On the off chance this post doesn't attract people with very strong opinions on esoteric defense technology you have zero chance of understanding without actually either working for Lockheed or being in the Air Force, allow me to trigger the normies with truths you don't like to hear:

The A-10 is shit and always has been. The gun was designed specifically to take out T-55 tanks, the most common tank in the USSR's arsenal when the specs were laid down. A decade later, by the time the A-10 was fully combat operational, the T-55s had been replaced by significantly up-armored T-62 and T-64s, which halved the range the A-10 needed for the gun to stand an equivalent chance of effectivity that it was projected to against the T-55. Due to the USSR's similar advances in SPAAG and SAM technology, and the A-10s total lack of effective countermeasures, its entire tank-busting role was reduced to simply firing off AGM-65s from 12 miles away and running away. This exact same mission is similarly accomplished with an AH-64 Apache, an MQ-1, and later the MQ-9, all armed with Hellfire missiles that performed better than the AGM-65s ever did.

There's a reason nobody thought it was a useful aircraft until it was used to simply shoot mud huts containing illiterate retards who didn't possess even one single air defense weapon. Which is like saying that the Hi-Point C9 is a fantastic handgun when your only targets are coma patients.

On the off chance this post doesn't attract people with very strong opinions on esoteric defense technology you have zero chance of understanding without actually either working for Lockheed or being in the Air Force, allow me to trigger the normies with truths you don't like to hear:

The A-10 is shit and always has been. The gun was designed specifically to take out T-55 tanks, the most common tank in the USSR's arsenal when the specs were laid down. A decade later, by the time the A-10 was fully combat operational, the T-55s had been replaced by significantly up-armored T-62 and T-64s, which halved the range the A-10 needed for the gun to stand an equivalent chance of effectivity that it was projected to against the T-55. Due to the USSR's similar advances in SPAAG and SAM technology, and the A-10s total lack of effective countermeasures, its entire tank-busting role was reduced to simply firing off AGM-65s from 12 miles away and running away. This exact same mission is similarly accomplished with an AH-64 Apache, an MQ-1, and later the MQ-9, all armed with Hellfire missiles that performed better than the AGM-65s ever did.

There's a reason nobody thought it was a useful aircraft until it was used to simply shoot mud huts containing illiterate retards who didn't possess even one single air defense weapon.

On the off chance this post doesn't attract people with very strong opinions on esoteric defense technology you have zero chance of understanding without actually either working for Lockheed or being in the Air Force, allow me to trigger the normies with truths you don't like to hear:

The A-10 is shit and always has been. The gun was designed specifically to take out T-55 tanks, the most common tank in the USSR's arsenal when the specs were laid down. A decade later, by the time the A-10 was fully combat operational, the T-55s had been replaced by significantly up-armored T-62 and T-64s, which halved the range the A-10 needed for the gun to stand an equivalent chance of effectivity that it was projected to against the T-55. Due to the USSR's similar advances in SPAAG and SAM technology, and the A-10s total lack of effective countermeasures, its entire tank-busting role was reduced to simply firing off AGM-65s from 12 miles away and running away.

There's a reason nobody thought it was a useful aircraft until it was used to simply shoot mud huts containing illiterate retards who didn't possess even one single air defense weapon.

On the off chance this post doesn't attract people with very strong opinions on esoteric defense technology you have zero chance of understanding without actually either working for Lockheed or being in the Air Force, allow me to trigger the normies with truths you don't like to hear:

The A-10 is shit and always has been. The gun was designed specifically to take out T-55 tanks, the most common tank in the USSR's arsenal when the specs were laid down. A decade later, by the time the A-10 was fully combat operational, the T-55s had been replaced by significantly up-armored T-62 and T-64s, which halved the range the A-10 needed for the gun to stand an equivalent chance of effectivity that it was projected to against the T-55. Due to the USSR's similar advances in SPAAG and SAM technology, and the A-10s total lack of effective countermeasures, its entire tank-busting role was reduced to simply firing off AGM-65s from 12 miles away and running away.

There's a reason nobody thought it was a useful aircraft until it was used to simply shoot mud huts against illiterate retards without even one single air defense weapon in the country.

On the off chance this post doesn't attract people with very strong opinions on esoteric defense technology you have zero chance of understanding without actually either working for Lockheed or being in the Air Force, allow me to trigger the normies with the truth:

The A-10 is shit and always has been. It's why almost immediately after being made its 'tank busting' mission was replaced with just firing AGM-65s from 12 miles away and running home before it can get shot down. And the only thing you know about it is Brrrrt memes.