Posted on 08/27/2016 7:24:01 PM PDT by DUMBGRUNT
Meet the tankbuster's mean cousin from Moscow....
However, as the Afghan rebels began to acquire Stinger missiles from the United States, Su-25s began to suffer losses and the Soviet pilots were forced to fly higher to avoid the man-portable surface-to-air missiles. In all, some fifteen Su-25s were shot down in Afghanistan before the Soviet withdrawal....
While it’s fun to admire high-performing fighters like the MiG-29 or F-22 Raptor, the unglamorous Su-25 has so far had a greater impact on a wide range of conflicts. We can draw a few lessons from its recent combat record.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
I remember reading when Erich Hartmann tried to shoot down his first Stormovik. He was surprised to see the bullets bounce off and the rear gunner almost got him.
Some of the experienced pilots told him you had to approach them from the rear and below. The Stormoviks typically flew really low just to guard against that.
I think it was the original flying tank.
Look at the beefed-up undercarriage on that thing. It could land on a patch of dirt (and frequently did)
It is also said to carry a toolkit for in-field service and repairs.
Hartmann had to crash land his plane his first two times in combat. This was on the Steppes of Russia. He thought you only bailed out if both wings fell off and the plane was on fire.
He went on the shoot down 352 Russian planes confirmed and probably double that in actuality.
That was fun, and the comments ‘interesting’.
I have owned several Russian weapons - rifles and pistols of both modern and historic vintages.
I can attest to their being not necessarily “glamorous” but built with “substance.” Kind of like Timex watches - they “keep a linking and keep on ticking.”
I think it’s a preoccupation of all Russian designers.
< /johncameronswayze >
What’s interesting was that the Soviet design requirement for what became the Su-25 came out within one year of the same USAF requirement for a low-flying, highly-maneuverable, and heavily armed ground attack plane. The USAF got the A-10, and the Soviets got the Su-25. Both were designed for one mission: low altitude interdiction of armored vehicles, including tanks.
They say that great minds think alike; so do idiots.
I just re-read my post #9.
I think I better quit posting for tonight.
(”Keep a linking?????”)
I just read "The Revolt of the Admirals" speaking to this topic. I am glad our ground pounders got cover in the form of the A10 and Naval aviation.
They never called their neat little machine pistol a Krinkov. It was the Okurok, or ‘cigarette butt’.
Bet it was a fun to fire and keep on target. Believe that was another name for it, ‘little bitch’. Can’t recall the Russian name.
I’ve read their tanks, the T34 particularly would rattle your bones.
I like AKs too.
CAS planes have had a bigger impact on the battlefield than any other plane in history. It’s shame the US air force hates them. We should have a ground controlled cheap CAS drone for every unit out there but the air force hates the idea.
That’s a lot of hard points.
US supported the wrong side.
Actually I think the A-10 was specifically designed by the tank busting role, while the Su-25 was developed for close air support, thought there is a tank buster version.
Agreed. Not refined - however, very reliable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.