Vets only

[Deleted member 38069]

Imagine the scorched earth after a B-1s JDAM run!
@SaskHunter

 

[SaskHunter]

Not arguing with you there. The A10 is powerful for sure. It's overkill in some situations and expensive to shoot all that ordnance and ammo and resupply in combat can be an issue. What I am saying is there are battlefield situations that make both the appropriate use of lethal force over the other. The A10 can wipe out an entire brigade of enemy soldiers and vehicles in just a few runs. No question there.

Agreed!

But I'll take a Leopard 2 over an Abrams any day of the week!

 

[WyoDoug]

Imagine the scorched earth after a B-1s JDAM run!

I would not want to be on the receiving end of this or anywhere near that. The concision alone can ruin you for life.

 

[KB_]

if money is not in the list of things to consider. I'm going as many runs of the A-10 as it takes.

 

[Islander]

Warthog all the way. In, out, on to the next kill. Plus the sound of that gun is beautiful.

 

[Lv2hnt]

70 rounds per second of .30 call (in 4-second bursts) will do some serious damage (not to mention the other ordinance) ...

 

[WyoDoug]

Now yall get my drift. Battle field commanders have to account not only for the lethality of combat systems but also on ability to resupply them quickly. A10s expend a lot of ordnance in a few minutes. Most of my service was at the Division and Brigade levels so I saw what those commanders called in. A10 is awesome and I understand why those who served on those weapons systems are partial to them. Same with the M1 Abrams.

 

[WyoDoug]

I should add, when pin point accuracy is needed, the Abrams is the way to go. Them guys can hit a porta-potty with a single shot. Don't need to expend several hundred rounds of ammo at once.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

I should add, when pin point accuracy is needed, the Abrams is the way to go. Them guys can hit a porta-potty with a single shot. Don't need to expend several hundred rounds of ammo at once.

I beg to differ, with laser-guided bombs, ordinance can be dropped at 20,000 ft going 600+ mph and hit a bush of there picking. Just look what countries are are building more of. Aircraft. Hard to imagine a tank battle in WWIII.

 

[NSDQ MT]

Between the two, A-10. But, I’d take an AC-130 over both.

 

[SaskHunter]

I should add, when pin point accuracy is needed, the Abrams is the way to go. Them guys can hit a porta-potty with a single shot. Don't need to expend several hundred rounds of ammo at once.

*JDAM has entered the chat*

It's ridiculous how accurate they can get, not that it really matters when it's strapped to a 2000 lb'er...

 

[Deleted member 38069]

Between the two, A-10. But, I’d take an AC-130 over both.

I worked on the AC-130 U models (three guns instead of two on the H model). They are a force to be reckoned with!

 

[Deleted member 38069]

Hell I was just a mechanic! We should get an AF pilot to weigh in. What do you think @huntandfly ?

 

[NSDQ MT]

I worked on the AC-130 U models (three guns instead of two on the H model). They are a force to be reckoned with!

Nothing like 20/40mm combined with a pin point accurate 105.

 

[Deleted member 38069]

Between the two, A-10. But, I’d take an AC-130 over both.

25, 40, and 105s to choose from!

 

[WyoDoug]

*JDAM has entered the chat*

It's ridiculous how accurate they can get, not that it really matters when it's strapped to a 2000 lb'er...

Perhaps I should add another step, again cost of the ordnance, supply and how much damage you want it to do. JDAM will destroy a a good portion of the square mile it hits when put on a 2000 pound bomb depending on the terrain it is dropped into. It is accurate to about 13 yards or roughly 12 meters according to the website on it. The targeting on a M1 Abrams is accurate to about 10 meters using thermal sights and I understand that system has been upgraded since the war. It all depends on the target, what damage you expect to be done, what the battle field situation is, and what resources in terms of ordnance and resupply ability is available. Battlefield commanders are not going to use the big bombs if they don't have many available if they got 100 Abrams or several A10s available as alternatives. There are benefits to each of the individual weapon platforms and those who work with them are partial to the weapons they worked with. That is a given and understandable. I have been in and around an Abrams and I love that tank. I seen what they both can do.

We were in the field doing war games before I retired. A huge bulletin board full of colored powder was installed. An A-10 came in and fired onto the impact range and hit the bulletin board. Not a single balloon survived.

 

[WyoDoug]

I beg to differ, with laser-guided bombs, ordinance can be dropped at 20,000 ft going 600+ mph and hit a bush of there picking. Just look what countries are are building more of. Aircraft. Hard to imagine a tank battle in WWIII.

I don't disagree with you there. Laser guided bombs can be aimed, dropped, and forget and hit a dime. We saw that in the bunker where Sadam had his staff in along with using it as a bomb shelter for locals. There was collateral damage but a good portion of the top command and control was destroyed with one bomb.

Point I am trying to make is no one weapons system is a one size fits all. Battlefield commanders have to decide on many factors before deciding which weapon to use on what target. In todays world, nearly all of them are amazingly accurate now.

 

[SaskHunter]

Perhaps I should add another step, again cost of the ordnance, supply and how much damage you want it to do. JDAM will destroy a a good portion of the square mile it hits when put on a 2000 pound bomb depending on the terrain it is dropped into.

Battlefield commanders are not going to use the big bombs if they don't have many available if they got 100 Abrams or several A10s available as alternatives.

We were dropping 2000 lb JDAMs on single dudes wearing sandals in Lybia, obviously buddy wouldn't be standing in a busy intersection. Sometimes, that bomb or missile is the only ordnance you have readily available. Also, not sure when you retired, but the post 9/11 reality is very different. Through my career, we went from concentrating on old doctrines to counter a uniformed opponent such as Russia, then, we completely changed our doctrines to reflect counter insurgencies.

Now, we're doing a mix of both as we've deployed troops in Europe to counter Russia's ever growing sphere of influence as well as being involved in Iraq and Africa. Bottom line, Commanders will not redivert assets when there's already one present in the AOR that can get the job done. You use what you have available; lives are expensive, missiles are cheap.

 

[WyoDoug]

We were dropping 2000 lb JDAMs on single dudes wearing sandals in Lybia, obviously buddy wouldn't be standing in a busy intersection. Sometimes, that bomb or missile is the only ordnance you have readily available. Also, not sure when you retired, but the post 9/11 reality is very different. Through my career, we went from concentrating on old doctrines to counter a uniformed opponent such as Russia, then, we completely changed our doctrines to reflect counter insurgencies.

Now, we're doing a mix of both as we've deployed troops in Europe to counter Russia's ever growing sphere of influence as well as being involved in Iraq and Africa. Bottom line, Commanders will not redivert assets when there's already one present in the AOR that can get the job done. You use what you have available; lives are expensive, missiles are cheap.

It's changed drastically. I retired in 1997. Weapons systems in use now are far different than when I was in. They dropped a single JDAM guided mother of all bombs on Osama Bin Laden when he was in those caves hiding out and nearly got him. And I don't argue with you at all. Battlefield commanders decide on which system to use based on what's available and what the needs of the situation is. Yes, tactics have changed drastically and probably way different now than what you or me were used to.

 

[SaskHunter]

I beg to differ, with laser-guided bombs, ordinance can be dropped at 20,000 ft going 600+ mph and hit a bush of there picking. Just look what countries are are building more of. Aircraft. Hard to imagine a tank battle in WWIII.

Back in the 90s the Canadian Gov't decided to do away with MBTs and anything tracked. We got rid of our M109s, retired our M113s and had our Leopards + support platforms on the way out. Then Afghanistan started; we took our M113s out of storage and made them better. We deployed our Leopards and bought new ones. These vehicles were game changers. We also bought Chinooks, which we had just gotten rid of, but that is a different story.

Anyone who has held ground, on exercise or on the battlefield, will say the same; you feel the ground shaking before you even hear MBTs. They bring fear wherever they go and can kill pretty much anything that can see it, and then some. They're outstanding assets and hold ground when the infantry can't do it. I think MBTs, like Air assets should never be dismissed, you just never know what the next conflict will look like. We're finally getting into the armed drone game, about a decade late.

WW3 (if it ever happens) will be a combination of everything thrown in one melting pot. When large militaries face each other and fixed/rotary winged ACs start dropping from the sky, we will rely on ground assets such as the MBT. To be honest, I hope this never happens.