Anti tank Aircraft

[tigercat]

How does the weaponry of  these anti tank aircraft compare.

Tsetste Mosquito  57mm Mollins
HS 129                 Bordkanone BK 7,5 cannon 
A10                     30mm   GAU-8/A Avenger

[rickshaw]

The Mosquito FB.Mk.XVIII 'Tse-tse' was not an anti-tank aircraft.  It was an anti-submarine aircraft.  The 57mm Mollins gun was actually intended for destroying U-Boats on the surface.

[Maverick]

I also think comparison between the two genuine anti-tank aircraft is unfair. 

The GAU-8 Avenger uses a 30mm depleted uranium round (in its API format) that will defeat most, if not all modern armours.  It also puts out these, along with HEI rounds, at 4200 RPM and has a magazine capacity of over 1100 rounds.

The Bordkanone 3.7cm fires a 37mm tungsten-cored round that was able to defeat WW2 armour in some cases.  It had a 12 round magazine with a rate of fire of 160 RPM.

Could the BK 3.7 defeat current heavy armour?  Doubtful.  Could the GAU-8 defeat WW2 heavy armour?  Easily.  Would the A-10 survive in a WW2 environment?  Quite possibly.  Could the G model Stuka survive in today's environments?  Very doubtful.

It would be like comparing a Nelsonian ship of the line to a WW2 battleship.

Regards,

Mav

[Weaver]

The GAU-8 can't defeat the frontal armour of most modern MBTs though, and I suspect it would struggle with the heaviest WWII types. That isn't to say it wouldn't write the tank off with external damage, but ironically, that's more likely to be a problem for a modern high-tech tank than a WWII one.



(Shouldn't this topic be, arguably, under "Weapons"?)

[tahsin]

I remember reading there were firing tests on various tanks and Leopard 1s with 70 mm max armour were vulnerable to A-10s from any angle , but Chieftains were not . Probably a sales pitch for those countries that might face A-10s to buy British , but the point is anything in WW2 was vulnerable to rear/side attacks .

And just remembered to add as an edit T-62s were reported destroyed from any angle . Single thickness armour was probably vulnerable in any practical form .

[Weaver]

Originally posted by Burncycle on the Gunships thread:

According to "Stolfi, Dr. R., Dr. J. Clemens, and R. McEachin, Combat Damage Assessment Team A-10/GAU-8 Low Angle Firings Versus Individual Soviet Tanks, February-March 1978, Volume 1, Air Force/56780/February 2, 1979."

In this test an A-10 aircraft attacked two combat-loaded individual Soviet T-62 tanks in five missions totaling seven passes; technicians rehabilitated the two vehicles after each pass. The aircraft were seldom higher than 200 feet in altitude; firings were initiated between 2768 and 4402 feet and terminated at ranges of 1587 to 3055 feet at dive angles of 1.8 to 4.4°. The bursts ranged from 120 to 165 rounds.

Altogether 93 DU rounds struck the tanks during the seven passes, including no impacts on one pass. The ratio of impacts to rounds fired was 0.10. Of the 93 impacts, 17 penetrated the armored envelopes for a ratio of perforations to impacts of 0.18. The report noted many of the side or rear impacts that did not penetrate the armor nonetheless extensively damaged the tanks' exterior suspension components, whereas all the rounds that hit the tanks' front caused minimal damage. These results reinforced the strategy of attacking tanks from the side or rear to optimize damage potential.

So at least in this test they only began the engagement from around ~800-930 meters and only around 17 rounds out of 93 that hit penetrated the tank from this distance (although the rest of the hits did do significant damage to exposed external parts). And that's with what we consider old T-62's. As uber as we like to think the Gau-8 is, it's nothing magical... you still need to approach from the side or rear (if high angle isn't an option) and open up pretty close. You may be able to hit the tank at 3 km away slant, but penetration would be significantly reduced.

[tahsin]

Thanks for the clarification , though regarding T-62 frontal defence and Avenger effectiveness  the stress can probably  be put on the word reported .

[rickshaw]

Speaking of GAU-8 accuracy, when they first started the A-10 programme (after choosing it over the A-9), they wanted to compare the GAU-8 to other, 30mm cannons.  They found the French DEFA-30 was more accurate. although it fired a round with a lower muzzle velocity.  The GAU-8's gattling action has a tendancy to throw the rounds around quite a bit, whereas the Mauser revolver action like that used on the DEFA produces less dispersion.   That result was quickly buried before Congress could get a hold of it.

Interestingly, the Oerlikon KCA cannon, fires the same round as the GAU-8 - 30 × 173mm.  It is a revolver cannon and has a muzzle velocity of >1,030 m/s, while the GAU has a muzzle velocity of 1,070 m/s.   Be interesting to see a comparison of the dispersion of both weapons.  Anyone care to what-if an A-10 with twin KCAs?

[tahsin]

It might have been real life as the fallback option was a twin Oerlikon A-10  if the GAU-8 did not work as expected .

[tigercat]

My apologies I was unde rthe impression that the Tsetse was designed to be an Anti-tank aircraft but when it was introduced their was no longer a need seen by the RAF  in that role so it was passed along to Coastal Command although I do feel that the wooden Mosquito would have been at a disadvantage against ground fire.

I admit I have an ulterior motive in that I am toying in mounting a Mosquito nose to a modified A10 Thunderbolt body in a layout akin to the unamed Junkers ground attack aircraft.

Also didn't the HS 129 mount a 75mm     

[Army of One]

Would the fallback option be two seperate revolver cannon or would a Gast principle type weapon work,mounted side by side underneath (similar to the twin barrel weapon on the Hind....)....I'm not sure how this would effect accuracy.....

[Maverick]

Tigercat,

The Hs-129B-3/Wa carried the Bordkanone 7.5 along with, I believe the Ju-88P-1.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Would the fallback option be two seperate revolver cannon or would a Gast principle type weapon work,mounted side by side underneath (similar to the twin barrel weapon on the Hind....)....I'm not sure how this would effect accuracy.....

Good question.  I'd expect the Gast to be more accurate than a Gattling weapon but less accurate than a single revolver weapon.

Done a little more digging. The A-10 was proposed also to be armed with the GAU-9 an Oerlikon 304RF 30 mm cannon but it proved inferior in performance to the GAU-8.  However, I've been unable to find out anything much about either weapon, nor the relationship to the Oerlikon KCA.

[tigercat]

I  had forgotten about the depleted Uranium. So is the main difference the type of ammunition. If you equipped a Mosquito with 57mm depleted Uranium shells would it be able to take on a modern day tank.

[Maverick]

Tigercat,

An important question isn't so much would a better gun make the aircraft a killer of modern tanks, it is would the aircraft survive in the first place?  Given the predominance of AAA, SAMs and MANPADs on the modern battlefield, to say nothing of the secondary armament of MBTs (eg: the commander's .50cal or 12.7mm Dushka) I really can't see an aircraft like the Mosquito surviving long enough to even get to its target, let alone be effective once there.

That being said, I suspect a 57mm gun, properly designed and firing shells of a similar nature to the GAU-8 would be a rather nasty customer indeed.

Regards,

Mav