henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/16/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net >they went ahead and bought the GAU8. I have always wondered if it had been > worthwhile if the USAF had instead decided to buy either the ADEN or the DEFA. >The A10 would have carried two, slightly smaller guns which were more accurate. Well, accuracy is not the only issue. The GAU-8 is also unusually powerful, even by Aden/DEFA standards. The USAF may given hitting power enough importance to outweigh the accuracy issue. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (10/18/89)
From: uunet!sequent!laxsqnt!daveman (David Mansfield) A side note about the hitting power of the GAU-8: >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Well, accuracy is not the only issue. The GAU-8 is also unusually powerful, >even by Aden/DEFA standards. The USAF may given hitting power enough >importance to outweigh the accuracy issue. > > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu Having served as a tanker, I've always had an interest in the A-10's ground support mission and what kinds of things I needed to watch out for. (-: While at an airshow one time, I asked an A-10 driver how effective was the GAU-8 using the depleted uranium round. I was somewhat suprised to hear that most A-10 pilots prefer the training round. It seems the heavier depleted uranium round tends to go right through the armor top to bottom, while the training round tends to just penetrate the top of the armor and "rattle around inside for awhile". Kind of interesting, huh? Seems like enough power and then some! As for accuracy, well, at somewhere around 6000 rounds/minute, I was wondering just how much TOT (Time On Target) you need to affect a kill?