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

Darkwolf when hasn't there been a war that was in the desert? pretty sure the last 30 or so years of war has been dominated by the desert variety with a few jungles thrown in.

not disagreeing though.

Where on hell would you use he gau-8 to begin with? As a reminder, hard deck are in effect in wr, mening your little gau-8 is resrained at firing from ABOVE 12000 meters. Unless all shorad stuff is destroyed and you are fihting in the desert, your gau-8 is just useless untill the war h come dow to COIN. :music_whistling: (check irak report for more info)

 

sorry for typo, i'm in my bath, with that damn tiny tablt keyboard :P)

The A-10C is a CLOSE Air Support aicraft (CAS) it has no reason not to fire under a deck of 12 000 meters.

(If you were trying to say something else then please elaborate)

But AGAIN we're drifting off-topic here : It has never been question of debating on how and when to use the GAU-8 but RATHER about its effectiveness against armored targets so what exactly are you trying to pinpoint here?

DU rounds shot from a GAU-8 WILL incapacitate a main battle tank (or rather the crew that is inside) if in sufficient number.

For those eager to know more about the capacity of DU shells to completely mess up a tank, please find attached this little document, I suggest you take a look at the second page.

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/DU/KYagasakiOnDU.pdf

hard deck are in effect in wr, mening your little gau-8 is resrained at firing from ABOVE 12000 meters. Unless all shorad stuff is destroyed and you are fihting in the desert, your gau-8 is just useless untill the war h come dow to COIN. :music_whistling: (check irak report for more info)

I'm sorry what war was it where Air to Ground assets were restricted to a 40 000 foot hard deck? None? That's right.

If the source is reliable, then it would seem that the GAU-8 is not as deadly ingame as its real life counterpart. Using the CM load, I would assume DPU rounds would be in the mix, yet it's pretty difficult to kill the T80U in anything other than a very steep, top down dive.

Well the issue is twofold. I know that the accuracy of the GAU 8 in DCS is inconsistent with its rated dispersion in real life so I would presume its similarly undermodeled in FC. Also the Lock on family has the issue that vehicles don't die until their health runs out so you have no real option of seeing the effect of a mobility kill or a mission kill from de-tracking or shattering optics.

The Lock on/FC/DCS damage model for ground units is pretty binary and not reflective of the complexities of real life.

I'm sorry what war was it where Air to Ground assets were restricted to a 40 000 foot hard deck? None? That's right.

 

 

 

Well the issue is twofold. I know that the accuracy of the GAU 8 in DCS is inconsistent with its rated dispersion in real life so I would presume its similarly undermodeled in FC. Also the Lock on family has the issue that vehicles don't die until their health runs out so you have no real option of seeing the effect of a mobility kill or a mission kill from de-tracking or shattering optics.

 

The Lock on/FC/DCS damage model for ground units is pretty binary and not reflective of the complexities of real life.

Thank you for clearing this up for me, P*Funk, DCS cannot possibly incorporate the effects of a DU round on a vehicle. Technically the vehicle would still be in shape on the outside but not inside => Hence we can neither base the ineffectiveness of the rounds (because the GAU-8 is only the firing platform) on game results nor on that 70s report (which never referred to DU rounds fired from the GAU-8 being ineffective on T-62s in any way, suggesting Tungsten rounds were used at best).

I keep repeating myself but a GAU-8, even though it would not be the weapon of choice for a tank kill (because it would draw unnecessary risks upon both the airplane and the pilot), remains effective against such targets IF firing the proper ammunition.

There's also the fact that the A-10 in the 70s almost certainly lacked the benefits of modern CCIP and PAC. Given the spotty accuracy of the reported tests I find it hard to believe they weren't using manual aiming methods.

Ok feet, sorry, i was tired. this imperial stuff should be banned worldwide :music_whistling: Point is still valid with 12000ft anyway ! And that not me that says they must be a hard deck for CAS. That was the rule in the gulf. nowaday you don't fly below 12000 unless you are doing a safari against some insurgents. Just open any to&e an you'll undrstand why.

Ok feet, sorry, i was tired. this imperial stuff should be banned worldwide :music_whistling: Point is still valid with 12000ft anyway ! And that not me that says they must be a hard deck for CAS. That was the rule in the gulf. nowaday you don't fly below 12000 unless you are doing a safari against some insurgents. Just open any to&e an you'll undrstand why.

In a campaign like the Gulf War where it wasn't a fight for existence (as a NATO vs Warsaw Pact fight would have been), losses were far less "acceptable." That was was able to be executed at the pace and discretion of the Allied forces.

In a full scale NATO vs Warsaw pact type conflict (which the A-10 was designed to fight), the idea would have been dozens of A-10s flying low and slow and taking fire over very large armored formations. The way it was built makes it obvious it was expected that it would be flying down near AAA. This would have been necessary to slow down or halt an armored advance.

In other words, while the current COIN environment isn't like the Gulf War, the A-10 wasn't built for either type of conflict.

Your use of the Gulf War as the type of war the A-10 was built to fight is unfortunately flawed.

Check out the volume of aaa/shorad in a russian MRD. I don't think they'll get low and dirty. :music_whistling: i hope we'll never figure this one out...

Darkwolf, You must be referring to cases in which precision ammunitions were delivered, however a gun run would not take place at a set deck of 12 000 feet. And truth is that there were alot of gun runs during the Gulf War.

Like fltsimbuff already highlighted, the A-10 was built to be able to withstand a rather high amount of damage whilst executing its dangerous and low altitude strike missions. We often refer to the A-10 as a 'Flying Tank'.

Darkwolf, You must be referring to cases in which precision ammunitions were delivered, however a gun run would not take place at a set deck of 12 000 feet. And truth is that there were alot of gun runs during the Gulf War.

 

Like fltsimbuff already highlighted, the A-10 was built to be able to withstand a rather high amount of damage whilst executing its dangerous and low altitude strike missions. We often refer to the A-10 as a 'Flying Tank'.

There was a time when planes where developed for low level fligth...:smilewink::smilewink:

Check out the volume of aaa/shorad in a russian MRD. I don't think they'll get low and dirty. :music_whistling: i hope we'll never figure this one out...

While impressive in numbers...I'm not sure they actually pose the threat you imagine. Historically, the downfall of the soviet army has been training and strict adherence to battlefield doctrine...as far as the hardware is concerned, I'm pretty sure most of the hardware destroyed during the first gulf war was of soviet manufacture.

That being said, you should peruse this: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf

This delves into exactly what type of missions and combat environment the A-10 was designed for and what steps were taken along the way to ensure it would fulfill those requirements. It also covers the development of the GAU-8 system and its testing.

I can tell you for FACT the former A-10 pilots I am friends with were confident in their aircrafts ability to get "low and dirty" at will and emerge unscathed.

Sierra

Check out the volume of aaa/shorad in a russian MRD. I don't think they'll get low and dirty. :music_whistling: i hope we'll never figure this one out...

Agreed in hoping we never find out. But look at WWII. Bombers flew in box formations close together during daytime and suffered VERY heavy losses because it was necessary. They would have been safer doing this during the night but they were far less effective then, and accomplishing the mission meant incurring "acceptable losses."

Recent wars have been fought in a manner to reduce own side casualties in exchange for increasing the time it takes to get the job done. This works when you have the prerogative on the battlefield. Past wars, and the expectation of WWIII would have been a fight for survival. If you can throw 100 A-10s at a formation of hundreds of advancing tanks and armored vehicles and lose 70 of them, it is still a mission success if you have halted or turned the advance, because they MUST be stopped NOW.

I won't argue against the idea that newer tech has made low altitude gun-runs in that scenario one of the less effective strategies. Things like CBU-97s that could be dropped from stealthy aircraft at altitude have come along that would likely be more effective in this type of WWIII scenario.

My point is that the A-10 was built to be effective to fight that WWIII scenario, and at the time it was built the GAU-8 would have been very effective in its mission compared to other available weapons. And now while it might not be the most effective tool we have for that scenario, it is quite effective for COIN operations as well, so worth keeping around.

I think everything was said in the last two posts. Current war requirements tend to give the A-10 a COIN role, which is not what it was built for in the first place. It is in fact just because today that is the kind of war we are facing and the GAU-8, thanks to its versatility, can fulfill COIN missions. The GAU-8 was however made to be effective against well armored targets (or the ammunition it can fire rather), thus allowing a pilot to fire a volley of DU rounds for instance on tanks after he fired an AGM and is getting too close to use a precision guided ammunition.

See it this way : Like fltsimbuff said, during the Cold War, there was a need for assets that could stop entire columns of tanks. Imagine a column, or successive rows of tanks headed for a country's border : A-10s would be sent by dozens if not hundreds to take down those tanks.

Now, whilst heading for those successive ranks of tanks, they would take down the first rows with precision guided ammunition from far away. However, as they are getting closer, ammunitions are running low and it becomes difficult for the pilots to find the time to lock or release a precision guided ammunition, yet they are stuck with these tanks that they have to stop NOW, eventually, they resort to the GAU-8, which is effective still and allows a continuous support on the ground.

One fact that we should never forget about is that the A-10 relies on its versatility and its ability to always have something handy against armors. Now the aircraft itself is one of the only aircrafts built around its GAU-8 rather than its engines - Designed during the Cold War and for a WW3 scenario-, Weird to be building an aircraft around a cannon which isn't effective at all against armored units, especially if its purpose is to fight a WW3 right? That alone proves the effectiveness of the GAU-8.

Ever so slightly disagree with that.

Being a soldier in the '80's, I got to see some military demonstrations in Germany - usually invited were the Soviet top brass of the day.

It involved repulsing an onslaught of armour and comprised of AT infantry, artillery and aircraft - including the A-10A.

The A-10As always came in at around 1000ft or less, and always used their GAU-8s. At the end of the day, it was there to rip tanks apart - and that was how they used it, rather than a 'last ditch' weapon or one for when you are too close to the enemy for missiles (that's Top Gun's party trick).

Zip, zip, zip = lotsa dead tanks. :v:

Ever so slightly disagree with that.

 

Being a soldier in the '80's, I got to see some military demonstrations in Germany - usually invited were the Soviet top brass of the day.

 

It involved repulsing an onslaught of armour and comprised of AT infantry, artillery and aircraft - including the A-10A.

 

The A-10As always came in at around 1000ft or less, and always used their GAU-8s. At the end of the day, it was there to rip tanks apart - and that was how they used it, rather than a 'last ditch' weapon or one for when you are too close to the enemy for missiles (that's Top Gun's party trick).

 

Zip, zip, zip = lotsa dead tanks. :v:

I do agree with you, however the risks you are putting on your airframe and on your own life makes it clear you would rather resort to precision guided ammunition first. It is not really a question of weapon effectiveness but rather the risks it takes to employ it.

It has always been crystal clear that the GAU-8 with DU rounds is a tank killer. And I always said it loud and clear.

I do agree with you, however the risks you are putting on your airframe and on your own life makes it clear you would rather resort to precision guided ammunition first. It is not really a question of weapon effectiveness but rather the risks it takes to employ it.

 

It has always been crystal clear that the GAU-8 with DU rounds is a tank killer. And I always said it loud and clear.

I'd have to agree, in a real world combat situation, everyone would hurl a ton of lead at you during a gun run. And since you essentially need to fly in a straight line for at least 5 seconds at about 1.5km away the chances of getting peppered by machinegun fire would be dangerous.

I myself have learned never to gun a tank that has its platoonmates nearby supporting it. Even if I kill the tank, his mates might hit me and knock out important systems, including the GAU. I always gun the last tank or an isolated tank with no fire support.

I agree, self-preservation is a big factor (as is wanting to save airframes).

Things were a bit different then, though. You should realise (if you don't) that our sole purpose was to slow down or stop the initial Warsaw Pact thrust into W Germany. Basically, we were all just cannon-fodder, there to keep them occupied or slowed down until the reserves could come in.

The fact that you didn't have a hope in hell was accepted. My personal life expectancy, as a primary target, was 12½ minutes maximum! I still had every intention of doing my job, cometh the hour. We all had our little schemes planned, in the hope of surviving a little longer, but the truth was that we accepted we were dead meat come WWIII.

I think I heard it called "The Alamo Syndrome" or something similar :)

Of course, it's also entirely possible that these tactics were completely invented and they were just showing off the firepower to the Soviet brass ;)