Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: A-10 Thunderbolt
Message-ID: <10404@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 89 01:41:56 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 36
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>From: raymond@io.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man)
>	I think Ray Braybrook (who knows this gentleman?) said
>the whole A-10 concept revolved around the 30mm ...
>[mod.note:  Never heard of him, myself...

British fighter designer turned aviation writer.  He *usually* knows
what he's talking about, although like anyone he's got his own biases.

>	No, I doubt that the 30mm will penetrate a T-72's front armor;
>	but if you've ever seen a demo film of this gun firing, the
>	incoming rounds literally fall like rain, hitting every
>	exposed part of the tank which, from any reasonable angle of
>	attack, includes the thin deck armor.  - Bill ]

Um, what's a reasonable angle of attack for an A-10 coming in at treetop
height to avoid hostile fire?  Virtually horizontal, I'd say... which
means hitting the front armor unless the A-10 makes a detour to come in 
from the side.

Remember that the USAF does not take the "train the way you fight"
attitude to low flying:  in wartime there'd be leaf stains on the underside
of the A-10s after missions, but the USAF doesn't train that low.  So the
demo films are not necessarily representative of wartime conditions.

>	With so much smart autonomous anti-tank munitions
>coming up, probably a low and fast (unmanned?) platform
>will be sufficed, I think.

If the smart autonomous munitions work, that is.  It is necessary to plan
for the possibility that they won't.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu