The Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II uses the Gau-8 30mm cannon (basicly an electric GATLING gun that fires cannon rounds). It is the kinetic enfergy of the depleted uranium projectile that yields the effectiveness against armor, and not the rate of fire. The rate of fire allows you to put enough rounds on the target to assure that you hit and penetrate to something vital while flying at 400MPH. If you can place a round with sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate to and destroy something vital on the right place on the target, you don't need more than one round. The 25mm cannon fires a depleted uranium projectile with sufficient kinetic energy to get the job done provided you put the round in the right spot. Shot placement should not be ignored when you're talking about gun vs. armor.
It is not necessary to completely destroy a tank, have it brew up, or even kill all of the crew to effectively remove it from combat (knock it out). You merely have to make it unable to manuever, and unable to aim and fire effectively.
Frontal assaults on tanks are foolish, especially in a lightly armored vehicle. The U.S. learned this decades ago when fighting German Tiger tanks while equipped with the Sherman M4 which had less armor and a less effective gun.
To think that this lesson was completely forgotten and to assume that Bradleys would use a frontal assault against a T-72 is really foolish.
The advantages the Bradley had should be obvious to any who study armor tactics. First, the T-72s were stationary (while they may have been "hull down", unless they were buried the only exposed part of their hull was likely the REAR, where there is thin armor, and the engine and drivetrain are). Second, there were M1 Abrahms tanks involved in the action (if you're in a T-72, and there are M1 Abrahms tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles attacking you, which one are YOU going to be most concerned about?). Third, the Bradleys while exposed, were in motion, providing a somewhat difficult target. Fourth, the U.S. forces likely spent more money on training alone (you should see some of the training at Fort Knox for example) than Iraq spent on tanks, ammo, fuel, and personnel.
