Yea...a real shame...

File: 1492963937062.jpg (92KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 853x543px

>>33913529

>Implying the A-10 would be safe to operate even remotely close to any such concentration of artillery assets

lolno

This isn't some sand nigger Jihad LARPers with a DShKM. These are determined people with training and zeal.

>>33913529
>Le thread died for this maymay

File: zaYXGwu.jpg (62KB, 1125x730px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1125x730px

>>33913546
So is the pilot.

>>33913546
They're pretty durable

File: bC7tiBi.jpg (38KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x600px

>>33913546
FYI none of what you see in that photo is designed to destroy an A-10...

Capable if a direct hit was scored yes...but the likelihood is nil.

>That dense concentration of assets

I've never seen as great an argument for the use of a tactical nuke or MOAB-tier bomb

File: 1485218594944.png (172KB, 432x391px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 432x391px

>>33913620

>He thinks I was referring to shooting down the plane with towed howitzer

Goddamn, /k/ is dim.

>>33913708

That's even pushing it too far. Thermobaric or cluster munitions would fuck them sideways in 5D. FASCAM, SADARM, or hell, probably even CBU-107's would wreck havoc like the world hasn't seen.

File: a-10-thunderbolt-ii_011-ts600.jpg (31KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x400px

>>33913529

>NK: I need my guns to protect against the US gov-

File: main-qimg-f2a58f42bef64a70272dc0020778ae96-c.jpg (36KB, 602x452px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 602x452px

>>33913546
The A-10 was designed to fly with half a wing and one engine.

I'll take TLAM-D strikes from a SSGN

>>33914095
And F-15s and 16s have lost a wing and landed safely, what's your claim here except that the A-10 can burn resources getting fucked up better than aircraft with smarter attack profiles?

>>33913529
It's just a 30 mm gun. I don't get the fetish. Many WWII planes carried larger calibers. Even back then they concluded that these guns were not that effective in tank busting. A 250 pounder iron dumb bomb can do the same job with less mechanical complexity and probably better accuracy due to the large blast radius.

>>33915472
To be fair, the only reason the A-10 exists was to kill the AH-56. They built the requirements around that.

A war with north korea might be fun

Just an easier gulf war

CBU-105s programmed to fly to on the axis to line up with the artillery batteries would be pretty neat. I can't find it on youtube but there was some instance of a B-52 using CBU-7s (105 without the guidance kit) responding to a CAS request in OIF resulting in the annihilation of an entire battalion of tanks. We aren't using these weapons right now because of collateral but be assured that cluster munitions would be brought back in a war against waves of norks

>>33914095

so the Norks'll shoot twice.

>>33915612

not really, a lot of dudes are gonna die on the US side. mountain fighting isn't fun.

>>33915612
by easier i assume the second US boots hit the ground the population realizes theyre not "that" brainwashed and surrenders by the thousands, while kim's battalion size personal security element pretends theyre still in a meaningful war

are there even natural resources in NK to exploit? why would we even bother actually occupying their country, thye have no borders to run to and all we'd need to do is park a carrier group off the coast to shut them up

>>33913529

Why use an A-10. You could probably just fuck it up with naval artillery.