Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Americans seem to have a hard on for A10s. Sure they’re a nightmare for infantry. But even a 3rd Gen fighter will make dog meat out of them.

The iraqis shot down 7 A10s. So long as you can field a 1970s era fighter, you’ll never see an A10.
Top | New | Old
GerOttman · 70-79, M
Pretty sure most, if not all, were lost to ground fire not air to air. It's a solid weapon system, wouldn't mind having one myself. I bet that would keep the neighbors cat off my lawn!
GerOttman · 70-79, M
@CGS1984 ground attack is always the most dangerous mission. it's often the most necessary too! 7 shoot downs out of how many sorties? How many of them made it home safely with half a wing missing. That bird was built to take a licking and keep on kicking!
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
GerOttman · 70-79, M
@CGS1984 yeah, that's essentially the program for this aircraft!
calicuz · 56-60, M
A10s are "Tank busters," and designed for low flying attacks. I wouldn't argue that any were shot down, but they are not designed for aerial combat, but for low, fast, in-and-out attacks.
@calicuz That’s what I said. The strike if the USAF - good against tanks and nothing else.
RedBaron · M
Americans? There are about 323 million of us. We’re not all alike and not all into weapons.
@RedBaron You know full well. Choking your chicken over the way Trump says “China”
RedBaron · M
@CGS1984 I have no idea what you’re talking about, and I didn’t vote for him.

How does he say China?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
But US ground tactics have always been based on air superiority. Your point is?😷
@whowasthatmaskedman the strategy has a weakness. Hubris.

The Iraqis shrouded them. 7 times.

Like when the US military believed overwhelming firepower won wars. Only it doesn’t. Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea. The ok it thing they ever achieved in the Middle East was create power vacuums that would come back to bite them.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@CGS1984 I agree with you. A large mechanised invasion force will always be vulnerable to a small disbersed group of fighters. Look at the Ukraine. or Vietnam..But your further comments about a power vacuum are political, rather than tactical. And the whole argument is being rendered archaic by the newer drone tech..😷
@whowasthatmaskedman You’re absolutely right. Drone tech is cheap too. Everyone has access. Not just Uncle Sam
Virgo79 · 61-69, M
Used as intended it's the devil to the enemy.
swirlie · 31-35
That doesn't surprise me at all, considering the US military has never won a war it started in the last 213 years starting with the War of 1812 and failed miserably at wars that were an ongoing second and third saga events started by other countries when the US eventually stuck their nose into it trying to validate themselves.

For all the hardware and military support that comprises the US military, it surprises me that the US lost the Vietnam War (because the US sucks at jungle warfare) and the US lost the war in Afghanistan (because the US sucks at mountain warfare).

And then there's the most recent debacle in Iran where the US launched an unprovoked attack on another Middle Eastern country which US Intelligence said were harboring weapons of mass destruction (sound familiar?), only to discover that their so-called 'bunker buster' bombs were basically ineffective.

Having said that, why in the fukk would the USAF bomb an allegedly 'known' nuclear storage site that was allegedly filled with nuclear material and potentially nuclear war heads as well, which Americans were hell-bent on destroying before Iran created a nuclear explosion someplace? Like, WTF?

That's probably why the world views the term 'American Intelligence' as an oxymoron. 🤦🏼‍♀

 
Post Comment