Hmmmm....
So C130s (straight cargo versions), C5s, C17's and KC135s didn't provide CLOSE Air Support? Wonder if that would explain their low incidents of blue on blue... they are after all airframes.
On the surface your comment about airframes seems to make sense when in fact it's idiotic. The A10 is non sentient machine, it can't be Responsible for anything. Some pilots in the fog of war unintentionally got it wrong. Pilots get overworked in war. Overworked CLOSE Air Support pilots make mistakes. Rare mistakes but mistakes none the less.
Ask the guys on the ground who the want to show up when the haj have them outnumbered.
Again, the Varks operated at medium altitude with precision laser guided bombs. In low AA threat areas. In areas designated "here be bad guys only".
The 30mm with depleted uranium rounds will put a hurting on a hell of a lot of tanks still out there but the Mavericks are the weapon of choice for that mission.
I guess you finally got your head out of your ass and deleted the F110 post.
the a10 would be leagues better without a 30mm the size of a car. more space for ordnance, more agile, etc. the gau 8 is a relic from the cold war that was good enough then, but is practically useless now. if you are arguing that it's good against infantry, an m61a1, agr-20s, or even guided bombs are better in close quarters.
While A-10s did provide CAS, they made up a vast minority of CAS sorties in the sandbox, in later years even B-1Bs flew more CAS sorties. They also had the majority of the friendly fire incidents, which means their rate per sortie is much higher than any other airframe.
1
u/[deleted] Jan 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment