Nah, this thread is tasteful erotica. This is pr0n.
If that is the case, I really dont understand why the A10 would be so essential to the UN forces in Lybia. Sixteen seconds of fire doesnt sound like the A10 qualifies as a sustaining fire platform at all*. I fail to see the advantages over the classical fighter jets.
*by the way, how long can your average helicopter maintain sustained fire?
An A-10 can loiter on site much longer without tanker support than an F-15/16/18. The “sixteen seconds of fire” are actually around 11 to 12 separate bursts at different targets. Figure those as kills. The A-10 will carry variable numbers of guided missiles; mavericks and hellfires as examples (maybe two to 16 of the hellfires). A single mission could destroy a dozen or more armored vehicles with precision weapons.
Then we get to the cluster muntions. Each bomb dispensing dozens to hundreds of cluster munitions. These would be multipurpose munitions. High explosive blast, armor piercing shape charges, and incendiary effects. These would be dropped on a column of tanks, light armored vehicles, supply/fuel/troop transport trucks. Pretty much total destruction from the primary and secondary effects. From previous posts; the A-10 is silent in approach (we are talking battlefield noise levels) and very accurate in low level passes.
Because a fire mission means less than a second of sustained fire. 16 scorched tanks, besides those slaughtered by whatever the A-10 is carrying under its wings, is a lot of bang for your buck.
Jeebus. Waay too many folks watching waay too much Military Channel. The A-10 is cool. It aint’ a Death Ray.
I didn’t fly it myself, but I know & work with plenty of guys who did or still do. Including in the recent wars.
The gun is used against vehicles & fixed targets. It’s typically fired from a very low angle dive, 5 to 10 degrees. Yes, steeper dives can be used with the gun, but that’s not the prefered tactic. Much above 20 degrees and you pass through the engagement envelope too quickly to aim effectively. That also means most shots at vehicles are more front / side / back than top.
A typical burst is 1/2 second, giving 30-ish shots per mission. The 4000 rounds per minute figure is with the gun at full rotational speed. Like any mechanical system it has a non-zero spin-up & spin-down time, so 1/2 second is a bunch less than the 66.67 rounds you’d get by just naively dividing 4000/60. And the 1/2 second is measured with the pilot’s carefully calibrated trigger finger, so there’s some slop there too.
Aiming the gun is relatively easy & the sighting system works well. The gun delivers a concentrated pattern with little dispersion & few flyers. So most rounds from a burst will hit a truck or tank-sized target. If it’s a vehicle other than an MBT, it’s dead, period. As described somewhere in the over-enthusiastic drivel above, you’ll almost always get an M-kill on any MBT, where now it can’t move. Getting a full up K-Kill where it’s flaming hulk or on its back happens often against older MBTs but less so with the latest & greatest tanks. I don’t have any reliable info on the outcome for the crew receiving a less than K-kill hit; But my warthog pals say pretty much everything they shoot quits fighting immediately for one reason or another.
The newest Maverick missiles are the A-10 weapon of choice against late model MBTs. Those can be fired from a greater distance and altitude, which reduces the A-10s exposure to MANPAD & small arms fire. And they’re getting close to a one-shot = one kill reliability unless there’s heavy smoke. A typical engagement will be from a 10-20 degree dive.
Broadly speaking there are two very distinct types of battles. One is where the enemy has large numbers & it’s a melee. You wade in, quickly shoot up all your ammo at the abundant and obvious targets, then go home for more ammo. The famous “highway of death” during gulf war 1 was an example. An A-10 with a full gun and a half-dozen Mavericks might be out of ammo in 20 minutes after taking out 40 targets. My ex-roommate who worked that particular mission a few days & nights said the problem quickly became finding a live target amidst all the wrecked ones. This is also the only scenario where any cluster-type munitions get used.
The other type of battle, and the one most commonly encountered today, is that there are no targets now. But some time in the next 3 hours a couple things will identify themselves as needing killing immediately. For that you want an aircraft which can hang around for 3+ hours and then fairly quickly get to wherever the target is and then despatch it. The A10’s long loiter time is more valuable for this mission than the F-16’s much greater response radius. And much cheaper for the taxpayer.
Silence: All jet aircraft seem mostly silent on the battlefield. The noise of battle is much more than you can really hear jets over. Any inbound attacking fast jet is moving almost as fast as its noise, so the intended recipient will be surprised unless they see it coming. The A-10 is much slower than its noise but also makes a lot less. Net, net, the two effects seem to cancel out. Helos are both relatively slow and noisy. And they still sneak up on ground troops pretty readily.
Also worth noting that one’s visual horizon is smaller the closer one is to the ground (not to mention the effects 0of tress, hills, and buildings in obscuring the horizon). Guys in foxholes won’t see low-flying aircraft until they’re very close. A high-speed, low-flying aircraft is typically able to “ambush” people on the ground, especially if said people have previously been identified and located by other observers.
Nobody’s claiming the A-10 is a Death Ray 1920s or any other style. We’re claiming it’s a Death Projectile Gun.
I would expect that 30mm dep-U rounds would seriously fuck up an MBT’s day, acknowledging that the A-10 wasn’t designed to kill a modern MBT.
Continuing the comment that this thread is tasteful military hardware pr0n: LSLGuy, your post turns me on. I need to go find my fiancee now.
Seems like this comment was directed at me, since I am the only one claiming the 30mm wins. You’re wrong though, I haven’t been watching the Military Channel. In fact, I haven’t watched any American television in 5 years since I’ve spent 6 of the last 7 years stationed overseas, and 2.5 of those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing I’ve said has fuck all to do with shit I’ve seen on tv.
This doesn’t make me a subject matter expert, but I am no less qualified to make a guess than your friends.
I do have some unique experience shooting different rounds at different types of personnel armor. One thing I know for sure is that each round weakens the integrity of the armor, regardless of whether or not “huge chunks” fly off.
The whole rest of your post is good info, but it isn’t really relevant to the thread. We are talking about theoretical possibilities and hypothetical situations here, not what the A-10 normally does.
My experience of seeing an A10 using its Gatler was a very short ZZZZZt.
Watched Jarhead (Which was total crap)and if the film COULD have been spoliled it had a Wart fly past them and fire a Gimpy.
Especially since the A-10 and the M-1 are on the same side, and so have never gone up against each other under battlefield conditions, nor are they likely to. Sure, there have probably been some tests done by the military, but those would be under controlled circumstances, and main battle tanks are probably too expensive to justify doing very many of them.
Double posting here, I know where you’re coming from mate.
Ex Brit soldier,and you get people telling you that inspite of the fact that you’ve actually done the stuff,lived the life etc. their brothers next door neighbour actually worked with someone who met an SAS soldier once, and he did such and such.
And then they quote Wiki !
Also the Daily Mirror/insert tabloid here, tells you what REALLY goes on, in U.K.Special Forces.
I live with it now.
But I still think that all American Paras are Gay, can’t drink and jump at unusually safe heights.
A GRAND !
I could read a book on the way down for fucks sake.
Not to mention we’re making guesses as to the Classified top armor of the Abrams.
**Bear[/B ] in case it wasn’t totally apparent was just taking the piss.
Have worked with U.S paras, Lrrps and Special Forces.
Fucking good blokes.
Though obviously not as good as Brits.
Apaches carry 1.200 rounds of chain gun ammo, and fire bursts in increments of 5, up to 30 shells in one pinch of the “trigger”. Wiki lists the M230 as having a 625 rpm so that’d just under 2 minutes of fire total, but in reality it’s more like 60 bursts or more depending on the kind of target the chopper is trying to zap.
Cobras OTOH only pack 750 rounds of 20mm, with a gatling gun that fires faster. Only 1 minute of fire in them, and they won’t fuck up tanks quite as well.
Friendly fire isn’t.
No, it was obvious. At what height do you guys normally jump, though? For training, anyway.
No Bear, it wasn’t directed at you. As a fellow vet I get as annoyed as you do at armchair experts. And yes, I know you’ve been over there doin’ it for real for some time now.
Armor is pretty resilient stuff. Tanks don’t have hitpoints - you don’t wear them down by hitting them over and over again with weapons that cannot penetrate their armor. I mean, in extreme cases, if you were to hit it over and over again you may stress the armor until it becomes less effective, but a single burst of 20-30 30mm DU rounds isn’t going to cause that sort of catastrophic failure on an m1. The delicate stuff on the outside will get wrecked, but the tank itself could probably take the A10’s whole ammo load and live.
Think about shooting a hundred BBs at some sheet metal vs one 12 gauge slug.
Bear_Nenno and LSLGuy: Can you get your facts out of my porn?
For the record, what are you guys assuming the RHA equivalent of the top of the Abrams is? I think that should have been where the conversation started. At issue isn’t the unclassified penetration and destruction of the 30mm API, it’s the Classified equivalent thickness of the top armor. We’ve been making statements back and forth without directing the conversation where it needs to be.
So how thick (equivalently thick) do you think the top of the tank is?
I don’t think it is greater than 30% of what the front of the turret and/or the front slope are. Which is why I don’t think BBs on sheet metal is a good analogy. Especially since I dont think anyone here would claim that the 30mm rounds are just going to bounce off like a BB would. They will at least embed themselves into the armor, transferring all of that energy in the process.
I think the British Challenger series and Germany Leopard II series of tanks also use Chabum armor. As noted by other posters, the thinnest (and least deflective) armor is going to be on top of the tank, so they are as vulnerable to hits from above as the M1 is. I don’t think that there is any more advanced armor on a fighting vehicle than Chabum…not that I’ve heard of anyway, so protection wise they are all pretty close.
-XT