i can get hit in the tail and and loose half of it and still fly on but at some point i always loose all control of the whole plane and just forced into the ground?
wtf is going on
1 Like
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
There have been more A-10’s(and likely SU-25’s) that crashed after being hit by missiles than one’s that flew home and landed safely.
I know
What is this for?
You posting a picture of the A10 with the engine shredded and returning is akin to you posting a picture of a shredded b17 returning, such as the survivorship bias the image I posted refers to.
1 Like
Sure there have been a couple of examples of badly damaged A-10’s returning and being written off. Not sure why you needed to post a fake photo 🤣
Including that one. There are 3 widely known instances of damaged A-10’s returning to base significantly damaged
The most famous is 81-0987, flown by Maj Kim Campbell hit by a manpad in 2003. She managed to land on manual revision and the airplane was deemed uneconomically repairable.
Then we have 80-0258, flown by Maj Gary Wolf, the iconic Battle Creek A-10, which was again hit by a manpad, and suffered relatively minor damage, confined largely to the engine. However it warped the airframe so badly that it was also retired.
Lastly, from 1991 we 79-0181 flown by Captain Rich Biley who managed to wheels up landing, but the plane was so badly damaged it was scrapped for parts (seeing a trend here)
However, there have been 7 A-10’s shot down between DS and OIF, atleast one of which was crashed while attempting to fly it home/land.
So statistically, less than half the time an A-10 is hit by a missile is it able to make it home. And, even when it does, the damage usually (statistically) writes off the airframe.
Lastly, two of the 3 A-10’s that have managed to make it home were engaged by relatively small MANPADS, and judging by the damage, the 3rd likely was as well. Where as in every known instance of a hit by a larger missile, such as a SA-13 (Strela 10m2) or Roland, the A-10 was lost.
1 Like
And again, most of the missile systems WT modeled for the Russian TT, are larger weapons than what most of the NATO forces field.
Aside from the Shilka 23-m4, most of them are larger non mandpad systems, where as the NATO forces are largely equipped with stinger esque weapon systems, which makes the DM comparison tricky, because a SU-25 (or A-10) statistically is more likely to tank a hit or remain flyable/controllable from a Chaparrel or Stinger/mistral/star streak/Igla series manpad, than a Roland, or OSA/Strela.
here is another a10 brain drain from an us main
1 Like
same happends with the su25k, they nerfed those planes and now they spin like a retard helicopter if they get hit, its proven in RL that a10s and su25s dont behave like this when they get hit.
That is not a B-17 its a A-20.
I’m aware it’s not a B-17, but again, this is the picture often shown when talking about B17 survivability bias