5 ms·

> 30x173mm can no longer kill what it was meant for killing The GAU-8 can no longer kill top-line Russian armor? Source?

madeuptempacct 8y ago
"The GAU-8 can no longer kill top-line Russian armor? Source?" A 30mm cannon couldn't kill T-64s, T-72s(T-90s), T-80s for a long, long time. Neither can it's Russian counterpart, the SU-25 kill an M1Ax Abrams. What it CAN do is make a mission kill - it can destroy the tank's threads, cannon, and optics, which takes the tank out of action. Furthermore, the A-10 always had a close support role which a fast-high (F-35) or low-unarmored (Tucano, despite light armoring iirc) simple cannot do. To say that an AH-64 can fulfill the A-10s role is also delusional - it can't get in as fast or survive as well once it's in.
kilo_bravo_3 8y ago
The GAU-8 could not kill T-72s, which entered service during its development cycle. Everyone fawns over it, but the GAU-8 only had moderate penetrating abilities against T-62s, less against the T-64. In order to "kill" a T-62, the A-10 had to approach it from very specific directions, at very specific angles of attack. The Soviets knew this so they co-located anti-aircraft artillery with their armor units and any A-10 making a gun run on a tank would have been flying through a hail of anti-aircraft fire. In order to penetrate a thin sliver of armor on the sides of the T-62, an A-10 pilot HAD to fire from from the side of the tank at "1500 feet away, at 3 degrees of dive, at 320 knots". The Soviets knew this, too. What direction do you think the barrels of the ZSU-23-4 self-propelled radar-guided anti-aircraft vehicles were pointed, when moving in formation with T-62s? The PGU-14/B depleted-uranium armor piercing round, the most "anti-tank" bullet the GAU-8 fires, can penetrate 55mm of armor at 1,220 meters and 75mm at 300 meters. There are very few parts of the T-72 that have armor thinner than 75mm. Also, those penetration figures are for steel. Very rapidly after the introduction of the A-10, the Soviet Union started outfitting all of its main battle tanks with composite armor and additional external armor. So at best if you pepper a tank with a full magazine of PGU-14/B fired from a GAU-8 you're probably hoping to break its track, poke a hole in an external fuel tank, or puncture its main gun-- not destroy it. Crews inside modern main battle tanks would probably hardly notice being hit by fire from a GAU-8. Here is the "A-10 Coloring Book", written by cold war A-10 pilots as a training aid covering how to shoot at T-62. T-62s were only vulnerable from the rear, and thin (hard to hit) slivers along the sides. https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK The T-64 was harder to kill, and the T-72 almost impossible. Due to anti-aircraft assets being closely-coupled to Soviet tank formations it was predicted that every single A-10 pilot would be dead two weeks into a hypothetical war with the Soviet Union, and this was 40 years ago.
amorphid 8y ago
The GAU-8 was designed to punch thru 76mm armor at 300 meters. [1] The Russian T-90 tank has armor thicker than 500mm. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90
- jacquesm 8y ago
  For a bit I thought you might have used the wrong leading digit but it's true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw
  - amorphid 8y ago
    Not directly related, but I recently enjoyed this video comparing the latest models of the USA Abrams & Russian T-90 in a tank battle smackdown.
    - amorphid 8y ago
      Forgot link to video => https://youtu.be/nnJCYK2F2N0 https://youtu.be/nnJCYK2F2N0
  - JackCh 8y ago
    To be clear, that 500mm number is referring to rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) equivalency. Modern tanks use fancy composite and reactive armor to provide incredible protection. It's not actually 500mm thick, but is apparently equivalent to the protection 500mm of RHA would provide. These sort of numbers are a bit tricky since some anti-tank weapons are more effective against modern armor than others, meaning the armor will have a different RHA equivalency ratings against different kinds of weapons. For instance, per wikipedia, the M1A1HA's turrent is rated for 600mm / 800mm vs APFSDS (sabot), and 1,300mm vs HEAT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour#Current_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour#Curr...
JackCh 8y ago
That's right, the GAU-8 is inadequate for killing modern MBTs, but is complete overkill for any other sort of armored vehicle. It might get lucky and disable a MBT with the autocannon (it may not get through the tanks armor but could still disable the tracks, optics, etc), but really for modern tank killing it would be using something like an AGM-65 Maverick (it can carry up to six.)

madeuptempacct 8y ago

"The GAU-8 can no longer kill top-line Russian armor? Source?" A 30mm cannon couldn't kill T-64s, T-72s(T-90s), T-80s for a long, long time. Neither can it's Russian counterpart, the SU-25 kill an M1Ax Abrams. What it CAN do is make a mission kill - it can destroy the tank's threads, cannon, and optics, which takes the tank out of action. Furthermore, the A-10 always had a close support role which a fast-high (F-35) or low-unarmored (Tucano, despite light armoring iirc) simple cannot do. To say that an AH-64 can fulfill the A-10s role is also delusional - it can't get in as fast or survive as well once it's in.

kilo_bravo_3 8y ago

The GAU-8 could not kill T-72s, which entered service during its development cycle. Everyone fawns over it, but the GAU-8 only had moderate penetrating abilities against T-62s, less against the T-64. In order to "kill" a T-62, the A-10 had to approach it from very specific directions, at very specific angles of attack. The Soviets knew this so they co-located anti-aircraft artillery with their armor units and any A-10 making a gun run on a tank would have been flying through a hail of anti-aircraft fire. In order to penetrate a thin sliver of armor on the sides of the T-62, an A-10 pilot HAD to fire from from the side of the tank at "1500 feet away, at 3 degrees of dive, at 320 knots". The Soviets knew this, too. What direction do you think the barrels of the ZSU-23-4 self-propelled radar-guided anti-aircraft vehicles were pointed, when moving in formation with T-62s? The PGU-14/B depleted-uranium armor piercing round, the most "anti-tank" bullet the GAU-8 fires, can penetrate 55mm of armor at 1,220 meters and 75mm at 300 meters. There are very few parts of the T-72 that have armor thinner than 75mm. Also, those penetration figures are for steel. Very rapidly after the introduction of the A-10, the Soviet Union started outfitting all of its main battle tanks with composite armor and additional external armor. So at best if you pepper a tank with a full magazine of PGU-14/B fired from a GAU-8 you're probably hoping to break its track, poke a hole in an external fuel tank, or puncture its main gun-- not destroy it. Crews inside modern main battle tanks would probably hardly notice being hit by fire from a GAU-8. Here is the "A-10 Coloring Book", written by cold war A-10 pilots as a training aid covering how to shoot at T-62. T-62s were only vulnerable from the rear, and thin (hard to hit) slivers along the sides. https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK https://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK The T-64 was harder to kill, and the T-72 almost impossible. Due to anti-aircraft assets being closely-coupled to Soviet tank formations it was predicted that every single A-10 pilot would be dead two weeks into a hypothetical war with the Soviet Union, and this was 40 years ago.

amorphid 8y ago

The GAU-8 was designed to punch thru 76mm armor at 300 meters. [1] The Russian T-90 tank has armor thicker than 500mm. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-90

jacquesm 8y ago
For a bit I thought you might have used the wrong leading digit but it's true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rfyeR-YaJw
- amorphid 8y ago
  Not directly related, but I recently enjoyed this video comparing the latest models of the USA Abrams & Russian T-90 in a tank battle smackdown.
  - amorphid 8y ago
    Forgot link to video => https://youtu.be/nnJCYK2F2N0 https://youtu.be/nnJCYK2F2N0
- JackCh 8y ago
  To be clear, that 500mm number is referring to rolled homogeneous armor (RHA) equivalency. Modern tanks use fancy composite and reactive armor to provide incredible protection. It's not actually 500mm thick, but is apparently equivalent to the protection 500mm of RHA would provide. These sort of numbers are a bit tricky since some anti-tank weapons are more effective against modern armor than others, meaning the armor will have a different RHA equivalency ratings against different kinds of weapons. For instance, per wikipedia, the M1A1HA's turrent is rated for 600mm / 800mm vs APFSDS (sabot), and 1,300mm vs HEAT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour#Current_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolled_homogeneous_armour#Curr...

JackCh 8y ago

That's right, the GAU-8 is inadequate for killing modern MBTs, but is complete overkill for any other sort of armored vehicle. It might get lucky and disable a MBT with the autocannon (it may not get through the tanks armor but could still disable the tracks, optics, etc), but really for modern tank killing it would be using something like an AGM-65 Maverick (it can carry up to six.)