If she doesn't like that K98k, how much would she want for it?One of my big sisters has a G98. She does not think highly of it and the K98k she has is something she thinks is even worse.
If she doesn't like that K98k, how much would she want for it?One of my big sisters has a G98. She does not think highly of it and the K98k she has is something she thinks is even worse.
If you have to ask, you can't afford it.If she doesn't like that K98k, how much would she want for it?
Tomahawking every pickup with a tripod bolted on is not an economical use-case. That gun worked well against contemporary Soviet tanks, and has not magically stopped penetrating the same armor since then.and had to be heavily reworked to accept what actually destroys vehicles (ATGMs).
It's more Mavericking/Hellfiring than Tomahawking. You forget that the gun is, sadly, largely useless. We've already seen the training manuals for the A-10, and against something like the T-64 (which, from my recollection, was part of Soviet CatB formations at best), there is really no realistic angle of attack outside of maybe the engine deck. Everywhere else tends to shrug off the 30mm. It also doesn't help that formations of Soviet-style infantry tended to have a mix of 23mm and 30mm autocannons (i.e. Shilkas and BMP-2s and 3s) firing at you when you do this. You're better off using ATGMs at that point. And as Desert Storm proved, getting into gun range is the worst thing you could do on the modern battlefield, as you're far too likely to get damaged and/or destroyed.Tomahawking every pickup with a tripod bolted on is not an economical use-case. That gun worked well against contemporary Soviet tanks, and has not magically stopped penetrating the same armor since then.
Virtually everything less than a tank goes down to that gun, and the A-10 is perfectly fine carrying a few missiles for a tank or two that showed up.
The T-64 came from realizing 160 mm of frontal armor was doable, and had the Soviet's first composite armor. Cite me vehicles that are not full-on tanks with that level of protection. What the fuck is there that is not a literal tank shrugging off the 30 mm autocannon?and against something like the T-64
Yeah, Yeah - 30'ish years later, big surprise. Still, a crappy anti-tank weapon by the time is designed, much worse by the time enters service.The GAU-8 is firing a ballisticly superior round at almost three times the velocity as the BK 3.7 mounted on the JU-87G. Even the shell masses are comparable despite the larger diameter of the german round. The weapon readily penetrated over 200mm of effective armor thickness (a 110mm RHA plate at 60 degrees of slope) from the operational distance of 1200 meters.
You also forget that angle of the impact is a major factor. Most rounds are designed to penetrate a target at a 90-degree angle, and attack runs tend to be anywhere from 25-degrees (just shy of 1.5 times of effective armor) to 45 (somewhere around 2 times of effective armor) if I remember right. So that side armor is up to about 2 times of effective armor. Then there is the fact that the T-64's turret (one of the most common tanks in the WarPact arsenal) is rounded, making guessing an effective angle of attack incredibly hard to achieve.The GAU-8 is firing a ballisticly superior round at almost three times the velocity as the BK 3.7 mounted on the JU-87G. Even the shell masses are comparable despite the larger diameter of the german round. The weapon readily penetrated over 200mm of effective armor thickness (a 110mm RHA plate at 60 degrees of slope) from the operational distance of 1200 meters.
Desert Storm.Just tell me one battle that the A-10 participates that is not a very permissive environment.
Or against modern-ish hardware.
Oh, wait - none.
About the losses of the A-10 - they are relatively low - but you also need to take into account the number of planes that need to be extensively rebuilt/repaired.
Suddenly, your numbers are not so good. I wonder why.
In an intense/near-peer conflict - that the US takes a lot of care to never ever be involved - that adds a lot.
It had less losses then the F16 in Desert Storm AND Iraq War.Desert Storm is the perfect example of what I said - incompetent adversaries with obsolete hardware in a very permissive environment. And even in that scenario, the A-10 takes a lot of losses / damaged planes.
If you compare Desert Storm to any Fulda Gap scenario, you are very dishonest.
Note - I consider the planes that need to be massively repaired in my account. I know that they are not losses in the technical/legal term, but in any other scenario, they can't be used again in any useful time.
We won't ever invade ones homeland.No, the US refrains from attacking peer opponents directly because of two words. Nuclear fucking weapons
No, the US refrains from attacking peer opponents directly because of two words. Nuclear fucking weapons