pre guided anti air
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
![if2yvr[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/k5K3zL1.jpg "if2yvr[1].jpg")
why didn't they just make anti air flak rockets, instead of anti air cannons?
you won't need that expensive and time consuming to build cannon. Just simple rails.
the whole mass of the rocket becomes shrapnel.
you can mass or ripple fire the rockets with a single triggering action.
>unguided rockets
>fired over long distances
>getting anywhere near the target
Pick 2.
>>30079214
You don't need to get close. You are just filling the sky with shrapnel. So you can hit tight formations of bombers.
>>30078795
Rockets have too much ballistic drop
>>30079251
AND YOU WON'T GET ANYWHERE REMOTELY CLOSE
Barring a fluke. The sky is huge, dumbass.
>>30078795
We did.
>>30079411
>>30079429
And the big boy the 1.5kt AIR-2 Genie
>>30079411
>>30079429
>>30079449
>all air to air shit instead of ground to air like op was talking about
>>30078795
They did.
The main issue was manpower, rocket AA required something like 5 times as many personal than conventional flack. The reason being you need an absurd number of launchers (IIRC a British Z battery had 84 launchers) in order to launch all the rockets at once - which makes making fire control solutions easier and increases Pk - and all of those must be manned.
The British used quite a bit as they were able to call on the Home Guard and female auxiliaries to fill the roles. Germany never had the spare manpower to make it work at scale.
>>30079481
>luftfaust
>air to air
>>30079481
>Fliegfaust
>Z battery
>air to air
What the fuck is you on about?
>>30078795
Until the late war rocket motors were too inefficient to be very useful, as well as targeting systems.
Until we figured out guidance systems for missiles in the late 60's anything with a rocket motor was literally hit and miss.
Still is. Warsaw pact spin stabilized rockets cant hit shit, and shoulder fired rockets typically range 200 to 500 yards even today.
Without guidance converting it into a missile, rockets are either short range or mass volume of fire weapons.
>>30079731
>implying
>>30078795
Because artillery is more accurate.
>>30079275
>>30079214
idiot! 70mm rockets are more accurate than guns
>>30079937
idiot
>>30080321
>>30080314
>no proof
pls go away
>>30080334
the CEP of 70mm hydras is much much less than any aircraft carried gun, rocket based artillery is also more accurate and longer ranged than tube artillery
im not going to spoon feed you numbers dude
Even those shitty grads they tow behind trucks have a CEP of 90m at 40km LOL
For comparison a155m shell has a CEP of 200 - 300m at 'moderate range' (much less than 40km)
(like 24 km)
>>30078795
They're too inaccurate and reloading is a pain in the ass. You lose much and gain nothing.
>>30080336
>nothing to back you up
Opinion discarded
>>30080336
>comparing modern day rocket systems to 40's rockets
>>30078795
Cannon might be way more expensive than rocket launcher itself, but shells are much cheaper than rockets. Cannon can be reloaded much faster than rocket launcher.
Very relevant to this thread:
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL7VNOxGdYo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL7VNOxGdYo
Its why long-ranged unguided AA is fairly useless.
>>30078795
If it would have worked, they would have tried it.
It's probably way too imprecise, and wouldn't get anywhere near the bomber formation. Although the Germans DID try with rockets launched from aircrafts. But that was at way closer ranges than the guns at the ground.
The smoke generated from the rockets would also obscure the view, making the bombers invisible for more than one barrage. Miss that first barrage, and you won't hit shit.
Also, launching a barrage of rockets from the ground would give away the position of the AA way easier than a cannon. So any bomber force would have a screen of low altitude tactical bombers going after the launch sites. This is much harder with cannons.
![system10[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/L9EzTZF.jpg "system10[1].jpg")
Same reason high caliber AA guns disappeared: Guided missiles became a thing, and are very effective at long distances.
And rockets are less polyvalent than autocannons, and more expensive than shells.
>>30079411
>>30079429
>>30079714 (nice pic, didn't saw it before)
Another Surface-to-Air rocket project: The franco-german Javelot on AMX-30/Leopard I chassis. From the late '70s IIRC.
64 ready to fire 40mm rockets with a second batch in a auto-loader, fire salvos of 8 rockets. Time, proximity or impact fuze.
The tubes are slightly misaligned to create a ball of fire at 2000m
A version was also made for naval anti-missile CIWS.
There were also some M113 prototypes with hydra pods, even if AA wasn't their primary goal.
>>30079481
Shit nigga stop smoking before you post.
The funny thing is that cannon AA with air burst shells would work fantastic
>>30081401
Its called FLAK and it is fairly useless.
See: >>30080685
>>30081556
Flak from WW2 is not flak from today
>>30081556
We have airbust on calibers as small as 25mm, and such munitions are usually employed on current anti-aircraft guns.
Besides, we all speak english, you can call it AAA, for Anti-Aircraft Artillery.
And if you must absolutely capitalize it (heresy!), it should be FlAK - FliegerAbwehrKanone.
I should also point out that those video were before proximity fuzes, radar, and automatic high caliber weapons existed; We still have some big anti-aircraft guns in service across the world, that are mainly used on ships since they are fairly heavy and massive (for example, the Sovremenny-class vessels sport multiple twin 130mm AA guns).
Just for fun: French 105mm AAA from 1953. 30 rounds/minute, 20 rounds ready to fire.
>>30082189
mein gott
If we could get that cannon in a turret on a ground vehicle.
>>30078795
>you won't need that expensive and time consuming to build cannon. Just simple rails.
Then you have to build rockets which need that expensive and time consuming unlike shells.
>>30080685
In general, you expend a ridiculous amount of ammunitions for any kills.
>>30083378
solid rockets aren't that complicated.
Hadji makes crude rockets all the time.
>>30082189
> 105mm autocannons
Mfw.
>>30083442
>No face
>>30080336
Oh damn you're right! I forgot all those hydras the Soviets fired in Berlin. I think Germans had mavericks too.
Idiot.
>>30079251
You do, to an extent. The max altitude of a P-51 was about 13 kilometers up. If it's anywhere between 1-13 kilometers that's an ungodly amount of sky to saturate.
>>30083414
Okay now tell Hadji his rocket has to fly in a relatively straight line up to about 15,000 feet, detonate reliably at the right altitude, and make a few thousand of them just to get a chance at hitting the aircraft they're aiming at.
A crude rocket is easy to make, an effective one is not. A good example of the cost of rocketry versus conventional weapons during WW2 is the V1/2 versus strategic bombers.
>>30083489
> found face
>>30080685
It's war time propaganda.
Comes from same guys who claimed that M1918 and M1919 are totally superior to MG34 and MG42. It is obvious that most modern machine guns have more in common with WWII US weapons.
>>30084078
Crap... forgot the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyj-ZHXFKQI
You would also have expended rocket tubes showering down on the city your flak is trying to protect.
AA HE projectiles usually had burnthrough self-destruct so they didnt fall to earth if they failed to function midair.
Yes you would be getting frag raining down anyway but less damage than full projectiles let alone rocket tubes.
>>30083442
I have something else for you:
Automatic 305mm quadruple mortar, for anti-submarine warfare and coastal bombardment.
>>30084109
>Dat lack of trigger discipline when presenting the MP40
Absolutely disgusting.
>>30082189
I need this. I need it now!
>>30079275
Unguided AAA (including small-arms) is responsible for more shootdowns than any other weapon. That's a hell of a lot of "flukes."
>>30080314
No, they aren't.
>>30081556
>FLAK is fairly useless
>Took down the overwhelming majority of US aircraft combat losses in Vietnam and roughly a third of fixed-wing losses ever since
>>30087660
yes they are idiot
cep is way tighter
You called?
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_12cm_AA_Rocket.htm
>>30086778
>>30082189
we battletech now
