The A-10 Sucks, and I can prove it mathematically (PART 1)

When one thinks of the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, known by its nickname Warthog, one thinks Big Gun go Brrrrrrrrr.
But what if I told you Brr does not Brr, in fact, the Brr we do Brrr may not in fact be the Brrr we need or the Brr we want.
Welcome to the bizarre and confusing history of the favourite plane of every schoolboy between the ages of 17-26, the A-10. A plane with a minigun on the front and that is pretty much all everyone knows about the A-10.
In Part 1 we talk about how the A-10 was not developed and in particular the person who did not develop it. The Man, the Legend, Pierre Sprey.
To some, a renegade who worked tirelessly behind the scenes beating some common sense into the minds of the stuffy US Generals at the Pentagon. To others, he is a con man who has spent his life claiming credit for other peoples work.
Like many things Sprey claims he designed the A-10, in this video, we, by which I mean me, will look into this, the facts, the reality, and the person who really did design the A-10.
I don't have any social media accounts, I did have a thing where you could give me a dollar for coffee but I lost the link so if you wanna say thanks hit the subscribe button, it helps me sleep at night.
Here are some hashtags cos those are still important
#A10 #PierreSprey #PentagonWars #UsMilitaryHistory
That's it.
Sources Mentioned:
web.archive.org/web/201603040...
(A-10 Gau8 anti-tank test)
pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/...
(Combat Effectiveness Considerations in designing close support fighters)
Georgian National Anthem - "Tavisupleba"
Composer: Zakaria Paliashvili
Compiled by Joseb Ketschakmadse
Creo - Rock Thing (Copyright Free Music)
Creo:
/ creo_music
/ creo
/ creosound
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Music provided by RFM: • Video

[@ilmari132]

Ah yes, the A-10 in Iraq, the terror of the British tank arm.

[@amistrophy]

US air support: the terror of all ground combatants. All. Ground combatants. *every single one.*

[@StoneCoolds]

In wwii they use to said: When the luftwaffe is in the air, americans and brits run for cover When the RAF are in the air, the germans run for cover When the Americans are in the air, everyone runs for cover

[@rustyshackleford4254]

@@StoneCoolds s

[@andreisouzabento7506]

@@StoneCoolds sus

[@jamesharding3459]

@@amistrophy I fear nothing but the Air Force. Whose air force? Doesn't matter.

[@Spudtron98]

"Precision weapons don't work" Sorry, did they miss the entire fucking Gulf War?

[@alperakyuz9702]

Also 2003 iraq war, also war in afghanistan, also military intervention in libya, also war against isis...

[@Echelon030]

The Reformers had to stay quiet after the Gulf War but Pierre Sprey's career was given a new lease on life by the public controversy around the F-35 cost overruns.

[@BobbyB1928]

@@Echelon030 Ah yes all the F-35s problems that were from testing in the 2000s and were pretty much all corrected. The Air Force has deemed the F-35 sufficient to replace the F-15 and 16. Also the F-35 got a 15:1 kill ratio against an equal sized F-16 unit (or larger given that the F-35 can engage multiple threats at a time) while tangling with air defences.

[@killian9314]

@@BobbyB1928 yeah Red Flag 2017, that lives rent free in my head at the time the F35 and F22 took off the kiddie gloves and handed out major ass kicking

[@moonbear2130]

@@BobbyB1928 the F-35s isn’t supposed to replace the F-15, the F-15 F-22 and future NGAD are primarily air superiority, the F-35s multi role mission set is to primarily replace F-16 A-10 AV-8B and the Navy’s legacy hornets

[@thenewkid5181]

Watching this video in 2023 and hearing: “Self proclaimed experts have all predicted a years long brutal campaign … and have been made to look like idiots” could not be more entertaining

[@elduquecaradura1468]

I mean, the contrary happened with russian invation in ukraine never fails, when a "military expert" claims one thing, bet your bucks on the other end xD

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@elduquecaradura1468 , The invasion failed because Russia didn't plan for a war. It was a 3 day special military operation which the troops weren't even aware they are heading into. Their logistics wasn't there to support them when... they ran out of fuel. If Russia had competent planning, Ukraine would have lost. Desert Storm, mentioned in this video, had a 3 _week_ barrage of fighter/bomber ops to secure air superiority, to destroy bases, etc. Russia... sent in the troops before they even knew where the Ukrainian air defences _were._

[@JavaScrapper]

@@aralornwolf3140not to mention, Russia only had enough resources for a short war All their supplies now are fake bombs made of cardboard and foam This is because of corruption in the Russian military finally catching up to them

[@christopherroberts7293]

@@aralornwolf3140Theres also an achievement for highest flying turret, 30 ft in the air after ammunition detonation

[@Sk0lzky]

It seems very brutal if you have access to Ukrainian media. Shit sucks, the offensive is not that different to the winter Russian one and lots of good guys keep dying (although not enough to make it a big concern for either side compared to materiel depletion) tldr keep sending ammo and arty barrels thx

[@seanmcdonald5859]

I love the occasional comedic genius that lazerpig reveals: "let that sink in" "WHAT THE F*** DOES IT WANT NOW!!" 😂😂 I've been giggling over that for for an hour now 😂😂

[@asink5928]

Imagine how I felt watching this

[@DrFeelGoodHelpDesk]

I have yet to stop laughing... It's those little things in life that bring us joy.........no I do not mean your pet Hamster, wait what are you doing with that pipe!

[@JohnnyTromboner]

And now I can't unhear or see the A10 as anything other than a shitting hippo

[@damenwhelan3236]

I like to use "that sink can come back woth a warrant" if I don't like what I heard, and, "that sink can come in, get a beer have a meal... maybe fawk the wife... " if I like what I've heard..

[@whiskeythetwisty5564]

For those like me 11:50

[@manoflego123]

Effectiveness of the A-10 aside it's my favorite US military vehicle for the sole reason that it is the only one still allowed to have custom artwork on it due to it being older than current regulations.

[@akula4366]

If that's true that's amazing.

[@manoflego123]

@@akula4366 ok I just fact checked and it looks like I got some facts mixed up. Nose art is still allowed but highly restricted, but the teeth on the A10 is the oldest still surviving nose art on active duty aircraft.

[@enigmaodell6806]

Shark teeth make plane cooler

[@lethaltags5400]

@@enigmaodell6806 it gives plus 10 rep

[@ubemcgrebbiii1923]

The restrictions are bc most modern fighters have stealth coating, which for various reasons cant be painted on or under, so its more about maintaining intended functionality than anything else. That being said, long live shark teeth.

[@shaggygabe728]

Damn its kinda (VERY) cruel of the so called "fighter mafia" to take credit for the A-10 and just delete the true designer of the A-10 from history. Its very messed up

[@magnuskain278]

Thats the wiki world we live in

[@falloutghoul1]

@@HeWhoLaugths That alone could be the topic of a book, about how much the Fighter Mafia stole so much work from other people.

[@Why_does_this_exist_YouTube]

I guess they live up to the name

[@TheActionBastard]

@@Why_does_this_exist_KZbin if only we could give them new shoes...

[@AllyMonsters]

@@falloutghoul1 Or how often they steal each others own stolen work.

[@seanpatterson4196]

The homage to the original A-10 creator was an amazing touch

[@alaeriia01]

What, Doug Winger? Yes, the man who invented the concept of hyper furry art and the one for whom the official internet unit of squick was named is in fact the guy who designed the A-10.

[@Shxlt]

@@alaeriia01A-10 page book of furrys

[@johannesdolch]

To Paraphrase the Airforce: "If the Army likes Brrrrrrttt!! so much, they can take them off our hands. We have more important things to do, like securing air superiority. A task for which the A-10 is as useful as a nipple on the elbow."

[@uwu_smeg]

would make licking my elbow more fun

[@CDMJDMHHC]

the air force can and should do both

[@je2231]

@@CDMJDMHHC They do. The A-10 just isn't the tool the use to do it. most air support missions aren't a-10s for a reason. An f15 gets there faster, has a longer effective range, better targeting, and can fight other planes if needed.

[@CDMJDMHHC]

@@je2231 get off of lazerpigs jock right know there many mission profiles for aircraft, the a-10 is close air support sams, and ground fire your threats.

[@28Hazefur]

​@@CDMJDMHHCtake another stab at that sentence structure.

[@RustyDroid]

Turns out you don't need an A-10 to stop a Russian tank column, you just need a Bayrakter, a field of mud, or a distance of longer than about 30 miles to run a supply train to.

[@Sinyao]

Even cheaper, a couple of crazy boys and a javelin.

[@zombiejelly4111]

@@Sinyao javelins aren’t cheap and are a one time use….it’s 170,000 per unit… the switchblade drones…aka suicide drone or kamikaze drones are 70k each. NLAWS which are European made Javelins pretty much are cheaper by a lot. Not hating but just spreading knowledge. Let’s enjoy Russia getting embarrassed

[@Sinyao]

@@zombiejelly4111 The javelin launcher is reusable. The missiles are like 20k a pop.

[@zombiejelly4111]

@@Sinyao you got the wrong javelins. The British made a javelins ground to air weapon. But the javelins for tanks is this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin

[@zombiejelly4111]

@@Sinyao US$175,203 (missile only, FY2021)[6] US$240,000 (missile only, export cost, FY2019)[7]

[@ShionWinkler]

You will be glad to hear, all mentions of Pierre Sprey have been removed from the wiki page for the A-10. The reason for this was "The sources currently cited in the article's current form that make the claim of Sprey's involvement are the Biography of John Boyd, one of Sprey's best friends" and "Unless a source independent from Boyd can substantiate the claims, the reference is based on hearsay statements from an individual known for exaggeration and falsification and will be removed soon". So your video has had an impact on Wikipedia editors.👍👍

[@jaxrammus9165]

no, another commenter in this video was challenging them nonstop over it. the mods kept adding it back and restricting any change to the page to keep sprey there. they only relented after the tards realized that many people were watching

[@HeWhoLaugths]

Good job

[@twb2837]

It is still on Sprey' personal page though.

[@JK-uy8yi]

@@twb2837 That's the true death of a fake fact though, when the fake fact gets removed from all wiki articles except the one of the person who made it, and so in infamous posterity the 'fact' becomes the defining characteristic of the charlatan.

[@goncaloproa840]

*Everyone liked that*

[@OpticalDoesSimracing]

I like that everything that sprey said ended up being wrong (F-15, M1A2 Abrams, and the F-35 most notably) and then when it ended up being the exact opposite and the stuff he doubted ended up being good he immediatly claims credit

[@goldenhate6649]

F-35 got most of its shit from a) an early test model without proper flight control, and b) god dayum was the research expensive. Laughably, its actually cheaper to produce than most of the Gen 4 European Aircraft

[@that_Dominic_guy]

“But it’ll fail in a few years!” we’re the words uttered by my local military armchair expert.

[@wolfrickthedesigner4748]

​@@goldenhate6649 so your mad other countries like the one you come from couldnt afford the research program/plane? Also why are you comparing the cost of gen 4 fighters program with the f-35? Obviously it cost more 😂 Sounds like a long way of complaining that your country cant afford the plane so now your sprays hipboy

[@NayuzAqua]

​@@wolfrickthedesigner4748 I think he said that the F-35 is CHEAPER than said european fighters

[@jaytrashwade1-1]

Sprey is your classic textbook hypocrite. Enough said.

[@Gunga_FAB.50]

“no plans for its retirement” a-10 then proceeds to get replaced by a crop duster

[@chrisford7799]

I’m pretty sure the A10 biggest success in the gulf war against armour came with using agm 65 guided missiles, which is kinda funny how people only think of the a10 as brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt

[@howardman3926]

The A-10s gun is mostly used for suppressive fire

[@demanischaffer]

If I remember correctly, the A-10 fleet sucked up the supply of AGM-65s, imagine if the F-16 or F-111 fleet got priority

[@kumat0ra672]

Mavericks are truly based. A shaped charge warhead weighing as much as an entire Hellfire will fuck shit up, no matter how much armor it has.

[@castor3020]

@@demanischaffer Either of those cannot loiter in the same way an A-10 can. Same issue as with F-4 in Vietnam. F-16 would be better than A-10 in a peer level conflict though due to its massive speed advantage that makes it more survivable vs SAM and AAA-systems. Make no mistake, F-16's are less accurate with Mavericks because they have less time to find, target and fire the weapon compared to A-10.

[@demanischaffer]

@@castor3020 In the same vain the A-10 has a slower transit time meaning it can't get to targets as fast as other aircraft can "Peer level" No, the F-16 is also better in near peer (Iraq 1991) and against insurgencies You say the F-16 is less accurate based on what? A flight of F-16s with targeting pods firing Mavericks or dropping guided bombs is a lot more accurate then an A-10 flying low and slow with the MK1 eyeball

[@drear20486]

fun fact: the electronics warfare version of the F-111 was nicknamed the spark vark, i feel like every f-111 enjoyer should know this fact

[@jamesrush5367]

SPARK VARK SPARK VARK SPARK VARK SPARK VARK SPARK VARK SPARK VARK SPARK VARK

[@Jollyroger84103]

EF-111

[@heathb4319]

F-111...one of my top 5 of all time. The swing wing, side by side cock pit, ejection capsule instead of seats, all weather, multi-role...trail blazing, path clearer for all the planes that came from it. God i love that plane. Black Bird...speed XB-70...strength F-8 Crusader...gun fighter A-10...big brother coming to the rescue. F-111...that 1 Marine you send out when it has to be done in the worst weather ever. That's my short list.

[@richardvernon317]

@@heathb4319 Meet two guys who used to fix the F-111F when it was operated by the 48th TFW at RAF Lakenheath. They called the aircraft the Electric Pig.

[@tylernero6671]

@@jamesrush5367 Google translate translates this to "SPARK PIG"

[@jakefuentes5543]

So I’m gathering that “reformer” is a synonym for Luddite

[@comlitbeta7532]

Maybe the real A-10 purpose is the friends we made along the way

[@Ben-zr4ho]

Lol

[@pedrohaggstram]

You are wrong, Fairchild Republic A-10 “Shitting Hippo” is THE BEST plane name I have ever heard by a long shot.

[@johnd2058]

It beats "Thunderbolt II", I'll grant you that.

[@timothybayliss6680]

Imagine having to tell the family of the helio crew that got taken out with the Gau that it was a "Shitting Hippo"?

[@commonavionics6069]

SU-75 Femboy

[@buttersquids]

@@timothybayliss6680 "We regret to inform you that your dearly beloved Yuri has been killed in combat by a 'Shitting Hippo'. Our thoughts are with you in this challenging time."

[@johnd2058]

@@commonavionics6069 Close, but no cigar.

[@Seth9809]

He thought the A-10 was "too advanced"? It's the most primitive plane we fly....?

[@spartanx9293]

Oh no it's not title probably belongs to one of the trainers

[@johnathon9056]

Its not, the B52 takes that cake, and the A10C specifically has been modernized extensively with Modern Link-16 and SATAL Datalink capability.

[@fulcrum2951]

@@johnathon9056 and it made what was an airframe meant to be cheaper than mutiroles cost as much as them

[@kalashnikovdevil]

Calling the Reformists a bunch of inbred, mouth breathing luddites is an insult to luddites, because even groups like the Amish know you use modern tools when appropriate.

[@commandernomad2817]

@@johnathon9056 ill have you know B52 just got usb ports sooo, thats that.

[@gmi9149]

As an Georgian I'm really thankful that you mentioned Alexander Qartveli. Thank you ❤

[@democracy_enjoyer]

same

[@Goodladsatan]

same

[@jjppmm29]

as an American, I love all our planes equally. they are all unique and beautiful in their own way. just. my love for the A10 is, complicated.

[@goldenhate6649]

My relationship with the A10 can be summarized as "I want one" but not "I want to go to combat in one"

[@BusinessWolf1]

The air warden.

[@airplanemaniacgaming7877]

@@BusinessWolf1The turboPROP A-10 with a fuckload of missiles and a long ass loiter time.

[@arandomkobold8403]

​@@BusinessWolf1 We militarized a CROP DUSTER is that not awesome?

[@Brian-nv8ei]

Because brrt?

[@csldrsharkey7962]

Remember, military grade isn't the best, it's the cheapest while remaining effective, which can mean a lot of things

[@IstasPumaNevada]

Correction: It's the cheapest of possibly-all-overpriced contracts for something that may or may not be effective.

[@infernaldaedra]

A lot of military hardware is still the best when it comes to the fact that in some situations only the best is effective.

[@Able_To]

@@infernaldaedra copium

[@jeraldgunderson4349]

@@Able_To he's not wrong in certain situations, although it is quite rare. Special operations units do, most of the time, get the absolute best in technology available to ground troops; as for regular infantry, not so much. The US Marines are a good example of that.

[@xyxxanx9810]

Military grade or mil-spec just means conforming to specifications set by the military, suppliers have to apply for contracts and prove their merchandize meets or exceeds the standards set. Then the cheapest one gets contracted, all of this is pretty open to scrutiny and problems usually are on part of the initial designs failing, rather than the parts being of sub-par quality, as the military is pretty litigation happy if you try to screw them over.

[@mandalorian_guy]

I was not ready for Pierre Sprey's comic sans report. I have hated this man for the better part of a decade and that was just another bundle of kindling for the fire.

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

You really do have to be a uniquely unlikable donkey to write an official report in comic sans. I dont think it gets much worse than that.

[@congruentcrib]

Honestly this video felt more like a dunk on him and not a video explaining his the A10 was bad. Wish he titled it differently because I’m still unsure as to where he’s is saying the a10 is bad, and instead just hear him talking about Sprey.

[@jamesquinn6662]

Imagine being such a victim of dunning kruger effect that you hate any members of the fighter mafia

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

@@congruentcrib He did a part 2 to address that, actually.

[@CharChar2121]

I didn't know about this report or the man, but the font maybe be all I need to hate him.

[@jaytrashwade1-1]

I think Russianbadger describes the A-10 best when he jokes about it in his Insurgency: Sandstorm video Destroy All Taxpayer Dollars... "It's a flying Gatling gun built by a washing machine company designed to turn bad guys into spaghetti and American soldiers into insurance claims."

[@ZombieEnthusiast69]

Seeing how your James Burton video had 5.6k views when you recorded this video and now it has over 889k brings a tear to my eye. Congrats on your growth Mr. Pig. You deserve it, your content is excellent.

[@waffles4322]

Showed this to my neighbor who flew A10s through the Gulf War and Iraq, 26 years as a stick operator, and he couldn't stop laughing 😆 he gives you a 9/10, minus 1 "cuz fuck you that's my hog" 🤣

[@jacobmccandles1767]

Meaning he largely agrees. That's saying something coming from him.

[@waffles4322]

@@jacobmccandles1767 yeah he had a whole spiel about how much he hated target acquisition, but how he absolutely loved the rest of the plane and always got him home no matter how fucked up the tub was.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

@@waffles4322 my kid is an A-10 crew chief. Even she is coming around to the idea that the only thing better than a plane that gets shot up and brings you home alive, is a plane that doesn't get shot.

[@seanmurphy7011]

@@jacobmccandles1767 meaning this video is incompetent.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

@@seanmurphy7011 I'm not sure we were claiming that.

[@Nidhogg258]

Never heard of the "Fighter Mafia" before. Quick internet search told me all I needed to know. These guys weren't just incompetent. They were dangerous.

[@dreadpiratedan4664]

incompetently dangerous

[@VitaeLibra]

​@@dreadpiratedan4664 dangerously incompetent

[@CharlieNoodles]

You should check out The Old Gang. A group of old duffers who designed a tank for the First World War, the prototype of which first began testing in….1941. Luckily for the Brits they were smart enough not to put it into production.

[@alexs5744]

The worst kind of experts, highly energetic but very stupid.

[@Iden_in_the_Rain]

@@CharlieNoodlesdesigners of the Tog 2 were truly ahead of their time /s

[@vapertrail5389]

Looking forward to an F-111 video. The EF-111 is one of my favorite planes and was saddened when it was retired.

[@sambauman69]

You got your wish!

[@OhMeGaGS]

I just want to point out that lazerpig singlehandedly changed the course of internet discussion on the A10, I can see people referencing this video under literally every post that as much as mentions this platform xd

[@jackzhang8677]

I've tried editing the Wikipedia page for the A-10 by deleting the part that mentions Sprey's supposed involvement on the grounds that no official accounts have mentioned him, but it keeps getting reverted for appearing "non-neutral." Perhaps if enough of us do it, we can convince the mods (who are unlikely to have any knowledge on this matter) see that it is in fact a factual error that many people are pointing out. Edit (January 4 2022): mission accomplished lads. We got em. Edit (January 5 2022): they reverted it. I’ll see if I can edit the phrasing so that we can gradually push Sprey out of the picture. Edit (January 6 2022): I’ll try to raise a fuss in the talk section about the lack of credibility in the citation used for Sprey’s involvement. Edit (January 10 2022): Wikipedia mods have switched the A-10 page's access level so that only long-time users can edit the page. This means that I cannot edit anything on this page anymore. The mods have also discussed in the talk section about bringing out the ban hammer for people attempting to fix this page. I will do my best to respond courteously, but I think these mods have only recently escaped from a petting zoo. Edit (January 17 2022): the section involving Pierre Sprey has once again been removed as a result of discussions in the talk section. I recommend taking this course of action in the future as Wikipedia mods are quite anal about removing cited sections without citations to explain why it should be removed. The issue being that published literature is seen as a high enough standard until someone can bring about some definitive reason why the published source should be discredited.

[@sweetballs4742]

You're doing the god's work, mate. God bless you!

[@fulcrum2951]

I doubt providing evidence to the mods will change their minds

[@bobtank6318]

I found a doctorate thesis that proves Sprey was never involved in the A-10. Maybe we can use that to get him off the page?

[@jackzhang8677]

@@bobtank6318 link please?

[@bobtank6318]

@@jackzhang8677 KZbin hates links, but you can find it if you look up THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM By Marshall L. Michel III. Pg. 427-428 has the relevant paragraph. If you need any help getting the change implemented please let me know.

[@jackzhang8677]

You forgot that Sprey says multi role aircraft just perform at subpar levels in each other roles compared to dedicated aircraft, while happily taking credit for “designing” the F-16, the most successful multi-role aircraft in recent history. He claims the F-22 would lose to an F-16 in a dogfight, while F-16 pilots who actually train with F-22s in DAC training say otherwise.

[@novanoir8309]

Yeah and i was like " which one is it sir? Does multirole suck or not because as far as i know F-16 considered the most successful fighter plane ever sold and it is a multirole fighter"

[@BobbyB1928]

"F-16 pilots who train against the F-22 in DAC training say otherwise." F-16 pilots who go against the F-35 say the same thing. Most of the F-35's problems were from testing from the 2000s including the infamous "gun cracks the airframe" thing that might not even have actually happened.

[@stickitupyourasteric]

@@novanoir8309 F16 is not a multi task jet... its F for fighter...it may do bombing but that would be tactical its no where close to a bomber..

[@fulcrum2951]

@@stickitupyourasteric for not being a multitask jet it sure as hell perform a variety of task such as CAS, air superiority exceptionally

[@demanischaffer]

@@stickitupyourasteric And the F-117 is the best air superiority fighter the USAF ever had /s

[@ollanius_papyrus80]

My main takeaway from this video is that Pierre sprey wrote an official government memo in fucking comic sans. That’s all I needed to know about this guy.

[@robertmacdonald9330]

My favourite Pierre Sprey quote is you could destroy any modern fighter with a 22 rifle

[@michaelmoorrees3585]

The engineering variant of stolen valor really ticks me off. As an engineer, I've run into these types, though their claims aren't as grandiose. Also as an engineer, its hacks like me that design things like your anti-lock brakes ... Be afraid, be very afraid !

[@loganb7059]

The only ones worse are the ones who deny engineering. Like the “pyramids were made by aliens” or the “moon landing was a hoax” crowd.

[@ThrawnFett123]

What I find funny, is the historical connection between visionary non engineers, and the credit they get over the engineers that make it work. Elon Musk is my blurred line, a man who HAS truly engineered things... but is 99% a visionary paying for the people he needs to make it happen

[@ianthompson2802]

Plz find the person who put the swaybat right behind the oil dran plug on new ram 1500s for me an beat them with a sock full of frozen butter

[@nos9784]

@@ThrawnFett123 Sometimes, I wonder if Wernher von Braun was more of an Engineer, an effective manager of engineers, or just an opportunist good at self-marketing. I don't really believe he could have been so unique that it's fair to credit him with getting america to the moon, but I don't really know.

[@williamzk9083]

I think you guys should have watched the British Satire "Yes Minister". The public servant Humphrey Appleby was always getting the Minister to do what he wanted by making him think it was idea and letting him take credit for it. That how a lot of stuff get made.

[@MrJinglejanglejingle]

"The A-10 is too advanced! It'll never work!" ...My man, the A-10 is the military equivalent of using a wooden club against 15th century knights and armor. Especially nowadays. Will it work? Sometimes. Are there better options? Yes.

[@gingergorilla695]

To be fair, having seen it up close parked at a air show, and having it fly around the base where im at, anyone on the ground will be having a brown alert moment when it goes BRRR

[@gabevietor3685]

The comparison there is slightly... Off... Clubs were more effective than most contemporary weapons against late medieval armor, except of course for crossbows, war hammers, and who could forget, the first muskets. As for the A-10, it really is just a lot of brute force. I still prefer it for a number of reasons, but effectiveness isn't one of them. The A-10 has to go, but I fail to see how an overengineered stealth aircraft is going to be an efficient replacement.

[@uioplkhj]

@@gabevietor3685 "he A-10 has to go, but I fail to see how an overengineered stealth aircraft is going to be an efficient replacement." I don't think we're going to be fighting mountain people with no AA defenses again anytime soon.

[@gabevietor3685]

@@uioplkhj AA is extremely expensive and difficult to move place to place. It is also vulnerable to basic ground assaults even with impressive management. AA cannot be close to the frontline unless in the form of SPAA vehicles, which, though mobile, lack the volume of fire that more static emplacements have. Don't get me wrong, a more effective vehicle is better, but using some overengineered F-35 for CAS? You're insane. CAS is not a complicated subject, it stands for Close Air Support and as the name implies, it is only exclusively used close in to enemy front line forces. The A-10 performed perfectly in this role for quite a while, but it now needs replacement. A faster, more maneuverable plane, that ditches the cannon, would be great. Not some disgusting stealth aircraft that can perform an infinite number of roles. CAS is CAS, and strategic bombing is strategic bombing. Don't get them mixed up. The F-35 is extremely overengineered for the task of CAS, and likely would not be much more effective at evading AA fire than a simpler craft.

[@loowick4074]

@@gabevietor3685 yeah but a club has to be rather heavy to be effective against Armor which in turn leads to the user being more vulnerable and "slower". Like I wouldn't want to stand next to a guy with a club in formation. He's just gonna be swinging that thing hitting friend and foe alike and the club could either crack a rib or harmlessly glance off based on the strength of the particular strike. On horseback? Heck no.

[@lilletrille8998]

I would not be too hard on WW2 pilots as after attacking tanks on the ground there will be a lot of smoke and dust so its very difficult to say what you actually hit and or destroyed. Edit: You raised this point in the video - well done!

[@comensee2461]

The problem with the A-10 is that it can only operate in areas where you have air superiority. So in a hot conflict against a well armed component it's almost useless. In low intensity wars like Afghanistan or where you have total air superiority it's good because the enemy has no air defense and you can get on field faster than helicopters.

[@BusinessWolf1]

It's not a bug it's a feature. Like a CoD perk you unlock after a certain level, well here you unlock it by gaining air superiority.

[@Doc_Doge]

Gonna go ahead and leave my "Based and multirole-pilled" here to help the algorithm

[@ppproductions4770]

Ok 👌

[@flyingplatypus7272]

Based and peer-to-peer pilled

[@mrcool9301]

Based and ECM pilled

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

F-15E > A-10

[@ppproductions4770]

@@DefinitelyNotEmma for how cool they look, yes, but not for performance.

[@jonmcgee6987]

Pity that Sprey wasn't publicly outed as a con artist before his death. I knew he lied often and was extremely arrogant. This just helps prove how detestable he truly was.

[@nuthenry2]

You'll be pleased to know the Alexander Kartveli wiki page now credits him with the A-10 and the Pierre Sprey page removed any source directly stated spey him self

[@toastytoast5282]

god were has this channel been all my life? I love it

[@poegetsbored6640]

I'm genuinely curious what modern combat would look like if aircraft were built to the standards of reformist and "engineers" on reddit. Would it be a bunch of planes with no radar or smart weapon systems trying to shoot each other down with machine guns while Ground units shot them all down with surface to air weapons?

[@skipercrac]

we'd be back to WW2

[@bosoerjadi2838]

A 10,000 ship fleet of hypersonic solar powered stealthy unmanned Spectres with directed energy weapons and anti-satellite, anti-submarine and loitering capabilities, I'd guess. 9yo minds, unbothered by any real world constraints, can come up with the stuff actual generals are too afraid to ask for.

[@NeurodivergentSuperiority]

@@bosoerjadi2838 We might as well make it a fuckin transformer

[@kelbybrewer2038]

We'd be fighting with fleets of zeppelins.

[@ThatTallGuy0]

There would be no such thing as the air force

[@mandoreforger6999]

The dirty secret about the A10 was that it was never going to go after main battle tank formations with that gun, it had opto-electric IR seeking Mavericks for that task which would hit any Soviet tank hard enough laterally at the hot engine compartment from a distance and disable the tracks permanently even if the hull is not penetrated. The gun was intended slice apart BMPs opportunistically and supply formations like fuel trucks. T-80s don’t matter without fuel, ammo and maintenance points. The ZSUs could be targeted with Shrikes pretty effectively without getting very close. Before the Iraqi turkey shoot, this is exactly what they did to mobile radar-guided AA guns.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

A 30mm isn't necessary to target fuel trucks. Simply put, the concept for a dedicated CAS aircraft was worked on before the Maverick missile was operational and the people behind the A-X concept were famously against smart weapons. So it was all an exercise in futility. I'm also having trouble finding any reference to Shrike missile seekers ever being tuned for the Ku band ZSU radars, and Shrikes were famously known for losing track by simply turning the radar off. Which I guess would mean you'd have to get pretty close, because the ZSU would keep its radar off until aircraft were known to be in range to spring the trap. I can find a mention of the Israelis using 10 Shrikes against Shilkas - which required help from US airborne sensors to direct the attack - and a source that claims 1000 HARMs used during the Gulf War while only two dozen Shrikes were used.

[@mandoreforger6999]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I mentioned BMPs before fuel trucks. Most armored vehicles are not MBTs. MBTs make up a small portion of total vehicles in a mechanized formation, and a 30mm gun can kill pretty much all of them with ease. It can kill MBTs from the top and rear, which is likely where they would attack from, given that their primary gun targets will be APCs and support vehicles.

[@mandoreforger6999]

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD shrikes would have been more prevalent in the Cold War, and would have been deployed by F-4Gs, more than an A-10. They were based on the Sparrow (just as the Sidearm was based on the sidewinder, and the Standard Arm was based on the RIM-66 body) so they were much cheaper than the HARM missile. About 100 were used in the gulf, but they would have been mass-fired during any Cold War conflict. The larger point was that numerous anti-radar options existed for targeting mobile radars. Iraq was not the first to learn this. Syria and Egypt had numerous radars hit by these types of weapons during conflicts with Israel as well.

[@ChucksSEADnDEAD]

@@mandoreforger6999 Sure. A Hornet pilot disabled a column of BMPs threatening some Marines with his 20mm. The kills a 30mm can deliver on MBTs are mobility kills and F-kills by thrashing the optics and sensors. The same can be achieved with smaller cannons. It just doesn't make sense to haul up 4,000lbs of gun and feed system up in the air when all you have is 18k lbf of thrust. The 1979 testing shows it could barely achieve penetration of M47 tanks, standing in for T-55/T-62 tanks. I'm simply not optimistic about F-4Gs covering Hogs.

[@vanuodst2857]

I need some sources on this

[@wolfrainexxx]

WW2 CAS may have been useless in actual tank busting, but it was extremely successful in demoralizing the enemy who had to get constantly buzzed, and fear for his life.

[@MrJohndoakes]

31:51 The only problem in using that flag for Georgia is that Kartveli (born Aleksandre Kartvelishvili) probably never saw it; he left either Imperial Russia during WWI or White-controlled Georgia during the Russian Civil War to learn aircraft design in 1922 France, then immigrated to America, where he went to work for Alexander de Seversky in the early 1930s. Seversky's firm became Republic Aviation before WWII. Like Igor Sikorsky, Alexander Kartveli was a firm believer in the United States.

[@Bigdog0242]

if he left in 1922 then he must have left democratic republic of georgia which was independent for 3 years but i still think that anthem should be in this video

[@MrJohndoakes]

@@Bigdog0242 No, he was in Paris by 1922. I have no idea how he got there and Wikipedia is sketchy on those details.

[@Bigdog0242]

@@MrJohndoakes people(mainly politicians) fled red army in 1921 if hes parents ware well known they would run away with him

[@DatBrasss]

I'm just a complete civilian with no real knowledge on modern weaponry, but I always kind of assumed that the A-10 was a terror weapon that was mostly useful for demoralizing enemy infantry near the tanks they hit

[@IstasPumaNevada]

It also exists for a certain portion of the population who get creepily excited watching other people get killed on video.

[@maybecole]

Troops on the ground also get a huge morale boost SEEING their boy fly in and BRT into the enemy. KZbin has a lot of these, no doubt brings comfort and mental easing to infantry (with air superiority of course)

[@wiryantirta]

It could be an effective counter insurgency aircraft if you load HE on those 30mms. Its just that a Super Tucano would be more efficient in doing the same thing.

[@connorreakes6652]

@@gabrielzanetti9558 a10s don’t fly unless theirs air superiority and no AA lol

[@seandlax9]

This is actually spot on. Insurgents would straight up break contact at the mere sight of an A-10 in the air. I have seen this happen more than once.

[@mimimimeow]

if the Air Force really listened to Sprey/Boyd, the F-16 would've been a radarless fighter with 5g structural limit. The plane ended up being the exact opposite of that. No one would want that when the Russians are putting out MiG-25 and MiG-23 trying to make BVR work. AF scaling up the size and putting a radar in it has to be the best decision ever made. And still Sprey tries to take credit from the plane. Boyd at least prolly realized he was a bit wrong and later served in the ATF project.

[@novanoir8309]

I thought he was joking about not put in any radar ON A FREAKING PLANE

[@hedgehog3180]

My favorite aircraft in War Thunder is the Mig-23 so I would have wanted that.

[@nabilbudiman271]

the YF-16 which served as predecessor of the FSD F-16 doesn't have radar. So they might almost heard what Boyd said

[@pogo1140]

@@novanoir8309 the requirement was for a cheap repeat cheap clear weather daylight dogfighter. Radar was expensive and heavy. Also despite being built with a radar, the F-16 did not carry a radar guided missile for years before the AIM-120 was developed

[@pogo1140]

The correct title of this video should be "My 33 minute diatribe against Sprey".

[@twurtle12hd39]

Lazerpig I believe the a-10 has now officially been set to retire

[@Slaughter619]

The A10 is fucking amazing, at turning American infantry into insurance claims...

[@2wsy]

Seeing this guy give interviews on Russia Today tells a lot about his trustworthiness.

[@Man0War]

Fair enough

[@Tarkovrat69]

Laser pig?

[@2wsy]

@@Tarkovrat69 Pierre Sprey

[@user-oo7be8uu1w]

Spot on, mate, spot on...

[@djocharablaikan8601]

How dare he not support the current thing! 😡

[@zacamakapaka3989]

It’s adored because it’s visual. Soldiers and cameras never see an f16 launch a missile from over the horizon and when they do…. It isn’t exactly exhilarating.

[@barelmaker]

Yeah, seeing a plane burst in flames above you from any slightly modern AA is exhilarating

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@@barelmaker how many times has that happened?

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@@barelmaker cmon boy, out with it.

[@g00gleisgayerthanaids56]

@Random Pickle I wanted him to look it up for himself.

[@MaticTheProto]

@@g00gleisgayerthanaids56 regularly

[@battlecruiserna]

yeah it sucks but it the gun spins and makes a funny noise and causes a lot of friendly fire so it's very american.

[@bennittotheburrito9606]

Holy shit it’s the train guy

[@MFlari]

as a creo fan who finally got around to watching this, hearing rock thing actually made my jaw drop. Despite how old this video is, i can't help but leave this comment. Hats off to your editing, lazerpig!

[@falcondestroyer1gaming200]

This is some disgusting DOJ propaganda right here, everyone knows that the Blitzfighter would have been even better, because it was built around the combat tested frame of the indestructible AREOGAVIN, which was impervious to all forms of SAMs, and its common knowledge at this point that the Gulf War was won by Pierre Sprey, using his patented “Anti Tank Pointy Stick I Found on The Ground” (It worked for cavemen, right?) but the DOJ covered it up to buy more FailBrams, whose turbine engines are literal money shredders

[@dylanwight5764]

The ATPSIFOTG is code for Javelin, right? RIGHT???

[@c3aloha]

Mike Sparks almost single handedly convinced the world that the M113 was actually called the Gavin. Are any of his websites still up? Airborne!!! 😂

[@jacobmccandles1767]

The Abrams does NOT suck... ....but. diesel engines would be an upgrade.

[@wolfehoffmann2697]

Pointy stick? Too advanced. The recently declassified anti-tank rock is clearly the perfect cost-effective tool.

[@dimasakbar7668]

Alternate title: "Sprey is garbage and i can prove that historically"

[@autobotstarscream765]

AND mathematically.

[@jesseparrish1993]

No matter what I will always love your production quality.

[@NonsenseFabricator]

9:45 lowkey the best gag in the video is that half-second continuation of the star spangled banner over the F-111 here.

[@prjndigo]

Give the F4Phantom it's due... if you want something to do the job of a B17 at mach 2 with an extra thousand pounds of bomb from twice as far away and three times the altitude _from an aircraft carrier_ ... at the time of Vietnam the F4 is your dude.

[@Shaun_Jones]

I consider the F4, at least the ICE version in German service, to be a generation 3.9 fighter. I mean, the thing has almost the same electronics as an F/A-18, and can fire AMRAAMs, and is still fast enough to not slow anyone down, so it still has some serious life left in it.

[@argylewarrior1]

that's why there are soooooo many in mothballs at the Boneyards at Davis-Monthan. if an emergency air corps needed mobilized, those Phantom IIs can be up and running far faster and cheaper than any current production fighter could come off the line. they're just a damn good plane.

[@SudrianTales]

Plus the USN managed to get a lot of kills from it by just training its pilots proving the old adage of Training being the key to victory

[@TazyBaby]

@@Shaun_Jones the best part is you can own one as a civilian

[@kilianortmann9979]

@@Shaun_Jones I think the whole generation system falls apart after gen 3. The most upgraded F-4 (ICE and AUP) are more advanced than the Sparrow only A models of F-15, F-16 and F-18.

[@diggman88]

When I first saw the A10 as a kid, the first thing caught my eye wasn't the gun. It was the amount of hard points the thing has on it. It could carry just about any weapon from the look of it. I take it your a fan of the F-111? 🙂

[@ryankiesow8440]

Who doesn't love the vark. Guys enough flew them said that at low altitudes that they had the power to put a large majority of the eras other aircraft on its six pretty easily

[@AvArIeNmArKu4]

@@ryankiesow8440 if the tf30 was not the useless unreliable engine it was

[@fritzerichgeorgeduardvonma5615]

Right.......as if that thing (F111) is any better than the boeing 818

[@180791sanguinius]

@@AvArIeNmArKu4 TF-30s were great at low altitude and were a good fit for a strike jet like the Vark. For a fighter like the F-14, less so...

[@LaikaTheG]

This guys argument is Tunguska good and Brrrt bad. When in reality the gun is the last weapon anyone would most likely use. Now DCS isn’t real life but it’s pretty darn close and playing it I can tell you a Tunguska or sa 19 is not the most scary thing to pop up on rwr. A maverick is a easy counter to the sa 19 and I’m surprised people really think shoulder launched SAMs and SPAA are really that big of a deal. It’s kinda like you see them launched then you turn and dump a bunch of flares and that the end of it.

[@MicroBalrog]

Lazerpig, circa 2021: HAHAHA in real life the Russian tank columns would have AAA support! Gerasimov, 2022: Um.

[@madkoala2130]

Unfortunately that statement still holds true. Just this time its S-300s not tanguskas or pansirs.

[@BorisKarpa]

S-300s are not AAA tho@@madkoala2130

[@rick-potts]

I love the A10 The A10 was always one of my "favourites" growing up...I had a photo of a preteen me just hanging from the GAU cannon at a static display somewhere in the SW- probably RNAS Culdrose. I had that photo - the only photo I had up in my bedroom - until my adolescence and leaving home in the late 80's. I used to go to Donna Nook constantly in summer to watch the strafing runs and listen to the farting. Happy Days. Back when we were fab. I loved this plane as a child - and I think that love of "symbolism" and "imagery" permeated many of a certain age. Then "nostalgia" and "wistfulness" takes over...and all logic goes out the window. I love the A10. But it is a relic. A not really fit for purpose relic. An expensive to maintain, run and keep relevant relic. A second or third choice for "doing any CAS job" relic.

[@coryfice1881]

The A10 is the Iowa class battleships of the modern day.

[@kingtigerbooks1162]

I flew an A-10 for several years. I thought our base was being attacked so I went out and strafed a rusty tank, a Honda Civic and a Tyrannosaurus. The boss smelled alcohol on my breath so I never got credit for the dinosaur. To whom it may concern, these are my 3 favorite books: - Scream of Eagles by Robert Wilcox - Her Majesty's Top Gun by Sharkey Ward - Great Fighter Jets of the Galaxy 1 by Tim Gibson

[@sombodythatyouusedtoknow9046]

What?

[@kingtigerbooks1162]

@@sombodythatyouusedtoknow9046 I know I'm an alcoholic but damn I strafed a lot of dinosaurs.

[@osteelgen8225]

Absolutely deranged lmao

[@kingtigerbooks1162]

@@osteelgen8225 I'm also working on a peanut-powered A-10 Warthog.

[@osteelgen8225]

@@kingtigerbooks1162 good luck!

[@tapak3926]

Some people just can't seem to understand that flying a whale with wings into a battlefield filled with MANPADS and short range ADS is probably more suicidal than what Japanese kamikaze pilots did.

[@ket451]

Best chance you got is aircraft survivability, countermeasures, and hitting the deck (hopefully not literally. The floor is not your friend while you're going around 550kph)

[@chrissmith7669]

When flown correctly the A-10 minimizes exposure to ground fire and is very survivable

[@owendawson5424]

@@chrissmith7669 When flown normally, the f35 doesn't need to worry about manpads, ground fire, anti air, or interceptors.

[@chrissmith7669]

@@owendawson5424 but then it’s not in an optimal position to provide CAS

[@owendawson5424]

@@chrissmith7669 thats days of old for jets who will now use cruise missiles and jdams, it won't need to get involved in CAS because of things like drones with assassin cruise missiles containing now payload, only kinetic force to target small areas, or new joint coordinated attacks utilizing scout drones, infantry fighting vehicles, and stealthy helicopters to never get into a situation where that is needed. Plus the a10 is just completely obsolete for future combat operations. We're never going to fight Russia conventionally, and even if we did. we wouldn't be able to obtain total air superiority making CAS a suicide mission. Our most likely adversaries are China and insurgents. So Let me ask you, would you want a slow moving tank with a big gun thats useless against modern day armor in a field of hell completely covered in layers of anti air, throughout small island chains in the Pacific where we'll need a lot of range? No it would get shot out of the sky immediately, plus we'll never be able to get air superiority over said islands because of that anti air, and the shear number of jets they have is comparable to ours. So the answer to this would obviously be stealth aircraft that can fly high in the air, and strike out of range of any missiles, and such an aircraft would be the f35. And for insurgents, you want loitering time because you have obtained total air superiority, and you'd want something with a lot of ammo. And since there is no anti air, you want something slow moving and armored. This sounds tailor made for the a10 right? And it has been for the past 20 years, but now we've got to come up with something more effective, cheap, and lethal, enter prop planes, not only are they reliable, fuel efficient, and slow, but they have an extremely long loitering time, the a10, which can stick around for 2-4 hours, is outmatched by these new planes that can loiter for up to 8 hours. Keeping a plane around like the a10, and believe war is going to be the same as it was 30 to 60 years ago is exactly what Russia did, and look where that got them, historically, the ones who come up with a new strategy to outsmart the enemy always wins over playing at their own game, and hoping to over come them with numbers. Its like a crossbow vs gun, back in the old days, crossbows were easy to make, cheap, silent, and shot sticks that anyone could sharpen, plus they were combat tested and battle hardened, yet were completely outmatched by guns, they were loud, and inaccurate at first, but they could pen armor, and soon developed into the modern norm, just like the f35, you have to make leaps in technology in ways which don't always make sense, but its better to shoot for the stars, than get stuck in the past.

[@SikerMinecraft]

22:57 is my favorite part of any Lazerpig video, ever.

[@snowboredsnj]

Let that sink in. (a few moments later) Oh... ha.

[@no-legjohnny3691]

22:23 - Believe it or not, this was actually not the first time America bought a British jet design. The first time was when they contracted with English Electric for their Canberra bomber, which would enter US service as the B-57

[@dylanwight5764]

Fun fact -- the Canberra is still formerly in service with an agency of the US government. NASA flies it as a meteorological data gathering platform.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

The Australian Airforce conducted daytime close air support with the Canberra in the Vietnam War. The Australian War Memorial website has some material, including "Radio and aircrew intercom transmissions No 2 (Bomber) Squadron Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF), South Vietnam, 1969-1970".

[@fishbones8698]

which is why he said "one of the first and only times..."

[@MaticTheProto]

@@dylanwight5764 Germany used it for meteorological data gathering as well I believe

[@cameronbarton5429]

Weren’t B-57’s built in America though, whereas the Harriers were British made?

[@homfri111]

the A-10 fills a weird role that doesn't need to exist, but without it we would have never gotten that gopro footage of a kiowa pilot asking for strikes on a potential IED team, then when running away from the kiowa an A10 pilot loitering answered. So we have footage of an A10 gunning down a moped and for that im thankful.

[@ihavenocreativity2666]

wait what the fuck send link i have to see that

[@ianbohl7862]

Holy shit pls post link

[@homfri111]

/watch?v=js7nYkedQt4

[@ethanhollen6538]

q ww

[@Reklawssyba]

I believe this is it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oKSan4yhmsmEqpY

[@Tbt19-110]

I have to say, Shitting Hippo sounds like a great meme call sign for an A-10

[@Ocrilat]

Hey, we all have our favorite planes. Mine is the F4F Wildcat. But I don't think it is a flawless design, a modern aircraft, or has any role whatsoever in a modern military context. And of course I believe it was a smart move to replace it with the Hellcat. Because I'm sane.

[@takogonikanetniukogo]

F for Kartveli. What a miracle of a designer, mastering a wildly different eras of aeronautics and coming up with P-47 and A-10. Tell what you want of A-10 as a weapon platform but it is an amazing machine from aircraft construction standpoint

[@Paytrolah]

No? It's a brick using 60's era design.

[@candle_eatist]

@@Paytrolah because it was designed in the 60s and 70s?

[@theneighborsdog5625]

Agreed.

[@gapisblind]

A-10 is an excuse to not building an actual close air support attack aircraft because most fighters carry out the role, also for some reason people are obsessed with the gun on it while the AC-130 has the same one...

[@imhighaf2060]

​@@gapisblind A-10 is an actual CAS from 60's and carries more armament that Spectre. The reason it was so successful during 91 isn't because of its 30mm, but because it is the only CAS plane that could be laden with obscene amount of guided munitions per mission. That's it, that's the only reason why A-10 still in service today. Either you haven't watched the video till the end or none at all.

[@carlosnot4682]

The real unsung hero of the gulf war was the F-111. Destroying more tanks than the A-10.

[@SudrianTales]

The F-111 is a meme of how good a plane can be despite a terrible development cycle (I'm referring to when it was meant to be a direct sister to the F-105)

[@jefflei215]

@@SudrianTales haha rotating hardpoints go brrrrrrr

[@moonasha]

no, the real unsung hero is the F-117 and its laser guided bombs, which basically carried out some absurd proportion of all strike missions, like 50% or something. Without it casualties would have been way way way higher.

[@SudrianTales]

@@moonasha Id honestly say the unsung hero of the Gulf War was GPS, it allowed the Coalition forces to go around Iraqi lines (Which were well placed honestly)

[@KillerT-Bone]

Except you realize overall the A-10 destroyed more armored fighting vehicles, tanks aren’t the only ground threat.

[@anthonydolan3740]

I used to deliver dry cleaning to the factory that makes the minigun. They kept vehicles blasted by the gun in their parking lot.

[@rudatkatzn9171]

To be honest, that Tiger II with Era and shit looks hella sexy

[@springtime1838]

So let me get this straight he Securely designed the A-10 but also obviously also designed the competing Northrop YA-9 for the same contract!

[@kingsnakke6888]

The first indication that what Sprey is saying is bullshit

[@DeltaCain13]

It's not that it sucks, it's just very outdated. It really has no business being compared to 4th/5th gen jets because it isn't one, and it cannot really compete with that level of effectiveness. A-10 really does standout in it's own generation. It's worth admiration there.

[@alonelyperson6031]

Sadly for it, it doesn't live in the world of its generation. Its the future now old man A10

[@jesuszamora6949]

@@alonelyperson6031 Which is why "very outdated" is a better term.

[@ArcturusOTE]

@@jesuszamora6949 insanely outdated

[@doggowazhere7016]

@@ArcturusOTE more like "so outdated that modern aircraft and aa of the 1970's would wipe the floor with this piece of junk"

[@faithnfire4769]

@@doggowazhere7016 true but it should be acknowledged that this was always true. Flares/EW or death was about as good as a subsonic ground attack aircraft is going to get. A comparable modern missile boat is only so much better in this regard (bit o simple stealthing and a smaller frame on a drone for instance).

[@elcaponeholyemperorofnj1169]

Fun fact, Radar actually existed in WW2 inside planes

[@rojnx9]

ngl "A-10 Shitting Hippo" sounds dope as fuck

[@jonsi3559]

Slight correction. The "Swedish A-10" wasn't really intended to be the same thing as the A-10. It was a jet trainer/light attack plane developed to replace the SAAB 105 and by the time it was cancelled in 1979 the A-10 looking configuration was already scrapped long ago in favour of a more Su-25 looking configuration with twin seats. Since it was a joint project with Aermacchi who later went on to build the AMX, the AMX is a likely a pretty good indication of where the "Swedish A-10" was going.

[@mattmilsop4003]

The US did purchase other foreign aircraft. The most noteable was the B-57 Canberra. We bought planes from the French during WWI and we used British aircraft such as the Spitfire and Mosquito during WWII.

[@mattmilsop4003]

But, an excellent video and very interesting. Thank you for making this.

[@samdherring]

You're right but I think he meant after the wars. We were pretty self sufficient militarily after the war.

[@classifiedad1]

@@samdherring Martin B-57 Canberra was postwar. Essentially, the US was looking for a good tactical bomber and found the best option was the English Electric Canberra. So they got a license for it and with some tweaks such as the use of a side by side seating arrangement (later copied on later Canberra variants), became the B-57. Some are still in use; NASA operates several WB-57 weather and astronomical observation aircraft, optimized for high-altitude flight.

[@cwr3959]

@@samdherring don't forget the harrier one of the best fighters at the time

[@talltroll7092]

@@cwr3959 Well... in a vaccum, the Harrier really isn't a very good fighter at all, but it IS a not very good fighter with VSTOL capability, so it can be operated off less than full-sized carriers, and improvised airfields that can be put together in a day or two anywhere you can find a flat enough patch of land. That gives it operational flexibility that few other fixed wing aircraft can match. If your choices are Harriers or nothing, obviously, the Harrier is amazing. If your choices are Harriers or virtually anything else, then you're almost always better off with virtually anything else, but it does cover those cases where "virtually anything else" isn't an option for various reasons

[@shooteveryday1841]

>Taps toe< Still patiently waiting for the F-111 Aardvark video….

[@ProjectXA3]

Wish granted

[@BMPellogia]

24:52 that little bit aged sooo well ahahahhahhaha

[@palehorseman9923]

My first experience with the A-10 was when I was as a kid playing Operation Flashpoint, and I had no idea that the cannon could even be used for tank-busting (theoretically). Even if I had, why the hell wouldn't you just use a Maverick or a laser-guided bomb? MANPADS and ZSU-23-4s were no joke.

[@palehorseman9923]

Hell, I didn't even know that it had a gun on it for a good bit because the weapons were so great.

[@kenmakouzume7368]

@@palehorseman9923 Gun's mostly used for other vehicles, namely cargo and personnel transport vehicles, as well as Air-to-Air dogfights (albeit that's a worst case scenario). The gun could technically be used for tank-busting (considering those depleted-uranium rounds can hit three bullets in the exact same spot before recoil pulls the plane up), there's no reason to. It has amazingly precise bomb-dropping modes in both CCIP (Dive Drop) and CCRP (Lob Drop) within 50 yards. Basically the A-10C can drop a bomb with consistent accuracy to at the very least disable most armoured vehicles without even being in visible range over the crest of hills/mountains using the Bomb Toss method of CCRP.

[@mrkeogh]

You didn't. Mavericks were intended to take out serious threats like ZSUs. The gun is for mopping up, and it's perfectly adequate for taking out lighter vehicles, artillery, bridging equipment, etc. The Soviets relied heavily on fairly old equipment for their reserve units, which would have been far more vulnerable to the 30mm. Always thought the MANPAD threat against something like the A-10 was a bit overhyped, they're pretty hard to deploy effectively against a/c operating at treetop level unless you get troops to stand out in the open or along treelines where they're exposed to enemy fire. They're more of a headache for helicopters, but they do give attack aircraft something to worry about when they pop up to attack. The Frogfoot did pretty well against Stingers in Afghanistan IIRC, though the Soviets quickly realised they could just orbit out of range until called in for support. No point hanging around at low-level when there is no medium- or long-range SAM threat.

[@magikkarp8730]

Because it's so cool

[@wittyjoker4631]

Because you get half a dozen missiles and dozens of targets worth of rounds.

[@FoxholeAtheistOIF]

The "Just let that sink in" joke was beautiful. Also I've watched A-10s in action, ya know what happened after they got done 30mming an old Saddam bunker? F-16s dropped JDAMs on it, because why tf did anyone send A-10s to hit a concrete bunker.

[@apersondoingthings5689]

We need justice for the F111. You have made me change my opinion on my favorite strike aircraft, I am thankful LP

[@python3215]

Video Title: Why the A-10 sucks Video: Why Pierre Sprey sucks

[@R7AWSUM]

It's funny that a plane designed specifically to counter armor was far more effective against infantry because of how scary it was, actual kills not withstanding.

[@ryanrenoud6970]

I’m embarrassed to admit how long it took me to get the “Let that sink in,” joke.

[@MRptwrench]

Thank you, for I as an old Jarhead grunt have been in too many conversations with personnel from (the Other branch with infantry) where I've endured to oft too repeated "A-10s are my angels" statement. I wonder how many times that actually happened. How many times was it an F-15 SE? Wasn't arty or 80mike mortar sometimes your angel? And in my experiences and the Marines I've talked to, even though the lowly F/A-18 did plenty of work, many of us still prefer the Warrant Officers in their Cobras (gasp, did he mention rotary wing?)

[@foxfern9036]

ima be real with you, Fairchild republic, A10 Shitting Hippo sounds kinda bad ass not going to lie

[@Hamun002]

My dad made parts for the F-15. Some sort of intake that needed to be incredibly highly machined. Also he was a designer and fab guy on one of the first mechanical blood filters for AIDS. I just remembered because you mentioned the F-15.

[@PrimroseParadox]

your dad has more claim to fame with the F-15 than Pierre Sprey

[@TillyOrifice]

I made parts for the F-15 too. I made one yesterday. So far none has been adopted by the Air Force, but one perseveres.

[@The_ZeroLine]

@@PrimroseParadox Basically anyone who ever had any type of job does. But it’s cool what his dad worked on and the F-15 is the best multi-role plane ever.

[@speedman69420]

nice i whish i could machine stuff like that

[@yeastyg546]

My uncle had AIDS. I wonder if your dad cleaned his blood….. oh well, he died. He used to make me tug his pecker, but never got any contaminates inside me so I don’t have AIDS. I’m fairly certain of this. Anyway, thanks for the trip down memory lane 😊

[@edoardoconti7162]

why use a modern plane when you can use a ww1 armored train? - Pierre Spray

[@McNubbys]

To be fair to the M-60 was deployed to Desert Storm with the USMC(they hadn't received the Abrams yet)and it did perform well, but it was definitely not capable as the Abrams😊

[@clumsyoctopus5614]

Not entirely. 2nd Tank Battalion and the two reserve units attached (Companies B and C, 4th Tank Bn) all had M1A1 tanks for Desert Storm. While the majority of the Marines had M60's (1st and 3rd Tank Bns), the USMC had received some Abrams. When I was in the reserves, I was attached to B Co, 4th Tank BN. That unit no longer exists (since the Marines have - correctly - moved away from tanks), but the sign over the door of the Reserve Center used to say "Through these doors pass the greatest tank killers in the world." Bravo Company mobilized and learned the M1's, and were combat-ready in 32 days. They then proceeded to kill or disable 34 Iraqi tanks in a single firefight that lasted only minutes (some sources say they did this in 90 seconds), setting a record for most kills in a single combat action during the battle that became known as "Reveille Engagement," and went on to claim more than 115 enemy vehicle kills over the course of the "100 hour war".

[@McNubbys]

@@clumsyoctopus5614 I was unaware of this, thank you😊

[@clumsyoctopus5614]

@@McNubbys cheers Jeff!

[@ShaunieDale]

The aircraft will now in my mind forever be known as “The Fairchild A10 Shitting Hippo”. Thanks for that!

[@Crosshair84]

23:30 Nobody is perfect, but the Iraqi army was in no way well trained or well armed by 1989 Western standards. The Republican Guard units were decent, but even they were limited by their equipment. The majority was poorly to moderately trained conscripts using either secondhand or export variant tanks that were decades out of date. They had no thermal sights, no night vision, and many/most lacked even proper ballistic computers. The Iraqi military had plenty of quantity, but very little quality. Like most Arab militaries, it is deliberately sabotaged by the political leadership to thwart coups. The Iranians were in the middle of a revolution and Iraq couldn't do anything better except fight to a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq used tanks as little more than mobile artillery and pillboxes. Don't get me wrong, a properly modernized T-55 can be quite the threat on a modern battlefield when properly employed, but the stuff Iraq had wasn't even up to 1960s Soviet standards.

[@thatdude3938]

Yeah, looking at how exactly Iraqi army used to fight... you can't help but laugh.

[@barrag3463]

On top of that the allies not only had better equipment but also still took the Iraqis as a serious threat and planned accordingly, while the Iraqi military leadership (by which I mean Saddam) arrogantly dug into static positions and did nothing proactive until it was far too late, and the gates to baghdad were closed. The entire allied strategy was not to just simply engage and destroy the Iraqi army, but to also trap them in the desert to prevent them from retreating and engaging in irregular warfare. Norman Schwarzkopf was very aware of the potential for Desert Storm to become Vietnam 2, and being an officer who had a front row seat to that war he took every measure possible to prevent that. Sad that no one like him was around when planning for Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

[@ShadowFalcon]

That's what we know now. Back then, intel was indeed that, the Iraqi military was well trained and well armed. In any case, the assumptions for the most part, when planning a military operation is that, your enemy is well trained, well armed, well motivated and in general know what they're doing. By doing that, you won't get a nasty surprise, if it turns out they aren't (you'll still get a surprise, but it'll be a positive one).

[@thatdude3938]

@@ShadowFalcon what intel man? From Jews, who steamrolled elite Iraqi tank divisions like no big deal? Or from Iran-Iraqi war, where Iraqis failed notoriously? Mind you, America supported Iraq during its war with Iran so it had enough intel to work with.

[@jimmydesouza4375]

"Nobody is perfect, but the Iraqi army was in no way well trained or well armed by 1989 Western standards. They were. They were well trained from American, Russian and French advisors (amongst others) and were the most experienced military in the world at that point due to the Iran-Iraq war. That is why the coalition took them as seriously as they did.

[@robitpower]

I still think one of the most eye-catching scenes from the Gulf War are all the fires and smoke pillars reaching out to a clouded horizon, with nothing but flat desert between them, looking as though thr fires raged so numerous and intense that they're blocking out the sun

[@cd5433]

The Iraqis set a lot of oil wells on fire as they retreated.

[@ever-openingflower8737]

I'm going through this channel in random order. I watched the F-35 video before this one. Now learning that Pierre Sprey is a jazz musician, suddenly, I got a lot more respect for him. I love jazz!

[@goldenhate6649]

well...if its any good, it could be trash for all we know

[@toddpeterson5904]

Sprey was a classic narcissist - will do anything (ANYTHING) to prop himself up and create a fake persona of greatness, all while being incompetent, having low self esteem, and contributing nothing to society.

[@Kissamiess]

At the time it seemed that the Army's AH-56 could outperform some fixed wing aircraft, so the Air Force came up with A-10 to beat that heresy, which it did, but they have been trying to get rid of it ever since.

[@Ironbattlemace]

Tää.

[@mnameisjefff]

As a forward observer, I have to also comment that one must also take into account the overwhelming combined forces of artillery in the Gulf war, if it wasn't for the brilliant combination of artillery barrages on surface to air missile sites and other air defense sites it could have gone differently, nonetheless the combination of ground attack artillery and other Air elements made it so this was the only battle in US history besides one or two unopposed amphibious landings, where no us casualties were taken on the ground in the initial bush, most infantry troops were able to walk virtually unopposed

[@labpilot_]

13F

[@mnameisjefff]

@@labpilot_ fister for life

[@labpilot_]

@@mnameisjefff Fort Sill?

[@Sneakyboson]

Yes, A-10s need air superiority established before they can do their thang effectively.

[@cowboyatthebebop]

You know i came to this channel after re watching the Pentagon wars a few years ago and got way more than i bargained for lol

[@robertbain8767]

The only thing that sucks about the A-10 is the amount of air that the gun starves the engines of causing them to stall. ‘Merica