>low chance of killing an MBT
>mass majority of the A-10’s kills in Desert Storm was with missiles
What’s the point?
>low chance of killing an MBT. >mass majority of the A-10s kills in Desert Storm was with missiles
>low chance of killing an MBT
>mass majority of the A-10’s kills in Desert Storm was with missiles
What’s the point?
Lots of roads full of soft vehicle columns.
haha big gun go BRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
too bad clusters were banned
>He thinks that the US banned cluster munitions
go look up who has, or more importantly, hasn't, signed that treaty, anon. like signing on to a treaty would even matter
Killing MBTs was a mission added on later, once it had already been built, and Maverick missiles were used for that.
The original A10 design was centered around ground support in a Vietnam War type non-peer environment.
i think it would frick up a tank
You’d be wrong
im sure it would
It would have done fine spamming T-72s in the Fulda Gap.
30mm HE wouldn't. APDU would do better, but why would you ever load that in an A10?
They do, even MBTs.
moron underagers look at the RHA armor penetration of 30mm, and think the A10 can't, forgetting that the GAU - 8 is putting about 50 - 75 of those 30mm rounds into the top of a tank in a single burst.
Recent tests show the A10 capable of getting a crew, and or mobility kill of MBTs at nearly 100% with 2 bursts.
>forgetting that the GAU - 8 is putting about 50 - 75 of those 30mm rounds into the top of a tank in a single burst.
In the T-62 test all of the passes made on those tanks in ideal weather conditions and while immobile resulted in a total of 957 rounds fired, with 97 hitting and 17 of those penetrating. The only "catastrophic kill" results were achieved when firing at behind the tank, and no attacks into the front armor resulted in any sufficient damage.
I'm not exactly sure that a 43% chance to kill a T-62 only being achievable by firing from almost directly behind (of which the target is completely immobile, completely clear weather, and without threat of manpads) is a good result when you can just huck a missile.
source: trust me bro
> into the top of a tank in a single burst.
>top
Remind me again what a typical GAU-8 gun run slant range and dive angle is?
>Recent tests show the A10 capable of getting a crew, and or mobility kill of MBTs at nearly 100% with 2 bursts.
Cite your source.
USAF testing in the 70s showed it had a mediocre probability at killing ancient M-47 tanks, mobility kills obviously a good bet for side profile attacks of course.
lol you're lucky if you put one on the top and one on tracks (and that's still enough)
an average point targer burst is like half second, and the gun need time to reach full rof.
>Design an aircraft with an insanely niche purpose
>Circumstances that necessitated design end up resolved another way
>Aircraft gets shoehorned into CAS role to save money
Really gets the noggin joggin
Not every ground vehicle is a tank you Black person.
A 20mm or 25mm would easily penetrate APCs and IFVs while weighing much less
>>low chance of killing an MBT
False premise, with the right approach an A-10 can still deliver a kill to modern MBT's with the main gun.
>>mass majority of the A-10’s kills in Desert Storm was with missiles
Because the 30mm at that point was considered to be less efficient. Instead of picking a specific attack vector, you just send a missile that way, meaning you can focus on not getting shot down.
>What’s the point?
Providing big dakka, duh.
A 20 or 25mm would have much more difficulty getting through the vulnerable parts of a tank though.
>A 20 or 25mm would have much more difficulty getting through the vulnerable parts of a tank though.
Think less in terms of terminal effect and more in terms of range and practical accuracy. It's not about being able to bust a tank in a 1-in-a-million scenario. It's about being able to bust unarmored trucks/etc without having to get as absurdly close to the ground as 20mm would require.
>What’s the point?
Mercing homies in BMPs, BMDs and trucks in and around here.
big, heavy, innaccurate.
good against stationary light targets. but missile are more accurate and more useful on moving targets. so its obsolete
>What’s the point?
Burgers thought Soviet tanks had 1.5-2 inch thick side armor. Just like their M48/M60/M1 tanks. Russians tonks can't have thicker armor than burger tanks, right? Right?!
shut the frick up, vatBlack person moron
>aircraft gun designed to penetrate side armor
1 800 come on now
>Just like their M48/M60/M1 tanks.
M48s and M60s had 3in side armor
M1 has 2in side armor followed by a side skirt of 1in
the M60 tank had unusually thick side armor for an MBT of the time, T series tanks often had quite thin side armor.
That's not a good excuse for the A-10 though, the concept was outdated by the time it first flew.
to BTFO everything with less armor than tank
>low chance of killing an MBT
>mass majority of the A-10’s kills in Desert Storm was with missiles
>What’s the point?
The point is they started designing this thing in 1970 and it entered service in 76, a time where use of mass PGM's was nowhere near as ubiquitous as it is today.
A low & slow capable armored plane that could put nice cheap dumb munitions like 30mm round, rockets and bombs on target was very desirable, especially in a WW3 scenario where PMG's were sure to run short.
Then the mass adoption of PMG's made it so planes no longer had to get anywhere near their target and the A-10 mostly became a bomb truck. The BRRRRRRT gun became a meme because it is admittedly pretty badass and it got talked up the same way the katana did and the inevitable backlash followed.
The A-10 would off course go on to prove all the haters wrong in the 90's when the stars would align and it would prove it's overwhelming superiority, by being chosen as the GDI airstrike plane in the hit game Command and Conquer.
It's perfect for terrorizing squishies that have no AA, like in Afghanistan.
>wHat's tHe pOinT
irradiating the desert bit by bit and perforating 99% of everything in it in the process. dipshit
Where is this moronic shit coming from? Even in recent tests the A10 can kill MBTs with just the 30mm.
Psychological Warfare. Everyone knows the sound of an A10's guns. It's pretty much just the modern day equivalent of a Stuka siren
Iam pretty sure the cannon can at least mission kill every single modern MBT.
>What’s the point?
To make /k/edditors squeal with joy at the farting sounds it produces
>good vs soft targets
So is a 20mm or 25mm
Or any of the other 30mm guns that doesn't weigh 4000lbs and take up a third of the aircraft fuselage space..
It came into being before PGMs could do the job. Circa 1970 it was either big gun or unguided rockets or bombs
Everyone is so concerned with the gun being some kind of anti tank gun.
Its not. Its an anti everything else gun. 30mm HEI is no joke.
you know what else isn't a joke?
PGMs. JASSMs. JSOWs. Mavericks. Zunis with a guidance package. ANY other weapon puts the operator at far less risk than a stupid fricking meme gun.
The A-10 was very popular with infantry for point fire support, since it's a jet it gets from loiter orbit to target much faster than a helicopter when called in, and the 30 mm is lethal in anti-personnel use and can destroy targets in small buildings, etc.
The AC-130 gunship features the GAU-12 25mm 5-barrel rotary cannon, aka smaller meme gun because the Air Force just likes mounting useless weapons on its aircraft.
But yeah, the future is drones firing various smart munitions, manned aircraft in general is the joke here.
>What’s the point?
Imagine its destructive capacity against a 100 km long Russian column stucked in foreign land.
+15cm to penis length
The lesson learned from the Gulf was that self-designated LGBs and Mavericks are the future of tank killing. The profile for a cannon attack exposes the plane to even DShK and PKM fire. Closest to the A-10 in its role would be the OG Harrier operating from road bases in Europe
They thought it would work better than it actually did.
It's not an unheard of concept to be honest.
For example, the British once thought this was a viable anti-tank grenade, and actually issued it to troops as such.
>useful enough to still keep in service
>not useful enough to keep producing or inspire successors
It's a system that still has it's uses, but is mostly just a piece of heritage equipment. At some point (in the relatively near future) upgrading the A-10 will finally be financially and strategically impractical, and they'll either replace it with a different plane or decide that other equipment is sufficient enough that it's retirement would make no impact on overall capability.
At the end of the day there will always be a use for a big brrrrt cannon, but there come a time when age and changing situations will finally cause it to be scrapped.