Nitori is camping... literally....

With those bombers in the air, I would bury myself 50 metre deep if I could.

Illusive said:
With those bombers in the air, I would bury myself 50 metre deep if I could.

Those are A-10 Tank destroyes. . . though I probably still would dig in as well.

Keirova_47 said:
Those are A-10 Tank destroyes. . . though I probably still would dig in as well.

I'd simply pop the optical camouflage and leg it, especially if I only had an M82 to attack them with. Hell, I wouldn't even be sure with a Stinger AA, those A-10s are built so tough. And if I don't kill it, I don't even want to imagine what the Avenger would do to me, being the size of two Volkswagen Beetles, and all...

I wonder what Nitori is eating.

jdwdesu said:
I wonder what Nitori is eating.

canned cucumbers.

tsukasa013 said:
canned cucumbers.

Ah, I should have guessed

ThunderBird said:
I'd simply pop the optical camouflage and leg it, especially if I only had an M82 to attack them with. Hell, I wouldn't even be sure with a Stinger AA, those A-10s are built so tough. And if I don't kill it, I don't even want to imagine what the Avenger would do to me, being the size of two Volkswagen Beetles, and all...

The M82 can shoot down most CAS planes, including the A-10. I know, it's been done in wargames.
Picture the shock of the pilot when the 'kill alarm' went off in the cockpit and his gun's stopped working.
I don't think Nitori would miss, and it wouldn't make her a target or anything if she did. Seriously, good luck seeing the half-second muzzle-flash from several hunderd feet in the air.

she can even shoot hidding the sound with the sound of the planes

grand_zero said:
The M82 can shoot down most CAS planes, including the A-10. I know, it's been done in wargames.

That's like saying an observer-controller zapping an M1A2 dead with his God Gun in NTC is definitive proof that Saggers are deadly against modern battle tanks. Training systems don't have the necessary verisimilitude to make statements like that.

ice73 said:
That's like saying an observer-controller zapping an M1A2 dead with his God Gun in NTC is definitive proof that Saggers are deadly against modern battle tanks. Training systems don't have the necessary verisimilitude to make statements like that.

The 9K11 Malyutka (AT-3 Sagger) is deadly against modern main battle tanks, it's been done, we've lost a few that way.

Regardless, a single Raufoss Mk211 .50BMG can in fact cause havoc to a CAS Bird if placed in the right location.
Hit the engine, you destroy it (hit both and the plane crashes).
Hit the Fuel tank, you [have a relatively small chance to] blow it up (on a practical side, they now have a fuel leak).
Hit the 'bottom' of the cockpit just right (you have to do it while they are turning as to slip around the gun) and you [can] kill the pilot (the Cockpit Armor will defeat anything less than the Raufoss though).
Hit anywhere else and you can mess with most of the systems...
...It's actually not that surprising that a .50BMG can knockout an A-10.

As an aside, the incident I referred to didn’t involve a God Gun, the Sniper shot the plane in a way that it registered a kill. With a round that has been as tried and true as the .50BMG, you don’t have to know if it’s lethal or not, you only have to know where you hit. In this case, the sniper hit the canopy (the 'glass' part [it's actually plastic]) and killed the pilot.

As far as the training systems go, they can be pretty accurate when made programmed right...
...Now to get the Militaries to upgrade their MILES gear to this standard instead of buying from the lowest bidder (HA).

I didn't say the .50 BMG can't knock down an A-10. The Golden BB is always alive and well, and an armored plane is still a plane. What I'm getting at is you seem to be taking one thing/event and blowing it out of proportion in terms of effectiveness--aka God Gun/MILES in place of an actual hit=proof of effectiveness. That "shootdown" was simulated, not actual.

...I don't think you're getting it.
To provide you with an actual blood and guts scenario is impossible, the US hasn't engaged Armored CAS since Vietnam when the M82 didn't exist. (Single shots from M2HBs however did down several, I’ve heard)

I started to go into detail on this (well, a rant [babbling]), but went back to read it and decided TL:DR, so here’s a short form instead.
My point is this: we know the power and capability of the .50BMG, we also know where our sniper placed the round [According to the computer, the bullet hit about 15 inches past the support bar on the canopy (10-12 inches up from the base) triggering the Raufoss’ explosion in the cockpit which killed the pilot immediately].
While yes, no one died from it, it was in fact a war game, a ‘mere’ training exercise. However, the original point I made was the possibility/capability of a Heavy Interdiction Sniper to defeat an A-10, not that it had been done in ‘real blood’.
However, regardless, the fact that it was pulled off in a war game in that way proves that it technically can be done in ‘real’ combat.
To argue otherwise is to argue that all military training is worthless, since, you know, the ‘experience’ gained isn’t real.
(Not going to argue about the precedence/value of battlefield experience, but still...)

Also, again, there was no God Gun involved. None. (It technically wasn’t even MILES gear [yet]...)

We can go on and on, but if rather than boring the folks here with this discussion, could you tell me the details of this "shootdown," that I might look it up for myself? A reference or two, perhaps? Such as the name of the computer system that declared the pilot dead, if it's not too much of a problem?

Sorry, but last I checked they don't release that sort of information.
Aside, as far as I know it was Lockheed Martin that was bascially running that one anyway.

That wargame was a test of a prototype Combat Simulation system that is hypothecically supposed to replace the Miles XXII system sometime in the future. Basically, it'd become MILES XXIII (or XXIV if it gets delayed).
Some of the guys I run with off and on were there and told me about it, which is why I know it happened. This of course meaning I wasn't there and am running off of personal trust of these individuals.

Regardless, that whole ordeal is a moot point anyway.
All I've been driving towards is a hypothectical conclusion, not a definate proven fact. The point of my argument (civil variant) was that the M82 could in fact hypothecially shoot down an A-10 if the bullet was placed in the right location.
Of course, I admit, the issue is actually putting the bullet in that right location, but I only brought up the wargame as a suggestion of the hypothetical possiblity of doing so, not as solid evidence of fact.
The writ and tone of my original post was meant to inspire humor.

Case in point: It shouldn't require Real Blood in order to prove the hypothetical ability of a Heavy Interdiction Sniper armed with a M83A3/M107 to shoot down an A-10 inside of its range.

Now THAT is fire support