A-10 and Su-25

[rattler]

From the Warthog Blog http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2009/04 ... ezmer.html

Nice pic (that I do not recall have seen before in this combination): A Su 25 Frogfoot and and A-10 Warthog in one photo:





Pix were taken at the "Reunion Aprill 2009" meeting of Bulgarian and US fighter pilots.

Rattler

[supersean]

Tacically speaking has the Su-25 seen & delivered any real results in the "real world"? I saw a stat provided (do not remember the source) that stated that the warthog has destroyed more tanks in combat than all other aircraft combined...

[Peter_K]

I saw a stat provided (do not remember the source) that stated that the warthog has destroyed more tanks in combat than all other aircraft combined...

More than Il-2?

[rattler]

I saw a stat provided (do not remember the source) that stated that the warthog has destroyed more tanks in combat than all other aircraft combined...

More than Il-2?

He probably means all "modern" a/c.

Il-s, with 36k pieces (plus/minus) produced surely has a lot of tanks on its kill list, also the FW-190F-2 and the Stuka Ju-87G-1 (and the -3, with two 37mm AT cannons mounted underwing and the dive breaks removed) came up to many more tanks that the Warthog ever could have killed (9.000+ T34 IIRC, Battle of Kursk just one example, but also did much harm in Africa). Just Col. Hans UlrichRudel killed 450+ alone on the Stuka, and many more with the AT equipped FW 190... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8EqJlOsUk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEovxiP2Rxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLDhZH0-aDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRUj6RiCj4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYijHuyQW9A

Rattler

[supersean]

I saw a stat provided (do not remember the source) that stated that the warthog has destroyed more tanks in combat than all other aircraft combined...

More than Il-2?

He probably means all "modern" a/c.

Il-s, with 36k pieces (plus/minus) produced surely has a lot of tanks on its kill list, also the FW-190F-2 and the Stuka Ju-87G-1 (and the -3, with two 37mm AT cannons mounted underwing and the dive breaks removed) came up to many more tanks that the Warthog ever could have killed (9.000+ T34 IIRC, Battle of Kursk just one example, but also did much harm in Africa). Just Col. Hans UlrichRudel killed 450+ alone on the Stuka, and many more with the AT equipped FW 190... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ8EqJlOsUk)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEovxiP2Rxg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLDhZH0-aDU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRUj6RiCj4w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYijHuyQW9A

Rattler

Well... I meant of all time... this is what I get for reference some stat that I did not really remember. In terms of modern attack aircraft is there anything comparable in terms of combat experience?

[rattler]

Havent seen any realativating stats about sorties/hrs etc., but at least in absolute numbers there were (so far) less Warthogs than Su 25 downed in Afghanistan IIRC.

Rattler

[Princess Leia]

Havent seen any realativating stats about sorties/hrs etc., but at least in absolute numbers there were (so far) less Warthogs than Su 25 downed in Afghanistan IIRC.

Rattler

Correct. There haven't been any A-10s lost in A-stan. Surprisingly very few lost in both Iraq incursions, and though some took very heavy damage in Kosovo (including having an engine blown completely off by a MANPAD), none lost there either.

[flyboy2548m]

I don't think the comparison is fair to either aircraft. They were built for different purposes.

[supersean]

I don't think the comparison is fair to either aircraft. They were built for different purposes.

Are you fuckin shitting me flyturd... both are close air support for ground troops and heavy anti tank focused weaponry and avionics/guidance/sensor packages. Sheesh man.. get you ass out of your head.

[flyboy2548m]

I don't think the comparison is fair to either aircraft. They were built for different purposes.

Are you fuckin shitting me flyturd... both are close air support for ground troops and heavy anti tank focused weaponry and avionics/guidance/sensor packages. Sheesh man.. get you ass out of your head.

Go f*** yourself, sean. The Su-25 wasn't designed with as an "anti-tank focused weapon" (unlike the A-10), it was designed as basically a heavy COIN bird with other capabilities (such as anti-tank). It was also designed for a very different theater and operating environment. You may recall the Soviets were mired in a certain country back then.

Get back to your busboys, dipshit.

[supersean]

Are you fuckin shitting me flyturd... both are close air support for ground troops and heavy anti tank focused weaponry and avionics/guidance/sensor packages. Sheesh man.. get you ass out of your head.

Go f*** yourself, sean. The Su-25 wasn't designed with as an "anti-tank focused weapon" (unlike the A-10), it was designed as basically a heavy COIN bird with other capabilities (such as anti-tank). It was also designed for a very different theater and operating environment. You may recall the Soviets were mired in a certain country back then.

Get back to your busboys, dipshit.

OK.. so maybe I went a tad bit overboard in my reaction to your ridiculous post but design purpose and utilization purpose are two different things. The 747 was not designed as a freighter but miraculously... it is now. The c-130 was never designed as a gunship however through engineering ingenuity it is now.. the current utilized purpose of both the a-10 and the su-25 are quite similar close air support for ground troops and heavy anti tank focused weaponry.

Care to comment on the effectiveness of one over another in this role?

[Robert Hilton]

If you would be kind enough to leave the handbag fighting to OTF and just put your arguments without the insults.
You both have valid points might I add.

[supersean]

If you would be kind enough to leave the handbag fighting to OTF and just put your arguments without the insults.
You both have valid points might I add.

concur... I stated the same in my last post.

[flyboy2548m]

The 747 was not designed as a freighter but miraculously... it is now.

Horseshit. The freight mission was very much a part of the 747 design. Hence the high-mounted flight deck to accomodate a hinged nose.

the current utilized purpose of both the a-10 and the su-25 are quite similar close air support for ground troops and heavy anti tank focused weaponry.

Not really, sean, I can't think of a single conflict in which the Frogfoot was used as an heavy anti-tank platform to any large extent. Most recently during the Georgian conflict they were used to low-level bomb Georgian positions, like a COIN bird would. Pesky things, facts.

As to which is more effective, perhaps you might ask MikeD, he has hours in one of them.

[supersean]

Horseshit. The freight mission was very much a part of the 747 design. Hence the high-mounted flight deck to accomodate a hinged nose.

Replace 747 with 757 or 767 and my argument remains valid.

Not really, sean, I can't think of a single conflict in which the Frogfoot was used as an heavy anti-tank platform to any large extent. Most recently during the Georgian conflict they were used to low-level bomb Georgian positions, like a COIN bird would. Pesky things, facts.

As to which is more effective, perhaps you might ask MikeD, he has hours in one of them.

Well.. facts are facts and most late revs of the FROGFOOT were specifically designed for the anti-tank role being outfitted with sensors & target designators specifically to support the AT-9 anti tank missile.

Love to chat with MikeD in more detail on which is a more effective A to G platform.. too bad he is not around.

[flyboy2548m]

Replace 747 with 757 or 767 and my argument remains valid.

Well, then why didn't you mention the 757/76 rather than the 74? BTW, it wouldn't have helped your cause one bit, there is still a difference between a purpose-built aircraft and an adapted one. IOW, you would have proven my point.

Well.. facts are facts and most late revs of the FROGFOOT were specifically designed for the anti-tank role being outfitted with sensors & target designators specifically to support the AT-9 anti tank missile.

Well, which is it, sean? Was the Frogfoot originally designed for "heavy anti-tank work" as you claimed earlier or is it now being adapted for that role, as you claim now? Can't have it both ways.

Love to chat with MikeD in more detail on which is a more effective A to G platform.. too bad he is not around.

Yes, he is.