed with the same Avenger gun but mounted in a pod (ANG F-16s from Syracuse, NY trained for some time with this gun pod)

And, another thing. When you said that the T-62 used in the tests were combat-loaded, I'm not sure this does really mean with shells and fuel and I'm sure it doesn't mean with the crew. The heat caused by a DU shell penetrating the tank armor is gonna cause so much heat that it's gonna injure or kill the crew. And again, this mean the tank is disabled.

Modern tanks can be awesome war assets, but today they are also vulnerable when hit in weak points. This holds true for both NATO and Russian tanks. For example a blast nearby the tank is gonna damage optics and comms, making it much less capable.

And when talkin about disabling tanks, remember that M1A2-HA tanks (where HA mean heavy armor), the most invulnerable tanks in the US inventory, were put out of action by RPGs, which were designed to counter 60s tanks like M-48 and M-60 Patton tanks.

You just misted up with cm and mm ;) :D

Oops. :oops:

Yes, I'm not an expert about armor, it's why I didn't offer an opinion in my first message, but rather referred to a different forum. However, this

so we have 70 against 60, that again proves my opinion, that armour should be penetrated(if it hited), but the inside damage will be very low to break out anything in interrior or injure the crew.

...also sounds strange, as if you are talking about only one shell.

-SK

Kula66

True it will not destroy a tank BUT it will inflict a mission kill ...

How it can inflict anything, if it can't even hit the target? Don't forget about amazing low percantage of hited shells. A-10 had used the whole armament of one thousand 30mm shells only at one tank! You think that in real somebody allows A-10 to fly such a time to fire all canon-shells? How you are going to aiming at weaked zone of a tank, if you have such problems to hiting the whole tank? :?:

I would guess the size of the gaps is less than 30mm ... but that this has to have an effect and that under these there are lots of things that burn easily ... rubber hoses, hydraulic fluid, fuel

The physical thickness is not more than 30mm, but you have to calculate the LOS -- this means angle of coming hiting shell, which gives this armour an additional resistance. So from 30mm we have something around 40-45 mm...

According to the test tanks haven't burn up, so I suppose T-80 will have as minimum the same resistance...

And as I mentioned, SOV tanks that I have seen had fuel tanks OVER the armour.

These additional fuel tanks release out before tank come to the battle (or right from the beginning the battle) -- commander have the special button, to release those fuel tanks. Actually I don't know, did those testing T-62s have these fuel tanks or did mot... :roll:

Also, the T-72 has a nasty reputation for catastrophic detontion when penetrated

Well... I think we are going to turn finally to the Sov tank thread :lol:

Nope -- actually this "reputation" was given by mass media without some analisys. The reason of such denotaion is mostly the fire inside the tank. There are propellent cassets (all Russian MBT's using separate propellant charges), which are quite vulnerable to the fire. As I said before, Iraqi T-72s were mostly hited by guided missles with HEAT charge to the weaked zones, that's mean that no one tank in the world could stand against such kind of damages.

Crew survival just wasn't a priority for designers as it was in the West

That's right, but I could say, that west tanks haven't become more safety after all measures. Just hit them with guided missle to any weaked zone and it will garantee the crew unsurvivable! The measures of separate zones for crew and ammo storage with blast doors and blew up panels only pretend the detonation of whole armament, by vectoring the energy of blow of one hited shell in a storage to the up, while 30mm blast door help crew to survive. If it's haven't help and detonation happened no all of these measures help the crew -- the blow of 40 120mm shells left from the tank only mass of wreckage and of course 30mm blast door shouldn't help here :roll:

Starlight

I don't think the US is gonna say "Hey my tank killers aren't really able to kill any more tank at all" even if it was true.

Nobody gonna say, that A-10 is not good tank killer ;) We are talking only about the abilities of its gun, which is not for tank-killing at all, as it showed in tests. Anyway, this is still an excellent weapon and there are srill more other targets to engage :wink:

When you said that the T-62 used in the tests were combat-loaded, I'm not sure this does really mean with shells and fuel and I'm sure it doesn't mean with the crew.

I don't know another meaning of phrase "combat-loaded". I think it's mean, that tank loaded for combat, and what tank's need for combat? ;) Yes -- the shells and fuel! Of course nobody should sit to this tank...

For example a blast nearby the tank is gonna damage optics and comms, making it much less capable.

This is very hard to hit the optics and other -- I could bring the example, from chechen war, when chechen bandits use the RPG-18 and direct hit to break the optics of unmovable T-72B...

M1A2-HA

AFK

The M1 history is:

M1, M1 IP(1984) -- oxygen aluminium armour called "chobham", M1A1(1985) -- M1 IP with 120mm main gun, M1A1HA(1989) -- first with DU in armour, M1A1HC -- armoured like M1A2, M1A2 -- CITV -- commander independed thermal viewer, M1A2 SEP -- last tank.

The T-72 history is:

T-72(1972) early(T-72 export less modification), T-72A(1976)(T-72M export), T-72A-modernized(1982) -- additional 16mm steel plate on the front-glasic (T-72M1 export), T-72AV(1982) with early ERA K-1, T-72B(1985) with K-5 ERA, T-72BM(1989) with fitted multiphased ERA, T-90 -- T-72BM with T-80U's Fire control and new ERA(1991), T-90S -- T-90 with welded turret...

T-80 history is

T-80 (1976), T-80B(1978) -- used oxygen-aluminium ceramics in armour, which is classifiedd in the west sources as "Chobham armour", T-80B (1982) With additional 16mm steel plate on the front-glasic, T-80BV (1985) -- T-80B with K-5 ERA, T-80U(1985) -- new armour and fitted multiphased ERA, T-80UD(1987) -- diesel version of T-80U, T-80UK(1989) -- commander variant with thermals and IR-jammers, T-80UM -- modernized T-80U with better ERA and new thermals, T-80UM-1 -- T-80UM with active defence systems -- hits the incoming guided missles and HEAT rockets, before they reach the armour; Obj.640 "Black Eagle" -- newest generation tank with fully rebuilded armour and turret -- without "T" index yet...

2 SK

also sounds strange, as if you are talking about only one shell.

Indeed it sounds strange at first sight, but this T-62's test showed even more strange result, at first sight. This I can understand --- hard to imagine, that such huge big gun, like GAU-8 could not something penetrate, but real things contradict with this popular opinion :roll:

Why are people having such a hard time believing that giant monster armor can withstand giant monster gatling guns? As with pretty much all tanks in history, even the modern ones are vulnerable to AP and HE, but you need a very good/lucky placement of your shot(s). But taking into account such missles as the Maverick and Javelin, I wouldn't necessarily call them a safe place to be.