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

[Shepski]

Interesting debate and please keep it civil. :)

 

The way I see it...

 

The tanks are on a target range and would most likely not be fully fueled and would most likely not have filled external tanks on them.

 

When you see the instant explosion/combustion/fireball and the thick black smoke you can pretty much guarantee that the tank has been rendered useless and had a crew been inside it, they would most likely have been cooked.

[SwingKid]

How you imagine yourself "explosion of the 115mm shells" ?? :roll:

 

Burning DU hits a propellant charge is how I imagine it...

 

There is no measure yet, that could safe M1 from RPG side hit. Noone M1 survived during the last war RPG side-hull hits.

 

http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum13/HTML/003203.html

 

"...I am in Iraq...

Well I finally got to play with a T-72...

...I had been a BIG FAN of the T-72 but no longer

Our M-1A1s are often hit by RPGs...

...we have been in combat for 6 months now and we have zero dead and zero vehicles combat lossed.

...but I do not beleive that the Iraqi T-72 could not withstand any RPG hit at any angle."

 

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

 

"Abrams Tank Systems - Lessons Learned Operation Iraqi Freedom 2003...

NO catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons

Left and right side non-ballistic skirts repeatedly penetrated by anti-armor RPG fire"

 

Page 8 of this document shows side penetration due to RPG fire into hydraulic reservoir. That's what you call "not surviving"? Compared to Dice's GAU-8 video of burning fuel tanks - fighting condition?

 

Yeah?! How interesting! :lol: I'm exploring the main battle tank questions for about 2 years and here's the virtual pilot, that told me "you are wrong"! :D That's magnificant! :lol:

 

Again... Please stop asking for things that don't make a difference to your opinion. Dice works with the real A-10A for a lot more than 2 years and his words have no effect on you, so what difference does it make, the qualifications of the person you are talking to? Only ask for things if you are willing to accept them - be they a person's qualifications, or a video of holes in a tank, or whatever. If it doesn't make a difference to your opinion, then don't waste other peoples' time asking about it.

 

You car were shoted by GAU-8 ??? :shock:

 

On the contrary, it's in operational service right now. Ready to honk the horn at all bad asses!

 

-SK

[Mayh3M]

Burning DU hits a propellant charge is how I imagine it...

Nahh... How you imagine the explosion of that shell, but not the detonation procedure and everything before it :wink:

 

Page 8 of this document shows side penetration due to RPG fire into hydraulic reservoir. That's what you call "not surviving"?

Yes! The turret is no longer in action -- due to hydraulics going down. Crew were quite lucky, when the heat stream only touched loader's body armour and maked the huge dent on anoher side of the tank.

 

NO catastrophic losses due to Iraqi direct or indirect fire weapons

I have the photos of these exact "catastrophic losses" -- do you want to see them? :wink: I could send you by mail :wink:

 

I've already read this report, so you will not open me something new with it. Not all things suppose to be real, but mostly it's true. By the way -- this is only issue :wink:

 

Compared to Dice's GAU-8 video of burning fuel tanks - fighting condition?

Do not compare RPG hit and GAU-8's hit -- those are absolutely different kind of sort!

 

Dice works with the real A-10A for a lot more than 2 years and his words have no effect on you

Currently it has. Instead of some lacking on armour discussing. That's clearly to understand -- this man is far from tanks :)

 

... and the words was to GGTharos, not to Dice :roll:

 

By the way, if even Dice is right it's nothing change with T-80U situation. :) The difference between the T-62 and T-80U the same, like as between F-86 "Sabre" and F-15C :wink:

 

"...I am in Iraq...

Well I finally got to play with a T-72...

...I had been a BIG FAN of the T-72 but no longer

Our M-1A1s are often hit by RPGs...

...we have been in combat for 6 months now and we have zero dead and zero vehicles combat lossed.

...but I do not beleive that the Iraqi T-72 could not withstand any RPG hit at any angle.

What do you want to say with this?

 

On the contrary, it's in operational service right now. Ready to honk the horn at all bad asses!

Why do you think, that they are "bad asses" ?? They are only walking people, that have no GAU-8's shoted car :D :lol:

 

The tanks are on a target range and would most likely not be fully fueled and would most likely not have filled external tanks on them.

Well... depends on what they mean under the phrase "combat loaded". As I say before -- "combat loaded" mean loading everything, that for the combat.

 

When you see the instant explosion/combustion/fireball and the thick black smoke you can pretty much guarantee that the tank has been rendered useless and had a crew been inside it, they would most likely have been cooked.

However, 5 of 7 attacks were mostly with 0% success. I'm not wonder, why nobody pay attention on it :lol:

[Shepski]

Well... depends on what they mean under the phrase "combat loaded". As I say before -- "combat loaded" mean loading everything, that for the combat.

 

Range tanks would not be combat loaded and would have minimal fuel and probably no ammunition... maybe Dice can confirm this. If it is true then these tanks would be much easier to blow up if they were loaded with fuel and ammunition.

 

However, 5 of 7 attacks were mostly with 0% success. I'm not wonder, why nobody pay attention on it :lol:

 

I just watched the video again...

 

Tanks number 1,2,4,6,7,9,10, and 11 were all killed by witness of the fireball and billowing black smoke. That means, if all the shots in the video were of a separate tank, that the A-10 killed 8 of 11 tanks with one burst of the GAU-8A.

 

Now.. it is possible that in the video the camera shots showed different angles of the same tank and if it did it still showed easy single burst kills

 

BTW... hydraulic fluid burns very hot and would burn out quite fast.

[Mayh3M]

Tanks number 1,2,4,6,7,9,10, and 11 were all killed by witness of the fireball and billowing black smoke. That means, if all the shots in the video were of a separate tank, that the A-10 killed 8 of 11 tanks with one burst of the GAU-8A.

 

Hmmm... I think all episodes before 6 (instead of 5, where's the M-48 ) are might to be the one, showed from different postions. :roll:

 

Anyway, I disagree with your opinion. Very hard to identify anything. Mostly tanks continue to burn, if there is the penetration -- and it was only on 6th episode. All others have only exterrior damages -- and it's clearly to see.

 

BTW... hydraulic fluid burns very hot and would burn out quite fast.

There is the hydraulics type, that did not burn, but this used only in modern Russian tanks, like T-80U and T-72B :roll: So our T-62s free from this advantage...

[Shepski]

Hmmm... I think all episodes before 6 (instead of 5, where's the M-48 ) are might to be the one, showed from different postions.

 

Yes... possibley only 2 or 3 different tanks with scenes from different angles of the one pass.

 

Anyway, I disagree with your opinion. Very hard to identify anything. Mostly tanks continue to burn, if there is the penetration -- and it was only on 6th episode. All others have only exterrior damages -- and it's clearly to see.

 

If you see a fireball and black smoke, doesn't matter how long the smoke lasts, then the damage is internal because that is where the fuel and fluids are.

 

External damage would not produce a fireball and black smoke.

[Mayh3M]

 

External damage would not produce a fireball and black smoke.

 

This fireball could be the explosion of these external additional fuel tanks, which are from the left side :arrow: That could prove my opinion about non-burning of the whole tank -- these are quite easy to break... :roll:

 

This for better imagination, how T-62 looked inside

 

 

By the way, I have the another opinion, that it could be some another tests and a main role of target played T-55. T-55 and T-62 looked quite similar from the outside

 

T-55

 

T-55

 

T-62

[Dice]

Shepski,

 

if I can get my computer fixed this weekend (having auto run issues) I will "rip" more of the DVD and send you the whole section in high rez mpeg format...about 15 mins worth, or if you send me a snail-mail addy I will send you a DVD by mail.

 

Hogpen13@aol.com

 

I'm out of this one because it's a no win. I've been told I'm "far away from tanks" which I take to mean I know nothing about them, from a person who is "far away from the A-10 and the GAU-8A" and knows little to nothing about them. :roll:

 

I will go back to being a lurker now..... 8)

[Shepski]

This fireball could be the explosion of these external additional fuel tanks, which are from the left side :arrow: That could prove my opinion about non-burning of the whole tank -- these are quite easy to break... :roll:

 

Cool pics...

 

Why do you think that an old tank on a weapon range would have fuel in external tanks?

 

This for better imagination, how T-62 looked inside

 

By the way, I have the another opinion, that it could be some another tests and a main role of target played T-55. T-55 and T-62 looked quite similar from the outside

 

Looked like a T-62 because the thick collar on the barrel was near the center and not the end like it is on the T-55.

[Shepski]

Email inbound Diceman!

[EricJ]

Maybe they just like to see something extra when shredding a tank, always looks good....

[D-Scythe]

Mayhem, you are so obviously clearly pro-T-80, that this issue isn't even worth discussing anymore. First of all, you do not know the definition of a catastrophic kill, yet you say that no M1s survived an RPG hit from the side. Puh-lease. You know how many rockets those tanks absorb? They are virtually rocket magnets. :roll:

 

Okay you win. T-80 kicks M1 arse hands down, and you keep repeating your speech over and over. :roll:

 

Oh yeah, and those destroyed M1 photos that you have? You better have at least thousands of them to prove your point, because that is how many RPGs M1s absorb in Iraq. Hell, the U.S. doesn't even have 5000 M1A2s, and you're saying it can't survive an RPG hit :roll:

 

Oh and you do contradict yourself. A lot. I'm done with this topic...its starting to get tiring..

[Mayh3M]

D-Scythe

 

Do not overestimate this fact. No real wonder in a fact, that RPG penetrated the side armour. Tanks still have no such armour in sides, to resist AT-launchers hits. Only Russians have created the "Active Defense Systems", which are shoot the incoming rockets and AT-missles from any side, before they reach the tanks' armor.

 

You know how many rockets those tanks absorb?

The frontal hits did minimum of damage. No doubt, that most of these hits were to the front area. Currently, the RPG sid-hit make the tank lost, but not the "catastrophic kill", how you defined it. There are some burn out tanks, due to RPG hits, but most RPG penetration leave the tank quite repairable, if this hit cause not much of damages inside.

 

You better have at least thousands of them to prove your point, because that is how many RPGs M1s absorb in Iraq.

With "Catastrophic kills" about 10 (from different weapons). Totally I suppose about 30-35 M1 tanks lost in Iraq of different modification, including the newest M1A2. I still have no photo of M1A2, that been hited from rear by 12.7 machine gun and make this tank lost completely, due to fired up APU and engine. But this fact were discribed in report, that brought here SwingKid :roll:

 

because that is how many RPGs M1s absorb in Iraq

No doubt -- tanks have to survive any AT-weapons hits. But it doesn't mean 100% surviving in a battle, like you been thinking I suppose :wink:

[EricJ]

D-Scythe

 

Do not overestimate this fact. No real wonder in a fact, that RPG penetrated the side armour. Tanks still have no such armour in sides, to resist AT-launchers hits. Only Russians have created the "Active Defense Systems", which are shoot the incoming rockets and AT-missles from any side, before they reach the tanks' armor.

 

The side panels of the M1A1/2 are a composite layer that can reduce the effects of an RPG, but if something like a 7V, then it could damage the tank. Note that it also amounts to the gunners skill in firing the weapon. One scout showed me a picture of an RPG that missed an M1A1 on a road, and got a civilian car. And such Active Defense systems work in open terrain, not in the confines in the city, where it wouldn't react in time.

 

With "Catastrophic kills" about 10 (from different weapons). Totally I suppose about 30-35 M1 tanks lost in Iraq of different modification, including the newest M1A2. I still have no photo of M1A2, that been hited from rear by 12.7 machine gun and make this tank lost completely, due to fired up APU and engine. But this fact were discribed in report, that brought here SwingKid :roll:

 

It can happen, though I really haven't heard much on a .50 disabling a tank, but then again, the insurgents here don't use those very often. And IEDs (particularly artillery shells) are effective. If they don't destroy the tank outright, then it's not moving after that, that's for sure.

 

I have to openly say that this is turning into another flame-war about the supposed superiority of both tanks. Each has thier advantages, and disadvantages. But you two do need to chill out.

[tomcat1974]

3 x152mm Artilery Projectile rigged to blow together under the tank belly doens't look like a purpose AT weapon ... but for sure there is no tank out there to survive that ...

 

Dude light up ... I came from eastern block .. I know what russian design is ...

 

About T80 surving a RPG hit.. yea maybe ... but tell that to poor russian soldier that died in Chechenia .. :(

[GGTharos]

EricJ, the destroyed tank due ot a small caliber weapon hit on the APU did happen. The reason is that the APU and fuel tank are mounted on the back of the turret, unarmored, so when the weapon hit the fuel tank the fuel caught fire and spilled down to the engine intake grill. They really need to protect that APU fuel tank.

[EricJ]

Okay, that was a lucky shot then....

 

As for 152mm rounds (or 155) not being a standard AT weapon, sure, but a mobility kill is bad bad for a tank. You can't shoot and communicate if you can't move..

[tomcat1974]

Okay, that was a lucky shot then....

 

As for 152mm rounds (or 155) not being a standard AT weapon, sure, but a mobility kill is bad bad for a tank. You can't shoot and communicate if you can't move..

 

Eric that is true... same goes if the A10 kill evry truck that move in the support chain of tank battlions.. Fuelless Ammoless tank is ... one tank less ;)

[Starlight]

I think this thread has gone a little bit further than what it should.

 

Mayhem, if you think that the A-10 gun is overrated in LockOn, you could just say that. In LockOn I think there is a mix of percentage of hit/ percentage of kill, to determine if the A-10 gun has destroyed a tank: you could just tell the dev team that in your opinion those percentages are "overmodelled", they are unrealistic. Anyway I have flown the LockOn A-10, and I don't see the Avenger gun as a really infallible tank buster: many times I placed my gun-pipper on enemy tanks, hit a half-second burst and they weren't destroyed. So I think the gun is quite well-modelled.

However if the aim of this thread instead was just pro-Russian propaganda, I don't think this is the right forum. This forum is just about an aviation sim.

 

Next thing, Mayhem, is that LockOn is a simulation, which, like all other simulations, is based on some models, which are simplifications of the real world. Evaluating and modeling how weapons behave in a real battlefield is really tough, and many times even armies and state departments failed in this sector. Simply because the variables involved in this process are simply too many to be found and to be properly modelled.

 

And, finally, even if the A-10 gun is overrated, I think LockOn has more serious AI and performance issues than the one you raised. Simply because weapons parameters are not well known, and many of them are just *guesses* made by designers based on their data. And probably just real pilots know if these parameters are true or not.

[EricJ]

It's a long post, but made a good point :)

[SUBS17]

This fireball could be the explosion of these external additional fuel tanks, which are from the left side :arrow: That could prove my opinion about non-burning of the whole tank -- these are quite easy to break... :roll:

 

Cool pics...

 

Why do you think that an old tank on a weapon range would have fuel in external tanks?

 

This for better imagination, how T-62 looked inside

 

By the way, I have the another opinion, that it could be some another tests and a main role of target played T-55. T-55 and T-62 looked quite similar from the outside

 

Looked like a T-62 because the thick collar on the barrel was near the center and not the end like it is on the T-55.

 

The collar is the fume extractor :D

[Guest Mikle]

Here's the interesting report I've found:

 

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.

 

:)

 

 

Very interesting :) What about that?

 

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA085713

 

Accession Number : ADA085713

Title : Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings versus Individual Soviet Tanks.

Descriptive Note : Special rept. Feb-Mar 78,

Corporate Author : NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA

Personal Author(s) : Stolfi,R. H. S. ; Clemens,J. E. ; McEachin,R. R.

Report Date : AUG 1979

Pagination or Media Count : 90

Abstract : This report describes firings of the A-10/GAU-8 weapon system against individual combat loaded Soviet main battle tanks. The pilots making the firing passes attacked at low altitude and corresponding low dive angles simulating movement through a hostile air defense system. Ammunition used in the attacks comprised 30mm armor piercing incendiary rounds, which proved to be effective damage agents against substantial areas of the Soviet T-62 tanks used as targets. The pilots in six successful firing passes (one additional pass resulted in a miss) scored 95 impacts on target, which included 17 perforations through the armored envelope. The six tanks which were impacted received damage physically assessed as ranging from catastrophic in the case of two combat vehicles to negligible in the case of one tank attacked directly from the front. (Author)

 

How you can explain that difference?

[Mustang]

[159th_Viper]

This has gotta be a record - just short of five years........:music_whistling:

 

 

:D

[Boberro]

Yeah :D