Let's say an A-10 in the 1970s face a few T-64's or T-72's and use its gun to engage them(because of doctrine)
What would be the outcome?
Explain your reasoning
It wouldn't do jack shit
What'd you expect from a shitty overrated gun?
>>30390260
Anon, first post is assigned to best post, not the worst post.
High attrition rate, questionable efficiency / effectiveness.
Inability to penetrate T-62s and up from the front AT ALL and most of the sides means difficult engagements that can't be done from the GAU-8's maximum range.
Engaging with the gun even at maximum range puts them in hatefucking range of prolific Russian SPAAGs and mobile AA, which they love using.
>>30390287
He's entirely right.
>>30390287
>>30390260
OP here
How thick was the turret top of the early T-72s and T-64s?
>>30390293
What's with this colouring talk?
Is it jargon, or is this GI Jimmy's colouring book?
>>30390307
Teaching A-10 pilots where they were even capable of penetrating T-62s.
>>30390299
plz respond
>>30390186
range and angle?
>>30390299
Less than 3 inches on average. Same goes for the vast majority of modern armored vehicles as well. This is why DPICM is still effective (to say nothing of engine decks)
>>30390186
spam he at front tank will be blind sensors and lights scrapped
spam ap from behind and above
tank will be like a swiss cheese
>>30390374
How about engine deck and rear in general?
Some faggot argues that the GAU-8 is an amazing anti tank weapon, and if it can't take on from the front, it can definitively take on a tank from the sides or from the rear, guaranteeing a mobility kill
>>30390186
What happens if you blast a tank with microwave radiation?
>>30390398
A Russian tank that you can do two low gun passes on wasn't following Russian doctrine.
Only thing that would be swiss cheese is the A-10, after taking gratuitous fire from attached ZSU-23-4 units
>>30390186
Gau-8 would have trouble penetrating those tanks at all, and even if it got in range and could penetrate it, it would face a layer of buk missiles, then a layer of STRELA-10M missiles, then a layer of Shilka AAA.
slow/close anti-tank is completely obsolete
It wouldn't take much to put some cheap radars on every tank, allowing the tank to engage the aircraft with their main gun.
A-10 shreds all.
vid related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRcWJsDVTfY
>>30390293
>nability to penetrate T-62s and up from the front AT ALL and most of the sides
It would in all likelihood fuck up all peripherals on that tank and turn it in a moving steel box.
>Engaging with the gun even at maximum range puts them in hatefucking range of prolific Russian SPAAGs and mobile AA, which they love using.
This seems fucking correct though, what was the actual tactic/strategy for employing the AT against enemy armor?
Maybe a mobility or mission kill if it gets a rear/tread hit. Jack shit with any hull hit.
The GAU-8 is better used for infantry masses, trucks, BTRs, T-55s, shit that's not worth wasting a Maverick or Rockeye on.
Not all enemy vehicles will be tanks. A significant portion will be APCs, IFVs, Trucks etc... GAU-8 will tear those up. If a dedicated anti-tank weapon is needed, Maverick missiles are readily available.
>>30390186
>What would be the outcome?
The only possible outcome would be the pilot seeing rapidly approaching ground from his cockpit after his plane took fresh hot load from 7 Shilkas straight into its nozzles.
>>30392653
He specifically said gun.
Any aircraft-mounted cannon can chew up light armor, too.
>>30392653
And 25mm APEX will work just fine, and with higher likelyhood of fire-round hits.
>>30390551
>allowing the tank to engage the aircraft with their main gun
Think about what you just said
>>30393789
Explain what physical impossibility prevents a tank from shooting down a helicopter or aircraft?
>>30393821
+16° elevation would probably contribute
>>30390186
begs the question why the fuck they bothered with that gun in the first place
>>30392792
>its nozzles
Wat
>>30393855
It could be done
But aircraft flying nap of the earth would be well within that 16 degrees.
>>30390317
Oh wow, it even says colouring book right on the cover.
>>30393912
>Gun runs
>NoE flight
>1960s
madman
