Does gun-based (as opposed to missile-based) AA have any place

>>31062858
No. Most Aircraft fly over 20,000ft
The best altitude for AA is under 10,000 ft.

>>31062858
As a more economic method of dealing with UAV's, only lasers are going to take that roll in the near future.

>>31062858
Useful against helicopters and infantry

>>31063242
>infantry

Has there ever been a case of a SPAAG being used against Infantry in a non-COIN war?

>>31063229
How would a shitty AA gun deal with UAV exactly?

>>31063279
airburst and/or course correcting ammunition

>>31063229

>UAV
>Flying below 15,000 ft

>>31063265
All of them?

File: 1471208456863.jpg (442KB, 2867x2064px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 2867x2064px

>>31062858
gun based aa wasnt mainly supposed to take down planes after the common use of jet engines ... it was used to distract enemy airspace with massive ammounts of tracerfire to scare off CAS and in later times helicopters

but i guess for drones they are quiet usefull

>>31062858
With moden gun direction and radar, yes, but only for extreme short ranges. Its useful for countering rotor wing aviation and drones, or engaging low-flying CAS aircraft and the like.

It is not an end all be all to AAA, and is indeed the closest possible AA envelope, but mated with missiles creates an effective portion of the AA envelope.

>>3106326
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
Iran-Iraq
Yugoslavia

>>31063299
>confusing large drones that are for intents and purposes unmanned aircraft with small cheap flyers

File: JUST FUCKED MY SHIT UP FAM.jpg (414KB, 480x681px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 480x681px

Yes, my experience in wargame shows just how dangerous russian based AA systems are, and are killing machines that can and will shoot down F117s.

File: 69i0dz.jpg (27KB, 570x364px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 570x364px

>>31063395

>F-117s

Pieces of shit that already have been shot down IRL

File: 1471071635233.jpg (18KB, 500x331px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 500x331px

>>31063395
and in COD you can run and gun a m60

File: 1471385184105.jpg (39KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 650x650px

>>31063395

>>31062858

as long as it has negative gun depression it can be useful for crowd control.

Radar guided gun systems can still pose a significant threat to rotary wing aviation.

>>31063519
I too enjoy the Advance Wars series

>>31063265
Ask the chechens

>>31063347

People keep hearing about the big loitering drones and don't understand that remotely piloted aircraft are a spectrum of threads to be dealt with a spectrum of counter measures.

>>31063347
So you are going to bring a SPAAG to shoot down small cheap flyers that no military uses?

>>31063982
Anything airborne with enough payload to carry a cellphone camera and relay that image in (near) real time has deadly military use, to spot and correct indirect fire.

>>31063435
>stealth
>godmode
pick one

>>31063395

This pic makes me wanna play some goddamn Wargame

>>31062858
Yes, as C-RAM, as a way to keep planes flying high and slinging PGMs instead of dropping cheap dumb weapons from low altitude for the same effect, and to kill small drones and helicopters. And as long as they are found in inventories, they will most likely be used to kill infantry at fairly close range as well.

>>31063395
My experience in ARMA 3 RHS is everything made by the Russians is absolutely garbage.

Also Russian tanks can only target turrets for some reason which they won't fucking fix.

>>31064291
Must not have AGS-17s then, those things are unholy terrors in wargame. Obliterate any infantry from 1.5km away, every time.

>>31063982
>So you are going to bring a SPAAG to shoot down small cheap flyers that no military uses?

Russia firing artillery into Ukraine says they work great as spotters.

File: 1444452454465.webm (3MB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 800x450px

>>31063395
TUNG-M my nigga

>>31064232
So shoot them down with MANPADS.

>>31064516
inb4 /v/
>T-72/80 turret rotation speed - maybe a full minute
>T-90A - a bit less.
>Gun AA, with some weird number/letter russian designation which I forget has maybe a 3x zoom optic. Only spots targets after it has been spotted 10 seconds earlier.
>Mi-24's struggle taking down blackhawks.
>BTR's have garbage optics and turret has arthiritis.

American vehicles
>Better armour like on the bradley, which can stand up to every BTR and BMP/BMD in existance. Modern armour or not.
>Abrams best tank ever designed in existance. Can only be shot in the turret extending its life x3

THIS IS WAR.

>>31063265
WW2 and Korea for starters. I imagine it happened at some point in the Iran-Iraq War.

>>31062858
Anti Infantry.

Also possibly against Helicopters? I honestly don't know, I'd assume you'd have to ambush a helicopter because troop insertions are generally done in fairly safe areas and modern helicopters can engage from beyond line of sight if there's armor in the area.

>>31064668
That's far less economical both in monetary terms and in simply carrying the munitions, and you're less likely to spot the drone in the first place.

>>31063982
Many militaries use them, including multiple branches within the US.

>>31064274

people act like a modern jet can get through what amounts to a WW2 flak screen just because it's modern.

you can't catch that fish with a net, but it doesn't matter when you pour petrol in the sea anyway.

>>31062858
I would say yes. Use it for SHORAD against helicopters and drones, as well as airplanes if they fly that low. Also carry several IR guided missiles, to allow for higher engagement ceilings as well as maintaining capability even with the radar turned off. The idea behind the Tunguska system is SHORAD done right for the time. I can't vouch for its execution, however.

>>31064761
I'd reference the F-117s over Baghdad. They sure did have a WW2-style flak barrage targeting the sky they were flying in. There was just one thing, however- they were flying over the engagement ceiling of all of those weapons.

File: 1101950911_400.jpg (53KB, 400x527px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 400x527px

>>31063435
> shitting you pants
> firing blindly into the air
> literally filling the sky with lead
> get lucky and hit _one_ plane

File: M60-SgtYork_1405036827908.jpg (598KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1280x960px

>>31062858
> tfw there is no reason that shouldn’t have worked
> except for corporate / government corruption…

File: SA-3_EP_2006.jpg (811KB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

811KB, 2560x1920px

>>31065207

It was shot down by missiles, not by bullets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

>>31065207
That wasn't it. It was because they flew exactly the same path every fucking day for a month, at the same time. It's only so stealth. They had time to setup radar from all angles to illuminate that one spot, and they could even just look up and knew exactly where it was going to be. Eventually they were able to put a missile there.

>>31065207
>one

They also shot down an A-10, damaged a bunch more planes and kept murdering drones.

File: 1461352621677.jpg (63KB, 434x604px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 434x604px

>>31063982
>So you are going to bring a SPAAG to shoot down small cheap flyers that no military uses?
shiiieeet famalam, I do that all the time when I bring my ZSU to the range. It's like skeet shooting but way more satisfying

File: M247_Sergeant_York_DIVAD.jpg (3MB, 3203x2077px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3203x2077px

>>31065231

>>31065207
Naa was combination of poor flight planning (same route and time over and over), spies outside base confirmed take off, that one flight not having Weasel or Prowler Support, modified Radar on the serbs part..... aaaand it STILL took 3 attempts (against the Serbian SOP) to get a lock and only when the bomb bays were open.

Was literally a perfect scenario and if the serbs had followed their SOP or not jimmy rigged their emitter, it probably would've completed the mission just fine and flown home.

File: M247 Sergeant York 5790a.jpg (156KB, 900x692px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 900x692px

>>31065304

File: M247 Sergeant York_425.jpg (153KB, 900x741px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 900x741px

>>31065351

>>31065231

>use radar from plane
>use chasis from old tank
>surprised when it only locks on bathrooms
>surprised when it can't keep up with the units it should protect

File: M247 Sergeant York_40mm_anti_aircraft_gun_by_flatsix911-d86ip48.jpg (108KB, 900x735px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 900x735px

>>31065397
> pocket millions of dollars
> just walk away

Can modern SHORAD like Pantsir kill cruise missiles?

Also, people forget that SHORAD is good to protect drop/landing zones from paratroopers/air assaults.

You wanna fly a bunch of heavy transport aircraft over a LZ covered by SHORAD?
Do you wanna land a wing of heavily laden helicopters into a LZ covered by radar guided modern SHORAD?

I think that in some situations, where you face a major threat from air assault (like Sweden trying to defend Gotland from the Russians, or Taiwan trying to cover against the PLA) where SHORAD has its uses.

>>31063265
Yeah, the Quad 50 in Korea.

>>31063265
The quad 50 was infamous among chinese troops in the Korean war.

File: WP_20151008_07_46_16_Pro.jpg (1MB, 2592x1456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1456px

Yes AA is gud.

>>31062858
SHORAD, in particular gun based SHORAD is seeing something of a resurgence due to the proliferation of small UAVs.

The US Army is currently working on a truck based SPAAG similar to the truck mounted Pantsir with its primary mission being to deal with low flying recon UAVs.

>>31065397
>>31065468
Ford Aerospace is an icon of corruption and bribery, a real shame too because its competitors actually worked.

>>>>31065242
it getting hit by a missile makes it seem a lot less impressive, even though it wasn't that amazing of a feat anyway

File: i_have_the_weirdest_boner_right_now_344[1].jpg (62KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 400x300px

>>31065304
>>31062858
>>31065231
shitbox performance and corruption aside, am I the only one who likes the looks of the Sgt York?

Just visually the boxy turret mixed the the round M48 hull gets my dick as hard as diamonds

>>31063435
A single plane shot down. What a tremendous air defense victory!

I vist this behemoth every weekend at sgt.yorks state park its a pretty place except for the roaring rednecks in their diesel truck making a lot of noise and ruckus

>>31063265
The M42 Duster was used in Vietnam.

>>31062858
Yes they do, attackhelicopters is still a thing.

>>31064291
This.

>>31062858

yes, as infantry support vehicles

>>31068645
And with addition of relatively slow moving UAV's appearing on every modern battlefield I'd say they're probably more use now then they were a decade ago. cant waste a 100,000 dollar SAM on every drone you see

File: DSC_0676.jpg (2MB, 4000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2250px

>>31062858
Sup.

>>31068758
And yes. Yes thats a "dont stand horizontaly on the radar dish" sign.

File: Heinrich_Bernd.png (116KB, 490x484px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 490x484px

>>31063445
I've done running and gunning with a PKM so why not with a m60.

Won't hit shit though but you can keep enemy suppressed while having your guys making their maneuvers.

>>31065397
>we could have had a GE powered SPAAG firing a GAU/8
we're living in the darkest timeline

>>31068758
are those Oerlikons?

File: DSC_0677.jpg (2MB, 4000x2250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x2250px

>>31068797
Indeed they are.

File: 1417515461343.jpg (144KB, 625x833px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 625x833px

>>31062919
>The best altitude for AA is under 10,000 ft.

Helicopters, AC-130 and A-10 operate under 10,000 ft. Gun based AA is used against these kind of targets in cooperation with aircrafts in order to deny the enemy of air supremacy.

>>31068832
The AC-130 doesn't operate in environments that could conceivably have AA.

File: 151016131339-01-russia-drone-file-exlarge-169.jpg (80KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 780x438px

>>31062858
For sure. Against drones.

>>31063982
>that no military uses
Fucking everyone uses small drones. EVERYONE
Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist

>>31068803
>8 cm Nebelwerfer 51
It better werfs nebel this time

File: J-20-440x293.jpg (19KB, 440x293px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 440x293px

>>31068841
Well no shit. I want to meet the commander who is stupid enough to send an AC-130 to an area where there is even the slightest possibility of AA.

Just pointing out that they do operate withing the range of gun based AA. Also in war there will be intelligence screw ups and such so it's not completely impossible to have a shilka hiding somewhere withing the operational area.

>>31068858
It werfs. It also werfs Nebel on the eagle reconnaissance vehicle. Uparmored turetted humvee equipped with an MG51 and the horrendously underpowerd american standard engine.

>>31068864
I don't think you understand. They don't even fly the thing in daylight over fucking IRAQ. They wouldn't ever put it anywhere NEAR a frontline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBUmFq7RLPY

Dakka

>>31068875
god it is so loud, even while not shooting

File: 1345381996002.jpg (171KB, 600x911px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 600x911px

>>31068872
And you don't understand the fact that in war anything is possible. Very unlikely but possible.

>>31068895
I'm telling you that they wouldn't use it in war, period.

>>31068721

What can a Shilka do for infantry that a HMMWV with a .50/nade launcher can't do except being more expensive?

File: 1417026177171-1.png (477KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 768x768px

>>31068918
If not in war then some 3.rd world peacekeeping op or whatever. There is always the possibility of the enemy having AA you did not know about.

But I agree with you that it is highly unlikely situation. Why can't you agree that it is in the realm of possibilities?

>>31068926
Shilka has obviously more range and firepower. Not that the cost would ever justify it.

>>31068926
Protect from small arms and .50-cal machine guns without everyone inside being shredded to pieces, provided accurate, radar-directed autocannon fire against infantry, light vehicles, and buildings, and lay down an incredibly large volume of cannonfire in a short period of time.

Also a SPAAG on treads has better cross-country capability than a HMMWV

>>31068926
Longer range, higher elevation, more accurate, more firepower. Is actually armored and crew enclosed.

>>31062858
Yes.

>>31068949
>radar-directed
It wouldn't be radar directed against those targets, but other than that, you're right.

>>31063982
>that no military uses?
Are you retarded?

>>31068939
Im applying liberal logic here,

As an infantryman you don't need 4 20 mm cannons smashing walls and fortifications, thats just overkill, but you do need a transport to carry things and people around(specially people who can't move) and a HMMWV can go on convoy and provide a variety of weapons.

>>31068949
>Protect from small arms and .50-cal machine guns without everyone inside being shredded to pieces

The shilka can be penetrated with HMGs, it has only 15 mm of simple armor since it was designed to go in the back and never see direct combat.

> radar-directed autocannon fire against infantry

radar is only for flying targets.

>lay down an incredibly large volume of cannonfire in a short period of time

you don't need so much volume of fire, and if you actually need that you use an IFV.

>SPAAG on treads has better cross-country capability than a HMMWV

Not necesarily, the ontos could take advantage of that since it weighted 9 tonnes but the Shilka weighs 19.

Jesus guys, more firepower/=more efficiency, infantrymen have other needs appart from dakka and bum.

>>31068872
Well mission accomplished is it then? The enemy isn't dead but the asset has been denied

>>31062919

Most aircraft operate above reach of AAA because it exists. That alone is a justification for it's existence.

Air defence comes in layers, It doesn't make sense to engage all targets with big and expensive long range SAM, if a target is within gun range then use that, I agree that gun based systems are from an older age when NATO low level penetration was still a thing. I believe most helicopters can engage SPAAG from a standoff with their missiles.

>>31068926
Yes. 23mm shells zipping right through walls at incredibly high rates of fire

>>31063229
There are very...very few UAVs that fly under 10k AGL. I work on these pieces of shit for the military.

File: image%3A1409.jpg (2MB, 2000x1320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1320px

>gun-based (as opposed to missile-based) AA
>as opposed to

why would they oppose each other

>>31069008
And that means they expose themselves to more evil AA missile systems.

>>31069025
>There are very...very few UAVs that fly under 10k AGL. I work on these pieces of shit for the military.
>I'm a dumb shit that thinks UAVs as a category are limited to whatever I have to work on, instead of a spectrum running from bitty quadrotors to the Global Hawk

>>31069051
Timer fused shells are probably better than dumb ones. For hitting small size UAVs that is.

>>31069025
Bullshit, the *majority* of UAVs in service in the US military (ie not just looking at the USAF) are small things that fly under 10kft. For example, there's roughly 500 Predators and Reapers, but more than 7000 RQ-11 Ravens.

Wouldn't it be better to bring an Iowa to the battle since it has higher throw weight?

>>31062858
dank execution videos

>>31068841
>>31068864
even just denying the area of ac-130 is a good enough reason to have gun based AA.

You don't need to be actively killing things to be useful.

>>31069106
If I'm going to be murdered by ISIS a 23mm to the head is the best way to go. Fuck burning.

>>31062858
Only one place in the whole damn world. The SHORAD avenger battery in Camp Casey Korea.

Best Korea has hundreds of these things:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-32202641

They can cram in an entire squad of their nasty little goblin soldiers into these things and will air assault them across the DMZ. They also have Hinds that they'll use to knock out our counterfire batteries and fly their own low tech drones.

Basically the only place gun-based AA is still relevant against a low tech but still threatening modern armed force.

>>31067928
Also the guy piloting it was a complete tool.

>>31064686

>Better armour like on the bradley

well the A3 bradley's do weigth something like 33500kg that is like almost 15000kg more then a bmp3 so it probalbly should have better armor and is rated for 30mm in the front IIRC

>>31064653
Shit, is this game moddable?

>>31069337
To an extent.

File: Vietnamthreatenvironment.jpg (66KB, 712x495px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 712x495px

AAA is effective for the lo portion of an aircraft's flight profile.

It's an essential part of an IADS, especially against penetrating aircraft attempting to fly below the radar horizon.

>>31069337
check out the ash & shadows mod

File: 9K38_IGLA_(4968730444).jpg (3MB, 3456x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3456x2592px

MANPADs are already the king of SHORAD. SPAAGs are overkill for quadcopters.

>>31065258
where the fuck do you merrycucks get your info, not even close

For helicopters and low flying fixed wings? Sure. A shilka would be death incarnate for any heli or plane within 3000m and infantry and light vehicles that are close.

>>31068875

flakpanzer makes me wet

>>31063982
What is a raven?
>Company level reconnaissance asset that is hand thrown
>literally any drone with live feed can accomplish the same mission
>you're so wrong it tickles

File: PGZ07 Twin 35mm Tracked SPAAg PLA close-in weapon system (CIWS) self-propelled anti-aircraft gun pgm AHEAD (10).jpg (207KB, 1024x707px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1024x707px

One thing China has over America, SPAAGs