bxr307@uunet.uu.net (10/13/89)
From: munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net Several years ago I read an article in International Defence Review on a competition done by the US Air Force to see of the GAU8 carried by the A10 was as accurrate as claimed. They tested the GAU8 against the English ADEN 30mm and the French DEFA. Both were direct descendants of the German wartime MK203 30mm revolver cannon which didn't quite get into action before war's end. The result was that the GAU8 while firing a slightly heavier round at a slightly higher muzzle velocity was NOT as accurate as either of the other weapons (all tests were carried out using a ground mount, on the ground). What was interesting was that despite this result 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. As a consequence the aircraft could have carried less rounds (as the guns were more accurate) and been either slightly faster, or carried more ordnance of other types or had a slightly longer range. All things which are criticsm levelled at the present A10. As an outside observer here in Australia I quite often read of these sort of decisions (I believe that the US Army adopted the German 120mm gun as the result of a similiar political decision rather than the British 120mm rifled gun which is more accurate and powerful) being made by the US military which seems to suffer from a "not made here" delusion which holds that foreign equipment is never good enough for the US forces to use (although that seems to be slowly changing :-)) Brian Ross |Snail mail:- B.Ross bxr307@csc.anu.oz | Sociology Dept.,R.S.S.S. | Australian National University bxr307@coombs.anu.oz | CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601 | AUSTRALIA
gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (10/14/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <10176@cbnews.ATT.COM> munnari!csc.anu.oz.au!bxr307@uunet.uu.net writes: >Several years ago I read an article in International Defence Review on a >competition done by the US Air Force to see of the GAU8 carried by the A10 was >as accurrate as claimed. They tested the GAU8 against the English ADEN 30mm >and the French DEFA. Both were direct descendants of the German wartime MK203 >30mm revolver cannon which didn't quite get into action before war's end. The >result was that the GAU8 while firing a slightly heavier round at a slightly >higher muzzle velocity was NOT as accurate as either of the other weapons >(all tests were carried out using a ground mount, on the ground). There seems to be the impression here that the cannon needs to be accurate. I would counter by pointing out that relative to other motions and target size, the accuracy of the weapon means...nothing. > What was interesting was that despite this result >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. >As a consequence the aircraft could have carried less rounds (as the guns were >more accurate) and been either slightly faster, or carried more ordnance of > other types or had a slightly longer range. All things which are criticsm >levelled at the present A10. Aha, I beg to differ. The point is not the accuracy at all. It's the terminal ballistics of what happens to the target. A one second burst from an average (DEFA or ADEN, or the swedish whatsitsname) pair of 30mm aircraft cannon will hit with four to six rounds at one thousand meters, at most. Four to six rounds _may_ disable the tank. Most often they will not. The high rate of fire on the GAU-8 is designed to put _at least_ ten rounds onto a target of tank size at one thousand to fifteen hundred meters, and often will hit with many more. These ten and up rounds almost certainly WILL disable or destroy the target. The GAU-8 is designed for, not what you _think_ the mission is, but for the actual real world requirements of actually killing that target. > As an outside observer here in Australia I quite often read of >these sort of decisions (I believe that the US Army adopted the German 120mm > gun as the result of a similiar political decision rather than the British >120mm rifled gun which is more accurate and powerful) being made by the US >military which seems to suffer from a "not made here" delusion which holds >that foreign equipment is never good enough for the US forces to use (although >that seems to be slowly changing :-)) Right and Wrong. There _is_ a strong 'not made here' tendency in US DOD, as in any large, and particularly govt. organization. However... : The ideas you have about the 120mm gun situation are a little backwards. The British 120mm gun (i forget the desig) was designed well before the German Rhinemetal 120mm. The British gun was designed to be very specialized: it was rifled to _maximize_ accuracy, and the rounds were optomized likewise. The gun is optomized not for killing power but for range and accuracy. The Rhinemetal 120mm, on the other hand, had design goals of the same accuracy as the current 105mm(M168?/L7) but with highly improved muzzle velocity and throw weight associated with a improved and smoothbore APFSDS round. (Discarding sabot kinetic energy round). The US Army evaluated both guns (i heard of a M-1 -E? variant with the brit gun, two or so made) and decided that killing power was more important than extending the current engagement ranges. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ----------------------------------------