|
|
|
|
|
by why_Mr_Anderson
1911 days ago
|
|
Oh well, at least get the facts right. A-10 was designed to kill T-55s, T62s and T-72s (most modern tank USSR had at that time), not today's tanks. GAU-8 was extremely effective against armor from that era and still is very useful against armored vehicles, structures, etc. F16's can't do what A10 does the best (CAS). In 1st Gulf War A10s are credited with something like 1000 tanks destroyed (mostly with Mavericks though) AF is trying to get rid of A-10 for decades, but it still survives .. |
|
The GAU-8 couldn't penetrate the frontal armour of the T-62, let alone the turrent on the sides. With ERA armour it becomes even more ineffective. Those tanks? AA, SAM, and enemy CAP are covering them so good luck getting slow and low enough to hit the tanks in the rear and 1. surviving, 2. actually hitting the damn things.
>F16's can't do what A10 does the best (CAS).
This
>In 1st Gulf War A10s are credited with something like 1000 tanks destroyed (mostly with Mavericks though)
contradicts this.
an F-16 can carry mavricks just as well as the A-10, can get their faster, and has higher survivabilty rate compared to the slow as molasses A-10.
Hell, you could replace the A-10 with a single engine turboprop with rough airfield landing capabilities and it would be way more cost-effective than the A-10.