A-10 vs Ju-87

[gjs238]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[riacrato]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Milosh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[lesofprimus]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.