Certainly the PGU-14/B could defeat armor on APCs and older generation MBTs. Tanks tend to have heavy armor on the front and sides but lighter on the top. Whether that's a declassified spec with all other known values a secret or a realistic representation is unknown. Wikipedia quotes that a GAU-8/A firing the PGU-14/B depleted uranium API ammunition offers the following armor penetration capability.Īrmor penetration of Armor-Piercing Incendiary ammunition, BHN-300 RHA, attack angle 30 degrees from vertical: It depends on the tank, where you hit it, what angle you hit it, how far the A-10 was from the tank when it fired, and what kind of ammunition was used. softer armour than main battle tanks)? Does the cannon being mounted in a plane make it especially effective (I'd guess not, the muzzle velocity of a GAU-8 is 1000 m/s and and A-10's airspeed only adds 200 m/s to that)? If it is effective then why isn't that the primary armament of a main battle tank? Is the armour-penetration of an A-10 exaggerated (if it is effective against only e.g. And the gun on a "main battle tank" has if anything increased in size since then - or converted to missile instead of projectile - is a 30 mm cannon effective? I thought that in WW2 you needed something like a 75 mm or 88 mm gun to be effective against the then-heavy tank armour. an M1 Abrams) have a 120 mm gun - contrast that with the A-10's 30 mm cannon? If that were so, why does a "main battle tank" (e.g. Using the cannon, the A-10 is capable of disabling a main battle tank from a range of over 6,500 m. Perhaps this isn't on-topic, but is the A-10 effective against tanks (tank armour) when using its cannon?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |