Thread: Random Thoughts on the Mighty Hog

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The Taliban clowns are probably around 25 y.o. on average, which is hardly a surprise in a country with a median age of 17.5 years and a life expectancy at birth of 42.5 years.

As a result, the Afghans that fought both wars are a VERY SMALL MINORITY.

As for AQ *Arabs*, most of those captured back in 2001 were *volunteers for the Jihad* that came into Afghanistan to receive their first training and had no prior warfighting experience.

It is very doubtful that any of those clowns ever received any kind of training on AD tactics before 2001.

I'd welcome any evidence that those who managed to escape after the fall of the Taliban regime received such a training in Pakistan after 2001 as you claim.

It takes 10 minutes to instruct someone how to properly lead a fast-mover or a helo, and you need no more in the way of training aids than a few cardboard posters and two sticks with a plane and helo on the end of them.
My 'extensive' US infantryman training in this area was about an hour in basic. It's just a matter of knowing the proper distance to hold based on aspect....and a whole ton of luck.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

MANPADS are not AAA.

What's your point?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Mujaheedins started to have significant AAA capabilities (end of 1984) well before they received their first Stingers (end of 1986).

What...Redeye/SA-7s and some towed 23/2 mounts? Nigga please.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The best-organized Mujaheedins groups (those led by Gullbuddin Hekmatyar and Ahmed Shah Masood) started to practice AAA ambush tactics on a regular basis from 1982-1983 onwards.

Good for them. The Iraqis had over a decade of practicing ambush tactics against our jets by the time OIF rolled around. And better kit.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The current threat environment in Afghanistan is nowhere near what it was in the 1983 pre-Stinger era, for the Talibans neither have the skills, nor the equipement.

I simply disagree. And if they have any less AAA now, it's probably because the USAF is so much better at putting the stomp down on the stuff with precision weapons to begin with.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Whenever the coalition troops seizes a Taliban convoy defended by 9 DShKs and 5 AA guns, I might revise this opinion.

Well you let me know if you do, and we'll throw a party.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Then again, you're confusing ORBAT and capabilities. What Iraqi's AD during ODS shows is that no matter how much equipment, an amateur remains an amateur.

An amatuer that scored a 100% attrition rate agaisnt a massed Apache attack.

Your argument simply holds no weight. The Iraqis were not amatuers- indeed they'd had 12 years continuous practice operating against US Aircraft by the time of OIF, and the Muj and the Chechens were not world-beating experts.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

How does that contradict the fact that the A-10s operate from above 14,000 feet ?

You said, "the A-10s currently operate in Afghanistan from above 15,000 feet so as to stay outside AAA & MANPADS envelope."

For gun employments A-10 pilots operate as low as 4500 feet, and generally attack from 14,000 feet.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

That they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise.

Your original statement which i just quoted was a blanket statement that, "the A-10s currently operate in Afghanistan from above 15,000 feet so as to stay outside AAA & MANPADS envelope."

A misleading blanket statement.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I don't think such a blanket statement on my presumed beliefs versus yours is of any value in the discussion, except that it somehow shows that you're running out of back up.

I don't trust Soviets or there figures. Blanket or not, it's the truth.

You can accept that, or you cannot accept that. Makes no difference to me.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Now, if you find other figures on the split of Mi-24 losses during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan when *looking out the window*, don't hesitate to post them.

I do not need to go hunting for statistics to know that the Hind is heavily protected vs HMG fire. And whose statistics am i to trust? Those of the over-hyped 'Mujahadeen' or those of the most corrupt Empire of the modern era?

The only statistic i think one can realistically take out of A-stan is that the Soviets left unfulfilled, which isn't really a statistic, is it?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

A-10 as a low-altitude tank-buster in a saturated AD environment : unproven concept.

AAA/MANPAD saturated, been done many times. And they've done Wild Weasel, which is the most dangerous Air 2 mud mission in the playbook.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Iowas as fast battleships within the ORANGE war plan framework : unproven concept.

Versatialle, tough, fast warships that excelled at AAA fast carrier task force escort and shore bombardment- completely proven and highly effective in both roles.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Mi-24 as flying IFVs : unproven concept.

Mi-24s safely inserted/extracted troops into hostile territory and delivered effective heavy fire support on countless occasions in A-stan.

The concept at play is AIR ASSAULT- a well proven concept, and the Mi-24 is merely a tool to accomplish the task. One can question the philosophy behind the specifics of the design, but it is unquestionably capable of all manner of air assault/escort operations, and is a tremendously successful design.

I certainly wouldn't want one shooting at me.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The Iowas achieved next to nothing during WW2 and very little thereafter (except perhaps during Korea).

An outright lie.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The A-10s are nowhere near as combat-proven as the Su-25s in terms of combat sorties.

The A-10 is completely combat proven.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The Mi-24s didn't prove to be immune to small-arms fire (5.45x39 and 7.62x39) especially during the first war in Chechnya.

Sure. I'm sure a .22 could take one down.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

What those systems have in common is the fetishist cult they inspire here and there on the web, and the resulting over-stated *fear factor* that turns them into invincible behemoths in the eyes of some kids.

What those systems have in common is that they've all been highly succesful designs that have all performed extremely well under actual fire.

As any professional can plainly see.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

But hey....umm....whatever?

Indeed...

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

You gave this link in your post #85 of this thread.

I was hoping to benefit once again from your extensive network within the Hog community and hear what Richard Dale Storr himself had to say.

Don't tell me you don't wanna know.

Ask them yourself.
There is no reason at all for you to not ask yourself. Register, post, ask.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Do you have a reputable source to support this claim that the sides of the canopy are protected against 7.62mm on the A-10 ? What 7.62mm would that be ? At what range / obliquity? Do you have a reputable source to support the other claim that the windscreen is protected against 14.5mm on the A-10 ? At what range / obliquity ?

Ask one of the A-10 experts on my site. I'm not your gopher.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

You are the one who fixated on the losses of Su-25 to AAA during the first war in Chechnya, in some attempt to find empirical evidences that the Su-25 cannot absorb as much battledamage as the A-10.

No, the basic armor scheme of both suggests that, as you admitted a few posts ago with your "on paper" comment. I merely pointed out that no A-10 had been lost to ground fire because no A-10 has been lost to ground fire.

Su-25s have. That's life.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I was merely trying to debunk this misleading claim by pointing out that the Su-25s were lost under very specific circumstances (AAA ambushes) and that A-10s would most likely have been shot down under the same circumstances.

The USAF does not acknowledge that an A-10 has been lost to ground fire. SU-25s have been lost to ground fire. Simple.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

IOW, there is little empirical evidence (if any) of the Su-25 having less ability then the A-10 to absorb battledamage in actual combat missions (though the armor protection of the A-10 is arguably superior on paper to that of the Su-25).

There you go, "on paper" again. A-10s have not been acknowledged to have been lost by AAA by the USAF. That's got nothing to do with me. I merely pointed it out. SU-25s have been lost to AAA. That's got nothing to do with me either. I also merely pointed that out. A-10s have not been lost to ground fire, SU-25s have.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

And some recent statements from high-ranking USAF and DOD guys :

Ken Krieg (UnderSecDef for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) : "The A-10 Propulsion Upgrade Program will modifies its General Electric TF34-100A engines to provide approximately 30% more thrust, which is needed to overcome limitations when operating from expeditionary airfields at high elevations and high temperatures. The increased power will also improve the A-10’s medium altitude performance and increase its weapon payload, thus improving both survivability and lethality."

Michael Wynne (Secretrary of the Air Force) : "This will help overcome some limitations that the A-10 faces when operating from expeditionary airfields at high field elevations and temperatures. It will also improve the A-10 performance at medium altitudes and increase its weapon load, thus improving survivability and more fully leveraging the capabilities of the Precision Engagement modification and ATPs."

[/QUOTE]
Well if they're trying to sell a program of course they'll play it up to the hilt. That's just good salesmanship. The PILOT on my board- the same one that quoted the turn radius figures- says the engines will do X, so the engines will do X. If you disagree, i suggest you argue with the PILOT about it.

The board is there for exactly the questions you are asking. It is a wonderful resource, all you have to do is use it. That's up to you.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

It takes 10 minutes to instruct someone how to properly lead a fast-mover or a helo, and you need no more in the way of training aids than a few cardboard posters and two sticks with a plane and helo on the end of them.
My 'extensive' US infantryman training in this area was about an hour in basic. It's just a matter of knowing the proper distance to hold based on aspect....and a whole ton of luck.

What a bunch of poh-poh...

Back in the good old days of the M163 VADS, it took about one year minimum to get a somewhat decent ADA gunner (assuming one could ever become a decent gunner with such crap as the VADS).

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Good for them. The Iraqis had over a decade of practicing ambush tactics against our jets by the time OIF rolled around. And better kit.

And when did the Iraqis had a chance to practice their ambush tactics against Coalition aircrafts between ODS and ODS ?

Can you back up this claim with a date, place, etc...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Well you let me know if you do, and we'll throw a party.

Whenever the coalition troops seizes a Taliban convoy defended by 9 DShKs and 5 AA guns, it will most likely indicate a significant reinforcement in those clowns' AD capabilities, which is BAD NEWS for me. Now if you feel like celebrating that kind of things...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

An amatuer that scored a 100% attrition rate agaisnt a massed Apache attack.

Any other example besides this much-touted Karbala mess, where the Army screwed up BIG TIMES ? Place, date,... ?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

You said, "the A-10s currently operate in Afghanistan from above 15,000 feet so as to stay outside AAA & MANPADS envelope."

For gun employments A-10 pilots operate as low as 4500 feet, and generally attack from 14,000 feet.

Very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the A-10 currently operate from above 14,000 feet most of the time.

And very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the fact that they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise.

And very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the pilots will climb back to above 14,000 feet immediately at the end of their run.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I don't trust Soviets or there figures. Blanket or not, it's the truth.

You can accept that, or you cannot accept that. Makes no difference to me.

Whether or not I accept that makes no difference.

What matters is that you haven't been able to offer other figures so far. At some point, you'll have to put up, or shut up, buddy.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I do not need to go hunting for statistics to know that the Hind is heavily protected vs HMG fire. And whose statistics am i to trust? Those of the over-hyped 'Mujahadeen' or those of the most corrupt Empire of the modern era?

If you don't trust the statistics from the Soviet era, you may try the statistics from the post-Soviet period instead.

E.g. on 27 September 1994, a Mi-24 operating from Mozdok was hit by HMGs and made a force landing; one of the crew was mortally wounded.

E.g. on 22 February 2000, a Mi-24 was shot down by small-arms fire near Benoy, another Mi-24 and two Mi-8 being damaged during the same action. The Mi-24 was lost when a 7.62mm bullet hit near the troop cabin and punctured main and auxiliary system lines.

The main gearbox oil system, the hydraulics and the self-sealing tanks proved extremely vulnerable, e.g. the self-sealing tanks not being able to stop leaks even when pierced by 5.45mm bullets.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Mi-24s safely inserted/extracted troops into hostile territory and delivered effective heavy fire support on countless occasions in A-stan.

The Mi-24s rarely flew with passengers (except one technician) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Hind being overweight and sluggish with full load. The armor plating and troop seats were removed more often than not, the payload being often limited to two rocket pods (or bombs), four ATGMs and 500 rounds for the YakB 12.7mm.

Only 16% of the Hind's combat missions during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were flown fully loaded.

The Hind's troop-carrying capabilities were used more often during the first & second war in Chechnya, mainly to insert spetsnaz troops for spec ops.

Bottom line, the flying IFV concept behind the Hind is UNPROVEN.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The A-10 is completely combat proven.

What you said exactly was : "A-10s are about as combat proven a system as exists in the world". I merely pointed out that Su-25 flew MUCH MORE combat sorties in its career, something you're obviously not willing to accept.

While the A-10 is certainly combat-proven, it never had a chance to prove itself as a low-altitude tank-buster in a saturated AD environment, which was one of the key selling point in the original concept.

Like it or not, the A-10 will most likely remain an unproven concept until the end of its career, no matter how well it does what it is currently used for.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Ask them yourself.
There is no reason at all for you to not ask yourself. Register, post, ask.

The world is not going to collapse if ONE A-10 happens to have been shot down by AAA.

I don't quite see why you're afraid to ask on YOUR OWN board (or perhaps you really want me to come over there) and you certainly did a great job so far (and probably learned a few things as well).

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Ask one of the A-10 experts on my site. I'm not your gopher.

When did I ever ask you to be my gopher ?

I am simply asking you to back up your claims, especially when there are nothing more than wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I merely pointed out that no A-10 had been lost to ground fire because no A-10 has been lost to ground fire. Su-25s have. That's life.

So what ?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The PILOT on my board- the same one that quoted the turn radius figures- says the engines will do X, so the engines will do X. If you disagree, i suggest you argue with the PILOT about it.

Did the pilot on your website actually made any comments on what Krieg and Wynne said ?

I was under the impression that he simply said wing replacement was the #1 priority.

So far, I have read no specific comments on "the limitations when operating from expeditionary airfields at high elevations and high temperatures" or the need to "improve the A-10’s medium altitude performance and increase its weapon payload, thus improving both survivability and lethality."

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

What a bunch of poh-poh...

You calling me a liar?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Back in the good old days of the M163 VADS, it took about one year minimum to get a somewhat decent ADA gunner (assuming one could ever become a decent gunner with such crap as the VADS).

How do you know? Ever operated one? Ever been in a Vulcan plt? Know any Vulcan troops? If so, who, where, under what conditions? You get no more free passes, you know shiit about Vulcans, cause the thing takes all of 15 minutes to get familiarized on.

A ZSU-23/2 probably takes about 5 minutes to show someone how to use. These are very crude systems.

Besides, i was obviously talking about AAA fire with respect to the proper principles of leading the A/C and the differences between engaging helos and fast movers, and not about any one AAA system in particular. So stop being cute.

Teaching the basic fundamentals of lead requires no more than a lecture/classroom setting with a few planes on sticks, a few poster sized drawings of sight pictures and proper leads, and 30 minutes to an hour of a students time. And then practice. Like you get when you're dragging your HMG or towed AAA mount around in the Hindu-Kush firing at the odd US helo or other target of opportunity.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

And when did the Iraqis had a chance to practice their ambush tactics against Coalition aircrafts between ODS and ODS ?

From 1998 until 2003 when a continual state of war existed between the US aircraft that patrolled the No-fly zones and Iraqi IADS.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Can you back up this claim with a date, place, etc...

I could.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Whenever the coalition troops seizes a Taliban convoy defended by 9 DShKs and 5 AA guns, it will most likely indicate a significant reinforcement in those clowns' AD capabilities, which is BAD NEWS for me. Now if you feel like celebrating that kind of things...

The A-10 has attacked much more robust defenses than a few obsolete AAA systems as you describe above. Many, many times. And never suffered an officially acknowledged AAA loss.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Any other example besides this much-touted Karbala mess, where the Army screwed up BIG TIMES ?

Why, an entire Bde of shot-up Apaches (27 or 33 birds IIRC) isn't enough?(the Apache is another A/C of immense physical toughness, though it's electronics are fickle to say the least)

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Place, date,... ?

Roberts Ridge. A perfectly executed anti-aircraft ambush. (2 of 'em, in fact)

And oh, BTW, if you just got ambushed, odds are, you screwed up somewhere along the way, regardless of what kind of vehicle you're in.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the A-10 currently operate from above 14,000 feet most of the time.

Not all of the time (and you implied they always operated over 15,000 feet). Everytime they employ their gun they dip down to about 4500 feet. Well within AAA and MANPADS range.

That is a fact.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

And very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the fact that they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise.

So then stop insinuating they only operate above 15,000 feet, because it's simply not the case.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

And very much like the Soviet Su-25s after 1986, the pilots will climb back to above 14,000 feet immediately at the end of their run.

Did you watch that video i posted of the A-10s strafing?

No, obviously you did not. Cause you're wrong. An A-10 does not climb back up to 15,000 feet before it makes it's second strafing run. It would take too long.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Whether or not I accept that makes no difference.

What matters is that you haven't been able to offer other figures so far. At some point, you'll have to put up, or shut up, buddy.

You wont even tell the board who you are or what your background is, so as far as i'm concerned you've got no room at all to be making demands of anything on anyone at this forum.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

If you don't trust the statistics from the Soviet era, you may try the statistics from the post-Soviet period instead.

Sorry cuz, i dont buy your propagandized statistics. Soviet, Russian, Mujahadeen. The only thing all three have in common is that none of them can be trusted.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah....

Only 16% of the Hind's combat missions during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan were flown fully loaded.

AH-64s never operate fully loaded(The 30mm mag is usually only 25% full in most cases). Neither do A-10s for that matter. I doubt ANY A-10 has ever left the runway on a combat mission with a 'full combat load' of 16,000lbs of ext ordnance and a full gun load.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The Hind's troop-carrying capabilities were used more often during the first & second war in Chechnya, mainly to insert spetsnaz troops for spec ops.
Bottom line, the flying IFV concept behind the Hind is UNPROVEN.

Ummm....except in Chechnya where YOU JUST SAID that very capability was employed in combat.

WTF man...

Regardless, just because a concieved or intended role is not a viable one does not mean the system is a failure. A clear recent example is the Stryker. It is C-130 transportable really only on paper, yet the design is still highly effective nonetheless.

Another one is the B-2s low altitude mobile ICBM hunter mission. The mission dissolved(and was probably complete nonsense to begin with), but the B-2 is an absolutely dominating weapons system nonetheless.

I mean you are calling systems failures because some role some nameless PR O-6 schmoe came up with to sell some system to Congress either never materialized or were never anything more than a sales pitch. It's freaking ridiculous. And not a little Troll like either.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

What you said exactly was : "A-10s are about as combat proven a system as exists in the world". I merely pointed out that Su-25 flew MUCH MORE combat sorties in its career, something you're obviously not willing to accept.

Against much less dangerous IADS, something YOU'RE obviously not willing to accept.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

While the A-10 is certainly combat-proven, it never had a chance to prove itself as a low-altitude tank-buster in a saturated AD environment, which was one of the key selling point in the original concept.

The A-10 delivered numerous CAS strikes(and strafing runs) during both Thunder runs directly into Baghdad, a literal "fish bowl" threat environment, and was able to deliver effective fires against personnel, vehicles, and buildings despite massive amounts of AAA and a heavy MANPADS threat.

IOW, it did exactly what you're saying it has never done.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Like it or not, the A-10 will most likely remain an unproven concept until the end of its career, no matter how well it does what it is currently used for.

A ridiculous statement.

CAS, CSAR, FAC-A, Wild Weasel, Anti-Helicopter, Interdiction/Strike, and anti-tank are all roles the A-10 has excelled at in actual combat. And now it's adding precision strike to it's goodie bag too.

It is a COMPLETELY proven combat system, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

All you're doing is flaming now...and that was a real touch of fukking class tossing in the story about the dead canadians btw. I hope it doesnt turn out they called the strike in on themselves like happened to the Marines during OIF (or the SpecOps team that got whacked by a 2k lb JDAM during OEF).

The deaths of our soldiers in a terrible accident whose cause is as yet publically unknown should never be used as some sort of sick mechanism to 'score points' in a debate.

Troll.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

You calling me a liar?

Liar, NO. Over-enthusiastic Warthog lover, YES.

Now, can you back up your claims on the A-10 canopy ?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

How do you know?

Anyone from ADA School at Fort Bliss would ROFL at your claim that it takes 15 minutes to become a decent M163 gunner.

I suggest you contact someone like Col. Wilfred Boettiger for a confirmation on how long it took to get a decent AAA gunner back in the ol' days. His e-mail is : wboettiger@aol.com

Col. Boettinger is a fine gentleman with extensive ADA experience (especially with Nike and M42 Duster) and I am sure he'll be delighted to answer your questions.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

From 1998 until 2003 when a continual state of war existed between the US aircraft that patrolled the No-fly zones and Iraqi IADS.

Yet another blanket statement. The question was whether or not you could back up your claim with a date, place, etc...

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Roberts Ridge. A perfectly executed anti-aircraft ambush. (2 of 'em, in fact)

And Roberts Ridge is supposed to be in Iraq ??? Ya right....

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

So then stop insinuating they only operate above 15,000 feet, because it's simply not the case.

An A-10 does not climb back up to 15,000 feet before it makes it's second strafing run. It would take too long.

They operate just like the Su-25s did from the end of 1986 onwards, i.e. spend most of their time flying over 14,000 feet.

That they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise. That was also the case for the Su-25s from the end of 1986 onwards.

You may also want to ask people on your board how often they make a second strafing run. You'll find out that it's the exception rather than the norm for A-10s currently operating in Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Sorry cuz, i dont buy your propagandized statistics. Soviet, Russian, Mujahadeen. The only thing all three have in common is that none of them can be trusted.

I'd be delighted to examine your own statistics from whatever source you feel like trusting.

BTW, why is it that Russians cannot be trusted ?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Ummm....except in Chechnya where YOU JUST SAID that very capability was employed in combat.

Inserting spetsnaz troops for spec ops is NOWHERE near the original flying IFV concept.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

It is a COMPLETELY proven combat system, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

It remains a COMPLETELY unproven concept, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

All you're doing is flaming now... The deaths of our soldiers in a terrible accident whose cause is as yet publically unknown should never be used as some sort of sick mechanism to 'score points' in a debate.

Cut the crap, Billy Boy.

The death of Private Mark Anthony Graham is SAD NEWS for anyone with an once of sanity and incidentally YOU are the one trying to use this tragedy to score points here.

You should really quit this habit of derailing threads with unfair personal attacks whenever you run short of back-up.

Just ask the Canucks what its like to be mowed down by that 30mm cannon..last week,an A-10 strafed a Canadian platoon engaging the taliban.

The attack killed 1 Canadian soldier and injured 30. The soldier killed, Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, was a former Olympian who won silver at the Seoul Summer Olympics for Canada.

The thunderbolt was pulled from the Nova Scotia International Airshow, in Halifax, because of the incident.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Liar, NO. Over-enthusiastic Warthog lover, YES.

And you're a troll.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Now, can you back up your claims on the A-10 canopy ?

POST THE QUESTION AT MY SITE.

There a large % of the A-10 community will be at your feet to answer your question in the utmost detail.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Anyone from ADA School at Fort Bliss would ROFL at your claim that it takes 15 minutes to become a decent M163 gunner.

I never said that, you are once again misrepresenting what i said. Furthermore, how would you know what an instructor at Bliss would say? Ever been there? Ever been a 163 crewman or gunner? Ever even fired an M163?

Well?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I suggest you contact someone like Col. Wilfred Boettiger for a confirmation on how long it took to get a decent AAA gunner back in the ol' days. His e-mail is : wboettiger@aol.com

I said 'familiarize'.

Surely an expert such as yourself is familiar with the term.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Col. Boettinger is a fine gentleman with extensive ADA experience (especially with Nike and M42 Duster) and I am sure he'll be delighted to answer your questions.

Good, invite him to the board, we would love to have his experience and expertise added to the mix. ODD that you would ID HIM by name though, while YOU insist on providing NO information about YOURSELF.

I guess that makes you a hypocrite as well as a troll.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Yet another blanket statement. The question was whether or not you could back up your claim with a date, place, etc...

If i felt like doing the research, i'm sure i could.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

And Roberts Ridge is supposed to be in Iraq ??? Ya right.....

You asked for another time US aircraft had been ambushed in recent times did you not?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

They operate just like the Su-25s did from the end of 1986 onwards, i.e. spend most of their time flying over 14,000 feet.

Until they attack, at which time they regularly dive down to 4500 feet in strafing runs.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

That they may end up at a much lower altitude at the end of a strafing run is hardly a surprise.

Irrelevant to the fact that you stated A-10s always operated above 15,000 feet. They do not.

Period.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

You may also want to ask people on your board how often they make a second strafing run. You'll find out that it's the exception rather than the norm for A-10s currently operating in Afghanistan.

Maybe YOU should ask them. I posted a video of A-10s doing JUST THAT.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

BTW, why is it that Russians cannot be trusted ?

I have to tell you?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Inserting spetsnaz troops for spec ops is NOWHERE near the original flying IFV concept.

Mmmm....cause you say so. If they inserted or extracted spetznaz under fire succesfully even once the concept was validated.

And you said they did.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

It remains a COMPLETELY unproven concept, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

Good. I do not.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Cut the crap, Billy Boy.

Or what?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The death of Private Mark Anthony Graham is SAD NEWS for anyone with an once of sanity and incidentally YOU are the one trying to use this tragedy to score points here.

I didn't post the article. You did.

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

You should really quit this habit of derailing threads with unfair personal attacks whenever you run short of back-up.

I have not ran out of "backup", i have stated you're a sick fucck for posting that article to get in a little more quality trolling.

It is not a character defect to call a duck a duck, or for that matter, a troll a troll.

PS: The board already knows my name, what's yours?

What's yours?

Originally Posted by Canmoore

The thunderbolt was pulled from the Nova Scotia International Airshow, in Halifax, because of the incident.

Understandable, given the circumstances.

My condolences for your lost troops bro. :(

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

7.62 only for the sides.

The sides of the canopy are the weakest protection by far. That is the only 'weak spot' if 7.62 protection is considered 'weak'. The windscreen is protected from 14.5mm, everything else from 23mm API.

Shipwreck disagrees with M21Sniper on this point.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Dozens of A-10s have gotten shot more or less to pieces by SAM and AAA fire and only one A-10 has ever not been able to put it down in one piece.

Below is a list of all Hogs damaged during ODS (up to 22 February 1991), with description of damage and time to repair.

Data from GWAPS (1993).

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Pilot account of incident
"Then we started inspecting the airplane. Later, they counted 378 holes in it. According to the frag lodged in the plane, we deduced that all four shells from a four-round clip of 57mm hit me.(...)"
~Col Efferson, Hogdriver.

That quantified enough for you?

According to GWAPS, Efferson's Hog (77-0268) was hit by 37mm AAA.

The A-4C Skyhawk below was also hit by 37mm AAA and made it back safely.