I think A-10s look cool.....
I bet there are plenty of U.S. soldiers that think they are quite beautiful.
Warthogs?
I'll second that, and I'm not even from the US.
A-10 (flying gun! yaaay!) has just the right amount of over the top awesomeness without it getting silly.
A Spooky gunship is to much of a good thing: it has weapons normaly found on a TANK, and I'm pretty sure it can fire BROADSIDES. So the end result is you get the feeling it's just trying to hard
I'll second that, and I'm not even from the US.
A-10 (flying gun! yaaay!) has just the right amount of over the top awesomeness without it getting silly.
A Spooky gunship is to much of a good thing: it has weapons normaly found on a TANK, and I'm pretty sure it can fire BROADSIDES. So the end result is you get the feeling it's just trying to hard
It helps that the A-10 was the model for the Cobra Rattler.
Interesting trivia about the A-10 if I remember right if it loses an engine it can't fire its gun anymore (well from my understanding of physics it shouldn't) because the gun produces more recoil force than one of its engines does in thrust, so it would probably stall
While I have no intention of disputing Kenetic's claim to have introduced the nickname here I remember Americans from the local airbase calling Y-Wings Warthogs back in the days of the WEG RPG. Us Brits tended to go with Mossie due to the Y-Wing fulfilling the same Fighter/Bomber role as the de Harveland DH.98 Mosquito (the Mossie was also the plane used in 633 Squadron, the film which inspired the Deathstar Trench Run).
Frogfoot ... Sturmovik ...
Before the BTL-A4 card I would have said the Y-wing was the Bolton-Paul Defiant of the Rebel Alliance.
Mossie's pretty appropriate actually considering Lucas used films like Dambusters and 633 Squadron as inspiration for Star Wars, right down to copying sequences from 633 Squadron (trench run, anyone?)
I wish I could like your post more than once for mentioning the Bolton-Paul Defiant. Such a good point!
I recall the 'warthog' name being given to the Y-Wing only after you included the modification to allow it to fire it's turret along with it's primary gun. The only thing in the game that could be worse is Corran double tapping. If it is actually using the 360 firing I don't think calling the Y-Wing a hog is appropriate anymore.
Interesting trivia about the A-10 if I remember right if it loses an engine it can't fire its gun anymore (well from my understanding of physics it shouldn't) because the gun produces more recoil force than one of its engines does in thrust, so it would probably stall
I recall reading that just firing the cannon produces enough recoil to slow the plane. That's part of the reason it is usually fired in a dive. The cannon is also mounted slightly off center so it fires on the centerline and if the thrust isn't balanced that recoil would make keeping control more difficult.
I have been finding flying Kavil as a Hog with 2 Hired guns as Hogs, all three with a Proximity Mine, to be very effective. That proximity mine can really discourage fighters from trying to get in behind you.I know that wisdom is to use Kavil with a usual turret set up, but I have found him to be lethal with Predator and an Unhinged Mech in Hog mode.The two Hired Guns use an Agromech. All three have Ion Turrets.
I think BTL Kavil will show up in more than a few lists. He's the only Y-Wing with an EPT and I don't think you are paying a premium for his pilot ability. Compared to the PS2 Syndicate Thug, you are essentially paying one point per PS and a point for the EPT slot. Either Predator or Marksmanship seem to be enough of a complement to the BTL title to be worth taking a pass on his ability.
I don't even know where to start with the math on it, but I wonder how the efficiency of Predator or Marksmanship Kavil in a Warthog stacks up with Kavil running a Blaster Turret. I have a feeling that the two aren't going to be that far apart.
I'd guess that Warthog Kavil would fare better when actions are being denied (from stress or bumping) and also when Palob, Jax, or Dark Curse are in the mix.
Marksmanship would be good with an R4 unit. Shame the crit it causes gets negated with an Ion Turret.
Marksmanship would be good with an R4 unit. Shame the crit it causes gets negated with an Ion Turret.
You'd need to take Experimental Interface as well to be able to use both Marksmanship and R4. Then you need to do either a one or two forward to clear the stress. Spending 33 points on Marksmanship+ICT+BTL+Unhinged is already more than I like to spend on 1 agility fighters, 4 more points is pushing it.
Agreed
Nothing a couple of Assault missiles can't fix!
Frogfoot ... Sturmovik ...Before the BTL-A4 card I would have said the Y-wing was the Bolton-Paul Defiant of the Rebel Alliance.Mossie's pretty appropriate actually considering Lucas used films like Dambusters and 633 Squadron as inspiration for Star Wars, right down to copying sequences from 633 Squadron (trench run, anyone?)While I have no intention of disputing Kenetic's claim to have introduced the nickname here I remember Americans from the local airbase calling Y-Wings Warthogs back in the days of the WEG RPG. Us Brits tended to go with Mossie due to the Y-Wing fulfilling the same Fighter/Bomber role as the de Harveland DH.98 Mosquito (the Mossie was also the plane used in 633 Squadron, the film which inspired the Deathstar Trench Run).
It may well be that the Mosquito inspired the mission profile of the Y-Wing, but the comparison is pretty bad. The Mossie was an extremely fast plane for its time, while the Y-Wing is not, The Mosquito also had no turret (well in the BTL version the Y loses his too), and it looked pretty sleek and finished, not like the Y-Wing that constantly flies without it's hull plating and looks like a half-finished design bodged together hastily! Also were there also dam buster missions flown by Lancasters? I think there were. Not sure anymore and too lazy to google now!
In those regards the A-10 really is the fitting comparison. Rugged, slow, an attack aircraft with a huge loadout of weapons. And by now an old and venerable, but very effective design! And in the BTL version huge forward firepower like if it had an Avenger cannon too...
When did the A-10 come out? Must have been in prototype stage when the first Star Wars came out, no? If yes they even share the same age, which would really be cool!
Edit: It seems i hit the nail on the head. New Hope and the A-10 came out the same year, 1977!
Edited by ForceMThe dam buster missions were flown by Lancasters. Just read the new book about those missions, in fact--it was quite good.
Edited by Jedhead
Ouch, comparing it to the Defiant really hurts the Y-Wing. That was a really useless plane with a complicated and even more useless turret, right? With a really bad combat record too...
Frogfoot ... Sturmovik ...Before the BTL-A4 card I would have said the Y-wing was the Bolton-Paul Defiant of the Rebel Alliance.Mossie's pretty appropriate actually considering Lucas used films like Dambusters and 633 Squadron as inspiration for Star Wars, right down to copying sequences from 633 Squadron (trench run, anyone?)While I have no intention of disputing Kenetic's claim to have introduced the nickname here I remember Americans from the local airbase calling Y-Wings Warthogs back in the days of the WEG RPG. Us Brits tended to go with Mossie due to the Y-Wing fulfilling the same Fighter/Bomber role as the de Harveland DH.98 Mosquito (the Mossie was also the plane used in 633 Squadron, the film which inspired the Deathstar Trench Run).
It may well be that the Mosquito inspired the mission profile of the Y-Wing, but the comparison is pretty bad. The Mossie was an extremely fast plane for its time, while the Y-Wing is not, The Mosquito also had no turret (well in the BTL version the Y loses his too), and it looked pretty sleek and finished, not like the Y-Wing that constantly flies without it's hull plating and looks like a half-finished design bodged together hastily! Also were there also dam buster missions flown by Lancasters? I think there were. Not sure anymore and too lazy to google now!
In those regards the A-10 really is the fitting comparison. Rugged, slow, an attack aircraft with a huge loadout of weapons. And by now an old and venerable, but very effective design! And in the BTL version huge forward firepower like if it had an Avenger cannon too...
When did the A-10 come out? Must have been in prototype stage when the first Star Wars came out, no? If yes they even share the same age, which would really be cool!
Edit: It seems i hit the nail on the head. New Hope and the A-10 came out the same year, 1977!
Interestingly, the Defiant actually did stellar service over Dunkirk in its first combat deployment, which gave the British false hopes concerning it. Its performance during the Battle of Britain was terrible and it had to be retired. But when it worked as intended, as it did at Dunkirk, it was pretty great. The concept was that it was a bomber killer, and it excelled at this when it was able to target the bombers alone while the Spits and Hurris kept the 109s and 110s busy. Unfortunately, while this was possible over Dunkirk due to the nature of the Luftwaffe's missions and the prevailing weather, it didn't happen during BoB.
The dam buster missions were flown by Lancasters. Just read the new book about those missions, in fact--it was quite good.
Good point!
Interesting trivia about the A-10 if I remember right if it loses an engine it can't fire its gun anymore (well from my understanding of physics it shouldn't) because the gun produces more recoil force than one of its engines does in thrust, so it would probably stall
You are correct, but actually it's a bit worse than that. Here's a bit more trivia for those that are interested:
-The gun is only fired at a max of a 10 second burst. Even with both engines running, the recoil of the gun is strong enough that >10 seconds will stall the aircraft.
-The rounds are so large the change in weight from ejecting casings would shift the center of gravity too far back. This would make the aircraft unstable (a non-good.) Therefore, all spent casings stay within the aircraft and it is emptied upon landing.
-The gun came first. This is not an exaggeration. How I like to envision the conversation went is "Wow, that gun is awesome. How can we make it more awesome? I agree, let's make it fly." Proof of this can be found by looking at the landing gears. The nose landing gear had to be offset from the center, or else there wouldn't be room for the gun.
-Not gun related, but if you were ever wondering why the engines are mounted so awkwardly high it is because they ingested too much FOD when they were lower.
Source: Personal research over many years, best friend is an A-10 pilot, and college teacher was the lead test engineer for the A-10.
Much as I love the Mosquito, the only thing I would equate it to the Y-Wing for is its versatility.
The dam buster missions were flown by Lancasters. Just read the new book about those missions, in fact--it was quite good.
617 Sqn., to be precise.
Indeed, 617 squadron flew modified Lancaster's that had the central turret removed and the bomb bay doors removed and specialized equipment added to allow them to drop Barnes Wallis "bouncing bomb"
(Love Lanc's, Mossie's and Spit's)
Interesting trivia about the A-10 if I remember right if it loses an engine it can't fire its gun anymore (well from my understanding of physics it shouldn't) because the gun produces more recoil force than one of its engines does in thrust, so it would probably stall
You are correct, but actually it's a bit worse than that. Here's a bit more trivia for those that are interested:
-The gun is only fired at a max of a 10 second burst. Even with both engines running, the recoil of the gun is strong enough that >10 seconds will stall the aircraft.
-The rounds are so large the change in weight from ejecting casings would shift the center of gravity too far back. This would make the aircraft unstable (a non-good.) Therefore, all spent casings stay within the aircraft and it is emptied upon landing.
-The gun came first. This is not an exaggeration. How I like to envision the conversation went is "Wow, that gun is awesome. How can we make it more awesome? I agree, let's make it fly." Proof of this can be found by looking at the landing gears. The nose landing gear had to be offset from the center, or else there wouldn't be room for the gun.
-Not gun related, but if you were ever wondering why the engines are mounted so awkwardly high it is because they ingested too much FOD when they were lower.
Source: Personal research over many years, best friend is an A-10 pilot, and college teacher was the lead test engineer for the A-10.
My fighter pilot Yoda was also an A-10 driver, before he was an F-16 and F-117 driver. My favorite thing was the impression he would do of the sound of the gun firing from the cockpit "Waaaaanh!"
in fact can the A-10 still kill any tank in existence with its gun alone? Or did progress made in armor make some of them safe against it?
I have not heard about a tank that could withstand it at least. Armoring the top of the vehicle in such a way seems really hard to do.
Edited by ForceMWell, just avoid the autoblaster.Tried a list last night that included Kavil w/Ion and 2 x Warthogs with Autoblaster Turrets. Though I got shots off, the lack of maneuverability meant that I had a hard time turning around and repositioning to range 1 again for the Autoblaster shots so the double-tap occurred about every-other round. It didn't help that my dice generally failed me -- I rolled 1 hit with Autoblaster in two games, so the "can't cancel hits" value didn't pay off.Kavil was only OK; I kept forgetting the extra die. Not sure Kavil is worth the extra points over the basic Y. Warthog may be better with Ion -- the longer range will allow more shots as ships close.I'm not a fan of blaster turret due to consuming a focus, but I may have to try it with the Agromech.
To be fair, saying Kavil is only ok when you aren't playing his special rule is like arguing Wedge is rubbish while not using his ability.
in fact can the A-10 still kill any tank in existence with its gun alone? Or did progress made in armor make some of them safe against it?
I have not heard about a tank that could withstand it at least. Armoring the top of the vehicle in such a way seems really hard to do.
It needs different rounds for different situations. If it's purely armor, it uses depleted uranium tipped rounds. Currently there are not any armored vehicles that can completely withstand it. Armor today is primarily designed at stopping explosive rounds, not ones that are purely kinetic. That being said, it's not like the same countermeasures mean nothing--they're just not as effective against kinetic vs explosive.
It might just be me but I always though of Y-Wings being based on TBD Avengers Torpedo Bombers rather than a Actual Bomber. But oh well to each his own.
Interesting trivia about the A-10 if I remember right if it loses an engine it can't fire its gun anymore (well from my understanding of physics it shouldn't) because the gun produces more recoil force than one of its engines does in thrust, so it would probably stall
You are correct, but actually it's a bit worse than that. Here's a bit more trivia for those that are interested:
-The gun is only fired at a max of a 10 second burst. Even with both engines running, the recoil of the gun is strong enough that >10 seconds will stall the aircraft.
-The rounds are so large the change in weight from ejecting casings would shift the center of gravity too far back. This would make the aircraft unstable (a non-good.) Therefore, all spent casings stay within the aircraft and it is emptied upon landing.
-The gun came first. This is not an exaggeration. How I like to envision the conversation went is "Wow, that gun is awesome. How can we make it more awesome? I agree, let's make it fly." Proof of this can be found by looking at the landing gears. The nose landing gear had to be offset from the center, or else there wouldn't be room for the gun.
-Not gun related, but if you were ever wondering why the engines are mounted so awkwardly high it is because they ingested too much FOD when they were lower.
Source: Personal research over many years, best friend is an A-10 pilot, and college teacher was the lead test engineer for the A-10.
That recoil rumour is INCREDIBLY tiresome. A few mph off the airspeed of the A-10 is not incredibly likely to stall it.
Also, ancillary benefit to the engine placement is that running the exhaust above the elevators drops the IR return considerably, making it a harder lock for various shoulder SAMs (larger stuff is usually radar, maybe IR terminal guidance).
Second to last point is totally on, though (EXPLETIVE warning for the kiddies: http://i.imgur.com/Qo1G7.jpg ). Truly a magical plane.
