Warbirds Thread

[ShadowArxxy]

Because other aircraft did the heavy lifting for them. As others have pointed, they suffered considerable losses early on in Iraq, so they changed tactics, for them to be used only in areas where air defense has been neutralised by other aircraft and even then they were mostly used from higher altitude. In Yugoslavia they were pulled back after two were damaged early on and didn't see much action throughout the war.

That's not accurate at all. For the First Gulf War, the original plan was to hold back the A-10s exclusively for the CAS specialty and not have them participate at all in the war until ground forces arrived, largely because Gen. Horner believed that the A-10s would not be survivable against air defense. However, due to inadequate availability of other aircraft types, the A-10s were retasked with a variety of missions, including battlefield air interdiction (which was originally supposed to be exclusive to F-15Es due to the "high risk", but was reassigned to A-10s and F-111s because the brand new F-15Es lacked LANTIRN targeting pods and were not yet squadron qualified for PGMs).

In the opening air blitz, the A-10s carried out marathon (8-10 hour long) "Wart Weasel" deep strike missions against critical Iraqi early warning radar sites and the Nukhayb Intercept Operations Centre, with complete success. In other words, far from only being deployed where "air defense has been neutralized by other aircraft", the A-10s were at the tip of the spear neutralizing the air defense in Iraq. All in all, A-10s flew 7,983 operational sorties and OA-10s flew a further 657 operational sorties, including 294 sorties on the first day of operations alone. The vast majority of those sorties -- over 75% -- were battlefield air interdiction, and 455 were SEAD.

A particularly relevant details is that outside of the opening blitz, Coalition losses to Iraqi air defenses occurred *solely* during daytime low altitude support missions, which means the A-10s were actually flying the highest risk missions in the war. In addition, during that opening blitz against Iraq's fully operational IADS, no A-10s were lost even on the very high risk "Wart Weasel" missions, while the vaunted "fast movers" did take casualties -- a Hornet, two Strike Eagles, two Falcons, and a Phantom (which was lost to a single 23mm round).

 

[ShadowArxxy]

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.

Your "recollection" is completely wrong. The T-64 was the advanced Soviet tank reserved for elite tank formations, versus the mass production T-62 and T-72.

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.

The T-64 was not common at all, much less "the most common" -- it was reserved solely for the most elite tank divisions of the Soviet Union itself. The "common" WarPac tanks were the T-62 and the T-72, both of which were far inferior to the T-64. The T-64 was not exported to *any* client state until the post-Soviet era.

 

[Zachowon]

Your "recollection" is completely wrong. The T-64 was the advanced Soviet tank reserved for elite tank formations, versus the mass production T-62 and T-72.



The T-64 was not common at all, much less "the most common" -- it was reserved solely for the most elite tank divisions of the Soviet Union itself. The "common" WarPac tanks were the T-62 and the T-72, both of which were far inferior to the T-64. The T-64 was not exported to *any* client state until the post-Soviet era.

T 64 is inferior to the T72

 

[ShadowArxxy]

T 64 is inferior to the T72

The T-72 was specifically designed as a less capable but lower cost alternative to the T-64, because the T-64 was too expensive to be procured in the numbers necessary to actually replace the hordes of T-55s and T-62s which, at the onset, made up 85%+ of Soviet tank forces. In fact, the very initial was was that the T-72 was for "emergency procurement only" and would not be mass produced unless war broke out. They subsequently abandoned that plan and built many, many T-72s.

Modern T-72s are superior to T-64s because they have been repeatedly upgraded, wheras the T-64 was succeeded by the T-80 instead of getting equivalent upgrades.

 

[Zachowon]

The T-72 was specifically designed as a less capable but lower cost alternative to the T-64, because the T-64 was too expensive to be procured in the numbers necessary to actually replace the hordes of T-55s and T-62s which, at the onset, made up 85%+ of Soviet tank forces. In fact, the very initial was was that the T-72 was for "emergency procurement only" and would not be mass produced unless war broke out. They subsequently abandoned that plan and built many, many T-72s.

Modern T-72s are superior to T-64s because they have been repeatedly upgraded, wheras the T-64 was succeeded by the T-80 instead of getting equivalent upgrades.

The T72 is the current fronting Russian tanka followed by T90 amd T80s

 

[ShadowArxxy]

The T72 is the current fronting Russian tanka followed by T90 amd T80s

Mostly because Russia is so cash strapped that they're stuck with it. The much-delayed T-90 was supposed to directly replace the T-72 as the mainline tank, just as the T-80 already replaced the T-64 as the elite tank. The lesser role of the T-90 is reflected by the fact that it is actually nothing more than an T-72 fitted with an upgraded engine and a knockoff of the T-80s's more sophisticated fire control system; its proper designation is T-72BU, with T-90 being a last-second redesignation for marketing and propaganda purposes. But Russia can't even afford to build many of these warmed-over T-72s or upgrade existing T-72s to the "T-90" version.

In any case, being the current frontline tank does not refute the fact that the T-72 was specifically designed to be substantially less capable than the T-64. The main line tanks (T-34, T-54, T-55, T-62, T-72, T-90) were always more widely produced than the elite tanks (T-64, T-80), because they were the ones equipping the majority of frontline units, plus all reserve units and client states.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Footage of vintage warplanes at a New Jersey Air Show featuring a P-51D Mustang, a TBM Avenger and a C-47 Skyrtrain.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Your "recollection" is completely wrong. The T-64 was the advanced Soviet tank reserved for elite tank formations, versus the mass production T-62 and T-72.



The T-64 was not common at all, much less "the most common" -- it was reserved solely for the most elite tank divisions of the Soviet Union itself. The "common" WarPac tanks were the T-62 and the T-72, both of which were far inferior to the T-64. The T-64 was not exported to *any* client state until the post-Soviet era.

From my understanding, that's not entirely the case. The T-62/64 are -effectively- the same and the T-64 was a CATB (aka 'not elite') tank, T-72s and T-80s are CATA equipment, at least from my understanding.

To put things into perspective, the second-most-common tank in the WarPact arsenal is the T-55 and that's considered CATC equipment in the USSR by the time the A-10 was produced in-bulk.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Your understanding, as usual, is grossly deficient.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Your understanding, as usual, is grossly deficient.

From my readings on Soviet doctrine and equipment distribution, it really isn't.

The 'West' generally doesn't really differentiate wasn't stringent on equipment distribution outside of ToEs and what is available. The USSR and WARPACT did segregate equipment that stringently.

From my readings, the T-62/64 was relegated to CAT-B (basically 'standard' troops) formations while T-72s and (later) T-80s were relegated to CAT-A (basically 'elite' troops) formations, and that's before going into CAT-C formations (which are, essentially, the reservists)... and that's just the tanks.

To give you an idea of how a 'western' nation would look like with this sort of setup, then let's make West Germany as an example. If West Germany used the same system, then their version of CAT-A units would be almost entirely made up of Leo-2s when it comes to tanks and they would get all the Mauder 1s, late-version (if not all) Gepards, Rolands, basically, anything that could be considered 'top of the line'. CAT-B units would be entirely made up of Leo-1s and M113s with other previous-gen equipment. CAT-C units would be basically just a bunch of M48s and whatever APC that was available when the M48 was Germany's frontline tank...

 

[paulobrito]

Your problem is that you don't take into consideration the timeline.
At the time of T-62/T-64, the T-64 is the elite tank.
T-72 and t-80 appear several years later. At that time, T-80 is the elite tank and T-72 was the normal one, T-62 and T-64 are older models by that time.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Your problem is that you don't take into consideration the timeline.
At the time of T-62/T-64, the T-64 is the elite tank.
T-72 and t-80 appear several years later. At that time, T-80 is the elite tank and T-72 was the normal one, T-62 and T-64 are older models by that time.

... I thought I implied the 1980s with those statements... then again I've got a nasty problem with miscommunication problems.

 

[Bacle]

 

[bintananth]

First combat aircraft designed for radar from the start? Maybe. First to be operationally equipped with radar? Most definitely not.

 

[Marduk]

Mostly because Russia is so cash strapped that they're stuck with it. The much-delayed T-90 was supposed to directly replace the T-72 as the mainline tank, just as the T-80 already replaced the T-64 as the elite tank. The lesser role of the T-90 is reflected by the fact that it is actually nothing more than an T-72 fitted with an upgraded engine and a knockoff of the T-80s's more sophisticated fire control system; its proper designation is T-72BU, with T-90 being a last-second redesignation for marketing and propaganda purposes. But Russia can't even afford to build many of these warmed-over T-72s or upgrade existing T-72s to the "T-90" version.

In any case, being the current frontline tank does not refute the fact that the T-72 was specifically designed to be substantially less capable than the T-64. The main line tanks (T-34, T-54, T-55, T-62, T-72, T-90) were always more widely produced than the elite tanks (T-64, T-80), because they were the ones equipping the majority of frontline units, plus all reserve units and client states.

And then there is the little detail that T-64's main production and maintenance facilities were left, after the fall of Soviet Union, in what was later known as Ukraine, which kinda froze any ideas of Russia remaining heavily involved with the model afterwards.
In turn, however, Ukraine is still heavily using and somewhat modernizing that model.

And then, for comparison, there is the T-72. Which, unlike T-64, in itself should not be considered a very precise term for what kind of tank it is at all. After all, a T-72 can be anything from ancient T-72 Ural, somewhat improved T-72A, through deliberately chepened and technologically downgraded, varied by customer export models of T-72A , the T-72M (also widely used by less trusted WP countries like Poland), considerably improved over T-72A T-72B, and its not so common export version T-72S, and then there are the modern T-72's, the mostly Russian T-72B1/2/3 models and the T-90, which depending on specific configuration can vary a lot but definitely are the upper end of the tank's development, though latest T-72B variants, like T-72B3M, which may or may not be comparable to T-90's.

And then there are various improvements of the crappy T-72M made in Warsaw Pact countries...

For comparison, there are no Soviet era nerfed export model T-64's, vast majority of the existing ones would be T-64B/BM/BV and the likes, roughly equivalent to earlier T-72B's technologically, or T-64BM Bulat, an indigenous, Ukraine specific modern upgrade, even latter BM2 Bulat, or more mass produceable variant of T-64BV model 2017.

As far as vulnerability to air attack goes though, Iraq didn't use "most recent Russian/Soviet, technologically updated production" T-72B's, they used questionable quality T-72M's, nevermind even worse tanks known as Asad Babil, Iraq's local knockoffs of T-72M's, outfitted in various not so standard ways, with whatever foreign import accessories, salvaged parts, and spare parts for T-72M's were available, so its not unrealistic that some or all of their T-72's lookalikes could have worse protection than a T-64.

 

[Tiamat]

For all this constant back-and-forth about A-10 vs fast movers in regards to aircraft losses vs aircraft damaged, etc. etc, I think an important factor is getting grossly overlooked: Did the damaged A-10s manage to make it home?


Most of them in fact did, and yes, some took extensive damage. And I'm not talking typical AK fire, I'm talking about ZSU 23mm, 14.5mm KPV, flak and near misses from SA missiles. There are plenty photos of A10's stitched all over with heavy MG and autocannon fire, a missing engine here, a half a wing blown off there, and still the aircraft made it home. Why is that important? Because the pilot made it home, he/she didn't get blown out of the sky or have to bail out and face possible capture. The A-10 is a ridiculously tough and resilient aircraft because it has to be in order to perform the CAS role. Much respect to F-16's, I have yet to see one survive a wing getting blown off. I could be wrong of course. Also, the A-10 pilot sits in a heavily armored titanium cockpit. The F-16, not so much.

The point is, aircraft can be repaired and replaced with sufficient spares and parts. Skilled pilots? Not so much. Ask the German Luftwaffe in WW2 how that worked out, or the Imperial Japanese for that matter.



EDIT: This is especially relevant in regards to what @ShadowArxxy posted above earlier about the A-10's role in Operation Desert Storm and it was quite literally flying into the teeth of the Iraqi AAA defense network.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

From my understanding, that's not entirely the case. The T-62/64 are -effectively- the same and the T-64 was a CATB (aka 'not elite') tank, T-72s and T-80s are CATA equipment, at least from my understanding.

Your understanding is absolutely incorrect. The T-62 and T-64 are completely different tanks -- as I pointed out in my previous post, the T-62 was an evolution of the T-34 lineage, following on from the T-54/T-55 and succeeded in turn by the T-72 and then the "T-90" (which is actually T-72UB). The T-64, on the other hand, was a completely novel tank which is not directly connected to any other Soviet tank except for its direct successor, the T-80.

The T-62 succeeded the T-54/T-55 as the widely produced and widely exported to client states "mainline" tank of the Soviet Union, whereas the T-64 was introduced in limited numbers for elite Guards tank regiments only. That's why T-62 production numbers over 23,000 tanks produced from 1961 to 1975, whereas the T-64 production is estimated at only 12,000 from 1963 to 1987. In other words, barely more than half as many T-64s exist even though they were made for twenty-four years as opposed to just fourteen, firmly refuting the claim that T-64s were "super common". As a further reference point, the actual next mainline tank, the T-72, was produced in comparably large numbers to the T-62 -- over 25,000 from 1968 to the present.

 

[Morphic Tide]

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.

The design target was set in 1970, so the tank the GAU-8 was built to kill was the T-64, and the T-72 was still in its original configuration by the time the GAU-8 entered service, predating the T-72A, which added a considerable amount of composite armor to the turret front and sides, by two years.

Thing was very carefully made to match its design requirements, succeeded at that, but technology has marched on. Complaining that it has ended up poor at fully fledged anti-tank use is like complaining about the Bradley losing its amphibious capabilities.

Yes, those are what they were originally designed for. The original design is not the only thing they can be used for. The A-10 is poor at tank-hunting, but killing damned near every other type of vehicle in the world, apparently including anti-air because "low and slow" fucks with targeting systems, is a fine role to have.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

As far as vulnerability to air attack goes though, Iraq didn't use "most recent Russian/Soviet, technologically updated production" T-72B's, they used questionable quality T-72M's, nevermind even worse tanks known as Asad Babil, Iraq's local knockoffs of T-72M's, outfitted in various not so standard ways, with whatever foreign import accessories, salvaged parts, and spare parts for T-72M's were available, so its not unrealistic that some or all of their T-72's lookalikes could have worse protection than a T-64.

There's a lot of confusion as to the nature of tanks in Iraqi service, not helped by the fact that the Western media had a very bad habit of calling all Iraqi tanks T-72s.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the majority of Iraqi tanks were Chinese Type 69s, i.e. an upgraded variant of the Type 59, which was the Chinese designation for the T-54A. China sold large numbers of both Type 59s and Type 69s to Iraq in the early to mid 1980s, although by the time of the Gulf War, the Type 59s were out of service except for occasional use as decoys. Some of the Type 69s had reportedly been upgraded to Type 69-QM configuration, which involved additional frontal armor welded on the front and either the addition of a 60mm mortar in addition to the original 100mm gun, or regunning with a 100mm gun or a 125mm gun. Note that a number of these T-69s survived to fight in the second Gulf War, including at least two of the mortar-equipped variant; U.S. Marine units reported being engaged by indirect fire from Type 69s during the attack on Nasiriah.

Iraq also had, primarily in the Republican Guard but also certain politically favored units of the regular army, actual T-72s imported from the Soviet Union and Poland. These are often erroneously referred to as Asad Babil ("Lion of Babylon"), a name that was actually specific to a late 1980s project to build T-72M1 tanks from knockdown kits from Poland. It is not clear if any T-72M1s from this project were actually completed; the Polish claim that none were, because the old West German steel factory that was tasked with the project was still being upgraded by Polish contractors when it was bombed and destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War.

In short: all Iraqi tanks were less-protected than a T-64, and in the 1991 Gulf War, A-10As scored nearly a thousand tank kills using both Mavericks and 30mm cannon fire -- and that was with the Air Force requiring A-10 pilots to visually confirm seeing an enemy tank burst into flames in order to claim a kill.

 

[Aaron Fox]

Another old Cold War warrior, this time the 4-seater S-3 Viking ASW bomber. Too bad that the F-18s and helicopters replaced them in their various roles.