How is everyone, need some help from my old modeling buddies. Having an argument with a very uninformed gentleman who has made the comment
"The problem with the A-10 Warthogs, or similar aircraft which is by nature an Anti-Tank aircraft, is an M-16 bullet can bring it down, sadly…
Hardly a flying tank…"
Now sure, a single bullet, with JFK magic bullet properties might be able to do some significant damage, but really, we all know how untrue this statement is. So I ask of you, post your most damaged A-10 pictures, I would like some photo evidence to prove this gentleman wrong.
I’m no expert in this matter but I believe that the only way a M16 bullet can bring down an A-10 is if it hits the pilot in the head. I really doubt it an M16 bullet will bring a Warthog down.
The design of the A-10 includes a titanium-armored cockpit tub for the pilot. The mounting point for the engines (high and aft) was also considered at the time of the design.
The aircraft was designed from the git-go to be robust an acceptable of ground-fire damage and be able to get the pilot home
And I’m pretty sure the canopy and cockpit walls are armored against that. Maybe not point-blank through the canopy, but US warplanes back to WWII had armored cockpits and bullet-resistant windscreens. The P-47 wasn’t so remarkably tough just because it was big…
That and the A-10 is designed to take damage, with all sorts of redundancies in place. Even separating the engines as far as they did, so if one goes, the other wouldn’t automatically go with it.
Here’s some battle damage of greater than an M-16 variety.
That second shot? That’s an A-10 hit by an anti-aircraft missile during Iraqi Freedom. From the awarding of Capt. Kim Campbell’s Distinguished Flying Cross:
Unable to eliminate the enemy without severe losses, the ground forward air controller had requested immediate close air support. After a quick situation update and target area study, Captain Campbell expertly employed 2.75 inch high explosive rockets on the enemy position that had been threatening the advancing forces, scoring a direct hit and silencing the opposition.
During her recovery from the weapons delivery pass, a surface-to-air missile impacted the tail of Captain Campbell’s aircraft. Immediately taking corrective action, she isolated the hydraulic systems and placed the A-10 into the manual reversion flight control mode of flight and prepared for the long and tenuous return flight to Kuwait.
Captain Campbell’s aviation prowess and coolness under pressure directly contributed to the successful completion of the critical mission and recovery of a valuable combat aircraft. The outstanding heroism and selfless devotion to duty displayed by Captain Campbell reflect great credit upon herself and the United States Air Force.
Lood at the design too. Engines mounted high and seperated, and three systems for flight control. The main wheels stick out to lessen the damage in case of a belly landing. Titanium cockpit tub. Tried to find a picture i saw where a 2ft hole was shot out in the wing taking an engine with it, but no joy. The pilot made it back to base and landed gear down (the tire on the side where the hole was, was flat though)
Well, first off, YOU don’t have to prove that A-10s can’t be downed with a M-16 bullet, he has to PROVE that it can. He’s made a statement, and now has to back it up with at least one occasion that an A-10 has shot down with a M-16. Simply ask him for an example that can be confirmed, or STFU.
Secondly, arguing with idiots reflects badly on you. When people make such outrageous statements that can’t be confirmed, laugh, sneer, or snort derisively and walk away. Run if they follow you! Arguing with such people lowers you to their level. Do you WANT to be on their level? Hmmm? Didn’t think so!
Thirdly, arguing with idiots on the internet is even worse. They can’t even chase you around. Just close the browser, crack a cold one (or pour a warm one) and chuckle to yourself about how it takes all kinds of people to make the world go 'round, and some of them are responsible for the tilt and wobble.
A-10s that have received a lot of battle damage resemble shot up B-17s during WW II. The A-10 has proven (even to it’s critics) that it is a tough pice of hardware and well worth the tax payers dollers spent in its procurement. I would not want to be standing on the ground firing any kind of rifle or pistol in a face off with an A-10, I know I’d lose. Magoo
The A-10 was designed specifically to withstand multiple hits from AAA ranging up to and including 23mm explosive shells. If the aircraft was inverted and took a 23mm in the canopy, that might take it out, but no way would a single M-16 round.
It was also designed to lose an engine and still fly…and when I say “lose” I mean it was designed so that the whole engine-pod would come off of the a/c and still fly…that’s why the two engines are built outside the fues in the pods on either side…It is a modern Hs 129…
Hans Rudel was a consultant to the design team. Rudel wanted something as slow and stable as a Stuka, the Air Force wanted a mach 2 jet. The A-10 was the compromise, but it’s a compromise that worked. I don’t think there is a single critical system on the plane that isn’t armored, redundant, or both.
Back around 1992 I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about the A-10. The chief designer was the focus of the article. Ever since the A-10 was introduced, the Air Force has been trying to replace it with something sexier. They almost replaced it with a modified F-16 just before the first Gulf War.
The designer said that when he heard of an A-10 coming home with most of the wing outboard of the landing gear shredded with a giant hole in it, he knew that all his hard fighting with the Air Force had been vindicated. No airplane is invincible, but the A-10 is probably the toughest ground attack plane ever built.
Thank you gentleman, I made my point. Perhaps I should explain, when I said, “win an arguement” I mean a guy said something stupid, and I wanted to post some pictures to prove him wrong. Never actually degraded to the back and forth internet arguing. Just quoted his text and attached the pics. Point made, job done. i guess for some reason I have a pathological urge to protect my beloved fighter jets, anti-tank aircraft and beautiful bombers. Especially from someone passing along such nonsense about such a successful work horse.
