Aircraft weapons

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
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)?

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.

kevineduguay1 said:
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?

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.

kevineduguay1 said:
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?

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

kevineduguay1 said:
Two of my quotes are from other sites and do not parrot Global Security.

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

kevineduguay1 said:
But given same size penetrators of tungsten and DU, the DU penetrator wins in the weight competition and in the penetration competition.

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

[kevineduguay1]

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?

[thatguy96]

kevineduguay1 said:
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?

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.

[Marek_Tucan]

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.

[DRG]

kevineduguay1 said:

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?

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

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

There are pick out there on the net you just have to look. One of the sites I looked at had a pic of a Serbian M-84 that was destroyed by the GAU-8. No big holes just the turret blown off with a US GI standing on it. It had that funny burnt looking color of the M47 Patton that you mentioned. I saw that one too but never mentioned it because as you mentioned this does not compare to a modern MBT.

On another note I did some tests last night and by giving the GAU-8 sabot ammunition (9 Pen) and a weapons range of 130 and a sabot range of 130 it performed much better but was no uber weapon. About 1 in 3 or 4 passes were leathal to Iraqi T-72s. I also gave the gun a HE Pen of 2 and kept the 27 He kill value. This kept it effective against unarmored vehicles. Have not tested against infantry yet.
Another idea I tried was to give the A-10 was a AP value of 7 to match the number of tubes. This had little effect when loaded with only HE ammo but seemed to be to much with Sabot. So I put the AP value back to 1. More experiments to come.

[DRG]

What is the point of giving it a range of 130 when the game only fires aircraft weapons from 4 or 5 hexes away? You must have noticed that while running your tests. Give it 255 is you want it won't make the least bit of difference.

Changing the AP value to 7 won't work because that # of guns code for class 11 weapons is broken ( has been right back to SP2 ) but has been fixed for the next patch and, as I said, that "trick" won't work for Helo weapons.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

DRG,

I know that most all air gun attacks start a 250 to 300 meters in the game.
The longer range figures are to enhance the effects of the sabot rounds at close range. And it worked. Some of the reports read as follows, Pen 14, Arm 6 etc. a Pen of 14 was the highes I think and worked down to a low of 2 to 4 Pen.
I even had mobility kills. I'm going to try this with a sabot pen of 7 and see how effective that is.

Here is another tidbit I found,

"Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential."

[DRG]

Yes, strangly enough that is part of a quote I was about to post.....


How effective are DU shells anyway? Browsing through various literature about the Persian Gulf War one will encounter wonderful fairytales of British Challenger tanks penetrating Iraqi tanks with DU rounds at over five kilometers away and American Abrams tanks destroying two T-72s with one DU round at a distance of nearly 3 kilometers. One will also read stories of A-10s destroying scores of Iraqi tanks in one pass with their 30-mm DU shells. During the operation "Allied Force" against Yugoslavia stories of Serbian tanks being destroyed left and right attracted media attention just as well. After destroying hundreds of Serbian tanks in their own minds, NATO commanders were finally forced to admit the unimpressive reality.

Colorful folklore aside, in 1978 the US Army and the Air Force conducted a test in which an A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft engaged a pair of stationary Soviet-made T-62 tanks. The overall effectiveness of A-10s and their DU rounds did not exceed 2 percent:

"In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4 degrees. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts in one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of penetrations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. The results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential." 12

The result of this exercise was fully confirmed during the operation "Allied Force" despite the upgrades of the A-10 and its weaponry. For tens of kilograms of DU introduced into the environment an A-10 has a slight chance of making a hole in a tank, which may or may not destroy it.

[DRG]

"Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979.

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential."

So set up two t-62's in the game . Make 7 passes on each from the rear/side quarter of the vehicle with the stock gun set up in the OOB's now and tell me it the game doesn't give similar results.

Don