Posted on 09/16/2015 10:35:36 AM PDT by Trumpinator
Why do you think Washington wants to do away with the A-10?
Right. It doesn't matter what kind of tank you have if you're just going to jump out of it and run away.
I think our insurgent-terrorist-occupied-gubmint wants to cancel the A-10 because it is too effective.. too American.. Works too well against Islamists.
They probably already SOLD/Gave the plans to Russia and China.. maybe even Iran..
Why do you think Washington wants to do away with the A-10?
Because it’s NOT EXPENSIVE to make?.. keep.. have.. operate or deploy..
It’s TOO effective..
Tanks require an extensive supply and maintenance infrastructure in order to be effective. Not to mention training and leadership.
Good question, those aren’t exactly maintenance free machines. But with all the money ISIS has sloshing around from their oil production network, which we also haven’t bombed, i would guess they can pay top money for technicians.
At church a few months ago, a discussion began after church about what would happen if one of the Abrams on the nearby base went rogue. A couple of tank commanders were called over and they speculated that either several Abrams would go after it or helicopters and/or Warthogs would be called in. One of the commanders said that ‘you sure don’t want a Warthog hunting you.’ The other commander nodded in enthusiastic agreement.
There is a whole lot of “win/win” for Putin in Syria no matter what angle you ascribe to his machinations.
Very true. But still, every ISIS tank should be blown up just on general principle.
If there were a SERIOUS air campaign, no bomb loads would return.
Even if they had to drop them on the Turks, who are engaged only in suppressing and harassing the Kurds, the most effective anti-ISIS military force operating in the area.
Now, if you wanted to take out M1A1 Abrams tanks, being strafed by A-10 Warthogs armed with a General Dynamics GAU-8/A Avenger 30mm cannon, mounted in the nose of the aircraft, is exceptionally effective.
Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500m. The cannon can fire a range of ammunition, including armour-piercing incendiary rounds (API) weighing up to 0.75kg, or uranium-depleted 0.43kg API rounds.
The magazine can hold 1,350 rounds of ammunition. The pilot can select a firing rate of 2,100 or 4,200 rounds a minute.
One one- or two-second burst is generally enough to open up even the most heavily armored vehicle.
In addition, the A-10 carries a number of different configurations for missiles, including air-to-surface Mavericks, and air-to-air Sidewinders, capable of Mach-2.
Also a wide range of ordnance: for example, the LDGP mk82 226kg, 500lb general-purpose bombs, BLU-1 and BLU-27/B Rockeye II cluster bombs and the cluster bomb unit CBU-52/71.
Why we do not have some 200 of these deployed to the near area to Syria right now, is a continuing puzzle.
I doubt it was a T90 tank. Besides, we have the whole support chain for our tanks. What does ISIS have? Warm bodies to sit (and die) in the tank?
They should have put hidden GPS tracking on all that stuff so we could destroy at will.
Given the reliability record of the Lycoming turbine in the M-1, ISIS better have some top notch aircraft mechanics and access to OEM spare parts or they will be a stationary gun emplacement in short order.
I think much of the success of American Abrams tanks is attributed to their being networked, complete with drone feeds into their intel system, such that everybody can see the battlespace. I doubt ISIS has anything remotely similar. But it would be surprising if the Russians don’t have this technology. It’s been around a long time.
The number of tanks the Russians have in theater so far is just a bare minimum for force protection. They don’t want to be caught in a Blackhawk Down scenario the way Clinton did.
Because the Air Force wants to get rid of the Warthog and replace it with something less effective and more expensive.
ROE’s that result any any enemy injuries are out for sure. What was I thinking?
Go Trump Go. (Not who I’d pick given my druthers, but he understands winning. You can’t “tie” with ISIS.)
Oldplayer
I doubt if any have been destroyed.
This article says the artillery is self-propelled.
I’d say the Russians look pretty serious.
Very true. But, won't the ISIS crews will abandon their stolen tanks and sell THOSE to the Russians/Syrians/Iranians instead?
I also think Iraqi troops left because they joined up for a meal ticket and don’t feel like fighting what is probably very scary and demented guys who want to die in a blazing gunfight over a population they probably hate anyway (Shi’ites are mostly in military and ISIS took over Sunni lands).
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.