The whole premise of this video is one geezer who has some beef with the Air Force. Posing the P47 as some kind of "Messerschmitt killer" is just historically inaccurate. The AF does not "hate" ground support, it hates single-role aircraft. These are a waste of tax payer money, and takes money from their budget for things like F/A-18s which are the REAL deal.
I remember watch A10s fly thru our valley in WMass, (The Deerfield River Valley) flying out of Westover AFB. They were absolutely amazing! Our home was up on the shoulder of a mountain, with a 1 mile view down the valley. We knew that they were using our home to test their sights! We'd look out our front window and see them coming straight at us, turning off last second. We could see right down into their cockpits. Sometime in the late 1980's or early 90's, they raised the floor, and they stopped flying so low.
I am an old lefty who was very much ant-war during the Sixties and Seventies. But I found this storytelling quite fascinating and am glad these guys were on our side and insisting on designing a new airplane for close ground support. Nowadays, we see this as all very valid, but back then, I would guess the entrenched hierarchy just wanted to do things the traditional way and get their aircraft-making friends the same high budgeted orders they were used to getting. Great story, thank you! 🎉🎉🎉
IDK how anyone could call any airplane ugly?!? They are all dev off the same principles. Anyhow I love fighters just like anyone else but it's something about turbofans that just wins me over. Since '96 I've thought this was the best plane thanks to a game called A-10 Cuba!!!
Small thing - over 20 000 Spitfires were built. That 15 000 total for the Jug is outstanding, especially when you consider that it entered service mid-war - but the Spitfire had the larger production total, I think. Regards to all
UK civilian ignoranus here - I know I'd love the A-10 if I were in the infantry and it was backing me up, but might it have done its work now? I can't see it thriving in a modern Ukraine-type SAM-rich environment, drones are now effective and cheap, and other planes can lob heavy munitions from furrher back. Money's tight - could retaining a type of aircraft principally to fight tbe next Taliban or ISIS be justified when there are drones, helicopters and bombs snd missiles launched from F-35s to do Hog work? The A-10 has an outstanding record - but is there a good case for a lauded retirement now? Comments very welcome, and regards to all.
Considering that the Iron Curtain fell the year before Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the Warsaw Pact was dissolving, the coming storm in the desert was going to be the closest thing these planes would ever see to their original design intent ... hunting Soviet armor in a target-rich environment ... and in the far more open Middle East desert rather than the variegated terrain of central Europe. Not sending the 'Hogs would have been a dereliction of duty.
What about using the Warthog now, in Ukraine? Many supported its use in UA & many opposed it. With the number of tanks needing to be destroyed, & the UA’n pilots’ skilled ability at flying low (out at of necessity), wouldn’t this be more useful than F-16’s? Wouldn’t both be best? Just a nagging question that I’ve had for quite awhile. No need to respond, if you don’t want to.
@@lindablake8799 IF A-10s happened to be in theater, and IF they had been accompanied by sufficient air superiority amd air defence suppression assets, then yes, the bungled, traffic jam opening of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine could have been a dream scenario perhaps even MORE advantageous than the '70s and '80s assumption of the Pact hordes piling though the Fulda Gap in Germany. That's a couple big IFs, more thna countered by numerous BUTs. AVAILABILITY ... Obviously, no A-10s were there in 2022. There were no A-10s there because the A-10 has NEVER been sold to any other country nor made available to any ally in any way. The platform and more specifically its gun and more specifically that gun's depleted uranium ammunition, have been reserved specifically for use by the US military. NOT for export, ever. Since the A-10 is only operated by the USAF, and will only ever be operated by the USAF, it will never be deployed to Ukraine. The US will not deploy any of its forces to Ukraine, as that could result in a direct confrontation between US and Russian forces, and the potential escalations that could result are more unacceptable than would be even the complete destruction of Ukraine. F-16s are being sent because they are available to be provided *indirectly*. F-16s have been sold to at least two dozen other countries. The US approves the sale of newer planes to one of those countries, that country in turn surpluses older F-16s to Ukraine. It's a fig leaf, a shell game, but how such things are done. SInce no other countries have A-10s, this will never happen with A-10s. NEXT ... weapon systems aren't used in isolation. Ideally, A-10s are used after air superiority is established and ground air defenses are suppressed. Ukraine can't create the operational environment that the US can, dropped into Ukraine on their own, they would not have lasted long. In an existential conflict such as WW3 kicking off in Europe, such losses would have been regrettable but expected / necessary. Sending them off to a proxy war is writing them off. Not going to happen to equipment not considered expendable. See abose ... the US isn't going to send ANY USAF assets to Ukraine ... not A-10s, much less the air superiority and SEAD assets they would operate under and behind. ALTERNATIVES ... the US and allies have been able to make available to Ukraine cheaper and expendable alternaitves for dealing with Russian armor. Artillery systems and piles of ammunition, scads of man-portable anti-armor missiles, and surplus'd ground and air vehicles.
Personally I do not think the A10 is ugly at all. Not a bit. When it pitches, rolls or inverts over ridges, to me it is one awesome looking, perfect tool.
A side I'd never heard before. Very interesting. I've seen the Cheyenne as an outdoor museum piece. My old boss said it had a porpoising problem, but this is more informative. Small quibble: AD had radial, not rotary, engine (probably just slip of the tongue). Love the A-10.
❤Absolutely! We🫡🇺🇸, ❤, & ✊🏼, our 🇺🇸troops - in peacetime & wartime. God bless them! We thank them, for all the sacrifices they, & their ❤’d ones, make every day, for 🇺🇸U.S.!
In the first Gulf war the A 10 WortHog took out thousands of tanks in three days and then close air support the grunts loved them fot this es for shure !
It certainly saved my unit 2nd LAR USMC 3 different times in situation that the Harrier, Venom, & Viper could not. 2nd LAR destroyed many tanks themselves with there combined platoons of LAV-25 (25mm Bushmaster Cannon, .50 Cal Machine Gun) LAV-ATD (new two pod 8 shot TOW Missles), LAV-AD (GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun and 6 Stinger Missles) LAV-R Repair LAV- Command/Control. But a few times the unit got over welmed by the quantity of enemy.
Paused after survival gear segment. You left off a most important survival tool; M1911 semiautomatic pistol in .45 ACP, a proven pistol cartridge. Developed as a result of failure of .38 Colt revolvers against Moros during the Philippine insurrection. They forgot these lessons when they adopted the M9 and .😅355 Parabellum cartridge. Because of limited supply of ammo, you need something that do the job with one good hit (.45 ACP) than hit enemy several times with .355 Parabellum, the reason .355 Parabellum pistols need 15 round magazines. Don't give me the horse doodoo about M1911 is inaccurate. After I read an account of someone with a Mattelamatic getting six hits on an E silhouette target at 100 yards with sixty cartridges, I set up an E silhouette at 100 yards. I engaged that target at 100 yards with an M1911 pistol and sixty cartridges and got sixty kill zone hits. I am an Army veteran and served with the M1 Garand and the M1911 pistol.
@@seavixen125Aardvark-Raven love, good 1-2 punch. As was the Dragonfly and OV-1 Mowhawk backing up skyraiders... Army lost armed Mohawks because the were good at COIN, CAS and most damning shot down a Mig, breaking the treaty.
As a child, born 1966 close to Frankfurt am Main the sweetest sounds i know are A10s playing "catch me if you can" following the Lahn river. Whole day long F104 Starfighters, Warthogs and Phantoms .... here and there some choppers like the Cobra ... WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE !
We are in the same situation we were in the times of the A-10 development. The A-10 is near retirement, and the Air Force has no replacement in mind. The F-16 ain't going to do it boys. Titanium bathtub armor for the pilot and manual reversion to fly by cable, should be mandatory on the next ground support aircraft.
Among other things, my son in the Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq was a forward observer/designated marksman. He called for what was felt necessary in a given situation to help them. He called in A-10's several times and they were always ready to help. Plus, there was a female captain that he liked talking to. Young Marines evidently aren't afraid of much, especially under fire and talking to a female officer evidently wasn't one. They saved the guys however many times and the Marines always appreciated the help and also that from their own pilots in F/A-18's and others. Another thing I think is ironic, my ex's former boyfriend was an Israeli immigrant and former IDF soldier. He wanted to fly American fighters but as an Israeli, even with dual citizenship, he couldn't. So, he learned to fly civilian aircraft, then let go of his Israeli citizenship and joined the USAF. He ended up being an A-10 pilot and I guess loved it. I don't know if they fly missions against ISIS or Hamas, but I bet he would like to. I knew they were friends, no problem, we are still too. So, he used her as a reference when the FBI was going to do a background check. As we are in NE Oregon, an FBI agent from Portland called her at work, a controller for a contractor that used to do a lot of work for Amazon and Jeff Bezos personally, including some of his launch pad, until they were bought out. The agent came up, did her interview with my then wife, and they ended up doing lunch and having a good talk. Evidently, she was convincing, plus whoever else they talked to, since he ended up realizing his dream. Interesting family, I was reading a story about a guy who had or maybe still has a private security company who guard mostly celebrities. Turned out to be this guy's older brother. I suspect having been a ground soldier, it would give him a real appreciation for a plane like this and how necessary it is.
I served in aviation in the Navy and served with the Air Force reserves after my enlistment with the Navy was over. This was back in the eighties and I was assigned to a A-10 squadron. Knowing the Navy's aircraft allowed me to gauge the -10. And I was impressed! Ugly... yes! But, so ugly it was beautiful. It was simply designed to meet the criteria of its designers and their ambitions to provide a platform as stated in this video. Nothing more or less. Therefore, the final product was and is the enemy's worst nightmare. They wreak havoc on the battlefield and enemy Tanks become molten shells of their previous selves. Post-attack analysis with the Gatling .30 mm gun produces thick armor that appears melted. Once penetrated all personnel are confined within its structure to become hamburgers. Not only in center concentrations but within thirty feet of the Tank. Therefore all enemy personnel surrounding the Tank felt the same punishment as the Tank crew. Plus the aircraft can thread a needle with its maneuvering abilities at high speed to surgically remove the cancer from the battlefield. It's like watching a ballet of death! Plus, the results offer a significant ease to surviving army assets and their survival. In other words, "all" considerations of the designers proved outstanding and many boys came home after the hostilities ceased. Therefore, all petty arguments of the Navy and the Air Force are a disservice to the boys in the field. For a weapon of that caliber to be mothballed due to selfish arguments simply can't be tolerated! It's cheap, effective, and under new modifications as we speak. And ask any A-10 Pilot for his opinion concerning his or her general rating of the aircraft, and you will receive two thumbs-up and a smile. Too many got home regardless of the plane was shot to near-death. In fact, some got home with much of their wings and vertical structure gone. Plus, there is humor here too. It does my heart good to see Navy and Air Force brass growling and pissed off from time to time. Despite their self-allusions, they must follow the orders of their superiors and deliver the best available under such circumstances. Otherwise, we will have another General like Curtis Lemay or Douglass MacArthur. While in the Navy, we often started a bar fight with the army by bringing up the fact MacArthur, a five-star general, was the only one of his rank to be trashed in that matter...lol. People said it can't be done yet Harry sent him packing...lol. Then Mac ran for the Presidency and was denied. Poor Mac!...lol. Actually, I never forgave him for shooting unarmed members of the "Bonus Army" camping on Washington D.C.'s lawns. He was a Captain at the time and fresh from West Point. I'm sure he was often invited to speak to the Birch Society and cry about how he was mistreated by Truman and his Administration, but Truman fought in WW-I and sided with the Bonus Army and their plight. That may have been a mere point, but refusing to meet Truman at the airport on his arrival also caused his eviction. I'm sorry for digressing, but at times, I can't help it!...lol
The Fools at the Pentagon don't have a clue!!!,Because these People have never been in the Shit!!!, Storming Norman knew!!!, This Plane should be upgraded whenever it can be, and kept in service for our Ground Troops!!!, there are so many Ground Troops that are Alive today because of this Airplane and The Great Pilots that Flown them!!!,and the Pilots that Flew them, Loved them!!!,and Most of them didn't want to fly anything else!!!
Imagine having a cannon like the gau-8 and saying to the team we need you to make that fit in a plane and shoot at stuff on the floor. You know them engineers had cartoon stuff going on in there heads.
Like its WW2 namesake, the Thunderbolt 2 is a beast when it comes to the ground attack role. I've seen them flying at my state's now-discontinued air show. That whine of the engines is unmistakable. But of course, the short-sighted Air Force wants to retire the A-10 and replace it with an aircraft that was not designed for ground attack.
Ironically, Gen. HORNERS' Son flew a-10s. I got to meet General Horner personally as I protected him while staying at Kohbar Towers at the end of the war. Very nice guy and down to earth.
I went to heavy Equiptment school the A 10 Warthog trainers in 1979 would go out on manuvers and return to the secret base they would practice onus in the bulldozers every day for a year I hear the base is now going to get F35 's next they always get the top shelf stuff !
A-10's would not survive in contested airspace. The Russians have SAMs too, and Ukraine is unable to reach air superiority much less control their own airspace.
When the Air Force decides to get rid of the A-10, they should give them to the Marine Corps. They could use a platform that was developed for close ground support.
You can. As soon as a plane retires or is decomissioneed from active service as long as it has no intrinsic historical value and is fully stripped of all its armaments and any technology not deemed critical for flight; i.e: cloaking stuff and advanced radar and avionics. You have to apply fo the right licenses and be on a wait list.; oh and have the right money to afford it. Difficult but not impossible. That's how the Hummer entered civilian life as it started out as the H.M.M.W.V. for the Army and through surplus markets ended up first on American streets after their service life ended.
The Air Force likes high tech. I think they should let the Army fly the A10. Putting it in the boneyard is a mistake. They say the F35 ,F16 and F15 can do close air support. Those are great birds but cant take a beating like the hog can.
The idea is that you don't want your planes to take a beating at all, so you launch stand-off weapons like missiles and increasingly also drones. Saying the fighter-bombers can't do air support because they can't survive getting shot is like saying Muhammed Ali couldn't box because he didn't stand still and let himself get pummeled.
It's funny they were saying the p47 was not the best fighter, but it was proven that it could out dogfight the p51 mustang multiple times. If you know where I'm going this took place in 46 and 47,and it was covered up because these ww2 aces were getting showed up by the Tuskegee black pilots in their p47's. Besides the last p47 was a true 500mph plane and the p51 was totally out matched by it.
This is wildly inaccurate. Not even remotely correct. It was never once ever proven it could out dogfight a P-51. Not only that but the Tuskegee Airmen primarily flew P-51's (not the D model though) and only shortly flew P-47's. WWII "Aces" were not getting shown up by black pilots (nothing against the black pilots because the Tuskegee Airmen were great). Maybe some vets were. But not aces. And neither the P-47 nor the P-51 were 500 mph planes. Not even the P-47N which was the final variant of the P-47 produced could reach 500 mph unless it was in a dive. The P-47 was specifically told to avoid dogfights and boom and zoom instead because it was not a turn fighter. The P-51D on the other hand could mix it up fairly well the BF-109's and FW-190's. Your comment pure misinformation.
@@joshandkorinna ah yes after the war was over they didn't bring the planes back with them, grinns. But there was plenty of them here,lol again,so they were flying p-47 what you think you know you are obviously clueless. So since you don't know facts you should not reply in I'm a dumb ss reply. History is recorded, try and read some of that.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous the powers that be want to retire the a-10 and redo the F-16 or the f-35 for close air support neither one of those two aircraft could absorb 1/10 of the damage got an a-10 could take and still make it home and save the pilot
I guess I'm an odd ball then. I've always been a fan of WW2 aircraft, and thought the A10 had a WW2 look. With all the modern accoutrements to get the job done. That with it being designed to be easier to fix in the field and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilots. I've never understood why the government is so eager to get rid of the one plane we have that is purposely built to protect ground troops when we don't have a replacement for it..
I have heard that they couldn't fire the gun More than a couple seconds because it would lose air speed because of the recoil of the gun. Don't know if there's anything to that or not.
Our CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SCREWED UP WHEN THEY COVERED UP THE AVRO ARROW , , FINANLLY SOMEONE RESPECTED GREAT DESIGNS ,AND BACKED IT UP, I SALUTE EVERY PERSON THAT SAVED THIS JET ,, AND SO MANY GROUND TROOPS. 😊
Why did they form the Airforce? Now that he mentions it, it's hard to see the logic behind it. before the airforce, the Army had planes, the Navy had planes and the Marines had planes. They all had planes that served their specific roles and supported their own troops. And of course the Navy is still going to need to have planes anyway. So why have a separate military branch for planes that are going to support Army troops anyway? I don't understand the logic but there must be a reason.
I,m not an ENGINEER BUT IF THEY CAN CARRY 16000 LBS OF EXTRA ORNIDENCE. HOW COME THEY CANT CARRY MORE AMMO ?? IN KNOW THE WING DESIGNER, WILL PIPE UP . BUT IN 3O YRS COULD THEY NOT INCREASE AMMO CAPACITY ?? IT IS AN INCREDIBLE PLATFORM. 😊😊😊😊
Horner wanted to leave the A-10 behind for good reasons. He knew its limitations, and with limited ramp space he needed more capable and versatile jets. But the A-10 had to be included for political reasons, so they created more ramp space.
I'm sorry, I'm also working while watching this so I might've not heard this right, but did they actually claim that the P-47 was the fastest fighter of the Second World War?
The last model p47 was a 500 mph plane,and in 1946 and 1947 there war games p51 against the p47 , white pilots against black pilots in the p47's and the p51's lost both war games, Tuskegee airmen disbanded and it became a hush hush topic. The last model mustang was 70 percent different than the d and faster but was still outmatched by the 47,and the 47 went away.
@@kennardjohnson7875 interesting stuff that I didn't know. Thanks for the info. =) 1946 and 1947 are firmly beyond the years of the second world war, as the video was claiming, but still very cool stuff.
"Give me my A-10's." I guess when you're a general you don't have to take $#!t from anyone. Maybe the president if he's so inclined to give it but anyone else and it's "I'm sorry. Did you just say No to me? You know I command the U.S. Army right?"
The narrator frequently states how highly mechanized the Nazis were. The reality is there was a mechanization aspect to the Nazis, but there was also a high degree that was not so highly mechanized and relied on horses.
The A-X (A-10) is the fire support aircraft that the Air Force never wanted or wants, and only built because the Army was in the midst of success of fielding 675 AH-56A Cheyenne (advanced aerial fire support) helicopters. The A-10 would be a game changer in Ukraine. Suppression of movement along a ragged border and advances by Russian / Soviets would be terminated. Give Ukraine as many A-10s as we can afford to provide. USAF doesn't want them anyway. Guarantee you Ukraine pilots would have a field day with advancing tanks, artillery and AFVs advancing Westward.
You could have talked more about the JU87 with its 37mm cannons, which is the basis of the A10's ideas. Indeed, the JU87 was the basis for research on pilot protection and tactics against armored vehicles.
I don't think that plane is ugly at all it's beautiful. How stupid are the leaders in the air force a bunch of trumps how many wars do you make the same mistakes and keep trying to make my gosh.
Yes, although he is also acknowledged by other people being interviewed in the very same video, which in many ways means that they credit him. I guess It depends on who you believe, people that have opinions, or people that are real participants in the history of the aircraft. The obvious answer should be to trust the people that made that history, although it is obvious and natural that everyone has the right to have opinions, whether they are factually based, or not.
It is considered a full scale military operation. The last time the A-10 was in a full scale war it performed spectacularly. Air Force brass doesn't want to see that happen. It will wind up eating into their F-35 budget.
@@charlesarnold4059 People argue that these days shoulder mounted munitions would take out the A-10, but then again mayne the F-16 too? Not sure about the pros and cons. The A-10 has been significantly upgraded. As Pierre Sprey says, the true test is in actual combat conditions.
Why is it, that some videos have very few ads while others like this one, have so many? Although I haven't timed it. It seems as if every 4-5 minutes here comes another ad. Might even be like 3.5-4.5 minutes. I can appreciate the history part. However, by the time the part I want to see I'm ready to say I pass. At 1:07:00 I have had enough of this video. Perhaps one day I"ll come back, wondering why I stopped watching. Perhaps then I will time it. I have already seen other videos displaying the qualities of every aircraft in the history.Yeah I know? Goodbye!
The true question is was Iraq originally part of Kuwait. Seeings that most pre historic peoples lived by water especially in the deserts that are there. So I would believe its truly the other way around. Historically, Kuwait had close political, economic, and cultural ties to Iran. In 1961, Kuwait became an independent country gaining its sovereignty.
@@ChYph3r Very good . ... but didn't the water peoples settlements stretch out along the great rivers. They had fertile flood plains and marshes, practiced irrigation and developed very successful City State cultures (Ur, Babylon and many others) and these approximating to our very modern and 'late on the scene' notions of Nation. None of these were in desert at their time and the sea ports (it seems including those of Egypt) never got huge and were likely vassal settlements of the great cities. I think it is beginning with that ancient history that Saddam was invoking. The 1960s is our own time with general Kassem and successors. Post Ottoman things in that area including land boundaries were settled by France Britain and Russia. American muscle and commercial interests operating in Saudia esp from the early 20thC and after the 1943 'secret' conference (Bitter Lake) interfered with the power balance and promoted tribal leaders to near great power status. American agitation and European decolonising allowed the relatively peaceful emergence of local power clusters like the Emirates. My suggestion is that these were opportunistic. Any independence they claim isn't founded in the long term history of the great riverine cultures. All nationalist aspirations in that part of the world have to contend with the (not always well intentioned) interference of outside powers. The self confident masters of destruction shown in this film really had no idea what they were doing. They destroyed infrastructure, upset delicate balances and fairly stable states. Huge death tolls followed them and their machines and they successfully created chaos out of order. What a bunch of boobies.
@@robertmongerthe9025 True, it is a european creation (Sykes - Picot) but within that place there are provinces and fiefdoms which are ancient . Saddam's Tikrit might be one of them. I think we would find that Saddam was looking at such a relationship when he claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq. That history aside, The Americans made yet another huge mess and amazingly wonder why they are steadily losing favour around the world. Amazingly they for the most part can't see why they are castigated.
Who is being credited by people that were deeply involved with the program (watch the video). Yes, he is controversial, but not everyone agrees with your point of view, and since someone with an important role describes him as deeply involved, perhaps you should have an open mind. He certainly had many enemies, and they certainly went out of their way to smear him, and that is something that happens all the time.
@@Dronescapes Na man, I love the A-10 and disagree with LazerPigs analysis of the A-10. But pretty much anyone who takes this stuff seriously knows that Pierre Sprey has been discredited as a serious analyst. Appreciate the work you do. Just for future reference though, I probably wouldn't use Sprey as a source of accurate information.
I think that a balanced assessment of Sprey is that he was definitely part of developing specific aircraft. Still, nowadays, his opinions are outdated when it comes to more recent aircraft. To dismiss his role back in the day, especially in the A-10 context, is just incorrect, and the main video is about the A-10. There are several examples of people doing good things but then degrading over time, but that does not detract from their contribution. To give you an example of an excess, look at William Shockley. His opinions, specifically on the A-10, are probably more relevant than not, so why not learn something you might not know of someone who was most definitively involved, as clearly stated by someone who was clearly in charge at the time (you can listen to him in the interview)? It is just counterintuitive. If you listen to F-15 pilots, for example, their opinions, just like yours, are split, and those guys are also clearly more involved than me or, most likely, you. As I initially said, he is definitively controversial.
Thunderbolt Barbie Thunderbolt Barbie comes equipped with A-10 Warthog 4 pickle bombs 4 Sidewinder missiles 30 mm Finger of God Gatling Canon Thunderbolt Barbie is based on an actual beautiful female pilot from the United States Air Force Thunderbolt Barbie Batteries Not Included
➤➤ PART 2: ruclips.net/video/vmDNgGDogUo/видео.html
➤➤ Watch more aircraft, heroes, and their stories, and missions: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes
➤➤ Join the channel: www.youtube.com/@Dronescapes/join
➤ IG ➤ instagram.com/dronescapesvideos
➤ FB ➤ facebook.com/Dronescapesvideos
➤ X/Twitter ➤ dronescapes.video/2p89vedj
➤ THREADS ➤ www.threads.net/@dronescapesvideos
M mmm. A😮😮😢😢
The whole premise of this video is one geezer who has some beef with the Air Force. Posing the P47 as some kind of "Messerschmitt killer" is just historically inaccurate. The AF does not "hate" ground support, it hates single-role aircraft. These are a waste of tax payer money, and takes money from their budget for things like F/A-18s which are the REAL deal.
I remember watch A10s fly thru our valley in WMass, (The Deerfield River Valley) flying out of Westover AFB. They were absolutely amazing! Our home was up on the shoulder of a mountain, with a 1 mile view down the valley. We knew that they were using our home to test their sights! We'd look out our front window and see them coming straight at us, turning off last second. We could see right down into their cockpits. Sometime in the late 1980's or early 90's, they raised the floor, and they stopped flying so low.
Bad to the Bone
A-10 is the flying angel of the U.S.troops on the ground
The SR71 is the sexiest plane ever but the A10 is the most badass plane ever.
Have you seen what the AC-130 can do. Equally bad-ass for its purpose!
I agree 100 percent
@@tuberstitiousand they are not talking about mothballing them. Hmmm 🤔
I am an old lefty who was very much ant-war during the Sixties and Seventies. But I found this storytelling quite fascinating and am glad these guys were on our side and insisting on designing a new airplane for close ground support. Nowadays, we see this as all very valid, but back then, I would guess the entrenched hierarchy just wanted to do things the traditional way and get their aircraft-making friends the same high budgeted orders they were used to getting. Great story, thank you! 🎉🎉🎉
The A10 is on my top ten list of favorites, why keep calling it ugly is beyond me I think it awesome looking
IDK how anyone could call any airplane ugly?!? They are all dev off the same principles. Anyhow I love fighters just like anyone else but it's something about turbofans that just wins me over. Since '96 I've thought this was the best plane thanks to a game called A-10 Cuba!!!
First time I ever got to see one in person was going through the Carolinas and I got to watch one land on a runway , I about lost my load😂😂😂
I don't think it's the least bit ugly,it looks as though it means business.
The Warthog clearly embraces and feeds off that hate. 😁
“Strike Eagle, Lightning, Skyraider, Hornet, Mustang….”
“Ok Awesome guys, now what’s your name? “
“Ultra Hog & meet my extra spicy younger brother Warthog!!”
Small thing - over 20 000 Spitfires were built. That 15 000 total for the Jug is outstanding, especially when you consider that it entered service mid-war - but the Spitfire had the larger production total, I think.
Regards to all
UK civilian ignoranus here - I know I'd love the A-10 if I were in the infantry and it was backing me up, but might it have done its work now? I can't see it thriving in a modern Ukraine-type SAM-rich environment, drones are now effective and cheap, and other planes can lob heavy munitions from furrher back. Money's tight - could retaining a type of aircraft principally to fight tbe next Taliban or ISIS be justified when there are drones, helicopters and bombs snd missiles launched from F-35s to do Hog work?
The A-10 has an outstanding record - but is there a good case for a lauded retirement now? Comments very welcome, and regards to all.
Outstanding record of fratricide maybe....
With near peer adversaries and too often contested airspace, the mission profile for the A-10 is certainly shrinking.
Considering that the Iron Curtain fell the year before Saddam invaded Kuwait, and the Warsaw Pact was dissolving, the coming storm in the desert was going to be the closest thing these planes would ever see to their original design intent ... hunting Soviet armor in a target-rich environment ... and in the far more open Middle East desert rather than the variegated terrain of central Europe. Not sending the 'Hogs would have been a dereliction of duty.
What about using the Warthog now, in Ukraine? Many supported its use in UA & many opposed it. With the number of tanks needing to be destroyed, & the UA’n pilots’ skilled ability at flying low (out at of necessity), wouldn’t this be more useful than F-16’s? Wouldn’t both be best? Just a nagging question that I’ve had for quite awhile. No need to respond, if you don’t want to.
@@lindablake8799 IF A-10s happened to be in theater, and IF they had been accompanied by sufficient air superiority amd air defence suppression assets, then yes, the bungled, traffic jam opening of Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine could have been a dream scenario perhaps even MORE advantageous than the '70s and '80s assumption of the Pact hordes piling though the Fulda Gap in Germany.
That's a couple big IFs, more thna countered by numerous BUTs.
AVAILABILITY ... Obviously, no A-10s were there in 2022. There were no A-10s there because the A-10 has NEVER been sold to any other country nor made available to any ally in any way. The platform and more specifically its gun and more specifically that gun's depleted uranium ammunition, have been reserved specifically for use by the US military. NOT for export, ever.
Since the A-10 is only operated by the USAF, and will only ever be operated by the USAF, it will never be deployed to Ukraine. The US will not deploy any of its forces to Ukraine, as that could result in a direct confrontation between US and Russian forces, and the potential escalations that could result are more unacceptable than would be even the complete destruction of Ukraine.
F-16s are being sent because they are available to be provided *indirectly*. F-16s have been sold to at least two dozen other countries. The US approves the sale of newer planes to one of those countries, that country in turn surpluses older F-16s to Ukraine. It's a fig leaf, a shell game, but how such things are done. SInce no other countries have A-10s, this will never happen with A-10s.
NEXT ... weapon systems aren't used in isolation. Ideally, A-10s are used after air superiority is established and ground air defenses are suppressed. Ukraine can't create the operational environment that the US can, dropped into Ukraine on their own, they would not have lasted long. In an existential conflict such as WW3 kicking off in Europe, such losses would have been regrettable but expected / necessary. Sending them off to a proxy war is writing them off. Not going to happen to equipment not considered expendable. See abose ... the US isn't going to send ANY USAF assets to Ukraine ... not A-10s, much less the air superiority and SEAD assets they would operate under and behind.
ALTERNATIVES ... the US and allies have been able to make available to Ukraine cheaper and expendable alternaitves for dealing with Russian armor. Artillery systems and piles of ammunition, scads of man-portable anti-armor missiles, and surplus'd ground and air vehicles.
Personally I do not think the A10 is ugly at all. Not a bit.
When it pitches, rolls or inverts over ridges, to me it is one awesome looking, perfect tool.
A side I'd never heard before. Very interesting. I've seen the Cheyenne as an outdoor museum piece. My old boss said it had a porpoising problem, but this is more informative. Small quibble: AD had radial, not rotary, engine (probably just slip of the tongue). Love the A-10.
🇺🇲"God Bless Our Veterans and Active Warrior's!!!"🇺🇲
❤Absolutely! We🫡🇺🇸, ❤, & ✊🏼, our 🇺🇸troops - in peacetime & wartime. God bless them! We thank them, for all the sacrifices they, & their ❤’d ones, make every day, for 🇺🇸U.S.!
In the first Gulf war the A 10 WortHog took out thousands of tanks in three days and then close air support the grunts loved them fot this es for shure !
The best plane for cas - the intimidation factor alone is more effective than a fast jet or rotor craft
It certainly saved my unit 2nd LAR USMC 3 different times in situation that the Harrier, Venom, & Viper could not. 2nd LAR destroyed many tanks themselves with there combined platoons of LAV-25 (25mm Bushmaster Cannon, .50 Cal Machine Gun) LAV-ATD (new two pod 8 shot TOW Missles), LAV-AD (GAU-12/U 25mm Gatling gun and 6 Stinger Missles) LAV-R Repair LAV- Command/Control. But a few times the unit got over welmed by the quantity of enemy.
Yes the a-10 was effective at tank busting killing about 900 tanks, while the f-111 destroyed about 1500.
Paused after survival gear segment. You left off a most important survival tool; M1911 semiautomatic pistol in .45 ACP, a proven pistol cartridge.
Developed as a result of failure of .38 Colt revolvers against Moros during the Philippine insurrection.
They forgot these lessons when they adopted the M9 and .😅355 Parabellum cartridge.
Because of limited supply of ammo, you need something that do the job with one good hit (.45 ACP) than hit enemy several times with .355 Parabellum, the reason .355 Parabellum pistols need 15 round magazines.
Don't give me the horse doodoo about M1911 is inaccurate. After I read an account of someone with a Mattelamatic getting six hits on an E silhouette target at 100 yards with sixty cartridges, I set up an E silhouette at 100 yards. I engaged that target at 100 yards with an M1911 pistol and sixty cartridges and got sixty kill zone hits.
I am an Army veteran and served with the M1 Garand and the M1911 pistol.
@@seavixen125Aardvark-Raven love, good 1-2 punch. As was the Dragonfly and OV-1 Mowhawk backing up skyraiders... Army lost armed Mohawks because the were good at COIN, CAS and most damning shot down a Mig, breaking the treaty.
Great post ! :)
❤Excellent! Thank you!
Thank you too
As a child, born 1966 close to Frankfurt am Main the sweetest sounds i know are A10s playing "catch me if you can" following the Lahn river.
Whole day long F104 Starfighters, Warthogs and Phantoms .... here and there some choppers like the Cobra ...
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE !
The gentlemen at the end of the video. I enjoyed the interview with him. He seems like a good man😊
Great walk through history.
We are in the same situation we were in the times of the A-10 development.
The A-10 is near retirement, and the Air Force has no replacement in mind.
The F-16 ain't going to do it boys.
Titanium bathtub armor for the pilot and manual reversion to fly by cable, should be mandatory on the next ground support aircraft.
I would give anything to have people these brutally honest running stuff
Among other things, my son in the Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq was a forward observer/designated marksman. He called for what was felt necessary in a given situation to help them. He called in A-10's several times and they were always ready to help. Plus, there was a female captain that he liked talking to. Young Marines evidently aren't afraid of much, especially under fire and talking to a female officer evidently wasn't one. They saved the guys however many times and the Marines always appreciated the help and also that from their own pilots in F/A-18's and others. Another thing I think is ironic, my ex's former boyfriend was an Israeli immigrant and former IDF soldier. He wanted to fly American fighters but as an Israeli, even with dual citizenship, he couldn't. So, he learned to fly civilian aircraft, then let go of his Israeli citizenship and joined the USAF. He ended up being an A-10 pilot and I guess loved it. I don't know if they fly missions against ISIS or Hamas, but I bet he would like to. I knew they were friends, no problem, we are still too. So, he used her as a reference when the FBI was going to do a background check. As we are in NE Oregon, an FBI agent from Portland called her at work, a controller for a contractor that used to do a lot of work for Amazon and Jeff Bezos personally, including some of his launch pad, until they were bought out. The agent came up, did her interview with my then wife, and they ended up doing lunch and having a good talk. Evidently, she was convincing, plus whoever else they talked to, since he ended up realizing his dream. Interesting family, I was reading a story about a guy who had or maybe still has a private security company who guard mostly celebrities. Turned out to be this guy's older brother. I suspect having been a ground soldier, it would give him a real appreciation for a plane like this and how necessary it is.
I served in aviation in the Navy and served with the Air Force reserves after my enlistment with the Navy was over. This was back in the eighties and I was assigned to a A-10 squadron. Knowing the Navy's aircraft allowed me to gauge the -10. And I was impressed! Ugly... yes! But, so ugly it was beautiful. It was simply designed to meet the criteria of its designers and their ambitions to provide a platform as stated in this video. Nothing more or less. Therefore, the final product was and is the enemy's worst nightmare. They wreak havoc on the battlefield and enemy Tanks become molten shells of their previous selves. Post-attack analysis with the Gatling .30 mm gun produces thick armor that appears melted. Once penetrated all personnel are confined within its structure to become hamburgers. Not only in center concentrations but within thirty feet of the Tank. Therefore all enemy personnel surrounding the Tank felt the same punishment as the Tank crew. Plus the aircraft can thread a needle with its maneuvering abilities at high speed to surgically remove the cancer from the battlefield. It's like watching a ballet of death! Plus, the results offer a significant ease to surviving army assets and their survival. In other words, "all" considerations of the designers proved outstanding and many boys came home after the hostilities ceased.
Therefore, all petty arguments of the Navy and the Air Force are a disservice to the boys in the field. For a weapon of that caliber to be mothballed due to selfish arguments simply can't be tolerated! It's cheap, effective, and under new modifications as we speak. And ask any A-10 Pilot for his opinion concerning his or her general rating of the aircraft, and you will receive two thumbs-up and a smile. Too many got home regardless of the plane was shot to near-death. In fact, some got home with much of their
wings and vertical structure gone.
Plus, there is humor here too. It does my heart good to see Navy and Air Force brass growling and pissed off from time to time. Despite their self-allusions, they must follow the orders of their superiors and deliver the best available under such circumstances. Otherwise, we will have another General like Curtis Lemay or Douglass MacArthur. While in the Navy, we often started a bar fight with the army by bringing up the fact MacArthur, a five-star general, was the only one of his rank to be trashed in that matter...lol. People said it can't be done yet Harry sent him packing...lol. Then Mac ran for the Presidency and was denied. Poor Mac!...lol. Actually, I never forgave him for shooting unarmed members of the "Bonus Army" camping on Washington D.C.'s lawns. He was a Captain at the time and fresh from West Point. I'm sure he was often invited to speak to the Birch Society and cry about how he was mistreated by Truman and his Administration, but Truman fought in WW-I and sided with the Bonus Army and their plight. That may have been a mere point, but refusing to meet Truman at the airport on his arrival also caused his eviction. I'm sorry for digressing, but at times, I can't help it!...lol
The Fools at the Pentagon don't have a clue!!!,Because these People have never been in the Shit!!!, Storming Norman knew!!!, This Plane should be upgraded whenever it can be, and kept in service for our Ground Troops!!!, there are so many Ground Troops that are Alive today because of this Airplane and The Great Pilots that Flown them!!!,and the Pilots that Flew them, Loved them!!!,and Most of them didn't want to fly anything else!!!
Incredible plane. How'd you like to be on the ground and have that cannon bearing down!😮
Imagine having a cannon like the gau-8 and saying to the team we need you to make that fit in a plane and shoot at stuff on the floor.
You know them engineers had cartoon stuff going on in there heads.
Used in Shanksville!
Did the desert come alive at night? During Desert Storm while looking at the desert @ night, NVGs on; all manner of animal, insects came out the sand.
Like its WW2 namesake, the Thunderbolt 2 is a beast when it comes to the ground attack role. I've seen them flying at my state's now-discontinued air show. That whine of the engines is unmistakable. But of course, the short-sighted Air Force wants to retire the A-10 and replace it with an aircraft that was not designed for ground attack.
Ironically, Gen. HORNERS' Son flew a-10s.
I got to meet General Horner personally as I protected him while staying at Kohbar Towers at the end of the war. Very nice guy and down to earth.
Great video thanks very much.
Thank you 🙏 do not miss part 2
The A-10 is one of the greatest warplanes of all time!
I went to heavy Equiptment school the A 10 Warthog trainers in 1979 would go out on manuvers and return to the secret base they would practice onus in the bulldozers every day for a year I hear the base is now going to get F35 's next they always get the top shelf stuff !
Why are there NO Requests for A-10's in Ukraine???
💀 you trynna get us all nuked
A-10's would not survive in contested airspace. The Russians have SAMs too, and Ukraine is unable to reach air superiority much less control their own airspace.
@XSpiderXVenom and that's the play, play somewhat farley. Make a show
ASTIG WARTHOG A10..😊😊🇺🇸🇺🇸👍
You can have helicopters, and we'll have airplanes.
Osprey enters chat....
When the Air Force decides to get rid of the A-10, they should give them to the Marine Corps. They could use a platform that was developed for close ground support.
I love the A-10
"Ugly"- I think she's beautiful❤
I love ❤ the A10 . I'd buy one if I could. 😂
You can. As soon as a plane retires or is decomissioneed from active service as long as it has no intrinsic historical value and is fully stripped of all its armaments and any technology not deemed critical for flight; i.e: cloaking stuff and advanced radar and avionics. You have to apply fo the right licenses and be on a wait list.; oh and have the right money to afford it. Difficult but not impossible. That's how the Hummer entered civilian life as it started out as the H.M.M.W.V. for the Army and through surplus markets ended up first on American streets after their service life ended.
A 10s or we will march back to the border....next things is BBBBRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTT.
The original mission profile of the A10 is back on the table: conflict in eastern Europe.
The Air Force likes high tech. I think they should let the Army fly the A10. Putting it in the boneyard is a mistake. They say the F35 ,F16 and F15 can do close air support. Those are great birds but cant take a beating like the hog can.
But with stand off weapons the f-15/16/35 use, they don't need to get "down and dirty".
There will always be a need for the hog. Think about why
NOT TO MENTION IF YOU LOOSE AN AIRCRAFT$$!
The idea is that you don't want your planes to take a beating at all, so you launch stand-off weapons like missiles and increasingly also drones. Saying the fighter-bombers can't do air support because they can't survive getting shot is like saying Muhammed Ali couldn't box because he didn't stand still and let himself get pummeled.
Love the A10, warthog
It's funny they were saying the p47 was not the best fighter, but it was proven that it could out dogfight the p51 mustang multiple times. If you know where I'm going this took place in 46 and 47,and it was covered up because these ww2 aces were getting showed up by the Tuskegee black pilots in their p47's. Besides the last p47 was a true 500mph plane and the p51 was totally out matched by it.
This is wildly inaccurate. Not even remotely correct. It was never once ever proven it could out dogfight a P-51. Not only that but the Tuskegee Airmen primarily flew P-51's (not the D model though) and only shortly flew P-47's. WWII "Aces" were not getting shown up by black pilots (nothing against the black pilots because the Tuskegee Airmen were great). Maybe some vets were. But not aces. And neither the P-47 nor the P-51 were 500 mph planes. Not even the P-47N which was the final variant of the P-47 produced could reach 500 mph unless it was in a dive. The P-47 was specifically told to avoid dogfights and boom and zoom instead because it was not a turn fighter. The P-51D on the other hand could mix it up fairly well the BF-109's and FW-190's. Your comment pure misinformation.
@@joshandkorinna ah yes after the war was over they didn't bring the planes back with them, grinns. But there was plenty of them here,lol again,so they were flying p-47 what you think you know you are obviously clueless. So since you don't know facts you should not reply in I'm a dumb ss reply. History is recorded, try and read some of that.
I think it's absolutely ridiculous the powers that be want to retire the a-10 and redo the F-16 or the f-35 for close air support neither one of those two aircraft could absorb 1/10 of the damage got an a-10 could take and still make it home and save the pilot
I guess I'm an odd ball then. I've always been a fan of WW2 aircraft, and thought the A10 had a WW2 look. With all the modern accoutrements to get the job done.
That with it being designed to be easier to fix in the field and the titanium bath tub to protect the pilots. I've never understood why the government is so eager to get rid of the one plane we have that is purposely built to protect ground troops when we don't have a replacement for it..
I have heard that they couldn't fire the gun More than a couple seconds because it would lose air speed because of the recoil of the gun. Don't know if there's anything to that or not.
it is a myth
True
Our CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SCREWED UP WHEN THEY COVERED UP THE AVRO ARROW , , FINANLLY SOMEONE RESPECTED GREAT DESIGNS ,AND BACKED IT UP, I SALUTE EVERY PERSON THAT SAVED THIS JET ,, AND SO MANY GROUND TROOPS. 😊
Thanks to the Fairey Barracuda and Gannet, aircraft can no longer qualify as ugly.
Great Video ! Give the A-10 folding wings and a tail hook and then the Marines will love it ! Can the A-10 take off from a Helicopter Carrier ? tjl
Why did they form the Airforce? Now that he mentions it, it's hard to see the logic behind it. before the airforce, the Army had planes, the Navy had planes and the Marines had planes. They all had planes that served their specific roles and supported their own troops. And of course the Navy is still going to need to have planes anyway. So why have a separate military branch for planes that are going to support Army troops anyway? I don't understand the logic but there must be a reason.
I,m not an ENGINEER BUT IF THEY CAN CARRY 16000 LBS OF EXTRA ORNIDENCE. HOW COME THEY CANT CARRY MORE AMMO
?? IN KNOW THE WING DESIGNER, WILL PIPE UP . BUT IN 3O YRS COULD THEY NOT INCREASE AMMO CAPACITY ?? IT IS AN INCREDIBLE PLATFORM. 😊😊😊😊
It carries plenty of ammo. It can carry over 1,300 rounds. As apposed to the F-35's 180 rounds.
Horner wanted to leave the A-10 behind for good reasons. He knew its limitations, and with limited ramp space he needed more capable and versatile jets. But the A-10 had to be included for political reasons, so they created more ramp space.
Looks like something we need in. The Ukrainian
❤ 1:01:42
I'm sorry, I'm also working while watching this so I might've not heard this right, but did they actually claim that the P-47 was the fastest fighter of the Second World War?
The last model p47 was a 500 mph plane,and in 1946 and 1947 there war games p51 against the p47 , white pilots against black pilots in the p47's and the p51's lost both war games, Tuskegee airmen disbanded and it became a hush hush topic. The last model mustang was 70 percent different than the d and faster but was still outmatched by the 47,and the 47 went away.
@@kennardjohnson7875 interesting stuff that I didn't know. Thanks for the info. =) 1946 and 1947 are firmly beyond the years of the second world war, as the video was claiming, but still very cool stuff.
Those that have a clue about facts, 99% are clueless.
Not even two minutes in and i already have to listen to pierre fucking spery.
I came here to post this. How this phony manages to get anyone to pay attention to him is beyond my understanding. Fuck the Fighter Mafia.
My thoughts exactly. Ugh, gross.
Stop calling the A 10 ugly it is the most beautiful aircraft in our arsenal
"Give me my A-10's." I guess when you're a general you don't have to take $#!t from anyone. Maybe the president if he's so inclined to give it but anyone else and it's "I'm sorry. Did you just say No to me? You know I command the U.S. Army right?"
Schwartzkopf commanded the entire war, not just the army.
I don’t understand why the airforce hates this amazing war machine. It seems to be the best for ground troop support time and time again.
The narrator frequently states how highly mechanized the Nazis were. The reality is there was a mechanization aspect to the Nazis, but there was also a high degree that was not so highly mechanized and relied on horses.
Smoked an LAV AT in Desert Storm. Smoked 2 AMTRAKs in OIF 1. They killed a lot of Marines. Warthog pilots are not great at determining friend or foe.
The A-X (A-10) is the fire support aircraft that the Air Force never wanted or wants, and only built because the Army was in the midst of success of fielding 675 AH-56A Cheyenne (advanced aerial fire support) helicopters.
The A-10 would be a game changer in Ukraine. Suppression of movement along a ragged border and advances by Russian / Soviets would be terminated.
Give Ukraine as many A-10s as we can afford to provide. USAF doesn't want them anyway. Guarantee you Ukraine pilots would have a field day with advancing tanks, artillery and AFVs advancing Westward.
06:05 Cast IRON engine ??
What's this guy been smoking ??
You could have talked more about the JU87 with its 37mm cannons, which is the basis of the A10's ideas. Indeed, the JU87 was the basis for research on pilot protection and tactics against armored vehicles.
This is PART 1, PART 2 is coming, and perhaps it opens with the Stuka 😉
The us air force wants toretire the a10may it should be built uncder licence by poland orsouth kora.
I think it looks like a Puma.
If only we had these in Vietnam
I don't think that plane is ugly at all it's beautiful. How stupid are the leaders in the air force a bunch of trumps how many wars do you make the same mistakes and keep trying to make my gosh.
Love the content, but youtube have already interrupted with 17 commercials...not everyone can afford plus
there are alternatives to RUclips Premium 😉
Some have found this guy to be wrong in pass😮
Yes, although he is also acknowledged by other people being interviewed in the very same video, which in many ways means that they credit him. I guess It depends on who you believe, people that have opinions, or people that are real participants in the history of the aircraft. The obvious answer should be to trust the people that made that history, although it is obvious and natural that everyone has the right to have opinions, whether they are factually based, or not.
In Ukraine wouldnt the A10 help win the war? Everybodyis talking about the F-16, fair enoungh, but why not add the A-10?
It is considered a full scale military operation. The last time the A-10 was in a full scale war it performed spectacularly. Air Force brass doesn't want to see that happen. It will wind up eating into their F-35 budget.
@@charlesarnold4059 People argue that these days shoulder mounted munitions would take out the A-10, but then again mayne the F-16 too? Not sure about the pros and cons. The A-10 has been significantly upgraded.
As Pierre Sprey says, the true test is in actual combat conditions.
Why is it, that some videos have very few ads while others like this one, have so many? Although I haven't timed it. It seems as if every 4-5 minutes here comes another ad. Might even be like 3.5-4.5 minutes. I can appreciate the history part. However, by the time the part I want to see I'm ready to say I pass. At 1:07:00 I have had enough of this video. Perhaps one day I"ll come back, wondering why I stopped watching. Perhaps then I will time it. I have already seen other videos displaying the qualities of every aircraft in the history.Yeah I know? Goodbye!
Perhaps you do not know that if you have RUclips Premium you will never see an ad again.
BRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTT
Politics, stuffed them up.
Might be worth checking if historically, Kuwait was ever a province of Iraq.
The true question is was Iraq originally part of Kuwait. Seeings that most pre historic peoples lived by water especially in the deserts that are there. So I would believe its truly the other way around. Historically, Kuwait had close political, economic, and cultural ties to Iran. In 1961, Kuwait became an independent country gaining its sovereignty.
@@ChYph3r Very good . ... but didn't the water peoples settlements stretch out along the great rivers. They had fertile flood plains and marshes, practiced irrigation and developed very successful City State cultures (Ur, Babylon and many others) and these approximating to our very modern and 'late on the scene' notions of Nation. None of these were in desert at their time and the sea ports (it seems including those of Egypt) never got huge and were likely vassal settlements of the great cities. I think it is beginning with that ancient history that Saddam was invoking.
The 1960s is our own time with general Kassem and successors. Post Ottoman things in that area including land boundaries were settled by France Britain and Russia. American muscle and commercial interests operating in Saudia esp from the early 20thC and after the 1943 'secret' conference (Bitter Lake) interfered with the power balance and promoted tribal leaders to near great power status. American agitation and European decolonising allowed the relatively peaceful emergence of local power clusters like the Emirates. My suggestion is that these were opportunistic. Any independence they claim isn't founded in the long term history of the great riverine cultures. All nationalist aspirations in that part of the world have to contend with the (not always well intentioned) interference of outside powers. The self confident masters of destruction shown in this film really had no idea what they were doing. They destroyed infrastructure, upset delicate balances and fairly stable states. Huge death tolls followed them and their machines and they successfully created chaos out of order. What a bunch of boobies.
Kuwait was doing its own thing when Iraq was still called Mesopotamia and Saudi was simply known as "Arabia." The country of Iraq is an unnatural act
@@robertmongerthe9025 True, it is a european creation (Sykes - Picot) but within that place there are provinces and fiefdoms which are ancient . Saddam's Tikrit might be one of them. I think we would find that Saddam was looking at such a relationship when he claimed Kuwait as part of Iraq.
That history aside, The Americans made yet another huge mess and amazingly wonder why they are steadily losing favour around the world.
Amazingly they for the most part can't see why they are castigated.
@@robertmongerthe9025
Sorry to do a ps on this - Un natural you said correctly but that applies to South America in ToTo and most of Africa too.
Not A1 A10
Lmao, video starts out with Pierre Sprey.
Who is being credited by people that were deeply involved with the program (watch the video).
Yes, he is controversial, but not everyone agrees with your point of view, and since someone with an important role describes him as deeply involved, perhaps you should have an open mind. He certainly had many enemies, and they certainly went out of their way to smear him, and that is something that happens all the time.
@@Dronescapes Na man, I love the A-10 and disagree with LazerPigs analysis of the A-10. But pretty much anyone who takes this stuff seriously knows that Pierre Sprey has been discredited as a serious analyst. Appreciate the work you do. Just for future reference though, I probably wouldn't use Sprey as a source of accurate information.
I think that a balanced assessment of Sprey is that he was definitely part of developing specific aircraft. Still, nowadays, his opinions are outdated when it comes to more recent aircraft.
To dismiss his role back in the day, especially in the A-10 context, is just incorrect, and the main video is about the A-10.
There are several examples of people doing good things but then degrading over time, but that does not detract from their contribution.
To give you an example of an excess, look at William Shockley.
His opinions, specifically on the A-10, are probably more relevant than not, so why not learn something you might not know of someone who was most definitively involved, as clearly stated by someone who was clearly in charge at the time (you can listen to him in the interview)? It is just counterintuitive.
If you listen to F-15 pilots, for example, their opinions, just like yours, are split, and those guys are also clearly more involved than me or, most likely, you.
As I initially said, he is definitively controversial.
Its a terrible plane.
Thunderbolt Barbie Thunderbolt Barbie comes equipped with A-10 Warthog 4 pickle bombs 4 Sidewinder missiles 30 mm Finger of God Gatling Canon Thunderbolt Barbie is based on an actual beautiful female pilot from the United States Air Force Thunderbolt Barbie Batteries Not Included