# The Greatest Attack Aircraft of All Time...



## dinos7 (Jun 3, 2006)

this thread is only for attack aircraft such as the A-10, A-4 and so on. this thread there is no chatting about fighters, just attackers.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 3, 2006)

The A-10 is still the top for me...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 3, 2006)

in terms of moderd day attack aircraft? well it can only be the A-10........


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 3, 2006)




----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 3, 2006)

I take it that little oinker is supposed to represent the Warthog??????


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 3, 2006)

I would think so. A-10 for me as well.


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2006)

Difficult as the A10 is one of a kind, however I would go for the Jaguar. The A10 can only operate where the US have control of the air which to be fair the US has always had. The speed of the A10 would limit it in any other situation.
The Jaguar has fought wherever the RAF has fought and has never lost one to enemy fire (ground or air to air). The Indian Airforce has also used them and I don't think they have ever lost one to enemy fire as have the French who I think lost a couple in the first Gulf War. This must be close to a unique record for a GA plane, as most people recognise that GA is a very dangerous business.
There have been a number of stories over the years which will never be proved that Jaguars were used in the cold war for sorties across into East Germany and other soviet satellite states, again without loss.

The RAF planes on board sensors were well ahead of those carried on the A10 when it first came into service and it had a reputation for accuracy in bomb delivery that was second to none. Even the Nigerian Air Force won some bombing contests in the late 70's using the Jaguar, which is saying something. Did I hear someone say ex-pat pilots.

Clearly the Jaguar doesn't have a Gun like the A10 nor could it take the sort of battle damage that the A10 can. 
For the first point the Aden wouldn't knock out a MBT but would have a better than average change of knocking out an APC. 
For the second point, at the end of the day, none have been lost so it obviously has something going for it, even if its just more difficult to hit. 

The A10 is an excellent aircraft but if I had to chose one for my airforce, it would be the Jaguar. It would give me more flexibility and options.

Its worth pointing out that the Indian Air Force who could choose almost any aircraft chose the Jaguar over everything for long range GA and are still building some under license. Its also worth mentioning that the first none US aircraft to take part in Red Flag exercises in Nevada were Jaguars and none were claimed by the defending forces (ground or air) until the fourth day, which is going some.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jun 3, 2006)

I would go the Jaguar as it also has the ability to defend itself. However for knocking out heavy armour I would go the A-10 Warthog. Or maybe a combined force of Jaguars and Warthogs with Jaguars knocking out air defences first so the Warthogs can work on any armoured targets. That would be best, a mixed force of Warthogs and Jaguars.


----------



## Glider (Jun 4, 2006)

Since writing my previous posting I must make one amendment. One RAF Jaguar was shot down in Air to Air combat, believe it or not, by an RAF Phantom.
Please don't ask me how, but during simulated combat the Phantom was loaded with live Sidewinders not exercise missiles, and when the pilot pushed the button, off it went. The Jaguar pilot was able to eject and wasn't hurt.


----------



## Dac (Jun 4, 2006)

I'd pick the Sepecat Jaguar too. It doesn't have the heavy punch against armor but has high speed and excellent low altitude performance. In over 1,200 sorties in the first Gulf War none were shot down and they delivered a lot of bombs accurately.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jun 4, 2006)

the Su-25 would have been a potentially good attacker, it had good performance and armor, well for an attacker


----------



## Torch (Jun 5, 2006)

I'd have to agree on the A-10 also..........


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2006)

The Jaguar and A10 seem to be two totally different aircraft for two different missions.

If I wanted to attack an airfield and get in and out as fast as possible, Id take the jag.

If I needed to orbit a battlefield and wait for calls from the ground troops to attack bunkers and small troop concentrations, Id take the A10


----------



## Twitch (Jun 5, 2006)

While it doesn't have "the gun" the old A-1 could haul massive amounts of ordnance low and slow.


----------



## Glider (Jun 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Jaguar and A10 seem to be two totally different aircraft for two different missions.
> 
> If I wanted to attack an airfield and get in and out as fast as possible, Id take the jag.
> 
> If I needed to orbit a battlefield and wait for calls from the ground troops to attack bunkers and small troop concentrations, Id take the A10



Little different than choosing between an IL2 and a P47. Two different approaches for the same job.


----------



## Dac (Jun 5, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> The Jaguar and A10 seem to be two totally different aircraft for two different missions.


 
I wouldn't say totally, during the first Gulf War the A-10 was used for long range CSAR, Scud hunting and even SEAD. The Jaguar can't take out tanks with it's two 30mm cannon, but it can destroy APCs and soft targets. They use different approaches to survive, the Jaguar flys low and fast and the A-10 uses it's manoeuverability.


----------



## syscom3 (Jun 5, 2006)

But the A10's also fly low, although a lot slower.

I dont know of any A10 attacks on airfields or other heavily defended targets deep in Iraq.


----------



## Dac (Jun 6, 2006)

syscom3 said:


> But the A10's also fly low, although a lot slower.
> 
> I dont know of any A10 attacks on airfields or other heavily defended targets deep in Iraq.



I think in Desert Storm A-10s stayed above 10,000 feet, unless they were on attack runs, to avoid AA and SAMs. They also worked with F-4Gs to take out SAM sites with Mavericks and Mk 82s until they started taking loses. They were returned to the close air support mission when the ground war began.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 6, 2006)

The average Sam can reach to 10,000ft. We recieved many breafings on them when were in Iraq, we had to deal with the manpads every day and most of them can reach into the 10,000ft range. That is why in Iraq we fly low and fast.

I vote for the A-10.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 6, 2006)

Remember this - almost everything on the A-10 that has a "left" and "right" is interchangable. Outter wing panels, aileron, rudders, engines. A-10 gets my vote....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 6, 2006)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Remember this - almost everything on the A-10 that has a "left" and "right" is interchangable. Outter wing panels, aileron, rudders, engines. A-10 gets my vote....


I can certainly see the logic but the A10 depends on its survivability on being able to take damage and operating in airspace dominated by friendly forces. 

I feel thats its use is severely limited by these factors. 

In addition, whilst there can be no doubt that the A10 is exceptional at what it does best, i.e. knocking out enemy tanks. These are a small minority of the targets on the battlefield, and the Jaguar can tackle the rest. This small limitation which can be addressed by the use of cluster bombs and other weapons is I feel outweighed by the greater flexibility of the Jaguar.


----------



## Dac (Jun 6, 2006)

There's no doubt the A-10 is a successful aircraft, and it was inexpensive too.

The original cost was only $2.4 million per plane.


----------



## R988 (Jun 8, 2006)

Harrier's aren't too bad either


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2006)

Got to see them destroy some **** in Iraq, that was pretty impressive. They were Marine Harriers.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 23, 2006)

There's just something about the get down in the dirt with the grunts, roll up you sleave and fight attitude of the A-10. Psychologically, its gotta be depressing for the enemy and a great lift for our guys to see an A-10 bobbing around the battlefield. I remember seeing a report form Bagdad right after we entered. In the background was the unmistakeable form of an A-10 flying overhead. It was magnificent.

I vote for the A-10


----------



## evangilder (Jun 23, 2006)

Having seen A-10s in action on a few occasions, I would go for that as well. While the Jaguar is a capable aircraft, when you need support on the ground, the low speed and loiter capability of the A-10 is outstanding. 

Twitch, I agree the A-1 is one mean mutha. It won't do for tanks, but it sure will keep the bad guys heads low.


----------



## davparlr (Jun 23, 2006)

Twitch said:


> While it doesn't have "the gun" the old A-1 could haul massive amounts of ordnance low and slow.



Right you are. Interestingly, the A-1 was not the biggest lifter of the competion for an attack aircraft. The Martin AM-1 Mauler, with around 500 more horses could lift an amazing amount of ordinance, once lifting 12,179 lbs of useful load including three torpedoes and 12 250lb bombs, guns and ammuntion for a gross weight of 29,332 lbs. Unfortunately, Martin could not do a good job building the aircraft and only 149 were built with most going to the Reserves.

The A-1 was a great aircraft and was replaced by a great and worthy successor, the A-10.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 26, 2006)

Yeah it made no sense to have 2 attack planes in the peacetime budget so the beefier AM-1 got the ax. After only a year of its introduction the Reserves got it!

I only say the A-1 was greatest because of its long and successful combat history which eclipses the A-10's to some degree.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 27, 2006)

The A-10 though is capable of doing more than the A-1. Just look at the Highway of Death in Kuwait and Iraq.


----------



## Twitch (Jun 30, 2006)

That isn't why I say the A-1. It simply has a longer overall successful in-service record and deployment in many theaters of operation and model variants. Those are the criteria I use, not one engagement. And that's not taking anything away from the A-10.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Dont take me wrong the A-1 was a great aircraft and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

The A-10 however has been successful in Iraq (twice), Kuwait, Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and based off of the service there it would have been successfull in Germany as well if the Russians had attacked (based off of the way it performed in Bosnia and Kosovo.).


----------



## Twitch (Jul 2, 2006)

I feel a special afinity for ther Spads due to the fact that they had a close personal hand in keeping us breathing several times. After a B-52 strike once that didn't kill the target a section of A-1s came in at like 100 knots and pickled their ordnance on Charlie dead on. And I remember my high school history teacher who was also a Marine fondly recalling how they saved his butt in Korea. Who knows, maybe even the same exact planes.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 2, 2006)

I thought this was where we were talking about low flying Brits but I was wrong. Anyway, here is a sight that looks interesting. I didn't watch it all but the few frames I saw looked good. Looked low and British.




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9T51UsuaPU_


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 2, 2006)

Twitch said:


> I feel a special afinity for ther Spads due to the fact that they had a close personal hand in keeping us breathing several times. After a B-52 strike once that didn't kill the target a section of A-1s came in at like 100 knots and pickled their ordnance on Charlie dead on. And I remember my high school history teacher who was also a Marine fondly recalling how they saved his butt in Korea. Who knows, maybe even the same exact planes.


My brother was with the 82nd AB in Vietnam 1968-69. He spent time in the Ashore Valley and in Hue. He has called in airstrikes and says continually that the Skyraider is one of the things that kept him alive while in Vietnam.


----------



## Glider (Jul 8, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I thought this was where we were talking about low flying Brits but I was wrong. Anyway, here is a sight that looks interesting. I didn't watch it all but the few frames I saw looked good. Looked low and British.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think you will find they were Mirage F1's and presumably French but an excellent clip.


----------



## Twitch (Jul 11, 2006)

Flyboy- I was there right after him.


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 11, 2006)

The Israeli's used A4 Skyhawks with deadly effect against Arab tank formations.

A1 or A4......... a toss up for which was most effective in what it was supposed to do.


----------



## trackend (Jul 11, 2006)

I like the Sky raider as well Joe I still think its an ugly thing though


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2006)

Twitch said:


> Flyboy- I was there right after him.


Wow - you guys could share some memories. He's still in the guard - he trying to go to Iraq at 57!!! God help THEM!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 11, 2006)

trackend said:


> I like the Sky raider as well Joe I still think its an ugly thing though


AGREE!!!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 12, 2006)

Nice shot Lee. That seems a common paint scheme with the Spads. I think it may depend on the era. For Korea and Vietnam, I would say the A-1 without a doubt. From the 80s on, the A-10. Both are incredibly effective. Check out the speed brake on the Skyraider! They are only that big on the A-1H, according to Skyraider Bob.


----------



## trackend (Jul 12, 2006)

Great shots Eric I bet when you dropped that plate it was like standing on the stop pedal. The ordnance is not bad either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Nice shots there.


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 12, 2006)

Good shots Eric!


----------



## evangilder (Jul 13, 2006)

Cheers guys. I would imagine pulling the speed brakes on the A-1H would be like getting hit with a very large gust of wind. I am still amazed every time I see those things. You do notice the speed change from the ground. Notice that he is pulling out of a dive in that shot. Obviously need a good airspeed before opening them up. But it is a good demonstration of how the A-1 could get to a hot spot quickly, slow down for attack, and then accelerate away.


----------



## johnbr (Jul 15, 2006)

Me I love the A-10


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 21, 2006)

The A-10 is easily the best Attacker its really performed its job well, through Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the A-10 actually shot down a Taliban Fighter, But I have always been a big fan of the A-4 Skyhawk, that plane did some damage against the Royal Navy with Argentinians


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 21, 2006)

the A4 also did damage to its foes in the Middle East and Vietnam.

Thats my favorite.


----------



## JohnnyL (Jul 21, 2006)

Man, the skyraider is so awesome. Flying one of those things to cover the grunts would have to be the best job there is.

Also:

The USMC should go steal all the A-10s and put arrestor hooks and launch bars on them.


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2006)

My personal favourite is the Jaguar the case for which I put earlier in the thread, but there is one aircraft of this type that always, always get overlooked and that is the A7.

Few planes have served the USN and the USAF so well over a number of years.

My second choice would be the A7. The reason for putting it ahead of the A10 is straightforward. I could not see the A10 being deployed over N Vietnam which is where the A7 earned its spurs.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jul 23, 2006)

I should also mention Evan, those are some awesome High Quality pictures right there, take them yourself?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 25, 2006)

Thanks Hussars. Yes, those are my photos.


----------



## Jaws (Aug 11, 2006)

A-10 is a great aircraft but is too slow.
It sure does ok with USAF because it has all the cover it needs and the enemies are usually much much weaker and can't disrupt it's activity.
Against an enemy with similar strength i think the A-10 would be just like the Il-2 during WW2. Great against ground forces but would suffer heavy casualties to fighters and enemy AAA.
Just think for a while how A-10 would do if it wasn't flying for the USAF. 
I'd say to be a great attacker this days an aircraft needs a lot more then just a nice cannon, missiles and heavy armor. Speed is what you need to survive in a modern, complex battlefield. You need speed to get in and out of combat area fast.
That's why I think the concept of slow specialized attacker is obsolete. Is only suitable for a huge air force of a country that can afford the costs of a fleet of planes with such a limited range of missions. Multirole is what makes sense this days when the price of building and operating combat aircraft is so high.


But since we talk about pure attackers I'll go with the Jaguar.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 12, 2006)

Speed of other aircraft is exactly why the A-10 was developed. When attacking ground targets, you have to be able to see them to target them. If you are flying over the target area at high speed, you chances of hitting the target are not very good, if you even happen to spot it at all. Your arguments are what they stated before almost retiring the A-10 before the first Gulf War. After the results from there, the A-10s were kept around, surprise surprise.

The A-10 is way more durable than you give it credit for, Jaws. Have you seen what they can do first hand? Have you seen one come back full of holes from AAA and/or SAMs? Have you seen one return from a mission with only one main wing? There are members of this forum who have (myself included, although I did not personally witness the aircraft fly with only one main wing, I did see it afterwards).


----------



## Bullockracing (Aug 12, 2006)

I have personally seen some land that didn't look like they should... Another gollygeewhizwow feature on the A-10 is that the landing gear is very durable, and has a very wide track, and will lock down without hydraulics (for the most part - it retracts forwards). This makes the landing gear that much more survivable and much more tolerant of pilot error (not that pilots ever make errors LOL). Have seen two ground loops that would have destroyed (or at least tipped over) conventional attack aircraft.


----------



## Jaws (Aug 13, 2006)

I'm not saying A-10 is not an outstanding aircraft for it's role. But just imagine for a second how would the A10 do in let's say first gulf war if it flew for the Iraqis.
Do you think it would have posed a big treat to allied armor and ground forces, with all those integrated air deffences and constant CAP? 

Well this case is a little extreme, No plane had a chance under those conditions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2006)

Jaws said:


> I'm not saying A-10 is not an outstanding aircraft for it's role. But just imagine for a second how would the A10 do in let's say first gulf war if it flew for the Iraqis.
> Do you think it would have posed a big treat to allied armor and ground forces, with all those integrated air deffences and constant CAP?
> 
> Well this case is a little extreme, No plane had a chance under those conditions.



Yes it would have posed a very large threat. The aircraft in itself is a tank with wings.


----------



## Bullockracing (Aug 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes it would have posed a very large threat. The aircraft in itself is a tank with wings.



Probably not, the A-10 would be blown out of the sky if it flew without "command of the air" against a modern air force, no matter how much I like the A-10.


----------



## jakal (Aug 15, 2006)

Hi

Can anyone spell "Frogfoot"


ha-ha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 15, 2006)

Bullockracing said:


> Probably not, the A-10 would be blown out of the sky if it flew without "command of the air" against a modern air force, no matter how much I like the A-10.



I agree that it require air superiority to enjoy real success but she is very hard to shoot down and very maneuverable therefore she would still be a great threat as long as she remained undetected.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2006)

jakal said:


> Hi
> 
> Can anyone spell "Frogfoot"
> 
> ...


Good aircraft, but no way as good as it's contemporary, the A-10


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 17, 2006)

Nor as pretty. 

I don't care what anyone says, the Warthog's a looker. 
A very lethal one at that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 24, 2006)

I concur.


----------



## twoeagles (Oct 25, 2006)

Take it from an old Scooter driver, it's the A-4 Skyhawk by a wide margin...
(Unless you are talking active inventory.)


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2006)

No, its would be alot easier to shoot down a skyhawk with a S.A.M then it would be with a Warthog


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

You sure about that Hussars. The A-10 is a lot slower than that A-4.

Granted the A-10 is probably more maneuverable.

I think the A-10 is the best attack but and A-10 would not be any harder to shoot down with a SAM than any other conventional aircraft.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 27, 2006)

Im talking about its durability, the A-10's rear can endure a sh*tload of damage, which is more than can be said about the A4


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2006)

this is trye but remember whilst the A-10 is very durable, no plane is invincible..........


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Oct 27, 2006)

My money's on the A10.


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 10, 2006)

I like the British Harrier .


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

can't say i blame you...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

Good aircraft, but the A-10s got the fire power and survivability.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

Twitch said:


> While it doesn't have "the gun" the old A-1 could haul massive amounts of ordnance low and slow.



The Skyraider is frickin awesome. I remember standing there in the museum at P'cola ogling over one for like 45 mins. My wife didn't get it... they never do...

A placard said that the left turning tendencies were so severe that during full power T/O roll rull right rudder was not enough to offset, so the engine was mounted off center.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

The Skyraider was deffinatly a nice aircraft. 

As for the wifes never understanding, I feel lucky. My wife goes with me to museums and loves to see the old planes and everything.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Skyraider was deffinatly a nice aircraft.
> 
> As for the wifes never understanding, I feel lucky. My wife goes with me to museums and loves to see the old planes and everything.



Yeah... my wife thinks their "neat," but her interest kinda stops there. I'm hoping that she becomes more interested in aviation after I get all those FAA licenses and can take her up and show her "real flying," not commercial flight which is all she's experienced.

The sensor fused weapon will give US aircraft (A-10 included) an antiarmor capability that any other nation's attack craft could only dream about...


----------



## stonewall23 (Dec 10, 2006)

The air corp used the Fouga magister in the ground attack role , a nice little aircraft.Obviously not in the same league as the A-10 or Harrier.We use the PC-9 now mostly as an advanced trainer.We can only look on in envy at other air forces equitment.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 10, 2006)

So what you are saying Evanguilder is that the A-10 is like a modern B-17 Flying Fortress? It can take a massive amount of damage and still keep on flying...


----------



## R-2800 (Dec 12, 2006)

I think the A-10. becasue the A-10 is very tough, manuverable, heavy armerment, armor for the pilot, serprated back up systems in differant routes in the airframe. it may be slow but it can take a hell of alot more then an A-4 if it was hit


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> So what you are saying Evanguilder is that the A-10 is like a modern B-17 Flying Fortress? It can take a massive amount of damage and still keep on flying...



The A-10 can take massive amounts of damage and still get her pilot home. There were A-10s in the first Gulf War that had great big sections of both wings gone and she still flew without a problem. She is a flying tank.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 12, 2006)

I think most of you recall this little event...one of my tech reps in Baghdad was able
to snap a dozen shots of this A-10. I recal the pilot was female...?


----------



## dinos7 (Dec 12, 2006)

well the jaguar does have the ability to defend itself, but so does the A-10. i saw a f-16 and an a-10 go at it in a training exercise, and the A-10 beat the f-16, im not sure if anyone will believe me.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2006)

That I would like to see. What was the scenario? Both start with low-E? Guns only? Can't imagine a 16 getting themselves in a position where the A-10 would have a chance. If so, that was a critical mistake.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 12, 2006)

A-10 my vote. It is not the newest bird out there but she gets the job done and looks mean and can take a beating.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 13, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> So what you are saying Evanguilder is that the A-10 is like a modern B-17 Flying Fortress? It can take a massive amount of damage and still keep on flying...



Yes and no. Yes in the ability to sustain a large amount of damage and make it home. But there is a difference in roles, obviously.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2006)

mkloby said:


> The Skyraider is frickin awesome. I remember standing there in the museum at P'cola ogling over one for like 45 mins. My wife didn't get it... they never do...
> 
> A placard said that the left turning tendencies were so severe that during full power T/O roll rull right rudder was not enough to offset, so the engine was mounted off center.




If you think the A-1 was impressive, what did you think of the Martin Mauler sitting next to it? More powerful still!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2006)

twoeagles said:


> Take it from an old Scooter driver, it's the A-4 Skyhawk by a wide margin...
> (Unless you are talking active inventory.)



The A-4 was a tough old workhorse and was a great, flexable, air-to ground aircraft (and I believe the hot rod version was a Top Gun aggressor too!), but I think it lacked the loiter and load carrying capacity of the A-10. Survivability was probably similar, the A-4 was faster (less exposer) but more vunerable while the A-10 was slow but built like a tank. Apparently the A-4 and A-7 did not provide all the ground support that was needed since the A-1 continued to be operated throughout the war.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think the A-10 is the best attack but and A-10 would not be any harder to shoot down with a SAM than any other conventional aircraft.




I am not sure I agree with this. Redundancy and armament certainly makes it a difficult nut to crack. It would be more tolerant to warhead size and circle of error misses. On a one event bases, the A-10 would probably be more survivable than typical jet aircraft. Slow speed would make it more susceptable to multiple targeting, however.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 14, 2006)

davparlr said:


> If you think the A-1 was impressive, what did you think of the Martin Mauler sitting next to it? More powerful still!



YEAH BABY! That whole museum is awesome... except the jets don't interest me!


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2006)

mkloby said:


> YEAH BABY! That whole museum is awesome... except the jets don't interest me!



I love those early jets too. I grew up with them, F9F, F11F, F4D, all. My favorite airplane of all time is the F8U. It just looks different and great. The A5D, beautiful.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 14, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I love those early jets too. I grew up with them, F9F, F11F, F4D, all. My favorite airplane of all time is the F8U. It just looks different and great. The A5D, beautiful.



Oops, I mean the A-5 (A3J) Vigilante, not A5D.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2006)

davparlr said:


> I am not sure I agree with this. Redundancy and armament certainly makes it a difficult nut to crack. It would be more tolerant to warhead size and circle of error misses. On a one event bases, the A-10 would probably be more survivable than typical jet aircraft. Slow speed would make it more susceptable to multiple targeting, however.



I think I worded my post wrong, because I agree with you completely.


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 15, 2006)

What about the F/A 18? What do you think about that from an attack aircraft basis? I know it is mostly fielded as a fighter/bomber but I am interested on hearing your opinions on the attack part of the role... Also the F-15 Strike Eagle does some ground attack so should it really be the F/A-15 Strike Eagle in reality?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 19, 2006)

F/A18 isnt anything compared to the A-10, it doesnt have the ability to manouver at such low speeds as 200 mph like the A-10 can, its not armoured like the A-10 is, its cannons are designed to shoot down planes rather than lay down a feild of fire, the F/A 18 is also loud as F*CK which doesnt help if its coming at ground level and is about 10 seconds from greasing a group of ground targets. and those are just a few reasons


----------



## R-2800 (Dec 19, 2006)

> /A18 isnt anything compared to the A-10, it doesnt have the ability to manouver at such low speeds as 200 mph like the A-10 can, its not armoured like the A-10 is, its cannons are designed to shoot down planes rather than lay down a feild of fire, the F/A 18 is also loud as F*CK which doesnt help if its coming at ground level and is about 10 seconds from greasing a group of ground targets. and those are just a few reasons



I agree


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2006)

Can't compare the two. Different missions.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 22, 2006)

And not to bash the f-18 its a good plane, it just isnt a commited Ground Attacker


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 22, 2006)

Just thought I would ask about that as it had an F/A Designation...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2006)

Fighter/Attack


----------



## 102first_hussars (Dec 23, 2006)

I think he knew that, he just thought he would ask because of the F/A designation


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2006)

i don't think you should think about it being too specialised in the attack role, just that she can haul a lot of ordinance......


----------



## DIOGENIS (Dec 24, 2006)

Does TORNADO count? It is an all weather / Day-night attack aircraft with specialised packs of anti-tank(brimstone) and anti-radar (alarm) missiles and guided bombs (paveway).Able to fly in high and low speed ,nap of the earth flying ability,two 27mm guns.

Ok, A-10 is rugged and the 30mm is deadly to any tank, but other than that, lacks most of the features described above


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2006)

You think it only carries a 30mm? Think again:


> Avionics equipment includes communications, inertial navigation systems, fire control and weapons delivery systems, target penetration aids and night vision goggles. Their weapons delivery systems include head-up displays that indicate airspeed, altitude and dive angle on the windscreen, a low altitude safety and targeting enhancement system (LASTE) which provides constantly computing impact point freefall ordnance delivery; and Pave Penny laser-tracking pods under the fuselage. The aircraft also have armament control panels, and infrared and electronic countermeasures to handle surface-to-air-missile threats.
> 
> The Thunderbolt II's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun can fire 3,900 rounds a minute and can defeat an array of ground targets to include tanks. Some of their other equipment includes an inertial navigation system, electronic countermeasures, target penetration aids, self-protection systems, and AGM-65 Maverick and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.
> 
> ...


----------



## DIOGENIS (Dec 24, 2006)

Dear evangilder, merry Xmas!
regarding your reply,

a. NVG systems = NVG goggles in this case ( hope i'm not mistaking) which is far more than 24h combat capability 
b. lacks radar!!
c. 23mm guns ok, what about modern missile aa systems (pics)?
d.external counter measure pod, limited electronics capability-minus one weapon station,limitations in pulling max g's, less survivability in modern combat field (as in c.)
e.Tornado can also bring a heavy weaponload but more accurately,faster, and lower than A10 which by the way carries more standard weapons as you describe, such as unguided bombs.Laser guided bombs can only be released and not guided, unless an external pod or another source is used


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2006)

They are using the Gen III NVIS system which is very very capable. 

What does a low level ground attack aircraft need radar for? Their mission is to slog it out with the ground forces and armor. Radar is not effective in that environment because of trees and ground clutter.

Yes, A-10s have taken hits from missiles and made it home. Please show me where a Tornado can survive a _direct hit_ from an armor piercing, or high explosive 20mm round.

I don't think it matters if the targetting system or electronics is pod mounted or internally installed. Either way it adds weight, and being able to _not _have it is a big benefit.

You obviously have not seen what an A-10 can do at low level, even with a full compliment of weapons. I have seen the capability of the Tornado, and there is no comparison at low level. As a strategic attack aircraft for a quick strike on a precision target, the Tornado is good, but it cannot duke it out at low level like an A-10.

You are talking about different missions with your last statement. That is a precision strike, which the A-10 is not designed for. It is a ground attack/support mission, not precision strike. The Tornado is indeed good for precision strikes, but if I had my butt in a cockpit against an armored column, I would pick the A-10 over any other aircraft, hands down. I have seen what they do in their element first hand.

The photos below show what happened to an A-10 that took a hit from a missile. It made it home.


----------



## DIOGENIS (Dec 25, 2006)

The A10 is obviously capable of absorbing medium cal. guns and manpads, rather than avoiding them. what about 35mm aa, crotale, Tor M1,Buk class missiles?the whole philosophy of usage is obsolete.Such missions can be accomplished by joint aircraft and attack helicopters, AH 64s, TIGRAs,M35 s etc.Suitable in low threat, good weather environments only.Such as the US forces achieved in Iraq in the recent conflicts.

The Tornado GR4 is indeed primarily a strike aircraft, that doesn't mean it can't be used for the front line attack/support role due to the highly sophisticated ordnance, for example brimstone missiles against tanks.

Don't forget that prior being used in the Gulf wars, plans for withdrawal were ready (15 yrs ago!).In fact a modernised A7 variant was proposed to replace it.If so, for the first time in aviation history an aircraft would replace it's succesor!

I accept your arguments, it's about different aspects of seeing things.I haven't seen what an A 10 can do, i'm sure it's quite impressive.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 25, 2006)

A-10s don't need EW countermeasure equipment - there are other A/C for lugging those heavy pods... such as Prowlers and the navy's EA-18 will do...

Not to mention that A-10s can carry the Sensor Fuzed weapon - which God help any hostile armored unit that gets to meet one of them...

If you need CAS - the A-10 is a great bird...


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 25, 2006)

And let's not forget the A-10C now is precision strike capable.

Anyone know what the story is for the A-10B? Was this an upgrade program that went missing? Was this the original engine upgrade that was bypassed for avionics, structural and weapons package upgrades?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2006)

A-10 is deffinatly the best attack aircraft. She is rugged, can carry the most ordinance and can slug it out with the enemy. Sorry but the Tornado can not take the damage, can not fly as slow as the A-10 and does not have the Close Air Support capability of the A-10.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2006)

different roles anyway as has been said, whilst the Tornado can carry more NATO ordinance than any other combat aircraft as i understand it, she remains a strike aircraft..........


----------



## HealzDevo (Dec 28, 2006)

Agreed, although it seems like they may be extending the A-10 gradually to take more different NATO armaments... Anyone know whether they carry wing-tip ATA missiles to distract attackers?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 28, 2006)

i don't believe she's really fast enough to suit the role of strike aircraft, leave that to the fast jets........


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

HealzDevo said:


> Agreed, although it seems like they may be extending the A-10 gradually to take more different NATO armaments... Anyone know whether they carry wing-tip ATA missiles to distract attackers?


They have carried AIM-9s underwing. One got a kill in GW1 but I think he used his gun.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

Here's the kill date...

15Feb91 511TFS/10TFW T.Sheehy A-10A/81-0964 30mm Mi-8 IrAF 

BTW I also found that an AH-64 got an air-to-air kill, pilot unknown

27Feb91 229 Avn/101st AH-64A AGM-114 Helicopter IrAF


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 28, 2006)

There were 2

6Feb91 706TFS/926TFW R.Swain A-10A/77-0205 30mm Bo.105C IrAF


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 29, 2006)

Sidewinders typically carried as a pair on one under-wing mount only. A-10s do not have wing tip mounts, as their wings actually curve downward at their tips.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 2, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> Sidewinders typically carried as a pair on one under-wing mount only. A-10s do not have wing tip mounts, as their wings actually curve downward at their tips.



Didnt the A-10 actually shoot down a Taliban aircraft at one point, i read about this once, but i didnt think the Taliban were intelligent enough to fly a kite let alone an aircraft


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 2, 2007)

Sounds interesting, anyone found any more info on that shoot-down?


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2007)

The IDS Tornado is not capable of CAS work, it was never designed to do such a job. It is an interdictor, it was designed to destroy bunkers, airfields and HQs. 

During its first combat operations in the Gulf War, it was sent in low to attack Iraqi airfields. Sometimes operating as low as fifty feet but suffered accordingly, as six GR.1s were lost to Iraqi AA. 
When sent on medium level strikes, the Tornado was found wanting. It required the aid of BAe Buccaneers with TIALD laser designators to accompany them on any strike missions. 

The GR.4 is a massive improvement over the GR.1. The aim was to improve the medium-level ability of the Tornado due to its failings in the past. It was only finished in 2003, and one just crashed recently. 

It's embarassing for the GR.1 when you see what's _new_ to the GR.4. FLIR, wide-angle HUD, NVG, GPS are some of the things that really should have been present a long time ago. But the GR.4 can carry storm-shadow cruise missiles and does contain the impressive TARDIS system.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 4, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Didnt the A-10 actually shoot down a Taliban aircraft at one point, i read about this once, but i didnt think the Taliban were intelligent enough to fly a kite let alone an aircraft



I could be wrong, but I dont think the Taliban sent any aircraft up..


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 5, 2007)

Taliban? Aircraft? I don't think its in compliance with the laws of physics to even use those two words in the same sentence.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2007)

From the best I got the Taliban only had a few aircraft available when the coalition invaded Afghanistan - those aircraft were destroyed on the opening strikes...


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 5, 2007)

Ok hers why i asked the question, I was at an airshow in Moosejaw, there was an A-10 there, and over the loud speaker the guy was speaking about the battle history of the plane, now he mentioned 1 air to air kill over Afghanistan, so i took the time to look it up right after, i had found about a dozen results saying the same thing and when i tried looking it up again a few days ago, i got zilch so thats why i asked, i dunno, its confusing, maybe the results were false and "they'' got rid of them


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2007)

102first_hussars said:


> Ok hers why i asked the question, I was at an airshow in Moosejaw, there was an A-10 there, and over the loud speaker the guy was speaking about the battle history of the plane, now he mentioned 1 air to air kill over Afghanistan, so i took the time to look it up right after, i had found about a dozen results saying the same thing and when i tried looking it up again a few days ago, i got zilch so thats why i asked, i dunno, its confusing, maybe the results were false and "they'' got rid of them


My best sources show the only air-to-air kills by an A-10 happened during GW1. 

Here's a site about the Afghan AF just prior to the invasion...

Afghanistan, 1979-2001; Part 3


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 7, 2007)

They captured some of DRAAF aircraft in '92 is what i read


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 8, 2007)

Yeah from what I know. All of the few taliban aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the cruise missle strikes.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 8, 2007)

Ok thankyou for the clarification, i guess either the airshow guy made a mistake or i misunderstood him.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 31, 2007)

I added a Poll to this thread to make it worthwhile.... The scoring is approximate... Please vote again...


----------



## Elvis (Feb 17, 2008)

Aw, gimmee a paper airplane and a firecracker. That'll knock the crap outa them!

(kidding  )


Funny, the A-10 and Jag are included and not the Mig-23 (BN).
During the Afghani war in the late 70's, that was pretty much Russia's "ace-in-the-hole", or at least thats the way it seemed.
I remember hearing about how the American military was impressed with how it handled itself during that conflict.

One thing it has over the A-10 is "_Mach_" capability, of course so does the Jaguar, I think.

...still, I voted for the A-10.
C'mon, its tougher than a bag or nails and its _American!_ 




Elvis


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 17, 2008)

A-1 for me, all the way....that were flying destroyers as the story goes Korea I think it was.... I can't find the story, but the point is when the pilot had finished reporting to Marine on the ground, he asked "what the h*ll are you flying, destroyers?" 

How does the maximum load compare to the A-10 and for how long could they stay in the air compared to each other?

Also, where's the A-6 Intruder??


----------



## Elvis (Feb 18, 2008)

According to "Warbird Alley", the A-1 had a max. capacity of 14,450 lbs and a 900 mile range.
According to "Global Aircraft", the A-10 has a max. capacity of 25,400lbs. and a range of 800 miles.

I imagine, this is at a cruise speed in the 300-350 kt. range.

Hope that answers your question.

...oh yeah, and all the A-6's are stationed at Whidbey Island NAS, so if you're looking for one.... (kidding  ).
I used to see them fly over my parents house, all the time, when I was kid.




Elvis


----------



## snafud1 (Feb 24, 2008)

The History channel did a show on attack aircraft of different era's and broke down every part of what was needed for that role and concluded the P-47 was the best attack aircraft up to this point. I wish I could recall the exact name of the episode . It was very detailed and descriptive.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 24, 2008)

snafud1,

Would that have been an episode of "Dogfights"?
If not, then probably something under the "Modern Marvels" series.


Elvis


----------



## snafud1 (Feb 24, 2008)

I believe it was Modern Marvels now that you mention it.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 24, 2008)

I think that it is interesting that only one post identified the A-10 correctly as the Thunderbolt II, not the Lightning (Lightning II is the name of the F-35), and that was in a quote. That includes mine.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 14, 2008)

102first_hussars said:


> Ok thankyou for the clarification, i guess either the airshow guy made a mistake or i misunderstood him.



The A-10 took out a Iraqi/Sov helicopter with the gun.. but it was either tag end of the GW1 or immediately afterwards during a rare 'no fly zone' enforcement.

A-10 for me. When the discussion is Attack and not multi role - it is clearly the best at what is does. There are several fast movers that also do a good job, are more survivable in a hot air threat environment but in my opinion none as lethal to grunts/light skin and armor as this bad boy... and the USAF did it's best to shove it aside.

The Army kept it in the inventory when they continually crept into close air support role with new and better helos and 'scout' craft to fill the niche that A-10 would have left for them with no follow on replacement.

Long live the Key West accords


----------



## davparlr (Mar 14, 2008)

AF senior management is mostly fast movers and only want to talk fighters for everything. I think some things were lost when all fixed wing close air support went to the AF. I think the army would have held it more dear, like the marines.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2008)

A-10's had a tough life, that's for sure.

Anyone remember the crash at the Paris airshow? When was that, '77?
The A-10 program was JUST getting started back then and the crash was so sensationalized, it almost killed the program right then and there.
...then no major conflicts for about 15 years.
If it wasn't for Ronald Regan and Desert Storm, I think we'd be mentioning it today in questions like, "anyone remember the attack plane the Army / Air Force had in the 70's and 80's? What ever happened to it?"

30+ years later and its still sluggin' away. I think its safe to say, today, that the plane will be around for a while.



Elvis


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 17, 2008)

A question!
Why isn´t it included the Fiat G-91 R/3 or R/4?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2008)

Well lets be honest. While it was a good aircraft does it really rate as best of all time.


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 18, 2008)

Hi!
Probably more than some on the list!?
I let you judge that!
The G-91 entered service with the PoAF during the african war in our colonies! Going to Guiné in 1963, it operated there until 1974, also operated in Mozambique and Angola!
During eleven years only 3 Aircraft were shot down by SA-7 ofered by the soviets to the rebels. No losses to AAA, despite some aircraft being damaged, but even these were recuperated and flown until the end of the war!
Not comfirmed by PoAF, but confirmed by War veterans from both sides and the press is the encounter of 2 mig-15 and a mig-17 piloted by eastern-europe voluntears, and our g-91s, no losse of Portuguese aircraft.
The g-91 operated until 1993, that is 30 years of operational use for the same aircraft non stop. in the and it mad 75000 hours of fligth.
Do you know many aircraft that can do a 11 years war in thousands of combat operations in tropical climats in improvised runways, with a arms embargo achieving sucess in war if it was not one of the best?
I accept any opinion even if i don´t like it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 18, 2008)

Again I think it is a great aircraft but *historically* I can not think of any aircraft up there that is not greater than the G-91.


----------



## Glider (Mar 18, 2008)

If I had to pick a plane that wasn't on the list it would be the A7


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 23, 2008)

Ok Adler Historically you probably writh!
So my choice goes to the A-10! 
I saw what they can do in NATO exercises!
I wouldn´t be the one inside an APC with that bird in the sky!
About the A-7, we had them, but they were nothing more than flying scrap metal!!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 24, 2008)

I have seen first hand what an A-10 can do to enemy positions when I was in Iraq. I would not want to be on the recieving end of it. The only thing more impressive that I have seen was the AC-130 raining hell down on the enemy.


----------



## Evil_Merlin (Mar 30, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have seen first hand what an A-10 can do to enemy positions when I was in Iraq. I would not want to be on the recieving end of it. The only thing more impressive that I have seen was the AC-130 raining hell down on the enemy.




Indeed. All that needs to be seen is the aftermath on the Highway of Death during the first Gulf War.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 30, 2008)

...and if that wasn't enuogh, there's these little tid-bits from the good folks at the United States Army, courtesy of Youtube...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iz5MwPsfyo_ (remember, that's ONLY the gun).

...and just _how fast_ does that gun fire?


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiCWrL6VjsY_


8)  





Elvis


----------



## Luis Miguel Almeida (Mar 30, 2008)

and this? :


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sCnNl1PuTQ_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z5nV8weTz4_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSK8fNSLu5Y_


----------



## Matt308 (Apr 2, 2008)

Alas one of the worst things about Youtube is the NC-17 commentary.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Apr 4, 2008)

my vote goes to the Warthog as well - efficient and combat proven. Although I doubt the A-10 would achieve in the classical european Fulda Gap scenario the same success rate as in the Desert Storm. In fact, the attack airplanes in their roles would barely survive first 2-3 days of fighting.


----------



## Elvis (Apr 5, 2008)

Ok, one more piece of A-10 footage from 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJmRc3JTBRg_.

This shows an A-10 going through the paces at its "average" operational altitude.




Elvis


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Again a difficult poll, but I would say A-4. Ed heineman knew what he was doing when he built that bird.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 7, 2008)

The A-4 over the A-10 Bandit???? Come on dude.........


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Yep, lesofprimus (dang why didn't you pick a name easier to remember and spell? If there's some kind of inside joke with it enlighten me!) 

Yep, the Warthog has Tons and Tons of stability, but for ground attack you also need a plane than can roll and run like hell after you drop your load...AND you need a plane cheap enough to buy in so many numbers that the bad guys on the ground have to divide their attention to 25 targets instead of two or four!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 7, 2008)

Call me Les... To explain, and we have a thread for this, http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/off-topic-misc/what-do-your-usernames-mean-4327.html ,
Les Claypool is the Bassist for a band called Primus....

He is considered by many to be the quintessential bass player of the rock/metal genre...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

HEY! (amateur) bass player meself!!!

Of course not in THAT class...or in yours, either, I suspect...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Am reading that thread now...and grinning...


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 7, 2008)

Had to vote for the A10. one of my personal fav's. Cheaper to build compared to most, more effective, built tough!


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 16, 2009)

Vent for the Frogfoot; not worse then Warthog, and able to take off land to a carrier (okay, not all of them  ). Plus, it was (and still is) able to designate targets by it self by laser.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 16, 2009)

I'm glad to see the love for the A-1 Skyraider, it was a classic. A-10 is my favorite plane of all time though.


----------



## projob66 (Jan 22, 2009)

A-6E TRAM and HARM and AGM-84 was the pinnacle of attack aircraft. The F-18E/F Super Hornet will finally take over that mission. All weather find the target and hit it. While the fighter pukes are at the club drinking.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 22, 2009)

projob66 said:


> A-6E TRAM and HARM and AGM-84 was the pinnacle of attack aircraft. The F-18E/F Super Hornet will finally take over that mission. All weather find the target and hit it. While the fighter pukes are at the club drinking.


Will take over? Don't you mean "DID?"

*The 19 December 1996 launch of an A-6E Intruder from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65) marked the last Intruder squadron to fly from the deck of an aircraft carrier. The Intruder Attack Squadron 75 of Carrier Air Wing 7, known as the Sunday Punchers, was decommissioned in early 1997. *


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 22, 2009)

Not on your poll
but I'd choose the Hawker Typhoon Mk 1b
Just about every a/c up until then had had a go a dropping a couple of small bombs on enemy positions by strapping small, low yield ordnance to fighters that weren't really designed to carry them.

Although the Typhoon itself wasn't designed from the outset to be a fighter-bomber, it hardened into the role in a way that none of its predecessors did and with 4 x 20mm cannons plus 8 x 60lb rockets or 2 x 1,000lb bombs it presented a fearsome arsenal of destruction.

Hawker Typhoon Mk 1b, for setting the standard.


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I'm glad to see the love for the A-1 Skyraider, it was a classic. A-10 is my favorite plane of all time though.



The Warthog is one of my favorites too Clay! It's just a tough, mean looking plane. You can take one look at it at know what it was designed for!


----------



## Bumpercat (Jan 26, 2009)

I have to go for the IL-2 on the grounds of historical significance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 26, 2009)

What historical significance is that??? That it was produced in such numbers, cause thats all thats significant about it...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 26, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> What historical significance is that??? That it was produced in such numbers, cause thats all thats significant about it...



That, and it was a pretty good target for Luftwaffe _experten_ . . . .


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 27, 2009)

Wasn't it supposed to be very hard to shoot down?


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Jan 27, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Wasn't it supposed to be very hard to shoot down?



From what I've heard from the forum, the IL-2 could be shot down easily if the pilot was experienced and knew where to target. I think it was the coolant system that could be shot out, could be wrong though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 27, 2009)

The oil reservoir was the sweet spot on the IL2.....


----------



## Flyboy2 (Jan 27, 2009)

Yeah i don't think that you could vote on the Il-2 over aircraft like the A-4, A-1 and especially the A-10


----------



## Venganza (Jan 27, 2009)

I think Bumpercat's point was historical significance. Here we go again about what a dog the IL-2 was. There was a reason the Soviets produced over 36,000 of the Shturmoviks - they got the job done - there were thousands of Germans barbecued in their tanks to attest to that. As far as being easy to shoot down for the ubermenschen experten - that was in the first two or so years of the war, when the IL-2's didn't have a rear gunner, poor or non-existent escorts, and poor tactics. Remember that even the excellent Grumman Avenger was easy meat for Japanese pilots when unescorted. As far as the later years, it was harder for even the almighty experten to shoot down IL-2's when they had La-5's and Yak-9's flying up their arses. As their tactics improved, and their pilots got better, the losses dropped dramatically. I would loved to have seen any other attack aircraft flying under the circumstances the IL-2 had to in the first year of the war - flying low, slow, and level with a pilot with maybe 10 hours on the IL-2 flying it with no escort. Speaking of the IL-2 (nice segue, what?) you can learn more about it at my new thread at Current, Modeling, Painting Questions, Tutorials and Guidebooks, IL-2 Modelling Guide. By the way, I voted for the A-10. Great airplane.

Venganza


----------



## drgondog (Jan 27, 2009)

where does the heavy lifter F-105 fit in this profile?


----------



## Venganza (Jan 27, 2009)

drgondog said:


> where does the heavy lifter F-105 fit in this profile?



As I recall, during the Vietnam War the Thud was used more like a strategic bomber than a ground attack plane (as well as SAM supression in the Wild Weasel role). As a matter of fact, despite the fighter designation, it was designed mainly as a high-speed nuclear bomber, complete with small internal bomb-bay.

Venganza


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 28, 2009)

Messy1 said:


> The Warthog is one of my favorites too Clay! It's just a tough, mean looking plane. You can take one look at it at know what it was designed for!


Gotta give tremendous love to the A-10 pilots too, they really believe in their planes, they'll take on anything head on.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 28, 2009)

Venganza said:


> As I recall, during the Vietnam War the Thud was used more like a strategic bomber than a ground attack plane (as well as SAM supression in the Wild Weasel role). As a matter of fact, despite the fighter designation, it was designed mainly as a high-speed nuclear bomber, complete with small internal bomb-bay.
> 
> Venganza



I agree most of that and I don't assign the 105 a tactical tole the same as an A-10 or A1.. but it is interesting to note that two wings of 105s in Vietnam dropped 2/3 of all the tonnnage dropped by all the B-17s - ever. While a bigger percentage were industrial targets in NV a large percentage were all over Laos and South Vietnam on tactical targets.

Interestingly I don't believe it ever carrried a bomb in the internal bay... everything hung on MER/TER and later the Weasels used the bay for ecm/target acqisition stuff

The Thud had four basic missions - armed reconnaisance, strike, SAM suppression and close air support. Only the latter was somewhat 'iffy' because it was a Fast Mover.

My personal favorite is the Hog. 

It is kind of amusing that the 355th FG started out with the P-47 Thunderbolt, moved to 51, then 86, then 105 then to A-7 and now back to the Thunderbolt (2).


----------



## Messy1 (Jan 28, 2009)

I hear you there Clay. I'd hate to be looking down the business end of that gun!


----------



## Venganza (Jan 28, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Interestingly I don't believe it ever carrried a bomb in the internal bay... everything hung on MER/TER and later the Weasels used the bay for ecm/target acqisition stuff...
> 
> It is kind of amusing that the 355th FG started out with the P-47 Thunderbolt, moved to 51, then 86, then 105 then to A-7 and now back to the Thunderbolt (2).



I think you're right about the internal bay - I believe the bomber versions, as opposed to the Weasels, used the bay for a fuel tank and carried all the bombs on MER's. That's interesting about the 355th FG.

Venganza


----------



## drgondog (Jan 28, 2009)

Venganza said:


> I think you're right about the internal bay - I believe the bomber versions, as opposed to the Weasels, used the bay for a fuel tank and carried all the bombs on MER's. That's interesting about the 355th FG.
> 
> Venganza



Yeah - the 355th F-105s actually dropped more than 202,000 tons - 1/3 total of all B-17s in WWI. Two squadrons of the 355th came back in 1973, TDY to 354TFW, with A-7D's (another great attack a/c not on the list) but the primary role was armed FAC and CAP for rescues


----------



## Bumpercat (Jan 29, 2009)

Flyboy2 said:


> Yeah i don't think that you could vote on the Il-2 over aircraft like the A-4, A-1 and especially the A-10



How could anyone say that the IL-2 was a better attack aircraft than the A-10? They couldn't. But the IL-2 being an option here suggests that the criteria is not a modern day shoot out against, lets say, North Korean armour. Rather a discussion of effectiveness in it's day(and in that the A-10 was a close second for me).


----------



## imalko (Mar 14, 2009)

A-10 can be considered only as best modern attack aircraft, but for me the best of all times was Il-2 Sturmovik becouse no other attack aircraft had that level of impact and importance in conduct of warfare.
And yes, if criteria is effectivness in it's day, no other aircraft is better than Il-2.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 14, 2009)

The IL2 was fodder for the hundreds of 109's and 190's... Easy to shoot down with a small amount of ordanance....

The impact the Sturmovik had on the ground war across the Eastern Front was nothing compared to what the Warthog did during both Wars in Iraq....


----------



## imalko (Mar 14, 2009)

You can not compare fighting on eastern front in WW2 with First and Second Gulf War. 
There had been hundreds of german fighters but only a handfull of Luftwaffe Experten on eastern front and actually IL-2 was wery hard to shoot down becouse of heavy armor it had and rear gunner. (Not to mention effective sovyet fighter force in second half of the war.) It was capable to absorb a lot of battle damage due to its heavy armour and yet quite manouverable for attack aircraft. Threre has been several ocaisons when IL-2 were acting in fighter role and were reported to shoot down several german bombers. Sergey V. Iljusin even developed a prototipe of fighter aircraft based on IL-2 but project was canceled becouse it was not needed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 14, 2009)

And yet there were still ground attack aircraft of WW2 that were better than the Il-2. I would take a Focke Wulf Fw 190F-8 or a Hawker Typhoon over an Il-2 anyday.

Why?

Because they could carry a great amount of ordinance and still fight like a fighter. Try doing that with Il-2...


----------



## imalko (Mar 14, 2009)

Well, both Fw 190 and Typhoon were originally designed as fighters... And you are right they were superb aircraft, I just think that IL-2 was more effective in ground attack role.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 14, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And yet there were still ground attack aircraft of WW2 that were better than the Il-2. I would take a Focke Wulf Fw 190F-8 or a Hawker Typhoon over an Il-2 anyday.


...or a P-47?


Elvis


----------



## imalko (Mar 14, 2009)

My list of best ground attack aircrafts of WW2:
1. IL-2
2. Fw 190F-8
3. Hawker Typhoon
4. P-47 Thunderbolt
5. Henschel Hs 129


----------



## imalko (Mar 14, 2009)

If I had to make a compromise over "IL-2 or A-10" issue, then, even if the IL-2 is my favourite, the answer would be:
- IL-2 is the best piston-engined ground attack aircraft of all times.
- A-10 Warthog is the best jet powered ground attack aircraft of all times.

Coments?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2009)

Elvis said:


> ...or a P-47?
> 
> 
> Elvis



Yeah I should have noted the P-47 as well. For ground attack purposes however I would still take a Typhoon or a Fw 180F-8 over a P-47 though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 15, 2009)

And I would take an Fw190F-8 over an IL2 any day of the week, including Holidays....

I'd rather be alive than crushed inside a smoldering wreck....


----------



## Elvis (Mar 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I should have noted the P-47 as well. For ground attack purposes however I would still take a Typhoon or a Fw 180F-8 over a P-47 though.


No worries, I was just thinking that with the 47, you'd have a plane that could carry a pretty fair amount of ordinance, and then could do a great job as a fighter, too, so ya' a kind of got a "two-fer-one" deal, in that sense.
For _pure_ ground attack purposes, though, I'd have to agree with you on the Typhoon.
BTW, wasn't the Typhoon some kind of influence on the design of the A-1 Skyraider?
I don't know about that version of the FW to comment on it.



Elvis


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2009)

I'd include the P-47 too
it could deliver a big payload to the target area and could take a beating too.

The only thing with the Typhoon and the Thunderbolt was that you needed to be careful in them, that close to the ground. The Typhoon was notorious for 'mushing' and if you pointed the nose of the Thunderbolt at the ground while you were down there, there was a chance you wouldn't come up again.


----------



## renrich (Mar 15, 2009)

How could there be a list with the P47 and the FW190 on it and not have the F4U? It was a better attack AC than either of those two.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 15, 2009)

renrich said:


> How could there be a list with the P47 and the FW190 on it and not have the F4U? It was a better attack AC than either of those two.


There's no Typhoon on there either
There's probably a forum-specified limit as to the number of poll options


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 15, 2009)

There is not a limit now, but there used to be....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 16, 2009)

Elvis said:


> No worries, I was just thinking that with the 47, you'd have a plane that could carry a pretty fair amount of ordinance, and then could do a great job as a fighter, too, so ya' a kind of got a "two-fer-one" deal, in that sense.
> For _pure_ ground attack purposes, though, I'd have to agree with you on the Typhoon.
> BTW, wasn't the Typhoon some kind of influence on the design of the A-1 Skyraider?
> I don't know about that version of the FW to comment on it.
> ...



You are absolutely correct. It is basically the US equivalent of the FW 190F-8 and the Typhoon. All of which I would take over an Il-2 or a Stuka any day.


----------



## Elvis (Mar 19, 2009)

Hey, glad you brought up the Stuka.

I ran across the following passage while checking out a link in another thread.
What do you think of this?

"_H75 vs Ju87b: This is included here because many pilots don't know how to handle a Stuka properly. They think "Oh, it's a bomber, it can't turn" and promptly get shot down as the Ju87b outturns them. The Ju87b turns better than the H75. Now before you grab the pitchfork and head down to CRS, there are a few things to point out. The Ju87b has one of the lowest wing loadings in the game. It has huge thick wings, which generate a lot of lift (and a good amount of drag). It is designed to haul a big airframe, two crewmembers, armor, bombs, and lots of ammo on a relatively low amount of power. It also has to do this while being draggy as heck. It accomplishes this by having huge thick wings (remember how gliders fly with no power? big wings). What this means is that this airplane can turn. Just like a light biplane that has only 100hp, but can turn on a dime, the Ju87b can use its huge wings to turn well. It *will* outturn you if you flatturn it. The two biggest problems a Stuka has are speed and climbing ability. If you go vertical, the Stuka will die. If you fly fast, the Stuka will die. If you try to run away, you will get away. If you try to turn with it for an extended amount of time, it will get a nice canopy shot on you and you will die. It also flies so slowly that you will easily overshoot it if you are not careful. Most turnfighters used to beating 109s in turnfights don't know how to handle a better turning plane. Learn, or you will become very frustrated with the Stuka._"

That is the first time I've EVER heard anyone write about the "accolades" of the Stuka in a dog fighting role and its got me scratchin' my head.
Not sure to call it BS or not.

...and now the appropriate linky's...

The site the quote came from - Curtiss Hawk 75A-3 (P36G) (the passage is at the bottom of the page)

The thread where the linky to the site came from - http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/p-40-warhawk-kittyhawk-17083-3.html


I don't know. The whole page almost reads like instructions to a video game, if you ask me.
I didn't investigate that aspect, though, as it doesn't interest me.


Anyway, whadaya think?




Elvis


----------



## Loiner (Aug 17, 2010)

Not claiming it to be the best or anything, but for packing a punch relative to it's size and weight, the A-37 probably deserves a mention. Some may argue it was the predecesor and inspiration for the A10 which replaced it, the highly manoueverable little 'Dragonfly' had 8 hardpoints and a multi-barelled mini-gun, could house a crew of two so an observer could provide a useful second pair of eyes (although some missions had one) and with drop tanks and refueling probe had an excellant loiter time.

The A-37 had an excellant combat record in Vietnam, they required a low level of maintenance compared to the high performance jets, and provided high number of combat sorties with relatively very few combat losses.







c/o flickr.com






c/o airplane-pictures.net[/img]


----------



## The Basket (Aug 18, 2010)

Seems the A-10 gets the vote.

But the reasons the USAF wanted rid is there.

I don't believe against a WarPac scenario with all them SAMs and MiGs and flak the A-10 could have survived.

Really don't. And ain't that the original plan?

If I was voting sheer firepower, loitering and combat persistence then AC-130...gets mine.

Can attack a combat zone all day long.


----------



## Glider (Aug 18, 2010)

The Basket said:


> Seems the A-10 gets the vote.
> 
> But the reasons the USAF wanted rid is there.
> 
> ...



Which is why I went for the Jaguar


----------



## Tangopilot89 (May 21, 2011)

I would vote for the A-10 as the best all-rounder.

But I would like to mention the Hurricane MkIID, nicknamed the 'Flying Can Opener.' I'm not sure of it's combat history but I would think in it's day it would have been a formidable weapon. Two 40mm Vickers 'S' guns seemed pretty good to me.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 24, 2011)

My favorite Hurry


----------



## Tangopilot89 (Jun 3, 2011)

I do like the look of it, the other Hurricane I like has to be the MKIIC, with four 20mm Hispano cannon.

As for the Spitfire, I've always liked the MKXIV (just love the look of that 5-blade prop). I know they had 'Hurribombers' during WW2 but did they also use Spits as fighter-bombers?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 10, 2011)

Of course they did. A Yugoslav squadron (part of RAF, based originally in Italy, 1944) was performing bombing attacks vs. Axis forces. One of the founder's of Tito's partisans' air force, Franjo Kluz, was claimed by flak while flying a Spit in such role:
Franjo Kluz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Tangopilot89 (Jun 11, 2011)

Well, you learn something new every day. I've been looking it up and apparently the first Spit adapted to carry bombs was a Mk VC. Cheers mate!

Andy


----------



## icepac (Jun 19, 2011)

Here's a story about the skyraider dogfighting against the F8F bearcat.

Skyraider Stories


----------



## Aaron Brooks Wolters (Jun 19, 2011)

Very interesting site Icepac, thank you for sharing the link.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 20, 2011)

Able Dog .... carrying a nuke to Sevastopol. Interesting read:

http://www.warbirdforum.com/toss.htm

MM


----------



## ShVAK (Aug 17, 2012)

I voted A-1 because I have a soft spot for the good ol' Spad chugging along through two wars in the heart of the jet age but when it comes to modern aircraft, A-10 all the way in the CAS role (with a nod to the mighty AC-130 as well). The Jaguar is also really capable but it's an interdictor, fast in and fast out. It wasn't meant to provide real-time support for ground infantry, which is the hallmark of a true ground attack aircraft for me.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (Aug 17, 2012)

Too bad three's no De Havilland Mosquito... that was probably the most significant Allied attack plane of WWII.

I'll take the Il-2 because it's always overshadowed and did what the A-10 did, but did it first!


----------



## Dan Fahey (Oct 10, 2018)

I would chose the P-63 King Kobra !


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 11, 2018)

Where are the A-7 and the A-6?

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elvis (Oct 11, 2018)

That too _futuristic_ for this bunch.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Oct 14, 2018)

I'm thinking it would be useful to add the following to the list

F-111
Though classified as a fighter, the aircraft was, for most all intents and purposes a bomber. It had good range, a good load-carrying capability, and was one of the fastest airplanes at low altitudes. It had a CCIP and terrain-following autopilot.

Harrier
Forget about everything in the previous thread about fighters. The aircraft's vertical takeoff and landing-capabilities were extremely useful for carrier operation and any cases where long airfields are in short supply.

Blackburn Buccaneer
Designed to fly high subsonic at low-altitude, it used a fairly heavy wing-loading combined with extensive use of flap-blowing to allow adequate low-speed handling. In some ways it was arguably better than the A-6, in other ways, probably inferior.

A-6 Intruder
It had the ability to bomb in all weather (not sure exactly what altitudes this applied to), was able to fly rapidly at low altitude, and had an 18000 pound bomb-load. It was also highly nimble, supposedly able to outmaneuver a MiG-21 below 15000 feet.

F-117 Nighthawk
While technically classified as a fighter, the aircraft was an attack/bomber in most all purposes.


----------



## Elvis (Oct 14, 2018)

Wait a minute!
What are we all talking about?! Wouldn't the greatest attack aircraft _of all time _be the A-10?
It can carry more ordinance than any other attack craft that came before it.
It can take more punishment than an entire flight of B-17's ever could
...and who's gonna argue with a gau-8 30 mm gattling _cannon_. 

OK, changing my vote again - *A-10 warthog* FOR THE WIN!!!








Elvis

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

