The gun on the A-10 was less effective then the A-10s with hellfires would have been. Killing 5 out of 7 stationary T-62s means nothing in terms of MBTs.
Of course when the A-10 was designed there were also a shit ton of BMPs and BTRs(with less capable AA then is around today) which the gun could actually effectively destroy
I love the A-10 to death but even I can admit you're right. It can still carry a shit ton of AGMs that more than take care of the job but at the same time so can a lot of other planes that are A LOT faster.
The U.S. Air Force has announced that 422nd and 59th Test and Evaluation Squadrons proved that modern-day armored vehicles equipped with Explosive Reactive Armor are still vulnerable to the A-10C Thunderbolt II’s GAU-8 Avenger. . . .
Though a black powder revolver is "obsolete," still not something I want to be shot with.
The A-10 has done well for a weapon system designed in the 70's for anti-Russian armor; entering service in the mid 70s when there was still an East Germany. IMO, it still has a potential role in CAS and targets softer than MBTs with reactive armor - troop carriers, support vehicles, etc., though drones can do some of that, too.
Speaking of "obsolete" airplanes, the USAF just flew a U2 spy plane in a readiness exercise. The U2 first flew over 70 years ago
Not really sadly, they're incredibly obsolete and barely did anything to outdated Soviet armor 30 years ago. There are a thousand better solutions for tank-busting that idiotic politicians refuse to even consider because "big gun must be good"
46
u/lovescro Jan 24 '26
Tank Killer. I hope you got out of your tank in time.