- If you had to pick one to go into battle with against entrenched ground forces, which would you go with?
- Head to head, which would have the advantage?
Both scenarios assume ace pilots.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a pilot, though I have watched ‘Wings of the Apache’* (for some reason retitled ‘Firebirds’ in the USA) so that makes me an expert.
Is it against ground troops only with no air support? In that situation I’m not sure which would have the advantage in survivability, the A-10 is faster, better armed and more heavily armoured but its not very good for sneaking around in. The Apache would be much better at that but more vulnerable when engaged. So not sure, but I’d choose the Apache and try to stay out of trouble.
Air-to-Air I think the A-10 would have most of the advantages, a much longer ‘reach’ with its main cannon and higher speed means the pilot could pick and choose when s/he attacks and fly out of range of anything the Apache could use to hit back with. So A-10 for this one.
As far as I’m aware they are both armed only with cannon and hellfire missiles, also rockets in the case of the Apache?
*actually a pretty fun movie if you like aviation.
A-10 has Mavericks. I think both can sport Sidewinders for air to air. I am also an expert because I played many a Microprose simulator back in the 90’s.
They serve different purposes. I need to know more about what sort of enemies you need destroyed.
Head to head, neither aircraft is really built for shooting down other aircraft but the A-10 is at least an airplane with a machine cannon and is ridiculously faster than any helicopter. Apaches can carry Stingers but it’s not what they’re built for.
I go with the Apache. The A-10 can only make passes at an enemy, strafing or attacking for a few seconds at a time. The Apache can hang around, hover, loiter for several minutes and really mince the enemy good and well, very thoroughly. Plus, 16 Hellfires vs. fewer Mavericks.
In a head-to-head, I go with the A-10’s Sidewinders and faster escape speed as opposed to the Apache’s Stingers.
I daresay the terrain makes the difference. Mountains and forests favour the more maneuverable Apache, while plains and deserts allow the Warthog to make fast strafing runs.
Going head-to-head, the Apache is toast unless he constantly evades, which will eventually expend his fuel. As soon as he slows down, blammo. If either aircraft has air-to-air missiles, though… again, it comes down to terrain. If the Apache stays low in mountainous terrain, crazy-risky in itself, the Warthog might not be able to get him.
A Warthog can kill a helicopter but I’ve never heard of a case of the reverse.
Ah I really should have remembered that, thanks! That does change things a lot but I would still vote for the A-10 in that scenario.
Not if it likes to keep flying in one piece it can’t.
My vote is for the A-10 for one simple reason : an A-10 with one turbine shot off can still zoom around and happily go BRRRT. An A-10 with *both *turbines shot off is still a glider. A helo with one rotor shot off is a twirling brick.
To whit, combat losses in Iraq alone : 1 A-10, 29 Apaches (only 19 of which were actually *shot *down. The other 10 just crashed of their own accord). I’ll take the one that makes it home thankyouverymuch 
Depends. If they are entrenched in hardened bunkers then the A-10 would probably be your best bet as it can be equipped with hardened guided bombs. If they are entrenched in simply prepared positions I’d probably go with the Apache, since it can loiter and give more concentrated directed fire.
Well, neither is really suited to an air to air engagement, so it’s a bit of a fanboy wank, but a fixed wing aircraft like the A-10 is going to have the advantage. It’s also hardened and has 2 engines, so could probably take a lot more fire from the Apache than the reverse.
The trouble with these kinds of comparisons is that they are comparing apples to orangutans. Both aircraft are good in their niche roles, and while there is some overlap those roles are pretty distinct.
I think we’re going to have to clarify how “entrenched” the ground forces we’re talking about here are.
MANPADS? SAMS?
I think terrain is going to effect the answers quite a bit too. Apache can peek it’s radar over objects, cliffs, etc and fire from relative immunity.
WAG: If we’re just talking small arms fire only, I think the A-10 is always going to come out ahead. In an open desert environment with modern SAMs, both the A-10 and the apache are probably going to suffer horrendous losses, but there’s a better possibility of survival with the A-10. With enough decent terrain spots to hide from SAMs (along with intel of where the ground forces are located), the advantage goes back to the apache.
Wouldn’t it be more fair to compare it to the A-10 with one wing shot off?
And don’t forget, Apache rotor blades aren’t some aluminum ceiling fan blades hanging out in the wind. They can take a hit from a large round and keep going. From a design standpoint, both aircraft are designed to take a lot of damage and keep flying.
In a head to head battle, I’d give the advantage to the one that can fly faster and higher. Apaches don’t routinely carry air to air missiles, and the 30mm cannon can’t shoot up. But if the Apache could hide in some terrain, the A-10 might not be able to hit it. So, stalemate.
And PS Fire Birds was a horrible movie! 
They’re very different beasts. The Apache’s job is to hide behind terrain, pop up, scan what’s there, pop back down. The crew then program the targets, pop back up, fire their ordnance, and scarper. The A10 bombs and shreds from the sky.
The A10 has a cup holder.
I thought that was the F-14.
I’m not sure if the OP is asking which we would prefer to be giving us close air support, or to be actually flying oneself, although since he specified ace pilots I’m guessing we aren’t in the cockpit.
So if I am a ground commander I would rather have an Apache helping me.
Yeah, as an infantryman, I’d much rather have an Apache watching my back. For one, they can advance at the same speed I’m moving, whether I’m on foot, in an IFV or in a helicopter myself; for another, I can ask them to pop over a hill or look down an alleyway and find the enemy that’s outside my line of sight. It’s basically my personal flying pillbox and missile battery.
Besides, any missile a Warthog can fire, an F-16 can fire too, and an F-16 can also defend itself from enemies in the air.
Well I first saw it at an impressionable time in my life but I watched it again recently and I still think its a fun movie, not a classic by any stretch of the imagination but I think its a little harsh to call it ‘horrible’.
Edited to add I’ve just checked several review sites and it is very negatively rated, I don’t think its nearly that bad and I’m not sure why people dislike it that much.
What is the loiter time of an Apache though? You would need quite a few of them to rotate in and out of the combat zone to follow you as you advanced on the ground wouldn’t you?
The F-16 is an extremely capable aircraft but it wasn’t designed specifically for ground-attack like the A-10, isn’t it more vulnerable to ground fire, which there would be a lot of in the OP’s scenario?
Seeing as it flies much higher and much faster, I’d say it’s much *less *vulnerable to ground fire.
Missiles have come a long way since the A-10 was first launched. Back then, you had to be relatively close to your target to use them. These days, you don’t even have to see the target. You can be flying high, miles away.
Is the enemy infantry or armor? Both aircrafts’ primary armament are their cannons, but they’re very different cannons. The Apache has a lot more rounds, and hence can kill a lot more targets… if the targets are something that it can kill. But I don’t think that the Apache’s cannon would be a serious threat to a tank, no matter how many rounds it delivers. The Warthog, meanwhile, was built to be a tank-killer, a job it’s very good at.
If the enemy is a sensible mix of forces, then I’m probably not going to take them out with either aircraft, and so my goal must instead be to soften them up for my own ground forces. And whether I’ll do a better job of that by taking out their tanks or their infantry depends on what my own ground forces are.