Grey_Fox

Thanks for editing in a real argument.
My point is not that they can't perform the mission with **zero** losses. That would be as stupid as claiming that tanks are obsolete because they can be killed by ATGMs.
My point is that they can't sustain the mission even when pitted against limited third world air defense systems consisting of MANPADs and AAA, and would perform far far worse against a peer who has a full blown IADS.
That's why the USAF keeps trying to kill the airframe and focus resources on effective platforms like the F-35.

They didn't fly the missions after a few experiments. That's the entire point. They tried, saw that the couldn't sustain those missions, and stopped doing them pretty quickly.

You can't look at raw numbers without looking at how they were used. The A-10 is built around a great big cannon, and when they flew the sort of missions where they could use the cannon they tended to take a lot of damage from air defenses before being restricted to high altitude missions.
Ergo, the airframe can't be used for the mission it is designed to perform - low level CAS in contested airspace. Every time they try it, they take so much damage that they are told to perform safer missions that other airframes would probably be better at.

Have you seen the kind of missions they perform? They act as standoff missile trucks and are pretty much incapable of penetrating enemy air defenses.
The fact is that CAS missions are not being performed in Ukraine to any great extent because the environment is far too lethal.

☝️
To give a rl example of an incident that happened early this year in a simulator exercise.
a company of l2a6 is defending. the far left platoon starts getting targets at 3500m and engages. suddenly one tank turns its turret and puts five rounds into a tank of the center platoon only barely being stopped before also shooting the company commanders tank.
The tc had seen a thermal signature and immediately brought the gun over without checking what he was looking at and the gunner didnt realize he was looking at a leo2 and fired even though he knew there were friendlies there, the tank was pointing and engaging in the wrong direction, only 1000m away and was in the open easily identifiable.
If this happened to anyone in cm theyd riot yet it happened irl.
So while cm has issues with the spotting model rl can be much weirder.

Edit: Seems I jumped the gun in thinking I was close enough. I just saw Steve's post 18 hours ago closing off further discussion on the A-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for pointing this out.
I'm finally less than 24 hours away from catching up on this thread (or was when I started typing), and I hope that's good enough because I really do want to say a few things about the A-10.
Frankly, I just don't understand why people still think it's a good aircraft. What mission do people imagine it performing that an F-16 couldn't do better? Maybe it was a good aircraft in the 70s. But not today. Sure, it's far from useless. It has hard points, so it can carry missiles. And I'm sure someone will be able to find a use for any airframe that can still carry missiles. But that doesn't set it apart from any other aircraft.
Most of the meme culture around it seems to focus on the cannon, which really has me scratching my head. The cannon is basically useless. No one is getting close enough in any aircraft to make gun runs on a modern battlefield. Even if there are opportunities to use the cannon, the 20mm cannon on the F-16 can take out any target that the A-10's cannon can (neither are likely to take out a tank, both with shred IFVs (if they can somehow get close enough)).
People applaud its survivability. Why? Does anyone really believe that having a tough airframe will protect it against missiles? Being able to take a few hits from a cannon might have helped back when AA guns were the main threat. But against modern missiles? Even if it does manage to survive a hit from a missile (which may be about as likely as an M60 bouncing an APFSDS round, for all the CMCW players out there), wouldn't it be better to have an aircraft that can avoid getting hit in the first place? Don't over-focus on how few A-10s were shot down in the last few decades of operations. Few aircraft of any kind were shot down in the last few decades. Sure, only 5 or 6 A-10s were shot down in the 1991 Gulf War (disagreement between sources on whether it was 5 or 6). But remember that the Coalition only lost 52 fixed wing aircraft in that whole war. The A-10 accounts for 10% of those losses. More A-10s were lost than any other kind of Coalition aircraft (the source which listed 6 A-10s shot down also listed 5 Harriers (making it the 2nd most shot down), with the A-6E Intruder and F-16 tied at 3 each).
And it should be emphasized that flying low and slow is a bad thing. It was designed to fly low and slow because modern sensors didn't exist at the time it was designed. The Mk1 eyeball was the only way to spot ground targets, and that works best if it isn't too far from the ground and has plenty of time to look. But we have modern sensors and ground radar now. You can fly high and fast and still spot, identify, and accurately engage ground targets. Flying low and slow does nothing but make you vulnerable to everything.

Thanks for editing in a real argument.
My point is not that they can't perform the mission with **zero** losses. That would be as stupid as claiming that tanks are obsolete because they can be killed by ATGMs.
My point is that they can't sustain the mission even when pitted against limited third world air defense systems consisting of MANPADs and AAA, and would perform far far worse against a peer who has a full blown IADS.
That's why the USAF keeps trying to kill the airframe and focus resources on effective platforms like the F-35.

You can't look at raw numbers without looking at how they were used. The A-10 is built around a great big cannon, and when they flew the sort of missions where they could use the cannon they tended to take a lot of damage from air defenses before being restricted to high altitude missions.
Ergo, the airframe can't be used for the mission it is designed to perform - low level CAS in contested airspace. Every time they try it, they take so much damage that they are told to perform safer missions that other airframes would probably be better at.

Have you seen the kind of missions they perform? They act as standoff missile trucks and are pretty much incapable of penetrating enemy air defenses.
The fact is that CAS missions are not being performed in Ukraine to any great extent because the environment is far too lethal.

This is the kind of mission that was attempted in 2003 Iraq, and which led to some A-10s being severely damaged before they were forbidden from low-level missions. They became missile trucks restricted to high altitude, and that's a mission damn near any airframe can perform.

The A-10 requires a permissive environment to operate in successfully. In a contested environment, it's a death trap.

You can't look at raw numbers without looking at how they were used. The A-10 is built around a great big cannon, and when they flew the sort of missions where they could use the cannon they tended to take a lot of damage from air defenses before being restricted to high altitude missions.
Ergo, the airframe can't be used for the mission it is designed to perform - low level CAS in contested airspace. Every time they try it, they take so much damage that they are told to perform safer missions that other airframes would probably be better at.

This is the kind of mission that was attempted in 2003 Iraq, and which led to some A-10s being severely damaged before they were forbidden from low-level missions. They became missile trucks restricted to high altitude, and that's a mission damn near any airframe can perform.

Have you seen the kind of missions they perform? They act as standoff missile trucks and are pretty much incapable of penetrating enemy air defenses.
The fact is that CAS missions are not being performed in Ukraine to any great extent because the environment is far too lethal.

You can't look at raw numbers without looking at how they were used. The A-10 is built around a great big cannon, and when they flew the sort of missions where they could use the cannon they tended to take a lot of damage from air defenses before being restricted to high altitude missions.
Ergo, the airframe can't be used for the mission it is designed to perform - low level CAS in contested airspace. Every time they try it, they take so much damage that they are told to perform safer missions that other airframes would probably be better at.

This is the kind of mission that was attempted in 2003 Iraq, and which led to some A-10s being severely damaged before they were forbidden from low-level missions. They became missile trucks restricted to high altitude, and that's a mission damn near any airframe can perform.

They were ordered to stay at high altitude. It was the same in 2003 after some got absolutely shredded by Iraqi air defenses early on in the invasion attempting the low-level missions they were designed to perform.
It's widely acknowledged that the Kosovo aerial campaign abjectly failed to degrade Serb forces in Kosovo, with only a few dozen armoured vehicles damaged or destroyed.

You can't look at raw numbers without looking at how they were used. The A-10 is built around a great big cannon, and when they flew the sort of missions where they could use the cannon they tended to take a lot of damage from air defenses before being restricted to high altitude missions.
Ergo, the airframe can't be used for the mission it is designed to perform - low level CAS in contested airspace. Every time they try it, they take so much damage that they are told to perform safer missions that other airframes would probably be better at.

You can't look at raw numbers without looking at how they were used. The A-10 is built around a great big cannon, and when they flew the sort of missions where they could use the cannon they tended to take a lot of damage from air defenses before being restricted to high altitude missions.
Ergo, the airframe can't be used for the mission it is designed to perform - low level CAS in contested airspace. Every time they try it, they take so much damage that they are told to perform safer missions that other airframes would probably be better at.

I decided to expand on my tests a little bit. I was slightly less scientific in terms of methodology this time around but I think the results are still fairly effective and overall a bit more widely applicable. I decided to take four vehicles with CITV systems from black sea. Besides the M1A2 this includes the M2A3, T-90AM, and T-84 Oplot. For this, I wanted to see whether or not turret down was possible with other vehicles. The vehicles would move up a reverse slope, spot the targets, and then reverse back down till they lost the spots.
Assuming that turret down is possible on these vehicles they should still have full contacts or at the very least partial contacts that do not degrade once they are unable to engage the targets with their main weaponry. The target is just a typical BTR-82 platoon in a column about 400-500 meters away. This example below is what things looked like after a ceasefire, so everything is visible. Additionally, If turret down is not possible, what is the determining factor as to when a vehicle is in LOS of a target? Is it following a height map with different predefined heights shared between multiple vehicles, or does each vehicle have its own point of origin for LOS?

Now if the LOS system for each vehicle was predetermined on a specific height table, that means each vehicle has a LOS height that is based on that table (Short, Tall, Very Tall Vehicles). This means that following the height map the T-84 and T-90AM should have the same LOS height origin (either short or tall). The Bradley is known to be able to see over objects the M1 was unable to, so we know this has to have a taller LOS point than any of the other vehicles (Very Tall, or possibly Tall if the M1A2 is short). The M1A2, on the other hand, will either be in its own category or follow the same height as the T-90AM and T-84 for drawing LOS to targets (Either Tall or Short if it shares the same height as the T-90 and T-84).
If the LOS system is instead linked to a specific point on each vehicle, then that means that there will be a lot more minor fluctuations in terms of being able to draw LOS and spot targets, it may even be possible to discern differences between the T-90AM and T-84. It will also mean that any cut-off point for LOS will likely be linked to a physical feature on the vehicle which should theoretically be identifiable. At least in theory.
So what do the results show?

Above You see the M1A2 we have used previously. When testing this I drove the vehicles up so they saw the BTR platoon, then I backed them up slowly until they lost the spots. Here the spots for the M1A2 was lost just as the main gun was unable to draw LOS to the vehicles anymore, despite the turret sensors, commander, and 50 cal being able to clearly look over the slope.


Now the M2A3, Unsurprisingly as the tallest vehicle the M2A3 is the farthest back on the slope when it lost the spots, placing it within its own category assuming a height map. What is interesting though is that it also lost the spots the moment the 25mm was unable to draw LOS to the vehicles, even though the CITV system, GPS, and TOW are still visible and still capable of engaging the target in real life.

Now things are starting to get weird, Now we are looking at the T-84. This lost the spots it had before it was able to even have the gun barrel hidden by the terrain! Despite having partial LOS on the terrain according to the target order, it lost the solid contacts on the BTRs and they never came back. I'll talk in more detail on this in a moment but I'll just finish up the results first.

Finally, the 90AM. This was able to back up and lose the spots just after the gun barrel had lost direct LOS to the targets, the CITV, and maybe the GPS, could theoretically see the targets in real life as well. It was noticeably further back than the T-84 but it was still short of the M1A2 and M2A3. So this is also within its own category.

So for the most obvious conclusion and most widely applicable.
Turret Down does not seem to be an applicable tactic with any of the above vehicles, they will be unable to draw LOS and spot targets unless they are able to engage them at the very least. Possibly even more. While I didn't include any pictures, I tried this with commanders both turned out and buttoned up and the results were virtually identical. My suspicion is that this may ring true for most if not every vehicle in CM, but I'll get to the why of that in a moment.
But what about the way that LOS is able to be drawn? is it a predetermined height shared between multiple vehicles, or is it specific to each vehicle? While I am unable to be entirely conclusive, the evidence seems to favour the vehicle LOS points are unique to each vehicle rather than pulled from a height map with three distinct choices.With three out of four vehicles losing LOS the moment the main gun disappears behind the slope and never returning. The only exception was the T-84, which for some reason lost the spots on target prior to being fully out of LOS.
Realistically the reason that the T-84 is so different from the T-90AM is within all likelihood a bug. Although it offers interesting implications as to why its happened, it could have happened with either model. If it is the height table, the T-84 may have been given an even shorter height on accident, like kneeling height for instance. Alternatively, the height map for the T-90 and M1A2 is the same and I just didn't notice how close the vehicles were together in the test. If it's following a unique LOS point for each vehicle then that would mean the origin point for LOS on the T-84 is significantly misplaced resulting in the difference. 
I think I will redo these tests with a bit more care into how far exactly each vehicle backs up till they lose LOS, and add a couple more vehicle types to increase confidence. But from casual observation, it seems more likely to me that the LOS of many vehicles will be tied to the main gun in some fashion, and the main gun alone, rather than a height map or other physical points on the vehicle (sensors and optics, turned out crew, periscopes, etc). This is also an explanation as to why turret down failed to function for any of the above vehicles as well.
There are probably exceptions to this if it was the case, vehicles like the BRDM-2 ATGM carriers definitely do not trace LOS from the ATGM tubes, they need to have some of the hull exposed to be able to see and engage targets. Other systems like the Wirbelwind with multiple barrels, and even bow machine guns on ww2 tanks will likely have their own specific quirks as well. That will only be answered through more testing though. I am also curious about Cold War as well, the M60 is quite tall compared to most other tanks in the series, and the M901 and M150 offer some unique opportunities to test as well, which I or someone else can touch on in the future.

Additionally, @Brille, if it wouldn't be too much trouble could you let me know what vehicles you used which had turret down work with them that would be great, thank you!

This is the kind of mission that was attempted in 2003 Iraq, and which led to some A-10s being severely damaged before they were forbidden from low-level missions. They became missile trucks restricted to high altitude, and that's a mission damn near any airframe can perform.

They were ordered to stay at high altitude. It was the same in 2003 after some got absolutely shredded by Iraqi air defenses early on in the invasion attempting the low-level missions they were designed to perform.
It's widely acknowledged that the Kosovo aerial campaign abjectly failed to degrade Serb forces in Kosovo, with only a few dozen armoured vehicles damaged or destroyed.

They were ordered to stay at high altitude. It was the same in 2003 after some got absolutely shredded by Iraqi air defenses early on in the invasion attempting the low-level missions they were designed to perform.
It's widely acknowledged that the Kosovo aerial campaign abjectly failed to degrade Serb forces in Kosovo, with only a few dozen armoured vehicles damaged or destroyed.

This is the kind of mission that was attempted in 2003 Iraq, and which led to some A-10s being severely damaged before they were forbidden from low-level missions. They became missile trucks restricted to high altitude, and that's a mission damn near any airframe can perform.

The A-10 requires a permissive environment to operate in successfully. In a contested environment, it's a death trap.