Aircraft weapons
 

There has been discussions in the past on this forum regarding the effectiveness of aircraft in the game and it was added to the list for this patch to be investigated. We are right in the middle of that investigation ATM and we have discovered one or two flaws that have morphed into serious issues that will be addressed in the next patch.

Some background info first that applies to aircraft launched rockets as that is what I am up to my armpits with ATM.

Aircraft launched rockets ONLY ( and this is important ) utilize the HE entry in the unit OOB. If you have an aircraft with guns and then two lines of rockets it will ONLY use "HE" rockets and never "AP" ones and therefore they do not use "AP penetration" weapon numbers and they do not use "HEAT penetration" weapon numbers either. The number that aircraft launched rockets use when determining an attack on infantry is the "HE kill" number in the weapon data and number that aircraft launched rockets use when determining an attack on an armoured target is the "HE penetration" number. If that number is zero or 1 that's all the penetration it gets even if it shows a significant HEAT capability

Helicopters are a different issue. Helicopter ARE set up to use the "AP" slot in a units weapons Helicopters fired rockets CAN use the "HEAT penetration" number IF the rocket is set up in the AP column of the unit data. If the rocket is set up under the HE line it will use the "HE kill" number.

What we found was a number of different problems compound by cut and pasting units and weapons from one OOB to the other. If the "master" weapon was wrong it usually ended up wrong wherever it was pasted to unless someone found it and then tracing back where all the others were can be a chore at the best of times.

Many weapons we have found were set up and applied correctly but many were not and sometimes aircraft weapons were given to helos and vice versa due to misunderstanding which one applied. It can be difficult when dealing with what can look like very similar weapons in the OOB with very similar numbers but in different order and keep that all straight over 92 OOB's.

The main problem was rockets, fired from aircraft , that should have had an anti tank capability were not, in some cases, getting what would be the penetration values usually found under "HEAT penetration" applied to the "HEPen" which made them virtually useless against any armoured target. All that is being sorted out now. The end result is rocket firing aircraft will be somewhat more deadly against armoured targets in this next patch than previous IF the weapon info had been set up incorrectly in the current OOB's. If your favorite aircraft had rockets that were set up correctly you won't see any change. As I said, not all air launched rockets were set up incorrectly but may were and that will be corrected for the next game upgrade along with any other issue we find in that regard



Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Actually I'm glad to hear this, as I've found most aircraft weapons to be of limited use VS armored targets - and the exceptions to sometimes act like pocket nukes killing vehicles 2 or even 3 hexes from the impact hex - yet strangely fail to effect the targeted vehicle.

I'm very much looking forward to this correction.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"Aircraft launched rockets ONLY ( and this is important ) utilize the HE entry in the unit OOB. If you have an aircraft with guns and then two lines of rockets it will ONLY use "HE" rockets and never "AP" ones and therefore they do not use "AP penetration" weapon numbers and they do not use "HEAT penetration" weapon numbers either."

I found that out the hard way some time ago, when I tried to have my iraqi SU-22s firing S-5K rockets at tanks. Needless to say it did not work out.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Yes, this wasn't a discovery on our part as much as a discovery that over time a number of units had been set up this way by the various OOB designers or that when units are cut and pasted from one OOB to another sometimes weapons set for helos have been used for aircraft and aircraft weapons used on Helos. That's not an issue if the weapon in question is strictly HE but it is very important when there are AT considerations.

Another thing is autocannon on Helos. WC5 will not fire at helos. It's for ground vs ground work. Any weapon set up as WC5 and given to a Helicopter to use as a weapon will shoot at ground targets no problem but will refuse to fire at other helos. I'm right in the middle of sorting all that out now.

There are over 34,000 units in all the OOB's. 34,679 as of today to be exact. Ensuring everyone who ever touched the OOB's did everything by the book can be a real treat at times.

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

For helos, I'd have another question: Would it make sense to distinguish helicopters with fixed weapons and those with wider field of fire? To avoid any East-West conflict, let's take say Ka-50 vs. Mi-28, one has gun with only limited traverse in forward arc, the other has gun on rotating mount. So I'd guess the '28 should be somehow benefitted compared to '50 in terms of firing opportunities, as '50 has to maneuver more to get shot off - does that make any sense?

Anyway, my suggestion would be lowering stabilliser rating for the helos with fixed guns. In hover, they'd get the same firing opportunities, but once they'd get moving, they will lose them faster than helos with flexible weapons.

Not a major issue, jsut a stray thought provoked by the Air question.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

If you were going to do that I think some people might clamour for a look at whether or not there is enough variance to then justify changes based on the nature of the turret and targeting equipment as well. Faster slew rates and more advanced sighting equipment right.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Those would be covered rather by FC methinks, but anyway as I've said, it's just a stry idea I even didn't have time to try out. Maybe after Wednesday http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Oh, without a doubt, I'm just saying that if you change one thing you might end up being compelled to change another.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I had a Maverick kill two tanks in different hexes, so this is a problem. But why can't the A-10's 30mm gun kill a tank? After all was'nt the gun was designed to do this? At least once on occation?

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Two kills for one missile can happen. If the HEkill is reduced that reduces incidents like that but also makes the weapon less effective against non armoured targets. We made changes to the code in the last release that reduced the number of incidences like that and I assume this isn't something you see all the time but you don't say one way or the other. If it is, nobody else is reporting it.

The A-10's 30mm gun CAN kill a tank in the game. I have seen it happen so saying it cannot "At least once on occasion" is ridiculous and I can provide save games that prove that statement is ridiculous. However, we are reviewing how multibarreled weapons are handled in the game and found a flaw in the code that goes back to SP2 that was reducing the effects of multibarreled guns. That doesn't affect the way the A10's are set up in the OOB's you have now but will when the patch is released and the new OOB's are used. However, don't expect fantasy results where A-10's leave masses of twisted wreckage after one pass. The actual armoured piecing ability of the GAU-8 Avenger is 69mm at 500 meters but the game fires from a shorter range and is rated as a 9 right now and that's won't kill a lot of tanks.

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

DRG,

The two kills with on shot has only happened twice in three test runs of a 1992 scenario {US vs Iraq} with the Iraqis having over 200 tanks. So this as you said is not common.

The A-10 30mm has yet to make a kill on a tank. It will kill most everything else but no tanks yet.

I am asumeing that the 69mm pen figure for the gun is with normal AP. I belive that this weapon also has a DU round for it. If Im wrong then we all know what asume stands for! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

The only AP round made for the AN/GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gun system is the PGU-14/B Armor Piercing Incendiary (API). That's the DU round. There is no "normal" AP made and the penetration for that round is reported in many places as being between 65-70 mm at 500 yards. As I said, we boosted it up a bit because attacks in the game happen at closer ranges than 500m so it was given a tweak upwards that it may not actually deserve.

Here's one source for the guns penetrative abilities....GAU-8 Avenger

there are others

If you want to see an A10 light up a tank pick a target with less than 9 rear armour and attack from the rear. Most gulf war 1 Iraqi tanks qualify.

It's not a wonder weapon but it does have the mystique of one.

However, if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

DRG,

Tried to tweek the A-10 with some results as far as the gun goes without adding PEN. As you said in an earlier post it may be how the game handles multi-barreled weapons on aircraft. I'm glad your working on it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

Now you can look at a site that I found that explains the newer upgrades that will make the A-10 even deadlier and stretch its service life to 2028.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

On this site you will see a statement as follows,

"Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tankfrom a range of over 6,500m."

You will also find that there are two AP rounds for the gun that are both refered to as API (Armor Piercing Incendiary).
One is DU, the other is not. I suspected this because as far as I know the Pen capability of DU rounds is classified as is a ton of other stuff that your trying to portray in this game. I do not envy your job.

The 25mm on the USMC's Harrier jet also fires DU rounds but to a much lesser extent.

That's another story. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

DRG, on the same site as above you can click on Industry Projects on the top left and find other info on many other aircraft and helos that may be useful.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Interesting they don't specify or offer examples of which "main battle tank" they are "disabling" from 6.5km away or how they calculate what "disabled" means. You could pepper a T55 from 6.5km away and have the crew panic and abandon the tank and that would make it tactically "disabled"

As for ammo, there are ample number of sources that say there are TWO combat rounds that cannon fires. The PGU-13/B HEI High Explosive Incendiary round and the The PGU-14/B API Armor Piercing Incendiary round . The only other round made for that gun is the PGU-15/B TP Target Practice projectile and is used for pilot training so there is one, and only one "AP" round made for that weapon. The API round IS the DU round. DU is a natural pyrophoric material which enhances the incendiary effects


I don't normally like to quote from Wikipedia but this quote sums things up quite well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger
"The standard ammunition mixture for anti-armor use is a four-to-one mix of PGU-14/B Armor-Piercing Incendiary (API), with a projectile weight of about 15.0 oz (425 grams or 6,560 grains) and PGU-13/B High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds, with a projectile weight of about 12.7 oz (360 grams). The PGU-14/B round incorporates a depleted uranium penetrator."

this matches the info provided by this website
http://www.hill.af.mil/library/facts...et.asp?id=5741

"The General Electric-built GAU-8/A 30mm Avenger gun system could hold up to 1,174 rounds and could fire aluminum-cased ammunition with either armor piercing incendiary, high-explosive incendiary, or training practice rounds. "

and others

Note what this website gives under specifications for that weapon
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

Armor penetration 69mm at 500 meters /38mm at 1000 meters

that is typical of the info available on that weapon.


also look at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...tems/gau-8.htm

All in all it's difficult to make assumptions about a weapon based on a vague statement that "is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m" without knowing what they mean by "disabled". There is no evidence the GAU-8 will leave a main battle tank a smoking ruin from 6.5 km range but then....... which "main battle tank" are we taking about ? A T55, A Leo 2 ? A T-90 ? The only real "targets" the A-10 has had to deal with have never been anything even approaching "top of the line" MBT's that I'm aware of but they WILL knock out UK Scimitars in real life but they will in the game as well as any test game will demonstrate.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-08.htm

This School of Advanced Air and Space Studies thesis..

http://aupress.au.af.mil/saas_Theses/Haun/Haun.pdf

shows a photo of a "Serbian T-55 Destroyed by A-10 with AGM-65 Maverick" Now why use a $150,000 missle to destroy and old T-55 if the Gau-8 is such an efficient tank killer?

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m."

I don't buy it, it would not exactly be the first time that the SPG Media websites write some bull**** so it should not be takes as gospel; as usual logic and common sense apply.
Just because a round is made of DU it does not become a magic bullet capable of piercing any armor at any distance.
The penetration figures listed seem to be consistent with what you would expect from an AP round of that age.
It is also sufficient to take out a tank either by mobility kill via engine deck/tracks hits or penetration of rear and top armor. Most soviet tanks, but even contemporary western designs like the Abrams, had top and rear armor in the 40mm range which could be penetrated according to the listed data. The dive angle would work against it by increasing LOS thickness but multiple impacts
might weaken the armor.
Against the intended targets therefore it should work, although I would not bet it was a 100% affair, but I would suspect that modern MBTs designed with top attack in mind would give it trouble (engine hits aside).

I am sure you could squeeze a much greater penetration from the gun but you would have to go down the sabot route and that apparently is not an option due to the petals ingestion issue. Besides there are more convenient ways to take out armor and it is mostly used against soft targets nowadays so why bother?

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"Disabling" is very wide formulation. Heck, even at that range I guess it can disable even M1A2SEP mixed with Merkava IV given enough rounds expended by knocking out vision blocks and other sensitive gear on the top of turret...

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

All I'm saying is that the way it is set up now I have in MOST scenarios played seen NO tank kills and NO immobillizations. When it does happen only one or two MBTs are effected in a given scenario. And my tests were done with elite air crews (Exp-120) and spotters.
What I do see is a lot of Pen-0 Arm-6, and even Pen-9 Arm-1, with both results having no effect on the target besides suppression.
It may also be an accuracy problem in the game or some other factor.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

DRG,

I looked at all those other site before and even the text in many of them are the same.
I gave you a site with a different perspective, please read it through.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"I gave you a site with a different perspective, please read it through."

And one whose reliability is questionable.
Do you really believe that something like the PGU-14 (the DU round) which is essentially an APCR, with all the disadvantages that this configuration entails and is by now decades old in design, has such magic penetration capabilities to enable it to rip apart tanks at 6000 meters?
There are cutout pictures of it all over the web.

http://www.airforceworld.com/attacker/gfx/pgu14b.jpg

Its official penetration data may still be classified but it is definitively not some top secret magic uber round capable of unbelievable performance.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I DID READ IT!. Why do you think I wasted all that time replying at length to what it was saying. Neither you nor that website clarifies just what "capable of disabling a main battle tank " MEANS or WHICH "main battle tanks" they have disabled at that range. Doesn't that seem odd to you ? What I do know is I had already researched this question LONG before you presented this "different perspective" because I had partially bought in to the notion that this weapons should be capable of more that we credit it in the game but the deeper I dug the more I became convinced it isn't , as Marcello says, "a top secret magic uber round " The 30mm Gau that A-10 carries is the least of your worries if one appears overhead. It's all the other goodies it can carry that are the real threat.


Just because that website has a "different perspective" doesn't make it correct. When you are looking for other information on other subjects and a number of sources agree but one doesn't do you always assume the one that doesn't agree with any others is correct ? Or do you just pick the ones that suit your notion of correct ? I have already spent hours looking for information on this gun. Nothing that website says is very enlightening.

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"DU can be used to engage the enemy at greater distances than tungsten penetrators or high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds because of improved ballistic properties. When they strike a target, tungsten penetrators blunt while DU has a self-sharpening property. DU ammunition routinely provides a 25 percent increase in effective range over traditional kinetic energy rounds."

Off the Global Security site.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"In the early 1970s, the Air Force developed the GAU-8/A air to surface gun system for the A-10 close air support aircraft. This unique aircraft, designed to counter the massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact armored formations spearheading an attack into NATO's Central Region, was literally designed and built around the GAU-8. This large, heavy, eight-barreled 30-mm cannon was designed to blast through the top armor of even the heaviest enemy tanks. To further exploit the new cannon's tremendous striking power, the Air Force opted to use the depleted uranium U-3/4Ti, a 30mm API round. A comprehensive Environmental Assessment of the GAU-8 ammunition was released on January 18, 1976. The report stated that the proposed action was expected to have no significant environmental impact and that the "biomedical and toxicological hazards of the use of depleted uranium (DU) in this program are practically negligible." The A-10 aircraft was deployed to United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) in 1978."

Global Security.

A disabled tank would be one that no longer functions as intended. In game terms that should be immobilized or killed.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Still doesn't provide concrete figures on what it can and cannot do. Furthermore, since I'm currently an intern (read: "web monkey") for Globalsecurity.org I can tell you without giving anything away that those pages haven't been updated in years and have generally been made up of direct text from usually rather glowing government or manufacturer assessments, often with few concrete figures to go along with them.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Then we have a problem of inconsistancy in the game.
In the USMC OOB weapon number 077 30mm Bushmaster has a Sabot Pen of 12. Weapon number 190 the GAU-8 mounted on the A-10 has a HE Pen of 9.
The problem is that BOTH WEAPONS fire the SAME 30mmx173 DU round. Please explain. The Bushmaster only fires about 250 RPM max, while the GAU-8 spews about 3900 RPM max. While both weapons will hurt you, which would hurt more?

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

My bet is that the difference cometh from weapon class and how is it modelled in game. You'll note thet with Mk44 chaingun, the AP ammo is in either AP or Sabot slot (too lazy to check it out right now), meaning it's penetration decreases with range. OTOH GAU-8/A is class 11 aircraft weapon, meaning the round has to be simulated there with HE penetration. Since HE pen doesn't decrease with range, it is not too sensible to let it have it pointblank penetration when it fires at a certain range ingame.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Both weapons have the same caliber, both weapons do not fire the same specific round. The weapons were definitely modeled on the normal ammunition loadout for both. The increased sabot number is no doubt based on the fact that the navy has an APFSDS round (Mk 268 Mod 0) for the Mk 44, that isn't used in the GAU-8/A.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

From what I understand the Navy no longer uses a DU round.

The only inovation between the GAU-8 and the Bushmaster is that the Bushmaster has a built in fuse setter for its HE rounds that the GAU-8 could in no way facillitate. The MK44 was featured on the TV show "Future Weapons" and showed how its HE round could be set to pen so much cinder block and then explode basicly depriving your opponent of their cover. So other that the HE round all others are the same.
30mmx173.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Well.. how about the Gau-8 with the 27 HE kill as opposed to the Bushmaster with only 11 ?? Strange that you would ignore that little detail. That 16 point difference is the difference between the two weapons ROF and their affect on soft targets. PENETRATION has nothing to do with ROF though we may take that into consideration.

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I don't have time to check stats right now, but it still shows up that the PGU-14 has a muzzle velocity of 1067m/s fired from the GAU-8, while the MK268 fired by the MK30 autocannon gets a hefty 1385m/s and is APFSDS, i.e. gets much less drag over its course. Same rounds, are you sure?
While I don't have figures for the US rounds yet (heh), I have racked up a figure of 57mm RAH @1000m/60° for the apparently similar German PMC-287 round. I find this figure hard to believe, but do you think Rheinmetall would publish official figures? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

69mm @500m is largely believable for the GAU-8, and allows to kill lots of of miscellaneous AFVs and some tanks in a totally improbable Stuka dive.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Its not a matter of innovation, its a matter of standard loadouts. The Mk 268 Mod 0 APFSDS-T round is not a DU round. The USAF does not use this round, and the MV differences have already been mentioned here.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

DRG,

I have no problem with the HE Kill values, they seem fine to me.

thatguy96,

The bullet is different but the case is the same.

)" This weapon fires standard 30 x 173 mm GAU-8 ammunition, using a side-stripping link developed by The Boeing Company. It can also fire RARDEN and Oerlikon KCB (30 x 170 mm) ammunition by changing the barrel, bolt and aft feed plate."
Found at,

www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30mm_BushmasterII.htm

The USAF does not use the MK268 round, this is true. The USAF uses a DU round while the Navy doesn't. The Navy felt that they did not need the extra pen power of DU to take out the targets they expected to encounter in their battle environment.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

OK.... then why quote penetration stats to me then ROF stats comparing the two weapons ? ROF has NOTHING to do with penetration unless we feel generous and tack on a bit because of a high ROF .

Given the published penetration stats for that weapon are 69mm at 500 yards and we give it a 9 HE Pen because the game only fires at half that range we have therefore already give the weapon a 30% boost in penetration as a compromise which is quite generous considering.

I'm sorry the munition doesn't slice and dice the way you think it should but we have to at least try to stick with the hard facts we know and there isn't any hard evidence to support the type of kill rate you seem to expect from that weapon.

Don

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

That the projectile is different and fired out of a different gun have serious affects on the rounds muzzle velocity and other ballistic characteristics, and as a result has a serious effect on the penetration capability of the projectile. That's like saying 5.56x45mm M193 fired from an M16A1 rifle has the exact same properties as 5.56x45mm M855 fired from an M4 carbine.

Firstly, DU is not some super metal. Tungsten and titanium have equally good qualities, if not better qualities, than DU. DU was adopted because of its incendiary properties, and because its a byproduct of other nuclear production, making it both cheap and available. It was not picked because it was the most dense material available.

Secondly, the Mk 268 Mod 0's penetrator is likely made of tungsten. Where are you getting this assertion that the Navy doesn't expect to encounter vehicles and ships on the battlefield that would need additional penetration? Especially seeing as one of the Mk 44's prime applications will be as the main gun on the EFV.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Look up the book by Bill Gunston called,

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Aircraft Armament
ISBN# 0-517-56607-9

On the A-10 he mentions TWO AP rounds, one tungsten core (AP-T) and one DU (API). These are in addition to the HEI and practice rounds.
The AP-T round would match up very nicely with the 69mm pen figure. The tiny German 28mm sPzB 41 could pen 66mm at 500 meters so why put that monster 30mm gun in any aircraft?

thatguy96,

Tungsten tends to blunt its own tip and even shatter at very high velocities while a DU round self sharpens until it penetrates or runs out of energy and destroys itself.

As far as the EFVs Bushmaster it may indeed be armed with a DU round. But on this Im not sure. Is the LAV 25 armed with DU rounds for its 25mm?
As far as guns aboard ships DU was deemed unnecessary. It was even pulled from the load out for the Phalanx system.

The MK44 may even end up on an improved Bradly!

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I'd like to see some sources on that, seeing as how widespread Tungsten is as a core metal in kinetic energy penetrators. It really seems to be the metal of choice for such things. The only reason DU seems to have been chosen is because it was a cheaper and equally satisfactory alternative, not because it was superior.

In fact, that's exactly what my copy of Gunston's book says, "cheaper and much easier to fabricate" (pg 190). My copy (dated 1988) also only mentions the DU round, not any other type of AP.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Your wish is my command,

"On more properly military grounds, depleted uranium is favored for the penetrator because it is self-sharpening and pyrophoric.[18] On impact with a hard target, such as an armoured vehicle, the nose of the rod fractures in such a way that it remains sharp."

" DU can be used to engage the enemy at greater distances than tungsten penetrators or high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) rounds because of improved ballistic properties. When they strike a target, tungsten penetrators blunt while DU has a self-sharpening property. DU ammunition routinely provides a 25 percent increase in effective range over traditional kinetic energy rounds."

This one is from Global Security.

Also from Global Security

"DU's self-sharpening properties are evident in this
x-ray. Note how the tungsten penetrator's tip deforms
into a mushroom shape."

If you go to the site look unde DU ammunition. At the bottom of the page you will see the X-ray. Notice the tungsten round is not only blunted but has broken in two while the DU round has stayed almost intact.

I'll get back to you on the book thing. I hope I didn't give you the wrong title! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

More goodies from Global Security.

"During the late 1950s, the primary material used for kinetic energy, armor-piercing projectiles was tungsten carbide. When first fielded, tungsten carbide represented a quantum improvement over its nearest competitor, high carbon steel. Its higher density (approximately 13 gm/cc) gave it superior penetration performance against existing armor targets. With the advent of double and triple plated armor in the 1960s, however, tungsten munitions showed a tendency to break up before penetrating the layered armor. This deficiency spurred the development of new alloys and materials capable of defeating any armored threats."

Navy stuff from Global Security.

" The Navy made the decision based on live fire tests that showed that tungsten met the Navy's performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact. It should be noted that the "soft" targets the CIWS was designed to defeat-anti-ship missiles at close range-are far easier to destroy than "hard" targets like tanks. Substantial stocks of DU ammunition delivered prior to that date remain in the inventory."

One more from some other site.

" Additionally, DU penetrators exhibit significant adiabatic shear band formation. During impact, fractures along these bands cause the tip of the penetrator to continuously shed material. This erosion maintains the tip's conical shape. Other materials such as unjacketed tungsten tend to deform into a less effective rounded profile, an effect called "mushrooming"."

Good night!

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

The Mk44 has APFSDS ammo. No?
The GAU-8 has only APDS ammo. No?

APFSDS is made to have more penetration capability than APDS. I can see no other reason to make such a complicated round if it has not got something to offer. The only thing that an APFSDS has to offer is more penetration and range having that penetration capability.

APDS is inferior in penetration to APFSDS if properly designed and fired from the same gun. The case diameter and lenght are the same for GAU-8 and Mk44, but Mk44 can fire the APFSDS ammmo that GAU-8 probably can too, but mounted on the A-10 can not, since the sabot petals would interfere with the airframe.

You can give some extra pen for the A-10 because the weapon muzzle velocity gets an increase from the speed of the aircraft it is flying when firing. However you can hardly argue that a modern APFSDS has worse pen capabilities than a 1970s APDS.

I personally think that a good 100 round burst hitting a MBT will at probably result in a mobility kill, or not. The engine deck and fans above it, tracks, track guards, main gun etc are vulnerable to the GAU-8. The high rate of fire is probably because of getting multiple hits to the targets in one attack thus increasing the chances of damaging tanks weaker parts.

BTW how many MBT kills did A-10s have in GW1 just using the main cannon.. I´ve only heard of light AFVs, trucks, AA assets which are easily penetrated by the GAU-8 and make up the majority of vehicle targets in any battlefield thus giving the GAU-8 plenty of use even if it called a "tankbuster". Just remember that for example the media refers anything with tracks as a tank, so the tankbuster can really wreak havoc among those "tanks".

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I think there are some misconception about the nature of the PGU-14 fired by the GAU-8. Such round, as the cutout picture I have posted clearly show, is neither an APDS nor APFSDS, where the DS stand for Discarding Sabot. In such a configuration an high density, sub caliber penetrator is surrounded by lightweight petals which are discarded after the round leaves the muzzle in order to reduce aerodinamic drag. No such thing for the PGU-14, as the discarded petals could be sucked into the engines with the all too predictable consequences. Therefore while a subcaliber penetrator is used in the PGU-14 this is more in the fashion of APCR of WW2 vintage, with the aluminium jacket retained until the impact with the target. The drawbacks of this configuration, especially at long range, were well known even during WW2 but as I said its employment was dictated by the circumstance of its use inside an aircraft.
Note that even if you don't trust me the round is referred to as AP rather than APDS or APFSDS.As I said no DS.

"Tungsten tends to blunt its own tip and even shatter at very high velocities while a DU round self sharpens until it penetrates or runs out of energy and destroys itself."

Actually as it has been debated to death on tanknet at really extremely high velocities it is tungsten that all else being equal (quality of manufacturing,tech level , alloying etc) has an edge on DU but that is not particular important for the current round speeds as far it was understood. What it should be remembered in context is that DU has come under heavy political flak (some of it unjustified IMHO) and the DOD has had to defend its use. Some inflating of its real advantages and cherry picking of evidence went in par the course.
I hope to write something more about it later if I can find the time.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I think the "Tungsten blunting" did happen with lower quality tungsten alloys, ie upon its introduction (early 1980's?) the DU should have an edge here, but my understanding is also that current tungsten penetrators should be at least equal to DU.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

So I went and checked the sources on the "DU is superior and Tungsten blunts on impact" comments repeated on Globalsecurity.org and most of them come from US government documentation defending the resumed use of DU ammunition in light of the massive debate about the health consequences. While it is obvious that at least in some cases the point holds true, those kind of government documentation are not exactly the best for making determinations about the real effectiveness of a system.

That picture of the round shattering doesn't show what the rounds look like beforehand, what gun they were fired from, etc. So while it obviously does happen, we don't know what the circumstances of its occurrence are.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

As I said before ALL DU penetration stats are CLASSIFIED. The 69mm at 500 meters figure just does not add up.
Again why would the US invest all that time and money to create this huge weapon and have it only slightly out perform a weapon like the German WWII era 28mm sPzB41 (pen 66mm at 500 meters)? I know that the Pen value in the game for the GAU-8 is 9 or 90mm but again this fits just right with the Ger 28mm weapon. Notice that when a A-10 makes a gun run in the game the last attack is said to come from 200 meters. At 200 meters the 28mm sPzB41 has a pen value of 86. In the game this would also rate as a 9 Pen value.
Im not looking to create a "uber weapon" just something closer to the real thing.

thatguy96,
I can use the same argument against you about the Bushmaster MK44. Cute picture of the round but where is it written that this 30mm weapon can punch 120mm of armor? Is that source reliable or is it just some trumped up figure put out by some US Government agency to legitimize the funding for this project?
Two of my quotes are from other sites and do not parrot Global Security.

The Bushmaster can fire a APFSDS round that may and probably does give it a slight edge over the GAU-8. The GAU-8 round is totaly self contained just like that pesky 28mm German squeeze bore. But given same size penetrators of tungsten and DU, the DU penetrator wins in the weight competition and in the penetration competition.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Because its cheaper and easier? As far as, I know the GAU-8/A and its ammunition do not rank up as one of the costlier weapon systems ever developed by the US military. There is also not a wealth of documentation on the supposed superiority of DU prior to the health impact scandal. There is, however, a wealth of documentation that talks about the ease and low cost of manufacture, and the availability of the material as a byproduct of nuclear power production.

Never said it could. In fact I have not quoted any penetration figures. I just said that it was obvious that somewhere someone along the way made a design decision based on information likely to do with the difference in rounds used by the different weapons.

I never said it was, and I never said it wasn't. So you could be exactly correct on both points.

I checked all the sites you linked and their citations. You can look at them yourself.

Again, I've seen nothing that conclusively proves that point or to a point where I am anywhere as convinced as you obviously are.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Again I ask, why mount the huge GAU-8 whan a much smaller weapon could do the same job? If it did not have a distinct advantage why not just use a 20mm Vulcan?
With all the research that went into the GAU-8 weapon they couldn't make it any better than a WWII era heavy anti-tank rifle?

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

I would think that the sheer fact that 30x173mm has almost identical muzzle velocity and is bigger and therefore packs a greater punch is a distinct advantage. I do not have any sort of any comparative data, but I wonder what kind of armor penetration most aircraft cannon get.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

From what I have in my data, Vulcan gets a muzzle energy of cca. 100 kJ, GAU-8/A some 244 kJ so indeed it has edge above the smaller gun.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"Again why would the US invest all that time and money to create this huge weapon and have it only slightly out perform a weapon like the German WWII era 28mm sPzB41 (pen 66mm at 500 meters)?"

Some points to consider
1) The sPzB41 achieved those performances by being a bleeding edge, over engineered, limited production item with several issues (barrel wear inherent to the taper bore designs etc). GAU-8 ammo was designed to be practically made and expended in immense quantities.
The drag issue associated with what is an APCR design have already been noted.
GAU-8 ammo has been around for what must be over 30 years now, so it is not exactly a recent design either.

2) The "it is WW2 level stuff" claim is not sound by itself. You could knock out an Abrams with a WW2 vintage Panzerfaust. That does not make the Abrams a poor design, does it?

3) The GAU-8 high ROF means higher HE kill against soft targets, less time spent on target and to an extent greater probability of hitting the target. Such things are not directly related to each round penetration.

4) Speaking of hitting probability I have an hard time imagining how you could hit a tank size target more than six kilometers away with a fixed gun mounted on a plane.

"Im not looking to create a "uber weapon" just something closer to the real thing."

If you had an alternate a source claiming that it was let's say 88mm at 500 meters rather than 69mm it would be something we could accept without much fuss. As it is you were asking for it being capable of extreme performances (knocking out tanks at 6000 meters and the like) based on little of substantial.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

"The Bushmaster can fire a APFSDS round that may and probably does give it a slight edge over the GAU-8."

In general others thing being equal or similar a modern APFDS will outperform an old APCR and by a very substantial amount.

Re: Aircraft weapons
 

Now here's a classic example of how an argument can drift off course into fantasy. COMPARE THE TWO WEAPONS. Anyone not desperate to stretch a point into incredulity can see the Gau-8 is a much more dangerous weapon . Also, you also state "As I said before ALL DU penetration stats are CLASSIFIED". OK..... fine lets assume ALL the sources that claim otherwise are mistaken. Perhaps you could provide us with these sources that state up front that they are classified or do you assume these other sources must be wrong because the weapon simply doesn't live up to it's propaganda ? You would think that if this weapons was Gods gift to tank killing there would be ample published reports and photos of Iraqi or Serb tanks shredded by the Gau. I have seen one before and after photo of a tank attacked with the Gau-8 only.. it was an M47 Patton. Hardly a shining example of a modern MBT. In the game it's armour is approx equivalent is an M3A3 Bradley both of which the A-10, in the game, can kill with it's cannon alone.

I told you this at the beginning. I started looking into this long before it was brought up on this forum because I expected to find info that would support an increase in this weapons penetrative abilities but there is none except vaguely statements verging on propaganda that the weapon can disable an MBT from over 6km away. HARD EVIDENCE is conspicuously absent. I DO agree, however that the volume of fire this and other high cyclic rate multi-barrelled weapons put out should give it more chance to hit than a single shot weapon and that is what we have been looking at. There is a way we can simulate this with aircraft weapons but the "trick" doesn't work with the high volume/ multi-barrelled guns used on helicopters. What I DO NOT agree with is this gun should be given an uber penetrative ability based vague stories alluding to it's abilities.

Don