A Look At Russia's Version Of The A-10 Warthog

Yep. On leave right now back in the US. I'm stationed in Germany.

I'm not here to impress a Canadian. In fact, I pitty them.

I do not want a war with Russia. It's the last thing I want. I think they should be our friends. However if a war broke out with them, there'd be no fear on our side. It'll be a rowdy one

 

Ain't that the truth.

And we did it two times.

If we hadn't, it's likely my father would have been KIA during the invasion of Japan and I wouldn't be here today.

 

IMO, we should nuke them one more time just so they don't get any ideas...

 

You watch too much FOX news.

SHOCKING! United States Navy has NO defence against Russian jets!

[video=youtube;Tt9nIIBN3O4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt9nIIBN3O4[/video]

[video=youtube;qJFnDfvUVGc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJFnDfvUVGc[/video]

 

I think they got the message and so did the rest of the world.

 

Only too bad your leaders are deceiving you:

[video=youtube;x7xyd_IRgGs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7xyd_IRgGs[/video]

 

This has nothing to do with the comment I made. Are you a propaganda spam bot that cannot understand the text you quoted?

Kremlin Army swings and misses

 

Great post. Thank you.

 

Well, you're the one chest-thumping here that you are in the 'greatest army of the world' of a country that 'has the balls to nuke another country'.

But apparently you don't do much thinking, because if you look at what your leaders are saying it's nothing good coming from them.

 

Maybe some soldiers are dumb. Maybe not. But that won't stop them from killing the enemy

 

Hear say.

Bob Woodward (Washington Post ) heard one of Kissinger's political enemies saying that Kissinger said it to then Alexander Haig, Nixon's newly appointed White House chief of staff back in 1973.

The scuttlebutt was Kissinger was upset that the Air Force canceled a B-52 strike on Haiphong, North Vietnam because of (*)(*)(*)(*)ty weather.

Gen. Haig's response to Kissinger so they say "It wasn't the military who deactivated the battleship USS New Jersey, battleship sailors laugh at (*)(*)(*)(*)ty weather."

 

When there was much more hair on my head, I travelled. And on one sacred mountain in India (between Puna and Bombay), I stumbled across an old man, who shared words of wisdom to me. He said, - Son, do not trust mysterious aeronautical specialists from closed public forums in internet. Afterwards, he had another shot of Johnny Walker and fell asleep.

Stuka was not just a dive bomber. It was an outdated dive bomber, archaic by the middle of the war. Why discuss a concept that has only one strong side which is cheapness?

Radial engine is not possessed by miracles. Big radial engine has roughly the same internal pressure, its cylinders are typically larger in volume but with same wall thickness, they have to be exposed to the cooling airflow from the front, still made out of aluminum and magnesium and are much easier to hit than V-shape from head on. Radial engine is capable to bring you home if one or two cylinders are perforated by enemy fire, this is their main true advantage above the V-shape (which will loose oil and coolant quickly). But V-shape is smaller and much more compact. Radial engine enjoys this advantage only in unarmored versions. If you conceal the engine behind armor, you can have much, much more protection for V-shape, than radial.

I think you got the idea wrong. Pilots love radial for the protection it provides to the pilot not because it is indestructible. You will have zero problems trashing the engine with AK from 100m, in terms of power output. But it is true, you can spend hours trying to punch it through to reach the pilot that is hidden behind it (head on).

Corsair is a very questionable CAS solution, very unsafe, you can compensate it with bravery, with tactics with experience, basically no one asks your opinion weather you want to take the mission, but eventually you compensate it with lives… Corsair is a flying brick when low and slow. Your survival depends less on your skill and more on the skill of enemy AA gunner. And there is not much you can do if you are jumped by Japs with altitude advantage. Corsair is a speed and energy fighter. Very good energy fighter. HellCat is much safer for CAS, with much better handling at low speed and better maneuverability. Thou the payload is smaller.

Generally I agree that theatres are very different. Skyraider is dead meat above German or Russian trenches but Il2 or Henschell will simply not handle the humongous distances US approach used to cope with. Skyraider is definitely not the best. It is still a make shift ground attack plane. It had terrible performance in the first years (same as Il2 and Henschell), it was newer tested against an equal enemy versus serious AA or heavy enemy air presence, it lacks the armor to be a flying tank. It can be considered “the best” only if you are comparing it with US models only.

Lowe the Skyhawk, but hate the cheap all-around strike plains. Check history, one way or another, their losses turn out to be simply huge. More Skyhawks lost in Vietnam than any other plane. From one point of view this looks like trying to cover up a failure. On the other hand, imagine how many people they have saved because they wear available when more protected but expensive solutions wear not.
And, I really like the bird

A10 is good. More suitable for CAS than SU25, less survivability but better loitering. SU25 is better in BAI. But this is rubbish, both planes will be used for CAS and BAI alike, when the opportunity or a necessity will arise.

 

Nope, Russian young man are not waiting to pick up AK74 and to head on to defend Mother Russia . They want stupid I-phones, fancy cars, good education, good health care, girls, good books, bad books, more beer, new Star Wars film edition, to works less for more money, e.t.c. Some of them are snowflakes, some of practice 42km runs through forest obstacle course with 40kg backpacks, just for fun.
They are the same as majority of young man around the world.

 

US government, have studied the question in a Bombing Survey in 1946. 200 volumes for Europe, 100 volumes for Pacific, the comity consisted of 1000 men two thirds are military. And stated in plain English language that Nuking the cities had no effect on ending the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Strategic_Bombing_Survey
Major US war leaders agreed with this conclusion including the person that planned the bombings.
Can we please end this discussion?
The US Government thinks that Hiroshima and Nagasaky did not help to end the war!
Your father is perfectly safe!

 

I higly doubt you have any data to actually prove that (ridicolus) claim.

Doesn't really matter how you call it. Bottom line is that in both cases the aircraft is supposed to perform it's task in the direct vincity of the enemy, probably under AAA, manpads and low-range SAM. Both Su-25 and A-10 was designed under these conditions.

 

The most heaviest anti air defense in history was in North Vietnam from 1965 to 1973.
1/2 of all American losses over North Vietnam was from AAA. (Anti aircraft artillery.)

During Roaring Thunder the U.S. Navy used the A-1 for deep strike missions and were very successful. The reason why the Navy replaced the A-1 with the A-4 was because the U.S. Navy wanted all avgas off of their aircraft carriers. Avgas fumes are extremely explosive.

When the counter culture liberal anti war protesters found out what Navy A-1 Skyraiders were dropping on North Vietnam they got really really pissed off and protested on the streets. -> http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/Humor/Toilet_bomb.html

 

PC liberal revisionist history.

Ask any U.S. Marine who was on Iwo Jima or any American soldier, sailor and Marine and Royal Navy sailors who participated in the battle for Okinawa, they saw it differently.

 

Close Air Versus Interdiction

Close air support can look like interdiction, and vice versa. To help reduce the confusion, finding common areas of agreement and disagreement is useful. An air attack on enemy forces crossing the wire 50 yards from friendly troops, and controlled at least indirectly by the concerned ground commander, certainly is close air support. Just about everyone will agree that air attack on enemy troops within rifle range of friendly forces also is considered close air support. Similarly, just about everyone would agree that air attack on a tank factory is not. Clearly, substantial room is left between these two extremes.

Procedure might provide a basis for identification. One could say that aerial attack on anything within range of artillery would be close air support, because attacks on targets in that zone would require coordination with the ground commander. This answer is not completely satisfactory, however, because targets within artillery range -- say 20 miles -- possibly may have nothing to do with the current ground situation. Targets in this category might include airfields on which air combat fighters are located, radars used as part of the enemy early-warning system, or even enemy troops that happened to be moving laterally across that sector of the front. Procedure not only does not solve the problem, it expands the area of confusion. Another approach is needed.


Let us define close air support as any air operation that theoretically could and would be done by ground forces on their own, if sufficient troops or artillery were available. Under this definition, air strikes on troops crossing the wire certainly would fit the category. Aerial bombardment of the enemy line, preparatory to an offensive, also would fit, because artillery could do that job. Using air to hold a flank fits under the rubric of close air support, because an extra division or corps could be assigned flank-holding duties. Aerial attacks on enemy troops moving laterally across the front does not fit, however, because ground forces have no realistic way to deal with that kind of action (other than perhaps harassing fire of some sort). If an air action does not fall within this definition, for our purposes, it will be either interdiction or air superiority.

This definition may or may not agree with the definition currently in use in any particular army or air force. It is not important that it does. What is important is that air -- and ground -- commanders go through a mental exercise to differentiate between close air support and all other air operations. It is of more than theoretical importance that they do so.

Ground Commanders are in Charge

Ground commanders are basically in charge of close air support in the sense that they specify the targets. Naturally, ground commanders tend to concentrate on their immediate job, which is to advance on the ground or to prevent the enemy from doing so. If the definition of close air support becomes too broad, then these commanders in effect exercise control over great parts of the air forces. In fact, this very thing happened to the Luftwaffe on the Russian front, where the army monopolized air assets. Only in 1944, when it was too late, did the army recognize that interdiction would have been far more productive than close air support...
continue -> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/wrdchp07.htm

Source -> The Air Campaign
Planning for Combat
-> http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/warden/ward-toc.htm

 

And what makes you think so, may I ask?
I mean Germany produced more 2cm Flaks alone, than Vietnam had AA pieces at all, ever.
Why would Vietnam AAA suddenly become the heaviest?

It is Re-Revisionist history
Back to what your grandparents have stated

 

One of the official US definitions is;
"Close air support (CAS) is air action by fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces."

So I'd say BAI is targets discovered ahead of the FEBA which are well clear of friendly units, compared to strike which is pre-planned targeting.

So CAS is about weapon delivery accuracy, placement and selection more then the platform delivering it. If those things are met, then the safer the delivery platform the better, hence why F35 et al are the way to go because sensors and weapons these days are much better for CAS then ever before. BAI needs an effort to find, identify and then engage which is where the USMC have been doing the good stuff with their armed recon and strike coordination taskings to support the close air and air interdiction applications as required. Leaving strike to the IADS penetration packages run by the specialist USAF types, cruise missiles, or anything which can get in and out and do the job.

 

Generally I disagree with both statements

CAS mission is something that should newer happen, theoretically. In ideal war your soldier should newer fire his rifle at the enemy. He should only walk over enemy’s dead body that was torn to pieces by a long range fire. Careful planning, accurate intelligence, high tech equipment allows us to take out the enemy without a need of risking a soldier’s life in close combat. Theoretically.
That is something that newer happens. Every now and then, recon screws up, mission planning goes wrong, supply gets lost, (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan and you hear your grunts on the ground asking for fire support in an area that is unreachable for artillery. And that is when specialized CAS plane kicks in.

CAS plane is something that we need when something went wrong, not according to plan. The targets are unmarked, no info on enemy AA, no data on aerial superiority, weather is horrible, GPS is dead, no info on enemy and friendly locations, everyone is shooting everywhere, the forces on the ground are in close combat and unable to direct you, they are pinned down by heavy fire, radio is gone, they are overrun or already scattered or already dead.

This means that CAS plain should be able to operate in unfavorable conditions.
This means that the aircraft should be able to return home after taking a hit from manpad (two engines), it should be heavily armored to survive small arms and mobile AA fire (not a fighter, not a light craft), it should handle best at low speed and alt (no swept wings), good observation (poor aerodynamic shape), it should be numerous to be available 24x7 (cheap, affordable, simple), e.t.c.

IMHO the platform itself is important if we are talking about CAS.
The only possible competitors are the drones.

 

In your scenario its likely neither an A10 nor attack helo would be much help. The cloud base could be too low, enemy airpower might be present, target cannot be seen from the air, cannot confirm location of friendly forces, etc etc.

If you lost mortar support, your arty is unavailable, no naval gunfire and you cannot see who is shooting you to mark them, cannot withdraw or communicate with anyone - then hoping for accurate Close Air Support might be a bit more a dream then a reality. A10's are not invincible, and weapons are getting better. But sure I can imagine dozens of scenario's which would fit an A10 perfectly, but no-one can have a platform for every scenario.

The only reason your not suggesting an attack helo in your example, is because your drawing an arbitrary line for survivability, despite that they could find friendly forces more easily in your scenario.

In your clusterfrak they dont even know what weapons the enemy has... so as available weapons capabilities continue to increase, not knowing the enemy threat nature cannot be taken to mean low threat, it needs to be treated as if its high threat until shown otherwise - at least with manned platforms. Drones are the best solution if they can be secure enough, but mostly because they are cheap and expendable. Otherwise protecting the manned platform needs to be a priority as much as the weapons, sensors and communication allow!!! Which goes to my point.

 

Drones are the last choice for CAS.

In a CAS mission the FAC on the ground has to be in complete control and the pilot providing the CAS has to have an eye on both the enemy target and the friendly troops and their front line at all of the the same time. Drones can't do that with out a high risk of fratricide.

Drones are pretty limited to what weapons they can put on target, basically only Hellfire missiles. Drones can't take on area targets or provide strafing runs that seem to be a lost art in CAS today.

I'm a former Marine ANGLICO. Did a tour of duty in Vietnam as a naval gunfire spotter. Five months with HQ Batry 1/13 usually attached (TAD) to 1/26 and 2/26 and my last seven months in-country was with Sub Unit One 1st ANGLICO and was exposed or participating on conducting CAS missions. When I made corporal I first was assigned as a NGF radar beacon leader. Probably the most scariest days in the Nam but that's a different story. I finally got my first NGF spot team when I was sent down to the Marines ANGLICO Plt. at Hoi An. When we went out into the bush we usually had a Marine FAC team along with us with a Marine fighter jock in command of the FAC team. Usually a Marine captain of major who flew F-4's, A-4's or F-8's.

Most fire support missions (Arty, NSFS, CAS) are pre-planned the day before. But there are times when you run into something and unexpectedly and he (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan.

That's when they say someone (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. usually intelligence ( S-2, G-2 ) or recon (Force Recon or Recon Battalion )

In Vietnam they tried to have two artillery fire bases to be able to provide artillery support for the grunts in the bush, But as you got further to the west near the Laos and Cambodian border you found yourself with out artillery support. The only support you had was CAS.

Back in the day the Army and Marines had a large selection of indirect fire support to choose from, 60 mm, 81 mm and 4'2"mortas. 105 mm , 155 mm 8" howitzers. 175 mm guns that were noting more than a naval gun on tracks. As for NGFS we had 5"/38, 5"/54, 6", 8" and the biggest gun of them all, the 16" naval gun.
For CAS we had the F-4 Phantom, A-4, A-6, A-1 Skyraider, OV-10 Bronco, F-105, F-100, and Puff the Magic Dragon the AC-47 and the AC-130.

Lets not forget the 106 mm recoilles rifle and the weapons platform that was credited for winning the battle at Hue, the ONTOS that had six 106 mm RR's.

I might be old schooled and old Corps (thank you Obama) but nothing has changed in calling in a CAS mission except what aircraft that are available to be used, what ordinance are available to be used, (no napalm and willy peter, both have been declared by liberals to be politically incorrect) and some new acronyms are being used. (*)(*)(*)(*), the DoD has an entire office just thinking up new acronyms for the military.

This is the current publication that provides fundamental principles and guidance to plan, coordinate, and
execute close air support during joint operations. -> https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_09_3.pdf

Very little has changed over the decades except we aren't flying the proper aircraft to provide CAS, the best CAS munitions that saved American soldiers and Marines lives on the battlefield have been declared by liberals to be politically incorrect.

 

AR, have any books been written about ANGLICO in Vietnam?

Have you read this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Naval_Gunfire_Liaison_Company

 

There are a few books authored by former Sub Unit 1st ANGLICO Marines or Navy officers. One being by a ANGLICO Navy Lt. Cmdr. that I crossed paths with up by the DMZ. We only connected because we came from the same home town, Manhattan Beach. He wrote a novel about his experience during the Vietnam War while serving with ANGLICO. I forget his name or the title of the book he wrote, But back in the day he was known for directing a CAS mission that most say couldn't have been pulled off.

I served with 1st ANGLICO Sub Unit One, Naval Gunfire Platoon at Hoi An and we provided NSFS and CAS for the ROK Marines Blue Dragons and the Army's Americal Div.

There's a book that has been published on the history of 1st ANGLICO in Vietnam that I haven't read yet, "Lightning From The Sky Thunder From The Sea"

I wonder if my name shows up ???

A "Super Grunt" I heard scuttle butt that ANGICO was an elite force with in the Fleet Marine Force but we weren't super grunts.

The typical Marine who served with ANGLICO had GCT of 110 and qualified on the rifle range during boot camp with the M-14 and able to hit a target from 500 meters , Then like all Marines they went through ITR (Infantry Training Regiment) which was nothing more than individual infantry training. Basically familiarization of all of the cool weapons. Maybe some fire team or platoon size laying down fire but no infantry maneuvers tactics. That would be taught at BIT's (Basic Infantry Training) On the west coasrit was at Camp Horno,.

All Marines who had a 0300 MOS went through BIT's and became grunts, All other Marines reported to their MOS school.
In my case I had a 0849 MOS and reported to the Navel Gunfire School at the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado. We were issued M-1 Garands but never shot them with a life round.

After Naval Gun Fire School I got my West-Pac orders for Viet Nam. Staging Battalion at Camp Las Pulgas. Being issued a M-16 A-1 and four weeks retraining of what you were taught at ITR and what was taught at BIT's that most Marines never went through .Then they put you on a bus and drove to MCAS El Toro and you boarded a Continental Airlines 707 and dumped you off on the "Rock" (Okinawa) A few days later you boarded a Cathay Pacific 707 that dumped you off at the DaNang Air Base.