Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
File: Finestone-88mm.jpg (13KB, 300x271px) Image search:
[Google]
13KB, 300x271px
Can flak bombs be a thing in today's battlefield?
Would saturating the sky with flak bombs exploding under 39,000 feet where bombers fly, be considered a great threat considering you dont need a direct hit, just fuck his shit up in large black clouds and shrapnel flying everywhere?
A flak bomb would have to be propelled with a rocket that ignites after the explosion of the cartridge, so thats 2 separate forces propelling it, meaning it could reach great heights.
A radar needs a glimmer of signature to point the barrels and automatically set the timers of the next round that is to be fired, germans did that in ww2.
Lets say that such anti air system is fixed, with the radar further away from it so that it doesnt draw too much attention to the guns.
Have more than one radar, have decoy radars and shit.
Lets say that its all fixed in one position and a bitch to move, even tho it could be highly mobile.
Would such a system be considered a threat to modern air forces if its lets say defending a town or a city?
What if it was used as long range artillery?
Mind you its not laser precise and it isnt supposed to, it is to make clouds of shrapnel that brings a plane down or makes it fuck off from the general area
>>
this might be what it would look like
>>
Yes ADA is a more scary weapon used by people in today's battlefield. Flak guns would scare me alot more than first gen stingers and IGLA considering we have laser turrets on almost all modern aircraft that can burn out their eye and make them fly wildly off course.
>>
>>34134936
it is interesting any interdasting at the same time
>>
File: Continuous-rod-warhead.png (8KB, 374x501px) Image search:
[Google]
8KB, 374x501px
there is a form of flak used today. insted of just fragmenting it uses a continuous rod warhead, which is pic related
>>
>>34135778
I think that a grenade covers more area with shrapnel than a ring that expands could.
>>
>>34136405
just not in the density required, also with a round explosive you're wasting alot of the shrapnel
>>
>>34135760
what?
>>
File: Skysweeper.jpg (81KB, 374x354px) Image search:
[Google]
81KB, 374x354px
>>34134936
>>34135006
1953 to 1970;
US M51 "Skysweeper", a 75mm radar assisted auto cannon Anti-Air Artillery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M51_Skysweeper
I'm pretty sure they could make a far better one with today's tech.
>>
Why not just electrify your airspace?
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWtQz7qp_v8
Now you tell me how great of an idea Flak is
>>
>>34137819
Set loose a missile or four and one can predict the possible evasive manuvers. Bare in mind that the sam can be forty years ild and the missile doesnt even have to hit
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5