>blows up your A-10Ceh, nothing personal kid
>>62897423Did it?
>>62897423Neva sucks at low altitude engagements tho.
>>62897451it could and would
>>62897547So it didnt
More like >gets killed by a wild weasel
>>62897547Well probably, the AC10 isn'ät particularly well known for dodging or evading AA. It isn't a very survivable plane in that regard.Provided that missile has some sort of reasonable guidance that is.
>>62897576The A-10C is hilariously shit, it was never a good ground support plane and the mythos around it is undeserved.
>>62897588It's a relic from the cold war era that couldn't adapt to modern times. Still, BRRRRTT is cool to hear when you aren't on the receiving end
>>62897423pppssshhhh…. nice try……kid…..
>>62897588What mythos? I mean obviously it is pretty good at penning and destroying American and British tanks, but it's never done much else. I guess it did shoot up that US middle school once.The AC-130 is vastly superior.
>>62897423Is that even a SAM launcher? Or is it being used as a ghetto rocket artillery launcher? Obviously there's no radar on that T-55 but the radar for an S-125 would usually be seperate anyways. On the other hand using Russian SAMs as shit MLRS is pretty common
>>62897423Never once happened.
>>62897423>Scorpion rocket installed sir
>>62897643AC-130 is a beautiful machine, but it can't even contend against memes like the Super Tucano or the An-2 in the skies. It needs air superiority to work, at least until we can cram a laser onto one.
>>62897643>>62898023The A-10 absolutely wrecked the shit out of the Iraqi army, it did so mostly using maverick missiles, not the gun, but it did it anyway. Moreover its known to be able to take quite a lot of battle damage. Comparing the AC-130 to it or the super tucano is fucking fucking nonsensical. Llike comparing an IFV to a SPG or a technical to a fucking tank. Bringing up the An-2 is fucking hilarious. The vatnik brainrot is deep.
>>62897968jej
>>62900596More kills were attributed to F111 than A10. A10 was basically along for the ride.More blue on blue was caused by A10 than anything else.iirc there was one tank blue on blue and that was someone in a Challenger shooting his buddy in the ass.
>>62900627>During the forty-day conflict, the A-10 force was credited with destroying 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 1,355 combat vehicles, and a range of other targets-including ten fighters on the ground and two helicopters shot down in air-to-air engagements.Bringing up frendly fire incidents, as if they're unique to the A-10 or warfare in particular, just outs you for the mouthbreathing retard that you are.tl;dr: you're retarded
>>62900596I meant that, in a straight fight, the AC-130 would lose to an armed An-2. The sacrifices it makes to arm itself for ground pounding are severe.
>>62900719The AC-130 is not meant to engage An2's, neither can it do the fraction of what the AC-130 can, this entire comparison is fucking retarded. There can only really be two reasons as to why someone would make it; they are either retarded or a troll.
>>62897588People are use to the tiny losses experienced during the GWOT and forget that in a Fulda Gap scenario the Apache and Warthog were expected to be lost in huge numbers but not before taking out several times their cost in enemy armour.Sure the A-10 would die but if it fired 6 Maverick missiles at 6 MBTs it was a good trade.
