If she doesn't like that K98k, how much would she want for it?
Warbirds Thread
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
bintananth
behind a desk
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.If she doesn't like that K98k, how much would she want for it?
More seriously, a quick google search says parts for one start at over $1,500.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Tomahawking every pickup with a tripod bolted on is not an economical use-case. That gun worked well against contemporary Soviet tanks, and has not magically stopped penetrating the same armor since then.
Virtually everything less than a tank goes down to that gun, and the A-10 is perfectly fine carrying a few missiles for a tank or two that showed up.
The biggest problem with putting Bazookas on a Piper J3 is doing it in such a way as not to overload the wings and still provide the necessary lift.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
It's more Mavericking/Hellfiring than Tomahawking. You forget that the gun is, sadly, largely useless. We've already seen the training manuals for the A-10, and against something like the T-64 (which, from my recollection, was part of Soviet CatB formations at best), there is really no realistic angle of attack outside of maybe the engine deck. Everywhere else tends to shrug off the 30mm. It also doesn't help that formations of Soviet-style infantry tended to have a mix of 23mm and 30mm autocannons (i.e. Shilkas and BMP-2s and 3s) firing at you when you do this. You're better off using ATGMs at that point. And as Desert Storm proved, getting into gun range is the worst thing you could do on the modern battlefield, as you're far too likely to get damaged and/or destroyed.
*rolls eyes* You claim that the 'training manuals' say that, yet in actual testing against actual vehicles the GAU-8 did *just fine*, plus the A-10 at no point needed to be modified, upgraded, etc etc etc for guided munitions, it came with Maverick from the start.
You have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, because you simply handwave away every single bit of evidence against your position, ignore it, wait a day, then repeat the initial claim that was already shown to be utter bullshit, and rely on the fact that people will give up on arguing with a stone.
You have absolutely no credibility whatsoever, because you simply handwave away every single bit of evidence against your position, ignore it, wait a day, then repeat the initial claim that was already shown to be utter bullshit, and rely on the fact that people will give up on arguing with a stone.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The T-64 came from realizing 160 mm of frontal armor was doable, and had the Soviet's first composite armor. Cite me vehicles that are not full-on tanks with that level of protection. What the fuck is there that is not a literal tank shrugging off the 30 mm autocannon?
paulobrito
Well-known member
Small problem - the A-10 gun is designed to deal with tanks, not other vehicles. The thing can't perform on is designated role from day one, only in secondary roles.
Heck, even in WW2, the Stukas (Ju-87-G) used 37mm guns (with tungsten ammo), not 30mm ones.
Yes, is great in a very permissive environment, against anything that is not a tank, but is not why is created.
Like Predator/Reaper drones - great in a very permissive environment, but crap against any modern-ish competent-ish adversary.
The A-10 is used because they exist and the airframes have some extra hours of use, not because they are great.
Heck, even in WW2, the Stukas (Ju-87-G) used 37mm guns (with tungsten ammo), not 30mm ones.
Yes, is great in a very permissive environment, against anything that is not a tank, but is not why is created.
Like Predator/Reaper drones - great in a very permissive environment, but crap against any modern-ish competent-ish adversary.
The A-10 is used because they exist and the airframes have some extra hours of use, not because they are great.
The GAU-8 is firing a ballisticly superior round at almost three times the velocity as the BK 3.7 mounted on the JU-87G. Even the shell masses are comparable despite the larger diameter of the german round. The weapon readily penetrated over 200mm of effective armor thickness (a 110mm RHA plate at 60 degrees of slope) from the operational distance of 1200 meters.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Yeah, Yeah - 30'ish years later, big surprise. Still, a crappy anti-tank weapon by the time is designed, much worse by the time enters service.
Face it - the A-10 is planned to be used in the Fulda Gap against the Soviet / Red Army forces. For that, is a very crappy/obsolete weapon by the first day it enters service.
Is legend exists only because is used against very incompetent adversaries in massively permissive environments.
In any near peer-level engagement, is toast very fast.
*rolls eyes*
Prove it. I have presented the data, that your precious fast-movers were more vulnerable and took heavier losses at all levels of permissive environments than the A-10, that the A-10 was more efficient, more effective, and more useful than all but the heavy bombers in the same environments, and has done far more good for the actual boots on the ground than any of your precious fast movers.
The fast mover mafia is just as pernicious and obnoxious as ever.
Prove it. I have presented the data, that your precious fast-movers were more vulnerable and took heavier losses at all levels of permissive environments than the A-10, that the A-10 was more efficient, more effective, and more useful than all but the heavy bombers in the same environments, and has done far more good for the actual boots on the ground than any of your precious fast movers.
The fast mover mafia is just as pernicious and obnoxious as ever.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
You also forget that angle of the impact is a major factor. Most rounds are designed to penetrate a target at a 90-degree angle, and attack runs tend to be anywhere from 25-degrees (just shy of 1.5 times of effective armor) to 45 (somewhere around 2 times of effective armor) if I remember right. So that side armor is up to about 2 times of effective armor. Then there is the fact that the T-64's turret (one of the most common tanks in the WarPact arsenal) is rounded, making guessing an effective angle of attack incredibly hard to achieve.
Hell, we've seen very capable APBC -and similar- rounds simply don't work and shatter (only leaving a dent in the armor) when facing armor at about 30-degrees, and this is in WW2.
It's rather telling that it wasn't guns that dominated WW2 CAS but bombs and rockets.
Also, that 1200 meters are well within Shilka, Tunguska, and BMP-2 and -3 range (Shilka 23mm AAGs have an effective AA range of about 2.5km, Tunguska's 30mm guns have an effective range of about 3.5km, and the 30mm guns of BMP-2s and -3s are shy of 2km), so to get within that effective range you'll have to dodge literal bullet hell... and that is if the various MANPADs, light-end SAMs, and Tunguska SAMs don't get you first!
paulobrito
Well-known member
Just tell me one battle that the A-10 participates that is not a very permissive environment.
Or against modern-ish hardware.
Oh, wait - none.
About the losses of the A-10 - they are relatively low - but you also need to take into account the number of planes that need to be extensively rebuilt/repaired.
Suddenly, your numbers are not so good. I wonder why.
In an intense/near-peer conflict - that the US takes a lot of care to never ever be involved - that adds a lot.
Or against modern-ish hardware.
Oh, wait - none.
About the losses of the A-10 - they are relatively low - but you also need to take into account the number of planes that need to be extensively rebuilt/repaired.
Suddenly, your numbers are not so good. I wonder why.
In an intense/near-peer conflict - that the US takes a lot of care to never ever be involved - that adds a lot.
Desert Storm.
paulobrito
Well-known member
Desert Storm is the perfect example of what I said - incompetent adversaries with obsolete hardware in a very permissive environment. And even in that scenario, the A-10 takes a lot of losses / damaged planes.
If you compare Desert Storm to any Fulda Gap scenario, you are very dishonest.
Note - I consider the planes that need to be massively repaired in my account. I know that they are not losses in the technical/legal term, but in any other scenario, they can't be used again in any useful time.
If you compare Desert Storm to any Fulda Gap scenario, you are very dishonest.
Note - I consider the planes that need to be massively repaired in my account. I know that they are not losses in the technical/legal term, but in any other scenario, they can't be used again in any useful time.
It had less losses then the F16 in Desert Storm AND Iraq War.
The A 10 has better survivability then fast movers..
How effective do you think Russian ADA is on low flyers?Besides those made to target helicopters, they are better for long range high flyers and now low alt slow flyers who can surprises them because guess what. RADAR IS BETER WHEN POINTED UP!
paulobrito
Well-known member
Fortunately, you never know how a competent IADS post-Vietnam works against the USAF. We all know what the Vietnam one do to the USAF - killed a lot (hundreds) of planes.
But the Soviets have historically a lot of short-range (guns, short-range SAM's, and MANPADS) air defenses, that the A-10 needs to survive to operate. Good luck with that.
And in that hypothetical scenario, you need to not forget that the air space is very contested, the USAF doesn't have is (taken for granted) air dominance.
In the last 40+ years, all the wars the American forces have been very easy ones. You think that all are that way.
The reality is that the US takes care to only go to the mate with very easy adversaries, already seriously damaged by sanctions.
Against any serious adversary they - and you - are going to get a very rude awakening.
But, enjoy your dreams - is all you get, after all.
But the Soviets have historically a lot of short-range (guns, short-range SAM's, and MANPADS) air defenses, that the A-10 needs to survive to operate. Good luck with that.
And in that hypothetical scenario, you need to not forget that the air space is very contested, the USAF doesn't have is (taken for granted) air dominance.
In the last 40+ years, all the wars the American forces have been very easy ones. You think that all are that way.
The reality is that the US takes care to only go to the mate with very easy adversaries, already seriously damaged by sanctions.
Against any serious adversary they - and you - are going to get a very rude awakening.
But, enjoy your dreams - is all you get, after all.
No, the US refrains from attacking peer opponents directly because of two words. Nuclear fucking weapons
We won't ever invade ones homeland.
We will fight them in another country though
Exactly. Everyone loses horribly when even a lesser regional power is pushed to the point of full-scale war, which is why conflicts between anything *remotely* close to peer powers consist of proxy wars with puppet "allies" or absurdly petty slapfights over minor incidents.