Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:15 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

Dilandu wrote:Basically, without escort it would be immediately destroyed by any enemy fighter that he may meet. The main reason for the low altitude is that you could hide behind the terrain (or under the horizon) from the ground-based radars. The aerial based radars look on the thins at the different ange (literally) ;)


Does anyone remember any OTHER A-10 downing besides the ONE listed at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... War#2003_2
and the FOUR listed at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... t_Storm.29


Only five aircraft shot down seems like a pretty good record to me, give how they were used.




.
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Ensign Re-read   » Tue Jan 27, 2015 4:36 pm

Ensign Re-read
Commodore

Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:24 pm

Annachie wrote:...As for the A10 getting AA kills, I've heard of a tank getting an AA kill before, so anything is possible. (Admitadly in a war game but I bet the pilots shit themselves)


Na, I heard that to.
In fact, I "Googled" this:
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-08/ ... air-combat


I also remember something about a Tank on a coast line sinking a ship!

:lol:
=====
The Celestia "addon" for the Planet Safehold as well as the Kau-zhi and Manticore A-B star systems, are at URL:
http://www.lepp.cornell.edu/~seb/celestia/weber/.
=====
http://www.flickr.com/photos/68506297@N ... 740128635/
=====
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Annachie   » Tue Jan 27, 2015 7:27 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

5 or 6 tanks hull down on a hill in far north Queensland.
It's probably not true bit up there it could happen so maybe it's repeated as a lesson to be careful in close terrain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Daryl   » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:07 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

When setting up our Black Hawk flight simulator one of our combat scenarios had the aircraft coming over a rise and then being attacked by enemy troops firing RPGs. The writers used the wrong glyph substituting kangaroos for insurgents. Bit of a shock being shot down by a roo.

Annachie wrote:5 or 6 tanks hull down on a hill in far north Queensland.
It's probably not true bit up there it could happen so maybe it's repeated as a lesson to be careful in close terrain.
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Thucydides   » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:56 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

Obviously some people simply won't accept that things are changed and it is time to move with the times.

The A-10 represents the pinnacle of close support aircraft, but a fully armoured knight in 1500 represents the pinnacle of mounted warfare using muscular power as well, yet new, effective infantry weapons that could be issued to soldiers with very little training and new tactics (the Infantry Revolution), negated the expensive horse, armour and lifetime of training needed to create a knight.

Even tier 4 opponents like the Taliban and ISIS have the ability to gain access to effective MANPADS (maybe not in vast quantities) which should explain why the vast majority of air missions vs the Taliban or ISIS were/are being done at high altitude with PGMs , and tier 1 and 2 opponents have an unquestionable ability to acquire and use effective GBAD and air cover to make it extremely dangerous to try traditional CAS missions. You will have noticed that the vast majority of air support missions post 1991 are all using stand off munitions, rather than coming in close and personal. Without putting too fine a point on it, it does not matter how manoeuvrable an A-10 or SU-25 is, no human pilot can take more than 9 "G", and virtually any modern MANPAD, SAM or AAM can pull far more "G" going after the target.

And going the other way, most ground attack weapons are relatively cheap and robust, so even if several are caught by C-PGM systems and destroyed, you can still overwhelm a target with more rounds rather than more aircraft and come out ahead.
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Weird Harold   » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:05 pm

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

Thucydides wrote:... extremely dangerous to try traditional CAS missions. ...


I suspect that, like dog-fighting and internal guns, the reported demise of (traditional) Close Air Support is premature.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by fallsfromtrees   » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:30 am

fallsfromtrees
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1960
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:51 am
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Thucydides wrote:Obviously some people simply won't accept that things are changed and it is time to move with the times.

The A-10 represents the pinnacle of close support aircraft, but a fully armoured knight in 1500 represents the pinnacle of mounted warfare using muscular power as well, yet new, effective infantry weapons that could be issued to soldiers with very little training and new tactics (the Infantry Revolution), negated the expensive horse, armour and lifetime of training needed to create a knight.

Even tier 4 opponents like the Taliban and ISIS have the ability to gain access to effective MANPADS (maybe not in vast quantities) which should explain why the vast majority of air missions vs the Taliban or ISIS were/are being done at high altitude with PGMs , and tier 1 and 2 opponents have an unquestionable ability to acquire and use effective GBAD and air cover to make it extremely dangerous to try traditional CAS missions. You will have noticed that the vast majority of air support missions post 1991 are all using stand off munitions, rather than coming in close and personal. Without putting too fine a point on it, it does not matter how manoeuvrable an A-10 or SU-25 is, no human pilot can take more than 9 "G", and virtually any modern MANPAD, SAM or AAM can pull far more "G" going after the target.

And going the other way, most ground attack weapons are relatively cheap and robust, so even if several are caught by C-PGM systems and destroyed, you can still overwhelm a target with more rounds rather than more aircraft and come out ahead.

Actually the demise of the armored knight occurred earlier that 1500 - at the Battle of Agincourt, the English long bowmen turned the French knights into pin cushions - and that was in 1415.
========================

The only problem with quotes on the internet is that you can't authenticate them -- Abraham Lincoln
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Jan 29, 2015 11:25 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

Weird Harold wrote:
Thucydides wrote:... extremely dangerous to try traditional CAS missions. ...
I suspect that, like dog-fighting and internal guns, the reported demise of (traditional) Close Air Support is premature.
That's how I see it. I'm not saying that, in some situations, some new equipment can't do better, such as long-range standoff support. If that's the mission needed, then by all means a UCAV with Mavericks, great. But, if a unit's over-run by insurgents & need on-the-spot air cover, There just isn't anything better for Close-Air-Support than the A-10, and that is a mission that troops on the ground need, and will continue to need as-long as there are boots-on-the-ground .
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Thucydides   » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:17 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

fallsfromtrees wrote:Actually the demise of the armored knight occurred earlier that 1500 - at the Battle of Agincourt, the English long bowmen turned the French knights into pin cushions - and that was in 1415.


Indeed. The thing is mounted Knights continued to be used and arms and armour continued to be developed (in fact, you could argue there were pockets of development after 1500), post 1415, but the emerging "Infantry Revolution" outpaced the improvements in mounted warfare, and spread throughout Europe, so that by roughly 1500 mounted knights were no longer the dominant player on the battlefield.

I would also make a tangental observation that Welsh longbowmen were not actually agents of the Infantry Revolution, since it also look a lifetime of training to create an effective bowman, much less train units to fight and deliver the stunning arrow storms. By the time of Henry VIII, longbow training had fallen out of fashion and it would have been very difficult for the English to field an effective force of bowmen in Tudor times. The crossbow, and later the gun (along with complimentary weapons like pikes deployed in dense formations) allowed people with minimum training to at least put up an effective defense against mounted Cavalry (or even other Infantry formations), and the ability to raise large numbers of fighting men at relatively low cost is what really drove the Infantry Revolution.
Top
Re: My rant/fantasy regarding the A-10(A&B) Warthog.
Post by Thucydides   » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:21 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

MAD-4A wrote:That's how I see it. I'm not saying that, in some situations, some new equipment can't do better, such as long-range standoff support. If that's the mission needed, then by all means a UCAV with Mavericks, great. But, if a unit's over-run by insurgents & need on-the-spot air cover, There just isn't anything better for Close-Air-Support than the A-10, and that is a mission that troops on the ground need, and will continue to need as-long as there are boots-on-the-ground .


As a "boot on the ground", I never had any reason to doubt the speed or efficiency of stand off weapons being delivered from platforms far out of my sight, and as I pointed out, in the entire time, I only heard of one instance where the attacking air platform (an AH-64) was even visible to the troops.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...