Video: Mini-documentary of the A-10 in support of Afghanistan war released

[harmonica]

looks like the F16s are the only aircraft that had more AI sorties than the A-10

so the A10s contributed a lot

The Sorties only tells the launches. Not what it did while on the mission. It's pretty meaningless. The problem the A-10 has is it's range, speed and more. If you load it out to do an actual bombing and strafing mission, the range is shortened due to him having to exchange fuel for munitions. The real problem with the A-10 is that he has very weak engine power. As a Tank Killer, he could lower his available external stores to get the range since his primary weapon would be his gun. Would have been devastating against massed tanks in Europe. But by 2001, many things had changed and they were looking for other missions for it. So they sent it out on a Scud and Surface to Air Destroy Mission where his gun was not the primary weapon. Hence, the loss of 4 in the opening days. That's dangerous work. He had to fly more sorties per day while looking for the targets with limited range. Luckily, he could operate from dirt runways if they were prepared and the support people were available on location. A lot of Ifs there. The A-10 was given a very dirty and dangerous job and it did the job. He was playing "Shoot me so I can shoot you" games with some mighty nasty things. There were better Aircraft for the job but we only had X amount of assets. Using either the A-10 or the AC-130 prior to cleaning out those Surface to Air weapons is damned dangerous so the loss of Aircraft happens. The F-15E would have been much better at the job but the F-15E was stretched mighty thin as was the F-16. The F-18 also got hit from those same assets. Welcome to war.

To say that any one Aircraft was more important than another is just playing political favorites. And the A-10s conception was political and economic from the very beginning. It still is today. If you removed the PR factor (whether real or perceived) the A-10 would have been completely gone out of the inventory by 2001. As it stands now, due to the airframes aging, it's not going to make it past 2023. That still gives it 5 decades and there are very few aircraft that have that kind of life. In 2003, it was already 30 years old. Outside of the engines, it was built right enabling it to make it to the end of life cycle. It's time to stop trying to find missions for it and move on to Fighters that can adapt in the air.

you have to measure it somehow

I really don't know how on this one. The A-10 started the battle out seeking Scud Sites. We do know that many of them were not real scuds. We don't really know how many were real. With the short flight time and range of a fully armed A-10, he would be making a huge amount of individual sorties with most not panning out. Some would. Then there is the utter confusion of battle. I doubt if all the records of all the AC are that accurate since there were so much going on at the same time. It's easy to list losses and air kills. It's easy to keep track of armor kills. But it's not so easy on when a bird is seeking a specific target which are allusive at best. So I give you this one.

I thought other aircraft did Scud hunts also
and they would usually have and secondary target/etc if they didn't find Scuds

if there is confusion for the A-10s, it would be equal for the other aircraft
post # 7 link gives a list of A-10 attacks---very impressive
these would've been more likely frontline attacks more so than B-52s---so they are helping the ground war
appears they killed about one third of the tanks

page 75 of post # 9 link shows A-10 greatly outnumbering all attack aircraft except FA-18s and F-16s
F-15E is only 2.6% pf the force while A-10s are 7%
etc
the FA-18s did not do as many CAS missions as the A-10 per the link
according to these numbers, the A-10s contributed a good part of the CAS support

 

[Daryl Hunt]

looks like the F16s are the only aircraft that had more AI sorties than the A-10

so the A10s contributed a lot

The Sorties only tells the launches. Not what it did while on the mission. It's pretty meaningless. The problem the A-10 has is it's range, speed and more. If you load it out to do an actual bombing and strafing mission, the range is shortened due to him having to exchange fuel for munitions. The real problem with the A-10 is that he has very weak engine power. As a Tank Killer, he could lower his available external stores to get the range since his primary weapon would be his gun. Would have been devastating against massed tanks in Europe. But by 2001, many things had changed and they were looking for other missions for it. So they sent it out on a Scud and Surface to Air Destroy Mission where his gun was not the primary weapon. Hence, the loss of 4 in the opening days. That's dangerous work. He had to fly more sorties per day while looking for the targets with limited range. Luckily, he could operate from dirt runways if they were prepared and the support people were available on location. A lot of Ifs there. The A-10 was given a very dirty and dangerous job and it did the job. He was playing "Shoot me so I can shoot you" games with some mighty nasty things. There were better Aircraft for the job but we only had X amount of assets. Using either the A-10 or the AC-130 prior to cleaning out those Surface to Air weapons is damned dangerous so the loss of Aircraft happens. The F-15E would have been much better at the job but the F-15E was stretched mighty thin as was the F-16. The F-18 also got hit from those same assets. Welcome to war.

To say that any one Aircraft was more important than another is just playing political favorites. And the A-10s conception was political and economic from the very beginning. It still is today. If you removed the PR factor (whether real or perceived) the A-10 would have been completely gone out of the inventory by 2001. As it stands now, due to the airframes aging, it's not going to make it past 2023. That still gives it 5 decades and there are very few aircraft that have that kind of life. In 2003, it was already 30 years old. Outside of the engines, it was built right enabling it to make it to the end of life cycle. It's time to stop trying to find missions for it and move on to Fighters that can adapt in the air.

you have to measure it somehow

I really don't know how on this one. The A-10 started the battle out seeking Scud Sites. We do know that many of them were not real scuds. We don't really know how many were real. With the short flight time and range of a fully armed A-10, he would be making a huge amount of individual sorties with most not panning out. Some would. Then there is the utter confusion of battle. I doubt if all the records of all the AC are that accurate since there were so much going on at the same time. It's easy to list losses and air kills. It's easy to keep track of armor kills. But it's not so easy on when a bird is seeking a specific target which are allusive at best. So I give you this one.

I thought other aircraft did Scud hunts also
and they would usually have and secondary target/etc if they didn't find Scuds

if there is confusion for the A-10s, it would be equal for the other aircraft
post # 7 link gives a list of A-10 attacks---very impressive
these would've been more likely frontline attacks more so than B-52s---so they are helping the ground war
appears they killed about one third of the tanks

page 75 of post # 9 link shows A-10 greatly outnumbering all attack aircraft except FA-18s and F-16s
F-15E is only 2.6% pf the force while A-10s are 7%
etc
the FA-18s did not do as many CAS missions as the A-10 per the link
according to these numbers, the A-10s contributed a good part of the CAS support

First of all, most armor was destroyed in the first 72 hours. During that time, the A-10 was tasked to destroy Scud Sites. Unfortunately, there were Sams in the mix as well which the A-10 is extremely vulnerable to as are all the other aircraft. We lost a number of Birds to Sams. But it was damned important to take out the Scuds since they could be used to attack our ground forces. Not many Scuds survived so the A-10 did it's job.

Buffs were launched from stateside bases loaded with 500lb bombs. They lifted off, met tankers, flew to Iraq, dropped their bombs in a carpet bomb mission, flew to Diego Garcia, landed, refueled, returned home, rearmed, got new crews and within 6 hours, launched again. There were 3 missions per aircraft in those 72 hours. Their job was to carpet bomb artillery and armor from an altitude that the Sams could not reach them. Their sortie rate was 100%. At the end of those 72 hours, our armor engaged what was left of the Iraqi active armor.

This was a big push to get to Bagdad fast. The lines were moving so fast that it was ahead of the supply chain for food. Our troops were sleeping in ditches, tired and damned hungry. Sometimes they didn't eat for 2 days. It took the Coolation 6 weeks to get to and hold Bagdad with the exception of the Airport who had the Red Guards who were top of the line troops. But this happened after the first 72 hours. Iraq was pretty well demoralized when the ground troops hit enmass. But there were pockets of extremely good enemy combatants that had to be handled the old fashioned way on the way in.

I don't care what you read into anything. The Buff was the primary tank killer and the A-10 was the primary Scud killer. The tanks destroyed were pretty well distributed to many types of Aircraft. And yes, the A-10 got it's licks in as well but not when the bulk was destroyed.

What came out of all this (not mentioning the obvious) was that we lost AC and Troops due to the Sam Sites that weren't dealt with. We did not have the assets to take them out first quickly. Hence the need of a stealthy attack fighter that can hit those Sams and Radar sites clearing the way for the 4th gen birds to do their jobs. Normally, it would have been the F-117 but there were just too many Sams for those few to deal with. Hence the need for something like the F-35 which is designed to take out the Sams and Radar Sites with very little danger to themselves. Until those sites are taken out, everything that can be painted on Radar is in jeopardy. Those 4 A-10s that were lost had Human Pilots onboard. While we can make more Aircraft easily and quickly, we can't put a price on those Humans. There were a lot of Humans put in jeopardy.

And that is the reality.

 

[harmonica]

the A-10s destroyed almost one third of the tanks destroyed
most of the armor was destroyed in first 72 hours of ground war or start of air campaign?--please link
please link tanks destroyed by aircraft other than the A-10

 

[Daryl Hunt]

the A-10s destroyed almost one third of the tanks destroyed
most of the armor was destroyed in first 72 hours of ground war or start of air campaign?--please link
please link tanks destroyed by aircraft other than the A-10

You keep repeating the same lie over and over. I did a search to back your own opinion. The only cites were from opinion only sites. The numbers ranged from 1/3rd to over half depending on who is telling the story None were from government sites or military sites. I won't demand you show a URL so that I can toss it into the breeze. But it appears you are talking about 1991 and I am talking about 2003. Even so, your figures still don't add up. The 1991 war was a turkey shoot and everyone got involved for the first 6 weeks of killing anything that resembled equipment and troops from Iraq that were in Kuwait. There were 39 countries involved and thousands of Aircraft, missiles and more. Who killed what will never be totaled correctly.

Stick with 2003.

Most of the armor was destroyed in the first 72 hours. With only 167 A-10s being active and with them assigned to destroy the Scud Sites, the numbers just don't add up. Math and Physics are important here. And the A-10 can't be in 5 places at one time. Let's take a look at some numbers that are real.

M-1A bagged over 2000 pieces of armor including tanks in the first few days once the ground forces were released. This included all types including 10 captured M-60s. There were only 700 T-72 tanks and that was the best that could be fielded.

The British bagged 14

The A-10 is attributed for over 900 tanks of all types, claimed. As usual, I find that this is an exaggerated number. Actually, it's over 900 ARMOR and not just 900 tanks.

Iraq went into the war with about 2000 tanks. Not Armor, just tanks. They also had over 3900 Armor pieces like Mobile Cannons and Artillery. Not nearly as many as in 1991. But still enough to get the listed in the top 5 militaries of the world. So we total all that up. It comes to 4800 armor including tanks. When you figure in the 900 attributed to the A-10 you come up with less than 1/4th the total numbers. Closer to 1/5th.

So the bulk of the tank and armor kills goes to the .......wait for it....... The M-1A Abrams.

 

[harmonica]

the A-10s destroyed almost one third of the tanks destroyed
most of the armor was destroyed in first 72 hours of ground war or start of air campaign?--please link
please link tanks destroyed by aircraft other than the A-10

You keep repeating the same lie over and over. I did a search to back your own opinion. The only cites were from opinion only sites. The numbers ranged from 1/3rd to over half depending on who is telling the story None were from government sites or military sites. I won't demand you show a URL so that I can toss it into the breeze. But it appears you are talking about 1991 and I am talking about 2003. Even so, your figures still don't add up. The 1991 war was a turkey shoot and everyone got involved for the first 6 weeks of killing anything that resembled equipment and troops from Iraq that were in Kuwait. There were 39 countries involved and thousands of Aircraft, missiles and more. Who killed what will never be totaled correctly.

Stick with 2003.

Most of the armor was destroyed in the first 72 hours. With only 167 A-10s being active and with them assigned to destroy the Scud Sites, the numbers just don't add up. Math and Physics are important here. And the A-10 can't be in 5 places at one time. Let's take a look at some numbers that are real.

M-1A bagged over 2000 pieces of armor including tanks in the first few days once the ground forces were released. This included all types including 10 captured M-60s. There were only 700 T-72 tanks and that was the best that could be fielded.

The British bagged 14

The A-10 is attributed for over 900 tanks of all types, claimed. As usual, I find that this is an exaggerated number. Actually, it's over 900 ARMOR and not just 900 tanks.

Iraq went into the war with about 2000 tanks. Not Armor, just tanks. They also had over 3900 Armor pieces like Mobile Cannons and Artillery. Not nearly as many as in 1991. But still enough to get the listed in the top 5 militaries of the world. So we total all that up. It comes to 4800 armor including tanks. When you figure in the 900 attributed to the A-10 you come up with less than 1/4th the total numbers. Closer to 1/5th.

So the bulk of the tank and armor kills goes to the .......wait for it....... The M-1A Abrams.

1. you have not posted links that I asked for, to back up what you are saying
2. my link post # 7 says over 900 TANKS by A-10s
plus 500 APCs
they killed almost one third of the tanks
...do you have a link that says otherwise?
3. we are discussing aircraft tank kills--not tank vs tank

the B52s are not a tank killer like the A-10--do you have links that say other wise

 

[harmonica]

They were credited with killing 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 1,106 trucks, 51 SCUD missile launchers, and a shitload of support vehicles and bunkers.

Badass of the Week: The A-10 Warthog

 

[harmonica]

the A-10s destroyed almost one third of the tanks destroyed
most of the armor was destroyed in first 72 hours of ground war or start of air campaign?--please link
please link tanks destroyed by aircraft other than the A-10

You keep repeating the same lie over and over. I did a search to back your own opinion. The only cites were from opinion only sites. The numbers ranged from 1/3rd to over half depending on who is telling the story None were from government sites or military sites. I won't demand you show a URL so that I can toss it into the breeze. But it appears you are talking about 1991 and I am talking about 2003. Even so, your figures still don't add up. The 1991 war was a turkey shoot and everyone got involved for the first 6 weeks of killing anything that resembled equipment and troops from Iraq that were in Kuwait. There were 39 countries involved and thousands of Aircraft, missiles and more. Who killed what will never be totaled correctly.

Stick with 2003.

Most of the armor was destroyed in the first 72 hours. With only 167 A-10s being active and with them assigned to destroy the Scud Sites, the numbers just don't add up. Math and Physics are important here. And the A-10 can't be in 5 places at one time. Let's take a look at some numbers that are real.

M-1A bagged over 2000 pieces of armor including tanks in the first few days once the ground forces were released. This included all types including 10 captured M-60s. There were only 700 T-72 tanks and that was the best that could be fielded.

The British bagged 14

The A-10 is attributed for over 900 tanks of all types, claimed. As usual, I find that this is an exaggerated number. Actually, it's over 900 ARMOR and not just 900 tanks.

Iraq went into the war with about 2000 tanks. Not Armor, just tanks. They also had over 3900 Armor pieces like Mobile Cannons and Artillery. Not nearly as many as in 1991. But still enough to get the listed in the top 5 militaries of the world. So we total all that up. It comes to 4800 armor including tanks. When you figure in the 900 attributed to the A-10 you come up with less than 1/4th the total numbers. Closer to 1/5th.

So the bulk of the tank and armor kills goes to the .......wait for it....... The M-1A Abrams.

8000 sorties!!
that means they only have to kill a tank 1 out of 8 sorties!!!
exaggerated?? !!!!
no--it says over 900 TANKS

 

[Daryl Hunt]

1. you have not posted links that I asked for, to back up what you are saying

Neither of us have links other than opinion pieces.


2. my link post # 7 says over 900 TANKS by A-10s
plus 500 APCs
they killed almost one third of the tanks
...do you have a link that says otherwise?

Your link does not say that. Here it is from your very own link

A -1 0 The Air Force deployed 144 A-10s into the AOR. Air superiority allowed innovative employment of A-10s in a variety of roles. Primarily killing tanks in an interdiction role, the A-10 proved its versatility as a daytime SCUD hunter In Western Iraq, suppressing enemy air defenses, attacking early warning radars, and even recorded two helicopter kills with its gun --- the only gun kills of the war. While the A-10 flew almost 8,100 sorties, it maintained a mission capable rate of 95.7 % --- 5 % above its peacetime rates. Despite numerous hits and extensive damage, the A-10 proved it could do a variety of missions successfully.

You say that 900 tanks the A-10 destroyed made up a third of the tanks killed? Newsflash: Iraq lost over 4000 tanks inside of Kuwait. That's less than 1/4th attributed to the A-10. Math is not your strong suit.


And that is from 1991, not 2003. Please stay focused.




3. we are discussing aircraft tank kills--not tank vs tank

Let's keep focused here. The A-10 kills you are talking about happened in 1991 and in Kuwait. Not Iraq. I keep saying my info is from 2003 and it's inside of Iraq not Kuwait.


the B52s are not a tank killer like the A-10--do you have links that say other wise

In 2003, the Buffs were tank killers. The US opened with the Buffs hitting the Tanks and Mobile Artillery in swaths. Even before the A-10 got their first kills. This was done while the A-10 was Scud Hunting. Many of the Tank Crews saw their buddies go up in smoke and fire and threw open their hatches to get as far away from their tank as they could. Not exactly conventional methods. No expensive guided weapons, just dumb 500lb bombs, a lot of dumb 500lb bombs all at once. The Buff didn't get credit for those kills though.

Have you ever seen a carpet bomb happen? I have. It's friggin terrifying. It makes all other aircraft attacks other than nuclear look like pissants.

Now keep repeating your lie. Maybe at least one other person may actually be duped into believing it.

 

[harmonica]

you are freakin blind..post # 7 link gives the equipment/etc totals of the A-10 kills
you have provide no links
I've provided;
aircraft used
aircraft numbers
percentage of those totals
sorties
sorties by mission

you provided nothing

your post #24

raq went into the war with about 2000 tanks.

is it 4000 or 2000???!!!
WTF??!!
it doesn't matter!!...the M1s killed a bunch --as YOU say!! ---so the 900 the A-10s killed were a large percentage of aircraft tank kills

your eyes and math are terrible

where are your links?
your quote:[QUOTEThe problem I have is that it is given credit for the AC-130 that is the primary CAS platform.][/QUOTE]
61 sorties vs 8000 !!!I'd say the 130 is not even close!!!!!
let's times it by 10 cause they ''can stay on station a long time''
that's still 610 vs 8000 !!!!!!
the A-10 was much, much more the primary CAS in the Gulf War!! obviously


post # 7 stats-----

• 987 tanks destroyed
• 1,026 artillery pieces to include:
  • 501 Armor Personnel Carriers (APC]
  • etc

 

[Daryl Hunt]

you are freakin blind..post # 7 link gives the equipment/etc totals of the A-10 kills
you have provide no links
I've provided;
aircraft used
aircraft numbers
percentage of those totals
sorties
sorties by mission

you provided nothing

your post #24

raq went into the war with about 2000 tanks.

is it 4000 or 2000???!!!
WTF??!!
it doesn't matter!!...the M1s killed a bunch --as YOU say!! ---so the 900 the A-10s killed were a large percentage of aircraft tank kills

your eyes and math are terrible

where are your links?
your quote:[QUOTEThe problem I have is that it is given credit for the AC-130 that is the primary CAS platform.]

61 sorties vs 8000 !!!I'd say the 130 is not even close!!!!!
let's times it by 10 cause they ''can stay on station a long time''
that's still 610 vs 8000 !!!!!!
the A-10 was much, much more the primary CAS in the Gulf War!! obviously


post # 7 stats-----

• 987 tanks destroyed
• 1,026 artillery pieces to include:
  • 501 Armor Personnel Carriers (APC]
  • etc

[/QUOTE]

You seem to cherry pick between 1991 and 2003 at will. I posted your own cite and it didn't say what you said it did. Okay, some of what you say it does but not the high falutin' crap. Your Logic is flawed. Your math is flawed and you take a bit of fact and balloon it into an outright lie. Like I said, neither of us will be able to post a cite that covers everything either of us say since much of it is subjective. I deal in actual history while you deal in the "Make Believe". Fine. Enough of you. Ignore, Ignore, Ignore. I have proven my point. BTW, I have over 20 years in USAF. You can answer if you want but I won't see it.