Combat damage assessment team A-10/GAU-8 low angle firings ... · Calhoun: The NPS Institutional...

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Reports and Technical Reports All Technical Reports Collection

1980-04

Combat damage assessment team

A-10/GAU-8 low angle firings versus

simulated Soviet tank company (Array

17) (LAVP lot no. AJD 79A181-001,

Aerojet) (14 August 1979)

Stolfi, Russel H.S.

Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School

http://hdl.handle.net/10945/29213

NPS-56-80-004

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Monterey, California

1

COMBAT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT TEAMA-10/GAU-8 LQW ANGLE FIRINGS

VERSUSSIMULATED SOVIET TANK COMPANY CARRAY 17)

CLAVP Lot Number AJD 79A 18 1-001, AEROJET)

C14 AUGUST 1979)

R.H.S. STOLFIR.R. McEACHIN

APRIL 1980

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

Prepared for: A-10 System Program OfficeWright Patterson Air Force Base

FEDDOCS Ohio 45433

D 208.1 4/2:NPS-56-80-004

F

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOLMonterey, California

Rear Admiral James J. Ekelund Jack R. BorstingSuperintendent Provost

The work reported herein was supported by the A-10 SystemProgram Office, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Thereproduction of all or part of this report is authorized.

fTnrl assifiadSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONSBEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER

NPS-56-80-0042. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. title (and subtitle) a-IO/GAU-8 Low Angle Firingversus

Simulated Soviet Tank Company (Array 17)(14 August 1979) (LAVP Lot #AJD 79A181-

QQ1) (Aerojet)

5. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVEREDSpecial report for ArrayFirings of 14 August 19796. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR("»J

R.H.S. StolfiR.R. McEachin

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf*.)

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Naval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey, California 93940

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT, PROJECT, TASKAREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS

MIPR # ACFR 79-177

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

A-10 System Program OfficeWright-Patterson Air Force BaseOhio 45433

12. REPORT DATE

April 198013. NUMBER OF PAGES

74

U. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESSf// different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS, (of thla report)

Unclassified15*. DECLASSIFI CATION/ DOWN GRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMEN T (of thla Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abatract entered In Block 20, It different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverae aide It neceaaary and Identity by block number)

1. automatic cannon ammunition2. GAU-8 cannon3. A-10 aircraft4. main battle tank (MBT)

5. empirical firing tests6. combat stowed targets7. gun ammunition lethality8. MBT vulnerability & survivabi-

1 i ty20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reverae aide It neceaaary and Identify by block number)

This report describes firings of the A-10/GAU-8 weapon system on14 August 1979 against a Soviet tank company simulated by 10 com-bat loaded M-47 tanks. The pilots making the firing passesattacked at low altitude and used correspondingly low dive anglesin order to simulate movement through a hostile air defense system.Ammunition used in the attacks comprised Aerojet Lot Number AJD79A181-001 30mm armor piercing incendiary (API) rounds, whichproved to be effective damage agents against substantial areas

DD, ^N

RM73 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE

S/N 0102-014- 6601 |

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

Unclassified,CLUH|TY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEflflim Dmta Enfred)

(block 20 concluded)

of the U.S. MK 47 tanks used as targets. The pilot in ninefiring passes (one target was not fired on, and the pilot missedone intended target) fired a total of 565 rounds, of which 140impacted the targets. Of the projectiles impacting on targets,17 achieved perforations of the armored envelope. Significantresults include:

one tank immobilized and silenced

one tank silenced, mobility seriously degraded

three tanks immobilized only

two tanks immobilized, firepower seriously degraded

one tank light firepower damage

two tanks suffered no damage.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS P AGE(Whan Datm Enfrad)

CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

Attack Parameters 1

Weapon Effects 1

Damage Assessment 1

Test Conditions 2

Results

BACKGROUND 4

TEST PHILOSOPHY 4

SIMULATED GROUND COMBAT SITUATION 5

TARGET TANKS 7

TEST PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS 7

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT 15Tank Number 38 16Tank Number 41 21

Tank Number 34 2^

Tank Number 4 27Tank Number 33 31

Tank Number 31 37Tank Number 29 4 f

Tank Number 23 ' 4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 47

APPENDIX A 4 9

APPENDIX B 5"

FIGURES

1. Russian T-62 Medium Tank

2. U.S.A.F./Fairchild Republic A-10 Aircraft IT

3. Fairchild A-10 Series Aircraft 11

4. GAU-R/A 30mm Gun System 12

5. 3Pmm Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) Round .... 13

6. Approximate Tank Layout 14

7. Impact Diagram, Tank 38 17

ill

FIGURES (continued)

8. Perforation 3 into Fighting Compartment 18

9. Perforation of Left Hull into Fuel Tank 18

10. Tank 38 Commander - Front 19

11. Tank 38 Commander - Back 19

12. Tank 38 Loader 20

13. Tank 38 Gunner 20


15. Tank 41 Hull Perforation into Left Fuel Cell ... 23

16. Tank 41 Casualty 23


18. Impact 1, Tank 34 Hull Perforations 26


20. Tank 4 Rear/Side Damage 29

21. Tank 4 Left/Center Damage 29

22. Impact 4, Tank 4 Tank Commander 30


24. Impact Diagram, Tank 33 Rear 33

25. Impact Diagram, Tank 33 Top 34

26. Tank 33 Turret 35

27. Tank 33 Loader 36

28. Tank 33 Gunner 36


30. Tank 31 Perforation of Range Finder Blister ... 39

31. Impact Diagram, Tank 29 Left Side 41

32. Impact Diagram, Tank 29 Rear 42

IV

FIGURES (concluded)

33. Close-in View of Impacts 13 and 19, Tank 29. ... ^13

34. Reference View of Impacts 13 and 19, Tank 29 ... a 3

35. Impact Diagram, Tank 23 Top A5

36. Impact Diagram, Tank 23 Left Side 46

A-l. Array 17 Attack Aspect Summary 53

TABLES

I. Array 17 Summary of A-1P Aircraft in Low AngleGun Attack versus Simulated Soviet TankCompany

II. Comparison of Ideal & Practical TestSituations 5

A-I. Array 17 Results Summary 5C*

A-II. Array 17 Perforation Location Summary .... 51

A-III. Array 17 Aircraft Attack Parameters 52

v

COMBAT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CDAC) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the technical direction of the Combat Damage Assess-ment Committee (CDAC) , the Combat Damage Assessment Team (CDAT)conducted firings of the A-10/GAU-8 weapon system against an arrayof 10 tanks simulating a Soviet tank company deployed for anattack. The CDAT used M-47 tanks stowed with main gun ammunition,diesel fuel, lubricating oil, and crew manikins to simulate theSoviet tanks. The pilot of the A-10 aircraft used in the firingsconducted firings at low altitudes and low dive angles which simu-lated attack below the altitude of effective engagement foropposing air defense networks employing acquisition and fire con-trol radar. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the effectsof Aerojet 30mm API anti-tank ammunition (lot number AJD79A181-001) of the GAU-8 gun under challenging conditions ofengagment for the A-10/GAU-8 system against realisticallysimulated Soviet main battle tanks.

The CDAC assessed the results of the low angle cannon firingsof the A-10 aircraft against the simulated Soviet tank company asfollows

:

1. Attack Parameters : The pilot of the A-10 aircraftattacked the simulated Soviet tank company for 16 minutes 55seconds at low altitude and dive angles. The GAU-8 cannon has a

ground selectable nominal fire rate of either 4200 rounds perminute or 2100 rounds per minute. The system was set to fire atthe 4200 round per minute rate during this test. The pilot made a

total of nine passes, each at a primary target tank. The passesresulted in projectile impacts on eight primary target tanks. Theattack dive angles averaged 4.5 degrees for the nine passes.Open-fire slant ranges averaged 2939 feet. The pilot fired 565rounds in nine bursts averaging 63 rounds and 0.96 second each.

2. Weapons Effects : The A-10/GAU-8 weapon system achieved140 impacts on the eight tanks which were fired on, of which 37were ricochets off the ground. The ratio of direct impacts tototal rounds fired was 0.18. Ricochet hits are also capable ofcausing damage. If the ricochet hits are added to the directimpacts, the overall ratio of impacts to rounds fired becomes0.25. The weapon system achieved 17 perforations of the armoredenvelopes of the tanks with a ratio of perforations to totalimpacts of 0.12. The ratio of perforations to direct impacts was0.17. Many projectiles, which did not perforate armor, severelydamaged exterior track and suspension components of the tanks aswell as command and control optical devices and gun tubes.

3. Damage Assessment : The attacking A-10/GAU-8 weaponsystem inflicted no catastrophic kills on tanks in the companyarray. Of the damaged tanks, one was rendered incapable of bothfire and movement, one was silenced and seriously degraded inmobility, two were immobilized and seriously degraded in fire-power, and three were immobilized with no degradation in

firepower. One tank suffered a minor degradation in firepower andtwo tanks were unscathed (one was missed, the other was not

attacked). As a formation, the simulated Soviet tank company wasimmobilized and incapable of sustained offensive combat.

4. Test Conditions:no

The target tanks were sited in open,cover and little concealment. Aerialflat desert terrain with

weather conditions were ones of unlimited ceiling and visibility.Shortly after the initial firing, clouds of white dust from pro-jectile impacts were evident. Such conditions effectively simu-lated the actual obscuration which would have been presented tothe pilots in combat.

5.

in TableResults: The overall results of the test are summarized

I.

en

3^T

COU

<

a

CO

J* 4-> CJJ

U U CD(0 CD U4J O. rr>

jj eg aj

< 

o\°

CO —u-t x^ uCD CO

Qh CD

co

u xCO

B <d

to

td x;o

0>

(D CO

a; >-\ <d

> en <d•i-i q ^Q < cn

sCD

•iH

Cn a;

en —C C 4->

r—

1

4->

< U-i' '

T! ^^_

(1) w

& *4-4

CO —

'

tS Vj CO

CO CO<0a.

a: •

c o

E-i

<s t--

CM CM I

1 s in in in s inI r- co ro oo ro voI (N CM CN CM CM (N

CO CO 2 <d 2 <d cd>H >H 2 I

>l >H >H >H

I I | CM 00 m [^ H Olcm

i mr\i h cm

i

cti h mi h OMn ^ n m

UDrrm i ^r vx in cr* oo m

ôsh I n i£ t cm m co• ••| ••••••

^r m ro j cm ^r ^r ^x >x in

CO CS CM i—I tS CT> CMi—

I

Oî C

—

| CM^r* * C3 CMin cs. i—

i

I ro ao * * ro ro(M n rn | ro cm * * cm n

00 «q< r~-I

CI (£i Q m H CX)h c» oi I r^ cm cm <x si r-CM CM H I CM CM H CM CM

CM ^ ^ | K> 00 O"! r-H -^ COr^- co m nmcn^Whmmm I ^ in in ^ ^t in

H CM COI *r m cc r-~ oo cr\

**

oo,—iîn^r^ro.—io>roro *r ro ro ro co cm cm

UJ

CO

CO6

H I-H

,^n < rx

i >-t rx ua1 a -1 "-1 ^ S

t-H I-H DJ O-J UJM8

u2 6 6Q£

A" u X i>*z>a:uE, Q Q J >• _l D 51 i-J S. .-J i-h CJ^ Z, Da M Eh en UH2 Hy}fc<1-4 <C CJ W H =3 Q o => r s2 J o 2 CO CO O Eh <^ Q Da ^ i-h h-

1

k^Q^hiqz Da< tsi ~§B UJ

U 2 DJ 2 CC CJCO < M < DJ hH o

H t-t WhZ CO Q Eh i-h Eh CO J 2

cr>

r-

LD

cs m

in co

in

roGiCM

r--

CM

ro

1/1

^H CO

X3 •• QJro CO rr<

O ^H rc«

^H CO k-i

r-\ 4-1 cu

a, o >QjEh <<

CN

CTJ

W

aCO

X4J

co

cre

4-1

CDX4J

c"O oCD CCO T3 ,rH

CO 0> CO•rH Vj 4-)

d)

C

E -H

O 4-»

Oa a;

-* a0) c cX co coEh H CC

BACKGROUND

Since February, 1978, the Armament Directorate, A-10 SystemProgram Office, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, has con-ducted firing tests using the A-10/GAU-8 system in low-level,air-to-ground engagements of armored targets. The tests have beenconducted within the framework of the GAU-8 30mm ammunition LotAcceptance Verification Program (LAVP) - Airborne. The LAVP hasthe following objectives which apply to the present tests:

A. To evaluate the performance of existing production lotsof GAU-8 ammunition when fired from the air under opera-tional conditions.

B. To evaluate the lethality of GAU-8 ammunition againstarmored targets when fired at low level from A-10 air-craft using operational tactics.

To conduct the LAVP program, the Armament Directorate hascooperated with Headquarters, Tactical Air Command, Langley AFB ,

Virginia and, in turn, with the Tactical Fighter Weapons Center,Nellis AFB, Nevada. Within the framework of that cooperation, theArmament Directorate has set up a Combat Damage Assessment Team(CDAT) to plan and execute the firing tests and evaluate theresults. The CDAT functions under the direction of a CombatDamage Assessment Committee (CDAC) which has prepared this reportof the firing test of 14 August, 1979.

TEST PHILOSOPHY

To generate realistic data, the CDAC determined to use a

highly empirical technique of destructive testing of actual tanktargets. Tests have involved firings at individual tanks inNovember, 1977, and February - March, 1978, and, more recently,arrays of tanks in tactical formations. The experimental setupfor the firings of 14 August, 1979 involved the use of a multi-target, tactically arrayed tank formation for attack by theA-10/GAU-8 system. The CDAT elected to simulate a Soviet tankcompany, as organized within a tank division, as the target arrayfor two attacking A-10 aircraft. As few constraints as possiblewere placed on the attacking pilots in an attempt to develop asmuch realism as possible. Table II shows the test factors whichwould have been ideal in the test of 14 August, 1979 and thepractical setup which was achieved.

Table II. Comparison of Ideal and Practical Test Situations

IdealTest Parameters

1. Air Attack Realism

a. Actual A-10/GAU-8b. 30mm APIc. European weather &

terra ind. Optimum open-fire

ranges (2000 ft)e. Low altitude attack

angle (< 6 degrees)

2. Ai r Defense Real ism

a. Automatic cannonfiring at aircraft

b. Missile systems firingat aircraft

c. Small arms firing atai re raft

d. AD suppression byai re raft

3. Threa t Ta rgets and Doctrine

a. T62/T64/T72 highfidelity targets

b. Stowed combat loads(in T62/T64/T72)

c. Realistic crew stationpostures

d. Dynamic combatf o rma t ion

e. Maneuvering evasivetargets

PracticalTest Parameter

1. Ai r Attack Real ism

a. Actual A-10/GAU-8b. 30mm APIc. Nevada weather &

desert terraind. Average open fire

range : 2939 feet

.

e. Low altitude attackangle (< 6 degrees)

2. Air Defense Realism

Low-altitudemin imum-expoversus ass urn

Low-al ti tudemin imum-expoversus ass urn

Low-altitudemin imum-expoversus assumNo suppressiin test

, low-angle

,

sure attacksed AD system, low-angle

,

sure attacksed AD system, low-ang le ,

sure attacksed AD systemon simulation

3. Th rea t Ta rgets and Doctrine

a. Simulated Soviet tanks

b. Stowed combat loads(in US M-47)

c. Wooden crew manikins

d. Static combat formation

e. Stationary targets

SIMULATED GROUND COMBAT SITUATION

The firing test of 14 August 1979 simulated the attack by twoA-10 aircraft on a Soviet tank company. One of these aircraftexperienced an inflight engine failure prior to actual engagement,necessitating immediate withdrawal from the test. The CDAC hypo-thesized the Soviet tank company to be the lead march securitydetachment for its battalion, which in turn, is the advance guardof a larger mobile formation. The lead detachment operates approximately five kilometers in front of the Soviet battalion column.The mission of the advance company is to ensure the uninterruptedadvance of the battalion and provide security against attack.Upon meeting heavy resistance, the company deploys into an appro-priate combat formation to reduce the resistance, or form a baseof fire for offensive action by the remainder of the battalion.

A Soviet tank company would probably have other unitsattached to it for its support. Attached units might include anyone or all of the following elements: (1) motorized rifle pla-toon; (2) engineer detachment; (3) chemical defense specialists;(4) 122mm howitzer battery; (5) air defense element. The companysimulated in the firing test consisted of tanks alone. The puretank formation was arranged with two platoons up and one back,simulating an assault posture. The tanks used in the firing testwere US M-47 tanks, largely intact, containing crew manikins, andstowed with ammunition, fuel, and oil. The tanks were not man-euvered during the firing test and the formation remained essen-tiallly a snapshot of the company at a single point in time.

TARGET TANKS

The most effective tanks available in sufficient nunhers tosimulate Soviet T-55 and T-62 (Figure 1) tanks were the US m-47tanks. Both of the Soviet tank models are similar in armor protec-tion to the M-47. With the appropriate purging of the gasolinefuel system of the US tanks, the CDAT managed to field a tank simi-lar in survivability to the T-55 and T-62 tanks from the viewpointof ignitable internal material. Few data are available on theSoviet T-64 and later model tanks from the viewpoints of ernor pro-tection and the arrangement of internal components. The decisionwas made, accordingly, to simulate the earlier model Soviet tankswith the readily available US tanks.

The M-47 tanks used for targets were in excellent conditionfrom the viewpoint of damage assessment. The exterior componentswere complete and the tanks have proven to be effective targetsfor the collection of exterior mobility damage. Interior compo-nents were less complete in the target tanks. All of the mostessential items were present, e.g., main gun, engine, transmis-sion, fuel tanks, ammunition racks, etc. , but other items such asoil coolers, range finders, vision devices, and radios, have notbeen present in all tanks.

The most sensitive internal items from the viewpoint of cata-strophic kills and high percentage Mobility (M) and Firepower (F)

kills are the following, which were placed in the test tanks asnoted :

Generic Sensitive Item Test Item

1. Ammunition US Cartridge, 90-mm TP-T2. Fuel Number 2 Diesel3. Oil Oil in Engine, Transmission

and Drive Components.4. Personnel Articulated Plywood

Man ikins

The tanks were static during t.he test and their engines werenot running, with the result that the fuel and oil were much cool-er and more inert than would have been the case with a moving tankor a static vehicle with its engine running. The kill ratioachieved in the firing test of 14 August, 1979, therefore, is prob-ably conservative from the viewpoint of fires resulting from ignit-ed fuel and oil.

TEST PERFORMANCE AMD RESULTS

The test itself consisted of bringing together the ammuni-tion, gun, aircraft, pilots, and combat arrayed and loaded tanksinto a several minutes simulation of combat. In essence, the

Russian T62 Medium TankDrawn by S R Cobb

eimrrss ^L. «i»ojrt (MIMUU*

FIGURE 1. Russian T62 Medium Tank

decisive elements which were fed into the test immediately priorto the firing were the following:

1. Aerojet 30mm API ammunition, lot number AJD 79A1R1-001.2. General Electric GAU-8 Gatling gun.3. Fairchild Republic A-10 attack aircraft.4. Fighter pilots, 66th FWS , Nellis AFB .

5. US M-47 main battle tanks.

The combat simulation itself comprised the aerial fire andmaneuver of the attacking A-10 aircraft. A realistic way of pre-senting the combat simulation is to outline the sequence of perti-nent events in each firing pass. These events and the pertinentdata which the CDAT attempted to collect, in order to reconstructthe simulated combat firing of 14 August, 1979, were as follows:

Sequence

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Event Data

Aircraft ApproachAircraft AttackAircraft AttackAircraft AttackGun Effects, (Accuracy)

Speed , Al ti tude

Gun Effects, (Accuracy) Impacts on TanksGun Effects, (Lethality) Perforations through A

Tank Damage Catastrophic (K-Kill) ,

fapeea , Aiti tuaeOpen-fire Range, Dive AngleBurst Time, Rounds FiredCease-fire Range, Dive AngleImpacts on Tanks

through Armor

Mobility (M-Kill) , andFirepower (F-Kill) Kills

The data noted immediately above were collected through thecombined efforts of the CDAT and range support personnel at NellisAFB, working together and using TSPI equipment, motion picture andstill cameras, the industrial efforts required to repair, refur-bish, and field the tank targets, and various systematic researchtechniques used to describe weapon effects and combat damage. Themost basic materiel used in the test; i.e., the aircraft, gun, andprojectile are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. The tankswere arrayed in the tactical formation of a Soviet tank company asshown in Figure 6.

The pilots making the attackship, mutually supporting elementimmediately before and during theapproached the target area at lowacquisition with the help of a foractual engagement, the lead aircraengine failure, necessitating itsremaining pilot then proceeded alocompany at low altitudes and divebelow the altitudes for effectiveopposing air defense missile and g

flew from the base area in a two-

and employed operational tacticsfiring passes. The pilotsaltitude and simulated targetward air controller. Prior toft experienced an inflightimmediate withdrawal. Thene to attack the entire tankangles, simulating operationacquisition and engagement byun systems.

FIGURE 2. U.S.A.F./Fairchild Republic A-10 Aircraft

10

FIGURE 3. Fairchild A-10 Series Aircraft

11

BCD

+J

>1

C

om

ooI

D<

«DOHEm

12

PLASTIC ROTATINGBANDS

ALUMINUM BODY

ALUMINUM WINDSCREEN

HEAVY METAL PENETRATOR

FIGURE 5. 30min Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) Projectile

13

-m

-Ed

<cra:<

-Mn WQSt oiQSl

-m

EooCO

-o

-£©

-®Iif

Zgi-oUJcc

Q

o<

<

OQUJ£TD.

-®

-B2

-53-r

Eoo

+J

>i(0

^Cid

En

<D

e•HXOJ-l

<

W«DOHfa

14

DAMAGE ASSESSMENT

Results of the damage assessment conducted by the CDATare presented on the following pages together with photo-graphs showing results of actual impacts. Tanks 35 and 7,which were not impacted during any firing pass are notincluded in the damage assessment. Appendix A followingthe damage assessment section contains graphical and tabu-lar information relative to the mission in general andsummaries of the damage assessments; for example , aircraftattack parameters, weapon effects, and summaries ofdamage .

Terms used in the damage assessment summaries aredefined in Appendix B.

Impacts on tanks were arbitrarily numbered for identi-fication purposes. The impacts were numbered sequenti-ally, first at the turret level, then at the hull level.If additional impacts were discovered during the combatdamage assessment (as was sometimes the case) they weregiven the next sequential number, i.e. , no attempt wasmade to "correct" the sequence. THE READER IS CAUTIONEDTHAT THIS NUMBERING SYSTEM HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVERTO THE ARRIVAL SEQUENCE OF PROJECTILES ON THE TANK OR TOTHE PORTION OF THE BURST IMPACTING THE TANK.

15

TARGET TANK DAMAGE SUMMARY

M-47 Tank Number 38

1

.

Description ;

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 260 degrees (left side) during one pass in whichthe attacking aircraft expended 69 rounds.

2. Kill Assessment ;

100% M-Kill and 95% F-Kill resulting from thefollowing observed effects (Figure 7):

a. Perforations ; 4

b. Significant Impacts:c. Insignificant Impacts: 2

TOTAL IMPACTS : 6

3. Rationale for Kill Assessment :

a. M-Kill: The assessment of 100% M-Kill isbased on perforation 3 (Figure 8) through the turretwhich caused 3 crew casualties, perforation 4 throughthe left fuel cell near the bottom, and perforation 6

(Figure 9) through the left side of the engine com-partment with damage to major engine components, e.g.,oil cooler and carburetor.

b. F-Kill: The assessment of 95% F-Kill is basedon perforation 3 which caused fragment and spallimpacts on crew manikins. Examination of manikindamage supports a view that the tank commander (Figure10 and 11) and loader (Figure 12) were killed and thegunner (Figure 13) seriously wounded.

16

Ia.

o

5

Vcuo

x <r

*0

00m

ctd

Eh

erd

U

id

uid

wcr;

DOHfa

17

FIGURE 8. Perforation 3 into Fighting Compartment

FIGURE 9. Perforation of Left Hall into Fuel Tank

18

FIGURE 10. Tank 3 8 Commander - Front

FIGURE 11. Tank 38 Commander - Back

19

FIGURE 12. Tank 38 Loader.

FIGURE 13. Tank 38 Gunner

20


M-47 Tank Number 41

Description

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 247 degrees (left side) during one firing pass inwhich the attacking aircraft expended 41 rounds.

Kill Assessment ;


a . Perforationsb. Significant Impactsc. Insignificant Impacts

TOTAL IMPACTS

2

2

18

22

Rationale for Kill Assessment :

a. M-Kill: The assessment of 100% M-Kill isbased on impact 19, which perforated the left side ofthe hull (Figure 15) and penetrated into the left fuelcell, and impact 11, which perforated the driver's com-partment wounding the driver and assistant driver.

b. F-Kill: The assessment of 40% F-Kill is basedon impact 1 (Figure 16) which perforated one wall ofthe bore evacuator and gun tube, and impact 11, whichdegraded the firepower of the tank through crewcasual ties

.

21

3C3OHI

a

coo

a. x a:

*0

e

M

fd

Q+J

Ufd

eH

DHfa

22

FIGURE 15. Tank 41 Hull Perforation into Left Fuel Cell

FIGURE 16. Tank 41, Casualties

23


M-47 Tank Number 34

1

.

Description :

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 270 degrees (left side) during one firing pass in

which the attacking aircraft expended 41 rounds.

2. Kill Assessment ;

100% M-Kill resulting from the following observedeffects (Figure 17):

a. Perforations : 1

b. Significant Impacts :

c. Insignificant Impacts: I

TOTAL IMPACTS : 2


An assessment of 100% M-Kill is based on impactnumber 1, which perforated the left side of the hulland penetrated into the left fuel cell (Figure 18).The hazard represented by the fuel running into thefloor of the engine and fighting compartments wouldhave to be mastered by the crew immediately.

24

3C

a

a. x cr

*0

Mcid

EnuoiaHa-p

u

aeH

r-HH«DCJH

25

FIGURE 18. Impact 1, Tank 34 Hull Perforation,

26


M-47 Tank Number 4

Description ;

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 235 degrees (left side toward rear) during onefiring pass in which the attacking aircraft expended69 rounds.

Kill Assessment ;


a. Perforationsb. Significant Impactsc. Insignificant Impacts: 2_8

TOTAL IMPACTS : 38


a. M-Kill: The assessment of 90% M-Kill is based onimpacts 6 and 7 , which incapacitated the tank com-mander, gunner, and loader, and impacts 13, 20,22, 24, 25, 30, and 31, which caused significantcumulative damage to the track and suspensionsystem (Figures 20 and 21).

b. F-Kill: The assessment of 100% F-Kill is based onimpact 4, which jammed the turret and impacts 6

and 7, which perforated the left side of theturret killing the tank commander (Figure 22) andwounding the gunner and loader, as assessed fromfragment damage to crew manikins.

27

oc

M CD

c u

uT3

M-l

o

u(3

cfl

o

{3 M-l

O -H

M-l 60•H

<u w-C (3

C T3O 0)

Mcu <u

cd

CO

XIGCO

CD

coCJ

0)

5-1

rt

oo en

00

w w §U 91 O•H J3 J333 H W

WHO2

-ac3o

a

III• *0

-5T

MC

E-»

g13

5-1

(d

HQ-Pord

ag

CTi

DOHP4

28

FIGURE 20. Tank 4 Rear/Side Damage.

FIGURE 21. Tank 4 Left/Center Damage

29

*;-/v\?

FIGURE 22. Impact 4, Tank 4 Tank Commander,

30


M-47 Tank Number 33

1

.

Description :

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 235 degrees (left side toward rear) during onefiring pass in which the attacking aircraft expended55 rounds.

2. Kill Assessment :

100% M-Kill and 100% F-Kill resulting from thefollowing observed effects (Figures 23, 24, and 25):

a . Perforationsb. Significant Impactsc. Insignificant Impacts

2

6

17

TOTAL IMPACTS 25


a. M-Kill: The assessment of a 100% M-Kill isbased on impact 23 which perforated the left hull andpenetrated 3 valve covers and the oil cooler and onminor damage to the track and suspension system causedby impacts 10, 13, and 15.

b. F-Kill: The assessment of a 100% F-Kill isattributed to impacts 1, 3, and 6 which jammed theturret and penetrated the gun tube, and to crew casual-ties (gunner & loader) caused by impact 4 which perfor-ated the left turret into the fighting compartment(Figures 26 through 28):

31

3

-

c uo _

a

o• = 2a. x d

o

m

Cid

E-t

tn

•HQ-PO

a,e

n

W«DUHEm

32

Legend:

^ - Perlora lion

* " Hit

O " Ricochet 01 1 Ground

FIGURE 24. Impact Diagram, Tank 33 Rear,

33

Q. I

3Ofa*

a

9CUo

oe-«

mro

MC

En

•HQ-PU

g

m

wDaH

ac»a *0

34

FIGURE 26. Tank 33 Turret

35

*":.

u

cc

o

C

Eh

ooCM

HDOHIn

..'- -'".;:•-

0)

O

roro

C

En

D

36


M-47 Tank Number 31

Description ;

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 285 degrees (left side) in one firing pass in whichthe attacking aircraft expended 97 rounds.

Kill Assessment :

20% F-Kill resulting from the following impacts(Figure 29)

:

a. Perforations : 1


c. Insignificant Impacts: 1_6

TOTAL IMPACTS : 17


An assessment of a 20% F-Kill is based on impact 2

which perforated the left range finder blister anddamaged the end housing assembly denying use of therange finder in determination of range to target(Figure 30) .

37

CD O4-1 CO

•H CX.

x: MCU

CO

CD •

•^ £H 3OXI

• to

MC 4-i

co o4-1 CJ

0) d)

x. u • û co t3 Crd

o c o EhCO M

4-i M) ^C 4-1 r^

O C CD 5U cfl X! co

IH O 4J >-l

•H Cn0) 14-| M-l fdJ3'H»H •H

Q4J C O

C rl WO CO CD 4J

d X u<D «H OM OCO T3 X

OJ O er^ ^ -H H

CD >-i

T3 T3C -H CO

CO CO•

C co CTi

vD O CO CNa >

CO4-1 CD O•H !-i & gPC CO 4-1 D

aH

W fa

HOZ 3

C3Owa

c oo— a

co u

o*- _ uV —a. x <r

c ' i

1 • *09

38

FIGURE 30. Tank 31 Perforation of Range Finder Blister

39


M-47 Tank Number 29

Description ;

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectof 230 degrees (left rear) during one firing pass inwhich the attacking aircraft expended 83 rounds.

Kill Assessment ;

100% M-Kill resulting from the following observedeffects (Figures 31 and 32):

a. Perforationsb. Significant Impactsc. Insignificant Impacts

4

17

TOTAL IMPACTS 21


The assessment of 100% M-Kill is based on impacts13 and 19 (Figures 33 and 34) which perforated therear of the hull and penetrated into the transmissioncase. The resulting effects on the transmission,i.e., loss of transmission oil and fragment and spalldamage to gears, would result in complete loss offunction of the transmission and immobilization of thetank .

40

C

3L.

a

c

ou

X!•HCO

4J

GJ

CM

MC

Eh

mMtP

iHQ+J

U03

6

r-l

wft

DC

*0

41

Legend:

# - Perforation

« - Hit

O - Ricochet Off Ground

14 15 16

FIGURE 32. Impact Diagram, Tank 2 9 Rear,

42

FIGURE 33. Close-in View of Impacts 13 and 19, Tank 29

FIGURE 34. Reference View of Impacts 13 and 19, Tank 29

43


M-47 Tank Number 23

Description :

The target tank was impacted at an attack aspectangle of 265 degrees (left side) during one firingpass in which the attacking aircraft expended 55rounds

.

Kill Assessment ;

100% M-Kill resulting from the following observedeffects (Figures 35 and 36):

a. Perforations : 1


c. Insignificant Impacts: 8^

TOTAL IMPACTS : 9


This tank was observed to be a delayed burn, pro-bably caused by impact 4 which perforated the lefthull into the engine compartment penetrating an oilcooler line and a valve cover, apparently igniting a

small fire which spread into a killing fire.

Since there were no crew casualties the CDATassumed that the crew could have controlled a smallgrease or oil fire thereby limiting damage to a

mobil i ty kill.

44

8 7 5

c

o

C

OEh

roc-j

Xcro

Eh

ero

u

ro

•H

Q+J

uro

aEM

LO

DUH&H

cc

en

a. X cc

*o

45

T3C3O

o

0)

cuo

x cr

*0

T3•HW-PUh-

CD

mCN

Ctd

En

gtd

H

•HQ-PU

H

U3mWDC5HCm

46

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

On 14 August, 1979 at Nellis AFB , Nevada, the ConbatDamage Assessment Team (CDAT) conducted firings of theA-10/GAU-8 weapon system aaainst an array of 10 tanks simu-lating a Soviet tank company deployed for an attack. Thepurpose of the firing test was to evaluate the effects ofAerojet lot number AJD 79A181-001 30mm API anti-tank ammu-nition of the GAU-8 gun under challenging conditions ofengagement for the A-10/GAU-8 system against realisticallysimulated Soviet tank formations. The CDAT used M-47tanks stowed with main gun ammunition, diesel fuel, lubri-cating oil, and crew manikins to simulate the Soviettanks. The pilot of the A-10 aircraft used in the firingsconducted his attacks at low altitudes and low dive angleswhich simulated attack below the altitude of the effectiveengagement for opposing air defense systems using acquisi-tion and fire control radar.

The firing test can be summarized in terms of thefollowing data which were collected and/or extracted fromthe fi rings :

Aircraft Parameters

1. Open-fire Speed (average) 523 ft/sec2. Altitude (average) 207 ft

3. Dive Angle (average) 4.5 degrees4. Open-fire Slant Range (average) 2939 ft

5. Burst Length/Rounds (averages) 0.96 sec/636. Number Passes (primary) 9

7. Target Aspects (predominantly) left rear

Weapon Effects Target Damage

1. Rounds Fired 565 1. K-Kills2. Impacts 140 2. M+F-Kills 1

3. Ricochets (off ground)-- 37 3. M-Kills 5

4. Direct Impacts 103 4. F-Kills 1

5. Perforations 17 5. Light or nodamage 2

These data and the more detailed base from which theywere extracted can be arranged into measures of effective-ness for the A-10/GAU-8 system under conditions similar to

those in the firing test, i.e., empirical combat simula-tion. The following values of effectiveness are based onthe firing test of 1" August 1979.

47

Measures of Effectiveness

Accuracy Related Ratio:

Total Impacts - 0.25Rounds Fired

Lethality Related Ratio:

Perforations = 0.12Total Impacts

Direct Impacts _ q % \qRounds Fired

Perforations = 0.17Direct Impacts

Weapon System Effectiveness Ratio

Tanks Immobilized =0.67Passes

Tanks K-Killed =0.0Passes

The nine target tanks were attacked predominately fromthe left rear and suffered the damage shown in Table I andTable A-I

.

The measures of effectiveness summarized above, andother data contained in this report, support severalinferences or conclusions:

1. The A-10/GAU-8 weapon system in realisticsimulation of combat may be capable of inflictingcatastrophic and F-Kills on M-47 and similarly protectedmain battle tanks, e.g. Soviet T-55 and T-62 tanks.

2. The weapon system, in low level attacks, canperforate the side and rear surfaces of the hulls andturrets of M-47 and similarly protected main battle tanks.

3. The weapon system is an effective killing agentagainst the side and rear surfaces of M-47 and similartanks when firing moderate length bursts of 0.65 to 1.45seconds containing 41 to 97 rounds.

4. From the viewpoint of GAU-8 30mm API ammunitioneffects and resulting damage to combat stowed main battletanks, the tactic of low level attack in this firing testwas shown to be a successful one.

48

APPENDIX A

Graphical and Summary Information

Table A-I contains a summary of the results of Mission17 of 14 August, 1979. Table A-II contains a summary ofdamage assessment based on perforation locations. TableA-III contains a summary of aircraft attack parameters.Figure A-l depicts aircraft attack aspect by tank numberas a function of open-fire range.

49

£

03 03

p ok-l

<v

a,

w

§01

4Ju o

Q >->

4-> 4->

<D oen Sas eE-" M

4J

a) e03 W

a;en

5<*°

4-1

en c oC (0 Z03 E-"Eh

STCMS I HtNCNHf H

CTi .-I mm hW in> n in^f VO IT) CT> 00 IT)

in (7* s CM CM IS! CN r~- V£>

VC CN <SCN

cn oo in r-m cn .-h CN<Tv

I I l l l I I I I I

in <s (sos!ffi^r I I I ts <s cn I |

is <s cs <s ts SJ IS(SSI I S Oi Si I S S

* *

coHMrif^roHffinn^r mm mmcNCN

m ^<£>

m u%aCDU•iH

Cn

II

Cnmts • ^

>i4-»

•^H

f-H

Si •iH

T X!—I

£II

S•*

f-H

<-t••H 4-> Ca£ <y o

KT>

o k-i 'ap4 IB <D

x: -p u• • a, -H

J3O T3 "W

< 4J W 4Jw w oQ 03 -H C

p U 603 4->

4-> <D

O CPII ^H V-i

•f-i 03â^* * *

* **

50

I

<

0)

co4-1

(0

o

uOi

CD

•h a,en 6c o

c•rH 4J.p a,x: e<T> O

4-1

aio Ec oo u

•rH

4-> CT>

03 C

O -M^4-1 x:l-i CnCD -rH

C Cl4

-Uc

CD CD —

.

en E o\°

fC 10 Cu§to ^-,

21 W< <A°

4->

<L) ên c-J (0(D E-i

Eh

^(N I I HtNtMH^H

f\l I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I I I

CM I I CM I I

I

I I I I I I

LT) S I I I S S. GCTi ry Q S (N

I I

s s s s S S ISSSI I S <Ti <S I S S

ro ^ nn ro ro cm cn

e.

KD

%

&CD

En

En

4->

o

uH

oLi4J

WID4_)

U

*

wu2

1U<0a,

oID4J4-1

< -»

-u r-

ro >—

i

•uto

3

<

>>rn

. W —

*

4J ID O OO^THHCNPCNlTIISl r-•rH (U 0) <X)^cmror^'^mc^r~- r-\8^ inLnin^r^TLn^rrrm inwww\w \H CU CN^T^TSlOOCTii-H^TrO m0) Q) M—

t

r^^Lnnrom^rc^r-- (N> &^ i/iininîni/i^^rin IT)

 4-1 oo*3, r-rr>vo<au-).-ico r>•rH (D ^H0ocr»r-<NCM*x)(sir- 5)4-J CD CNCsliH CNfNr-lCNICN CM

2^CD CU *-*

r-i co to IÔOHSHCOIit^fNcr> ro CD TS

sS,w iDLn^rcNinininooLn



•<H (S '-»Cl-i 4-1 ^ SfNH S CXi CN c^

4-> CD r-H CT> r-- CM <g« * * CSCN mC C CD

CD rg U-l

tir-H "—

'

lt> <s r-i ro co * * rom CTifsronno) cm ro CM

O C/l

a: • ##

§£ co-—i r> ^r »» ro h (Ti n CO

CDE-< co ^r co co co cm cm

4-1 COU-l CO * 0)

^ JP >< CU r—I r—1 r—( r—|i—1 ,—I r—( r—1 r—

1

<

o4->

0)

^rH

COCO cm •r-l

a ID4J

^ knr-H ai

u4-1

O §r-H•rH (0

a, <DmCO cc IDf0 ki

i 4J

crH m\rHr-

1

UJ* *

*

52

c O CN r-1 OH ON N CM <TIT) OH CO 00 *CM m CO CO CM

r-

rd

UU<

wDUH

CO "-«. CO

/ SHUB CO

.- aCM CM

—1 CO r-4

CO

C CO 4_i

o a o—< fH4-1 « -H

3_o-

W u O• • H O C •

> CO —* efl o01 OJ —

' V «->

^ C a. S a)

53

APPENDIX B

DEFINITIONS

The terms used in this report are defined below:

IMPACT -- Any evidence of a projectile strike against anyportion of the target. Ground ricochets striking the tar-get were classified as "impacts".

PERFORATION -- Any rupture of the armored envelope causedby an impacting projectile which results in a complete rup-

ture of an armored surface by the projectile or spall frag-ments. A perforation can occur only when the armor is im-pacted. The word "Perforation" was deliberately selectedto avoid the ambiquities which may occur through use ofthe word "penetration". Behind-the-pla te effects may ormay not result from a perforation.

HIT -- Any impact not classified as a perforation.

MOBILITY KILL (M-KILL) — Loss of tactical mobility result-ing from damage which cannot be repaired by the crew onthe battlefield. A tank is considered to have sustained a

100% M-Kill when it is no longer capable of executing con-trolled movement on the battlefield. Mobility is DEGRADEDwhen a tank can no longer maintain position in its forma-tion .

FIREPOWER KILL (F-KILL) — Loss of tactical firepower re-sulting from damage which cannot be repaired by the crewon the battlefield. A tank is considered to have sustain-ed a 100% F-Kill when it is incapable of delivering con-trolled fire from its main a rmament . Firepower isDEGRADED when a tank can no longer maintain its "normal"rate-of-f i re , velocity, accuracy, time to shift targets,etc

.

CATASTROPHIC KILL (K-KILL) — A tank is considered to havesustained a K-Kill when both an M-Kill and a F-Kill haveoccurred as the result of killing fires and explosionsfrom ignited fuel and/or ammunition. A tank which has suf-

fered a K-Kill is considered not to be economically repair-able, and, by U.S. standards, would be abandoned on thebattlefield.

ATTACK ASPECT -- The angle of approach of the aircraftwith respect to the orientation of the tank with zerodegrees representing the front of the tank (gun forward)and 180 degrees representing the rear of the tank.

54

SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS — Impacts which damage systems, compo-nents or sub-systems resulting in their destruction orpartial loss of function. This type damage contributes tothe assessed kill.

INSIGNIFICANT IMPACTS — Impacts which damage non-criticalstructural, convenience, or accessory components and whichmay result in their destruction or partial loss of func-tion, but with no impact on mobility or firepower consider-ations. Good maintenance practices contemplate repair orreplacement of such items at the earliest opportunity con-sistent with accomplishment of the mission.

55

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR LAVP RESULTS

No. Copies

1. Mr. R.L. Saley 1

Aerojet1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.12th FloorWashington, DC 20036

2. Mr. Marshall Hoyler, Analyst 1

Congressional Budget Office2nd & D Streets , S.W.Washington, DC 20024

3. Dr. John Barmby 1

U.S. General Account Office441 C Street N.W.Washington, DC 20548

4. Lt . Col. Neal Edward Tash 1

USAF/XOOTRPentagonWashington, DC 20330

5. Lt . Col. Donald E. Madonna 1

BQ AFSC/XRLAAndrews AFB , MDWashington , DC 20331

6. Col. John R. Boyd USAF , (ret.) 1

OASD/PA&E, Room 2C 281PentagonWashington, DC 20301

7. Dept . of the Air Force 1

The Albert F. Simpson HistoricalResearch Center/HOHArthur W. McCants , Jr., Lt . Col.Chief, Oral History BranchMaxwell Air Force Base, Albama 36112

8. 3 54 TFW/DOW 5

Myrtle Beach AFB, SC 29577

9. 81 TFW/CC 1

RAF BentwatersAPO NY 09755

10. 81 TFW/DO 2RAF BentwatersAPO NY 09755

11. 2 3 TFW/DO 2England AFB , LA 71301

12. USAF/TFWC/TE 5

Nellis AFB , NV 89191

13. Mr. Jerome H. Stolarow 1

U.S. General Accounting Office441 C Street , N.W.Washington, DC 20548

14. MGEN Bernard E. Trainor 1

Education CenterMCDECQuantico , VA 22134

15. Maj O.W. McCormack 1

Supporting Arms Instruction DivisionEducation CenterMCDECQuantico , VA 22134

16. Capt J. L. Dawson 1

Supporting Arms Instruction DivisionEducation CenterMCDECQuantico , VA 22134

17. Mr. William Lind 2

Office of Senator Gary Hart254 Russel BuildingWashington, DC 20510

18. Capt. Kenneth W. Estes 1

USMC102 Clemson CourtJacksonville, NC 28540

19. Deupty Chief of Staff for Intelligence 5

HeadquartersTactical Air CommandCol . Her rmannLangley AFB , VA 23665

20. Mr. James 0. Carson 1

Central Intelligence Agency/OSRWashington , DC 20505

21. Mr. Robert KornCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington, DC 20505

22. Mr. John CuzzordoCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington, DC 20505

23. Mr. Richard R. HallockIntrac, Inc.606 Wilshire Boulevard - Suite 400Santa Monica, CA 90401

24. Mr. CM. GordonGE777 14th , N.W.Washington, DC 20005

25. Maj. M.R. Janay , USMCHQ DARCOM - Code DRCGS-F5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria , VA 22304

26. Mr. Raymond R. McEachinP.O. Box 273Hazlehurst , GA 31539

27. L.C. Hayes, USMCHeadquarters, Marine CorpsWashington , DC 20380

28. K.R. Town , USMCHeadquarters, U.S. Marine CorpsWashington, DC 20380

29. John C. McKay, USMCHeadquarters, U.S. Marine CorpsWashington , DC 20380

30. Mr. Tyler W. Tandler1012 Deadrun DriveMcLean , VA 22101

31. Mr. E. ElkoAOMC9236 Rast Hall RoadDowney , CA 90241

32. Mr. K.H. Wolvington 5GELakeside AvenueBurl ington , VT 05401

33. Mr. Kwa i Chan 1


34. HQ TAC/DOOO 2

Langley AFB , VA 23665

35. USAF Academy 2

LibraryUSAF Academy, CO 80840

36. Herrn Dr. Horst Boog 2

Wiss OberratMilitargeschichtliches Forschungsamt7800 Freiburg im BreisgauWest Germany

37. Albert F. Simpson 2

Historical Research CenterAttention: Mr. FletcherMaxwell AFB , AL 36112

38. CMDR Naval Air Systems Command 1

Attention : PMA 23 5 B

Washington, DC 20361

39. DASD/ISA/ED 1

Room 4D800The PentagonWashington, DC 20301

40. Lt . Col. Howard J. Pierson 10139 Booker StreetLittle Rock , AR 72204

41. USAF 2

DCS/Plans & Operations Tactical DivisionBF939BThe PentagonWashington, DC 20301

42. USAF 2

DCS/Programs & ResourcesDirector of Programs Tactical Branch4C152The PentagonWashington, DC 20301

43. USAF 2

DCS/Research & DevelopmentDirectorate of Operational Requirements& Development PlansTactical Division5E381The PentagonWashington , DC 20301

44. HQ TAC/DO AT 1


45. HQ TAC/DO 5


46. Mr. Andrew W. Marshall 5

Director Not AssessmentRoom 3A930PentagonWashington, DC 20301

47. Dr. James A. Ross 1

Institute for Defense Analyses400 Army Navy DriveArl ington , VA 22202

48. Lt . Col. Lanny T. Lancaster 10HDQ TAC/CCSLangley AFB , VA 23665

49. Mr. Thomas E. Gaines 1

P.O. Box 225907Vought CorporationDallas , TX 75265

50. Mr. Emil H. Seaman 1

Aerojet Ordnance Company9236 East Hall RoadDowney , CA 90241

51. Mr. Charles E. Myers 1

2000 S. Eads #113Arlington , VA 22202

52. Mr. David G. OpheimHoneywel 1 , Inc

.

600 Second Street, N.E.Hopkins , MN 55343

53. Mr. John D. PafenbergHQ USAF/ING - Pentagon, Room 4A882Washinton , DC 20330

54. Col. W.E. Barrineau, Jr.TFW/DOAPO NY 01923

55. HQ TAC/DOOFLangley AFB , VA 23665

56. HQ TAC/XPLangley AFB , VA 23665

57. USAF TFWC/SANellis AFB , NV 89191

58. 5 7 FWW/DONellis AFB , NV 89191

59. 12 AF/DOBergstrom AFB, TX 78743

60. 9 AF/DOShaw AFB , SC 29152

61. CINCUSAFE/DORamstein AFBAPO 09012

62. CINCUSAFE/DOOFRamstein AFBAPO 09012

63. CINCUSAFE/DOOTRamstein AFBAPO 09012

64. CINCUSAFE/DOSTRamstein AFBAPO 09012

65. USAF Maj . Gen. KellyTFWC/CCNell is AFB , NV 891 91

66. 66 FWC/CC 50Nellis AFB , NV 89191

67. Thomas P. Christie 50DASD (Tactical Air Program)PA&ERoom 2E330PentagonWashington, DC 20301

68. Maj. Davies (ASD/YXA) 10USAF/Aeronaut ical Systems DivisionA-10 System Program OfficeDirectorate of ArmamentWright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

69. Battele 5

Columbus LaboratoriesTactical Technology CenterRoom 13-4127Attention: Mr. J. Tuck Brown505 King AvenueColumbus , OH 43201

70. HO USAF 5

DSC/RDFPentagon - 4D283Washington, DC 2033C

71. Lt . Gen. (USA Ret) H.R. Aaron 1

7722 Kalorama RoadAnnandale , VA 22003

72. Maj. Robert. K. Redlin 1

Commandant of the Marine CorpsCode R&PHeadquarters, U.S. Marine CorpsWashington, DC 20380

73. Lt. Gen P.X. Kelly, USMC 1

Deputy Chief of Staff,Requirements & ProgramsHeadquarters U.S. Marine CorpsWashington , DC 20380

74. Lt . Col. G. W. Keiser (Code RP) 1

U.S. Marine CorpsRequirements & ProgramsWashington , DC 20380

75. Mr. John F. Blake 1

9312 Crown PlaceAlexandria , VA 22308

76. Mr. Richard Eppard 1

Central Intelligence AgencyOffice of LogisticsWashington , DC 20505

77. Mr. Rudolf A. Endors 1

10101 Colebrook AvenuePotomac , MD 20854

78. Maj. Gen. Thomas P. Lynch 1

Commanding GeneralU.S. Army Armor CenterFort Knox , KY 40121

79. Lt . Col. John H. Ridge 1

U.S. Army Armor CenterFort Knox , KY 40121

80. Maj . Barry D. Watts 1

OSD/Office of Net AssessmentPentagon - 3A930Washington , DC 20301

81. HO TAC/CC 2


82. Defense Documentation Center 2

Cameron StationAlexandria. VA 22314

83. Dept. Chairman 2

Dept. of National Security AffairsNaval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey , CA 93940

84. Professor R.H.S. Stolfi 30

Dept. of National Security AffairsNaval Postgraduate SchoolMonterey , CA 93940

85. AFIT/CIP (Library) 2

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

86. AFIS/INH 1

Ft. Belwoir , VA 22060

87. Brig. Gen. Reed35 5 TFW/CCDavis Monthan AFB , AZ 85707

88. Col. Wayne E. Davis1411 Gemini CircleMoody AFBValdosta , CA 31601

89. Brig. Gen. W.S. Harpe14 TFWColumbus , MS 39701

90. 354 TFW/DCMMyrtle Beach AFB , SC 29577

91. TAC/DRLangley AFB , VA 23665

92. CIA/HQWashington , DC 2050 5

93. General Elwood Quesada (Retd.)L'Enfanc PlazaWashington , DC 20024

94. Mr. P.M. SpreyBox 264 , R.D. 1

Glenn Dale , MD 20769

95. Mr. Mike MeccaFairchild IndustriesGermantown , MD 20767

96. Industrial College of the Armed Forces LibraryFt . Lesley J. McNai r


97. Mr. Bernard KornhauserSystem Planning Corp.1500 Wilson Blvd.Suite 1500Arlington , VA 22209

98. Maj. Gerald H. Felix, USAF112 TFGGreater Pittsburgh AirportPennsylvania Air GuardPittsburgh, PA 15180

99. USMCDECFirepower DivisionAir Branch/Code D092Attention: Ms. KearnsQuantico , VA 221 34

100. USAF TAWCEglin AFB , FL 32542

101. Headquarters U.S. Marine CorpsChief of StaffArlington AnnexRoom 2010Columbia Pike & Arlington Ridge RoadArlington , VA 20370

102. USAF Air University LibraryMaxwell AFB , AL 36112

103. CMDR, Naval Weapons CenterAttention: Mr. BatesChina Lake , CA 93555

104. Col. Robert M. Gomez/DRXSRDeupty Director/Commanding OfficerBallistic Research LaboratoryBuilding 328Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

105. GE, Armament Systems Dept.Di rectorLakeside Ave.Burl ington , VT 05401

106. HQ TAC/DOLangley AFB , VA 23665

107. 354 TFW/CCMyrtle Beach AFB, SC 29577

108. 23 TFW/CCEngland AFB , LA 71301

109. 356 TFS/DOAttention: Ma j . Lt . Col. JennyMyrtle Beach AFB, SC 29577

110. USAC 4SCFt. Leavenworth, KS 66027

111. 355 TFW/DOW 1

Davis Monthan AFB , AZ 85707

112. 355 TFW/DO (A-7) 5

Davis Monthan AFB, AZ 85707

113. 355 TFW/DO (A-10) 5


114. 333 TFTS/CC 1


115. 333 TFTS/DO 5


116. OLAC 4444 OPS SQ (ISD) 1


117. 355 TTS/CC 1


118. Herrn Dr. Stahl 2

Bundesarchiv-Militararchiv78 Freiburg im BreisgauWiesentr 10West Germany

119. Mr. Richard E. Tuck 1


120. Col. Paul N. Chase 1

HQ USAFAF/SAGPPentagon - 1D373Washington , DC 20330

121. Mr. Peter McDavitt 1

Honeywel

1

600 Second Street, N.E.Hopkins , MN 55343

122. Col. Carl Case 1

Fighter DivisionAir Force Studies & AnalysisPentagon - 1D380BWashington, DC 20330

123. Lt . Col. John L. Welde3 54 TFW/DOMB AFB , SC 29577

124. Dr. Dieter H. SchwebsU.S. General Accounting Office441 C Street , N.W.Room 6478Washington, DC 20548

125. Col. Michael L. WardinskiHQ Department of the ArmyDAMI-RTPentagon - BF722Washington, DC 20310

126. Mr. John SloanHO Department of the ArmyDAMI-RTPentagon - BF722Washington , DC 20310

127. Mr. W.R. BeuchHQ Department of the ARmyDAMI-RTPentagon - BF722Washington, DC 20310

128. FMC Corporation1105 Coleman AvenueBox 1201Attention: Mr. Don Loughlin, MD510San Jose , CA 95108

129. Lt . Col. J.W. LentHQ MC (Code RPR-7)Washington, DC 20380

130. Edward Fuge (Major, Retired, USAF)Department of Political ScienceUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87131

131. Mr. Arthur G. HanleyCentral Intelligence AgencyProcurement Management StaffWashington , DC 20505

132. 50 TFW/CCAPO NY 09109

133. 50 TFW/DOAPO NY 09109 5

13 4. 5 TFW/DO 5

496 TFSAttention: Maj. RatleyAPO NY 09109

135. Energy Efficiency System 1

Attention: Mr. Verdi187 W. Orangethorpe RoadSuite P

Placentia , CA 92670

136. Col. Richard C. Head 1

Council on Foreign RelationsThe Harold Pratt House58 East 68 StreetNew York , NY 10021

137. General Hermann Balck 1

7144 AspergEgerstr. 23Federal Republic of Germany

138. Col. Faybanic 1

AWC/DAUMMaxwell AFB , AL 36112

139. Mr. Cobleigh 1

Hughes AircraftCanoga Park, CA 91304

140. Boeing 1

Attention: Mr. Bud NelsonP.O. Box 3999, M/S 40-30Seattle , WA 98124

1 4 1

.

I DA 1

Attention: Dr. Whittemore400 Army Navy DriveArl ington , VA 22202

143. Lt. Gen. Mahlke 1

2350 HeikendorfSteenkamp 8

Federal Republic of Germany

144. HO USAFAttention: Lt . Gen. John PustayOffice of Chief of StaffPentagonWashington, DC 20330

145. St ud ieng ruppe LuftwaffeSuchrunga Akademic der Bundeswehr2000 Hamburg 55Manteuf

f

elatr . 20Federal Republic of Germany

146. Gen. Wilke31 AlleSchl epeg rel lstr . 30Federal Republic of Germany

147. General F.W. von MellenthinBox 67759Bryanston 2021JohannesburgRepublic of South Africa

148. Herrn B

r

igadegeneral a.D. Paul-Werner HozzelSal ierster . 4

D7500 KarlsruheFederal Republic of Germany

149. 91 TFS/CC/DowAPO 09405New York, New York 09012

150. 78 TFS/CC/DOWAPO 09405New York, New York 09012

151. 92 TFS/CC/DOWAPO 09755New York, New York 09012

152. Military AttacheU.S. Embassy (Rome, Italy)APO 90794New York, New York 09012

153. Mi 11

i

tary AttacheU.S. Embassy (Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany)APO 09080New York, New York 09012

154. Military AttacheU.S. Embassy (Saudi, Arabia)APO 09697New York, New York 09012

155. Military AttacheU.S. EmbassyAttention: Air AttacheNew Delhi , Ind i a

156. Military AttacheU. S . EmbassyAttention: Maj. McBaronCanberra, Austrialia

157. AFIS/INCAttention: Col. KuiperBuilding 520Boiling AFB , DC 20332

158. Mr. William JenischAerojet Ordance Manufacturing Company9336 East Hall RoadDowney , CA 90241

159. USAFE/DOOWAttention: Maj. LindseyAPO New York, New York 09012

160. Mr. James SimonCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington, DC 20 50 5

161. Mr. David KeenerCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington , DC 20505

162. Mr. Aris PappasCentral Intelligence AgencyWashington , DC 20505

163. Mr. Andrew HamiltonCongressional Budget Office/NSIA4th Floor HOB, Annex #2U. S . Cong ressWashington , DC 2051

5

164. Mr. Pat HillierCongressional Budget Cffice/NSIA4th Floor HOB, Annex #2U. S . Cong ress


165. Dr. Dov ZakheimCongressional Budget Office/NSIA4th Floor HOB, Annex #2Washington, DC 20515

166. Mr. John HamreCongressional Budget Office/NSIA4th Floor HOB , Annex #2U. S . Cong ressWashington, DC 20515

167. Ms. Grace P. HayesT.K. Dupuy Associates, Inc.P.O. Box 157Dunn Loring, VA 22027

168. Mr. C. Curtiss JohnsonT.N. Dupuy Associates, Inc.P.O. Box 157Dunn Loring , VA 22027

169. Ms. Lucille PattersonT.N. Dupuy Associates, Inc.P.O. Box 157Dunn Loring , VA 22027

170. Col. A.J. KetteringOSD/OUSDR&EPentagonWashington, DC 20301

171. Mr. Robert S. DotsonSenate Armed Services Committee212 Russell Senate Office BuildingWashington, DC 20510

172. Mr. Steven Canby10871 Springknoll DrivePotomac , MD 20854

173

.

Di recto r

U.S. Army Aberdeen Research & Development CenterArmy Materiel Systems Analysis Ac t i vi ty/DRXS

Y

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

174. Mr. Michael W. Iten/DRXSY-CU.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis ActivityAberdeen Provina Ground, MD 21005

175. Mr. G.A. ZollerU.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Ac

t

ivi t y/DRXSYAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

176. Ma j . J.F. BaldaU.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Ac ti vi ty/DRXS

Y


177. Mr Arif R. ZakyU.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Act ivi ty/DRXSYAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

178. Mr. Arthur W. GarrettU.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Ac tivi ty/DRXS

Y


179. Mr. T.A. RomankoU.S. Army Material Systems Analysis Act ivi ty/DRXSYAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005

180. Mr. Stanley EibertzU.S. General Accounting Office441 C Street , N.W.Washington, DC 20548

181. Mr. Fredic S. FeerAnalytical Assessments CoorporationP.O. Box 9102Arl ington , VA 22209

182. Mr. Dan CostelloOMBNew Executive Office BuildingR10026Washington, DC 20503

183. Mr. Gordon P. LynchBoeing Aerospace CompanyBox 3999 - M/S 47-63Seattle , WA 98124

184. Lt . Col. George W. Burkley1875 Temple Hills DriveLaguna Beach, CA 96215

185. Mr. Gerald MayefskieQuest Research Corporation6845 Elm StreetMcLean , VA 22101

186. Dr. John E. TashjeanBDM7915 Jones Branch DriveMcLean , VA 22101

187. Mr. David A. BrinkmanU.S. General Accounting Office441 C Street, N.W. - Room 6478Washington , DC 20548

188. Mr. Wayne H. ColoneyP.O. Box 5258Tallahassee , FL 32301

189. Lt . Gen. M.P. Casey, USAF (ret.)Wayne H. Coloney CompanyP.O. Box 5258Tallahassee , FL 32301

190. Mr. Richard W. OatesGeneral ElectricLakeside AvenueBurl ington , VT 05401

191. Lt . Col. James CordCommand and Staff CollegeMarine Corps Development & Education CommandQuantico , VA 22314

192. Brig. General W.H. FitchDeputy Chief of Staff, R&D and StudiesUSMCAr

1

ing ton AnnexWashington , DC 20380

193. Mr. Jim EricksonGrumman AerospaceBOS-05Bethpage , NY 11714

194. Professor Andrew Cyorgy 1

Sino-Soviet InstituteGeorge Washington University2029 G Street , N.W.Washington , DC 20052

195. Mr. Charles Bernard 1

Director, Land WarfareOSD/OUSDREPentagonWashington, DC 20301

196. 162 TFG/FWS 10P.O. Box 11037Tucson , AZ 85734Attention: Lt . Col. O'Donnell

197. Mr. P. Nichols 1

Ayres Corp.P.O. Box 3090Albany , GA 31706

198. Herrn B r igadegeneral a.D Loytved-Ha rdegg 1

41 Odenbergerstr

.

5800 NurnbergFederal Republic of Germany

199. Herrn Oberst a.D. Poetter 1

21-2 Alter Remise8941 KronburgFederal Republic of Germany

200. Dr. Richard Staar 1

Dir. International Studies Pgms.Hoover InstituteStanford , CA 94305

201. Armament Systems, Inc. 1

712-F N. Valley St.Anaheim, CA 9 28 01Attention: Mr. Tom Gilbert

202. Library, Code 0212 2


203. Dean oi Research, Code 012 1


UF 187004767 StolfiS8U9 Combat damage assess-

ment team A-10/GAU-8 low

angle firing versus sim-ulate d Soviet tank com-

pany.

D 1 S P L'

A ]

UF 18700U767 StolfiS8U9 Combat damage assess-

ment team A-10/GAU-8 low

angle firing versus sim-ulated Soviet tank com-pany.

genUF 767S849

Combat damage assessment team A-10/GAU-

3 2768 000 42816 3DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY

Date post:	25-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Combat damage assessment team A-10/GAU-8 low angle firings ... · Calhoun: The NPS Institutional...

Documents