>>30629891
No. Most jets go over 500 mph. I'd like to see someone try to lead an aircraft that's literally a blur in the sky in order to hit it with exploding rounds that might not even reach the area around the damn aircraft in the first place.

There's a reason why you see missiles being used to take down jets now instead of AA guns.

Flak guns weren't even effective back then, especially if we're talking bombers. IIRC something like only 3% of allied planes downed were downed by flak.

I don't have an answer, but that's a pretty metal dream.

What was the throw weight of I-70?

>>30629891
>>30630014
>>30630128
>>30630148

Towards the end of '43 most of the heavy flak guns used in city defense of places like Berlin or Hamburg, but also London were directly wired to the air defense radar networks of their respective cities.
The radar would detect the incoming aircraft and send that data to a computer, which would over the course of a minute or so calculate the lead and send the info needed to lay the gun correctly directly to the guns themselves, which were on mounts powered by electric motor.

In theory, all the guns were mostly automated and most of the gunners' work would lie in selecting targets from the computer, making small adjustments for accuracy based on what they could see, and physically loading the gun.

Now this would all work fine and dandy, except when you start engaging targets up at 30,000ft where the bombers are, it takes a while for your shell to get up there and say hello.

Bomber commanders would develop a solution as time goes on that would counter this for the most part, changing direction and altitude during the course of normal flight to troll the gun layers on the ground who, all of a sudden, realize just as their shells burst that their targets are a whole half a mile away and about 500 feet above.
Flak guns at the time had garbage accuracy and the computers were slow to calculate the leads and firing data, so a modernized version could work a whole lot better even against faster aircraft, but the time it takes for that shell to get there means that evasive action makes 80% of your shots fired totally fucking useless.

If you fired a bunch of times at some commercial airliner who wasn't changing course or altitude it could work.

But a BuK-M1 is cheaper and a whole lot more effective.

>>30629891
The first major advance in AAA is that the guns have stated to use more advanced detection and fire control.

The second big advantage is range. SAMs simply have more range than AA guns.

A WW2 flak battery could definitely shoot down modern air craft.

If it could hit it.

>>30630310

>But a BuK-M1 is cheaper and a whole lot more effective.

especially against commercial aircraft

>>30630420

I'd post a selection from the finest "POST PROOFS" folder ever assembled, but I've recently switched computers and haven't moved most of my stuff over yet.

Now, planes? It's pretty much obvious that it can't do much to them. How about flak vs. Helis? Remember some britbong told me a some years back they had flaks at the base in case of helis.

>>30630486

>Now, planes? It's pretty much obvious that it can't do much to them.

Heavy old flak guns can do plenty to planes, tear them right to shreds, they just have musket-tier hit ratios compared to missile-based systems.

>>30630510
Yeah, I figured that. But, say, 30mm twincannons or something like that? I can see it being useful against choppers, but I don't think that the good ol' "moar dakka" approach would do much to planes, right?

>>30630525

30mm autocannon wouldn't have the range to hit up at the altitudes that modern planes, even commercial ones, fly.

There's a point where you need a bigger shell and more powder behind it, but even if you get that big modernized FlaK 40 that launches a shell up at 3,000 ft per second, it'll still take ten seconds for that shell to reach 30,000ft where that plane is, and all that pilot has to do is jiggity jangle his way around to dodge your shells.