Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Granted its the Airforce but the A-10 is today's beloved CAS aircraft. All my army buddy's absolutely love that thing, at least one of em has had his skin saved by a pair of A-10s.

To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: flanyboy

Granted its the Airforce but the A-10 is today's beloved CAS aircraft. All my army buddy's absolutely love that thing, at least one of em has had his skin saved by a pair of A-10s.

To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.

But it's not a fighter...

To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.

But it's not a fighter...

To the infantry a plane is a plane...

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

To the Infantry, the A-10 is the best looking plane ever made.

But it's not a fighter...

To the infantry a plane is a plane...

But it makes a big difference to a pilot. Why do you think the A10s were given to the reserves?

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

But it's not a fighter...

To the infantry a plane is a plane...

But it makes a big difference to a pilot. Why do you think the A10s were given to the reserves?

Herwin, I don't understand your point.[&:] The A-10 isn't a fighter, but that is like saying that a tank isn't a sports car.

For close air support, the A-10 was/is very effective:

The A-10 Thunderbolt II is an American single-seat, twin-engine jet aircraft developed by Fairchild-Republic for the United States Air Force to provide close air support (CAS) of ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets, also providing a limited air interdiction role. It is the first U.S. Air Force aircraft designed exclusively for close air support.

The A-10 saw combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 1,000 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 military vehicles, and 1,200 artillery pieces. A-10s shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 gun. Seven A-10s were shot down during the war, far fewer than military planners expected. A-10s had a mission capable rate of 95.7%, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90% of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict. Part of the reason for this success were the burning oil wells that provided Iraqi tanks some cover from advanced electronics and high-flying fighters like the F-15 and F-16, where the trained eye, longer gun range and stable gun platform of the A-10 proved its worth.

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.

Ahhh, must be it. The A-10 definitely wasn't a sexy beast, but it could sure put steel on steel.

Herwin, I don't understand your point.[&:] The A-10 isn't a fighter, but that is like saying that a tank isn't a sports car.

For close air support, the A-10 was/is very effective:

Herwin is quite correct, if you are a FI driver would you rather drive a tank or a sports car.

Fighter Pilots do like their hot rods and they like to compeat against other hot rods (at 20k plus feet). They don't like to "Do it in the dirt". [:D]

The A10 is a good A/C and does a good job at what it was designed for but it's not glamorous to shoot up tanks. WartHogs rule.[&o]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.

As far as I recall this was true. Back when I had some affiliation with the AF, all the pilots wanted F-15s. "All the real pilots flew them". To get an A-10 or F-111 assignment was almost as bad as being as flying a heavy. [;)]

Well as far as Heavy's go there is nothing sexier in the air force than the B-2. That damn thing is scary also.

As for sexy the Army for the most part do not like the air force, yea that’s not a huge revelation but they truly in the modern military have a real distaste for the air force that goes deeper than just rivalry, just like they do the navy. This probably is because of the fact that the navy hasn’t really been in a real conflict where its taken heavy losses since what WW2?

That said the army member do find one group of air force guys cool, and find their plane very sexy. That is the A-10.

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.

I think this all started when someone earlier in the thread tried to draw a comparison/analogy between the Corsair and the A-10...the Corsair while a great CAS plane was also a great fighter...whereas the A-10 is only used for CAS.

Idk man that A-10 could rock any helo it might have to dockfight.[:D]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

He's not debating the A-10s effectiveness. I think he's just saying that the A-10 is not a particularly sexy beast or popular choice for pilots to want to fly. As Herwin said, there's reason why it's only assigned to reserve squadrons. It definitely wasn't a sexy beast for Air Force strategic-bombing-only gurus. They almost had to have a gun to their head to procure/produce/deploy it.

Edited by the grammar police.

I think this all started when someone earlier in the thread tried to draw a comparison/analogy between the Corsair and the A-10...the Corsair while a great CAS plane was also a great fighter...whereas the A-10 is only used for CAS.

Probably a better comparison would be an A1-D Skyraider and the A-10. Both are supurb CAS aircraft. Interesting footnote on the A1-D, it was the last piston engine aircraft in US service to score air to air kills. Two instances of them downing MiG-17s during Vietnam.

And honestly, if you're a groundpounder under heavy enemy attack...any plane putting ordnance on the bad guys is sexy. [;)]

Yea but the A-10 is by far the best at it.[:D]

Air power is highly over-rated in the game and also in most any games concerning WWII. I attribute this to two things.

First there was a common theme on both sides in the conflict to exaggerate the effectiveness of air power. It was an easy scapegoat for commanders to use for their failures and generally air power was credited with far too much destructive power during and after the war.

Secondly the most important reason is the day and age we live in. Today air power and fire control are integrated into the battlefields. Therefore we accept accurate and instant air strikes that always find their mark without question because it's part of our reality.

But the truth is ground support didn’t even exist when the war broke out, and the US Marines didn’t start experimenting with it until 1943.

If you look at the results of the Normandy preparatory bombardment you can get an idea of how unreliable air power was during WWII. They were bombing fixed positions on the edge of a continent with a clearly defined beach line to show them where their bombs should hit. Yet most of the bombs fell tens of miles inland and very few hit their targets.

Later the carpet bombings that preceded operation Cobra killed 700+ US troops when the bombs fell within their own side’s lines. 700 men, that’s an entire battalion killed and probably a regiment or more worth were wounded.

The real benefit of air power during the war was interdiction. The threat of 2 fighter bombers circling a battlefield was far more valuable then what damage they could actually cause if they attacked something. Just their presence could keep an entire division pinned in place until nightfall.

Niklas Zetterling wrote an awesome book (http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/001126.shtml) on the Normandy campaign and has posted some of what he’s published on his web page here.

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/

Of direct interest to the discussion is this article on the myth of the effectiveness of airpower.

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normand ... power.html

As you can see far fewer German tanks were destroyed by air power than has been generally accepted through the years. I once did some research about the Pz Lehr division after the Cobra breakout, and I think the division lost only 38% of its combat tanks in the 2-3 days of fighting. Yet history claims the division was *wiped out* by the air bombardment.

I think WitP exaggerates the effectiveness of airpower in WWII 20 fold. At most a large air strike on a division should cause perhaps 10% disruption. Its main effect should be to slow the movement of the unit, by perhaps cutting in half the number of miles gained.

Jim

So Jim, are you saying that air support is more dangerous to one's own troops than the actual targets?

After pointing out that

"Later the carpet bombings that preceded operation Cobra killed 700+ US troops when the bombs fell within their own side’s lines. 700 men, that’s an entire battalion killed and probably a regiment or more worth were wounded."

you conclude with

"I think WitP exaggerates the effectiveness of airpower in WWII 20 fold. At most a large air strike on a division should cause perhaps 10% disruption. Its main effect should be to slow the movement of the unit, by perhaps cutting in half the number of miles gained."

So air attacks which are capable of killing a battallion and wounding a regiment's worth of your own troops are only capable of causing perhaps 10% disruption on an enemy division? I'm not sure that I follow this line of reasoning...

I agree that the case of most of the invasions (pacific and normandy) shows that aerial bombardment of entrenched troops was nowhere near as effective as the USAAF would like us to believe, but once you got out into the battle of maneuver across France (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and Germany) it was substantially more effective.

There were over 1700 planes in that bombardment, and in the grand scheme of things 700 men is less than 1% of a 14,000 man division, so even that should barley achieve 15%-20% disruption (if that).

The pz Lehr division only lost about 38% (this may be too high, I’m going off memory from when I designed all my Overlord scenarios for TOAW) of its combat effectiveness after 2-3 days fighting which was preceded with the largest bombardment of the war.

Most CAS raids in the war were conducted by flights of 4-12 planes and they were highly inaccurate. Roaming interdictors behind enemy lines had a lot more luck, but even they didn’t score lots of kills as his stats show for the campaign totals.

The fact is it was nearly impossible to hit deployed troops in WWII with airpower (moving troops in road march deployment was a completely different ballgame). And when massed bombers were used, accuracy was pathetically bad and results were not very good either.

Interdiction would be different than CAS, so your battle of maneuver example would fall under an interdiction category. But even so, no way should entire divisions in WitP be subjected to 60%-80% disruption from a 40-100 bomber strike as we see now.

As I said they should get slowed considerably if they are trying to move (with perhaps a small increase to disruption caused), but their fighting ability should not be so easily negated by 40-100 bomber raids.

Jim

P.S. Did you notice the allies lost about 1700 planes to flak while conducting that CAS in the 3 month campaign at Normandy? Flak was a huge part of the reason CAS was so inaccurate.

I was thinking that in the typical division there were three regiments. You were talking about one battallion killed and a regiment wounded - that's substantially more than 33% of a division incapacitated. Maybe my math is wrong...

OK I looked it up on Wiki, my memory was off. It was 600 casualties (100 killed) in the aborted first attack and 601 in the main attack (111 killed). So at most a battalions worth of casualties, not a regiment and only 200 killed.

Even so, this was spread out across many units so the affect wouldn’t have been devastating or very disrupting. This is evidenced by the success of the attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... tack_phase

The article states:

The assault units recovered rapidly from the bombing. Despite heavy casualties in some units, only one battalion needed to be replaced; every other unit attacked that morning. Some units were delayed but the attack commenced by 11:00.

Jim

Though with the prep to normandy the bombing went far inland because of two key factors 1 fog, 2 heavy winds. A clear day it would have been very different. That said its clearly a huge weakness to say that you need perfect weather.

However at least on the stratigic scale US bombing did in fact cripple the German oil industry though underground production allowed massive numbers of planes to be constructed. It was rather irrelivent without the massive synthetic fuel and oil industries set up.