Russia and Ukraine

[Bumblebee]

Wow never knew Russian tanks are so vulnerable

Western tanks would be just as vulnerable to these weapon systems..

The Javelin and NLAW are serious manpads....

An A-10 shooting DU rounds will rip through anything...during the first Gulf war, they were going right through T-72s and burying themselves up to 4 feet in the ground underneath...

Tanks are still dangerous but HAVE to be used in a combined arms role, air superiority and infantry support are paramount.....two things that are missing from the Russian invasion.

 

[mark3evo]

Western tanks would be just as vulnerable to these weapon systems..

The Javelin and NLAW are serious manpads....

An A-10 shooting DU rounds will rip through anything...during the first Gulf war, they were going right through T-72s and burying themselves up to 4 feet in the ground underneath...

Tanks are still dangerous but HAVE to be used in a combined arms role, air superiority and infantry support are paramount.....two things that are missing from the Russian invasion.

i'm no expert on Tank design
but the differences seem to be the ammo is all around the russians, but NATO tanks have autoloaders behind in separate compartment

 

[Bumblebee]

i'm no expert on Tank design
but the differences seem to be the ammo is all around the russians, but NATO tanks have autoloaders behind in separate compartment

In the older T-72s the rounds are in compartments but not like a modern tank...the T-90 has these explosion compartments for rounds to be stored in much like western tanks..the tops blow off the round storage compartment which alleviates much of the explosion...

That being said, if a Javelin or NLaw hit a western tank, they'd take it out pretty quickly, they just rip them apart even with reactive armor.

this is a T-72 vs Javelin..

 

[TallTom]

In the older T-72s the rounds are in compartments but not like a modern tank...the T-90 has these explosion compartments for rounds to be stored in much like western tanks..the tops blow off the round storage compartment which alleviates much of the explosion...

That being said, if a Javelin or NLaw hit a western tank, they'd take it out pretty quickly, they just rip them apart even with reactive armor.

this is a T-72 vs Javelin..

I'm not an ordinance guy. But I spent a little time around the A-10 and had an ex jockey work for me.

Once everyone figures out how fortify against attacks from straight up, it seems like the next step up in ordinance would be DU. It literally just burns through pretty much anything. The A-10 obviously shoots it in a very manageable platform. It seems fairly easy to adapt that to a single round simply deployed.

While I LOVE the A-10. There is a lot to be said at how cheap and capable drones and launched ordinance is.

 

[jellyrug]

Let's see what happens if we stop.
View attachment 1655067

The sad thing in life about human nature, is if you give, never expect to get anything back, not even appreciation.

 

[fallenarch]

The A10, as much as I love it, is only effective when you first achieve air superiority. The Russians would eat them alive with both ground-launched SAMs and fighters picking them off from above. The A10 was conceived to fight Russian tanks in Europe before the battlefield SAM/drone technology matured. This is why the military nearly stopped using the platform entirely, replacing it with faster FA aircraft like the FA-18 that are capable of defending themselves in and out of the battle. The Afgan war extended its life because we were fighting relatively defenseless armor and hard targets. Also, the development of smart munitions makes the raw power of the DU gattling cannon unnecessary. So while it is without a doubt the baddest thing in the air, it's not necessary to get so up close and personal anymore.

I hesitate to say we don't need the A10 anymore because I love the audacity of the platform and because we are still going to fight asymmetric wars and it is the tool for that mission. But in a real war against a modernized opponent, its time has come and gone.

 

[RacingJake]

When I was station at Myrtle Beach we were over in SWA a few times and Iraqi's were scared of A10's. When our A10's flew over they knew we were hunting for anything to hit and would run from their tanks and trucks cause the next fly by their dead. We had pilots returning from a mission just to drop to the ground and throw up from a up close, front roll seat seeing bodies being blow apart. When your thousands of feet above the ground it's more of a sanitized kill but at ground level it's a different story.

I've seen tanks after a DU hit and the armor was peelled back like a knife going through butter. If I had to go into battle I would want an A10 over head !

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

When I was station at Myrtle Beach we were over in SWA a few times and Iraqi's were scared of A10's. When our A10's flew over they knew we were hunting for anything to hit and would run from their tanks and trucks cause the next fly by their dead. We had pilots returning from a mission just to drop to the ground and throw up from a up close, front roll seat seeing bodies being blow apart. When your thousands of feet above the ground it's more of a sanitized kill but at ground level it's a different story.

I've seen tanks after a DU hit and the armor was peelled back like a knife going through butter. If I had to go into battle I would want an A10 over head !

The desert conflicts were a bit unique in the fact that it was just that desert and tanks and vehicles couldn’t really hide. It was easy for our equipment including A-10s to find targets daily. A European conflict may be a bit different as its more forested.
But I do think the Ukraine conflict has shown that any aircraft short of high altitude bombers are subject to simple hand held guided missiles.

 

[mark3evo]

In the older T-72s the rounds are in compartments but not like a modern tank...the T-90 has these explosion compartments for rounds to be stored in much like western tanks..the tops blow off the round storage compartment which alleviates much of the explosion...

That being said, if a Javelin or NLaw hit a western tank, they'd take it out pretty quickly, they just rip them apart even with reactive armor.

this is a T-72 vs Javelin..

Jeez

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

When it happens remember I said it. Summer of 2024 or before the USA will be directly involved in this conflict. The democrats by then will be so desperate to retain power that they will find a way to make that happen. Traditionally this country does not like to change admins during wartime. Getting us involved there directly may be one of if not the only way to preserve their hold on things.

 

[Bumblebee]

The desert conflicts were a bit unique in the fact that it was just that desert and tanks and vehicles couldn’t really hide. It was easy for our equipment including A-10s to find targets daily. A European conflict may be a bit different as its more forested.
But I do think the Ukraine conflict has shown that any aircraft short of high altitude bombers are subject to simple hand held guided missiles.

A-10s have been proven in combat and can soak up a lot of punishment...

Every platform in a battle space relies on other platforms for close protection...

If the west becomes involved in a European conflict, it will be a quite different sort of engagement than what is occurring now. The west has a specific engagement principle that the Russians didn't achieve. Air superiority, shut down the enemy's ability to see and talk, take out the support tail and then position ground spec ops to set up targets via laser. All those man-pads will be rendered useless as there will be hunter-killer teams seeking them out and eliminating them.

 

[Bumblebee]

The A10, as much as I love it, is only effective when you first achieve air superiority. The Russians would eat them alive with both ground-launched SAMs and fighters picking them off from above. The A10 was conceived to fight Russian tanks in Europe before the battlefield SAM/drone technology matured. This is why the military nearly stopped using the platform entirely, replacing it with faster FA aircraft like the FA-18 that are capable of defending themselves in and out of the battle. The Afgan war extended its life because we were fighting relatively defenseless armor and hard targets. Also, the development of smart munitions makes the raw power of the DU gattling cannon unnecessary. So while it is without a doubt the baddest thing in the air, it's not necessary to get so up close and personal anymore.

I hesitate to say we don't need the A10 anymore because I love the audacity of the platform and because we are still going to fight asymmetric wars and it is the tool for that mission. But in a real war against a modernized opponent, its time has come and gone.

A-10s wouldn't be used as a first strike aircraft on their own, in an open conflict the combined arms teams would be engaged and mobilized into the conflict zone.

Teams of hunter-killers will be seeking out man-pad teams and eliminating them...remember these man-pads are heavy and bulky, not every unit carries them...The Ukrainians were basically force-fed more man-pads than most militaries own.

I've called A-10s onto targets and have seen how effective they are against many different targets, they are a very, very effective platform.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

A-10s have been proven in combat and can soak up a lot of punishment...

Every platform in a battle space relies on other platforms for close protection...

If the west becomes involved in a European conflict, it will be a quite different sort of engagement than what is occurring now. The west has a specific engagement principle that the Russians didn't achieve. Air superiority, shut down the enemy's ability to see and talk, take out the support tail and then position ground spec ops to set up targets via laser. All those man-pads will be rendered useless as there will be hunter-killer teams seeking them out and eliminating them.

A-10s wouldn't be used as a first strike aircraft on their own, in an open conflict the combined arms teams would be engaged and mobilized into the conflict zone.

Teams of hunter-killers will be seeking out man-pad teams and eliminating them...remember these man-pads are heavy and bulky, not every unit carries them...The Ukrainians were basically force-fed more man-pads than most militaries own.

I've called A-10s onto targets and have seen how effective they are against many different targets, they are a very, very effective platform.

While I agree with you and have no experience in the matter I think yes we could and would achieve air superiority sooner and apparently easier than the Russians have which they really havent even accomplished and taking into acct the hunter killer teams you speak of I still think it would become quite expensive to maintain that due to all the man-pads that would be present. We would not go ‘loss free’ aircraft wise. Hell the Russians lost four very expensive aircraft in one days few days ago. I wouldnt go so far as to say ‘all those man-pads will be rendered useless’. Its simply and physically impossible to hunt all of them down. A good enough amount will slip thru that we would lose a lot of aircraft. Lose $200 million dollars worth of planes in a day or so and the bean counters might start to say ‘hey we cant keep this up’. Just a thought.

 

[fallenarch]

Nope. A10 is not the right tool. Ukraine has already admitted that.

 

[Bumblebee]

While I agree with you and have no experience in the matter I think yes we could and would achieve air superiority sooner and apparently easier than the Russians have which they really havent even accomplished and taking into acct the hunter killer teams you speak of I still think it would become quite expensive to maintain that due to all the man-pads that would be present. We would not go ‘loss free’ aircraft wise. Hell the Russians lost four very expensive aircraft in one days few days ago. I wouldnt go so far as to say ‘all those man-pads will be rendered useless’. Its simply and physically impossible to hunt all of them down. A good enough amount will slip thru that we would lose a lot of aircraft. Lose $200 million dollars worth of planes in a day or so and the bean counters might start to say ‘hey we cant keep this up’. Just a thought.

Remember, normally these numbers of man-pads aren't deployed as they are bulky and heavy and they have limited ranges. The west conducts warfare very differently than the Russians (or many other countries). Man-pads use laser targeting which is quickly detected.

If a western army invaded this region, it would have been a very different war...

 

[Bumblebee]

Nope. A10 is not the right tool. Ukraine has already admitted that.

This is one man's opinion in a video, I see he served a short stint in the Marines-sure doesn't make him an expert in warfare. I served 33 yrs and I'm no expert although I have been trained in many aspects of warfare by experts and have used these teachings time and time again.

The A-10 very much would have a place on the battlefield of Ukraine but not in the hands of the Ukrainians as they don't control the airspace. The airspace has to be under control of the invading military before slow movers such as helicopters and A-10s would prove effective.

The A-10 works in conjunction with other systems...systems that detect, jam and target, it would be up to ground forces and drones to eliminate ground to air threats leaving the A-10s to take out larger ground targets such as bunkers and tanks...the A-10 can also carry a huge variety of missile systems.

Man-pack targeting systems can be jammed and/or detected and targeted, one aircraft plays the "rabbit" and when the man-pad is initiated, the secondary aircraft target and eliminate....

This same tactic was used in Kosovo and Bosnia to great effect.

 

[fallenarch]

This is one man's opinion in a video, I see he served a short stint in the Marines-sure doesn't make him an expert in warfare. I served 33 yrs and I'm no expert although I have been trained in many aspects of warfare by experts and have used these teachings time and time again.

The A-10 very much would have a place on the battlefield of Ukraine but not in the hands of the Ukrainians as they don't control the airspace. The airspace has to be under control of the invading military before slow movers such as helicopters and A-10s would prove effective.

The A-10 works in conjunction with other systems...systems that detect, jam and target, it would be up to ground forces and drones to eliminate ground to air threats leaving the A-10s to take out larger ground targets such as bunkers and tanks...the A-10 can also carry a huge variety of missile systems.

Man-pack targeting systems can be jammed and/or detected and targeted, one aircraft plays the "rabbit" and when the man-pad is initiated, the secondary aircraft target and eliminate....

This same tactic was used in Kosovo and Bosnia to great effect.

Plenty of videos just like that one from experienced warriors. Not to mention the military leadership that's been trying to kill the A10 for 25 years now. On top of that, it's common sense. An aircraft that struggles to hit 500 mph is going to need absolute air superiority to loiter over a battlefield.

I know there are a lot of soldiers that owe their lives to an A10 appearing out of nowhere to spray the enemy and provide an escape. We're not really talking about that. On modern battlefields, with SAMs and shoulder-launched ordinance air superiority is much more complicated than clearing enemy aircraft. The platform has to have survivability from much more than small arms fire.

No doubt the A10 is a capable weapons system. But while we can go back and forth forever in this thread, the bottom line is the planes are not in Ukraine because they would not be an asset. There is consensus on that and Ukrainian war planners want the F-16s and drones to provide close air support.

 

[Bumblebee]

Plenty of videos just like that one from experienced warriors. Not to mention the military leadership that's been trying to kill the A10 for 25 years now. On top of that, it's common sense. An aircraft that struggles to hit 500 mph is going to need absolute air superiority to loiter over a battlefield.

I know there are a lot of soldiers that owe their lives to an A10 appearing out of nowhere to spray the enemy and provide an escape. We're not really talking about that. On modern battlefields, with SAMs and shoulder-launched ordinance air superiority is much more complicated than clearing enemy aircraft. The platform has to have survivability from much more than small arms fire.

No doubt the A10 is a capable weapons system. But while we can go back and forth forever in this thread, the bottom line is the planes are not in Ukraine because they would not be an asset. There is consensus on that and Ukrainian war planners want the F-16s and drones to provide close air support.

Of course they wouldn't be as effective in Ukraine as the air space is not controlled and the ground invasion is a mess...

Honestly I expected much more from Russia, their attempt at an invasion was disappointing at best.

I'm glad for Ukraine that it was so disappointing.

As the ability to fight wars evolves so must the technology and equipment.

 

[Bumblebee]

I imagine old veterans sitting in a Legion somewhere had similar conversations regarding aircraft of WW2 or Korea.....once you witness the awesome capability of something you saw fight in combat, it's hard to fathom it would be obsolete..

My father is a perfect example, he would swear the Bren Gun would out-shoot anything our modern military had when it comes to an LMG even though I tried to explain the new LMG platforms...

That was only one example as he thought the same way pretty much about all the equipment he trained on in the 50's and 60's....

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

So @Bumblebee I’m curious about all the videos we are seeing of planes being shot down and how the Ukrainians know it’s Russian and not one of theirs? Somebody has to be feeding them intel to let them know who’s who no?