How badly would the GAU-8 damage a modern MBT?

[Ringo876]

I know it shoots 30mm rounds, but it shoots a buttload of them at once. Say an A10 did a full 3 second burst of rounds on an Abrams for example, how would the results be? Is it really only useful against more lightly armored vehicles, such as APC's?

[WNxLT7]

I believe this has been asked before and the expert on this particular topic would have to be Liquid Cow. Last time I checked it doesn't do squat to "modern" MBT's. Even to top armor where there is relatively little armor the 30mm just doesn't cut it. However, against all other targets such as light tanks, APC's, technicals, etc... The GAU-8 pulverizes them.

[BetterDeadThanRed]

I was under the impression that they were perfectly capable of achieving a "disabling" kill through destroying the treads, optics, gun, ect., but punching a killing hole through the armor was slightly more difficult. To be honest, tank busting is more or less the role of ATGMs.

[BloodBane611]

The reason for mavericks is, as betterdead said (sweet rhyme), they're very effective against heavy armor. GAU-8 will take out a lot, but I don't think that modern MBTs are going to be easily destroyed by it, and the longer it takes to destroy one with the cannon the more time spent in hostile area, so ATGMs are there to make the job quick.

[Liquid_Cow]

Sorry, did someone say my name?

There is a report from the 80's where the Air Force was questioning the effectiveness of the GAU-8 against modern armor. The biggest problem with it is the fact that due to effective AAA and SAM threats the A-10's would have to stay low, very low, and would be unable to hit top armor. Against frontal armor the 30mm does nothing. As for mobility kills, they are possible, as is destroying things like the optics on the tank, but those are tough shots. Consider how small of a target the optics are, you're moving at 250knts, and you're probably yanking and banking to avoid MPADs (like SA-7'S). From the front tracks are also hard to hit, as you'll be attacking at about a 10 degree dive and they are slopping the other way. From the side there's a better chance of hitting a wheel or link, and the armor there is weaker, though at a downwards angle you're not likely to hit anything of consiquence to get a real kill. Rear attack is the most sucessfull angle of attack, especially if the external fuel tank is full. At any angle you might get a turret kill by damaging the turret ring, but again small target.

Now fast forward to today, and the A-10 enjoys a "safe" sky with no real threats. Steep angle of attack makes top attack possible, there the 30mm will kill a tank. If we were ever to go toe to toe with the Chinese, I think the A-10 would be absolutely invaluable, but they would not kill a lot of MBT's with their guns. Save that for softer targets and use Maverick's and such for tanks.

[Liquid_Cow]

Of course I found the report just after posting my reply...

Title of the report is "Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings versus Individual Soviet Tanks." from 1979

They used combat loaded Soviet T-62 tanks used as targets
The end results were...

The six tanks which were impacted received damage physically assessed as ranging from catastrophic in the case of two combat vehicles to negligible in the case of one tank attacked directly from the front.

This report was spun to the positive, it was one of the first realistic tests of the then young A-10, but note the result of the last test... negligible against frontal armor, and this vs. a T-62, not a 72 or 80 which has much better armor. The results were reviewed in the 80s and used as part of the reason the Air Force wanted to get rid of the "old, slow, and ineffective" A-10 in favor of an all missle F-16 based tank hunter. If not for the not so willing volunteers of the Republican Guard which showed that the A-10 could be an effective CAS the Warthog would already be history. Keep your eyes open for the A-10C which is a massive upgrade of the existing fleet to modern electronics and intergrated fire control systems.

[[R-PUB]Viper5]

1 Shell might be only disabling. But in reality no vehicle is only hit by 1 shell.

GAU-8 > Modern Armored Vehicles

[Expendable Grunt]

Wait if it has a hard time against modern tanks...what the hell good is it?

[Liquid_Cow]

Originally Posted by Expendable Grunt

what the hell good is it?

That's exactly what the Air Force asked when it sought to get rid of it in the 80's. By their logic, a multifunction platform (the F-16) was a better choice to spend their money on, so all the A-10's were transfered to reserve units and then being replaced by F-16's as the Reserves "upgraded". All other "slow movers" were phased out in this same period.

The problems with the F-16 became appearent during the 1st Gulf War. It was too fast to hit small targets on the quick. Its speed and resulting large turn radius meant it would loose visual on targets as it came back around for an attack run. It didn't have enough fuel to loiter for long. It could only carry a small fraction of what the A-10 could carry for ordinance. Most targets were "soft" and therefore using a $200,000 missle was not cost effective vs. the Avenger. The F-16 is not an armored platform and was easily damaged by small arms fire.

Troops on the ground loved the A-10. When they called for CAS an A-10 could be counted on to stay until no longer needed. It could fly right into enemy fire and not have to run home with its tail between its legs. Since most targets on any battle field are not tanks the A-10 is still a valuable asset. Sure the tanks may survive a strafe or two, but the fuel trucks and ammo carrier won't. A-10's fly low enough and slow enough to act as forward observers for other units, as well as provide fast recon by fire into hot zones. This is not a new lesson for the Air Force. They've had to learn it 3 times now. In Korea when jets were all the rage, prop aircraft was replaced as fast as they could build the new planes, but the best CAS plane of the war the F-51 Mustang. In Vietnam superior planes like the OV-10 and A-1 Skyraider which were the troop's favorites, were replaced by units with F-4's that didn't even have a gun and moved so fast its CEP was dangerous to friendly troops.

Now the USAF has seen the light again. Finally they are giving the A-10 some of what it needs. The A-10C will be a radical departure from the current fleet with lots of advanced avionics and the ability to intergrate into the modern digital battlefield. In low intensity conflicts like Iraq its the best plane to have for CAS. Should all out war happen with the likes of the Chinese it will be a real thorn in the side of Bejing's plans as it wipes out all soft targets it encounters, as well as many MBT's with Mavericks and other smart weapons.

read about the A-10C upgrade here

Hope that answers your question?

[[R-DEV]LeadMagnet]

I always figured the A-10's would make one hell of a Sandy. Great loiter time, realitive speed isn't that much higher than the pickup assets and it can carry enough ordanance to make folks think twice about moving in on the pax before pick up.