The A-10

[TrailerParkJawa]

There were two incidents. Each time an A-10 shot down an Iraqi helicopter with its gun. They were the only air-to-air gun kills of the war to my knowledge.

[Sea Skimmer]

There was IIRC a case where an A-10 attacked and destroyed an airborne helicopter with its gun.

An F-15E shot down a hovering Iraq Mi-8 with a laser-guided bomb

The A-10 has two air-to-air kills to its credit, both Iraqi Mi-8's shot down with the 30mm cannon in the gulf war.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Hehee, I read about the bomb on the helicopter. They helicopter was taking off as it was being lased by an attacking aircraft. As the chopper took off, they just get pointing the laser on target.

I think the bomb went throught the rotors.

[Sea Skimmer]

are you sure? I thought it went on longer than that.

The A-10 production run did end in 1984. Remember, less then 500 examples where built and they where both cheep and fairly simple to build. However it had been expect that several other nations would buy them keeping the line open through 1988, Turkey and South Korea came close and several nations showed interest in a radar equipped naval strike version.

Thailand actually was going to buy them, but they wanted a somewhat twisted two seater model that would have proved uneconomical to produce due to the limited buy.

All these export deals of course never came off.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hehee, I read about the bomb on the helicopter. They helicopter was taking off as it was being lased by an attacking aircraft. As the chopper took off, they just get pointing the laser on target.

I think the bomb went throught the rotors.

There was also some IAF F-16's which shot down three Mi-8's and Mi-24's using Mavericks! of all things in 1982.

Helo vs 125 pound shaped charge. Which side would you want to be on?

[TrailerParkJawa]

Helo vs 125 pound shaped charge. Which side would you want to be on?

I wanna be on the safe side of the tv screen watching it happen on Discovery Channel.

This is off topic, but another interesting tid bit is from the Falklands conflict when British Marines engaged a Argentinian corvette with small arms and what ever bazooka they had. ( Carl Gustav , SMAW ? )

[Sea Skimmer]

Helo vs 125 pound shaped charge. Which side would you want to be on?

I wanna be on the safe side of the tv screen watching it happen on Discovery Channel.

This is off topic, but another interesting tid bit is from the Falklands conflict when British Marines engaged a Argentinian corvette with small arms and what ever bazooka they had. ( Carl Gustav , SMAW ? )

I'm not aware of any such incident, though it does sound familer. SMAW is an American thing. The British would likely have had LAW's and Possubly Milian's or Carl Gustavs

[Ted]

Helo vs 125 pound shaped charge. Which side would you want to be on?

I wanna be on the safe side of the tv screen watching it happen on Discovery Channel.

This is off topic, but another interesting tid bit is from the Falklands conflict when British Marines engaged a Argentinian corvette with small arms and what ever bazooka they had. ( Carl Gustav , SMAW ? )

I'm not aware of any such incident, though it does sound familer. SMAW is an American thing. The British would likely have had LAW's and Possubly Milian's or Carl Gustavs

Did they have Milans back then?
And the first combat use of the Stinger was by the SAS in the Falklands.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I thought the SMAW was made by the same company that produced the Gustav, anyway, Im pretty sure they did not have a Milan. Either way, LAWS and small arms against a corvette were not enough. They drove it back out into the bay where it promptly shelled them with 100mm fire.

Too bad they didnt have a Milan or some other weapon that might have given them a chance to take out the gun mount on the ship.

[Sea Skimmer]

I wanna be on the safe side of the tv screen watching it happen on Discovery Channel.

This is off topic, but another interesting tid bit is from the Falklands conflict when British Marines engaged a Argentinian corvette with small arms and what ever bazooka they had. ( Carl Gustav , SMAW ? )

I'm not aware of any such incident, though it does sound familer. SMAW is an American thing. The British would likely have had LAW's and Possubly Milian's or Carl Gustavs

Did they have Milans back then?
And the first combat use of the Stinger was by the SAS in the Falklands.

The Milan dates to the mid 70's.

[Sea Skimmer]

I thought the SMAW was made by the same company that produced the Gustav, anyway, Im pretty sure they did not have a Milan. Either way, LAWS and small arms against a corvette were not enough. They drove it back out into the bay where it promptly shelled them with 100mm fire.

Too bad they didnt have a Milan or some other weapon that might have given them a chance to take out the gun mount on the ship.

The chances of hitting a 100mm mount with a Milan is pretty slim, I'd aim for the water line aft.


The SMAW is a Americanized Israeli B-300 rocket launcher. It only entered service with US forces in 1984, and then only with the Marines. In the Gulf War the US Army however borrowed 150 launchers and 5000 rockets for its own use.

What you are most likely thinking of is the M136 AT-4, which is basically a single shot throwaway Gustav. It is made by FFV Ordnance, Sweden and Alliant Techsystems

I'm still digging on this incident. However I had been quite sure for some time that no Argentinean naval vessels where in the islands during the war, only some moderate sized coast guard cutters and armed fishing vessels.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The battle happend on South Georgia Island. I first read about this account while browsing around at the San Jose State Library. Its always intrigued me.

Here is a link. It was Carl Gustav after all. The ships name was Guerrico.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falkl ... orgia.html

[Nathan F]

I have an idea. Wouldnt it be great to put a GAU-8 in the turret of a Bradley fighting vehicle or other armored vehicle (tanks, LAVs, APCs, etc). I mean, a couple rounds can take out most tanks, and they could be used in a pinch for just about anything. hehe, if i was in an, I wouldnt mind having that kind of punch on a small armored vehicle if i was i it.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

We still have China, dont we? Maybe there should be a sixth branch of the Military with nothing but precision strike weapons.

China isn't going to attack us. They aren't stupid. The last thing they want to do is get into a war when their economy is developing nicely.

[phongn]

I have an idea. Wouldnt it be great to put a GAU-8 in the turret of a Bradley fighting vehicle or other armored vehicle (tanks, LAVs, APCs, etc). I mean, a couple rounds can take out most tanks, and they could be used in a pinch for just about anything. hehe, if i was in an, I wouldnt mind having that kind of punch on a small armored vehicle if i was i it.

The only reason the GAU-8 can engage tanks on the A-10 is because of the top-attack profile. Mount it on a Bradley and it'll be just as effective as it's 25mm - ie not at all. Plus, it's an ammunition hog (with heavy ammunition to boot).

[Nathan F]

Well, the 30mm can penetrate armor better than the 25, and it can be carried on a tank turret as well as in the nose of an A-10, with room to spare, but the gun is what does the penetration of armor, not the plane.

[phongn]

Well, the 30mm can penetrate armor better than the 25, and it can be carried on a tank turret as well as in the nose of an A-10, with room to spare, but the gun is what does the penetration of armor, not the plane.

Yes, but when the plane attacks with the GAU-8, it hits the weakest armor - the top. Seriously, if a 120mm smoothbore has problems penetrating modern tank armor, what makes you think a pidly 30mm one will?

And while the gun itself isn't that large, the ammunition storage is, which you conveniently ignored.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Weapons that only appear on certain vehicles most likely have reasons why they only appear on them. For instance, when the Abrams tank was in development, they thought about putting 40mm rapid-firing grenade launchers used as air-to-ground weapons on helicopters. However, with the computer they used to help make decisions, they found that the grenade launchers were only effective on a helicopter because it was much, much faster than a tank. On a tank, the muzzle velocity would be far too low to be effective.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The Marine Corps has an Air Defense varient of the LAV. It has a chain gun, although it is not the GAU-8. The GAU is too big to mount in a APC type vehicle.

[Nathan F]

Weapons that only appear on certain vehicles most likely have reasons why they only appear on them. For instance, when the Abrams tank was in development, they thought about putting 40mm rapid-firing grenade launchers used as air-to-ground weapons on helicopters. However, with the computer they used to help make decisions, they found that the grenade launchers were only effective on a helicopter because it was much, much faster than a tank. On a tank, the muzzle velocity would be far too low to be effective.

Uh, the averave speed of a helicopter (~120kts) and the top speed of a M1A Abrams (bout 60 mph) would not make that much of a difference when it comes to muzzle velocities of the 40mm. Honestly, i dont see what you are saying. I mean, the marines use a ground mounted troop carried 40mm autmatic grenade launcher, and im sure they have been mounted on hummer roofs and possibly turret hatch mounted on tanks.

[Kuja]

Quote:China isn't going to attack us. They aren't stupid. The last thing they want to do is get into a war when their economy is developing nicely.

They aren't stupid, but they ARE kinda crazy.

[Nathan F]

Quote:China isn't going to attack us. They aren't stupid. The last thing they want to do is get into a war when their economy is developing nicely.

They aren't stupid, but they ARE kinda crazy.

yes, as of right now, our 'dollar diplomacy' with china is going good. Although i personally dont think that we should trade so openly with a communist country. At any time, some kook could get into power and use their fairly large military against us.

[Kuja]

Oh, I forgot this:

With their giant pop. China thinks they can absorb devastating nuke losses and still win a war. Your take?

[Nathan F]

Hehe, how the heck does a debate on the plusses and minuses of the A-10 get into a discussion of economic geo-politics? lol

[Kuja]

Because its us.