# A-10 vs Ju-87



## gjs238 (Dec 1, 2010)

The Stuka was wonderfully effective when air superiority was not an issue.
The Stuka took a beating when the Allies had air superiority.

Wonder if the A-10 Thunderbolt II would have suffered the same fate had there been a "WW III" European war (?)

Also interesting, the A-10 was named in honor of the P-47.
Guess it wouldn't have been politically correct to name it the A-10 Stuka II.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 1, 2010)

Think the A10 would have the edge in survivability over the Stuka. The JU87 wasn't built with that thought in mind. Armor was relatively light. The A10 was built with redundent systems, armored bathtub for the pilot and engine placement to withstand AAA to an extent beyond that of the Stuka. 

When it comes to survivability, the parallel for the A10 is more likely the IL2.

IMHO


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 1, 2010)

Any attack aircraft will take a beating by fighter defenses unless well covered. Case in point the tough, well armored Stormovik. It had a well deserved rep for being tough, but it's losses were huge on the Eastern front in 41 and 42, often because of lack of adequate fighter cover.

The Ju-87 was a pretty robust, well armored bird, but in the end, a fighter unopposed is still going to have the edge. US army experience similar realization with the A-24 (land designation for the SBD Dauntless)


----------



## davebender (Dec 1, 2010)

AA was vastly better by the 1970s. I think light flak like the ZSU-23-4 would shoot A-10s to pieces. An armored bath tub will keep the pilot alive but that won't save the A10 fuselage and wings from being shredded. Consequently by the 1970s it became standard practice to suppress enemy air defenses before sending in bombers. A technique that also worked during the 1940s before sending in CAS aircraft like the Ju-87 and IL-2.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 1, 2010)

The A-10 is more survivable from flak than the posts reflect. So far no losses to SAM 7, 14.7 12.7 and quad ZU-23 (Iraq and Afghanistan). I suspect the Republican Guard was at least as lethal AAA wise as the Wermacht.

It has excellent chaf/decoy capability, complete all-weather/night capability and carries AIM-7 and -9's when enemy air believed in the area... so not defenseless even though a high performance fighter has all the tactical stand off advantages.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2010)

All fine, but A-10 lacks (lacked until recently?) all-weather capability, and AIM-7 is not carried.


----------



## riacrato (Dec 1, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The A-10 is more survivable from flak than the posts reflect. So far no losses to SAM 7, 14.7 12.7 and quad ZU-23 (Iraq and Afghanistan). I suspect the Republican Guard was at least as lethal AAA wise as the Wermacht.
> 
> It has excellent chaf/decoy capability, complete all-weather/night capability and carries AIM-7 and -9's when enemy air believed in the area... so not defenseless even though a high performance fighter has all the tactical stand off advantages.



Pardon my ignorance on the Iraq war, but it is my understanding pretty much all SAM capability was destroyed by fighter bombers early in the campaign (I think I even read "in the first 48 hours").

Is there any A-10 reported to have been shot at by SAM?
Is there any A-10 reported to have been hit by ZU-23?

Just because they had them doesn't mean they were actually able to employ them.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 1, 2010)

riacrato said:


> Pardon my ignorance on the Iraq war, but it is my understanding pretty much all SAM capability was destroyed by fighter bombers early in the campaign (I think I even read "in the first 48 hours").
> 
> Is there any A-10 reported to have been shot at by SAM?
> Is there any A-10 reported to have been hit by ZU-23?
> ...



There was an A-10 knocked down by a Sam over Bagdad in 2003. Can't remember the details beyond it being in the middle of a Thunder Run when it looked like the Cav was going to get overun in a few places. Called in all sorts of airpower and one of them got knocked down.

Also the only time I know of where a SSM was fired at American troops. Effectively as it were.


----------



## davebender (Dec 1, 2010)

Serbian AA shot down a F117 and at least one F16 during the 1990s. Were any A10s deployed to that "police action"?


----------



## Milosh (Dec 1, 2010)

A-10 losses

OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/01.


OA-10A 77-0197
Crashed on landing. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW. Aircraft had been hit by small arms and was attempting a landing at KKMC FOL while in Manual Reversion after loosing all its hydraulics and in extreme weather conditions. On landing the aircraft cat wheeled wingtip over wingtip flipped over on to its back killing the pilot Lt Patrick Olson. There was nothing left of the aircraft. The remains of the aircraft were buried at the FOL.

A-10A 78-0722
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353rd TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Lt James Sweet ejected and made Prisoner of War.

A-10A 79-0130
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353th TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire approx 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Capt Steven Phyllis killed in action. Capt. Steve Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman, 1st Lt. Robert James Sweet. 

A-10A 79-0181
Crashed on landing, wheels up, hard stick landing by pilot Capt Rich Biley on 22 Feb 1991.

A-10A 80-0248
Shot down in combat by 'optical AAA' fire 2 Feb 1991 shot down by ground fire or SAM 20 NM SW of Kuwait City, Kuwait. Pilot Capt Richard Dale Storr ejected and captured as POW Released 03/05/91. From 23rd TFW.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 2, 2010)

By Staff Sgt. Jason Haag
332nd Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (ACCNS) -- An A-10 Thunderbolt II pilot deployed with the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing safely landed her "Warthog" at her forward operating base after it sustained significant damage from enemy fire during a close air support mission over Baghdad April 7.

Capt. Kim Campbell, deployed from the 75th Fighter Squadron at Pope Air Force Base, N.C., and her flight leader had just finished supporting ground troops and were on their way out of the area when her aircraft was hit with enemy fire.

"We were very aware that it was a high-threat environment -- we're over Baghdad," she said. "At the same time, those are the risks you are going to take to help the guys on the ground, that's our job, that's what we do. Our guys were taking fire and you want to do everything you can to help them out.

"We did our job with the guys there on the ground and as we were on our way out is when I felt the jet get hit. It was pretty obvious -- it was loud," Captain Campbell said.

After sustaining the hit, she said the aircraft immediately became uncontrollable and she noticed several caution warnings -- all over a very hostile territory.

"I lost all hydraulics instantaneously, so I completely lost control of the jet. It rolled left and pointed toward the ground, which was an uncomfortable feeling over Baghdad," she said. "The entire caution panel lit up and the jet wasn't responding to any of my control inputs."

Captain Campbell tried several different procedures to get the aircraft under control, none of which worked, she said. At that point, she decided to put the plane into manual reversion, which meant she was flying the aircraft without hydraulics. After that, the aircraft immediately began responding.

"The jet started climbing away from the ground, which was a good feeling because there is no way I wanted to eject over Baghdad," she said.

Because the aircraft sustained hits to the rear of the aircraft, including the horizontal stabilizer, tail section and engine cowling, Captain Kim said she could not see the damage. Her flight leader, Lt. Col. Richard Turner, positioned his aircraft where he could view the damage.

"The jet was flying pretty good and the damage had not affected the flight control surfaces or the (landing) gear," Colonel Turner said. "If (Kim) could keep it flying, we would get out of Baghdad and might be able to make it (back to base).

Once they assessed the situation, the two worked closely together to determine the best course of action. Captain Campbell said the colonel’s calm demeanor and attention to detail were instrumental in her being able get the airplane home.

"I could not have asked for a better flight lead," she said. "He was very directive when he needed to be, because all I could concentrate on was flying the jet. Then, once we were out of the Baghdad area, (he) just went through all the checklists, all the possibilities, all the things I needed to take into account."

Captain Campbell said she and Colonel Turner discussed all her options, which ultimately came down to two: fly the aircraft to a safe area and eject or attempt to land the disabled plane.

"I can either try to land a jet that is broken, or I can eject...which I really didn't have any interest in doing, but I knew it was something that I had to consider," she said. "But the jet worked as advertised and that is a tribute to our maintainers and the guys who work on the jet. It's nice when things work as advertised."

Colonel Turner said that even though he could advise her, only one person could make the decision about whether to eject or attempt to land the aircraft.

"She had a big decision to make," he said. "Before anyone else could throw their two-cents worth into the mix, I made sure that she knew that the decision to land or eject was hers and hers alone."

To Captain Campbell, the decision was clear.

"The jet was performing exceptionally well," she said. "I had no doubt in my mind I was going to land that airplane."

After getting the aircraft on the ground, the final task was getting it stopped and keeping it on the runway, she said. "When you lose all the hydraulics, you don't have speed brakes, you don't have brakes and you don't have steering," she said.

One of the really cool things that when I did touch down, I heard several comments on the radio -- and I don't know who it was -- but I heard things like, 'Awesome job, great landing,' things like that," she said.

"I guess we all think we are invincible and it won't happen to us," she said. "I hadn't been shot at -- at all -- in all of my other missions. This was the first. Thank God for the Warthog, because it took some damage but it got me home." (Courtesy of AFPN) 

Google Image Result for http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/01.jpg


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 2, 2010)

Thanks Milosh and Beaupower - the A-10 has been a superb platform - and Captain Kim Campbell one terrific lady.

Neither the A-10 nor the Apache (pre Long Bow version) saw action in the former Yugoslavia NATO air actions. There were no *low altitude* operations. (Correct me, if this is factually wrong, please,  but _that_ was the mission as officially posted).

MM


----------



## drgondog (Dec 2, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> All fine, but A-10 lacks (lacked until recently?) all-weather capability, and AIM-7 is not carried.




A-10C revolutionizes close air support

You are absolutely correct on the -7, only the AIM-9 available for air to air.

I had a chance to fly the A-10C simulator at DM in 2008 and this year. It has remarkably more advanced avionics and does indeed have all weather, night or day capability to deliver or direct precision weapns danger close to friendly.

Additionally I was wrong about losses - IIRC they lost some A-10's near Baghdad in the Gulf War.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 2, 2010)

Milosh - you are right.. I should never depend on memory..


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 2, 2010)

A better comparison than the J87G to the A-10 would be the Hs129B series of aircraft, the modern predecessor of the A-10 Thunderbolt...

In any event, there is no comparison to the A-10 in either surviveablity or air to ground threat from WW2... Losing 3 in one War is alot different than three in 2 minutes on one ground attack pass...


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 2, 2010)

I'd hate to have been anywhere near the cockpit of any German WW2 ground attack aircraft after 1944.
Despite the additional armour they were using etc etc unless complete surprise was achieved (and in that time the AA knocked out locally) I cannot see a Stuka 87G series or even the more 'purpose designed' Henschel 129's surviving in an environment with radar directed AA using proximity fused shells.

It must have been absolutely horrible for them (and low flying allied guys also found the German fast-firing AA lethal enough to the very end too).

What a horrible 'job' to be doing day-in day-out.


----------



## davebender (Dec 2, 2010)

During WWII I believe proximity fuzes were used in shells no smaller then 3". Heavy AA only. Not the light flak employed against CAS aircraft.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 2, 2010)

davebender said:


> During WWII I believe proximity fuzes were used in shells no smaller then 3". Heavy AA only. Not the light flak employed against CAS aircraft.



I think the 40MM had a prox fuse as well. Not absolutely positive though.


----------



## razor1uk (Dec 2, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> A better comparison than the J87G to the A-10 would be the Hs129B series of aircraft, the modern predecessor of the A-10 Thunderbolt...
> 
> In any event, there is no comparison to the A-10 in either surviveablity or air to ground threat from WW2... Losing 3 in one War is alot different than three in 2 minutes on one ground attack pass...



Ditto lesof"Dan's"primus thoughts. Even most modern/latest A/C are NOT made as tough, survivable with mech' redundancies as the Fairchild (Fairchild-Dornier or as now known M7 Aerospace) A-10's. Only the Boeing F-15 series come close - one IDAF (in late 70's or early 80's,) aircraft survived loosing 85%+ of the entire horizontal flight surfaces down one side of the A/C, and because the pilot didn't know that, he safetly landed it.

Most current A/C are just as suseptable to horrendous battle damage as in WW2, except now we expect the pilot to be recovered, usually alive, even though the weaponry against A/C have so much more than back then. Survivability in the modern sence, no longer requires getting home to base, it only requires recovering flight enough to close to safe areas and then ensuring ejection performance before pick up. 
I seriously doubt the survival kits are any better either; well depends if it involves some shekels, a credit card, a mobile phone a selection of 'emergency use only' flavoured condoms and a map drawn for somewhere a navy captain burried the crews inflatable friend.

If there was another total war, would it be better to revert to piston engines for mass raids and assualts, while more expensive jets would be bombers and dedicated interceptors; akin to The Sky Crawlers style of war I mean?


----------



## riacrato (Dec 2, 2010)

beaupower32 said:


> snip



I stand corrected. Do we know what they were being fired at with?

The Su-25 seems to have done very well in recent conflicts aswell.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 2, 2010)

Frogfoot has a good rep too. Not as surviveable as the A10, but it has a great rep in ground attack.


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2010)

timshatz said:


> I think the 40MM had a prox fuse as well. Not absolutely positive though.



I understand that proximity fuses were for guns larger than 3in during the war. After the war 3in guns had proximity fuses which was one reason why they were intended to replace a number of quad 40mm.

I think proximity fuses for 40mm was around from the mid 1950's

One observation is that the A10 if it was to be compared to anything then the Il 2 would be the first choice


----------



## davebender (Dec 2, 2010)

> A10 if it was to be compared to anything then the Il 2 would be the first choice


I agree. 

The Ju-87 was designed as a dive bomber. It operated above the effective range of most light flak except during the bomb run. Heavy armor was not a design requirement. 

The Hs-129, Su-25, IL2 and A-10 were designed to operate low and slow for extended periods of time. Consequently getting shot at by small arms and light flak is normal and expected. Pilot armor and other such survivability features are crucial to mission success. Modern attack helicopters like the AH-64 have a similiar need for additional armor, redundant control systems etc.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 2, 2010)

drgondog said:


> A-10C revolutionizes close air support
> 
> I had a chance to fly the A-10C simulator at DM in 2008 and this year. It has remarkably more advanced avionics and does indeed have all weather, night or day capability to deliver or direct precision weapns danger close to friendly.
> 
> ...


----------



## davparlr (Dec 2, 2010)

razor1uk said:


> Ditto lesof"Dan's"primus thoughts. Even most modern/latest A/C are NOT made as tough, survivable with mech' redundancies as the Fairchild (Fairchild-Dornier or as now known M7 Aerospace) A-10's.



I believe Northrop Grumman purchased the A-10 program from Fairchild in 1987.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 2, 2010)

In any war today the A-10 would be, as it has so far, far more effective than any German aircraft because of the domination the USAF has (although German domination in Poland was similar). As soon as any radar gun turns on it will die. If defensive missile system is in place too long, it will die. If it moves it will die. Decoys clutter all antiaircraft weapons.

If war broken out in Europe in the 70-80s, a blood bath would have ensued with most weapons system swatted like cannon fodder, see Yom Kippur War. While losses would be high, I think the A-10 effectiveness in tank plinking would be good due to good low level masking, rugged survivability, and airborne threats engaged.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 3, 2010)

The A-10 would have fought WarPac forces during the period late 70s to 1990.

So infantrymans AK to the MIG-29 and all points in the middle. 

Without assured air superiority and a dense AAA and SAM umbrella to fly through.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2010)

This is what an A-10 looks like after a close-inboard SAM detonation.... With redundant airframe parts, taking a Hog outta the sky is no easy feat...



davparlr said:


> I think the A-10 effectiveness in tank plinking would be good due to good low level masking, rugged survivability, and airborne threats engaged.


Got to wholeheartedly agree with dav's statement... SAM's cant track what they cant see behind the trees and hills...


----------



## davebender (Dec 3, 2010)

> SAM's cant track what they cant see behind the trees and hills


That works both ways. Light AA systems positioned on hills have been known to fire down on CAS aircraft flying in a valley. Light AA systems positioned in a woods or town are difficult to spot before they open fire.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2010)

True enough dave, but the A-10 can take that small calibre stuff all day long and make it back to base...

Unless that golden BB finds its mark of course...


----------



## timshatz (Dec 3, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> This is what an A-10 looks like after a close-inboard SAM detonation....



Jeez, look at that thing. 

Step 1.
Replace engine.
Step 2.
Replace underwear.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 3, 2010)

The A-10 was designed to be more survivable than other contemporary planes doing the same job.

more survivable does not mean invulnerable.

More survivable means more of your pilots/planes getting home after doing the same missions or facing the same threats. Not everybody getting home, just more than any other aircraft.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 3, 2010)

Ur not trying to actually tell me something I already know right??


----------



## davebender (Dec 3, 2010)

That's the problem with CAS aircraft. They are getting peppered with small arms fire on every mission in addition to dodging real AA fire and fighter aircraft. Not to mention the risk of hitting the ground during a strafing run. CAS pillots must be incredibly brave.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 3, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> Ur not trying to actually tell me something I already know right??



Nope.

But some people seem to think if it wasn't totally bullet proof it was a failure


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2010)

I believe that in ACM, the A10 would be survivable than the JU87.


----------



## davebender (Dec 3, 2010)

Not so sure about that.

The Ju-87 was not a fighter aircraft by any stretch of the imagination yet historically it did shoot down quite a few Soviet fighter aircraft. Would the A-10 perform as well vs Mig-29s during the 1980s?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 3, 2010)

Not quite the same thing is it?

Are you going to restrict the Mig 29 to guns only?

Are you going to restrict the Mig 29 to MK I eyeball gun sight?
OK not quite but no radar and/or computer help in generating aim points in the HUD? 

How many of those JU 87 "kills" were obtained by the rear gunner? 

Mig 29 is 6 years newer than an A-10. 
How many LA-5s did the Ju-87 shoot down with it's wing mounted guns?

Do you want to get into relative climb rates and other performance factors?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2010)

Since Harrier managed to shoot down many (on paper) better fighters (not only them) in Falkland war, don't see why A-10 would've not been able to kill MiG-21/23s. Something like I-16 vs. Bf-109 affair.
Sure enough, MiG-29/31 Su-27 (with more modern radars) would be more of a threat.


----------



## renrich (Dec 3, 2010)

The problem a fighter has in trying to down an A10 is that the A10 is down very low where the fighter has to attack from above. His radar and heat seekers are not going to do well against the ground clutter. He also has to avoid running into the ground and an overshoot could be fatal if the A10 can get in a shot with his gun. The A10 can turn very sharply, much better than the fighter. In WW2, the JU87 was not as likely to be as low as the A10 and the fighter was relying only on visual abilities to get in hits plus he could not turn as well, compared to the fighter as the A10 and was not as heavily armed or armored.


----------



## Nikademus (Dec 3, 2010)

renrich said:


> I believe that in ACM, the A10 would be survivable than the JU87.



I agree. No way that Hurricane is gonna be able to keep up with the A-10  (sorry...couldn't resist)


----------



## davebender (Dec 3, 2010)

So can a Ju-87 once the bombs are gone.

If proper tactics are employed high speed maneuverability and firepower normally defeat low speed maneuverability.


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2010)

renrich said:


> The problem a fighter has in trying to down an A10 is that the A10 is down very low where the fighter has to attack from above. His radar and heat seekers are not going to do well against the ground clutter. He also has to avoid running into the ground and an overshoot could be fatal if the A10 can get in a shot with his gun. The A10 can turn very sharply, much better than the fighter. In WW2, the JU87 was not as likely to be as low as the A10 and the fighter was relying only on visual abilities to get in hits plus he could not turn as well, compared to the fighter as the A10 and was not as heavily armed or armored.



The problems the A10 has are that its slow, has a poor climb, no intercept radar, has a slow acceleration and a lousy power to weight ratio. It can turn like anything and one hit from the 30mm is going to ruin anyones day, but overall the advantage will be with the fighter by quite a margin.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 4, 2010)

Focke-Wulf Fw 189 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supposedly this reconnaissance and army cooperation aircraft was relatively successful in evading enemy aircraft - and surviving those which it could not.


----------



## davebender (Dec 4, 2010)

The IL-2 was "relatively successful" also. Even though Germany must have shot down at least 20,000 IL-2s over a 4 year period.


----------



## Gixxerman (Dec 4, 2010)

Glider said:


> the advantage will be with the fighter by quite a margin.



Interesting question.

Overall I'd agree.

But, if the A10 guys stay where they are at their best force the fighter to come down low - and assuming the A10 is still carrying 1 or 2 Sidewinders - not sure which version the carry these days, M, P or X? - then I'd estimate (and obviously I would be the 1st to admit accept that have no way of actually knowing) that the Sidewinder(s) would help the A10's odds enormously.


----------



## renrich (Dec 4, 2010)

Glider, I agree with your evaluation. My comments are based on the idea that the A10 might have a slightly better chance of surviving a one V one with a fighter than the JU87 would.


----------



## davebender (Dec 4, 2010)

Combat aircraft haven't fought that way since the early days of WWI.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 4, 2010)

I get mixed up. Are we talking about the A-10 survivability against todays threats or the WarPac threat it was kinda designed to take on?

Any fighter taking on an A-10 would do slash attacks.

I wonder if the Soviets ever had interception fighters designed against the A-10. A missile armed Frogfoot or anti aircraft Hind.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 4, 2010)

While not decidedly anti-Warthog, Su-25 carried AA-8 during the Cold war.
IIRC Hind was able to carry SA-16/18 (Igla).


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2010)

renrich said:


> Glider, I agree with your evaluation. My comments are based on the idea that the A10 might have a slightly better chance of surviving a one V one with a fighter than the JU87 would.



That I certainly agree with.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2010)

I don't imagine anyone wants to make a head on 'guns' pass on a Hog..


----------



## renrich (Dec 5, 2010)

Dave, there are numerous examples of one V one since WW1. One fairly recent one is the well known encounter beween an F4 with Duke Cunningham and his RIO and a Mig17(I think) with Colonel Toon(?)


----------



## drgondog (Dec 5, 2010)

does one V three and one V four count?

Leo Thorsness was 1:3 MiG 17s when he shot one down in a turning (not 360!!) fight, egressed, loaded up with fuel and came back to attack four more MiGs in a wagonwheel/lufberry over his downed flight member - and scored a probable in this encounter. 1-1-0 over MiG17s on the deck in a 105 ain't bad.

Hed did get the Medal for this one.


----------



## davebender (Dec 5, 2010)

Cunningham was not initially alone in that fight. He chose to stay behind when other USN aircraft left the area. A reasonable decision as he was a superior pilot flying a superior (for that time) fighter aircraft. If Randy Cunningham had been flying a CAS aircraft like the A-7 or A-10 he probably would have cleared out as soon as Migs showed up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2010)

renrich said:


> Dave, there are numerous examples of one V one since WW1. One fairly recent one is the well known encounter beween an F4 with Duke Cunningham and his RIO and a Mig17(I think) with Colonel Toon(?)



I think history is slowly showing us that there was no "Col. Toon." The guy Cunningham and Driscoll took on was either a Soviet or North Korean advisor/ instructor.


----------



## The Basket (Dec 6, 2010)

Looking outside the window...I wonder how the A-10 would have done in a Winter War agains the WarPac.

Its low speed low altitiude eyeball warfare would not do well me thinks.


----------



## renrich (Dec 6, 2010)

FB, that is the reason I put the question mark behind Toon's name. Whoever he was must have been a pretty skilled pilot. Actually the Mig17 was a pretty good match for the F4 in ACM in a closing fight. Cunningham has not distinguished himself since leaving the Navy although one sometimes finds it hard to get all the truth in those matters.

Ira Kepford had a low level one V four near New Ireland in which he had a couple of kills. When he landed he had been in the air four hours, much of it intense combat. In "The First Team" by Lundstrom, Thach, before Midway, instructed some pilots of TBDs how to evade a Zero at low level and a few used those tactics to get back to the carrier safely. A little remindful of what an A10 would need to do against a high performance fighter except an A10 has a little more firepower than a TBD


----------



## timshatz (Dec 6, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Looking outside the window...I wonder how the A-10 would have done in a Winter War agains the WarPac.
> 
> Its low speed low altitiude eyeball warfare would not do well me thinks.



It was actually designed to do CAS in Western Europe duing a WP invasion. It is open to question if it would've survived (or ended up a modern day version of a Fairy Battle).

I think it would've been ok. It is a remarkable tough bird. But it was flying in a high threat environment (a WP armored column has got to be a brutal place to work) and even if it wasn't knocked down, the cumulative affect of all those holes in the aircraft would've grounded it after a while. 

WW3 would've been far worse (for Aircraft) than WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2010)

timshatz said:


> It was actually designed to do CAS in Western Europe duing a WP invasion. It is open to question if it would've survived (or ended up a modern day version of a Fairy Battle).
> 
> I think it would've been ok. It is a remarkable tough bird. But it was flying in a high threat environment (a WP armored column has got to be a brutal place to work) and even if it wasn't knocked down, the cumulative affect of all those holes in the aircraft would've grounded it after a while.
> 
> WW3 would've been far worse (for Aircraft) than WW2.



The issue is more of whether it would have survived the weather. Every morning when I leave my house right now, I can't see 50 feet in front of my car. The ceiling is the ground, 0-0 vis. Ground attack aircraft like the A-10 were not going to operate at altitude.

I don't know what kind of avionics packages the A-10 has or whether it is even all weather capable. I find it hard to believe that it would be able to operate at low altitudes during a typical German winter day.


----------



## davebender (Dec 6, 2010)

Look on the bright side. MiGs will have a tough time intercepting A-10s during a blizzard. And you can pretty well forget optically guided AA guns.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 6, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ground attack aircraft like the A-10 were not going to operate at altitude.
> 
> I don't know what kind of avionics packages the A-10 has or whether it is even all weather capable. I find it hard to believe that it would be able to operate at low altitudes during a typical German winter day.




The A-10 still is a pretty much visual plane. The Avionics of the A-10C allow for better navigation and targeting (via the targeting pod). Other than that its the same as the A-10A. There are other small upgrades here and there, but without the support of fighters and other aircraft, its on its own basically. But in weather that is around Germany, it will pretty much be grounded, due to all the cloud layers.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 6, 2010)

Just think what it would do to a bomber.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 6, 2010)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think history is slowly showing us that there was no "Col. Toon." The guy Cunningham and Driscoll took on was either a Soviet or North Korean advisor/ instructor.


There was indeed no Col Toon. There was an NK contingent flying (MiG-17's) with the Vietnamese in the 1960's, and they suffered some losses to US a/c (there's a cemetary in Vietnam for them) but were long gone by 1972. Contrary to some 'war stories' by Soviet vets, there's no evidence any of them flew combat against American a/c. It's not what Soviet archives say, the same archives that have almost countless 1000's of pages of minutely detailed reports about Soviet Air Force combat ops in Korea. 

We have to give the Vietnamese their due: they did pretty well in air combat given their equipment and circumstances, also helped of course by the stuff the US had done by the 1960's to blunt the big edge it had enjoyed in air combat, even over the Soviets, in Korea. Vietnamese MiG-21's had around a 1:1 real kill ratio, and even the MiG-17's ratio in Vietnam was better than the MiG-15's in Korea, even though the MiG-15 was a top of the line fighter in '50-53, the MiG-17 hardly so in '65-72.

The opponent of the USN fighters May 10 1972 was the VPAF 923rd Fighter Regiment. 2 MiG'17's were reported downed; Nguyen Van Tho survived ejecting, Nguyen Hang did not. Not only the VPAF official history (which Ivan Toperczer quotes in his books, though without crediting it) but also a then-secret Soviet GRU summary of the air war (since declassified, which I obtained) say the same thing. The USN claimed 7 MiG-17's, including 3 by Cunningham/Driscoll. In general US claims and Vietnamese losses were closer than that, but we know from every other air war that a claim of 7 and an actual loss of 2 could easily happen in a confused dogfight, though again as in almost every other air war we can't 100% conclusively prove that the Vietnamese didn't lose more than 2 MiG-17's: one can't prove negatives. But it's apparently what they reported to the Soviets in secret, and/or what Soviets representatives on site were able to determine at the time, not just what the Vietnamese publicly claim.

Joe


----------



## davebender (Dec 7, 2010)

> in weather that is around Germany, it will pretty much be grounded, due to all the cloud layers.


I don't think so. If the Warsaw Pact attack during December NATO ground attack aircraft would be flying missions no matter how bad the weather.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 7, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so. If the Warsaw Pact attack during December NATO ground attack aircraft would be flying missions no matter how bad the weather.



I guess it would depend on what region your in also, if it is flat and small hills, yes I can see them still flying CAS missions. But if you start getting into mountain areas, it becomes too much of a hazard, no matter how good the pilot can see or how good is equipment is.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 7, 2010)

The stuff they have in cockpits now is pretty slick. The old steam gauges are out and it's all glass cockpit stuff. Newest stuff is just amazing. 3D representations in some cases (but I am not sure the Air Force uses it).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2010)

davebender said:


> I don't think so. If the Warsaw Pact attack during December NATO ground attack aircraft would be flying missions no matter how bad the weather.



Doubt it, if you can't see the ground, how can you fly low level attack missions? 

I can't remember how many times we had our assaults canceled because of inclement weather.


----------



## steve51 (Dec 7, 2010)

JoeB,

It's my understanding that the Vietnamese state that their total air to air loss to the Americans was 134. Does that Soviet GRU summary you mentioned give a total?


----------



## davebender (Dec 7, 2010)

> I can't remember how many times we had our assaults canceled because of inclement weather.


Peacetime safety restrictions are ignored during wartime.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> Peacetime safety restrictions are ignored during wartime.



I am talking about combat. Why would we conduct air assaults in Germany? 

And no safety is not ignored. Losing an aircraft and crew to inclement weather is worse than losing them in combat. What did you achieve or gain?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 8, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And no safety is not ignored. Losing an aircraft and crew to inclement weather is worse than losing them in combat. What did you achieve or gain?



I will second that, if safety was ignored somebody should have told the USAAF that during the Battle of the Bulge when they stayed grounded during bad weather.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2010)

Shortround6 said:


> I will second that, if safety was ignored somebody should have told the USAAF that during the Battle of the Bulge when they stayed grounded during bad weather.



I know from the records of Group histories that the weather over most of the fighter bases were basically zero-zero with heavy icing conditions. Even if thay could take off, a lot of guys would have been bailing out on the return.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 8, 2010)

davebender said:


> Peacetime safety restrictions are ignored during wartime.



Safety will never be ignored, peacetime or not. Too much money invested in equipment and training people to allow pilots to fly around making craters out of the landscape casue they wanted to fly in 0-0 visability.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 8, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why would we conduct air assaults in Germany?



Probably the fastest way to the bar after a day on the flight line. Hover and repel down, practically land on the bar stool


----------



## jim (Dec 8, 2010)

American air force has admitted the incapability of A-10 to survive in a modern battlefield by the competition that held in mid 80s for a new CAS/BAI aircraft. The competitors were F/A-16 (a modified F16) and A7F Corsair II . The programme was terminated because of budjet limitations and standart F16 were to replace the A-10 . The 1991 performance of A10 showed that it still could offer some services against third world enemies of America and against guerilla fighters. Thats why it is still in service. However has something in common with Ju87 : As Eric Brown said for the Stuka "it needed fighter cover( and in case of A10 , also Wild Weasel aircraft) on its way to a target area as surely as a fish needs water"


----------



## JoeB (Dec 8, 2010)

steve51 said:


> JoeB,
> 
> It's my understanding that the Vietnamese state that their total air to air loss to the Americans was 134. Does that Soviet GRU summary you mentioned give a total?


No, the report is in the format of a combat diary date by date, so while I tend to think it's accurate for the specific actions it describes, it might not include all incidents (I haven't bothered to add it up). 134 as you probably know comes from the VPAF offcial history as quoted by Toperczer. This doesn't seem an obvious understatement, given that US claims were around 200 (he quotes 193, I count 213). That would be a plausible rate of overclaim, though apparently greater than the US rate in Korea. As usual I think it requires direct research in records to get fully comfortable w/ losses for particular AF's in particular wars, or to trust somebody who has done that. I don't know if it's possible to directly research in Vietnamese records; again AFAIK all books on this subject rely on the published official history of VPAF.

Joe


----------



## steve51 (Dec 8, 2010)

JoeB,

Thank you for the response. Yes, I got that figure from Toperczer. Boniface gives 148 to all causes. The problem, as you state, is that it doesn't seem that anyone has directly examined Vietnamese records. Even someone as sympathetic to the VPAF as Boniface seems to have relied primarily on individual interviews. I was hoping that the Soviets may have had better access.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 8, 2010)

Joe - I don't have access to my storage on VietNam - do the US credits strip out 'credits to WSO and pilot', etc, for F105 and F4 crews? - and concentrate strictly on a single aircraft downed?


----------



## JoeB (Dec 8, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Joe - I don't have access to my storage on VietNam - do the US credits strip out 'credits to WSO and pilot', etc, for F105 and F4 crews? - and concentrate strictly on a single aircraft downed?


I counted 213 by hand in the separate USAF and USN tables in Lou Drendel's "...And Kill MiG's". Each line of the table is a claimed/credited Vietnamese a/c destroyed, some by two seat a/c but not double counted for pilot and non-pilot. But like I said, Toperczer says the US total was 193, and other people on web forums have mentioned other numbers in a similar range. "MiG Killers of Yankee Station" is a newer and very detailed book (for USN side) and it expresses uncertainty over the true 'official' status of certain credits in the Navy's case, but the number also isn't greatly different than Drendel's table.

Joe


----------

