Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

@STGN01 "the B-1 is second on the list of most blue-on-blue kills during GWOT, how could such a high-tech plane do blue on blue, that's impossible by your logic right?" - The JTAC made the mistake of calling in JDAMs on his own position. This was a very unfortunate incident, but it wasn't the fault of the aircraft or the pilots. The man on the ground meant to say the coordinates of his target, and he got it wrong and said his own position. "the Russians claim to already track them" - Russians claim a lot of things. They can't deal with the HIMARS strikes, the Moskva was sunk, small Aliexpress drones are attacking the Sevatopol HQ and they're firing AKs in the air because their fancy missile systems can't stop them. "A-10 kicked of the Gulf War by knocking out Iraqi early warning radars." - False. The F-117 did that. Don't lie.
7
@N.Sniper "The A-10 would be vulnerable if used like an F-16, flying high. But that is not how its used. It flies low" - False. Lie, please stop lying. Most aircraft were, save for exceptions, forced to respect a 12-10,000 foot hard deck to avoid the shorter range SAMs, AAA and MANPADS.
6
@STGN01 "The A-10 was designed to be able to maneuver at low speeds because that is what you need when fighting units on the ground" - No, it was designed that way because it had CSAR and helicopter escort duties it inherited from the A-1 Skyraider. The A-7 did the A-10s mission before it was introduced, and it was a high subsonic aircraft that flew fast - the YA-7F proposal actually was meant to be supersonic.
5
@STGN01 "could not accurately identify ruses." - And how would the A-10 identify them? "Tunguska is a very expensive weapon system, it is going to be behind enemy lines, so A-10s are not going to spend much time being vulnerable to them" - Tunguskas are meant to be protection for the lines. We've seen even Buks being used to target drones.
5
@PBurns-ng3gw First, forget air superiority. You can have it and still get your aircraft shot down. Happened in Iraq and Serbia. Second, if you can't fly CAS in a contested battlespace, you're leaving your men to die when they need help. That's not an option. You go in and save them, and you go in riding an aircraft that isn't vulnerable.
4
@RCAvhstape The A-10 doesn't get assigned more CAS missions. Since 2001 it only performs 20% of CAS, since 2014 it only performs 11% of CAS. The F-16 performs 33%.
4
@KlipsenTube "the A-10 can attack from the rear or the sides" - The Su-25 can't even fly over enemy positions, let alone behind them. How would the A-10 manage to attack at will when neither Russian or Ukrainian pilots can fly near the front lines?
4
@N.Sniper "Bradley 25mm was able to penetrate T-72 armor (within 500m though)l so 30mm GAU-8 could easily penetrate that" - The Bradley can use the turret and positioning to pick where to hit. An aircraft firing an autocannon will scatter rounds randomly due to distance and the pipper being less precise than a turret targeting system. "You fly low using terrain to avoid enemy radar, which is what the A-10 can do." - That also limits pilot visibility and attack options. Without altitude, you cannot use the targeting pod to pick targets on the ground. "Unlike other aircraft the A-10's did not receive modern systems and optics in the past" - The A-10 is pretty much equivalent to the F-16 in terms of avionics. "Today even the USAF is convinced of the A-10 (which the Army already was), which is why it is now kept indefinitely without a withdraw date." - Not true. The USAF always asks to retire it, Congress blocks it. "Had the USAF got rid of the A-10 the Army would have been flying them" - Lie. That is false. The Key West accords would prevent it. Please stop lying. "Attack helicopters are effective but can be shot down by tanks themselves" - Attack helicopters can fire missiles from behind terrain, essentially allowing them to hit without the possibility of being hit.
3
@flitsertheo Stuka pilots (much like IL-2 pilots) overcounted their tank kills. Meanwhile, more tanks were killed by mines, lack of fuel, AT guns, other tanks, etc than aircraft. Aircraft tank kills are completely overblown.
3
No. They had Su-25s. The "easy targets" were harassed with drones, artillery and hit and run tactics because Ukrainian pilots knew flying an A-10-equivalent would be suicide. They were exactly positioned to swat A-10s out of the air like the Iraqi Republican Guard did.
3
Not true. One general said that. He probably wasn't aware of the Key West accords.
2
@TheTalkinBush Are you out of your mind? Planting bombs in busy markets to create mass casualties among civilians is "not doing anything wrong"? They didn't use the terrain. They didn't "adapt to US tactics". The insurgent groups dressed like civilians and killed Afghans.
2
 @54032Zepol The Germans were beaten out of France.
2
@anydaynow01 And Hans-Ulrich Rudel, much like other Stuka pilots, had a flawed perspective. His consultation work was mostly irrelevant especially considering it was based on WWII and time moves on.
2
Ukraine has Su-25s. They didn't go there because they knew it would be suicide.
2
"At some point the Army told them without blinking if they retire them, they will take them and fly them" - Not true. One general said this. Presumably someone immediately corrected him by stating that the Key West accords would not allow it.
2
@tomes3378 The A-10s long range weapons require it to fly high. The Russians put SAM batteries near the Belarus border which could shoot down Ukrainian aircraft in Ukrainian air space.
1
@tomes3378 The convoy was north of Kiev.
1
@jjsmallpiece9234 It's still doing the job "well", but it's old. Aircraft have limits. Past a certain number of flight hours, they need expensive overhauls. Or else they may break apart mid-air. Not everything has to be the latest tech. But it needs to be in flying condition. A-10s are running out of parts and remaining hours in the airframes, despite the wings being remanufactured by Boeing.
1
They already have Su-25s.
1
@MrAnonymousRandom You don't need a 30mm to disrupt the mobility of armored vehicles.
1
The Air Force purchased 700 of them and the GAO actually slammed them for buying too many airframes without a reasonable justification. The claim that they didn't want the A-10 when they purchased TOO MANY of them simply doesn't pass the smell test. Congress just wants the A-10 to milk money. A replacement doesn't make money.
1
They had Su-25s since the beginning. It's the Soviet A-10. They had it, and knew better. They understood it would be suicide.
1
They're using tanks from the 60s and 70s. Modernized, sure. But still.
1