T-90 vs Abrams

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

While I agree concerning the infrastructure destruction having the most impact on the front, it's not bombs vs. tanks I was alluding to. Tactical air (P-47s and Typhoons) using rockets were devastating to German tanks caught in the open.

I'll grant that using rockets against soft vehicles was much easier, as a near miss was still a kill due to blast and shrapnel. But if pilots could score a direct hit on turret top armor, or especially against the armor over the engine compartment, the tank was effectively out for the rest of the war.

The problem with WWII aerial rockets was with their warheads. None of them used hollow-charge it was all HE/Frag. It wasn't until the Allies developed the 4.5-inch/5-inch rockets in 1944/45 that they had an effective weapon, provided it hit. And they had to hit the top armor or the engine deck to score any kill.

One of the problems that the SBS referred to was the 9th Air Force's practice of attacking tanks at tree top level, and from the front, which was generally a waste of ammo. It wasn't until after the Normandy breakout (Cobra) that they started attacking from the rear and from 2,000/3,000 feet.

Strafing of panzers was generally considered to be a waste of time with .50-calibers (even with API, scoring penetrating hits on top/engine armor was slim), unless the pilot could get a burst into the tank while it had its hatches open. Typhoon/Tempest pilots had a better chance with their four 20mm cannon.

And to add insult to injury, the airdales abandoned the hard won lessons of CAS learned in North Africa for the free roaming, pilot engaging anything he sees. Again, it took a lot of painful lessons in Normandy before the air forces realized that effective CAS required a controller on the ground with the troops.

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

Anyone remember Desert Storm and the half-baked CAS version of the F-16 fitted with a 30mm gun pod...that didn't work due to a software screwup?

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The problem with WWII aerial rockets was with their warheads. None of them used hollow-charge it was all HE/Frag. It wasn't until the Allies developed the 4.5-inch/5-inch rockets in 1944/45 that they had an effective weapon, provided it hit. And they had to hit the top armor or the engine deck to score any kill.

One of the problems that the SBS referred to was the 9th Air Force's practice of attacking tanks at tree top level, and from the front, which was generally a waste of ammo. It wasn't until after the Normandy breakout (Cobra) that they started attacking from the rear and from 2,000/3,000 feet.

Strafing of panzers was generally considered to be a waste of time with .50-calibers (even with API, scoring penetrating hits on top/engine armor was slim), unless the pilot could get a burst into the tank while it had its hatches open. Typhoon/Tempest pilots had a better chance with their four 20mm cannon.

And to add insult to injury, the airdales abandoned the hard won lessons of CAS learned in North Africa for the free roaming, pilot engaging anything he sees. Again, it took a lot of painful lessons in Normandy before the air forces realized that effective CAS required a controller on the ground with the troops.

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

Anyone remember Desert Storm and the half-baked CAS version of the F-16 fitted with a 30mm gun pod...that didn't work due to a software screwup?

And for even better laughs, remember, the Raptor is now known as the F/A-22. Yes, its what the Chair Farce has figured would make for a great attack plane to support the troops, allowing them once more to see if they can get rid of the A10.


What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, under House Resolution 4739 the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 that the Army retired.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

And for even better laughs, remember, the Raptor is now known as the F/A-22. Yes, its what the Chair Farce has figured would make for a great attack plane to support the troops, allowing them once more to see if they can get rid of the A10.


What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 and OV10 that the Army retired.

LOL, never happen.

Prior to the Vietnam War, the Air Farce stated that it had no need of light tactical transports, the C-130 was the bird of choice. The Army disputed this, due to a lack of airstrips large enough to take a C-130. So the Army started purchasing Canadian Buffalo and Caribou STOL transports to meet its needs (I believe the final totals were some 350 aircraft).

As the war heated up, the Air Farce realized that the Army was, once again, pushing for control of tactical airlift and close air support (in the form of Skyraiders and Tweety-birds)....realizing the danger in having the Army once again take to the skies in fixed wing aircraft, the Air Farce and its Congressional idiots transferred most of the fixed wing Army assets to safety under Air Farce control. The Army was left with its Mohawks (all to be dearmed) and a selection of utility aircraft.

The Air Farce stand by and see the Army pilot A-10s............they are liable to stage a JDAM strike on the Army portion of the Pentagon!

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

LOL, never happen.

Prior to the Vietnam War, the Air Farce stated that it had no need of light tactical transports, the C-130 was the bird of choice. The Army disputed this, due to a lack of airstrips large enough to take a C-130. So the Army started purchasing Canadian Buffalo and Caribou STOL transports to meet its needs (I believe the final totals were some 350 aircraft).

As the war heated up, the Air Farce realized that the Army was, once again, pushing for control of tactical airlift and close air support (in the form of Skyraiders and Tweety-birds)....realizing the danger in having the Army once again take to the skies in fixed wing aircraft, the Air Farce and its Congressional idiots transferred most of the fixed wing Army assets to safety under Air Farce control. The Army was left with its Mohawks (all to be dearmed) and a selection of utility aircraft.

The Air Farce stand by and see the Army pilot A-10s............they are liable to stage a JDAM strike on the Army portion of the Pentagon!

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason. There was a pretty good study done on incorporating A-10's into Army Aviation - including Warrant Officer Pilots, something that was felt would have been very popular.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason.

Not wanting to front the money and other resources required to maintain fixed-wing combat aviation assets and related skill base?

- C.

[bobcat]

honestly T-90 vs Abrams my answer is...

their about equal one on one it would come down to the who's crew is better.

but since your all bringing other variables into this:
a good FO could turn either into slag in 125 seconds counting for TOF and an adjustment.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by bobcat

honestly T-90 vs Abrams my answer is...

their about equal one on one it would come down to the who's crew is better.

but since your all bringing other variables into this:
a good FO could turn either into slag in 125 seconds counting for TOF and an adjustment.

And then another 10 minutes to figure out which side they are supposed to be shooting at... after the fact.

After all, Short is the only way Arty knows how to shoot.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Not wanting to front the money and other resources required to maintain fixed-wing combat aviation assets and related skill base?

- C.

Wouldn't be fronting that as they get it all from the Air Force, but yes, finding the money to continue funding might be where the issue is.

Besides, it makes for a handy stick to use on the Chair Farce. "Keep the A10's flying, else we take them from you and we start having armed fixed wing airplanes again." Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

Why exactly is that?

[James1978]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, under House Resolution 4739 the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 that the Army retired.

.....................................

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason. There was a pretty good study done on incorporating A-10's into Army Aviation - including Warrant Officer Pilots, something that was felt would have been very popular.

But are they breaking the law? H.R. 4739 was passed during the 101st Congress (1989-1990). That was twenty years ago and before Desert Storm. What one Congress decrees, the next one can repeal. My guess is that a subsequent Congress repealed that particular provision, probably not long after Desert Storm

[James1978]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

You do realize that was at a time when there was a general push to have the active duty component and reserve component using the same equipment. Guard/Reserve units got F-16s pretty quickly too.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by James1978

You do realize that was at a time when there was a general push to have the active duty component and reserve component using the same equipment. Guard/Reserve units got F-16s pretty quickly too.

And the ANG/AR continued to fly F-4/A-7s until when? The F-16s went to the ANG units with the NORAD mission first and then started to replace F-4s....but some ANG units deployed to PG with F-4s at least in the Wild Weasel and recon roles.