Other Post The Army once considered putting the A-10's BRRRRT! on a tank

[BeNder]

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, popularly known as the Warthog, was originally designed as a "tank-killer". In fact, the entire aircraft was essentially built around a 30 mm rotary cannon, known as the GAU-8 Avenger, a fearsome name for a gun capable of spitting out depleted uranium shells the size of soda bottles designed to shred heavy Soviet tanks and armored personnel carriers into mental confetti.

While the Avenger's primary use has been as the A-10's main weapon, seeing combat action from the Persian Gulf War onward, the US Army once considered making this cannon its own by mounting it on the very thing it was created to destroy: tanks

The Army once considered putting the A-10's BRRRRT! on a tank

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, popularly known as the Warthog, was originally designed as a "tank-killer". In fact, the entire aircraft was

www.wearethemighty.com

 

[Fish&Chips]

I like that concept. The Avenger gun is devastating, and there's also the psychological component of death farting in your general direction on ground level: BRRRRRRRT!

 

[Chazman]

BRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT....the sound of freedom!

 

[Royal]

BRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTT....the sound of brown adrenaline running down the back of my legs!

 

[Wheke C9]

The sound of over compensation due to an over reliance on technology!!!

 

[Grazhdanochka]

This sounds like one of the stupidest Ideas to ever consider. No wonder they never implemented it

 

[Mordoror]

I like that concept. The Avenger gun is devastating, and there's also the psychological component of death farting in your general direction on ground level: BRRRRRRRT!

No it is not
If you look closely the stats, it os unable to perforate any sov mbt in the frontal area from t62 onward. A10 shouldnt be labelled as a tank killer if you focus only on its GAU8 but rather an APC killer. What people are often forgotting is that the A10 was originaly loaded with Mavericks and CBU to deal with MBTs. Frankly any modern ifv with modern 40mm gun and modern powder/head in the 40mm rounds can do as well as a land based GAU8. For less rounds and more precision and versatility (airburst, tracers, apds, he, heat)
And they already exist (german puma, future telesopic 40mm for french and british ifvs, 40 and 50 mm in dane or norwegian ifvs)

 

[Chazman]

No it is not
If you look closely the stats, it os unable to perforate any sov mbt in the frontal area from t62 onward. A10 shouldnt be labelled as a tank killer if you focus only on its GAU8 but rather an APC killer. What people are often forgotting is that the A10 was originaly loaded with Mavericks and CBU to deal with MBTs. Frankly any modern ifv with modern 40mm gun and modern powder/head in the 40mm rounds can do as well as a land based GAU8. For less rounds and more precision and versatility (airburst, tracers, apds, he, heat)
And they already exist (german puma, future telesopic 40mm for french and british ifvs, 40 and 50 mm in dane or norwegian ifvs)

Frontal armor!? BRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!..................................................................................

 

[Connaught Ranger]

Ammo resupply/replenishment in the combat zone would have been a nightmare.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

What a lovely direct fire, infantry support vehicle.

Like the Afghanskii, but angrier.

 

[Grazhdanochka]

No it is not
If you look closely the stats, it os unable to perforate any sov mbt in the frontal area from t62 onward. A10 shouldnt be labelled as a tank killer if you focus only on its GAU8 but rather an APC killer. What people are often forgotting is that the A10 was originaly loaded with Mavericks and CBU to deal with MBTs. Frankly any modern ifv with modern 40mm gun and modern powder/head in the 40mm rounds can do as well as a land based GAU8. For less rounds and more precision and versatility (airburst, tracers, apds, he, heat)
And they already exist (german puma, future telesopic 40mm for french and british ifvs, 40 and 50 mm in dane or norwegian ifvs)

Even if you consider damage to Instruments/Optics - Unreliable, no one wants to blind another AFV if they could kill it. So unless you have ability to incapacitate many quickly and cheaply such as a form of Laser Optical Tank, might as well just have a regular Tank. One that can also do heavier damage with a higher calibre high explosive.

Ammo resupply/replenishment in the combat zone would have been a nightmare.

Precisely the biggest Issue. How long can you shoot - how much damage can you do?
No staying power at all. That alone is Death knell.

What a lovely direct fire, infantry support vehicle.

Like the Afghanskii, but angrier.

If you refer to ZSU-23-4, similar but different, the Importance of it was Articulation not volume of Fire which was more a Detriment. I doubt the US System in Question would necessarily be as agile either. In the Russian Military there is increased interest to look at 57mm Cannon and else which is also a clue the limit the Lifespan of 30mm whatever the suggested Volume.

 

[Mordoror]

Even if you consider damage to Instruments/Optics - Unreliable, no one wants to blind another AFV if they could kill it. So unless you have ability to incapacitate many quickly and cheaply such as a form of Laser Optical Tank, might as well just have a regular Tank. One that can also do heavier damage with a higher calibre high explosive.

Well, a mission kill is better than no kill at all. So yes, the GAU8 could do some damages to an MBT, but hardly perform a vehicle kill on a frontal run. APCs on the other hand were dead meat.
That's also why attack profiles where supposedly better from the rear (like Ruddell method) where an engine kill and possible fire was more ensured than having your 30 mm DU shells sticked in the frontal turret and chassis armor

 

[Grazhdanochka]

Well, a mission kill is better than no kill at all. So yes, the GAU8 could do some damages to an MBT, but hardly perform a vehicle kill on a frontal run. APCs on the other hand were dead meat.
That's also why attack profiles where supposedly better from the rear (like Ruddell method) where an engine kill and possible fire was more ensured than having your 30 mm DU shells sticked in the frontal turret and chassis armor

That makes only my Case. If you are going for Mission kill other things can do it, and that does not mean giving up your Tanks to do so. Worse still it does not require to give up your capabilities for other Action also. Nor force reliance on resupply.

 

[Mordoror]

That makes only my Case. If you are going for Mission kill other things can do it, and that does not mean giving up your Tanks to do so. Worse still it does not require to give up your capabilities for other Action also. Nor force reliance on resupply.

Not really
A10 was part of the TacAir doctrine (superiority over the battlefield through air superiority). It was a tool for antivehicle CAS. And the GAU-8 was not is only tool at hands, far from it. Much like the SU25
Even if none are able to kill a tank with their inner gun with a frontal run doesn't mean they are/were useless on an high intensity battlefield.
Especially when they can be loaded, aside their guns, with a bunch of TV guided antitank missiles, rockets and cannisters of sub ammunitions

Or to say it in a simplier way, a run with a GAU-8 over a BMP column would have been efficient enough to risk the plane and if you pile on that 4 Mavericks and a couple of CBU 87/100/105 that could grind more than half a dozen of T72, the benefit risk and force reliance/balance of use was in the plane's advantage. Especially given its cost and survivability (true also for the SU25)

 

[Grazhdanochka]

Not really
A10 was part of the TacAir doctrine (superiority over the battlefield through air superiority). It was a tool for antivehicle CAS. And the GAU-8 was not is only tool at hands, far from it. Much like the SU25
Because none are able to kill a tank with their inner gun with a frontal run doesn't mean they are/were useless on an high intensity battlefield.
Especially when they can be loaded, aside their guns, with a bunch of TV guided antitank missiles, rockets and cannisters of sub ammunitions

I was talking strictly from the Basis of a Tank. There is little benefit for this Idea, and plenty of costs as said before - Attrition, Resupply etc.
This System on a Tank adds little than from what a regular Tank can do.

 

[Mordoror]

I was talking strictly from the Basis of a Tank. There is little benefit for this Idea, and plenty of costs as said before - Attrition, Resupply etc.
This System on a Tank adds little than from what a regular Tank can do.

If you are talking about a land system, i agree fully
In my previous posts, i was talking about the system around the plane itself