@@williamthehuntsman you’d be pretty likely to survive The A-10s main gun proved insufficient to kill most tanks by the time it was introduced It can kill tanks from the 50s and early 60s with difficulty but for the rest it requires ordinance
@@TN-ci4ox Maybe If you were attacked from the front. Modern tank armor is weakest on the top back, with the Leopard only having about 35mm thick armor on the rear of the turret. And less than 30mm protecting the engine. The thickest armor being on the top front at about 70mm. With a 45° angle moving at standard attack speeds, the GAU-8 30mm cannon can achieve about to 75mm of penetration. In a diving run, it can achieve closer to 90mm. This is even used in the A-10's combat doctrine for A-10 pilots. Attack from the flanks and 6 at a 45° angle to ensure penetration. Reactive armor only helps with the first few hits but is quickly rendered useless. Spaced armor provides almost no help as it tends to get in the way of the turret or make the tank too heavy, therefor making it ineffective as top armor. Indeed, you could survive it if the rounds hit anywhere other than the crew area, but with the penetrating abilities of 30mm depleted uranium AP rounds should never be underestimated.
@@williamthehuntsman the A-10s failed to kill T-55s in Kuwait and Iraq Everything given by fairchild republic assumes optimal conditions Once conditions worse the gau-8s accuracy can sink to 20% of rounds striking a 12 meter radius considered accurate on average only 2-3 of 5 rounds strike anywhere near their target which is bad when those rounds require luck to punch through the armor
Which is actually really funny because the gun was too large to fit on any aircraft so they had to build the plane around the gun. It's litterally a gun with wings attached
I like your profile name. It rhymes with our filipino word "intsik" which literally means "Chinese" Makes me think though: are you a filipino? Or just know the language?
@@casematecardinal “sir, we’ve assessed the damage.” “You haven’t left the tank.” “I can see through the tank. Specifically the engine. We aren’t going anywhere.”
Two important things to remember: 1. If you hear the brrtt, you’re not the target… *yet.* 2. The A-10 is not a plane with a gun, it’s a gun with wings.
Technically you have a high chance of getting hit even when you aren't the target lol. There is a reason why the a10 leads by leaps and bounds than any other operational aircraft in friendly fire incidents and civilian collateral damage. It got so army commanders wanted it removed from their areas of operations at the general level. The thing is inaccurate as hell and pilots tend to apply an unhealthy amount of ammo on target when one jdam or a couple hellfires could do the job of dislodged an enemy far better.
@@Caged919 The GUN shoots supersonic ammo. You will not hear the brrt if you are the target. You or the camera might have just missed visually the first burst.
@@mosquito3606 i think its like: -Tanks shooting rounds thinking they're OG (Tanks think they are cool). -Meanwhile, the A-10 has depleted uranium rounds (uranium rounds sound badass so he said "hold my beer"). I believe the original commenter is dissing tanks and hyping the Hog.
The round is literally bigger than my bud light and denser than my thick head! If i were in a tank and that didn't punch through, I'd be thanking ALL the gods while actively shitting my pants.
@@GHefly445 why not? Top armor on tanks is the weakest point and standard A-10 doctrine is to attack from the 6 or on the flanks at an angle to ensure it has the most effectiveness. They aren't shooting these things in the front because that's where the guns will already be pointing. The war in Ukraine has given us all the evidence I need to prove my point. The russians are attempting to protect their armored units from the top because of repeated Javelin and NLAW attacks, which come from above. If these shoulder fired weapons can penetrate and destroy or cripple tanks, why cant a 30mm depleted uranium AP round go through?
@@the-lag-gamerita5446 You're right. So I will give you some basic statistics from tests and combat runs. The Leopard MBT has 70mm thick armor on the top front of its turret and 70mm thick angled armor on the front. However, it only has 30mm thick armor on the top rear of the turret, and less than that on top of the engine. At a 45° angle and standard attack run speeds, the GAU-8's standard 30mm AP rounds can achieve around 75mm of penetration. Up to 90mm if in a diving attack run. Basic combat doctrine for A-10 pilots is to circle around and attack from the rear or the flanks of a tank at a moderate or steep angle to ensure penetration in weak points and cause at least mobility tank kills. And a tank that can't move, can't fight. If we want to compare these bullets to HEAT rockets from the Javelin, those only get about 35mm of penetration, making them just as dangerous. But reactive armor can stop a Javelin attack. It can't stop a 100 round burst from the GAU-8.
@@williamthehuntsman Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Javelin had a dual charge projectile specifically designed to counteract reactive armor?
Yah I mean the most legendary engagements that the a-10 is known for happend with its missiles, that’s not bad. But almost every US’s planes can carry a payload close to the payload of the a-10 witch is why the f-35 will take its job or at least a majority of its jobs that’s speaking of C.A.S
@@pudge2187The f-35 cannot carry nearly as much as the A-10, yes, it can carry some bombs, however it has to carry them internally, meaning it cannot compete with aircraft like the A-10 and F-15, which can carry them externally
Hundreds of rounds hitting your modern MBT might not kill you but you and your crew won't be recovering from the tinnitus anytime soon, at that point it might be better to use purely HE rounds
@@jamesonaudette528 which is what pretty much all A-10s did in both Iraq wars. As far as any actual records are concerned, exactly zero enemy tanks were destroyed by the Thunderbolt II's main gun.
I must be missing something. yeah who cares its gun might not kill modern tanks. I bet it can still knock the tracks off or at least disable it. When armor is hit by such massive rounds it throws off spalling on the backside of the armor. The spalling inside the tank would most likely give the crew a bad day. Plus the a10 has many other jobs than just killing tanks. Close air support is more of the role that it's become famous for. The guns are great against entrenched enemies and buildings. if it must kill a tank it most likely will use a standoff missile. close air support is why I love this plane
if it hit the same point over and over then anything will penetrate eventually. the A10s gun can penertrate certain parts of modern tanks sure. however the armour om front turret or front hull tend to be too strong for it.
@@rogerarmy8659 Well at that point frontal armor won't matter. Considering proper doctrine for the A-10 is to attack from the 6 or the flanks and if the A-10 has a good angle, (also consider the gun is angled down slightly), 30mm depleted uranium AP rounds will have no issue punching through and causing either a mobility or catastrophic kill. Massive damage at the least with all things considered.
@@rogerarmy8659 as the other commenter stated. A-10 pilots are trained to attack from the rear or sides of the target at a moderate angle. This typically results in multiple penetrating shots to the crew area at best, or a tank with a busted engine at worst. And a tank that can’t move, can’t fight.
@@williamthehuntsman exactly. its why its still used. though i would say check new knowledge about it a few times. the a10 has a repuyation of being invincable. whyll it is an impressive bit of kit. its not invincible. modden CAS or modern GA missiles will nock it out. even tank guns can nock it out if the pilot makes a mistake and comes in low.
The cannon itself is rather ineffective on late cold war tanks let alone modern mbts especially with modern armor packages, but it would scare the shit out of the crew getting hit by it but there a reason the a-10 carries missile and bombs now, they're far more effective weapons against tanks that dont put the a10 at risk, unlike a strafe with the gun that puts the fairly slow aircraft at significant risk to aa and even ground units firing at it due to the fact it has to either fly at a high angle straight towards its target or low angle close the the ground
Even uparmored MBTs with additional armor will still get fucked up by a 30mm pass from above. If your roof isn't penetrated all your gear on top like sights will probably be destroyed. Further your engine will probably get hit as well and you'ee out of the fight
@@Meuduso1 There are several problems with your argument and I break it down into sections, to make it easier to understand and if you so wish try to put up a counter argument 1. Understanding the role of the a-10 is extremely important in the argument of how effective the planes gun is, the A10-A(the original production model) was originally built as a low cost high survivability cas/ground attack cannon aircraft that required air superiority to be effective, new models have modern systems but have been outfitted with heavy ordinance to strike targets more accurately at safer ranges but still need air superiority to maintain effectiveness. 2. A A-10 even getting the chance to strafe a modern mbt is slim as it requires air superiority, meaning superior aircraft would already be able to target such vehicles without having to worry about the risks associated with diving with a a10 since it is extremely slow and easily detected by radar and aa systems and its countermeasures are lackluster. 3. The A-10s gun has not recieved many if any upgrades at all since its original inception and its ammunition has variable effectiveness on cold war era tanks, let alone modern mbts who have thicker armor(most modern mbts have 38.1mm to 76.2mm of protection on the roof, which doesnt account for era) as well as composite armor packages and era, it is unlikely without multiple concentrated hits in the same location(something which the a10 is incapable of doing with any consistency) for it to penetrate the vehicle(given that its effective penetration is 76mm at 300m, in perfect conditions which never happen in battle, also the fact the plane travels at 187.75mps it would be really risky to dive that close to fire, in normal conditions the pilot would be firing from 1000m at 59mm of penetration, add on the fact 20% of round will not hit the target in its cone of fire and a estimated 35% will miss the target in its 40ft diameter cone of fire and even with that you have to take penetration tables with a grain of salt due to the fact war time conditions are far from the perfect isolated conditions in penetration tests) and even if it does the damage to the vehicle it would be repairable within the day in 90% of cases
The unfortunate truth is the A10 is the most overrated combat aircraft currently in service. During Desert Storm the airforce forbade its pilots from flying low enough to even use it's gun so all it's kills were scored using missiles. An F16 could have done the same job.
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe Depends if you count friendly fire in the statistics, maybe. Joke aside, it's an iconic aircraft for its weirdness, but definitely overrated and even dangerous for its allies due to the insanely bad visibility it had on the ground (leading to some blue on blue incidents; probably more than most aircrafts) .
@@GrannyBender Agreed it is a funky looking thing, and the big gun is very cool even if it is slightly useless. To be honest I hadn't even considered the amount of friendly fire incidents involving the A10, but it is a very good point!
@Ban this youtube No I havent which is one of the reasons I manage to remain impartial. The numbers don't lie. The F111 scored more tank kills than the A10 during desert storm despite not being designed for the role. I'm glad the A10 helped your brother out but my point is that an F16 or an AH64 would have done the same job equally effectively.
How I see the main gun on the A10 is it was never truly designed to be 100-percent main anti-tank weapon on the airframe, if they run out of bombs or missiles great you're still throwing depleted uranium at the enemy which may persuade them to choose a different route. But what I think the gun was meant for and from what I can gather from Reading reports from Pilots and designers was it was designed to engage targets that a bomb or missile would be overkill for.
From what I've heard the original design was built to be a plane without advanced technology because the designers had some weird ideas. The gun doesn't really work and blue on blue happens alot. The bombs and missiles is mainly what they use
@@meatball.9710 no, they were filling a role that the Air Force put forward for them in the contract. The A-10 was specifically built to counter a Russian armored offensive in the Fulda Gap, the Air Force knew they were going to lose aircraft (of any type) so they wanted something cheap and quick to produce and in terms of aircraft the A-10 definitely fit those 2 parameters. They also wanted an aircraft with a high TOT that normal jets cants accomplish due to their flight characteristics & design. The A-10 can linger for a very long time waiting for the oppertune time to strike.
People tend to forget that a tank turns into nothing more then a turret on a metal box when it's power pack has been turned into Swiss cheese by a A10....
As the saying goes A tank is a formidable piece of tech on the battlefield. But take away your tracks or engine and you're a badly armored bunker with a turret. And if you then take away your guns and you're a really shitty bunker you can't even see out of
People saying that the a10 can't penetrate modern tanks aren't anywhere near correct, a tanks top armour is pathetic, the issue with the a10 is its vulnerability to AA and its inability to engage from range or identify targets particularly well
Well the A-10C has somewhat fixed the issue of engaging at rings do to integrating a lot of the systems that were originally left off of the A-10 to save weight and mostly cost. And if it's paired up with other aircraft in a modern situation it can engage from Fairly long distances especially given the ordinance it can now carry
@@clonescope2433 I was about to say. The A-10C has assisted in long range engagements for it. And rumor has it a new A-10 model will be coming out to fix other issues including target acquisition and soft point reinforcement.
While the A-10 is vulnerable to AA systems using 25mm cannons, I find it difficult to believe that the A-10 can't survive SAMs or Air to air missiles. What it lacks in speed, it makes up for it with unparalleled maneuverability and it can carry up to 20 missile defense flares. Also, the A-10C has a scrambler built into it's chassis. The affectiveness of this is questionable at best, but it seems to have worked in the middle east, so it must do something.
Humm... Shall we talk about projectile armour interaction calculations? Using Newtown Impact depth approximation and assuming a Martensitic stainless steel rooftop of 20 cm versus the Uranium 238 30x173mm projectile. Easy: Depth is approximately projectile length multiple by the result of its density divided by target density. 173mm x (19100kg/m³:8000 kg/m³)= 0.4130375m Meaning it does make a hole on this assumption tank. If tank armour is twice the thickness, just place 4 bullet in the same 30mm² and you are done. Not hard when your fire rate is over 60 bullets peer second. Conclusion, regardless of armour, there is no way the tank does not tank damage and the crew has quite the, possible traumatic, experience with a Uranium storm raining upon them.
Considering practical A10 tests showed an average of only 3 to 4 hits per engagement, with 1 or less pentrating an m48 Patton or T-62. Reality has said no to what you are saying.
Oh and also the typical tank will be engaged with about 100 rounds and those 100 rounds will be falling innacurately over a 12m cep area. (Meaning falling into a circle with a diameter of 24 meters or over 80 feet)
To those who say it cannot penetrate a tanks armor, you’re wrong. Simply due to any test done to see the damage the A-10 does to a tank is not possible because there would be no tank left to analyze after the A-10 is finished with it.
Fun fact: February 2022 The USAF 422nd and 59th Test and Evaluation Squadrons conducted two tests at the Nevada Test and Training Range. They deployed the A-10C equipped with incendiary AP rounds against MBTs equipped with ERA, analysts that inspected the damage afterwards and the study found that the targets were rendered inoperable. So while it may not kill the crew it will still 100% "destroy" the tank.
It would probably feel like a Mag 10 earthquake and your ears would be ringing by the sound of metal striking metal at super high speeds, it would definitely discombobulate the tank crew
On one hand I'd be thankful the Warthog decided on a gun run instead of using a JDAM, but on the other I'd know my position was just painted by the angriest laser pointer in the modern world.
Nah, the new armor model for recent MBT's are really, really damn good. It most likely would have major issues penetrating the hull. Now, that being said, it doesn't mean it'll do nothing. Chances are, every single sensor on the targets gonna be FUBAR. Treads? Not reinforced, so they're gonna go bye bye. Main barrel is probably gonna get a few extra holes in it and the external MG is likely to be gone, if at minimum knocked off sight. So while it can't destroy it, it'll definitely disable it. A tank that can't move or fire is a dead tank. The crew may be lucky enough to limp back to base with injuries but the tank itself will probably not see combat again for a long time, if at all.
Getting sprayed by an A10 gun in an MBT would indeed, to quote the chieftain, trigger a significant emotional event
ie. You and your crew need new pants if you survived.
@@williamthehuntsman you’d be pretty likely to survive
The A-10s main gun proved insufficient to kill most tanks by the time it was introduced
It can kill tanks from the 50s and early 60s with difficulty but for the rest it requires ordinance
@@TN-ci4ox Maybe If you were attacked from the front. Modern tank armor is weakest on the top back, with the Leopard only having about 35mm thick armor on the rear of the turret. And less than 30mm protecting the engine. The thickest armor being on the top front at about 70mm.
With a 45° angle moving at standard attack speeds, the GAU-8 30mm cannon can achieve about to 75mm of penetration. In a diving run, it can achieve closer to 90mm. This is even used in the A-10's combat doctrine for A-10 pilots. Attack from the flanks and 6 at a 45° angle to ensure penetration.
Reactive armor only helps with the first few hits but is quickly rendered useless. Spaced armor provides almost no help as it tends to get in the way of the turret or make the tank too heavy, therefor making it ineffective as top armor.
Indeed, you could survive it if the rounds hit anywhere other than the crew area, but with the penetrating abilities of 30mm depleted uranium AP rounds should never be underestimated.
A modern mbt would certainly survive to the A-10 burst, but sure it won't get out of it undamaged
@@williamthehuntsman the A-10s failed to kill T-55s in Kuwait and Iraq
Everything given by fairchild republic assumes optimal conditions
Once conditions worse the gau-8s accuracy can sink to 20% of rounds striking a 12 meter radius considered accurate on average only 2-3 of 5 rounds strike anywhere near their target which is bad when those rounds require luck to punch through the armor
The pentagon: You see that gun ?
Engineers: yeah
The pentagon: MAKE IT FLY!
Underrated comment
@@sivakaruni9883 thanks buddy
Thats halo’s story
Which is actually really funny because the gun was too large to fit on any aircraft so they had to build the plane around the gun. It's litterally a gun with wings attached
@@nicolascreo5295 correct
The A-10's gun inflicts emotional damage.
6d12 piercing, 1d100 fear
Or emotional happiness if your on the right team
More than just emotional damage
The A-10 really said “I will send you to Jesus”
And that's a lotta damage
War Thunder should add "Emotional" Damage tho 😂
"Tank destroyed. Emotional damage, crew commited suicide"
Considered as "passive" kill...? Cause you only made them kill themselves
I like your profile name. It rhymes with our filipino word "intsik" which literally means "Chinese"
Makes me think though: are you a filipino? Or just know the language?
* ahem * *overpressure*
Yeah make it so that all stats get a slight decrease for a few seconds
"Significant emotional event."
Beat me to the punch
Lmfaoo
Oh my God the tank is on fire. (Gets stuck in hatch because tall)
Emotional damage
LETS FUCKKKING GOOOOO BRTTTTTTTTT
When you shoot a tank with the A10, it doesn't say "Target Destroyed." It says, "Target Surrendered."
Nah it says “target got ptsd”
"target is currently changing underwear"
Target is France from WW2
@@Michael_dogelaslolso true
na it would say 'friendly target destroyed'
“HOW THE HELL ARE WE ALIVE!?”
“I have no clue, get us the hell out of here!”
*Tank is unresponsive due to engine being destroyed*
"Sir I have something to say"
"What is it?"
"We're fucked"
"Oh"
@@casematecardinal “Well shit.”
“Nice knowing you boys.”
@@Will-mk5pj "I think everything's quieted down so let's see if we can asses the damag-"
*at4 hits the engine bay*
"Nevermind"
@@casematecardinal “sir, we’ve assessed the damage.”
“You haven’t left the tank.”
“I can see through the tank. Specifically the engine. We aren’t going anywhere.”
@@Will-mk5pj "damn and blast"
Two important things to remember:
1. If you hear the brrtt, you’re not the target… *yet.*
2. The A-10 is not a plane with a gun, it’s a gun with wings.
yeah if youre the target of the A-10 then its rounds are gonna hit far before you actually hear the brrt unless its like 100 feet in the air
Yeah I heard they once did an experiment by replacing the gun with a weight to see what would happen
The plain flew like a brick
Technically you have a high chance of getting hit even when you aren't the target lol. There is a reason why the a10 leads by leaps and bounds than any other operational aircraft in friendly fire incidents and civilian collateral damage. It got so army commanders wanted it removed from their areas of operations at the general level. The thing is inaccurate as hell and pilots tend to apply an unhealthy amount of ammo on target when one jdam or a couple hellfires could do the job of dislodged an enemy far better.
You can hear the brrt first then the bullets hit after 3-4 seconds, i saw this in a video of a gun run i think in Afghanistan
@@Caged919 The GUN shoots supersonic ammo. You will not hear the brrt if you are the target. You or the camera might have just missed visually the first burst.
I would get traumatized if I survived the a10 attack in the tank
I think anyone would be traumatized if they survived an A-10 strafing their tank
The sound of getting hit would be bad inside the tank
No you would probably just go deaf after the first 2nd hardly hearing the other 2 seconds of fire
Yeah but you'd be just as traumatized by literally any other jet firing 20mms at you.
@@D3R3bel yeah, pretty much
"Welcome back everybody"
Ah, finally there is a place where i always welcome
Yes tho
Tanks shooting rounds thinking their og
A-10’s depleted uranium rounds”hold my beer”
What
@@hippityhoppity5035 I've read that 3 times but still couldn't make it
@@mosquito3606 i think its like:
-Tanks shooting rounds thinking they're OG (Tanks think they are cool).
-Meanwhile, the A-10 has depleted uranium rounds (uranium rounds sound badass so he said "hold my beer").
I believe the original commenter is dissing tanks and hyping the Hog.
@@hippityhoppity5035 i get the gist he's trying to diss them tanks, but u made it clear ig hahahahahahahaa
@@hippityhoppity5035 interesting interpretation. Thanks for the translation!
I'm laughing unreasonably hard at the "adverse effects to morale" you so vividly illustrated 🤣🤣 Thanks for the good laugh and ab workout!👍
The round is literally bigger than my bud light and denser than my thick head! If i were in a tank and that didn't punch through, I'd be thanking ALL the gods while actively shitting my pants.
It cant punch through.
@@GHefly445 why not? Top armor on tanks is the weakest point and standard A-10 doctrine is to attack from the 6 or on the flanks at an angle to ensure it has the most effectiveness. They aren't shooting these things in the front because that's where the guns will already be pointing.
The war in Ukraine has given us all the evidence I need to prove my point. The russians are attempting to protect their armored units from the top because of repeated Javelin and NLAW attacks, which come from above.
If these shoulder fired weapons can penetrate and destroy or cripple tanks, why cant a 30mm depleted uranium AP round go through?
@@williamthehuntsmanapple to oranges comparason,heat warheads on missiles way bigger than a 30mm are not comparable to a conventional projectile.
@@the-lag-gamerita5446 You're right. So I will give you some basic statistics from tests and combat runs.
The Leopard MBT has 70mm thick armor on the top front of its turret and 70mm thick angled armor on the front. However, it only has 30mm thick armor on the top rear of the turret, and less than that on top of the engine.
At a 45° angle and standard attack run speeds, the GAU-8's standard 30mm AP rounds can achieve around 75mm of penetration. Up to 90mm if in a diving attack run.
Basic combat doctrine for A-10 pilots is to circle around and attack from the rear or the flanks of a tank at a moderate or steep angle to ensure penetration in weak points and cause at least mobility tank kills. And a tank that can't move, can't fight.
If we want to compare these bullets to HEAT rockets from the Javelin, those only get about 35mm of penetration, making them just as dangerous.
But reactive armor can stop a Javelin attack. It can't stop a 100 round burst from the GAU-8.
@@williamthehuntsman Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Javelin had a dual charge projectile specifically designed to counteract reactive armor?
That round is just the ultra advanced version of throwing a rock
It's very fricking simple your plane goes pew pew while my plane goes BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
Isn’t the proper quote “your gun goes pew pew, my gun goes…” *distant BRRRRRRRRRRRT
@@3man659 nope
@@Randomcanadian20 yea it is
@@boomstick382 really now
@@Randomcanadian20 yee
“Gun can’t penetrate modern tanks”. Yeah well say hello to my 2000lb JDAM
Yah I mean the most legendary engagements that the a-10 is known for happend with its missiles, that’s not bad. But almost every US’s planes can carry a payload close to the payload of the a-10 witch is why the f-35 will take its job or at least a majority of its jobs that’s speaking of C.A.S
@@pudge2187The f-35 cannot carry nearly as much as the A-10, yes, it can carry some bombs, however it has to carry them internally, meaning it cannot compete with aircraft like the A-10 and F-15, which can carry them externally
@@theanarchist9733The F-35 can carry external missiles and bombs. Look up "beast mode" F-35's. It just loses most of its stealth capabilities.
Love your intros of your puppy 's pic when you say "welcome back everybody."
That is what got me to sub 😂
There is just something so nice to “welcome back everybody”
@@flightzone4301 me too :)
You're telling me the doggo isn't running the channel?
Yep, it makes you feel relaxed and comfy
Ah, my favourite friendly fire accident generator.
Hundreds of rounds hitting your modern MBT might not kill you but you and your crew won't be recovering from the tinnitus anytime soon, at that point it might be better to use purely HE rounds
Oh don't worry they will penetrate, and the tinnitus will be the least of your problems if you survive.
At that point use an AGM-65 and keep yourself out of harms way while actually destroying the tank
@@jamesonaudette528 which is what pretty much all A-10s did in both Iraq wars. As far as any actual records are concerned, exactly zero enemy tanks were destroyed by the Thunderbolt II's main gun.
You hear the engines on the ground, you must accept your fate
BRRRRT
Random guy in the tank just screams for 2 hours straight afterwards.
The A10, "You may survive, but your morale won't!"
I must be missing something. yeah who cares its gun might not kill modern tanks. I bet it can still knock the tracks off or at least disable it. When armor is hit by such massive rounds it throws off spalling on the backside of the armor. The spalling inside the tank would most likely give the crew a bad day. Plus the a10 has many other jobs than just killing tanks. Close air support is more of the role that it's become famous for. The guns are great against entrenched enemies and buildings. if it must kill a tank it most likely will use a standoff missile. close air support is why I love this plane
if it hit the same point over and over then anything will penetrate eventually. the A10s gun can penertrate certain parts of modern tanks sure. however the armour om front turret or front hull tend to be too strong for it.
@@rogerarmy8659 Well at that point frontal armor won't matter. Considering proper doctrine for the A-10 is to attack from the 6 or the flanks and if the A-10 has a good angle, (also consider the gun is angled down slightly), 30mm depleted uranium AP rounds will have no issue punching through and causing either a mobility or catastrophic kill. Massive damage at the least with all things considered.
@@rogerarmy8659 as the other commenter stated. A-10 pilots are trained to attack from the rear or sides of the target at a moderate angle. This typically results in multiple penetrating shots to the crew area at best, or a tank with a busted engine at worst. And a tank that can’t move, can’t fight.
@@williamthehuntsman
exactly. its why its still used. though i would say check new knowledge about it a few times. the a10 has a repuyation of being invincable. whyll it is an impressive bit of kit. its not invincible. modden CAS or modern GA missiles will nock it out. even tank guns can nock it out if the pilot makes a mistake and comes in low.
It's mostly that the gun isn't accurate
Love how when the A 10 gun's fires, the automatic subtitles say [Music]
I can’t believe that this is the first time I’ve seen the actual ammo for the Gau-8 in comparison to other ammo. It’s scary
That is the most adorable dog I've ever seen
The cannon itself is rather ineffective on late cold war tanks let alone modern mbts especially with modern armor packages, but it would scare the shit out of the crew getting hit by it but there a reason the a-10 carries missile and bombs now, they're far more effective weapons against tanks that dont put the a10 at risk, unlike a strafe with the gun that puts the fairly slow aircraft at significant risk to aa and even ground units firing at it due to the fact it has to either fly at a high angle straight towards its target or low angle close the the ground
Even uparmored MBTs with additional armor will still get fucked up by a 30mm pass from above. If your roof isn't penetrated all your gear on top like sights will probably be destroyed. Further your engine will probably get hit as well and you'ee out of the fight
@@Meuduso1 There are several problems with your argument and I break it down into sections, to make it easier to understand and if you so wish try to put up a counter argument
1. Understanding the role of the a-10 is extremely important in the argument of how effective the planes gun is, the A10-A(the original production model) was originally built as a low cost high survivability cas/ground attack cannon aircraft that required air superiority to be effective, new models have modern systems but have been outfitted with heavy ordinance to strike targets more accurately at safer ranges but still need air superiority to maintain effectiveness.
2. A A-10 even getting the chance to strafe a modern mbt is slim as it requires air superiority, meaning superior aircraft would already be able to target such vehicles without having to worry about the risks associated with diving with a a10 since it is extremely slow and easily detected by radar and aa systems and its countermeasures are lackluster.
3. The A-10s gun has not recieved many if any upgrades at all since its original inception and its ammunition has variable effectiveness on cold war era tanks, let alone modern mbts who have thicker armor(most modern mbts have 38.1mm to 76.2mm of protection on the roof, which doesnt account for era) as well as composite armor packages and era, it is unlikely without multiple concentrated hits in the same location(something which the a10 is incapable of doing with any consistency) for it to penetrate the vehicle(given that its effective penetration is 76mm at 300m, in perfect conditions which never happen in battle, also the fact the plane travels at 187.75mps it would be really risky to dive that close to fire, in normal conditions the pilot would be firing from 1000m at 59mm of penetration, add on the fact 20% of round will not hit the target in its cone of fire and a estimated 35% will miss the target in its 40ft diameter cone of fire and even with that you have to take penetration tables with a grain of salt due to the fact war time conditions are far from the perfect isolated conditions in penetration tests) and even if it does the damage to the vehicle it would be repairable within the day in 90% of cases
I love how he says “Welcome back everybody”
I know this is old but same
"Even if we survived!"
Friend: hey what’s your favorite gun?
Me:the A-10
What about the F111 Aardvark? It had more confirmed tank kills than the A10 in gulf 1.
I hope they add it soon
The unfortunate truth is the A10 is the most overrated combat aircraft currently in service. During Desert Storm the airforce forbade its pilots from flying low enough to even use it's gun so all it's kills were scored using missiles. An F16 could have done the same job.
@@AWMJoeyjoejoe Depends if you count friendly fire in the statistics, maybe.
Joke aside, it's an iconic aircraft for its weirdness, but definitely overrated and even dangerous for its allies due to the insanely bad visibility it had on the ground (leading to some blue on blue incidents; probably more than most aircrafts) .
@@GrannyBender Agreed it is a funky looking thing, and the big gun is very cool even if it is slightly useless. To be honest I hadn't even considered the amount of friendly fire incidents involving the A10, but it is a very good point!
@Ban this youtube No I havent which is one of the reasons I manage to remain impartial. The numbers don't lie. The F111 scored more tank kills than the A10 during desert storm despite not being designed for the role. I'm glad the A10 helped your brother out but my point is that an F16 or an AH64 would have done the same job equally effectively.
But as they say, “if you hear it, you weren’t the target”, because this freedom gun with wings’ brrrt is legendary... to everyone else
How I see the main gun on the A10 is it was never truly designed to be 100-percent main anti-tank weapon on the airframe, if they run out of bombs or missiles great you're still throwing depleted uranium at the enemy which may persuade them to choose a different route. But what I think the gun was meant for and from what I can gather from Reading reports from Pilots and designers was it was designed to engage targets that a bomb or missile would be overkill for.
This does seem to be the case. The A-10s tank busting ability came from its payload. The cannon is on there to rip apart everything else.
From what I've heard the original design was built to be a plane without advanced technology because the designers had some weird ideas. The gun doesn't really work and blue on blue happens alot. The bombs and missiles is mainly what they use
@@meatball.9710 no, they were filling a role that the Air Force put forward for them in the contract. The A-10 was specifically built to counter a Russian armored offensive in the Fulda Gap, the Air Force knew they were going to lose aircraft (of any type) so they wanted something cheap and quick to produce and in terms of aircraft the A-10 definitely fit those 2 parameters. They also wanted an aircraft with a high TOT that normal jets cants accomplish due to their flight characteristics & design. The A-10 can linger for a very long time waiting for the oppertune time to strike.
There is nothing more terrifying than being on the wrong side of BRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!!!
Hey man love your content I've always loved flying and you're videos are literally just the best.
I love the sound of the BRRRRRRT in the morning.
Sadly most players don’t cut on the speed of sound settings So they fing get the best delay
Wait what
Hits you with a 5 second burst followed by a whirly boy.
The a-10 delivers physical and emotional damage
If I survive a strafe from an a10 I'm getting a serious dose of tenacity
People tend to forget that a tank turns into nothing more then a turret on a metal box when it's power pack has been turned into Swiss cheese by a A10....
That sounds like my Neighbours drill every Holiday while i'm trying to sleep
I love it when people say “A-10s can kill tanks in a perfect world.”
hahahahhahaha
wrong.
A-10’s dont even need to kill tanks to knock them out.
As the saying goes
A tank is a formidable piece of tech on the battlefield. But take away your tracks or engine and you're a badly armored bunker with a turret. And if you then take away your guns and you're a really shitty bunker you can't even see out of
@@Meuduso1
take away the morale of the crew
you’ve got something thats useless and barely works
They still need to hit them though. A good number of those rounds fired won't.
@@kavky
You dont need to hit a tank to cut the tracks off.
@@SquooshyCatboy You need to hit the tracks, which are a smaller target than the tank itself.
That flying gun to tank crews' morale:
*Emotional damage*
People saying that the a10 can't penetrate modern tanks aren't anywhere near correct, a tanks top armour is pathetic, the issue with the a10 is its vulnerability to AA and its inability to engage from range or identify targets particularly well
Yea it just needs better armor and bigger bullets
specifically Russian tanks US antitank missiles work very well on Russian tanks
Well the A-10C has somewhat fixed the issue of engaging at rings do to integrating a lot of the systems that were originally left off of the A-10 to save weight and mostly cost. And if it's paired up with other aircraft in a modern situation it can engage from Fairly long distances especially given the ordinance it can now carry
@@clonescope2433 I was about to say. The A-10C has assisted in long range engagements for it. And rumor has it a new A-10 model will be coming out to fix other issues including target acquisition and soft point reinforcement.
While the A-10 is vulnerable to AA systems using 25mm cannons, I find it difficult to believe that the A-10 can't survive SAMs or Air to air missiles. What it lacks in speed, it makes up for it with unparalleled maneuverability and it can carry up to 20 missile defense flares.
Also, the A-10C has a scrambler built into it's chassis. The affectiveness of this is questionable at best, but it seems to have worked in the middle east, so it must do something.
Sounds like an electric fan used for long.
(Your dog in most of your vids is hilariously funny 😂😂😂)
It still amazes me how well that dog flies
Those are the cutest dog pictures ever added into the video
Hey man. I could watch a 10hour video of your intro pls make a compilation of your intro voice
The Air Force actually did a test recently pitting the A-10 against modern tank explosive reactive armor. The armor didn't fair so well 😂
Humm... Shall we talk about projectile armour interaction calculations?
Using Newtown Impact depth approximation and assuming a Martensitic stainless steel rooftop of 20 cm versus the Uranium 238 30x173mm projectile.
Easy: Depth is approximately projectile length multiple by the result of its density divided by target density.
173mm x (19100kg/m³:8000 kg/m³)= 0.4130375m
Meaning it does make a hole on this assumption tank.
If tank armour is twice the thickness, just place 4 bullet in the same 30mm² and you are done.
Not hard when your fire rate is over 60 bullets peer second.
Conclusion, regardless of armour, there is no way the tank does not tank damage and the crew has quite the, possible traumatic, experience with a Uranium storm raining upon them.
Lol yah, A10s can pop open almost any tank. I’ve seen them rip apart tanks.
@@seekerpro486 expect they miss like 70% of there shoot the a-10 is really inacurate that why irl they prefer using missile
Considering practical A10 tests showed an average of only 3 to 4 hits per engagement, with 1 or less pentrating an m48 Patton or T-62. Reality has said no to what you are saying.
Oh and also the typical tank will be engaged with about 100 rounds and those 100 rounds will be falling innacurately over a 12m cep area. (Meaning falling into a circle with a diameter of 24 meters or over 80 feet)
@@imjashingyou3461 were did you get the information? At what height? plus its a moving plane, so the bullets will natural go in a line.
The flyby in DCS sounded so damn good
*Spawns in literally any rocket AA*
Oh cute, a easy, slow, lumbering and massive target
*laughs in exceptional turn rate due to large wingspan*
@@nipplecream3099 *laughs in proximity Fuze missiles*
Being inside that tank is like watching the grim reaper knock on bulletproof glass and be like “I’ll be waiting.💀”
People always say it wont penetrate the tank, well maybe no the turret but the engine cover or the tracks, them bitches gone
It's some hilarious greeting i've seen: *wekum back everybody*😂
It's a literal tone for death
I love how it's sound in Arma 3
"Oh? You survived 1k depleted uranium rounds? Well, enjoy the next 30 years of PTSD, then."
To those who say it cannot penetrate a tanks armor, you’re wrong. Simply due to any test done to see the damage the A-10 does to a tank is not possible because there would be no tank left to analyze after the A-10 is finished with it.
God this is so cringe
“Hey does your plane have a gun”
“No my gun has a plane”
"From together to apart" GET SOME !!!
They'd be sitting in their tank, completely deaf, with bleeding ears.
Never thought death can sound comforting
Fun fact:
February 2022
The USAF 422nd and 59th Test and Evaluation Squadrons conducted two tests at the Nevada Test and Training Range.
They deployed the A-10C equipped with incendiary AP rounds against MBTs equipped with ERA, analysts that inspected the damage afterwards and the study found that the targets were rendered inoperable.
So while it may not kill the crew it will still 100% "destroy" the tank.
**crew knocked out**
*" Cause: Crew has been TRAUMATIZED "*
Few minutes or seconds later: **The Crew Has Recovered**
I love the info dump humour at the end hahahaha
That little bit about the tank at the end killed me lmao
Mmmm that Doppler effect of sound in DCS 👌
It would probably feel like a Mag 10 earthquake and your ears would be ringing by the sound of metal striking metal at super high speeds, it would definitely discombobulate the tank crew
The morale will be bossted cause the tank crew will come to know that the A-10 is just like a mosquito buzzing around
The only thing I would have changed about this video is adding real life sound, because I have heard it irl, and it is absolutely legendary
You missed an opportunity to use the femur breaker scream while that poor tank got peppered by "hailstones".
The gun sound alone probably took em a couple weeks to get right they defenitly wanted to get it perfect and they nailed it!
“Even IF we survived”
Bro you’d be operating your tank with your new crew of one legged jerry no legged Larry and one armed Aaron.
Don’t forget Jose, the quadriplegic
the picture at the beginning of your dog made me laugh so hard. Why is he so cross eyed?!
That's beautiful sound of 70 rounds per second
A10 humming, mbt crews found a new phobia.
The Tunguska looking at you like a snack.
Being in a tank and knowing there is an a-10 nearby would be terrifying because of what else it can bring.
Poking my head out of new tank hole: *“oh shit”*
This sound like a cram I live for this
The sound of the a-10's gun in war thunder sounds like the c-ram phalanx guns.
On one hand I'd be thankful the Warthog decided on a gun run instead of using a JDAM, but on the other I'd know my position was just painted by the angriest laser pointer in the modern world.
And today im now playing war thunder now 😂
"It CaNt PeNeTrAtE mOdErN tAnKs"
Cool.
The little fun boxes mounted on the wings will.
Could you imagine surviving that and launching a hypersonic round from the tank to take it out would be legendary
"adverse reaction" is putting it mildly 🤣
They really said make that gun fly to a washing machine company 💀
"if you hear the gun, you werent the target"
“You have suffered an emotional shock”
- Off. ROBOCOP
Tank crew: Wait! Was that an A-10? How aren't we dead?
My Black ops 2 ptsd kicks in :😅
I love how in DCS it goes "BRRRRRRRrrrrrrt"
The A-10 is essentially the modern equivalent of a Stuka
*yatatata*
-No full auto in the building.
-That's not full auto. THAT is full auto.
*brrrrrrrrrrrt*
Ok that last part was great 😂😂😂
The A10's 30MM Canon shoots rounds the size of a beer bottle, I'm pretty sure it will make any modern tank have more holes in it than Swiss cheese
Nah, the new armor model for recent MBT's are really, really damn good. It most likely would have major issues penetrating the hull. Now, that being said, it doesn't mean it'll do nothing. Chances are, every single sensor on the targets gonna be FUBAR. Treads? Not reinforced, so they're gonna go bye bye. Main barrel is probably gonna get a few extra holes in it and the external MG is likely to be gone, if at minimum knocked off sight. So while it can't destroy it, it'll definitely disable it. A tank that can't move or fire is a dead tank. The crew may be lucky enough to limp back to base with injuries but the tank itself will probably not see combat again for a long time, if at all.
No
@@thechlebek901 Even if it doesn't destroy the tank that's pretty much all the fragile parts outside the tank gone.
Can't wait to purchase the A10 pack and bully some WW2 tanks with it
Ever military plane has brrrrt, it came free with your nose mounted autocannon.